Download - ST. WILLIAMS CROWN LAND LIFE SCIENCE INVENTORY · 2020. 2. 7. · What follows is an OMNR Distribution Summary of the Life Science Inventory and Evaluation of St. Williams Crown Land

••••••••••••••••

ST. WILLIAMS CROWN LANDLIFE SCIENCE INVENTORY

DISTRIBUTION SUMMARYProduced by Aylmer District MNR

From original reportby Bird Studies Canada

William B. DraperMary E. Gartshore

Jane M. Bowles

March 2003Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

St. Williams Life Science Inventory

1

PREFACE

The St. Williams Crown Land is the site of the former St. Williams Forest Station, the firstprovincial forest station in Ontario. The station was established in 1908 in order to: (i) providenursery stock for distribution throughout Ontario, (ii) demonstrate the feasibility of reclaiminglands by reforestation, and, (iii) experiment with the various species of forest trees in relation tothis work. In 1998, approximately 101 ha of land were leased to a private company for nurserystock production. The forest station was closed and responsibility for management transferred tothe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Aylmer District Office. Alternative ways ofmanaging the St Williams Crown Land (SWCL) are presently being explored. The informationand recommendations in this report represent a contribution to this process.

Funding for this project was provided by Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL), OMNR, through theSouthcentral Region Natural Heritage Forum and Aylmer District Office. The project wasadministered by Bird Studies Canada.

Additional funding provided by OLL through World Wildlife Fund Canada and TallgrassOntario, supported a detailed review and documentation of St. Williams’ land use and vegetationhistory, additional field work for the survey of plants with prairie/savanna affinities, andadditional research related to the identification and assessment of ingrown savanna.

Funding from Environment Canada’s Habitat Stewardship Program and from Canadian WildlifeService – Ontario Region was instrumental in conducting key research on Hooded Warblers.

Note:

What follows is an OMNR Distribution Summary of the Life Science Inventory and Evaluationof St. Williams Crown Land (LSI) report produced by Bird Studies Canada (authored by WilliamDraper, Mary Gartshore and Jane Bowles) and submitted to Ontario Parks and OMNR in March2002. Some content, tables, figures and appendices have been omitted for purposes of thissummary, but every effort has been made to include as much information as possible to ensurethe integrity and related recommendations of the original 1400 page report has not beencompromised.

The project team for the LSI consisted of William Draper-Botanical Consultant, Mary Gartshore-Fauna Consultant to Bird Studies Canada, Jane Bowles-University of Western Ontario, JonMcCracken-Bird Studies Canada, and Allen Woodliffe and Steve Williams-OMNR.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


2

ABSTRACT

Draper, W.B., M.E. Gartshore and J.M. Bowles. 2002. Life Science Inventory and Evaluation ofSt. Williams Crown Forest. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. xiv + 1,119 pages +15 folded maps, in 2 volumes.

The St. Williams Crown Land occupies approximately 1,308 ha of land in two tracts in theformer geographic townships of South Walsingham and Charlotteville, Norfolk County. It is oneof the largest remaining blocks of forested land in the Carolinian Life Zone, outside theProvincial Parks system.

St. Williams contains a rich diversity of plant communities. Six community classes are present:sand dune, tallgrass prairie/woodland/savanna, forest, cultural, swamp and marsh. Associatedwith these elements are sixteen community series: open and shrub sand dune; tallgrasswoodland; mixed and deciduous forest; plantation, cultural meadow, cultural barren, culturalsavanna, and cultural forest; mixed, deciduous and thicket swamp; and, meadow and shallowmarsh. Forty-one ecosites and ninety-nine vegetation types were identified (Ecological LandClassification for Southern Ontario, Lee et al. 1998).

In keeping with this structural diversity, St. Williams has 767 species of vascular plants, 139breeding birds, 39 mammals, 13 amphibians, 12 reptiles, and a substantial but incompletelyknown list of insects.

Of special interest and importance are approximately 700 ha of ingrown sand barrens, oaksavanna, and oak woodland habitat on drought-prone, sand soils. These lands represent thelargest area of ingrown savanna habitat with restoration potential in Site District 7-2, outside theprovincial parks system. Natural succession, fire suppression, under-planting with conifers andcultural disturbance have transformed former savanna into oak forest, cultural forest, culturalsavanna or cultural sand barrens. In spite of this land use history, a rich assemblage of plants,insects and reptiles with prairie/savanna affinities persists under a closing tree canopy and inrecently disturbed areas. After Walpole Island, Ojibway Prairie, and Pinery Provincial Park, St.Williams harbours the greatest diversity of vascular plants with prairie/savanna affinity insouthern Ontario (42.1% of the total number of plants with savanna or prairie/savanna affinity inOntario). St. Williams Crown Land ranks with the Windsor Prairie and Pinery Provincial Parkfor supporting the richest assemblages of prairie and savanna insects. The true number of insectsis still far from known.

St. Williams is also the site of four provincially rare wetland communities: Swamp White OakMineral Deciduous Swamp (S3), Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp (S3), Silky DogwoodMineral Thicket Swamp (S3S4), and Gray Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp (S3S4). Selectedwetlands form part of Class I and Class II wetland complexes on the periphery of the NurseryTract.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


3

The extensive tracts of cultural forest and plantations at SWCL are linked by forest corridors toBackus Woods ANSI, Turkey Point Provincial Park, Turkey Point Marshes ANSI, SpookyHollow ANSI and Fisher’s Glen. In recognition of this linkage, and its large size, SWCL hasbeen identified as one of the core areas for Carolinian Canada’s Big Picture - Cores andConnections Project. Thirty species of forest-interior birds, and 50 species of area-sensitivebirds, presently breed in the SWCL.

St. Williams provides habitat for nationally, provincially and regionally rare plants, birds,mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. Several species are presently classified asCOSEWIC Extirpated (Karner Blue Butterfly, Frosted Elfin Butterfly), COSEWIC Endangered(Acadian Flycatcher, Spotted Wintergreen, Virginia Goat’s-rue, American Ginseng), COSEWICThreatened (Hooded Warbler, Eastern Fox Snake, Black Rat Snake, Eastern Hognose Snake,Jefferson Salamander, Bird’s-foot Violet, American Chestnut), or COSEWIC Special Concern(Red-shouldered Hawk, Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Red-headed Woodpecker,Southern Flying Squirrel, Woodland Vole, Spotted Turtle, and Monarch Butterfly). Fouradditional bird species, and forty-two additional species of vascular plants, are provincially rare.St. Williams is the only known locality in Ontario for at least six species of bees and wasps, twospecies of beetle, and one robber fly. Thirty-seven additional species of insects are considered tobe rare in Ontario.

In addition, SWCL is the site of important genetic archives, experimental plantations, scientificresearch, and bird monitoring studies. Recreational activities include horse riding, off-roadvehicles, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, hiking and nature viewing.

Recommendations are made with respect to management actions required to protect, rehabilitateand restore the natural heritage values associated St. Williams Crown Land.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE........................................................................................................................................1

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................2

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................61.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................6

Location...................................................................................................................6Current Land Use.....................................................................................................6

1.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT .........................................................................................61.3 PHYSICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................7

Physiography............................................................................................................7Drainage ...................................................................................................................7Soils..........................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND VEGETATION HISTORY........................................................82.1 FIRST NATIONS....................................................................................................82.2 EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT.................................................................................9

Land Survey.............................................................................................................9Logging....................................................................................................................9Agriculture .............................................................................................................11

2.3 ST. WILLIAMS FOREST STATION...................................................................11Establishment and Evolution.................................................................................11Vegetation..............................................................................................................12Silvicultural Treatments.........................................................................................16Fire .........................................................................................................................17Prairie/Savanna Indicators .....................................................................................17Manestar Tract .......................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 3: LIFE SCIENCE FEATURES.................................................................................193.1 VEGETATION......................................................................................................19

Ecological Land Classification..............................................................................19Ingrown Savanna....................................................................................................20

3.2 FLORISTICS.........................................................................................................243.3 FAUNA..................................................................................................................30

Birds.......................................................................................................................30Mammals................................................................................................................30Reptiles and Amphibians .......................................................................................31Insects.....................................................................................................................31

3.4 SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITIES .........................................................................37

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


5

Savanna Communities ...........................................................................................37Wetland Communities............................................................................................40Genetic Archives, Experimental Plantations and Arboreta ...................................41

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ..........................434.1 EVALUATION .....................................................................................................43

Context...................................................................................................................43Representation........................................................................................................44Diversity.................................................................................................................45Condition................................................................................................................45Ecological Function...............................................................................................47Special Features .....................................................................................................47

4.2 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................50

GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................57

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................62

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


6

CHAPTER 1: REGIONAL BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Location

The St. Williams Crown Land (SWCL), formerly known as the St. Williams Forest Station, islocated in Norfolk County in the former geographic townships of South Walsingham andCharlotteville (Figure 1). The west portion of the Crown Land, composed of the Nursery andManestar tracts, lies adjacent to Highway 24 and Regional Road 16, approximately 2 kilometresnorth of the hamlet of St. Williams. The east portion of the Crown Land, composed of theTurkey Point Tract, lies adjacent to Regional Road 10, approximately 500 m north of the hamletof Turkey Point and adjacent to the west and north boundaries of Turkey Point Provincial Park.The SWCL occupies approximately 1,308 ha of crown land.

Current Land Use

St. Williams Crown Land is managed by the OMNR. Responsibility for management rests withthe District Manager, Aylmer District Office, Southcentral Region. The goals, objectives formanagement, and permitted land uses are specified in the St. Williams Resource ManagementPlan (January 1990) (Wynia 1990). In general, the plan provides for nursery and timberproduction, outdoor recreation, and scientific research.

In November 1998, approximately 101 ha of land were leased to a private company for nurserystock production.

1.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT

The SWCL is located within the Niagara section of the Deciduous Forest Region of Rowe(1972). It lies in Site District 7-2 of Site Region 7E of Hills (1959). Site District 7-2 ischaracterized by a smooth plain of moderate clay overlain in many places by thin to moderatelydeep deposits of low-base and somewhat agrillaceous sand. The predominant landforms in thevicinity of St. Williams are sand and clay plains, shore cliffs, beaches, and near-shore areas ofpeat and muck (Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs 1972).C

opy

for a

rchi

ve p

urpo

ses.

Ple

ase

cons

ult o

rigin

al p

ublis

her f

or c

urre

nt v

ersi

on.

Cop

ie à

des

fins

d’a

rchi

vage

. V

euill

ez c

onsu

lter l

’édi

teur

orig

inal

pou

r la

vers

ion

actu

elle

.


7

Forests in the Haldimand-Norfolk portion of Site Region 7E are characterized by southernhardwood species (Fox and Soper 1952, 1953, 1954; Hills 1959; Rowe 1972; Gartshore et al.1987). Prior to the arrival of the chestnut blight in Ontario, much of the original CarolinianForest in this region was a chestnut - oak - pine association (Gartshore et al. 1987). Forests moretypical of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Forest Region (Rowe 1972) occur primarily along thenorthern boundary of the region, along incised river valleys, and on much of the Haldimand clayplain (Gartshore et al. 1987). Bogs, fens and boggy woodland sloughs support species typical ofwetlands in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region. Plants with an affinity for the AtlanticCoastal Plain (sensu Reznicek 1994) also occur at selected locations in the Haldimand-Norfolkregion. Plants with an affinity for prairie/savanna habitats occur in a variety of settings in theHaldimand-Norfolk region, including sand barrens, sand dunes, edges and openings in oakwoods, ingrown and restored oak savanna, dry limestone pavement, dry exposed sandstone, and,frequently disturbed, dry, habitats such as railway rights of way, roadsides, trail edges, and sandyfields, as well as, thickets, wet meadows, and seepage slopes (Sutherland 1987). One hundredand twenty-six species with prairie/savanna affinities (sensu Rodger 1998) have been recorded inthe region, primarily on the Norfolk sand plain. Plants with an affinity for the AppalachianMountain phytogeographic region are presently restricted to a few localities near the easternboundary of the Haldimand-Norfolk region (Gartshore et al. 1987).

1.3 PHYSICAL BACKGROUND

Physiography

The SWCL is situated on the Norfolk sand plain, a gently sloping fan-shaped body of sand thatwas deposited west to east as a delta in glacial Lake Whittlesey and reworked by the waves ofsubsequent lower lake levels and by the wind (Chapman and Putnam 1984, Barnett 1998). Thislayer of sand is typically 5 m to 10 m in thickness, but may range from less than 1 m to over 20m.

Well formed transverse sand dunes, parabolic dunes, and (more typically) their hybrid forms, areprominent features on the Norfolk sand plain (Barnett 1978, 1982, 1998) and on the Nursery andManestar tracts. Large dunes are present but rare on the Turkey Point Tract. The dunes in theSWCL are prone to wind erosion in the absence of forest cover and underlying root mat.

Till and clay plains lie to the south of the Nursery and Manestar tracts (Barnett 1998). The GaltMoraine and Paris Moraine lie to the north and east of the Crown Land whereas the Paris,Lakeview, Mabee, Courtland and Tillsonburg moraines lie to the north and west.

DrainageThe Nursery Tract is drained by Dedrick’s Creek and by tributaries of Big Creek and MudCreek. The Manestar Tract is drained by Dedrick’s Creek, whereas, the Turkey Point Tract isdrained by Forestville Creek, Normandale Creek, and two unnamed creeks. Modern alluviumdeposits of undifferentiated sand, silt, clay and muck are present on the floors of the incised

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


8

valleys of these watercourses. Glaciolacustrine silt and clay deposits are also present on thevalley floors of the two unnamed creeks which drain the southern portion of the Turkey PointTract (Barnett 1998).

SoilsSeveral soils in the SWCL are prone to drought limitations (Presant and Acton 1984). Plainfieldsoils have low water-holding capacities and drought limitations for plant growth are normal. Foxsoils have relatively low water-holding capacities and almost always have drought limitations.Wattford soils have low to moderate water-holding capacities and droughtiness is a limitationduring dry summers. Normandale soils have low to moderate water-holding capacities andsurface horizons can be droughty during the summer.

CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND VEGETATION HISTORY

2.1 FIRST NATIONS

The contribution of First Nations peoples to the maintenance of oak savanna vegetation in the St.Williams Crown Land is unknown. Szeicz and MacDonald (1991), based on an analysis of fossilpollen, plant macrofossils, and fossil charcoal in the sediments of Decoy Lake, near Brantford,Ontario, suggest that the oak savanna encountered by first settlers in the region was wellestablished by about 4000 BP. Although fire appears to have been an important component in thesavanna environment, no correlation between the establishment of oak savanna and the timing ofprehistoric agricultural settlement was found. During the period when White Pine forests in thevicinity of Decoy Lake were being replaced by oak savanna (6300 - 4000 BP), southern Ontariowas inhabited by hunter-gather peoples of the Laurentian Archaic tradition. These peoples werefollowed in turn by hunter-gather peoples of the Early and Middle Woodland traditions. Maizehorticulture was not practiced before A.D. 600 and was not intensively practiced in southernOntario until A.D. 1400 (Williamson 1990, Fox 1990). It is unlikely, therefore, that oak savannacommunities in this region were initiated, or sustained, by the aboriginal use of fire.

The probability that a given area was repeatedly burned for the purpose of improving forage anddriving game increases during the Late Woodland and Iroquoian time periods, however, owingto the emergence of a settled village - agricultural based lifeway and the subsequent appearanceof large settlements from A.D. 1000 through European contact (Fox 1990). Such settlements arebelieved to have been occupied for several decades and to have served as base villages aroundwhich crops were grown and from which hunting and gathering parties traveled five to tenkilometres to gather and process food at specialized resource extraction sites (Williamson 1990).The post-contact villages cited in local histories lie within this distance of the Nursery andTurkey Point tracts. The degree to which the SWCL served as a resource extraction site is notknown, but the reported presence of an Indian trail along Dedrick’s Creek suggests that FirstNations peoples were aware that it was there.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


9

2.2 EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT

Land SurveyWhat is striking about the remarks of the earliest surveyors, aside from their preoccupation withWhite Pine, and evidence of fire, is the scarcity of references to openings in the forest. OnlyHambly in 1795 noted the presence of “...uneven and scrubbed timber chiefly oak and smallpines...” and then only in one short section along the Walsingham/Charlotteville Townline.Given the present-day widespread occurrence of plants and insects with prairie/savannaaffinities, it is surprising that openings or savanna conditions were not more apparent. They mayhave been obscured, however, by winter conditions prevailing at the time of survey, overlookedbecause of their small size, or simply not reported. The references to White Pine are supportedby vegetation descriptions in the plantation records kept by St. Williams Forest Station personneland supported by landowner perceptions of the order of abundance of canopy trees inWalsingham Township in 1817: “...pine, oak, ash, beech, sugar maple, basswood, black walnut,hickory, butternut, elm, with different other sorts.” (Gourlay 1822, Moss and Hosking 1983).

LoggingLocal demand for timber within the Big Creek watershed increased sharply during the early1840s owing to the planking of roads and the expansion of villages (Department of Lands andForests 1963). Harbours were improved in 1835-1840 and export to the United States began andincreased steadily. Steam sawmills were introduced about 1845 and were common by 1851.Walsingham and Houghton townships were the primary sources of lumber produced in NorfolkCounty in 1851.

An early photograph of logged forest on the Nursery Tract is presented in Figure 4. Extensivetracts of such land, “...composed of scrub oak with scattering white pine..”, were created inWalsingham Township after the lumberman took off the pine and fire followed (Zavitz 1908). Ifground fires were prevented, these lands were expected to “...naturally fill up with white pine..”(Zavitz 1908). These lands supported populations of Wild Lupine, Dwarf Chinquapin Oak, andNew Jersey Tea when planted by station staff in the 1910s and 1920s.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


10

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


11

AgricultureThe historical record suggests that only a small portion of the Nursery Tract was ever cleared foragriculture. Due to the predominately drought-prone, sandy soils, cleared farmland wasvulnerable to wind erosion and often resulted in sand blowouts that were among the firstproperties acquired by the forest station. These lands were typically furrow plowed by stationstaff and planted with Red Pine to amend and retain soil. Rare plants, and plants with prairie/savanna affinities, were rarely encountered on these lands during field work for this study.

Lands subsequently acquired for nursery purposes in Walsingham Township, and CharlottevilleTownship, were established farms by 1877 (Randall 1877a,b). These lands were in agriculturalcrops in 2001 and were not examined during this study.

The majority of land on the Turkey Point Tract was mapped as agricultural land in 1877 (Randall1877b). By 1908, most of the Turkey Point Tract was mapped as open land (Department ofMilitia and Defence 1909). The principal exceptions were stands mapped as ingrown savanna in2001. In contrast to the Nursery Tract, all plantations in Turkey Point Tract were furrow plowedprior to planting. Today, plants with prairie/savanna affinities primarily occur in openings and onthe periphery of stands of ingrown black oak savanna, at the edges of plantations, and on sandbarrens associated with access roads and transmission rights of way.

2.3 ST. WILLIAMS FOREST STATION

Establishment and Evolution

The Norfolk Forest Station was established in 1908 on an abandoned farm in WalsinghamTownship. Within 5 years the station grew to approximately 580 ha in size. Zavitz, one of thefounders of the station, described the fledgling station and its purpose in the following manner:

“...This land is composed of sandy ridges and is made up of second growth pine andoak, abandoned fields and blow sand ridges. The chief work...at this station is theproduction of nursery stock for local planting and for distribution to prospectiveplanters, throughout the province.” (Zavitz 1913).

Five years later, the goals of the station were broadened to include demonstration projects andsilvicultural research:

“This Station was established with the following objects in view. To develop a Provincialnursery where forest nursery stock could be grown for distribution to prospective plantersthroughout Ontario. Also, to demonstrate the feasibility of reclaiming worthless lands byreforestation, and, to experiment with the various species of forest trees in relation to this work.”(Zavitz 1918).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


12

In 1926, the station purchased a major portion of what were locally known as the NormandalePlains. These lands, which subsequently formed Norfolk Forest Station No. 2, were described byZavitz in the following manner:

“These plains have lain waste for decades, and the 1,500 acres now procured by theCrown will be developed with the dual aim of reforesting and improving that sectionwhich for years has been an eye-sore and general drawback in the progress of thedistrict. (Zavitz 1926)

“...this area, comprising some 1500 acres of partly wooded sand land, is possessed ofvast potentialities...there are several areas suitable for the production of nursery stock,while other expansive stretches of waste land provide the possibility of establishingexperimental forest plantations...” (Zavitz 1928)

Shortly after 1926, Norfolk Stations No.1 and No. 2 became the St. Williams Forest Station.Lands held by Station No. 1 were subsequently referred to as the Nursery Tract; lands held byStation No. 2 were known as the Turkey Point Tract.

In 1959, part of the Turkey Point Tract (202 ha) was used to create Turkey Point Provincial Park(TPPP). In February, 2000, a further 9.5 ha parcel of land, incorporating a work yard,outbuildings and the Turkey Point Tract Arboretum, was transferred to the TPPP.

Additional lands continued to be acquired at the Nursery Tract for nursery stock productionduring the period 1939-1954. In 1992, ownership of the Manestar Tract was transferred from theNature Conservancy of Canada to the Crown. The goals and objectives for managing this 80 hatract are presented in “Draft Management Strategy for the Manestar Tract (The St. WilliamsDwarf Chestnut Oak Parkland) St. Williams Crown Forest” (Allen 1992).

When approximately 101 ha of land were leased to a private company in 1998, responsibility forthe St. Williams Forest Station was closed and responsibility for management of the crown forestwas transferred from the Station Superintendent to the Aylmer District Office. The NurseryTract, Manestar Tract, and Turkey Point Tract, formerly known as the St. Williams CrownForest, are now collectively known as the St. Williams Crown Land.

Vegetation

1)Nursery TractThe first surviving vegetation map of the SWCL was prepared by forest station staff in the early1920s. Nine vegetation types were present ca. 1919-1924: “Oak Type”, “White Pine Type”,“Southern Hardwood Type”, “Brushland”, “Poplar Type”, “Grassland”, “Marsh”, “NurseryLand”, and, “Plantation”. Definitions of these vegetation types were not found among thesurviving records examined for this report. However recorded descriptions of “Oak Type”,“Brushland” and “Grassland” suggest that these lands looked much like the oak

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


13

savanna/woodland shown in Figure 4. The predominant natural vegetation type on the NurseryTract was “Oak Type”. Based on the vegetation descriptions recorded in the Plantation Records,the predominant species in these stands were Black and White Oak. White Pine was present tosome degree. Prairie/savanna indicators (sensu Rodger 1998) were often abundant in this foresttype and were recorded in all but one stand. Dwarf Chinquapin Oak was particularlywidespread, being present in 9 of 11 stands. Wild Lupine was present in several stands,especially on sites characterized as “poor oak type” or as “cut-over land”. New Jersey Tea waspresent in 8 of 13 stands.

Overall, White Pine or natural White Pine regeneration was recorded in 20 of 87 plantations onthe Nursery Tract. The density of White Pine in historic photographs suggests that selected oakor pine stands may have been mixed pine-oak forest.

Stands characterized as “Southern Hardwood Type” were present in the northeast corner of theNursery Tract, along Dedrick’s Creek, and, on moist to wet soils in the S1/2 of Lot 20,Concession 5, and the N1/2 of Lot 24, Concession 4. Today, these are the only stands thatcontain Black Gum and American Chestnut.

Figure 9: Norfolk Field Station No. 2, circa 1908: undated view of blow-sand and black oaksavanna on the Normandale Plains.

Figure 10: Norfolk Wastelands: undated view of exposed stump showing degree of wind erosionprior to reforestation.

2) Turkey Point TractSeven vegetation types were recorded circa 1930: “Oak Type”, “Grassland”, “MixedHardwoods”, “Nursery Area”, “Reclamation Plantation”, “Mixed Hardwoods and Conifers” and“Experimental Plantation”. Definitions of these vegetation types were not found among thesurviving records examined for this report. The predominant vegetation type during the 1930swas “Reclamation Plantation”. These plantations were established primarily on sparselyvegetated lands that had previously been cleared for agriculture and that had subsequentlyeroded. The historical record suggests that these lands were oak forest when Governor JohnGraves Simcoe visited the area in 1795 and when the Town of Charlotteville was established in1801 in what is now Turkey Point Provincial Park (Owen 1898). The majority of land on theTurkey Point Tract was mapped as agricultural land in 1877 (Randall 1877b). The clearing ofthe forest on the Turkey Point Tract may have been accelerated during the period 1829 to 1852by the opportunity to sell wood charcoal to the operators of the “Normandale Furnace” whichsmelted local deposits of bog-iron in the nearby village of Normandale (Owen 1898).

Treed land, characterized by station staff as “Oak Type”, occurred in small parcels in thenorthwest corner of the Turkey Point Tract, and, across the road from what later became TurkeyPoint Provincial Park. Unfortunately, these areas were not described in the Plantation Records.Today, these stands are ingrown Black Oak savanna/ woodland and harbour a diversity of

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


14

prairie/savanna indicators, including the rare Birds-foot Violet, Britton’s Phlox, Virginia Goat’sRue, and Green Milkweed.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


15

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


16

A large portion of the Turkey Point Tract was mapped as “Grassland”. The status of these landsat the time of planting is unknown. Populations of Big Bluestem and Indian Grass observed in2001 were restricted to small patches in openings and edges of ingrown savanna or at the edge ofcultural sand barrens.

Forests characterized as “Mixed Hardwoods” were restricted to the south end of the tract. Today,the important canopy trees in these forests are White Oak, Red Oak, White Ash and Red Maple.

Forests characterized as “Mixed Hardwoods and Conifers” were restricted to the incised valleyof one of the unnamed creeks at the south end of the tract. Today, the important canopy trees inthese forests are Red Oak, Sugar Maple, Hemlock, and White Ash.

Silvicultural Treatments

The forest, woodland and savanna communities on lands acquired by the St. Williams ForestStation have been modified to varying degrees by years of forest management practice.

An early and sustained forest management practice during the period 1908 - 1935 was thesystematic removal of Black Oak and “other defective” hardwoods from natural woodland standsprior to under-planting of “superior” species such as Red, White, Scotch and Jack Pine.

Such practices may explain the present scarcity of mature Black Oak trees on level terrain on theNursery Tract, and, the predominance of coppiced stems of Black Oak on the crests and flanks of thelarger sand dunes. Such practices may also obscure the presence of historic savanna and woodlandconditions in areas where prairie/savanna indicators are found today. The practice of removinghardwood species and enriching stands with conifer trees may also obscure the degree to whichstands of natural woodland were deciduous, coniferous or mixed stands.

The choice of method for under-planting young seedlings in natural woodland stands has had lastingand positive consequences for understory plants and natural regeneration. Prior to planting, openspots were created by removing a small piece of turf up to 46cm (18 inches) square. A small hole wassubsequently dug and the seedling planted. As result, a large portion of the forest floor remainedintact. This practice, known as “spotting”, or planting by the “spot” method, was applied on allnatural woodland sites. Seedlings were typically planted in an irregular spatial arrangement ratherthan in rows. Furrows were apparently used only on lands that had previously been cleared foragriculture. The historical pattern of spot and furrow-planted plantations across SWCL has resultedin a highly compartmentalized landscape of differing vegetation types and ages.

These practices may account for the persistence of rare species, species with prairie/savannaaffinities, common understory plants, and natural regeneration, on lands that were spot-planted.The striking difference in the degree of retention of natural values on spot versus furrow plantedlands has led us to classify spot planted lands as “cultural forests” rather than as “plantations”(see Chapter 3).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


17

Fire

Fires of natural and human origin have occurred periodically on portions of the Nursery andTurkey Point tracts since the early 1800s. Welch (1815) reported evidence of fire on the 5th

Concession line in the vicinity of the Charlotteville Town Line while attempting to relocate asurvey post staked by Hambly in 1797. Selected sites on the Nursery Tract were “fired” bystation staff throughout the 1920s to prepare the ground for tree planting using the “spot” methodor under-planting. Evidence of fires of natural origin were also observed at the Turkey Point tractat the beginning of the 19th century. Zavitz reported in 1908 that “...ground fires periodicallyburn over this land...” and that “...if fire were kept out, a large proportion of the area wouldreproduce with white pine.” (Zavitz 1908). Later, in 1928, Zavitz observed that “...90 percent ofthe trees [on the Turkey Point Tract] are fire-scarred or diseased.” Periodic fires are a necessityin keeping prairie and savanna areas healthy and open from encroaching woody vegetation, evenon drought-prone soils. The presence of fire, both before and during the management practicesof the forest station, likely played respective roles in the establishment and persistence ofsavanna in the area.

Prairie/Savanna IndicatorsStation staff recorded the presence of selected prairie/savanna indicators in their descriptions ofthe vegetation at the time of plantation establishment. These records reveal that during theperiod 1913-1942, Wild Lupine, Dwarf Chinquapin Oak and New Jersey Tea occurredthroughout the Nursery Tract, on lands regenerating from lumbering during the second half ofthe 19th century. The historic distribution of savanna species must be interpreted with caution,however, since the presence or absence of indicator species depends, in part, on recent land usehistory. Younger stands with a broken canopy are more likely to contain savanna species thanolder stands with a closed canopy. The presence or absence of an indicator species is also proneto sampling effects. Frosted Elfin, for example, has been reported on lands where Wild Lupinehas not been recorded by forest station staff or by recent observers. This suggests that historiclocations of Wild Lupine and Dwarf Chinquapin Oak may have been overlooked by station staffor not recorded. The historic record is also incomplete since the Manestar Tract and severalother properties did not become part of the St. Williams Forest Station until 1945 or later. Thehistoric distribution of conservative indicator species on the Turkey Point Tract is uncertain sinceonly one conservative indicator was recorded (Dwarf Chinquapin Oak at one location).

Prairie/savanna indicators were collected at the Nursery Tract by early botanists. Collectionsprior to 1965 include: Yellow Wild Indigo, Round-leaved Tick-trefoil, Virginia Goat’s-rue,Britton’s Phlox, Prairie Buttercup, and Wood Vetch. The collections of Britton’s Phlox andVirginia Goat’s-rue, at “St. Williams”, may have been collected at the Turkey Point Tract(Sutherland 1987) since neither species has been recorded since at the Nursery Tract.

Taken together, these records, and the widespread occurrence of plants with prairie-savannaaffinities observed during field work for this study, suggests that site conditions favoring the

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


18

establishment of prairie/savanna plants are far more widespread in the Nursery Tract thanpreviously believed.

Manestar Tract:

Since the Manestar Tract was a privately owned property that was not incorporated into SWCLcomplex until 1992, its history of land use and resulting modern vegetation representation issomewhat different from most areas previously managed by the forest station. Historical airphoto analysis suggests that in 1945, savanna and woodland conditions were confined to “oakopenings” on drought-prone Plainfield soils. Elsewhere, tree cover had regenerated to forestconditions following logging in the mid to late 1800s. The rate of canopy closure followinglogging is unknown but may have been quite rapid given the rate of canopy closure on landsclear-cut during the period 1945-1953. The rate of canopy closure does not appear to have beenuniform. Conditions were still sufficiently open as late as 1988 for Wild Lupine and smallpopulations of Karner Blue and Frosted Elfin to persist (Sutherland and Bakowsky 1995).

The persistence of savanna and woodland conditions at a given location on the Manestar Tractmay depend on a major site disturbance every 50 to 100 years. Following such an event, and inthe absence of further disturbance, natural succession would transform site conditions from sandbarren, savanna, woodland, oak opening, to oak or pine-oak forest. Experience elsewhere in theSWCL (see previous section) suggests that conditions favoring the establishment of plants withprairie/savanna affinities may arise on drought-prone soils on both level terrain and on sanddunes. The length of time a given successional state persists, therefore, may depend on theseverity and spatial extent of the initiating disturbance and the degree to which edaphicconditions predispose the site to periodic drought and fire.

Present-day conditions, reveal that open sand dune, sand barren, and thicket communities havepersisted in the northeast quadrant of the Manestar tract since the forest was clear-cut, circa1945-1953. The persistence of these communities in this portion of the tract stands in sharpcontrast to the regeneration of forest cover elsewhere. Apparent explanations for the lack offorest regeneration are the presumed grubbing and bulldozing of regenerating trees and shrubs inthis portion of the tract, circa 1955-1972, and, the excavation and removal of sand dunes, circa1955-1978. The dispersion of plants with an affinity for prairie/savanna, open sand dune andopen sand barren habitats (Rodger 1998, Madany 1978, Packard 1988, Homoya 1994, Wilf andStearns 1999, Leach and Givnish 1998) suggests that many of the species of interest wereadversely affected by the excavation and removal of the dunes but not by the presumed grubbingand bulldozing of regenerating trees and shrubs. This line of reasoning suggests that many of thespecies of interest may persist in below-ground seed banks during unfavorable periods when theforest canopy is closed. Their recolonization of the excavated portion of the field may beconstrained by dispersal limitations or by site limitations preventing germination andestablishment. Heavy continued use by ATVs has also helped to limit the development of an Asoil horizon.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


19

Plants with prairie/savanna affinities at SWCL are not restricted to the Manestar Tract. Thirty-nine species presently occur on the Nursery Tract, including six species not recorded on theManestar Tract. Sites with several indicators typically occur on the Nursery Tract wherever theforest canopy has failed to regenerate, such as on sand blow-outs, or, where the forest has beenrecently cut, such as the planted savanna/woodlands that was clear cut in 1957; or, in areas ofhigh available light at the edge of station fire roads, especially where they cross prominent andshallow dunes. The present-day concentration of plants with prairie/savanna affinities on theManestar Tract, therefore, appears related to recent land use history rather than to inherent siteconditions that are restricted to this portion of the SWCL.

CHAPTER 3: LIFE SCIENCE FEATURES

3.1 VEGETATION

Ecological Land Classification:

The Ecological Land Classification of SWCL is presented in Table 3

The classification follows Lee et al. 1998. New community series, ecosites, and vegetation typesare identified, where necessary, to characterize the diversity of observed conditions. Thecreation of new elements has been approached conservatively in order to preserve the level ofgenerality inherent in original classification.

Classification of the vegetation within the SWCL posed certain difficulties in view of itsdistinctive land use history. Historical plantation records provided important insight sincepresent day stands have been modified as much by what has been removed as by what has beenadded. Due to differences in silvicultural treatments and related variation in retention of naturalvalues between planting techniques, lands that have been spot planted are classified as “CulturalForest” and those that were furrow planted as “Plantation”. The former signifies that the originalforest floor is largely intact and that the stand has been treated silviculturally, whereas the lattersignifies that the original forest floor has been lost. Cultural forests typically contain residualstems of trees that were present at the time the stand was under-planted, whereas plantations onlycontain stems of trees that were planted or that regenerated from seed or residual rootstocks.

Stands with prairie/savanna indicators were rarely classified as tallgrass savanna, or tallgrasswoodland, owing to cultural influences, advanced succession, or under-planting by station staff.Open habitats with prairie/savanna indicators (Rodger 1998) were classified as open sand dune,shrub sand dune, cultural barren, or cultural thicket, when the tree cover was ?25%. Treedhabitats with prairie/savanna indicators were classified as cultural savanna when the tree coverhad been manually thinned to ?35%; as tallgrass woodland when the natural tree cover was?60%; and, as mixed, deciduous, or cultural forest when the tree cover was >60%. The latter

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


20

stands were presumed to represent ingrown savanna and woodland communities when present ondrought-prone soils.

Ingrown Savanna

Ingrown savanna is not recognized by the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario(Lee et al. 1998). In this study, ingrown savanna was broadly defined as any plant communitywith one or more characteristic vascular plants associated with tallgrass prairie and savanna inOntario (Rodger 1998). Recognizing that species found in savanna communities may also occurin other habitats, only the most conservative species were ultimately used as indicators ofsavanna conditions, i.e., species with a Coefficient of Conservatism of 8, 9, or 10 (Oldham et al.1995). This approach emphasized the presence or absence of plants with a high fidelity forsavanna communities rather than the present composition of the overstorey, the degree of canopyclosure, or the predominance of a particular suite of species such as Big Bluestem, LittleBluestem or Indian Grass. The presence of one conservative indicator was accepted as thethreshold for classifying ingrown savanna in view of their high fidelity for savanna communitiesand a strong correlation between the number of conservative indicators and recent sitedisturbance.

This approach to identifying ingrown savanna was conservative in the sense that only remnantsthat were of sufficient quality for indicators to persist in the above ground vegetation wereclassified as ingrown savanna. Fire-adapted plants, however, often regenerate from seed banks inthe soil or from under-ground rhizomes and root buds that are not damaged by surface fires.Species with the capacity to form persistent seed banks may therefore be overlooked by fieldsurveys when site conditions are no longer suitable for plants to germinate and persist in theabove ground vegetation. This limitation was partially overcome by including lands on whichDwarf Chinquapin Oak and Wild Lupine had been recorded by forest station staff during theperiod 1908-1945. Each of these species has a high fidelity for savanna conditions in Ontario(Coefficient of Conservatism: 10).

Indicators of savanna conditions were strongly associated with drought-prone, sand, soils. Onthe Nursery and Manestar tracts, the largest concentrations were associated with prominent sanddunes. On the Turkey Point Tract the largest concentrations were associated with sand plains.Recent land use history suggests that, in the absence of fire, savanna conditions may persistlonger on the crests and slopes of sand dunes owing to presence of more drought-prone soils andslower rates of canopy closure. For the purpose of delineating ingrown savanna habitat, onlythose polygons on drought-prone soils (moisture class 1, 2, 3; Lee et al. 1998) were retained.

The final working definition for ingrown savanna in this study, therefore, was the following: anyplant community on drought-prone soils with one or more conservative indicators, historic orcontemporary, of tallgrass prairie and savanna in Ontario.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


21

Table 3: Ecological Land Classification - St. Williams Crown Land. Classification followsLee et al. 1998. A new Community Series, Ecosite or Vegetation Type is denoted byan asterisk.

______________________________________________________________________________

I. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM

SD SAND DUNESDO OPEN SAND DUNE

SDO1 OPEN SAND DUNE ECOSITESDO1-3 Bracken - Hay Sedge Open Dune Type*

SDS SHRUB SAND DUNESDS1 SHRUB SAND DUNE ECOSITE

SDS1-4 Dwarf Chinquapin Shrub Dune Type*SDS1-5 American Hazel Shrub Dune Type*

TP TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SAVANNAH,WOODLANDTPW1 TALLGRASS WOODLAND

TPW1 DRY TALLGRASS WOODLAND ECOSITETPW1-1 Black Oak - White Oak Tallgrass Woodland Type

FO FORESTFOM MIXED FOREST

FOM2 DRY-FRESH WHITE PINE - MAPLE - OAK MIXED FOREST ECOSITEFOM2-1Dry-Fresh White Pine - Oak Mixed Forest Type

FOM3 DRY-FRESH HARDWOOD - HEMLOCK MIXED FOREST ECOSITEFOM3-1Dry-Fresh Hardwood - Hemlock Mixed Forest Type

FOM5 DRY-FRESH BIRCH - POPLAR - CONIFER MIXED FOREST ECOSITEFOM5-2Dry-Fresh Poplar Mixed Forest Type

FOM6 FRESH-MOIST HEMLOCK MIXED FOREST ECOSITEFOM6-1Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple - Hemlock Mixed Forest Type

FOD DECIDUOUS FORESTFOD1 DRY-FRESH OAK DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITE

FOD1-2 Dry-Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest TypeFOD1-3 Dry-Fresh Black Oak Deciduous Forest TypeFOD1-4 Dry-Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type

FOD2 DRY-FRESH OAK - MAPLE - HICKORY DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITEFOD2-1 Dry-Fresh Oak - Red Maple Deciduous Forest TypeFOD2-4 Dry-Fresh Oak - Hardwood Deciduous Forest Type

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


22

Table 3: Ecological Land Classification - St. Williams Crown Land (cont’d)FOD3 DRY-FRESH POPLAR - WHITE BIRCH DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITE

FOD3-1 Dry-Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest TypeFOD4 DRY-FRESH DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITE

FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest TypeFOD5 DRY-FRESH SUGAR MAPLE DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITE

FOD5-3 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - Oak Deciduous Forest TypeFOD5-8 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - White Ash Deciduous Forest Type

FOD6 FRESH-MOIST SUGAR MAPLE DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITEFOD6-1 Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple - Lowland Ash Deciduous Forest TypeFOD6-3 Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple - Yellow Birch Deciduous Forest TypeFOD6-5 Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple - Hardwood Deciduous Forest Type

FOD7 FRESH-MOIST LOWLAND DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITEFOD7-2 Fresh-Moist Ash Lowland Deciduous Forest Type

FOD8 FRESH-MOIST POPLAR SASSAFRAS DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITEFOD8-1 Fresh-Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest Type

FOD9 FRESH-MOIST OAK - MAPLE - HICKORY DECIDUOUS FOREST ECOSITEFOD9-1 Fresh-Moist Oak - Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest TypeFOD9-2 Fresh-Moist Oak - Maple Deciduous Forest Type

CU CULTURALCUP PLANTATION

CUP1 DECIDUOUS PLANTATIONSCUP1-3 Black Walnut Deciduous Plantation TypeCUP1-7 Green Ash Deciduous Plantation TypeCUP1-10 Tulip Tree Deciduous Plantation TypeCUP1-11 Shagbark Hickory Deciduous Plantation Type*CUP1-12 White Ash Deciduous Plantation Type*

CUP2 MIXED PLANTATIONSCUP2-2 Sweet Chestnut - White Pine Mixed Plantation Type*CUP2-3 Mixed Hardwoods - Mixed Conifers Mixed Plantation Type*

CUP3 CONIFEROUS PLANTATIONSCUP3-1 Red Pine Coniferous Plantation TypeCUP3-2 White Pine Coniferous Plantation TypeCUP3-3 Scotch Pine Coniferous Plantation TypeCUP3-4 Jack Pine Coniferous Plantation TypeCUP3-6 European Larch Coniferous Plantation TypeCUP3-8 White Spruce - European Larch Plantation TypeCUP3-9 Norway Spruce - European Larch Plantation Type

CUM CULTURAL MEADOWCUM1 MINERAL CULTURAL MEADOW ECOSITE

CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow TypeCUT CULTURAL THICKET

CUT1 MINERAL CULTURAL THICKET ECOSITECUT1-1 Sumac Cultural Thicket TypeCUT1-5 Raspberry Cultural Thicket TypeCUT1-6 Poison Ivy Cultural Thicket TypeCUT1-7 Sweetfern Cultural Thic ket Type*

CUB CULTURAL BARREN*CUB1 MINERAL CULTURAL BARREN ECOSITE*

CUB1-1 Flowering Spurge - Panicum Cultural Barren Type*

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


23

Table 3: Ecological Land Classification - St. Williams Crown Land (cont’d)CUB1-2 Slender Cyperus Cultural Barren Type*CUB1-3 Kentucky Bluegrass Cultural Barren Type*CUB1-4 Slender Wheat Grass Cultural Barren Type*CUB1-5 Other Prairie Forbs - Graminoids Cultural Barren Type*

CUS CULTURAL SAVANNAHCUS1 MINERAL CULTURAL SAVANNAH ECOSITECUS1-4 Black Oak Cultural Savannah Type*

CUF CULTURAL FOREST*CUF1 DRY-FRESH CONIFEROUS CULTURAL FOREST ECOSITE*

CUF1-1 Dry-Fresh Pine Coniferous Cultural Forest Type*CUF1-2 Dry-Fresh Pine - Spruce Coniferous Cultural Forest Type*CUF1-3 Dry-Fresh Pine - Larch Coniferous Cultural Forest Type*

CUF2 FRESH-MOIST CONIFEROUS CULTURAL FOREST ECOSITE*CUF2-1 Fresh-Moist Pine Coniferous Cultural Forest Type*CUF2-2 Fresh-Moist Pine - Spruce Coniferous Cultural Forest Type*CUF2-3 Fresh-Moist Pine - Larch Coniferous Cultural Forest Type*

CUF3 DRY-FRESH MIXED CULTURAL FOREST ECOSITE*CUF3-1 Dry-Fresh Pine - Oak Mixed Cultural Forest Type*CUF3-2 Dry-Fresh Conifer - Oak Mixed Cultural Forest Type*

CUF4 FRESH-MOIST MIXED CULTURAL FOREST ECOSITE*CUF4-1 Fresh-Moist Pine - Hardwood Mixed Cultural Forest Type*CUF4-2 Fresh-Moist Pine - Spruce - Hardwood Mixed Cultural Forest Type*CUF4-3 Fresh-Moist Spruce - Hardwood Mixed Cultural Forest Type*

CUF5 DRY-FRESH DECIDUOUS CULTURAL FOREST ECOSITE*CUF5-1 Dry-Fresh Black Oak Deciduous Cultural Forest Type*

CUF6 FRESH-MOIST DECIDUOUS CULTURAL FOREST ECOSITE*CUF6-1 Fresh-Moist Pine - Hardwood Cultural Forest Type*

2. WETLAND SYSTEM

SWSWAMPSWM MIXED SWAMP

SWM2 MAPLE MINERAL MIXED SWAMP ECOSITESWM2-2 Swamp Maple - Conifer Mineral Mixed Swamp Type

SWM6 BIRCH - POPLAR ORGANIC MIXED SWAMP ECOSITESWM6-2 Poplar - Conifer Organic Mixed Swamp Type

SWD DECIDUOUS SWAMPSWD1 OAK MINERAL DECIDUOUS SWAMP ECOSITE

SWD1-1 Swamp White Oak Mineral Deciduous Swamp TypeSWD2 ASH MINERAL DECIDUOUS SWAMP ECOSITE

SWD2-2 Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp TypeSWD3 MAPLE MINERAL DECIDUOUS SWAMP ECOSITE

SWD3-1 Red Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp TypeSWD3-2 Silver Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp TypeSWD3-3 Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp TypeSWD3-4 Manitoba Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type

SWD6 MAPLE ORGANIC DECIDUOUS SWAMP ECOSITESWD6-3 Swamp Maple Organic Deciduous Swamp Type

SWD7 BIRCH - POPLAR ORGANIC DECIDUOUS SWAMP ECOSITE

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


24

Table 3: Ecological Land Classification - St. Williams Crown Land (cont’d)______________________________________________________________________________

SWD7-1 White Birch - Poplar Organic Deciduous Swamp TypeSWT THICKET SWAMP

SWT2 MINERAL THICKET SWAMP ECOSITESWT2-4 Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp TypeSWT2-8 Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp TypeSWT2-9 Gray Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp Type

SWT3 ORGANIC THICKET SWAMP ECOSITESWT3-2 Willow Organic Thicket Swamp TypeSWT3-5 Red-osier Organic Thicket Swamp Type

MA MARSHMAM MEADOW MARSH

MAM2 MINERAL MEADOW MARSH ECOSITEMAM2-5 Narrow-leaved Sedge Mineral Meadow Marsh TypeMAM2-7 Horsetail Mineral Meadow Marsh TypeMAM2-9 Jewelweed Mineral Meadow Marsh TypeMAM2-10 Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh Type

MAM3 ORGANIC MEADOW MARSH ECOSITEMAM3-1 Bluejoint Organic Meadow Marsh TypeMAM3-4 Fowl Manna Grass Organic Meadow Marsh TypeMAM3-5 Narrow-leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh TypeMAM3-6 Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh TypeMAM3-8 Jewelweed Organic Meadow Marsh TypeMAM3-9 Forb Organic Meadow Marsh Type

MAS SHALLOW MARSHMAS2 MINERAL SHALLOW MARSH ECOSITE

MAS2-3Narrow-leaved Sedge Mineral Shallow Marsh TypeMAS2-8Rice Cut-grass Mineral Shallow Marsh TypeMAS2-9Forb Mineral Shallow Marsh Type

MAS3 ORGANIC SHALLOW MARSH ECOSITEMAS3-1Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-2Bulrush Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-3Narrow-leaved Sedge Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-4Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-6Spike Rush Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-7Bur-reed Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-8Rice Cut-grass Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-10 Forb Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-11 Calla Lily Organic Shallow Marsh TypeMAS3-12 Water Willow Organic Shallow Marsh Type

3.2 FLORISTICS

Seven hundred and sixty-seven vascular plant taxa in 110 families have been recorded in theSWCL. One hundred and fifty nine are non-native species (20.7%), a comparable proportion ofalien taxa among similar sites in southern Ontario. Forty-eight species of vascular plants havebeen assigned an S-Rank of S1, S2 or S3, and are provincially rare (Newmaster et al. 1998).Rugulose Grape Fern is globally rare (G3). Forty-two species are regionally rare (R1-R5)

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


25

(Oldham 1993; Sutherland pers. com.). Seven species are found only at the SWCL (R1). Fourprovincially rare and four regionally rare species have not been collected or seen for 15 or moreyears and may no longer be extant.

Provincially rare species (S1-S3) are distributed across the three tracts: Nursery Tract (17species), Manestar Tract (21 species), Turkey Point Tract (21 species). Each tract containsprovincially rare species not found elsewhere in the Crown Lands: Nursery Tract (7 species),Manestar Tract (9 species), Turkey Point Tract (12 species).

The vascular plants of the SWCL display affinities for the Carolinian Zone, the Great Lakes - St.Lawrence Forest Region, the Atlantic Coastal Plain, and, for specialized habitats such as prairie,savanna, and the Great Lakes shoreline. The predominate affinity is for the Carolinian Zone.

A significant portion of the flora of SWCL has been classified as having prairie/savannaaffinities (Rodger 1998). Today, these species are typically found on sand dunes under a closingcanopy of oak and pine; in openings and at the edges of oak forest and pine plantations; at theedges of fire roads and trails, especially when crossing sand dunes; on the slopes and floors ofsand blow-outs; and, on sand barrens created or modified by human disturbance. Historically,these species were recorded by station staff in regenerating stands of oak and pine on drought-prone, sand soils. Prior to settlement, these species may have occupied a range of habitats asnatural succession transformed site conditions from sand barren, savanna, woodland, and, oakopening to oak or pine-oak forest. This site represents the fourth most species rich assemblage ofprairie/savanna indicators in Southern Ontario after Walpole Island, Ojibway Prairie, and PineryProvincial Park.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


26

Table 4. Significant Flora of St. Williams Crown Forest. S1-S3: provincially rare; R1-R5: regionally rare. See Appendix B fordescriptions of COSEWIC status, G Rank, S Rank and Haldimand - Norfolk (H-N) Status. H denotes species not recorded or seen since 1986.NT=Nursery Tract, MT= Manestar Tract, TPT=Turkey Point Tract. Sources: COSEWIC 2002, Newmaster et al. 1998, Sutherland 1987, Oldham1987, Oldham 1993, Melinda Thompson pers. com. , field work this study.

Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC G Rank S Rank H-N Status NT MT TPT

Agastache nepetoides Yellow Giant-hyssop G5 S4 R3 x

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon Berry G5 S4? R4 x x

Aplectrum hyemale (H) Putty-root G5 S2 R5 H

Aralia hispida Bristly Sarsaparilla G5 S5 R2 x

Aristida purpurascens var. purpurascens Arrow-feather Three-awn G5 S1 R1 x

Asclepias viridiflora Green Milkweed G5 S2 R3 x

Asimina triloba Pawpaw G5 S3 R1 x

Aster ontarionis var. ontarionis Ontario Aster G5T S4? R1 x

Aureolaria pedicularia Fern-leaved FalseFoxglove

G5 S3 R4 x

Baptisia tinctoria (H) Wild Indigo G5 S2 R1 H H

Botrychium rugulosum Rugulose Grape Fern G3 S2 VU x

Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats Gramma G5 S2 R2 x

Brasenia schreberi (H) Water-shield G5 S5 R3 H

Carex inops, ssp. heliophila (H) Sun Sedge G5T? S1 R1 H

Carex lucorum (none given) G4 S4 R3 x

Carex merritt-fernaldii Merritt Fernald’s Sedge G5 S5 R2 x

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


27

Table 4. Significant Flora of St. Williams Crown Forest (cont’d).


Carex swanii Swan’s Sedge G5 S3 C x x

Carex utriculata Beaked Sedge G5 S5 R5 x

Carex virescens Ribbed Sedge G5 S3 U x

Carya glabra Pignut Hickory G5 S3 C x

Castanea dentata American Chestnut THR G4 S3 C x x x

Chimaphila maculata Spotted Wintergreen END G5T? S1 R3 x x

Corallorhiza odontorhiza Autumn Coral-root G5 S2 VU x H?

Crataegus dodgei Dodge’s Hawthorn G5 S4 R5 x

Desmodium rotundifolium Round-leaved Tick-trefoil G5 S2 VU x x

Eleocharis englemannii Engelmann’s Spike-rush G5 S1 R5 x

Equisetum X ferrissii Ferriss’s Scouring-rush HYB S3 R2 x

Fraxinus profunda Pumpkin Ash G3/G4 S2 R4 x

Galium pilosum var. pilosum Hairy Bedstraw G5T? S3 U x x

Juncus acuminatus Sharp-fruited Rush G5 S3 U x

Lathyrus ochroleucus Cream-coloured Vetchling G4G5 S4 R3 x

Lechea villosa Hairy Pinweed G5 S3 C x x

Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily G5 S5 R2 x

Linum sulcatum Grooved Yellow Flax G5 S3 R2 x

Lupinus perennis Wild Lupine G5T4? S3 U x x H?

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


28



Juncus greenei Greene’s Rush G5 S3 VU x

Juncus marginatus Grass-leaved Rush G5 S2 U x x

Lactuca hirsuta Hairy Wood Lettuce G4? S4? R1 x

Lycopodium tristachyum (H) Blue Ground-cedar G5 S5 R2 H

Lycopus rubellus Stalked Water-horehound G5 S2 U x

Muhlenbergia sylvatica Wooden Satin Grass G5 S1 R2 x

Muhlenbergia tenuiflora Slender Satin Grass G5T? S2 U x

Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry G5 S1 R4 x

Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum G5 S3 C x x

Oryzopsis pungens Slender Mountain-rice G5 S4 R2 x

Panax quinquefolius Ginseng END G4 S3 U x

Panicum clandestinum Deer-tongue Panic Grass G5? S2 VU x

Panicum dichotomum Spreading Panic Grass G5 S2 U x

Panicum sphaerocarpon Rough-fruited Panic Grass G5 S3 C x x

Phlox subulata ssp. brittonii Britton’s Phlox G5TU S1? R4 H? x

Physalis virginiana Virginia Ground-cherry G5 SU R x x

Polyogonum tenue Slender Knotweed G5T? S2 R4 x

Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak G5 S2 R5 x x H

Ranuncularis fascicularis Early Buttercup G5 S4 R2 xRanunculus rhomboideus

Prairie Buttercup G4 S3 R2 x

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


29



Rhus copallina Shining Sumac G5T5 S3S4 C x x

Spiranthes lacera var. lacera (H) Northern Ladies’ Tresses G5 S4 R2 H

Tephrosia viginiana Virginia Goat’s-rue END G5 S1 R4 H? x

Thalictrum revolutum Waxy Meadow-rue G5 S2 R4 x x x

Thalictrum thalictroides Rue-anemone G5 S3 U x

Trichostema dichotomum Forked Blue-curls G5 S1 R1 x

Utricularia minor (H) Lesser Bladderwort G5 S5 R? H

Uvularia perfoliata Perfoliate Bellwort G5 S1 R2 x

Vicia caroliniana (H) Carolina Vetch G5 S2 R4 H

Viola palmata var. dilatata Early Blue Violet G5 S2 U x H?

Viola pedata Bird’s-foot Violet THR G5 S1 R4 x

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


30

3.3 FAUNA

St. Williams Crown Land supports a rich diversity of species. Many conservative, uncommon orrare species in Canada are common at St. Williams. Raptor species associated with large tractsof mature continuous forest such as Red-shouldered Hawk, Northern Goshawk and Barred Owlall nest here each summer. Canada’s largest population of Hooded Warblers (more than 40 pairsin 2001) breeds in the Nursery Tract (Badzinski pers. com.). Perhaps most spectacular of all isthe number of extremely rare insects that are known to occur and many more are expected to beidentified in the near future. For several insects, SWCL represents the only known locality inCanada. Many of the rare insects are associated with oak savanna openings and include Davis’Shield-Bearer, Little White Tiger Beetle and Antenna Waving Wasp. Three endangeredbutterflies, also obligate savanna species and lupine feeders, became extirpated in 1988 from St.Williams and Canada for various reasons (Troubridge, in litt, Packer pers. comm., Herms etal.1997). From the perspective of faunal species diversity St. Williams represents anirreplaceable core area.

A summary of the provincially rare (S1-S3) and regionally rare (R) birds, mammals, amphibiansand reptiles and insects is presented in Table 9. The SWCL represents existing or recoveryhabitat as part of six species and/or community at risk recovery plans as of this report, withseveral more in development.

Birds

St. Williams Crown Land serves as an important block of continuous forest in one of the mostbiologically rich regions of Canada. The Nursery Tract and the rich ravine slopes and bluff of theTurkey Point Tract facing Turkey Point marsh support 139 known breeding bird species(Wallace and McCracken 1995). Thirty-nine of these species are defined as significant,classified as provincially rare (S1-S3) or regionally rare (see Table 9). Situated near the LakeErie shore, these forests also provide important feeding habitat for neotropical migrant song birdsmoving to and from mixed and boreal forests. Bird species strongly associated with savannaincluding Northern Bobwhite and Lark Sparrow, are extirpated and others such as PrairieWarbler , White-eyed Vireo and Eastern Bluebird occur in low numbers because savannahabitats are overgrown and lack areal extent important to birds.

Of the 139 potential breeding birds at St. Williams, 30 are forest-interior specialists, 50 are areasensitive and 23 are are somewhat area sensitive (Freemark et al. 1995, Freemark and Collins1992, Freemark and Merriam 1986).

Mammals

No mammal surveys were carried out for this study. Mammal data summarized in this report arebased on the Natural Areas Inventory (NAI) (Gartshore 1987a), database files from the Natural

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


31

Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) and Dewer et al. 1985. St. Williams Crown Land is hometo 8 significant species of mammals according to these sources of information, including thenationally endangered American Badger (see Table 9).

Reptiles and Amphibians

Surveys of basking turtles, and singing frogs were carried out during this study. In addition,casual observations of large snakes were made throughout this study. Other records for SWCLwere gleaned from the NAI, NHIC Database, and the Hooded Warbler Project. Six recordedsignificant species include Jefferson Complex Salamander, Blandings and Spotted Turtles,Eastern Fox Snake, Eastern Hognose Snake and Black Rat Snake (see Table 9).

Insects

Insects provide the most revealing evidence that SWCL is a nationally significant oak savanna,oak barrens, sand prairie and oak woodlands complex. Very conservative savanna indicatorshave been discovered recently from samples collected at St. Williams (Packer et al. 2001, SteveMarshall pers. com.) There is strong evidence linking savanna remnants, plant diversity andsavanna insects (Panzer 1988, Panzer et al. 1995, Panzer and Swartz 1998). Although insectspecies can hang on in small remnants, protection and sensitive management of larger areas willassure long term survival of oak savanna assemblages. Insect groups with rare species that aremost likely to be supported by savannas and oak woodlands include butterflies and moths,grasshoppers, true bugs, leafhoppers, bees and wasps, and beetles (Andy Hamilton pers. com.,Steve Marshall pers. com., Laurence Packer pers. com., Packer et al. 2001). Although completelists will take many years to assemble, sufficient records exist now to identify SWCL as a highpriority site for biodiversity conservation in Canada. Of the recorded insect species in the SWCLto date, 51 are found to be provincially significant or regionally rare. Many are prairie/savannaindicator species, only found at this site in Canada (see Table 9).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


32

Table 9. Significant Fauna of St. Williams Crown Land.

Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC G Rank S Rank Regional NT TPT

BIRDS

Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk NAR G5 S4 R x x

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk NAR G5 S5 R x x

Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl G5 S4 R x

Asio otus Long-eared Owl G5 S4 R x x

Baeolophus bicolor Tufted Titmouse G5 S2S3 R x

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk SC G5 S4 R x x

Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow G5 SZB R x

Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin G5 S5 R x x

Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch G5 S5 R x x

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush G5 S5 R x x

Certhia americana Brown Creeper G5 S5 R x x

Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow G5 SHB R H

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite END G5 S1S2 R ext ext

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler G5 S5 R x

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SC G4 S3 x

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler G5 S5 R x x

Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler NAR G5 S3S4 R x x

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler G5 S5 R x x

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler G5 S5 R x x

Dendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler G5 S5 R x x

Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher END G5 S2 R x

Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating Warbler G5 SZB R x

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


33

Table 9. Significant Fauna of St. Williams Crown Land (cont’d)

Scientific Name Common Name COSEWIC G Rank S Rank Regional NT TPTIcterus spurius Orchard Oriole G5 SZB R x

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco G5 S5 R x

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser G5 S5 R x

Loxia curvirostra Red Crossbill G5 S5 R x x

Loxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill G5 S5 R x x

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker G5 S4 R x x

Oporornis formosus Kentucky Warbler G5 SZB R x x

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet G5 S5 R x x

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush SC G5 S3 x x

Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow G5 S4 R x x

Strix varia Barred Owl G5 S4S5 R x

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren G5 S3S4 R x x

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren G5 S5 R x x

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler G5 S5 R x

Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo G5 S2 R x

Vireo solitarius Blue-headed Vireo G5 S5 R x x

Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler THR G5 S3 x

MAMMALS

Taxidea taxus American Badger END G5 S2 R H H

Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel SC G5 S3 x x

Microtus pinetorum Woodland Vole SC G5 S3? R x x

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern Pipistrelle G5 S3? R H H

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat G4 S3? H H

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


34



Synaptomys cooperi Southern Bog Lemming G5 S4 R x x

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat G5 S4 R H H

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat G5 S4 R x x

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson Salamander THR G5 S2 x

Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle SC G5 S3 R x

Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Black Rat Snake THR G5 S3 R x

Elaphe gloydi Eastern Fox Snake THR G3 S3 x x

Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Hognose Snake SC G5 S3 x x

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle G4 S3? x

INSECTS

Anisodactylus merula (Germar) beetle rare R x

Carabus goryi Dejean beetle rare R x

Cicindela lepida beetle S2 R x

Elater abruptus Say beetle S2 R x

Diogmites basalis robber fly rare R x

Anaxipha exigua Say's Bush Cricket S3 R x

Atlanticus moniticola Davis' Shield-bearer S1 R x x

Chariesterus antennator bug rare R x

Andrena (Andrena) macoupinensis Robertson bee rare R x

Andrena (Andrena) thaspii Graenicher bee rare R x

Dufourea marginata (Cresson) bee rare R x

Halictus (Halictus) parallelus Say bee rare R x

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


35



Anthidiellum notatum bee ?rare R x

Dipogon brevis brevis cuckoo wasp rare R x

Hylaeus gaigei (Cockerell) bee rare R x

Hylaeus illinoisensis (Robertson) bee rare R x

Lasioglossum (Dialictus) ceanothi (Mitchell) bee rare R x

Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegularis (Robertson) bee rare R x

Megachile (Delomegachile) mucida Cresson bee rare R x

Mellinus bimaculatus wasp rare R x

Nomada cuneata (Robertson) bee rare R x

Osmia albiventris Cresson bee rare R x

Osmia pumila Cresson bee rare R x

Sphecodes aroniae Mitchell bee rare R x

Sphecodes heraclei heraclei Robertson bee rare R x

Tachysphex pechumani Antenna Waving Wasp rare rare x

Amblyscirtes hegon Pepper and Salt Skipper G5 S3 R x

Asterocampa clyton Tawny Emperor G5 S2S3 R x

Atrytone logan Delaware Skipper G5 S3S4 R x

Callophrys irus Frosted Elfin EXP G3 SX R exp

Erynnis baptisiae Wild Indigo Duskywing G5 S1 R x

Erynnis brizo Sleepy Duskywing G5 S1 R x

Erynnis horatius Horace's Duskywing G5 SAN R x

Erynnis martialis Mottled Duskywing G3G4 S2 R x

Erynnis persius persius Persius Duskywing G5T3 SX R exp

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


36



Euphyes dion Dion Skipper G4 S3S4 R x

Euptoieta claudia Variegated Fritillary G5 SZB R x

Eurema lisa Little Yellow G5 SZB R x

Junonia coenia Common Buckeye G5 SZB R x

Libytheana carinenta American Snout G5 SZB R x

Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner Blue EXP G5T2 SX R exp

Danaus plexippus Monarch SC G4 S5 x x

Papilio cresphontes Giant Swallowtail G5 S2 R x

Papilio troilus Spicebush Swallowtail G5 S3S4 x x

Pholisora catullus Common Sootywing G5 S3S4 x

Pompeius verna Little Glassywing G5 S3 R x

Pontia protodice Checkered White G4 SZB R x

Satyrium caryaevorum Hickory Hairstreak G4 S3S4 x

Satyrium edwardsii Edwards' Hairstreak G4 S3S4 x

Strymon melinus Grey Hairstreak G5 S3 R x

Thorybes bathyllus Southern Cloudywing G5 S2S3 x

Legend COSEWIC: EXP=Extirpated, END=Endangered, THR=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, NAR=Not At RiskG Rank: G1=Extremely Rare globally, G2=Very Rare, G3=Rare to Uncommon, G4=Common, G5=Very CommonS Rank: S1=Extremely Rare in Ontario, S2=Very Rare, S3=Rare to Uncommon, S4=Common, S5=Very CommonR=Regionally Rare, NT=Nursery Tract, TPT=Turkey Point Tract

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


37

3.4 SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITIES

St. Williams Crown Land contains several plant communities that are significant at theprovincial (Bakowsky 1997) or regional level. A brief synopsis is provided for each community.

Savanna Communities

Tallgrass Prairie, Savanna and Woodland communities are extremely rare in Ontario (Bakowsky1997). Less than three percent of their original extent remains in southern Ontario and mostremnants occur in small isolated patches (Rodger 1998). St. Williams Crown Land representsthe largest and most species rich remnant of savanna habitat in southern Ontario outside theprovincial parks system. Most of this habitat has been modified by forest management and ispresently ingrown. Less than one ha was sufficiently open in 2001 to be classified as Black Oak -White Oak Tallgrass Woodland (Lee et al. 1998).

A first approximation of ingrown savanna at St. Williams is mapped in yellow in Figures 32 and33. One or more conservative vascular plant indicators of tallgrass prairie and savanna inOntario (Oldham et al. 1995, Rodger 1998) were recorded on drought-prone soils in each areaduring the period 1908-1945 or 1986-2001. Ingrown savanna has been partitioned in relation tosix themes in order to highlight differences in species composition, community structure andland use history.

Black Oak - White Oak Tallgrass Woodland: This tiny remnant (0.15 ha) is the only survivingstand of natural tallgrass woodland at SWCL. It persists on moderately fresh sand soils on thecrest and slopes of a dune ridge that was clear-cut between 1945 and 1953. Canopy closureapproaches 60%. Conservative indicators of savanna conditions include Dwarf Chinquapin Oak(S2), Waxy Meadow Rue (S2), Wild Lupine (S3), Hairy Bedstraw (S3), Venus’-pride, WhorledLoosestrife, and Smooth Aster. Prominent herbs in the herb layer include Pennsylvania Sedge,Poison Ivy, Goldenrod, and Low Sweet Blueberry.

Cultural Savanna: Two small remnants of ingrown savanna were thinned to savanna conditionsin 1991. These remnants were situated on fresh sand soils on the crest and slopes of dune ridgesthat were clear-cut between 1945 and 1955. The northern remnant was the location of the lastsighting (1988) of the rare Karner Blue (COSEWIC Extirpated), Frosted Elfin (COSEWICExtirpated) and Persius Duskywing butterflies (ELC polygon 87). The southern remnant, whichwas burned in 1994, harbors a nationally significant assemblage of Arthropod insects that is stillbeing assessed (ELC polygon 85). Eighteen plant species with prairie/savanna affinities,including 13 conservative indicators of savanna conditions, were observed on the northernremnant in 2001 (Table 10).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


38

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


39

Cultural Sand Barrens: Barrens are plant communities characterized by a variable array of herbs,shrubs and small stunted trees on drought-prone, infertile soils (Homoya 1994). Vegetation istypically sparse and patchy, with areas of bare or moss covered soil; tree cover may range to60% canopy closure depending on site conditions and site history (Homoya 1994, Lee et al.1998).

In this study, the phrase “sand barrens” is used to highlight areas of bare sand soils that aresparsely vegetated. At St. Williams, sand barrens are typically “cultural sand barrens” in thesense that bare soil conditions originated with some form of human disturbance, although sandbarrens are also found in natural openings in ingrown oak savanna. At SWCL, cultural sandbarrens appear to be transitional communities that will be displaced by treed communities in theabsence of disturbance.

The most extensive cultural sand barrens are found in the northeast quadrant of the ManestarTract. These lands were cleared between 1945 and 1953, and apparently bulldozed andselectively sand mined between 1955 and 1972. Prior to land clearance, these lands supportedoak savanna or oak woodland.

Today, these barrens support one of the richest assemblages of plants with prairie/savannaaffinities at SWCL. Eighteen species with prairie/savanna affinities, including 10 conservativeindicators of savanna conditions occur on the grubbed sand dunes. Nineteen species withprairie/savanna affinities, including 11 conservative indicators of savanna conditions occur onlands that were mined for sand. Species not found elsewhere at SWCL are: Englemann’sSpikerush (S1), Sharp-fruited Rush (S3), Greene’s Rush (S3), Prairie Buttercup (S3), and HairyBush-clover. A rich diversity of insects has attracted the attention of the scientific community formany years. Eastern Hognose Snake (COSEWIC Threatened) is sighted regularly.

Communities with Abundant Dwarf Chinquapin Oak: Selected stands of ingrown savanna, anddune blow-outs, provide habitat for comparatively large populations of Dwarf Chinquapin Oak(S2). These stands represent Canada’s largest concentration of Dwarf Chinquapin Oak outsideof Pinery Provincial Park (Cruise and Catling 1969). Dwarf Chinquapin Oak has a high fidelityfor savanna communities (Coefficient of Conservatism: 10) and is associated with many of therichest assemblages of prairie/savanna plants on the Nursery and Manestar Tracts.

Ingrown Savanna: A small portion of original savanna habitat at St. Williams was left relativelyundisturbed. In the absence of fire, these stands have succeeded to oak or oak-pine forest.Conservative indicators of savanna conditions still persist in canopy openings or at the forestedge. The highest quality remnants and richest assemblages of prairie/savanna species occur onthe Manestar Tract (discussed above), and on Turkey Point Tract. Selected remnants at theTurkey Point Tract retain populations of Virginia Goat’s-rue (COSEWIC Endangered), Bird’s-foot Violet (COSEWIC Threatened), Britton’s Phlox (S1), Green Milkweed (S2), and PerfoliateBellwort (S1).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


40

Under-planted Savanna: Much of the original savanna habitat on the Nursery Tract was under-planted with conifers during the period 1908-1945. Selected stands on the periphery ofconventional plantations at the Turkey Point Tract may also have been under-planted. BlackOak and defective or diseased trees were removed and sites spot-planted with conifer seedlingsunder a thinned canopy. These practices left the original herb layer, and associated naturalvalues, largely intact. Many of these areas contained conservative indicators of savannaconditions when under-planted by forest station staff. A diverse assemblage of savanna speciesstill persist in high light areas at the forest margin and along the edge of fire roads, especiallywhere sand dunes are present. These lands represent the primary opportunity at SWCL forextensive rehabilitation and restoration of savanna communities.

Furrow-planted Savanna: Conventional conifer and hardwood plantations were established onlands previously cleared for agriculture. A diverse but diminished assemblage of plants withsand barren and prairie/savanna affinities persists in high light areas at the edge of plantations,along the edge of adjacent fire roads, and in the openings of thinned and young plantations.These plantations were often established on blow-sands following destruction of the root mat by19th century agriculture. Stands at the Turkey Point Tract represent the primary opportunity forrehabilitation and restoration of the high light, sand barren/sand prairie phase of savannadevelopment.

Wetland Communities

Swamp White Oak Mineral Deciduous Swamp (S3): This community (?0.5 ha) occurs on verymoist sand soils in a wetland complex associated with Dedrick’s Creek. The leading canopyspecies are Swamp White Oak, Red Oak and Red Ash. Prominent trees and tall shrubs in thesubcanopy include Red Ash, Nannyberry and Blue Beech. Prominent shrubs in the understoreyinclude Gray Dogwood, Nannyberry, American Hazel and Choke Cherry. Prominent herbs inthe ground layer include Northern Lady Fern, Sensitive Fern, Running Strawberry Bush, andGolden Ragwort.

Buttonbush Mineral Thicket Swamp (S3): This community (<0.2 ha) occurs on very moist sandyloam soils on the northern periphery of the Nursery Tract. Standing water is present in thespring. Prominent species in the herb layer include Marsh Fern, Rice Cut Grass, False Nettle andWater Smartweed.

Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp (S3S4): This community occurs on moist to very moistsand, sandy loam and loamy sand soils on the Nursery Tract. The leading species in the shrublayer are Silky Dogwood, Riverbank Grape, Winterberry, High Bush Cranberry, Red-osierDogwood, Pussy Willow or Bebb’s Willow. Prominent species in herb layer are False Nettle,Water-horehound, Rice Cut Grass, Jewelweed, Sensitive Fern, Canada Goldenrod, or Raspberry.

Gray Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (S3S4): This community occurs on moist sandsoils on the Nursery Tract. The leading species in the shrub layer are Gray Dogwood, Red-osier

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


41

Dogwood, Nannyberry, Smooth Rose or Spicebush. Prominent species in the herb layer are GrayDogwood, Riverbank Grape, Water-horehound, and False Nettle.

Communities with Abundant Black Gum: Selected hardwood stands on the Nursery Tract containlocally abundant stems of Black Gum (S3) in the subcanopy and sapling layers. The diameterbreast height of sampled stems ranged to 54 cm. Fresh-Moist Oak - Maple Deciduous Foreststands with Black Gum occur on moist loamy sand soils, Swamp Maple Organic DeciduousSwamp with Black Gum occurs on very moist sandy loam organic soils. Small diameter stemsof American Chestnut (COSEWIC Threatened) were also present.

Provincially Significant Wetlands: Portions of selected wetlands on the Nursery Tract have beenclassified as Class I (Bacro 1987, Umlah et al. 1996) and Class II (Umlah and Haggeman 1996)wetlands (labeled diagonal lines, Figure 32). Six wetlands form part of a large wetland complexon the northern periphery of the Nursery Tract, known as St. Williams. Eleven wetland ecositesand 23 wetland vegetation types are present in the St. Williams portion of this complex (Figure22). Significant species in this complex are American Chestnut (COSEWIC Threatened),Stalked Water-horehound (S2), Pumpkin Ash (S2), Black Gum (S3), and Hairy Wood Lettuce(R1).

Wetlands associated with Mud Creek have been classified as Class II wetlands (Umlah andHaggeman 1996). Four wetland ecosites and eight vegetation types are present in the St.Williams portion of the wetland complex which extends to the east and south of the NurseryTract. Silky Dogwood Thicket Swamp (S3S4) is present in this complex on the east side ofRegional Road 16.

Genetic Archives, Experimental Plantations and Arboreta

Genetic archives, experimental plantations and arboreta have been established at the TurkeyPoint Tract by the OMNR.

Soft Pine and Spruce Archives: These archives contain identified collections of soft pine andspruce from around the world. The archives are used to maintain parent material in a state wherecontrolled breeding is possible and are intended to be permanent plantations. A small populationof Rough-fruited Panic Grass (S3) is present on bare sand soil at the edge of the archives, smallpopulations of Bayberry (S1), Grass-leaved Rush (S2) and Hairy Pinweed (S3) are present.

Experimental Plantations: Experimental plantations have been established throughout theTurkey Point Tract. Many of these plantations were established on blow-sand areas and in oaksavanna. The only apparently native population of Forked Blue-curls (S1) in Canada was oncewidespread but now exists only in one spot.

Arboreta: Arboreta, composed of selected hardwood and conifer species, were established onformer savanna lands and contain small populations of several prairie/savanna plants that are

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


42

provincially and regionally rare: Arrow-feather Three-Awn (S1, R1), Sun Sedge (S1, R1), Side-oats Gramma (S2, R2), Green Milkweed (S2, R3) and Grooved Yellow Flax (S3,R2).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


43

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 EVALUATION

Selection criteria for the evaluation and confirmation of Areas of Natural and Scientific Interestinclude six categories: Context, Representation, Diversity, Condition, Ecological Function andSpecial Features. Evaluation descriptions of each of these criteria are as follows.

Context

The natural values associated with the SWCL were first noted by staff of the original NorfolkProvincial Forest Station. Beginning in 1909, station staff recorded the presence of DwarfChinquapin Oak, Wild Lupine and New Jersey Tea on areas being prepared for silviculturaltreatment. These species are presently classified by Rodger (1998) as indicators of tallgrassprairie and savanna in Ontario. In 1942, staff of the St. Williams Forest Station set aside the“Landon Property” (Lot 24, Concession 6, South Walsingham Township) to be managed as anatural woodland. This property was characterized as being unique at the station in view of thediversity of tree species and their presence in all age and size classes. Today, this woodland hasone of the largest populations of Pumpkin Ash (S2) and Black Gum (S3) within the SWCF.

In 1969, the SWCL was evaluated by J.E. Cruise and P.M. Catling for the InternationalBiological Program. Their assessment focused on the remnants of “Dwarf Chestnut OakParkland” in Lots 19, 20 and 21, Concessions V and VI, South Walsingham Township. Theynoted that “...this type of ecosystem is approached in only one other locality in SouthernOntario...” and recommended that these remnants, and an area to the west of the Nursery Tract,be managed as a natural area (Cruise and Catling 1969).

In 1984, the SWCL was assessed as part of an OMNR review of significant natural areas in SiteDistrict 7-2, west of the Haldimand Clay Plain (Lindsay 1984). Lindsay remarked: “Of note areseveral small areas of dry, open, oak parkland and prairie which remain (centred at 423628 sic,438274, 444268 and 445279). These support rare species such as Dwarf Chinquapin Oak and theFrosted Elfin and Karner Blue butterflies. This is the sole location for the Frosted Elfin inOntario. Further study is required.” Lindsay subsequently classified the SWCL as a “significantsite” in Site District 7-2 and as a representative site of “Dry Open Oak Plains” on the NorfolkSand Plain.

In 1987, the SWCL was assessed as part of the Natural Areas Inventory of the RegionalMunicipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (Gartshore et al. 1987). This study characterized the DwarfChestnut Oak community at St. Williams as “unique in the region”. St. Williams Crown Landwas further characterized as having “...the most extensive continuous dry-mesic White Pine -White Oak - Black Oak forest in the region”. The study recommended, in part, that the Manestar

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


44

Tract, an “...area of dry oak barren, now privately owned and containing many rare species,should be set aside as a nature reserve.”

In 1988, Carolinian Canada added the Manestar Tract to its original list of 36 Carolinian CanadaUnprotected Sites, in recognition of the importance of the “Dwarf Chestnut Oak Parkland” andrare Lepidoptera at this site. The property was subsequently purchased by the NatureConservancy of Canada in 1989 and transferred to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in1992.

Wetlands in the SWCL were evaluated by DeZwart and Bacro (1987), Umlah et al. (1996), andUmlah and Haggeman (1996). In 1996, a large wetland complex, known as the St. WilliamsWetland, was classified as a provincially significant (Class I) wetland. Six of the 17 wetlandscomprising this complex are situated in the north east corner of the Nursery Tract and on thefloodplain of Dedrick’s Creek. In that same year, a second wetland complex, known as DYC9-Wetland, was classified as provincially significant (Class II) wetland (Umlah and Haggeman1996). This wetland complex is associated with Mud Creek and extends to the south and east ofthe Nursery Tract.

The present report represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the SWCL. The followingsections summarize the significance of the natural heritage values associated with the NurseryTract, Manestar Tract, and Turkey Point Tract. The names of communities, ecosites, andvegetation types follow the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al.1998). The order of elements and matters addressed follow the “Natural Heritage Gap AnalysisMethodologies Used by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources” (Crins and Kor 2000).

Representation

Black Oak - White Oak Tallgrass Woodland (S1) occupies approximately 0.15 ha in thenorthwest quadrant of the Manestar Tract. Ingrown sand barrens, oak savanna and oak woodlandhabitat, however, is widespread and occupies approximately 700 ha of land on drought-prone,sand, soils. This complex represents the largest area of ingrown savanna habitat with restorationpotential in Site District 7-2 outside the provincial parks system. Natural succession, firesuppression, under-planting by forest station staff, and cultural disturbance have transformedformer habitat into oak forest, cultural forest, cultural savanna or cultural barrens. Thesecommunities, however, retain a rich assemblage of prairie/savanna indicators (Rodger 1998).

After Walpole Island (108 indicators), Ojibway Prairie (99 indicators), and Pinery ProvincialPark (70 indicators), SWCL (68 indicators) harbours the greatest diversity of vascular plants withprairie/savanna affinity in Southern Ontario (42.1% of the total number of plants with savanna orprairie/savanna affinity in Ontario).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


45

St. Williams Crown Land ranks with the Windsor Prairie and Pinery Provincial Park forsupporting the richest assemblages of prairie and savanna insects in Ontario. The true number ofrare insects is still far from known.

St. Williams Crown Land represents one of the largest blocks of forest in the Carolinian LifeZone outside the provincial parks system and Six Nations Reserve, and, is the largest forestedarea in Site District 7-2, after Long Point (4,260 ha) and Pinery Provincial Park (2,532 ha).

St. Williams Crown Land also includes Class I and Class II wetlands. Eleven wetland ecositesand 23 wetland vegetation types are represented in the SWCF portion of the St. WilliamsWetland, a large (138.2 ha) Class I wetland complex on the northeast periphery of the NurseryTract. The Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp and Fresh-Moist Oak - Maple DeciduousForest associated with this complex contains the largest concentration of Pumpkin Ash (S2) andBlack Gum (S3) at SWCL. St. Williams Crown Land also includes a small portion of the ClassII wetland associated with Mud Creek on the southeast periphery of the Nursery Tract. Fourwetland ecosites and eight wetland vegetation types are represented in the SWCL portion of thiscomplex.

Diversity

St. Williams Crown Land contains five landforms: sand plain, sand dune, shore cliffs, creekvalley, and, floodplain. Sand plain and sand dune are the predominant land forms on the NurseryTract, Manestar Tract and Turkey Point Tract. A steep shore cliff associated with lowering lakelevels, and several deeply incised creek valleys, are present at the Turkey Point Tract. Lessdeeply incised creek valleys and associated floodplains are present on the Nursery Tract.

St. Williams contains a rich diversity of plant communities. Six community classes, 16community series, 41 ecosites and 99 vegetation types are present.

In keeping with this structural diversity, St.Williams has 767 species of vascular plants, 139breeding birds, 39 mammals, 13 amphibians, 12 reptiles, and a substantial but incompletelyknown list of insects.

Condition

The forest, woodland, savanna and sand barren communities at SWCL have been modified tovarying degrees by forest management practices, land clearing for nursery production, landclearing for 19th century agriculture, sand mining, maintenance of low-voltage transmissionrights of way, and ATVs. Riparian communities along Dedrick’s Creek have also been affectedby water level management to maintain a ready supply of irrigation water for nursery stockproduction. A brief description of each condition follows.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


46

Forest management practices have altered the composition and structure of natural forest standsby selectively removing Black Oak and by under-planting natural woodlands with species ofpine, spruce and hardwoods. The spot-planting methods applied at SWCL, however, have left theforest floor largely intact. As a consequence, forest stands today are typically enriched in coniferspecies, and diminished in Black Oak, but otherwise intact in characteristic and rare understoryspecies.

Conifer and hardwood plantations that were established on lands previously cleared foragriculture typically retain few characteristic or rare understory plants. The principal exceptionsare vascular plants with prairie/savanna affinities. These species typically persist at the edge ofplantations, along fire roads, and in canopy openings of thinned and young plantations. Thediversity of species at these sites, however, is typically less than in savanna habitats where theherb layer is intact. Plantations on the Nursery Tract are typically more diminished in speciesthan plantations on the Turkey Point Tract.

Lands cleared for nursery stock production at the Nursery Tract were not surveyed.

Sand mining has taken place at one small pit on the Nursery Tract and in the east half of the largefield on the Manestar Tract. The latter has resulted in the removal of sand dunes and associatedsavanna habitat that formerly extended across the north half of the Manestar Tract.

Three low-voltage wood pole transmission lines border or traverse several plantations at theTurkey Point Tract. These rights-of-way are brushed out and selectively spot-sprayed by OntarioHydro crews every 8-10 years. Several rare plants occur on or at the edge of these rights-of-way,including Forked Blue-curls, Virginia Goat’s-rue (COSEWIC Endangered), and Britton’s Phlox.The persistence of Forked Blue-curls at SWCL may depend on this disturbance since populationsin nearby plantations have declined sharply in recent years in response to deepening shade.

Rutting and compaction by ATV’s is typically confined to posted fire roads. Off trail activity,however, has deeply rutted ravine slopes that support populations of rare plants on the TurkeyPoint Tract and has destroyed the root mat on portions of the Manestar Tract. Rutting of organicsoils has also occurred in selected wetlands on the Nursery Tract and in seepage areas in ravinesat the Turkey Point Tract.

Water levels on Dedrick’s Creek have been controlled for many years for the purpose ofsupplying irrigation water for nursery stock production. This practice has raised water levels inthe thicket swamp, meadow marshes and shallow marshes, upstream. The consequences of thislong term change on this Class I wetland complex have not been assessed.

The streambed of Mud Creek, east of Regional Road 16, has been channelized and now formspart of the Third Concession Municipal Drain.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


47

A small portion of the wetland associated with Mud Creek was in-filled by forest station staffprior to its designation as a Class II wetland by Umlah and Haggeman (1996).

Ecological Function

Forests and plantations occupy approximately 800 ha at the Nursery and Manestar tracts andapproximately 400 ha at Turkey Point Tract. Forested areas of this size have been characterizedas “mega-woodlands” by Riley and Mohr (1994) and provide an important refuge for area andedge sensitive species. In recognition of its large size, and ecological significance, SWCL hasbeen identified as one of the core areas for Carolinian Canada’s Big Picture - Cores andConnections project. In keeping with this designation, 30 species of forest-interior, and 50species of area-sensitive, birds presently breed in SWCL.

The extensive tracts of cultural forest and plantations at SWCL are linked by forest corridors toBackus Woods ANSI, Turkey Point Provincial Park, Turkey Point Marshes ANSI, SpookyHollow ANSI, and Fisher’s Glen. Class I and II Wetlands on the Nursery Tract are linked byforest and riparian corridors to provincially significant wetland complexes on the easternperiphery of the tract.

The savanna communities at SWCL are represented by a rich assemblage of plants, insects andreptiles with prairie/savanna affinity. The trophic and taxonomic diversity of these elementsgreatly enhances the ecological value and function of these communities.

Ingrown savanna habitat at St. Williams is associated with fresh to moist soils that may facilitatethe re-introduction and survival of extirpated Lepidoptera, such as the Karner Blue and FrostedElfin butterflies. The early senescence of Wild Lupine on dry sites during summer droughtplaces double brood species at risk, owing to the scarcity of food plants for larvae of the secondbrood. The thinning of forest cover and the planting of lupine on fresh soils at the edge of sanddunes may provide an important refuge for these taxa during periods of drought stress.

Special Features

St. Williams Crown Land provides habitat for nationally, provincially and regionally rare plants,birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects. Several species are presently classified asCOSEWIC Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern.

1) National Significance:· St. Williams provides breeding habitat for Acadian Flycatcher (COSEWIC Endangered),

Hooded Warbler (COSEWIC Threatened), Red-Shouldered Hawk (COSEWIC SpecialConcern), Cerulean Warbler (COSEWIC Special Concern), Louisiana Waterthrush(COSEWIC Special Concern), and Red-Headed Woodpecker (COSEWIC Special

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


48

Concern). The population of Hooded Warbler at St. Williams is the largest in Canada. St.Williams formerly provided habitat for locally extirpated Northern Bobwhite (COSEWICEndangered) (Mary E. Gartshore).

· St. Williams provides habitat for American Badger (COSEWIC Endangered), SouthernFlying Squirrel (COSEWIC Special Concern), Woodland Vole (COSEWIC SpecialConcern).

· St. Williams provides habitat for Eastern Fox Snake (COSEWIC Threatened), EasternHognose Snake (COSEWIC Threatened), Black Rat Snake (COSEWIC Threatened),Jefferson Salamander (COSEWIC Threatened), and Spotted Turtle (COSEWIC SpecialConcern).

· St. Williams provides habitat for four species for which COSEWIC Recovery Plans havebeen established (Hooded Warbler, Acadian Flycatcher, Black Rat Snake, and KarnerBlue Butterfly).

. St. Williams is one of two sites in Ontario with historic populations of the Karner Bluebutterfly (COSEWIC Extirpated) and the only known site for Frosted Elfin butterfly(COSEWIC Extirpated). These species, and Persius Duskywing butterfly, were last seenat SWCL in 1989. St. Williams also provides habitat for Monarch Butterfly (COSEWICSpecial Concern).

· St. Williams is the only known locality in Canada for five species of bees: Sphecodesaroniae, Lasioglossum ceanothi, Megachile mucida, Andrena macoupinensis, Dufoureamaginata. It is one of two sites in Canada for Sphecodes heraclei, Mellinus bimaculatus,and Dipogon brevis brevis.

· St. Williams provides habitat for important populations of Spotted Wintergreen(COSEWIC Endangered), American Ginseng (COSEWIC Endangered), Virginia Goat’s-Rue (COSEWIC Endangered), American Chestnut (COSEWIC Threatened), and Bird’s-foot Violet (COSEWIC Threatened). The population of Spotted Wintergreen at SWCL isthe largest in Canada, one of only three.

· St. Williams provides habitat for 34 vascular plants that are listed as rare in Canada(Argus and Pryer 1990): Arrow-feather Three-Awn, Pawpaw, Fern- leaved FalseFoxglove, Rugulose Grape Fern, Side-oats Gramma, Ribbed Sedge, Pignut Hickory,American Chestnut, Spotted Wintergreen, Autumn Coral-root, Dodge’s Hawthorn,Round-leaved Tick-trefoil, Forked Panic Grass, Panic Grass, Yellow Mandarin,Engleman’s Spike-rush, Hairy Bedstraw, Hairy Pinweed, Tulip Tree, Wild Lupine,Stalked Water-horehound, Woodland Satin Grass, Slender Satin Grass, Black Gum,American Ginseng, Moss Phlox, Slender Knotweed, Dwarf Chinquapin Oak, ShiningSumac, Waxy Meadow-rue, Forked Blue-curls, Perfoliate Bellwort, Early Blue Violet,

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


49

and Bird’s-foot Violet.

2) Provincial Significance:· St. Williams provides habitat for four species of birds (S1-S3) that are not classified as

COSEWIC Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern: Tufted Titmouse (S2S3),Prairie Warbler (S3S4), Carolina Wren (S3S4), and White-eyed Vireo (S2).

· St. Williams is the sole locality in Ontario for at least six of bees and wasps (Andrenathaspi, Hyaleus gaigei, Hylaeus illinoisensis, Osmia pumila, Osmia albiventris, Nomadacuneata), two species of beetle (Anisodactylus merula, Carabus goryi), and one robberfly (Diogmites basalis).

· St. Williams provides habitat for at least seven insects considered to be very rare inOntario (Packer et al. 2001): Spechodes heraclei (bee),(Halictus parallelus (bee),Mellinus bimaculatus (wasp), Elater abruptus (beetle), Cicindela lepida (beetle),Atlanticus monticola (katydid), Pseudopomala brachyptera (grasshopper), andChariesterui antennator (bug).

· St. Williams provides habitat for 48 provincially rare vascular plants (S1-S3). Thepopulation of Woodland Satin Grass (S1) is believed to be one of the largest in Ontario, ifnot the largest; the population of Perfoliate Bellwort (S1) is the second largest in Ontario.The population of Sun Sedge (S1) is the only site in southern Ontario; the population ofArrow-feather Three-awn (S1) is the only occurrence east of Windsor where the largestand only other populations in Canada are found. The population of Forked Blue-curls(S1) is the only apparently native occurrence in Canada.

3) Regional Significance· St. Williams provides habitat for 42 species of vascular plants that are rare (R1-R5) in

Norfolk County; 18 of these species are also rare in Ontario. Seven species are foundonly at the SWCL (R1): Arrow-feather Three-awn, Ontario Aster, Pawpaw, Wild Indigo,Sun Sedge, Hairy Wood Lettuce, and Forked Blue-curls.

4) Ontario History· St. Williams Crown Land is the site of the first provincial forest station in Ontario.

5) Scientific Research· St. Williams is the site of a breeding bird census plot established by Bird Studies Canada

to assess the consequences of alternative forest harvesting methods in southern Ontario.It is also the site of a major research program for Hooded Warbler.

· St. Williams is the site of a long term forest bird monitoring study conducted by theCanadian Wildlife Service.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


50

· St. Williams is the permanent site of the Ontario Forest Research Institute’s soft pine andspruce archives, and an important site of ongoing forest research projects.

· St. Williams is the site of a University of McMaster study to explore the carbonsequestration potential of planted conifer forests in southern Ontario.

· The Turkey Point Tract is the site of three arboreta established by the St. Williams ForestStation.

4.2 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The natural heritage values associated with SWCL are significant at the national, provincial andregional level. Certain conditions and land uses, however, are not compatible with the long-termpersistence of significant natural features and communities. A summary of recommendedmanagement actions to protect existing natural heritage values is presented in Table 10.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


51

Table 10. Management considerations. Legend: NT=Nursery Tract, MT=Manestar Tract, TPT=Turkey Point Tract

Management Action ELC Polygon

1. OAK SAVANNA HABITAT

a) Delineate, rehabilitate and restore oak savanna habitat, by:(i) preparing,testing and refining a staged restoration and management plan thataddresses both plant and animal concerns.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 46, 47, 48,50, 51, 53, 58, 62, 63, 65,68, 70, 74, 75, 94, 95, 96,97, 99, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 116,118,168,169, 172,173, 174 (NT); 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 (MT); 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16,19, 20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 37, 38,39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58,60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 75, 79, 84, 99(TPT)

b) Rehabilitate and restore ingrown oak savanna, by: (i) retaining the older,larger, oak trees and selectively removing the stems of regenerating RedMaple and Black Cherry; (ii) conducting controlled burns, at lowerindices and on marginal habitat (to avoid damaging remnant arthropodpopulations), where appropriate; (iii) augmenting and enriching thecomposition of savanna plants by seeding in species from adjacent sites;(iv) re-introducing extirpated plants and animals, where appropriate,using a recovery planning process; (v) monitoring results and adaptingmanagement practices accordingly.

29, 42, 104,110, 112, 169 (NT); 76, 77, 78, 80, 85,87, 88, 89 (MT); 4, 12, 30, 63, 68, 71 (TPT).

c) Rehabilitate and restore under-planted oak savanna, by: (i) retainingregenerating oak saplings and larger diameter oaks; (ii) removingplanted conifers and stems of regenerating Red Maple and Black

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58,62, 63, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102,

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


52

Table 10. Management considerations (cont’d).


c) Cherry; (iii) conducting controlled burns, at lower indices and onmarginal habitat (to avoid damaging remnant arthropod populations),where appropriate; (iv) augmenting and enriching the composition ofsavanna plants by seeding in species from adjacent sites; (v) re-introducingextirpated plants and animals, where appropriate, using a recovery planningprocess; (vi) monitoring results and adapting management practicesaccordingly.

168, 174 (NT); 82 (MT); 8, 39, 41, 62 (TPT).

d) Rehabilitate and restore furrow-planted oak savanna, by: (i) harvestingplanted conifers according to an ecosystem restoration plan; (ii)retaining regenerating oak saplings and trees; (iii) identifying andprotecting rare species and conservative indicators of prairie/savannaaffinity prior to, and during, management activities; (iv) monitoring rarespecies and conservative indicators to ensure that remnant populationsare not extirpated due to declining light levels; (v) re-introducingextirpated plants and animals, where appropriate, using a recoveryplanning process; vi) monitoring results and adapting managementpractices accordingly.

11, 31, 50, 106, 116, 118 (NT); 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 31, 38, 40, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60,61, 65, 66, and 73 (TPT).

e) Protect natural heritage values associated with plantations not restoredto savanna conditions, by: (i) managing species composition towardsmixed stands and for natural heritage values.

Plantations in (d); 12, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117,119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129,130, 131, 132, 134, 144, 150, 156, 158, 160, 166, 172,173, 175 (NT); 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 44, 47, 55, 56, 64, 67, 74, 76, 93, 96,97, 98 (TPT).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


53



2. MANESTAR TRACT

a) a) Protect the natural heritage values associated with the Manestar Tract, by:(i) updating, finalizing, and implementing the Draft Management Strategy(Allen 1992);(ii) monitoring results and adapting management practicesaccordingly.

76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,90, 91, 92, 93 (MT).

3. RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

a) Maintain, enhance, and where appropriate, re-introduce, populations of rare,threatened, endangered, and extirpated species, by: (i) implementing recoveryplans established for Acadian Flycatcher, Hooded Warbler, Black Rat Snake,Karner Blue Butterfly, Spotted Wintergreen and American Chestnut; (ii)implementing recovery plans as new species enter the Recovery PlanningProcess; (iii) developing monitoring programs and conservation plans for allother provincially rare species.

Mapped locations of rare, threatened and endangeredspecies are shown in Figures 24, 25, 26, 27.

4. CLASS I AND II WETLANDS

a) Protect the integrity of wetland features and natural processes in PSWs Class I,II, III wetlands, by: (i) adopting a no-cutting policy in treed wetlands; (ii)initiating a study to determine the effect of water level management on theClass I wetlands upstream of check dam on Dedrick’s Creek; (iii) monitoringfuture actions by Norfolk County to operate and maintain the ThirdConcession Municipal Drain.

22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 137, 139, 140(Class I Wetland; NT); 133, 161, 162, 163 (Class IIWetland; NT).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


54



5. NATURAL FORESTS AND SWAMPS

a) Protect the natural heritage values associated with natural forests and swamps,by: (i) leaving stands to mature and undergo natural succession.

22, 27, 28, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 56, 57, 60, 66, 109, 142,143, 154, 155,157, 159, 164, 165, 167, 171 (NT); 83, 84,86, 92, 93 (MT); 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88,89, 94, 95, 99, 100 (TPT).

6. CULTURAL FORESTS ON MOIST TO WET SOILS

a) Protect the natural heritage values associated with cultural forests on moist towet soils, by: (i) maintaining habitat requirements for forest interior and areasensitive birds; (ii) leaving planted pine stems to mature and be replaced bynatural succession; (iii) managing stands heavily under-planted with White orNorway Spruce towards a mixed species composition and for natural heritagevalues; (iv) assessing the suitability of fresh inter-dune depressions for the re-introduction of extirpated lupine feeders, such as the Karner Blue and FrostedElfin, and Persius Dusky Wing butterflies.

25, 26, 32, 49, 52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 73, 75,98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 113, 138, 141,142,145, 146, 147,148, 149, 151, 153, 170 (NT).

7. FOREST RESEARCH PLOTS AND ARBORETA

a) Protect forest research and natural heritage values associated with forestresearch plots and arboreta, by: (i) retaining experimental plantations, forestresearch plots, genetic archives, and forest arboreta; (ii) monitoringpopulations of provincially rare species to ensure that species are notextirpated by research or management activities, or by declining light levels.Particular attention should be given to populations of very rare Arrow-featherThree-awn, Side Oats Gramma, Sun Sedge, and Forked Blue-curls.

Experimental plantations, forest research plots, geneticarchives: 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 65, 80, 81, 82,83, 84, 90, 91, 92 (TPT); arboreta: 9, 37, 67, 75 (TPT).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


55



8. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

a) Encourage research, monitoring and educational programs compatible with theprotection and restoration of natural heritage values, by: (i) establishingresearch, collecting and reporting protocols for all scientific research;(ii) maintaining an archive of reports and published papers.

All polygons

9. RECREATION

a) Protect the integrity of natural heritage features and vegetationcommunities while providing for recreational activities for all-terrainvehicles, by: (i) providing adequate resources and staffing to enforcepolicies and regulations regarding all terrain vehicles; (ii) closing all fireroads and trails with access to ravine lands and to the Manestar Tract, todirt bikes and other ATVs; (iii) closing trails in the vicinity of sensitivespecies, such as rare nesting birds and badger dens.

39, 96, 112 (NT); 68, 70, 86, 88 (TPT)

b) Protect the integrity of natural heritage features and vegetationcommunities while providing opportunities for recreational hunting, by:(i) retaining recreational hunting for White-tailed Deer and WildTurkey; (ii) developing a education program to inform recreationalusers of the importance and sensitivity of natural heritage featuresassociated with their activity; (iii) educating and involving all forestusers in the protection and restoration of habitats as volunteers underconservation plans.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


56



10. SAND EXTRACTION

a) Protect the integrity of savanna habitat and existing populations of rare speciesand conservative prairie/savanna indicators, by; (i) terminating sand extractionactivities.

118 (NT)

11. INVASIVE EXOTICS

a) Protect the integrity of natural heritage features and communities, by: (i)developing management protocols for the most serious invasive species; (ii) atpresent, target populations of Spotted Knapweed, Garlic Mustard, Celandine,Autumn Olive, Multiflora Rose and Tartarian Honeysuckle and other speciesfor appropriate vegetative management practices and control techniques; (iii)monitoring results and adapting management practices accordingly.

Spotted Knapweed: 91 (NT); Garlic Mustard: 4,16,17,135, 138, 142 (NT); abundant: 76, 77, 80, 88, 91,92; present: 45, 47, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 78, 79, 81,93, 94, 95 (TPT); Celandine: abundant: 18, 21, 26, 28;present 9, 13, 19, 23, 24, 31, 47, 64, 76, 90 (TPT)

12. DISEASES

a) Protect the important and unique insect fauna at St. Williams Crown Land, by:(i) controlling future outbreaks of Gypsy Moth by methods that are specific toGypsy Moth and do not pose a risk to the unique insect fauna at St. Williams.Develop a scientific review process for any contemplated spray program

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


57

GLOSSARY

Adventive: An alien or introduced plantgrowing without human aid or intervention.

Alien: An organism that has originated inanother region and is not native to the area inquestion.

Alluvial Deposit: a mineral material depositedby flowing water, usually sands, silts andgravels.

Association: A plant community of definite orknown composition with discrete boundaries,presenting a uniform physiognomy and growingin uniform habitat conditions.

Barren: Open sites on bedrock orunconsolidated material, such as sand, where themajor limiting factor is drought.

Canopy: The aerial branches of terrestrialplants together with their complement of leaves.Said to be a complete canopy when the ground iscompletely hidden by the leaves when viewedfrom above (Curtis, 1959).

Co-dominant: Two or more species whichshare, more or less equally, the greatestimportance in the community (see Dominant).

Coefficient of Conservatism: the degree offaithfulness that a plant displays to a specifichabitat or set of environmental conditions;expressed in relation to a 10 point scale (Oldhamet al. 1995).

Community: A naturally occurring group ofdifferent organisms that live and interact withone another.

Complex: Two or more ecosites or vegetationtypes that are too small to be mapped at the levelof resolution being employed.Conservative: In this study, a plant with astrong affinity for prairie/savanna habitats; aspecies that has a Coefficient of Conservatismvalue of 8, 9 or 10 (Oldham et al. 1995). Alsoused to characterize an animal that has narrow orspecialized habitat requirements.

Continuum: Refers to stands in a community orlarger vegetation unit that are not segregated intodiscrete, objectively discernable, sub-units butrather form a continuously varying series(Curtis, 1959).

COSEWIC: Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada.

Cultural Community: A vegetation communityoriginating from, or maintained by, humaninfluences and culturally based disturbances;often containing a large proportion of non-nativespecies (Lee et al. 1998).

Cultural Forest: A natural forest stand that hasbeen under-planted with conifer trees by cuttinga small opening in the forest floor and planting aconifer seedling. The forest canopy may or maynot have been thinned to permit solar radiationto reach the forest floor. At St. Williams, BlackOak and diseased or defective trees may havebeen cut out prior to planting.

dbh: Diameter at breast height. A foresters'convention for determining the diameter of atree at 1.4 metres above the ground.

Dominance: A measure of the total size,volume, number or mass of the individuals of aparticular species in a particular area.

Dominant: A species which is of greatestimportance in a community through size or othercharacters which enable it to receive the brunt of

external environmental forces and modify thembefore they affect lesser members of thecommunity (Curtis, 1959).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


58

Dry: A soil moisture regime characterized a soilmoisture class of ? or 0, on an 11 point scaleranging from ? to 9(Ontario Institute ofPedology 1985).

Dune: A low hill or ridge of sand that has beensorted and deposited by wind.

Ecodistrict: A subdivision of an ecoregionbased on distinct assemblages of relief, geology,landform, soils, vegetation, water and fauna, andusually mapped at a scale of 1:500,000 to1:125,000. The subdivision is based on distinctphysiographic or geological patterns (Lee et al.1998).

Ecological Land Classification (ELC): astandardized, comprehensive system for thedescription, inventory and interpretation ofterrestrial, wetland and aquatic ecosystems (Leeet al.1998).

Ecoregion: An area characterized by adistinctive regional climate as expressed byvegetation, usually mapped at a scale of1:3,000,000 to 1:1,000,000 (Lee et al. 1998).

Ecosite: A subdivision of an ecodistrict basedon distinctive assemblages of relief, geology,landforms, soils and vegetation, usually mappedat a scale of 1:250,000 to 1:50,000 (Lee et al.1998).

Edaphic: pertaining to the physical, chemical,and biological properties of the soil orsubstratum, which influence the associated biota.

Eolian: Referring to mineral particles movedand sorted by the wind, usually fine sands andcoarse silt. See Dune . (Lee et al. 1998).

Emergent: A plant that has a photosyntheticsurface extending above the normal water level.

Plants that are floating-leaved or submergentbut have reproductive stems above the watersurface are not emergent (Lee et al. 1998).

Floating-leaved: A wetland plant that has itsmajor photosynthetic area floating on the surfaceof the water. Some floating- leaved plants arerooted in the substrate while the leaves float; inother species, the whole plant is completely free-floating, with no attachments. (Lee et al. 1998).

Flora: The entire complement of plant specieswhich grow spontaneously in a particular region.The size of the flora is determined by thenumber of such species and is influenced by thenumber of individuals of each (Curtis, 1959).

Floristic: Having to do with the flora.

Forb: a non-woody ground layer plant which isnot a graminoid or fern; a pasture plant.

Forest: A terrestrial vegetation community witha tree cover ?60% (Lee et al. 1998).

Fresh: A soil moisture regime intermediatebetween dry and moist; soil moisture class 1, 2,or 3, on an 11 point scale ranging from ? to 9(Ontario Institute of Pedology 1985).

Gleying: A soil process characterized by lowoxygen conditions due to waterlogging andproducing a blue-grey colour due to thereduction of iron. If the waterlogging isseasonal rather than permanent the periodicoxidation will give rise to mottles.

Graminoid: Grass-like. A generic term fornarrow-leaved monocot plants with a grass-likemorphology, including grasses, sedges andrushes.

Ground Layer: Stratum of vegetation closestto, and covering the ground. It may becontinuous or patchy to absent. It may includebryophytes, herbs or low shrubs.

Groundwater: Water passing through orstanding in soil and underlying strata. Free to

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


59

move by gravity. (National Wetlands WorkingGroup 1988.)

Hardwood trees: Deciduous broadleaved treeswhich are angiosperms.

Herb: Non-woody vascular plants that are notgraminoids , submergents or floating-leavedplants.

Herpetofauna: Amphibians and reptiles.

Hollow: A wet depression or pool.

Hydric: A general term for soils that developunder conditions of poor drainage in marshes,swamps , seepage areas or flats (Lee et al.1998)

Hydrophytic: Adjective describing any plantthat is able to grow in water or on a substrate atleast periodically deficient in oxygen as a resultof excessive water content (Lee et al. 1998).

Indicator Species: Species, usually plants, usedto indicate an ecological condition, such as soilmoisture or nutrient regime, that is rarelymeasured directly; also, a species that ischaracteristic of a particular vegetative type andrarely found outside it.

Lacustrine: Referring to fresh water lakes;sediments generally consisting of stratified finesand, silt or clay deposits on a lake bed (Lee et.al.1998).

Marsh: A wetland with a mineral or peatsubstrate inundated by nutrient-rich water andcharacterized by emergent vegetation (Lee et.al. 1998).

Meadow Marsh: A wetland which is seasonallyinundated and usually dominated by graminoidsor forbs ; represents the wetland-terrestrialinterface (Lee et al. 1998).

Mesic: Soil moisture regime that is intermediatebetween wet and dry. The mid point of a fivepoint scale of moisture regimes capable ofsupporting forest growth (Maycock, 1979).

Mineral Soil: A soil that is largely composed ofunconsolidated mineral matter. If organicmaterial occurs at the surface, the organicthickness must be <40cm (Lee et al. 1998).

Mixed: A plant community with a mixedcomposition having a similar stature, eachcomponent with a cover >25% but <75% (Lee etal. 1998).

Moist: a soil moisture regime intermediatebetween fresh and wet; moisture class 4,5, or 6on an 11 point scale ranging from ? to 9(Ontario Institute of Soil Pedology 1985).

Mottles: Patches or spots of different colours(usually reddish) in soil at depth. Caused byperiodic water logging producing alternatingoxidation and reduction of iron in the soil. Thedepth of mottles in soils of different types is agood indication of moisture conditions.

Muck: Dark-coloured, waterlogged, organicsoil composed of a mixture of well decomposedmaterial.

Obligate: Adjective referring to an organismwhich can only live within a restricted range ofhabitat conditions.

Occasional: Adjective referring to an organismwhich is found rarely, or as scatteredindividuals, in a community.

Open: Referring to vegetation communitieshaving <10% tree canopy cover and <25% shrubcover (Lee et al. 1998).

Open grown: Referring to trees which have awide crown and low, spreading branches as a

result of having matured in the open, outside aforest.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


60

Organic Soil: Soils of the Organic Order in theCanadian Soil Classification, characterized inpart by deep organic deposits, >40 cm thick (Leeet al. 1998).

Overstorey: The uppermost continuous layer ofa vegetation cover; e.g., the tree canopy in aforest ecosystem or the uppermost layer of athicket community.

Patch: A relatively homogeneous area thatdiffers from its surroundings.

Physiognomy: The character, form and featuresof a plant or community which allow it to bedistinguished from others.

Phytosociological: Referring to a recognizableand repeatable community of interacting plantspecies which occurs across a landscape underthe same conditions.

Propagule: Any part of an organism which,when liberated from the adult form, can give riseto a new individual.

Remnant: A portion or fragment of an originalplant community remaining after the destructionof the bulk of the community (Curtis, 1959).

Riparian: Along the bank of a river or lake.

Savannah: A treed community with 11% to35% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees (Leeet al. 1998).

Secondary: Status of a species which is notdominant or co-dominant, but has greaterimportance than most other species in acommunity.

Senescent: Referring to the period in the life ofa plant, or plant part, between maturity and

death, during which a gradual deteriorationoccurs.

Shrub: Perennial plants usually with more thanone low-branching woody stem including smalltrailing species, e.g. dwarf raspberry, creepingsnowberry, twinflower.

Significant: In this study, a plant community ora population of plant or animal that has beenclassified as having national, provincial orregional significance.

Site: A place or location. Not used here in thespecial sense employed by foresters.

Spring Ephemeral: A ground layer specieswhich produces leaves and flowers before thedevelopment of a leaf canopy by the overstoreyand which senesces shortly thereafter. Mostnumerous in mesic hardwood forests (Curtis,1959).

Stand: A homogeneous example of a plantcommunity. The sampling unit in communitystudies.

Stratum (pl. strata): Layer; a recognizablelayer in the structure of a plant community, forexample. canopy, understorey and ground layer.

Submergent: Plants that normally lie entirelybeneath water. Some species have floweringparts which break water surface. Includesspecies of pondweed with submerged andfloating leaves. (Lee et al. 1998).

Swale: A trough between low ridges.

Swamp: A mineral-rich wetland characterizedby a cover of trees or shrubs >25% anddominated by hydrophytic species (Lee et al.1998).

Tall sedges: Robust sedges which may form thedominant groundlayer vegetation in a wetland,

such as beaked sedge, lake sedge, water sedge,tussock sedge and woolgrass.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


61

Thicket: A terrestrial vegetation type that ischaracterized by <10% tree cover and >25% tallshrub (>2m) cover (Lee et al. 1998).

Tree: Woody plant with a single main stem,usually capable of achieving a height of >5mwhen full grown.

Treed: a community with a tree cover >10%(Lee et.al. 1998).

Understorey: vegetation growing beneath tallerplants such as trees or tall shrubs; In a forest, tallplants under the main canopy, including tallshrubs, small trees and/or saplings of the canopytrees.

UTM Grid: Refers to the Universal TransverseMercator Grid System used by the USA formilitary map projections of the entire worldbetween 80oN and 80oS. Grid lines areequidistant anywhere in the world and aredivided into unique zones. Each zone is sub-divided into 100 km squares. Grid referencescan be used to describe any location to thedesired degree of precision. Six figure gridreferences locate points to the nearest 100 mwithin a known zone and square. 1000 m gridlines are shown on the Canadian topographicalmap series.

Vegetation: The plant communities of a region.Differs from the flora of a region in thatcharacteristics such as composition and structureof the associated plants are considered.

Wet: a soil moisture regime characterized by asoil moisture class of 7, 8, or 9, on an 11 pointscale ranging from ? to 9 (Ontario Institute ofSoil Pedology 1985).

Wetland: Land saturated with water longenough to promote hydric soils or aquaticprocesses as indicated by poorly drained soils,hydrophytic vegetation and various kinds ofbiological activity that are adapted to a wet

environment. This includes shallow watersgenerally <2 m deep. (Lee et al. 1998).

Wetland Complex: A contiguous wetland areaconsisting of several kinds of wetlands,potentially including open water marsh, marsh,swamp, bog and fen.

Woodland: A treed community with 35% to60% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees (Leeet al. 1998).

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


62

REFERENCES

Allen, G.M. 1992. Draft management strategy for Manestar Tract, (St. Williams Dwarf Chestnut Oak Parkland), St. WilliamsCrown Forest. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Allen, G.M., PF.J. Eagles, and S.D.Price. 1990. Conserving Carolinian Canada: Conservation Biology in the Deciduous Forestregion. University of Waterloo Press.

Bakowsky, W. 1997. Southern Ontario Vegetation Communities (Revised Jan. 1997). Natural Heritage Information Centre.

Barnett, P.J. 1978. Quaternary Geology of the Simcoe Area, Southern Ontario. Geoscience Report 162. Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources. Toronto.

Barnett, P.J. 1982. Quaternary Geology of the Tillsonburg Area, Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey Report 220.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto.

Beazely, K.F. 1993. Forested Areas of Long Point: Landscape History and Strategic Planning. Long Point Folio. HeritageResources Centre, University of Waterloo, MSc Thesis, 216 pp.

Barnett, P.J. 1998. Quaternary Geology Long Point - Port Burwell Area. Ontario Geological Survey Report 298. Queen’s Printerfor Ontario.

Bousquet, Y. 1991. Checklist of the beetles of Canada and Alaska. Biosystematics Research Centre. Agriculture Canada,Publication No. 1861/. Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa,

Brown, D.M., G.A. McKay and L.J. Chapman. 1974. The Climate of Southern Ontario. Climatological Studies Number 5.Second Edition. Toronto.

Burwell, M. 1815. “Walsingham. M. Burwell. D.29 November - 24 December 1815". In: Survey Diaries, Field Notes andReports, Box 40, R.G.1 Series CB-1, Ontario Archives, Toronto. Microfiche MS924, Reel 26.

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

Carson, P.J. 1987. Annotated Checklist to the Butterflies of Haldimand-Norfolk. In: M.E. Gartshore, D.A.Sutherland, J.DMcCracken. 1987. The Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk.Norfolk FieldNaturalists, Simcoe. Volume II.

Carson, P.J. 1991. A Survey of Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) and Frosted Elfin Butterflies (Incisalia irus) inSt.Williams Forestry Station. Unpublished report to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Simcoe.

Carson, P.J. 1994. A Survey of Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) and Frosted Elfin Butterflies (Incisalia irus) in St.Williams Forestry Station. Unpublished report to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Simcoe.

Chanasyk, V. 1970. Haldimand-Norfolk Environmental Appraisal. Volume 2 / Synthesis and Recommendations. OntarioMinistry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey,Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Government of Ontario.

Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario. Unpublished Bird Studies Canada Report. PortRowan, Ontario.

Crins, W.J. and P.S.G. Kor. 2000. Natural Heritage Gap Analysis Methodologies Used by the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources. Draft 6, January 2000. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lands and Natural Heritage Branch, NaturalHeritage Section, Peterborough ON.

Cruise, J.E. and P.M. Catling. 1969. Dwarf Oak Parkland: Survey of J.E. Cruise and P.M. Catling, August, 1969 for InternationalBiological Program.

Department of Lands and Forests. 1963. Big Creek Region Conservation Report. Conservation Authorities Branch.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


63

Department of Militia and Defence. 1909. Topographic Map, Ontario, Long Point Sheet. Scale 1:63,360. Surveyed 1904, Revised1908.

Dewar, H.J., C.L. Furlonger and M.B. Fenton. 1984. A Survey of Bats of The Carolinian Zone of Ontario. Unpublished reportto World Wildlife Fund.

DeZwart, J. and M. Bacro. 1987. Wetland Data Record and Evaluation - DYC4 (St. Williams Wetland). Second Edition. June 30- July 8, 1987. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Manuscript. 3 pp + map + 15 pp supplement.

Eagles, P.F.J. and T.J. Beechey. 1985. Critical Unprotected Natural Areas in the Carolinian Life Zone of Canada. The NatureConservancy of Canada, The Ontario Heritage Foundation, World Wildlife Fund.

Energy Mines and Resources Canada. 1990a. Canadian Climatic Regions Thornwaite Classification Moisture Regions. NationalAtlas Information Service, Geographical Services Division, Canada Centre for Mapping. Ottawa.

Energy Mines and Resources Canada. 1990b. Canadian Climatic Regions Thornwaite Classification Thermal Efficiency Regions.National Atlas Information Service, Geographical Services Division, Canada Centre for Mapping. Ottawa.

Environment Canada. 1980. Canadian Climate Normals, Temperature and Precipitation, 1951-1980, Ontario. Canadian ClimateProgram, Atmospheric Environment Service.

Fox, W.A. The Middle to Late Woodland Transition. In: Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (eds.). 1990. The Archaeology of SouthernOntario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Paper of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. pp 171-188.

Fox, W.S. and J.H. Soper. 1952. The Distribution of some Trees and Shrubs of the Carolinian Zone of Southern Ontario.Reprinted from the Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, Vol. XXIX, Part II, October, 1952.

Fox, W.S. and J.H. Soper. 1953. The Distribution of some Trees and Shrubs of the Carolinian Zone of Southern Ontario. Part II.Reprinted from the Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, Vol. XXX, Part I, 1953.

Fox, W.S. and J.H. Soper. 1954. The Distribution of some Trees and Shrubs of the Carolinian Zone of Southern Ontario. Part III.Reprinted from the Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, Vol. XXX, Part II, 1954.

Freemark, K.E. and H.G. Merriam. 1986. Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forestfragments. Biological Conservation 36 (1986) 115-141.

Freemark, K.E. and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments. In. J.M. Hagan III andD.W. Johnson. 1992. Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington.

Freemark, K.E., J.B. Dunning, S.J. Hejl, and J.R. Probst. 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for research, conservation andmanagement.. In. T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch (eds). Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds.Oxford University Press, New York. pp.381-427.

Friesen, L., M.D. Cadman, P.J. Carson, K.Elliott, M.E. Gartshore, D. Martin, J.D. McCracken, P. Prevett, B. Stutchbury, D.A.Sutherland and A. Woodliffe. 2000. National Recovery Plan for Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), HoodedWarbler (Wilsonia citrina). National Recovery Plan No. 20. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW).Ottawa, Ontario.

Gartshore, M.E. 1987a. Annotated Checklist to the Mammals of Haldimand-Norfolk. In: M.E. Gartshore, D.A.Sutherland, J.DMcCracken. 1987. The Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, Norfolk FieldNaturalists, Simcoe. Vol II.

Gartshore, M.E. 1987b. Annotated Checklist to the Herpetofauna of Haldimand-Norfolk. In: M.E. Gartshore, D.A.Sutherland,J.D McCracken. 1987. The Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. NorfolkField Naturalists, Simcoe. Vol II.

Gartshore, M.E. and D.A. Sutherland. 1999. St. Williams Forestry Station - St.Williams and Turkey Point Tracts NaturalHeritage Information Sheet, prepared for first public meeting November 1999, Norfolk Field Naturalists.

Gartshore, M.E., D.A. Sutherland, J.D. McCracken. 1987. Final Report of the Natural Areas Inventory of the RegionalMunicipality of Haldimand-Norfolk 1985-86. The Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


64

Gartshore, M.E. and D.A. Sutherland. 1999. St. Williams Forestry Station - St. Williams and Turkey Point Tracts NaturalHeritage Information Sheet prepared for first public meeting November 1999. Norfolk Field Naturalists. Simcoe.

Goodwin, C.E. 1977. Rare and threatened birds of Canada. In T. Mosquin and C. Suchal (eds.). Canada’s Threatened Speciesand Habitats. Proc.Symp. Special Publication No.6. Canadian Nature Federation. Ottawa.

Gourlay, R. 1822. Statistical Account of Upper Canada. Volume 1. Simpkin and Marshall Stationers Court. London. Reprinted in1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.

Hambly, W. 1796. “Walsingham, W.Hambly, D.30 November 1795 - 16 May 1796". In: Survey Diaries, Field Notes andReports, Box 39, R.G.1 Series CB-1, Ontario Archives, Toronto. Microfiche MS924, Reel 26.

Herms, C.P. D.G McCullough, L.S.Baue, R.A.Haack, D.L.Miller and N.R. Dubois. 1997. Susceptibility of the endangeredKarner Blue butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstak i used for Gypsy Mothsuppression in Michigan. The Great Lakes Entomologist 30: 125 - 141.

Hess, Q.F. 1980. Butterflies of Ontario and Summaries of Lepidoptera Encountered in Ontario in 1980. Toronto EntomologicalAssociation. Toronto. Occasional Publication No. ____.

Hewitt, D.F. and E.B. Freeman. 1978. Rocks and Minerals of Ontario. Geological Circular 13. Department of Mines andNorthern Affairs. Toronto, Ontario.

Hills, G.A. 1959. A Ready Reference to the Description of the Land of Ontario and its Productivity. Ontario Department ofLands and Forests. Maple.

Homoya, M.A. 1994. Indiana Barrens: Classification and Description. Castanea 59: 204-213.

Kirk, D.A. 1988. A Life Science Inventory of South Walsingham Sand Ridges Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. Part II:The Inventory Report . Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Simcoe.

Knerer, G. and C. E. Atwood. 1962. An annotated check list of the non-parasitic Halictidae (Hymenoptera) of Ontario.Proceedings of the Entomolgical Society of Ontario. 92: 160-176.

Kurczewski, F.E. 1998. Distribution, staus,evaluation and recommendations for the protection of Tachysphex pechumaniKrombein, the Antennal-waving Wasp. Natural Areas Journal 18: 242-254.

Kurczewski, F.E. 2000. History of White Pine (Pinus strobus)/oak(Quercus spp.) Savanna in Southern Ontario, with particularreference to the biogeography and status of the Antenna-waving Wasp, Tachysphex pechumani (Hymenoptera:Sphecidae). The Canadian Field-Naturalist 114: 1-20.

Lambert A.B. and R.B.H. Smith 1985. Status Report on the Prairie Warbler Dendroiica discolor. COSEWIC Status Report.

Landon, M. 1960. Vascular Plants of Norfolk County, Ontario. Big Creek Conservation Authority. Simcoe.

Leach, M.K. and T.J. Givinish. 1999. Gradients in the composition, structure and diversity of remnant oak savannas in southernWisconsin. Ecological Monographs 69: 353-374.

Lee, H., W.Bakowsky, J.Riley, J.Bowles, M.Puddister, P.Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification forSouthern Ontario, First Approximation and Its Application. SCSS Field Guide FG-O2 September 1998. OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, North Bay,ON.

Lindsay, K.M. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site Region 7-2 West of the Haldimand Clay Plain.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Areas Section, Southwestern Region. London.

MacKay, P.A. and G. Knerer. 1979. Seasonal occurrence and abundance in a community of wild bees from an old field habitatin southern Ontario. Canadian Entomologist. 111: 367-376.

Madany, M.H. 1978. A floristic survey of savannas in Illinois. In: Stuckey, R.L. and K.J. Reese (eds.). 1981. The PrairiePeninsula - In the “Shadow” of Transeau: Proceedings of the Sixth North American Prairie Conference, The Ohio State

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


65

University, Columbus Ohio, 12-17 August 1978. College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University.Columbus, Ohio. pp. 177-181.

McCraken, J.D. 1987. Annotated Checklist to the Birds of Haldimand-Norfolk. In: Gartshore, M.E., D.A. Sutherland, J.D.McCracken. 1987. Final Report of the Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk1985-86 Volume II. Annotated Checklists. The Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario.

McCracken, J.D., D. Martin, I. Bisson, M. Gartshore and R. Knapton. 1998. 1998 Surveys of Acadian Flycatchers and HoodedWarblers in Ontario. unpublished report to Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region and Environment Canada Action21 Program, Bird Studies Canada. Port Rowan.

McKay, S.M. and P.M. Catling. 1979. Trees, Shrubs and Flowers to Know in Ontario. J.M. Dent and Sons (Canada) Ltd.

McKenzie. M.F. 1991. Management of Manestar Property Carolinian Canada Site. Meeting notes 12 March 1991. Ministry ofNatural Resources. Simcoe.

Moss, M.R. and P.L. Hosking. 1983. Forest Associations in Extreme Southern Ontario ca. 1817: a Bibliographical Analysis ofGourlay’s Statistical Account. Canadian Geographer XXVII: 184-193.

Mutrie, R.R. 1988. St. Williams: The History. Second Ave. Printing Limited. Simcoe.

Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray, M.J. Oldham. Ontario Plant List. Forest Research Paper No. 123.Ontario Forest Research Institute. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Sault Ste. Marie, ON.

Nicholson J.P. 1990. An Evaluation of the Carolinian Canada Program. J.P. Nicholson, Policy and Management Consultants.

Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and status of midwest oak savanna, presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal. 6: 6-36.

Oldham, M.J. 1987. Background report: Natural values/significant features St. Williams Forest integrated resource plan, Draft.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Aylmer.

Oldham, M.J. 1993. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Southwestern Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources,Aylmer District Office.

Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for Southern Ontario. OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, ON.

Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs, 1972. Map 2226, Physiography of the South Central Portion of SouthernOntario. Scale: 1:253,440.

Ontario Institute of Pedology. 1985. Field Manual for Describing Soils in Ontario. 4th Edition. Ontario Centre for Soil ResourceEvaluation. Publication No. 93-1.

Owen, E.A. 1898. Pioneer Sketches of Long Point Settlement or Norfolk’s Foundation Builders and Their Family Genealogies.William Briggs. Toronto. Reprint Edition. 1972. Mika Silk Screening Limited, Belleville.

Packer, L. 1987a. The status of three butterflies, Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), Frosted Elfin (Incisalia irus), andDusted Skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna), restricted to oak savannah in Ontario. Unpublished report to World WildlifeFund and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Packer, L. 1987b. Status report on some rare lepidopteran species in southern Ontario. World wildlife Fund and Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources.

Packer, L. 1987c. Status report on the Karner Blue Butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelisc Nabokov, in Canada. A reportprepared for the World Wildlife Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Packer, L., J. Grixti, H. Douglas, J. Janjic, R. Sellars, and M. Sommers. 2001. Insect Survey of Tall-Grass Prairie in SouthernOntario With Particular Reference to the Bees of the Manestar Tract. Unpublished report to Tallgrass Ontario, WorldWildlife Fund under the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Living Legacy.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


66

Packard, S. 1986. Rediscovering the tallgrass savanna of Illinois. In: Davis, A. and G. Stanford (eds). 1988. The Prairie: Roots ofOur Culture; Foundations of our Economy. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Prairie Conference of TexasWoman’s University, Denton, Texas, June 22-26, 1986. Native Prairie Association of Texas. Dallas Texas.

Panzer, R. 1988. Managing prairie remnants for insect conservation. The Natural Areas Journal. 8: 83-90.

Panzer, R., D. Stillwaugh, R. Gnaedinger, and G. Derkovitz. 1995. Prevalence of remnant dependence among prairie inhabitinginsects of the Chicago region. The Natural Areas Journal. 15: 101-116.

Panzer, R. and M.W. Schwartz, 1998. Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. ConservationBiology . 12: 693-702.

Pearce, B.M. 1973. Historical Highlights of Norfolk County. New Expanded Edition. Volume Two. Griffin and RichmondCompany Ltd. Hamilton.

Pearce, C.M. 1993. Coping with forest fragmentation in southwestern Ontario. In: S.M. Poser, W.J. Crins, T.J. Beechey (eds).Size and Integrity Standards for Natural Heritage Areas in Ontario. Provincial Parks and Natural Heritage PolicyBranch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer.

Presant, E.W. and C.J. Acton. 1984. The Soils of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. Report No. 57. of the OntarioInstitute of Pedology (Two Volumes). Land Resource Research Institute, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.Guelph.

Randall, J.S. 1877a. Map of the Township of Walsingham. In: Historical Atlas of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, Ontario.Illustrated. H.R. Page Co. 1877, 1879.

Randall, J.S. 1877b. Map of the Township of Charlotteville. In: Historical Atlas of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, Ontario.Illustrated. H.R. Page Co. 1877, 1879.

Reznicek, A.A. 1994. The Disjunct Coastal Plain Flora in the Great Lakes Region. Biological Conservation 68: 203-215.

Reznicek, A.A. and P.M. Catling. 1989. Flora of Long Point, Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, Ontario. MichiganBotantist 28: 99-175.

Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region. Richmond Hill.

Rodger, L. 1998. Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario, A Recovery Plan. Prepared by Lindsay Rodger for World WildlifeFund Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. World Wildlife Fund, Toronto.

Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Canadian Forestry Service Publication No. 1300. Department of Fisheries and theEnvironment. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Szeicz, J.M. and G.M. MacDonald. 1991. Postglacial vegetation history of oak savanna in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal ofBotany. 69: 1507-1519.

Sugar, A., A.Finnamore, H. Goulet, J. Cumming, J.T. Kerr, M. De Giusti and L. Packer. 1998. A preliminary survey ofsympytan and aculeate Hymenoptera from oak savannahs in southern Ontario. Proceedings of the EntomologicalSociety of Ontario 129: 9-18.

Soper, J.H. 1956. Some Families of Restricted Range in the Carolinian Flora of Canada. Reprinted from the Transactions of theRoyal Canadian Institute Vol. XXXI, Part II, 1956.

Soper, J.H. 1962. Some Genera of Restricted Range in the Carolinian Flora of Canada. Reprinted from the Transactions of theRoyal Canadian Institute, Part I, 1962.

Soper, J.H. and M.L. Heimburger. Shrubs of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto.

Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C.R. Murphy. 1990. Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In: Ellis, C.J.and N. Ferris (eds.). 1990. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Paper of the LondonChapter, OAS Number 5. pp 125-170.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


67

Stothers, D.M. 1972. A Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey of Turkey Point Provincial Park, County of Norfolk,Charlotteville Township.

Sugar,A., A.Finnamore, H. Goulet, J. Cumming, J.T. Kerr, M. De Giusti and L. Packer. 1998. A preliminary survey ofsympytan and aculeate Hymenoptera from oak savannahs in southern Ontario. Proceedings of the EntomologicalSociety of Ontario.129: 9-18.

Sutherland, D.A. 1987. Annotated Checklist of the Plants of Haldimand-Norfolk. In: Gartshore, M.E., D.A. Sutherland, J.D.McCracken. 1987. Final Report of the Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk1985-86. The Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario.

Sutherland, D.A. and W.D. Bakowsky. 1995. Biological Inventory and Evaluation of the Manestar Tract, St. Williams Forest,Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Municipality and the Lambton Wildlife Inc., Karner Blue Sanctuary, Port Franks,Lambton County, Ontario. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario.

Thompson, K, J.P. Bakker and R.M. Bekker. 1997. The Soil Seed Banks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density andLongevity. Cambridge University Press. New York.

Umlah, J. and J. Haggeman. 1996. Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record - DYC9. Third Edition(March). August 7, 16, 24, 27 and September 13, 1990. Desktop Update. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Manuscript. 41 pp. + 1 map.

Umlah, J., J. DeZwart and M. Bacro. 1996. Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record - St. WilliamsWetland (DYC4). Third Edition (March). June 30 and July 6-8, 1987. Desktop Update. Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources. Manuscript. 41 pp. + 3pp supplement.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1924. Natural Vegetation. In: Atlas of American Agriculture.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Technical/Agency DraftRecovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

Uyeno, T.T., P.G. Telford, and B.V. Sanford. 1982. Devonian conodonts and stratigraphy of southwestern Ontario. GeologicalSurvey of Canada, Bulletin 332.

Varga, S. 1986. Vegetation Inventory of Backus Woods. Final Report submitted to the Backus Woods Management Committee.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources / Ontario Heritage Foundation.

Vickery, V.R. and D.K.M. Kevan. 1993. The Insects and Arachnids of Canada Part 14: The Grasshoppers, Crickets and RelatedInsects of Canada and Adjacent Regions. Biosystematics Research Institute. Agriculture Canada Publication No. 1777,Ottawa.

von Bitter, R. 2001. Personal communication 6 April 2001 from Robert von Bitter, Archaeological Data Co-ordinator, HeritageOperations Unit, Heritage and Libraries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, 4th Floor, 400University Avenue, Toronto ON, M7A 2R9.

Wallace, B., and J.D. McCracken. 1995. A Survey of the Breeding Birds of St. Williams Provincial Forest Station. Unpublishedreport prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Long Point Bird Observatory. Port Rowan.

Welch, T. 1797. “Charlotteville. T. Welch. D.1 Jan. - 30 June 1797.” In: Survey Diaries, Field Notes and Reports, Box 6, R.G.1Series CB-1, Ontario Archives, Toronto. Microfiche MS924, Reel 5.

Will-Wolf, S. and F. Stearns. 1999. Dry Soil Oak Savanna in the Great Lakes Region. In: Anderson, R.C., J.S. Fralish, and J.M.Baskin (eds.). 1999. Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Williamson, R.F. 1990. The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In: Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (eds.). 1990. TheArchaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Paper of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. pp. 291-320.

Woods, F.W. and R.E. Shanks. 1959. Natural replacement of Chestnut by other species in the Great Smoky Mountains NationalPark. Ecology 40: 349-361.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


68

Wright, P.J. 1972. The 1975 Archaeological Survey of Turkey Point Provincial Park.

Wynia, A. 1990. St. Williams Forest Station Resource Management Plan. Queen’s Printer. Toronto.

Zavitz, E.J. 1909.Report on the Restoration of Waste Lands in Southern Ontario. Published by the Ontario Department ofAgriculture, Toronto. In: Zavitz, E.J. 1958?. Fifty Years of Reforestation in Ontario. Ontario Department of Lands andForests.

Zavitz, E.J. 1913. Appendix No. 38. Report of the Forestry Branch. In: Report of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines of theProvince of Ontario. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Toronto. 1914.


Zavitz, E.J. 1924. Appendix No. ? Report of the Forestry Branch. In: Report of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines of theProvince of Ontario. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Toronto. 1924.



Zavitz, E.J. 1927. Appendix No. 36. Report of the Forestry Branch. In: Ontario Sessional Papers. Volume LIX - Part II. 1927.

Zavitz, E.J. 1928. Appendix 36. In: Ontario Sessional Papers. Volume LX - Part 2. 1928.

Zavitz, E.J. 1929. Appendix No. 32. Report of the Forestry Branch. In: Ontario Sessional Papers. Volume LXI - Part II. 1929.

Zavitz, E.J. 1930. Appendix No. 33. Report of the Forestry Branch. In: Ontario Sessional Papers. Volume LXII - Part III. 1930.

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Download - ST. WILLIAMS CROWN LAND LIFE SCIENCE INVENTORY · 2020. 2. 7. · What follows is an OMNR Distribution Summary of the Life Science Inventory and Evaluation of St. Williams Crown Land

Top Related