Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994 114 APPENDIX 1 GUIDELINES FOR FIELD DATA COLLECTION AND THE PREPARATION OF WETLAND MAPS The number of wetland maps to be prepared depends on the availability of Ontario base maps (OBMs) and the complexity of wetland features. Where OBMs are available, mapping must be done to a standard that will allow for both hard-copy and digital corporate spatial databases. Where OBMs are not currently available, mapping should be done at the appropriate scale for future transfer to OBMs. It is strongly recommended that all wetland mappers obtain a copy of the "southern Region Wetland Mapping Coursebook" produced by Information Resources Division. The maps that are required are used for both determination of the wetlands evaluation score and also for implementation of the Wetlands Policy under Section 3 of the Planning Act . The maps required are: 1. The Wetland Boundary Map. This map must be drafted on mylar OBM(s) as a base and depicts only the outer boundary of the wetland. If more than one wetland falls on the same OBM, the boundaries of all may be shown on the same map. In cases where the wetland boundary has been mapped very accurately, the boundary may also be mapped on larger scale maps for planning purposes. For example, in parts of Ontario the Flood Damage Reduction Program has produced maps at a scale of 1:2000. These maps may be appropriate for mapping the wetland boundary. 2. The Wetland Adjacent Lands Map uses a paper copy (or copies, as necessary) of the Wetland Boundary OBM mylar(s) to depict the adjacent lands as defined in Appendix A. This map is not necessary for evaluation but is necessary for implementation of the Wetlands Policy if the wetland is Provincially Significant. 3. The Wetland Vegetation Community Map uses another paper copy (or copies) of the Wetland Boundary Map(s) to depict the vegetation communities determined from the field evaluation. A composite of several OBMs can be made where the wetland overlaps the boundaries of a single map. 4. The Drainage Basin Map showing location and size of wetlands and water bodies in the drainage basin above the wetland. Only one map will be required for all the wetlands in the drainage basin. This map will provide a perspective for determining site type, catchment areas, and other required information. Other maps which may be prepared but are not required include: 1. A map showing the locations of important fish and wildlife habitat; 2. A map showing the location of significant flora and fauna or significant or unique wetland features; and 3. A land tenure map showing the present ownership pattern and mailing addresses of those land owners. This map would be useful for wetland stewardship programs as well as other programs.
Transcript
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
114
APPENDIX 1
GUIDELINES FOR FIELD DATA COLLECTION ANDTHE PREPARATION OF WETLAND MAPS
The number of wetland maps to be prepared depends on the availability of Ontario base maps(OBMs) and the complexity of wetland features. Where OBMs are available, mapping must be done to astandard that will allow for both hard-copy and digital corporate spatial databases. Where OBMs arenot currently available, mapping should be done at the appropriate scale for future transfer toOBMs. It is strongly recommended that all wetland mappers obtain a copy of the "southern RegionWetland Mapping Coursebook" produced by Information Resources Division. The maps that are requiredare used for both determination of the wetlands evaluation score and also for implementation of theWetlands Policy under Section 3 of the Planning Act. The maps required are:
1. The Wetland Boundary Map. This map must be drafted on mylar OBM(s) as a base and depictsonly the outer boundary of the wetland. If more than one wetland falls on the same OBM, theboundaries of all may be shown on the same map. In cases where the wetland boundary has beenmapped very accurately, the boundary may also be mapped on larger scale maps for planningpurposes. For example, in parts of Ontario the Flood Damage Reduction Program has producedmaps at a scale of 1:2000. These maps may be appropriate for mapping the wetland boundary.
2. The Wetland Adjacent Lands Map uses a paper copy (or copies, as necessary) of the WetlandBoundary OBM mylar(s) to depict the adjacent lands as defined in Appendix A. This map is notnecessary for evaluation but is necessary for implementation of the Wetlands Policy if the wetlandis Provincially Significant.
3. The Wetland Vegetation Community Map uses another paper copy (or copies) of the WetlandBoundary Map(s) to depict the vegetation communities determined from the field evaluation. Acomposite of several OBMs can be made where the wetland overlaps the boundaries of a singlemap.
4. The Drainage Basin Map showing location and size of wetlands and water bodies in the drainagebasin above the wetland. Only one map will be required for all the wetlands in the drainage basin.This map will provide a perspective for determining site type, catchment areas, and other requiredinformation.
Other maps which may be prepared but are not required include:
1. A map showing the locations of important fish and wildlife habitat;
2. A map showing the location of significant flora and fauna or significant or unique wetland features;and
3. A land tenure map showing the present ownership pattern and mailing addresses of those landowners. This map would be useful for wetland stewardship programs as well as other programs.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
115
MAPPING REQUIREMENTS
1. All Wetland Boundary Maps must be done using mylar OBMs as base maps. Mylar is the mediumof choice because its characteristics meet all the requirements for future digitization of the data.
2. Paper copies should be made of the mylar OBM base for the Wetland Adjacent Land Map and theWetland Vegetation Communities Map.
3. If working copies are made of any of the original maps, then a tracking system should beimplemented to ensure that any changes are reflected in the originals and copies.
4. Each District/Area should designate one person to be the wetland map custodian. In most casesthis will be the resource specialist (usually biologist or ecologist). All data access, updates,deletions and copies should be controlled by the custodian.
5. Master copies of each map should be maintained in a designated map cabinet or hanging file.Master maps should not be held in an individual's drawer or cabinet.
6. Each set of maps should be properly documented and an index of all maps and paper filesmaintained by the data custodian.
7. All map line-work and annotation should first be drawn with a sharp black pencil. Once the workis finalized, a Rapidograph pen can be used to trace over the line-work and text. For externalboundary lines and large text, use a point size of 1. For interior features and small text, use a pointsize of 00. To erase any remaining pencil marks, use a plastic drafting eraser. Consistent lineweight and style are very important for automated conversion techniques. These mappingspecifications were developed with the intent of facilitating conversion of the Wetland BoundaryMaps to digital format by image scanning techniques.
PREPARING TO MAP WETLAND BOUNDARIES AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The steps in preparing the final vegetation community map are as follows:
1. Pre-field aerial photograph interpretation;
2. In-field work including:(i) Mapping of vegetation communities and wetland border using aerial photographs.
(ii) Documentation of vegetation species and form.
3. Post-field data analysis and map-making.
PRE-FIELD WORK: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SELECTION AND INTERPRETATION
Aerial photographs suffer from two types of errors: scale and distortion. Scale errors are caused bythe airplane flying higher or lower than it should or by sudden ground relief changes. This error causesdistances to be incorrect.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
116
Distortion occurs when the plane tilts slightly as the photograph is taken. The tilted photographcauses the position and extent of image features to be distorted. The amount of distortion increases withdistance from the centre of the photograph.
To minimize scale and distortion errors, the following points should be considered:
1. Select aerial photographs of the appropriate scale for the OBM you will be using (1:10,000 or1:20,000). Since the scales of the photographs and final maps is the same, the amount of scaleerror will be minimized when plotting the wetland boundary on the base map.
2. Examine each of the photographs to see where the wetland boundary lies. If it is near the edge ofthe photograph, then order additional photographs that will have the boundary closer to the centre.Aerial photographs are taken with 60% overlap between successive images along a flight line and30% sidelap between flight lines. Thus, 80% of the ground features will be imaged in threesuccessive photographs along a flight line or on adjoining flight lines if the features are in thesidelap area.
Once suitable aerial photographs have been selected, they should be interpreted using a stereoscopeand stereoscopic pairs of photographs to provide a first estimate of vegetation community boundaries.
To mark the boundaries, tape a clear acetate, polyester, mylar or other transparent film over theaerial photographs using masking tape at the top to form a hinge. Make sure to mark the aerialphotograph fiducial marks (the + at the corners) onto the overlay. This will insure that the overlaycan always be registered with the aerial photograph. Fine tip waterproof markers can be used to draw onthe overlays. A soft pencil can also be used to draw on mylar. The advantage of using mylar and a pencilis that a finer and more accurate line can be drawn. The disadvantage of mylar is that it is somewhattranslucent. Be aware that a regular eraser, used dry, will scratch acetate or polyester, making ittranslucent or opaque. This scratching can be mostly avoided by wetting the surface to be erased.However, a better eraser is one made for drafting purposes, usually yellow in colour, and designed forerasing ink from drafting films. This type of eraser will not scratch the surface.
Trace road networks or other obvious landmarks onto the overlay for use as reference points whenmaking the accurate final map from the overlay. Flip the overlay behind the photograph and use thestereoscope to make a first estimate of vegetation community boundaries. Areas which appear difficult tointerpret should be noted on the photograph for field-truthing. At this stage, it is better to draw too manycommunities than not enough. The aerial photographs should be corrected as required in the field. Thismay be necessary at times, particularly when using outdated aerial photographs. All vegetationcommunities must be visited during the field visit to confirm community boundaries and to document thevegetation forms (see in-field mapping below).
Swamp forest communities may sometimes be difficult to distinguish from upland forest on thephotographs. Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) maps can sometimes be of great help in delineating suchessential boundaries. For example, dominance by tree species typical of wetlands can often be seen onFRI maps. In all cases, field-truthing is required.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
117
IN-FIELD DATA COLLECTION AND MAPPING
Evaluators should have a good understanding of the differences between swamp, marsh, bog andfen wetland types before conducting the field mapping portion of the wetland evaluation. They should beable to identify the plant species commonly found in each of these wetland types.
Field work is complete when the wetland/upland boundary and all vegetation communities havebeen adequately documented. The evaluators may wish to expand field work to conduct an inventory offlora and fauna. However, inventory is not essential to produce a final map or evaluation score.Inventory information can be added at any time as the evaluation is an "open file."
Procedures
All field data will be recorded either in a notebook or directly on the aerial photograph, which istaken into the field. It is useful to divide the field notebook records into data pertaining to the wetland asa whole and data pertaining specifically to one vegetation community.
Information to mark directly on the aerial photograph includes:- active beaver dams- fish sampling sites- the location of rare species- directions of water flow at all inflowing and outflowing rivulets, streams or ditches- all man-made disturbances such as fill, docks, houses, etc.
Information to be noted in the field notebook includes:
- evidence/sightings of furbearers and other species whose presence is scored- evidence of hunting, nature appreciation, fishing- all species of flora and fauna observed (as time permits)- notes on the diversity of surrounding habitat
Vegetation Community Designation
All wetland communities must be visited to document the dominant and subdominant vegetationforms. Assign each vegetation community a field number that is recorded both on the aerial photographand in the field notebook. Do not worry about assigning the final map code at this point. In the fieldnotebook, record all relevant information for each vegetation community:
- dominant form- other vegetation forms- dominant plant species for each form- percent open water in community (see below)- soil type- hydrological site type- abundance of purple loosestrife- note exact location of significant species on aerial photographs and record abundance,
behaviour and other pertinent observations- note photograph numbers, if you take any- presence of seeps, iron precipitates or marl deposits
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
118
Because the amount of open water, significant species, and other features will differ betweenvegetation communities, evaluators must assign a different numerical field code to each communitymapped, even if there is a similar community with identical vegetation forms in a different part of thewetland.
Community and outer wetland boundary lines will likely need modification in the field. Boundariesbetween vegetation communities exist when the combination of forms is different, or the dominant formis different. Since vegetation communities often intergrade, use the criteria outlined in Section 1.2.2. todelineate boundaries between zones of gradual ecological change.
Percentage of Open Water
The percentage of open water should be estimated for each vegetation community. Open waterwill be present in open water marshes, in swamps containing standing water and in marshesdominated by emergents but with open water between the vegetation that is suitable for waterfowl, fish,and other species.
In all cases, the amount of open water must be estimated at the time of the field visit. Experiencehas shown that percent of open water as defined in Section 1.2.6 is difficult to estimate accurately. Whiledetermining the percent open water from aerial photographs is relatively straight forward for marshcommunities, this is often not the case for swamps. In many swamps, standing open water pools or ponds
Example of a Field Notebook EntryCommunity #6Open water marsh (lacustrine)
* f yellow pond lily, water shield ff duckweed, watermeal ne sedges, grasses su bladderwort, water milfoil* = dominant form
- humic soil- 95% open water- photos # 16-17, roll #3 (slides)- significant species: black tern 2 pairs, carrying food, visiting nest site
nesting location noted on air photoBlanding's turtle sunning on log (2 adults)
- approx. 500 plants of purple loosestrife along edges of community
- low marsh, yellow pond lily dominant for fish habitat assessment
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
119
under a deciduous tree canopy are not visible on aerial photographs. In such cases, the percent of openwater should be examined carefully. It should be estimated for each community where such water ispresent.
In a large community, it can be difficult to assess open water from one location. In addition,variability caused by recent rains, drought, time of the season, and other factors can influence theestimate. To improve accuracy, the evaluator(s) should make a high and low estimate for eachcommunity. Since a field evaluation crew usually consists of two people, this high and low estimateshould reflect a combination of the two opinions. The final estimate will be the average of the range. Forexample, if, in one community, the low estimate was 40% and the high was 60%, the average for thatcommunity would be 50%. The calculation of the total percentage and distribution of open water in thewetland as a whole is outlined in Field Data Analysis Techniques (Appendix 6).
Information for Fish Habitat Assessment
Field observations are only required for fish habitat assessment when there is insufficient existinginformation on which to base the evaluation. When this is the case, the one most dominant species of thedominant form must be recorded for each marsh community. Also note whether the community is to beconsidered as low marsh or high marsh.
POST-FIELD ANALYSIS AND MAP MAKING
The final wetland map is constructed by converting field notes to final wetland types andcommunity codes. Wetland types are designated by letters: S for swamp, B for bog, F for fen and M or W(see below) for marsh. Vegetation communities are designated by numbers. All communities withidentical dominant and subdominant forms will have the same designation on the final wetland map.
Open Water Marsh vs Marsh
In contrast to the other three wetland types, marsh communities are separated into two categories:open water marsh and marsh. All communities dominated by submergents (su), floating plants (f), freefloating plants (ff) or unvegetated (u) are considered to be open water marsh communities and designatedby "W". Communities dominated by narrow leaved emergents (ne), robust emergents (re), broad leavedemergents (be) or herbs (gc) are considered to be marsh communities and are designated by "M".Nevertheless, all marsh communities, whether designated by "M" or "W" are numbered consecutively.For example;
su W1ne M2re M3ff W4
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
120
Preparation of the Wetland Maps
Wetland Identifiers
The mapping standards given here are designed for future digitization of wetland maps and relationof wetland attributes to GIS polygons. Part of defining the standards for mapping is applying a uniqueidentifier to each evaluated wetland. This identifier has been defined by Information Resources Divisionas the UTM centroid preceded by a W and followed by an accuracy code (always 2 for wetlands) and theNorth American Datum (NAD) code. There are two possible NAD codes (NAD27 = 1, NAD 83 = 2).Check the legend of the NTS map you are using.
The UTM location can be expressed in two equivalent ways: numeric and alphanumeric. Because thealphanumeric system is less prone to map reading error, it is the system used to record location in thewetland evaluation. However, the alphanumeric designation must be converted to numeric for GISapplications. This can be done in one of three ways:
1) Read the numeric designation from the topographical map (see below for instructions).2) Convert the existing alphanumeric UTM to numeric (see below), or3) Enter the alphanumeric UTM in the Wetland Evaluation Information Management
System (available in late 1994). The system returns the numeric value.
National Topographic Series maps (scale 1:50,000) show the UTM grid with fine blue lines. InOntario there are four UTM "zones" which run north and south between lines of longitude. The zones arenumbered 15, 16, 17 and 18, and each is 6o wide. Within the zones are "blocks" of 100 km per side.Locations are described by the distance (in metres) east and north of the zone and block baselines.
There are two directly equivalent ways to designate "blocks": a two letter code, which is printed onthe body of the map, or a numeric code The numeric block code appears in the margins of the map in thefollowing forms:
123000 (top and bottom margins) or 1234000 (side margins)
The one or two smaller digits at the beginning of each set of numbers designate the block. Thenorth-south lines of the UTM grid are termed "northing" and the east-west are termed "easting". Theselines are numbered with a two digit number in blue on the NTS maps. Easting is read first. To determinethe easting position, first record the number that applies to your block. On a 1:50,000 NTS map this willalways be the first digit of one of the six digit numbers in blue in the top and bottom margins of the map.Then locate the grid line immediately to the left of the point you wish to reference. Estimate tenths of asquare from this line eastward to the point. This four digit number (one digit from the top or bottommargin and three digits from the body of the map) is the easting and gives a location accurate to 100 m.The full UTM system allows for 10 m accuracy and this is the standard that IRD uses. Therefore, add a 0to the end of your easting value.
Northing is read similarly. Read the first two digits (i.e. the two small digits) of the seven digitnumber from the appropriate side margin of the map. Then read the number on the grid line immediatelybelow point you wish to reference. Estimate tenths of a square from this line northward to the point. Theresult of these readings will be the five digit northing. As for easting, a 0 is added to the end for thewetland Wetland Identifier. For example, a typical UTM grid reference will read: 17 72750 514840 andthe full wetland identifier would read W177275051484021 where:
17 is the zone,
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
7 is the easting baseline of the block and 2750 is 500 m (at 10 m accuracy) east into kilometre 27east,
51 is the northing baseline of the block and 4840 is 400 m north into kilometre 48 north, and
the final 21 represent accuracy to 100 m and NAD27.
The 7 and 51 designate the block and are equivalent to QB in the alphanumeric system. Table 1-1provides the equivalent number to each letter of the alphanumeric system to assist evaluators in updatingtheir records. This table should also assist in verification of the block designation.
Wetland Boundary Map
The following steps describe the process for transferring the field surveyed boundaries onto themylar OBM base maps. Note that if more than one wetland falls on the same OBM then all may bedepicted on the same base map with appropriate annotation. For parts of Ontario where OBMs are not yetavailable, proceed directly to preparation of the vegetation community map.
1. Place the aerial photograph of the wetland with the attached acetate overlay onto a light table orwindow.
2. Check that the acetate overlay in properly registered to the photograph, i.e., check that the fiducialmarks line up.
3. Securely fasten the overlay to the photograph and the whole assembly to the light table.
4. Place the OBM over the photograph. Shift and rotate the OBM until common features line-up.Due to potential aerial photograph scale error and distortion, it will be difficult to line-up all thefeatures. In such cases select a smaller area of the photograph and then shift and rotate the OBMuntil features line-up in the selected area. Where scale errors are too big to compensate using thistechnique, the map maker may first wish to enlarge or reduce the photograph and overlay using aphotocopier with a fine increment setting. This process can be repeated until the photograph andits overlay are brought close to the OBM scale. Note: all photocopiers will produce images thathave variable distortion, where the amount is dependent on the direction and distance from theimage centre. Therefore, this technique should be used with caution.
5. Trace the wetland boundary and any islands of upland within the wetland onto the mylar OBMbase maps. Use a heavy line weight for the boundary line work (point size = 1). For islands ofupland, cross hatch the area to indicate it is not part of the wetland. Use a lighter line weight thanfor the outside boundary (point size = 00).
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 as necessary for remaining sections of the photograph.
7. Repeat steps 1 through 7 as necessary with the remaining photographs showing the wetlandboundary.
8. For each wetland mapped on the OBM, write the Wetland Identifier value (numeric UTM centroidpreceded by a capital W) on the bottom right-side of the wetland. The values should beapproximately 0.5 cm in height. If the wetland is a complex and there is potential for confusionabout which wetland particular units belong to, then the Wetland Identifier value should beincluded next to each unit of the complex. Note that the Wetland Identifier value must be the samevalue used when entering the tabular data into the Wetland Evaluation Information ManagementSystem.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121a
Table 1-1. UTM Alphabetic to Numeric Format Conversions for Eastings and Northings.
ZONE EASTING NORTHING
15 U 3 N 62V 4 M 61W 5 L 60X 6 K 59X 6 J 58Y 7 H 57
G 56F 55E 54D 53
16 B 2 U 63C 3 T 62D 4 S 61E 5 R 60F 6 Q 59G 7 P 58
N 57M 56L 55K 54J 53H 52G 51
17 K 2 M 61L 3 L 60M 4 K 59N 5 J 58P 6 H 57Q 7 G 56
F 55E 54D 53C 52B 51A 50V 49U 48T 47S 46
18 T 2 G 51U 3 F 50V 4 E 49W 5 D 48
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121b
9. For each wetland mapped on the OBM write, in the upper, right corner of the map sheet, theWetland Identifier value, Wetland Name, and date of evaluation.
10. Repeat steps 1 through 9 for each OBM that contains a wetland. In cases where a wetland spansmore than one OBM:
a. Make sure that the Wetland annotation data is exactly the same on each OBM;
b. Copy the OBM map index and highlight all OBM sheets that the wetland spans.
c. Make sure that the wetland boundary meets across OBMs. This can be done by matching theOBM neat lines, and then shifting one or both wetland boundary lines until they match.
11. Quality Control. The quality control checks should be undertaken by the person responsible for thedata, usually the Biologist or Ecologist. However, if this is not possible, then the person responsiblefor the mapping should routinely review the maps. In either case, they must sign off on the mapsindicating that they are correct. For each aerial photograph used in the evaluation and each OBMundertake the following quality control checks:a. Are all wetland boundaries transferred from the photograph to the OBMs?
b. Are all wetlands identified?
c. If dealing with a complex, are all areas of a wetland complex identified correctly, ie. do theyall have the same unique Wetland Identifier?
d. Are all Wetland Identifiers, names and survey dates annotated at the top-right side of theOBM?
e. If there are islands of upland in the wetland, are the island boundaries depicted the same wayas the wetland boundary? Are islands cross hatched to indicate their difference?
f. Are all OBM sheets edgematched? Check the copied and highlighted OBM map index (seestep 11) to see which sheets have wetlands that cross map boundaries. Systematically checkall sheets that should be edgematched.
The completed, quality controlled product constitutes the Wetland Boundary Map.
Preparation of the Wetland Vegetation Community Map
There is a significant potential for error in the re-designation of field communities into final mapcommunities. Suggested methods and sample field data sheets are provided in Appendix 6. Remember thatcalculations of % cover by the dominant vegetation forms, % open water, and % wetland type all come frominformation generated by each and every vegetation community.
The Wetland Vegetation Community Map depicts the outer boundary of the wetland and the innerboundaries of the vegetation communities using a copy of the Wetland Boundary Map as a base. This cantake two forms:
i. The whole wetland is contained within the Wetland Boundary Map extents. For eachwetland depicted on the boundary map a corresponding Wetland Vegetation CommunityMap will be produced, or
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121c
ii. The wetland spans more than one Wetland Boundary Map and, therefore, a single compositemap needs to be produced for each wetland.
The following steps describe the process for transferring the field surveyed vegetation communityboundaries onto the map. If the wetland is contained within the Wetland Boundary Map (ie. one OBMmapsheet) then create a copy of the Wetland Boundary Map and undertake only steps 8 to 17. If the wetlandspans more than one Wetland Boundary map (ie. more than one OBM mapsheet) then undertake all the steps(1 to 17).
1. Identify the Wetland Boundary Maps that show part of the wetland boundary.
2. Place onto a light table or window one of the identified Wetland Boundary Maps.
3. Securely fasten the Wetland Boundary Map.
4. Place a translucent piece of a paper or other suitable material over the Wetland Boundary Map. Thiswill become a part of the composite Vegetation Community Map.
5. Trace the wetland boundary, major roads, waterbodies and other prominent features. Use the sameline weight as for the Wetland Boundary Map.
6. Repeat steps 2 through 5 for the remainder of the Wetland Boundary Maps. At step 4, make sure thatthe existing features on the Vegetation Community Map are edgematched with the features on theadjoining Wetland Boundary Map.
7. Copy all wetland annotation to the Vegetation Community Map.
8. Place the aerial photograph with the attached acetate overlay onto a light table or window.
9. Check that the acetate overlay is properly registered to the photograph, i.e. check that the fiducialmarks line up.
10. Securely fasten the photograph and overlay.
11. Place the Vegetation Community Map over the aerial photograph.
12. Shift and rotate the Vegetation Community Map until common features in the photograph and the mapline-up. Due to potential aerial photograph scale error and distortion, it will be difficult to line-up allthe features. In such cases select a smaller area of the photograph and then shift and rotate theVegetation Community Map until features line-up in the selected area. Where scale errors are too bigto compensate using this technique, the map maker may first wish to enlarge or reduce the aerialphotograph using a photocopier with a fine increment setting. This process can be repeated until thephotograph is brought close to the OBM scale. Note, all photocopiers will produce images that havevariable distortion, where the amount is dependent on the direction and distance from the imagecentre. Therefore, this technique should be used with caution.
13. Trace the wetland vegetation community boundaries onto the Vegetation Community Map. Make sureto use a lighter line weight than the wetland boundary.
14. Repeat steps 12 and 13 from the remainder of the wetland vegetation community boundaries on thephotograph.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121d
15. Repeat steps 8 through 14 for each photograph that depicts wetland vegetation community boundarieslocated on the Vegetation Community Map.
16. Write next to the Wetland Identifier the associated vegetation form and vegetation community values.Lettering should be approximately 0.5 cm in height.
17. Quality Control. The quality control checks should be undertaken by the person responsible for thedata, usually the Biologist or Ecologist. However, if this is not possible, then the person responsiblefor the mapping should routinely review the maps. In either case, they must sign off on the mapsindicating that they are correct. For each aerial photograph used in the evaluation and each OBMundertake the following quality control checks:
a. Are all wetland vegetation community boundaries transferred from the photographs onto theVegetation Community Map?
b. Are all wetland vegetation forms and communities identified?
The completed, quality controlled product constitutes the Wetland Vegetation Community Map.
Preparation of a Wetland Adjacent Lands Map
This map is not required as part of the evaluation but is necessary for implementation of the WetlandsPolicy if the wetland is Provincially Significant. See Appendix A for instructions on determining adjacentlands for a wetland complex. The Wetland Adjacent Lands Map, depicts the wetland boundary and theadjacent lands using a copy of the Wetland Boundary Map as a base.
The following steps describe the process for creating the Wetland Adjacent Lands Map.
1. Create a white copy of the Wetland Boundary Map OR place a blank mylar sheet over WetlandBoundary Map and trace wetland boundary plus reference annotation (Wetland Name, WetlandIdentifier, Date, etc.) and linework (eg. roads, rail-lines, township boundaries, fiducial marks, etc) ontothe blank mylar.
2. For a single wetland (i.e. not a complex) use a ruler to measure out 1.2 cm (120 m at 1:10000 scale)from points along the wetland boundary.
3. Join the points that represent the extents of the 120 m boundary. Use a lighter line weight (point size0), than the wetland boundary.
4. For a wetland complex follow the rules set out in Appendix A to identify Adjacent Lands.
5. Annotate the adjacent lands boundary with the text 'Adjacent Lands', 0.5 cm in height.
Procedure for Upgrading Existing Wetland Maps
The following procedures set out the process for converting existing Wetland Boundary Maps to bringthem to the specified standards. This process may be used for wetlands evaluated prior to the developmentof the mapping standards and also for upgrading wetland maps in areas where OBMs are newly available.
1. Determine the scale of the existing wetland boundary map.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121e
2. If the existing wetland boundary map scale is equivalent to the OBM scale then the wetland boundarylines can be transferred directly on to the mylar OBM.
If the existing wetland boundary map scale is slightly different from the OBM scale then the mapmaker may first wish to enlarge or reduce the existing wetland boundary map using a photocopier witha fine increment setting. This process can be repeated until the existing wetland boundary map isbrought close to the OBM scale. Not that all photocopiers will produce images that have variabledistortion, where the amount is dependent on the direction and distance from the image centre.Therefore, this technique should be used with caution.
If the existing wetland boundary map scale is substantially different from the OBM scale, then themap maker should go back to the aerial photographs and field surveys (see Wetland Boundary Mapprocedures).
If the existing wetland boundary map scale is substantially different from the OBM scale and no fieldsurvey data is available, then the map maker and biologist must decide if the wetland should be re-evaluated and mapped to the new standards.
If the existing wetland boundary map is deemed suitable for upgrading, then the map maker maycontinue with the remaining transfer process.
3. Place the existing wetland boundary map onto a light table or window.
4. Securely fasten the existing wetland boundary map.
5. Place the OBM over the existing wetland boundary map.
6. Shift and rotate the OBM until common features line up. Due to small scale error and distortion, itmight be difficult to line-up all the features. In such cases select a smaller area of the existing wetlandboundary map, then shift and rotate the OBM until features line up in the selected area.
7. Trace the wetland boundary and any islands of upland in the wetlands onto the mylar OBM base maps.Use a heavy line weight for the boundary line work (point size = 1). For islands, cross hatch the areato indicate it is not part of the wetland. Use a lighter line weight than for the outside boundary (pointsize = 00).
8. Repeat steps 6 and 7 for the remainder of the wetland boundaries on the existing wetland boundarymap.
9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 for each existing wetland boundary map that depicts wetland boundarieslocated within the extent of the OBM.
10. For each wetland mapped on the OBM, write the Wetland Identifier value on the bottom right-side ofthe wetland. The values should be approximately 0.5 cm in height. If there is a wetland complex andunits of the complex are significantly apart from one another then the same Wetland Identifier valueshould be included next to each unit of the complex. Note that the Wetland Identifier value must bethe same value used when entering the tabular data into the Wetland Evaluation InformationManagement System.
11. For each wetland mapped on the OBM write, in the upper, right corner of the map sheet, the WetlandIdentifer value, Wetland Name, and the date of survey.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121f
12. Repeat steps 1 through 11 for each OBM that contains a wetland. In cases where a wetland spansmore than one OBM, then:
a. Make sure that the Wetland annotation data is exactly the same on each OBM.
b. Copy the OBM map index, and highlight all OBM sheets that the wetland spans.
c. Edgematch all the OBM sheets. This can be done by matching the OBM neat lines, and thenshifting one or both wetland boundary lines until they match.
13. Quality Control. The quality control checks should be undertaken by the person responsible for thedata, usually the Biologist or Ecologist. However, if this is not possible, then the person responsiblefor the mapping should routinely review the maps. In either case, they must sign off on the mapsindicating that they are correct. For each aerial photograph used in the evaluation and each OBMundertake the following quality control checks:
a. Are all wetland boundaries transferred from the existing wetland boundary maps to theOBMs?
b. Are all wetlands identified?
c. If dealing with a complex, are all areas of a wetland complex identified correctly, ie. do theyall have the same unique Wetland Identifier?
d. Are all wetland identifiers, names and survey dates annotated at the top-right side of theOBM?
e. If there are islands of upland in the wetland, are the island boundaries depicted the same wayas the wetland boundary? Are islands cross hatched to indicate their difference?
f. Are all OBM sheets edgematched? Check the copied and highlighted OBM map index (seestep 12) to see which sheets have wetlands that cross map boundaries. Systematically checkall sheets that should be edgematched.
The completed, quality controlled product constitutes the new Wetland Boundary Map.
ENHANCED MAP CODING FOR THE VEGETATION COMMUNITY MAP
Enhanced map coding is an option available to experienced evaluators that prevents the loss ofinformation when field vegetation communities are combined into final wetland map communities. Thisoption is not required for the basic wetland community map; nor is it required for scoring. However, itresults in a map that can be used for many ecological applications besides wetland evaluation. Although it ismore time-consuming, advanced wetland evaluators should consider using it whenever possible.
When the standard wetland map is prepared, several vegetation communities in one wetland aregrouped together under the same community code. This grouping occurs because both the dominant formand the subordinate forms in several field communities are all the same. Information is lost because, eventhough the forms are the same, the dominant species frequently are not. For example, three communities indifferent parts of the wetland may have the following forms: h, ts, gc, ne with h (deciduous trees) as thedominant form. However, community A may have red maple as the dominant species; community B, blackash and community C, white elm. Similarly, the subdominant forms may be dominated by different species.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
121g
Using the standard coding method, all of these communities would receive the same code on the wetlandmap, e.g., hS1. As soon as the map is made, the cross reference back to the original community is lost. Torecover the information, one has to go backwards through the original field notes and aerial photographoverlays, which may have been lost or which may be indecipherable.
To prevent the loss of information about dominant species, the enhanced map coding method may beused. The enhancement simply consists of attaching an identifier to the map code in each community so thatit can be related back to the original field record. In the example shown above, the three hS1 communitieswould be labelled hS1-A, hS1-B and hS1-C. There is still only one four form community to be scored andthe method does not result in any new lines being drawn on the map. Thus, the scores for vegetationcommunities and interspersion are not affected.
For this method to achieve the desired result, a standard Field Data Sheet and Summary Data Sheet(see Appendix 6) must be used and kept in the wetland file. It is these sheets that have the plant speciesinformation and that match the original field community code to the final map code.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
122
APPENDIX 2
NATURE, BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ORGANIZATIONSOF SOUTHERN ONTARIO
For up to date lists of contacts for each organization, contact the Federation of Ontario Naturalists,355 Lesmill Road, Don Mills, Ontario M3B 2W8_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BLACK CREEK CONSERVATION PROJECT TORONTOBRANTFORD NATURE CLUB BRANTFORDBRERETON FIELD NATURALISTS BARRIEBRODIE CLUB ********CANADIAN AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION SOCIETY CANADATHE CANADIAN WILDFLOWER SOCIETY CANADACOLLINGWOOD NATURALISTS CLUB COLLINGWOODCREDIT VALLEY PRESERVATIONISTS MISSISSAUGADURHAM REGION FIELD NATURALISTS OSHAWAESSEX COUNTY FIELD NATURALISTS WINDSORFIELD BOTANISTS OF ONTARIO ONTARIOGUELPH NATURALISTS CLUB GUELPHHALTON/NORTH PEEL NATURALISTS BRAMPTON/GEORGETOWNHAMILTON NATURALISTS CLUB HAMILTONHURON FRINGE NATURE CLUB KINCARDINEINGERSOLL NATURE CLUB INGERSOLLKAWARTHA FIELD NATURALISTS LINDSAY/FENELON FALLSKENT NATURE CLUB CHATHAMKINGSTON FIELD NATURALISTS KINGSTONKITCHENER/WATERLOO FIELD NATURALISTS KITCHENERLAMBTON WILDLIFE INCORPORATED SARNIALONG POINT BIRD OBSERVATORY ONTARIOMACNAMARA FIELD NATURALISTS ARNPRIORMCILWRAITH FIELD NATURALISTS LONDON/MIDLAND MIDLAND-PENETANG FIELD NATURALISTS PENETANGUISHENEMISSISSIPPI VALLEY FIELD NATURALISTS CARLETON PLACENIAGARA FALLS NATURE CLUB NIAGARA FALLSNORFOLK FIELD NATURALISTS SIMCOEONTARIO BIRD BANDING ASSOCIATION ONTARIOONTARIO FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS ONTARIO
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
123
APPENDIX 2Continued
ORILLIA NATURALISTS CLUB ORILLIAOTTAWA FIELD-NATURALISTS CLUB OTTAWAOWEN SOUND FIELD NATURALISTS OWEN SOUNDPENINSULA FIELD NATURALISTS CLUB NIAGARA PENINSULAPETERBOROUGH FIELD NATURALISTS CLUB PETERBOROUGHPICKERING NATURALISTS PICKERING/CLAREMONTPRESQUILE-BRIGHTON NATURALISTS BRIGHTONQUINTE FIELD NATURALISTS BELLEVILLERICHMOND HILL NATURALISTS RICHMOND HILLRIDEAU VALLEY FIELD NATURALISTS PERTHST. THOMAS FIELD NATURALISTS ST. THOMASSAUGEEN FIELD NATURALISTS GREY-BRUCESECOND MARSH DEFENSE ASSOCIATION AJAX/PICKERINGSOUTH LAKE SIMCOE NATURALISTS CLUB SUTTONSOUTH PEEL NATURALISTS CLUB MISSISSAUGA/OAKVILLESTRATFORD FIELD NATURALISTS STRATFORDSUN PARLOUR NATURE CLUB LEAMINGTONSYDENHAM FIELD NATURALISTS WALLACEBURGTORONTO ENTOMOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION TORONTOTORONTO FIELD NATURALISTS TORONTOTORONTO ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB TORONTOUPPER CREDIT NATURALISTS ORANGEVILLEWEST ELGIN NATURE CLUB WEST LORNEWEST HUMBER NATURALISTS KLEINBURGWILDWOOD NATURE CLUB LONDONWILLOW BEACH FIELD NATURALISTS COBOURG/ PORT HOPEWOODSTOCK FIELD-NATURALISTS WOODSTOCK_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Canada Land Inventory (CLI) maps entitled "Soil Capability for Agriculture"; scale 1:50,000,available from Environment Canada or from Map & Sales Office, EMR, 615 Booth Street,Ottawa, K1A 0E9
2. Organic Soil Maps, scale 1:50,000, available from Institute of Pedology, Blackwood Hall,University of Guelph, N1G 2W1.
3. County Soil Maps, available from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, or the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources.
4. Wetland Mapping Series, Third Approximation. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada(Ontario Region), 1983. 128 maps. Available from Environment Canada.
5. Administrative Regions and Districts, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario. (Administrativeunits were revised in 1991; draft revised maps were available at the time of printing).
6. National Topographic Series (NTS). Maps available from Energy, Mines and Resources, 615Booth Street, Ottawa K1A 0E9.
7. Forest Resources Inventory. Available from MNR District and Area Offices.
8. Watershed Maps. Available from Conservation Authorities.
9. Hydrographic Charts. Available from Canada Map Office, 615 Booth Street, Ottawa K1A 0E9.
10. Aerial Photographs. Available from Ministry of Natural Resources Information Centre, RoomM173, MacDonald Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M7A 2C1 (416) 314-1666. Alsoavailable at MNR District and Area Offices.
11. Ontario Base Mapping Program. A provincial geographical referencing grid. The province willeventually be entirely covered by OBM mapping at 1:20,000 or 1:10,000. Available fromMinistry of Natural Resources Information Centre, Room M173, MacDonald Block, 900 BayStreet, Toronto, Ontario M7A 2C1 (416) 314-1666. Also available at some MNR District andArea Offices.
Needham, J.G. and P.R. Needham. 1962. A Guide to the Study of Freshwater Biology. Holden-DayInc., San Francisco.
Klots, Elsie, B. 1966. The New Field Guide of Freshwater Life. Longmans Canada Limited, Toronto.398 pp.
PLANTS
Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.) 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare VascularPlants of Ontario. Four Parts. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. (looseleaf).
Boivin, B. 1992. Les Cyperaceae de l'est du Canada. Provancheria, Memoire de L'Herbier Lois-MarieNo. 25. Université Laval, Québec, PQ. 230 pp.
Cobb, B. 1956. A Field Guide to the Ferns. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Cody, W.J. and D.L. Britton. 1989. The Ferns and Fern Allies of Canada. Research Branch, AgricultureCanada, Ottawa. Publication No. 1829/E. 430 pp.
Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada.Second Edition. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York 10458-5126.
Dore, W.G. and J. McNeill. 1980. Grasses of Ontario. Monograph 26, Research Branch, AgricultureCanada, Ottawa. 566 pp.
Fassett, N.C. 1940. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Univ. of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.
Frankton, C. and G.A. Mulligan. 1970. Weeds of Canada, Canada Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hosie, R.C. 1979. Native Trees of Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, Don Mills, Ontario.
Hotchkiss, N. 1967. Underwater and Floating-leaved Plants of the United States and Canada. U.S.Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.
Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th Edition. American Book Co., New York.
Gleason, H.A. 1952. The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States andadjacent Canada. 3 volumes. Hafner Press, New York.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
126
APPENDIX 4Continued
Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States andAdjacent Canada. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, New Jersey.
Marie-Victorin, F. 1964. Flore Laurentienne. Les Presses de L'Université de Montreal, C.P. 6128,Montreal, Quebec. 925 pp.
Morton, J.K and J.M. Venn. 1984. The Flora of Manitoulin Island. Second Revised Edition. Universityof Waterloo Biology Series No. 34. Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario N1L 3G1. 106 pp.
Morton, J.K. and J.M. Venn. 1987. The Flora of the Tobermory Islands, Bruce Peninsula National Park.University of Waterloo Biology Series No. 31. Department of Biology, University of Waterloo,Waterloo, Ontario N1L 3G1. 92 pp.
Morton, J.K and J.M. Venn. 1991. A checklist of the Flora of Ontario Vascular Plants. University ofWaterloo Biology Series No. 34. Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario N1L 3G1 218 pp.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston and Toronto.
Peterson, R.T. and M. Mckenny. 1968. A Field Guide to Wildflowers: Northeastern/Northcentral NorthAmerica. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Petrides, G.A. 1972. A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Resource Management Group. 1992. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands for USF andWS Region 3. Resource Management Group, Grand Haven, MI.
Semple, J.C. and S.B. Heard. 1987. The Asters of Ontario: Aster L. and Virgulus Raf. (Compositae:Asteraceae). University of Waterloo Biology Series No. 30. Department of Biology, Universityof Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1. 88pp.
Semple, J.C. 1992. The Goldenrods of Ontario: Solidago L. and Euthamia Nutt. University of WaterlooBiology Series No. 36. Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3G1. 82 pp.
Soper, J.H. C.E. Garton and D. Given. 1989. Flora of the North Shore of Lake Superior (Vascular Plantsof the Ontario Portion of the Lake Superior Drainage Basin). Syllogeus Series No. 63. NationalMuseum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 61 pp.
Soper, J.H. and M.L. Heimburger. 1985. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Misc. Publications. RoyalOntario Museum, Toronto.
Vander Kloet, S.P. 1988. The Genus Vaccinium in North America. Publication 1828, Research Branch,Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. 201 pp.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
127
APPENDIX 4Continued
Voss, E.G. 1972. Michigan Flora. Part 1: Gymnosperms and Monocots. Cranbrook Institute of ScienceBulletin 55. 500 Lone Pine Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013, and University ofMichigan Herbarium. 488 pp.
Voss, E.G. 1985. Michigan Flora. Part 2: Dicots (Saururaceae-Cornaceae). Cranbrook Institute ofScience Bulletin 59. 500 Lone Pine Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013, and University ofMichigan Herbarium. 724 pp.
Whiting, R.E. and P.M. Catling 1986. Orchids of Ontario. The CanaColl Foundation, AgricultureCanada, Ottawa. 169 pp.
INSECTS
Klots, A.B. 1951. A Field Guide to the Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Covell, C.V. 1984. A Field Guide to the Moths of Eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Co.,Boston.
Riotte, J.C.E. 1992. Annotated List of Ontario Lepidoptera. Life Science Miscellaneous Publications.Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario
White, R.E. 1983. A Field Guide to the Beetles of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
REPTILES and AMPHIBIANS
Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian Amphibians and Reptiles. National Museum of NaturalSciences, Ottawa.
Froom, B. 1971. Ontario Snakes. Ontario Dept. of Lands and Forests.
Froom, B. 1972. The Snakes of Canada. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto.
Froom, B. 1975. Ontario Turtles. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Froom, B. 1982. Amphibians of Canada. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto.
Johnson, R. 1989. Familiar Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario. Natural Heritage/ NaturalHistory Inc., Toronto, Ont.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
128
APPENDIX 4Continued
FISH
Hubbs, C.L. and K.K. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Univ. Michigan Press, AnnArbor, Michigan.
McAllister, D.A., and B.W. Coad. 1974. Fishes of Canada's National Capital Region. National Museumof Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 200 pp.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries ResearchBoard of Canada. 966 pp.
BIRDS
Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario.University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario.
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 1990. A Field Guide to Bird Songs of Eastern/Central NorthAmerica. Peterson Field Guide Series. (available on cassette or compact disc).
Godfrey, Earl W. 1986. The Birds of Canada (Revised Edition). The National Museum of NaturalSciences. Ottawa.
James, R.D. 1991. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Ontario. 2nd edition. Life SciencesMiscellaneous Publications, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. 128 pp.
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. HoughtonMifflin Co., Boston.
MAMMALS
Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences and U. ofToronto Press. 438 pp.
Peterson, R.L. 1966. The Mammals of Eastern Canada. Oxford University Press, Toronto. 416 pp.
Whitaker, J.O. Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. ChanticleerPress, N.Y. 745 pp.
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1983. Handbook of Canadian Mammals 1. Marsupials and Insectivores. NationalMuseum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 210 pp.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
129
APPENDIX 4Continued
MOLLUSCS
Clark, Arthur H. 1981. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences,Ottawa. 446 pp.
POPULATION SIZE OF CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Anonymous. 1993. Place Name Reference Lists: Quebec and Ontario. Catalogue #93-308. Supply andServices Canada, Ottawa. $45.00 + GST.
This document lists alphabetically all of the towns and cities in Ontario, along with their populations. Italso lists the topographic map number the community is located on in case of name duplication.
TREES - Woody vegetation greater than 6 metres in height
TALL SHRUBS - Woody vegetation 1 to 6 metres in height, often with distinct trunk. Includes stuntedand sapling trees species.
LOW SHRUBS - Woody vegetation less than 1 m in height, with dense foliage and several to manystems.
NARROW-LEAVED EMERGENTS - erect, rooted, herbaceous monocots which maybe temporarily orpermanently flooded at the base but are exposed at the upper portion.
BROAD-LEAVED EMERGENTS - broad-leaved plants less than 1 metre in height.
ROBUST EMERGENTS - stout, erect emergents from 1.5 to 3 metres in height.
FLOATING PLANTS - rooted, vascular hydrophytes with leaves floating horizontally on the watersurface.
FREE-FLOATING PLANTS - non-rooted, free-moving, vascular hydrophytes floating on the watersurface.
HERBS (GROUND COVER -- gc) - Erect non-woody (herbaceous) plants growing in moist butexposed soil or, occasionally, very shallow water. Includes ferns.
* Tree and shrub species marked with an asterisk grow only in wetlands. Other species listed areoften found in wetlands but may also occur in moist upland locations.
PART I. COMMON WETLAND SPECIES
Note that plant species are listed under the wetland type where they are most common. Many speciesoccur in more than one wetland type. A few species can be used to identify wetland type, particularly forbog and fen. These species are marked as indicators.
- SWAMP -Trees* Silver Maple Acer saccharinum
Red Maple Acer rubrum* Black Ash Fraxinus nigra* Black Willow Salix nigra
Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
131
APPENDIX 5Continued
American Elm Ulmus americanusBalsam Poplar Populus balsamiferaEastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis
* Tamarack Larix laricina* Black Spruce Picea mariana
Tree Species - found in Upland, or in Wetland MarginsSugar Maple Acer saccharumAmerican Beech Fagus grandifoliaBitternut Hickory Carya cordiformisWhite Ash Fraxinus americanaRed oak Quercus rubra
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
135
APPENDIX 5Continued
Ironwood Ostrya virginianaBasswood Tilia americana
Most biological and hydrological information cannot be scored until the final wetland communitymap is produced. For large wetlands, which may contain hundreds of separate communities, sorting andorganizing rough field notes can be especially difficult. Field notes are usually written in a unique styleand valuable information may not be decipherable by another person. To make data analysis easier, lessprone to errors and interpretable to many, experience has shown that transcribing data onto standard datasheets and making all calculations on data sheets is a worthwhile exercise. These data sheets become apermanent record of field notes, observations and calculations that can and should be kept on file.
The data sheets presented here have been devised to facilitate the transfer of all field notes andcalculations which are needed to complete the wetland data record and wetland map. Communitiesidentified in the field are converted to final coded communities of swamp, marsh, bog or fen.Calculations involve calculating the area of each community, area of each wetland type and the percentopen water.
RECORD OF DOMINANT SPECIES FOR EACH VEGETATION FORM
Crew ________________________________________ Field Community Number _______
Wetland Type_____ Dominant Form _____
% Open Water Estimates: high _____ low _____
Forms Dominant Species, Additional Species, Comments
h____________________________________________
c ___________________________________________
dc, dh _______________________________________
ts ___________________________________________
ls ___________________________________________
ds ___________________________________________
gc ___________________________________________
ne ___________________________________________
be ___________________________________________
re ___________________________________________
ff ___________________________________________
f ____________________________________________
su ___________________________________________
m ___________________________________________
The "field community number" is for the rough community number, e.g. 1,2,3, etc. from the field note book. Theappropriate forms are circled and dominant species inserted. "Crew" is for the situation where more than one crew isdoing field work on the wetland. This slot will avoid confusion in community numbering later on.
RECORD OF AREA CALCULATION TRIALS AND OPEN WATER ESTIMATES
Wetland Name _____________________________________________________
Community Code Area Calculation Trials
Field Final(Map)
#1 #2 #3 MeanArea
High % Mean % Area (ha)
Area calculation trials are required when measuring the area of individual wetland communities. Due to countingor tracing errors when using a dot grid, planimeter or digitizer, at least two area calculations trials must be done. If the twotrials are significantly different, then a third trial should be done. The final area recorded for an individual community isthe mean area calculated from the trials.
Mean % of open water is calculated from the low and high estimates recorded for each community in the field.This mean % is then converted directly into the area (ha) of open water for each community, i.e. a 100ha swampcommunity with a mean of 15% open water has 15 ha of open water. Converting % open water to hectares of open wateris necessary because it is not possible to simply add the estimated percentage of open water for communities which are ofunequal area. By totalling the area of open water calculated for each individual community, one can then determine thetotal area of open water for the wetland and then the percent of open water for the entire wetland (i.e. area of open water /wetland size 100).
Data Summary Form Wetland Name_____________________ Page ____ of ____
Field crews should use the following keys, developed by (1992), for the determination of wetland type.Descriptions of the elements of the keys follow, in a branching "dichotomous key" format.
The classification system is hierarchical, so that it can be used at several levels of detail, depending on theuser's need or on the data available. For wetland evaluation, identification is necessary only to formationlevel. The remainder of the key is included for the information of evaluators. The system has beenmodified from the initial system proposed by Zoltai et al. (1974), Jeglum et al. (1974), Jeglum andBoissonneau (1977) and Tarnocai (1979), with the addition of published and unpublished data fromelsewhere in the province; e.g., Maycock (in prep.) for data from the south, and Ahti and Hepburn (1967),and McKay (1980), and (1981) for the extreme north. At its most detailed level, the classificationincludes the following:
ExamplesFormation (= wetland type) BOG
Subformation TREEDPhysiognomic Group Low ShrubDominance Type Picea mariana-Chamaedaphne calyculata-Sphagnum fuscumSite Type Picea mariana-Chamaedaphne calyculata-Sphagnum fuscum
Subtype is simply a modifier of wetland type used fens to indicate presence/density of trees, or of openwater in marshes. The composition of vegetation communities (combinations of vegetation formspresent) are recorded by field crews, but are not usually mapped in detail.
Superscripts can be used to show percentage cover values of particular species or of vegetation form,where suitable data are available , e.g. Treed22 low shrub42 Bog, or T22 1s42 B. Otherwise leave numbersout, eg. T1sB. Percentage cover values are not necessary to complete a wetland evaluation.Abbreviations are always in the order of Subtype (where applicable)-Vegetation Form Group-WetlandType, except for Open Water Marshes where the subtype symbol W simply replaces the wetland typesymbol M, eg. Open Water-floating plant-Marsh, or WfM, is simply written fW. Other modifiersreflecting site history may also be added, eg. (P) for post-fire succession follows wetland type, t1sB(P).
The following keys are presented in this order:
• Key to Formations (= Wetland Types)• Key to Subformations
• Key to Physiognomic Groups- Swamp- Bog, Fen, Palsa/Peat Plateau- Marsh and Meadow Marsh
• Other Modifiers• Keys or Catalogues of Dominance Types• Abbreviations of Subformations and Physiognomic Groups as Applied to Wetland Formations in
Ontario• Key to Peatlands by Geomorphological Types
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
141
KEY TO FORMATIONS
Well-drained hilltops, steep to moderate slopes, sand flats, levees, beach ridges, permafrost tundra,bedrock outcrop, littoral banks, etc. Stands normally dominated by dry-land species of trees, shrubsand/or herbaceous ground vegetation. Or, large expanses or open standing or flowing water deeper than 2m and/or more than 8 ha in size.
...NON-WETLANDS(MINERAL/SOIL UPLAND and DEEP WATER)
Basins, depressions, adjacent low slopes, areas with restricted drainage, drainways, floodplains, littoralterraces, and seasonally or tidally flooded areas. Water table at, near, or above the land surface for part ofthe year, or saturated long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes such as hydric or organicsoils, or hydrophilic vegetation. Some wetlands may have seasonally variable water levels, ranging fromflooded spring conditions to summer drought conditions with water tables 50 cm or more below theaverage land or peat surface.
...WETLANDS
1a. Well-defined aquatic basins or shoreline zones transitional to deep-water areas; inorganic ororganic substrates. Vegetation of submergent, floating or emergent species in standing waterless than 2 m deep, or on exposed substrate during water-drawdown periods such as low tides orsummer drought. Periodically or permanently flooded by silt - or nutrient-enriched lake or riverwaters. In exposed wave or water-current situations, may be on mineral soil, whereas muckand/or peat may accumulate in less disturbed sites, sometimes to depths of more than 40 cm; i.e.,organic soils, which are those having more than 17% organic carbon (C), with more than 30%organic matter by weight.
2a. Basins or basin margins covered at least 75% by permanently open water, usually lessthan 2 m deep and associated with flowing or standing lakes, rivers or ponds. Usuallywith sparse floating, submergent or partly emergent vegetation (less than 25% cover byemergents).
...OPEN WATER MARSH (W)
2b. Unconsolidated open, flat, or depressed surface, dominated by herbaceous emergentsedges, grasses, cattails and reeds (more than 25% cover), or low shrubs; interspersed instanding water (or emergent at low water levels). With occasional small pools andchannels, and with exposed patches of mineral or organic soils during seasonal (or tidal)water drawdowns. Often associated with and periodically flooded by the mineral-enriched ground waters of open streams or rivers, flowing lakes, glacial depressions, ormarine terraces or flats. Can be contiguous to or grade into Thicket SWAMP with ashrub element up to 25% cover.
...MARSH (M)MARSH is distinguished from the semi-terrestrial Meadow (MARSH (mM) bythe ordinary presence of standing water and its more closed vegetation. BothMARSH and Meadow MARSH may occur on sedge peat, muck or mineralsoils. The distinction between these is difficult in tidal and broad littoral,
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
142
mineral soil sites where water drawdown or incursion varies seasonally or daily,such as in spring floods or tidal or storm situations. For these wet meadow-liketypes, and other sites with more-or-less variable standing water (such as beavermeadows), the term Meadow MARSH (mM) has been used by Jeglum andBoissonneau (1977) and and MacKay (1980).
1b. Less well-defined basins in which open standing water is absent or restricted to scattered smallpools, often of a seasonal nature; substrates of saturated (or seasonally dry) peat deeper than 40cm.
3a. Predominantly ombrotrophic or weakly minerotrophic peatlands, developed on acidicpeat (pH of water 10 cm below water table usually less than 5.2, unless water has beensignificantly drawn down by summer drought). Accumulation of peat more than 40 cmdominated surficially by poorly decomposed sphagnum peat; isolated from mineral-soilwater movement. The ground water pH of strictly ombotrophic peatlands is usually lessthan 4.2 (to < 4.4), with calcium levels under 2ppm.
4a. Forming a level, gradually raised (domed) or sloping surface with a (usually)hummock-hollow topography, usually with a continuous carpet of mossesdominated by Sphagnum spp. (particularly S. fuscum in the (hummock phase).Usually with a ground cover of graminoids or of mostly ericaceous shrubs,without trees or with short trees (less than 10 m in height) with more-or-lessopen canopy (usually less than 25%, Picea mariana, or Larix laricina intransitional sites). Lacking species indicative of subsurface minerotrophy (seeKey to Physiognomic Groups). With or without discontinuous permafrost orseasonal frost; occasionally with incipient palsa formation north of about 51°N.
...BOG
4b. Forming an erratic topography of (perennial) permafrost eruptions (palsas) orcoalesced palsa fields (peat plateaus) rising more than 1.5 m above ambientlandform level, with more-or-less continuous frozen peat cores and often withpatterning of interstitial bog/fen drainways at the ambient landform level.Surface vegetation dominated by lichens, ericaceous shrubs, with or withouttree cover (Picea mariana up to about 25%).
...PALSA/PEAT PLATEAU (PP)(Not relevant to the evaluation system).
3b. Predominantly minerotrophic wetland, developed on graminoid, woody or "brown moss" peat, or,if with abundant sphagnum at the surface, not usually underlain by a continuous horizon of puresphagnum peat of thickness more than 30 cm; sites variably influenced by lateral or ground waterinput of mineral soil water.
5a. Minerotrophic wetlands, heavily wooded or with shrub thickets over 2 m tall, and morethan 25% tree or tall-shrub cover. Usually with hummocky surface broken by wetinterstitial hollows, or relatively flat with many spring-flooded pools. Substrate ofmixtures of transported mineral and organic sediments, or peat (usually woody or with
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
143
sphagnum surface) deposited in situ . Often seasonally flooded or flooded by beaverdams, or with interstitial hollows or standing water and hummocks restricted to deadfallor tree/shrub bases; flooding can decrease tree density to less than 25% by dieback
...SWAMP (S)
Distinguished from the rarer High-Density TREED BOG by its location on the wetteredges of peatlands, or by the occurrence of an understorey of Alnus rugosa or Salix spp.,or surficial substrate of sphagnum peat less than 30 cm. thick, or by the more vigorousgrowth of trees, often those over 10 cm DBH (diameter, breast height) greater than 25%cover.
Occasionally, some heavily treed conifer peatlands keying out as SWAMP differ fromtypical swamps in that they occur on deep, more-or-less dry peats, and have such densecanopy closure that almost no shrub or ground cover persists. Larix laricina and Piceamariana have been noted as the dominant species on such sites in both northern andsouthern Ontario. Because of the density of tree growth and the dryness of peat, theymay be better classified as PEAT FOREST (FP).
5b. Open or sparsely wooded minerotrophic wetlands with level or depressional surfaces,except for low hummocks or ridges; dominated by sedges, grasses and/or (mostly) non-ericaceous shrubs. Tree cover may reach 25% in FENS (Larix laricina, Thujaoccidentalis), but is usually less than 10 m in height and has an understorey of lowshrubs and/or graminoids rather than tall alder or willow shrubs; pools of open water ordrainage tracks may be present.
6a. Open sparsely wooded, with a relatively uniform and consolidated surface,north of 50°N, often with subparallel ridges or elevated islands, linear drainagefeatures and small dispersed pools; more homogeneous physiognomically in thesouth, and often with clumped cedar surface. Vegetation consists of shoresedges and grasses, and a variable layer of (mostly) non-ericaceous shrubs andtrees. Often associated with the so-called "brown mosses" (Campyliumstellatum, Aulacomnium palustre, Drepanocladus revolvens, Tomenthypnumnitens, Scorpidium scorpioides, Palludella squarrosa, Calliergon giganteum),where pH is higher than 5.5; with Sphagnum spp., where pH is 5.0 to 6.0; or"marl peats", where pH is over 7.0. May be contiguous to open water or opendrainage systems, in which case the trophic level of the peatland may reflect thewater chemistry of the adjacent body of water. For instance, in infilling "kettle"depressions, fen margins and floating mats around acidic kettle lakes may beonly weakly minerotrophic, and thus bog-like in varying degrees. Root orstump hummocks are common, and hollows may or may not have shallow waterpresent over the peat.
...FEN (F)
6b. In many FENS, conditions are only weakly minerotrohic, and both BOG andFEN indicator species exist. Often, sphagnum and black spruce are dominant,
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
144
particularly in the "hummock" phase, but a scattering of fen associates make thesite appear to be transitional in terms of succession from FEN to BOG. Suchformations may be termed OPEN or TREED Poor FEN (OPF or TPF).
...Poor FEN (PF)(Considered to be the same as fen for evaluation purposes).
Because this classification unit is more nutrient-related than physiognomic, it should probably not beconsidered as a formation of equivalent importance to the others. It should be used only as a "last resort"by workers experienced with the full range of peatland nutrient conditions. It does, however, provide adescriptive means of characterizing some extensive peatlands in the James Bay Lowland and the NorthernClay Belt. Interpretation of Poor FEN solely on the basis of aerial photographs is probably unreliable.
KEY TO SUBFORMATIONSBOG, FEN, PALSA/PEAT PLATEAU
1a. Cover by tree species taller than 150 cm less than 10%
(Abbreviated to 0x if a superscript annotation of canopy cover percentage is available; forexample, 8% canopy cover would be designated as 08).
...OPEN (Ox)
1b. Cover by tree species taller than 150 cm more than 10% (rarely to 50%); trees species greaterthan 10 cm DBH, less than 25% cover.
...TREED (Tx)
(Abbreviated to Tx if a superscript annotation of canopy cover percentage is available; forexample, 26% cover becomes T26).
2a. Cover by tree species taller than 150 cm, 10% to 15%
...Low-DENSITY TREED (T(ld))
2b. Cover by tree species taller than 150 cm, 15% to 25%; on occasion, more than 5% cover.
...Medium-Density TREED (T(md))
Where cover by tree species taller than 150 cm is more than 30% and trees over 10 cmDBH greater than 25% cover, the stand may usually be considered to be SWAMP. High-Density TREED BOG (T(hd)B; canopy more than 25%) is a much less frequent type ofsite in Ontario, occurring in the central (or raised) areas of well-developed bogs, wherethere is less vigorous tree growth than in Conifer SWAMP. It is not associated withAlnus rugosa or Salix spp., which occupy more minerotrophic and wetter areas ofpeatland edges and drains. High-Density TREED BOG is usually dominated by Ledum
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
145
groenlandicum in the shrub storey, and is transitional to the L. groenlandicum type ofPicea mariana SWAMP. This distinction may be difficult to judge on aerial photographsof much of northern Ontario.
MARITIME SHORELINES
In maritime Ontario, two other modifying terms are used at the subformation level, both referring toMARSH and Meadow MARSH, and the latter to Thicket SWAMP as well. These refer to wetlands otherthan peatlands. They are physiographic rather than formational modifiers, but relate strongly to thefloristic composition of dominance types within otherwise similar physiognomic units.
1a. Formations within the marine (saline) influence of James and Hudson Bay....COASTAL (C)
1b. Formations subject to tidal effects ameliorated by the freshwater influence of major rivers.
Conifer swamp on peatlands or organic soils vary considerably in their nutrient statusand dominance types. In this physiognomic classification, that variation is notrecognized. However, a more detailed nutrient-related classification may be required byworkers. In such cases, reference is made to Forest Ecosystem Operational Groups 11 to13 (Jones et al. 1983) for more detailed mapping units useful across most of northernOntario: #OG11, Picea mariana-Ledum groenlandicum; OG12, Picea mariana-Alnusrugosa-herbpoor; OG13, Picea mariana (Larix laricina, Thuja occidentalis) - Alnusrugosa-herb-rich.
2b. Deciduous (hardwood) trees dominant (Fraxinus nigra, F. pennsylvanica, Populus spp.,Acer saccharinum, A. rubrum, Ulmus americana, Salix nigra, Carya spp., Quercusmacrocarpa, Q. palustris, Nyssa sylvatica, etc.)
...Deciduous (h)
Note that Mixed SWAMPS may be classified as follows: conifer (subdominant)-deciduous (dominant) SWAMP as chS, deciduous (subdominant)-conifer (dominant)SWAMP as hcS; superscripts may be used to indicate respective cover percentages; e.g.,h15c35S. The same procedure may be used with mixed thicket-deciduous SWAMP: thS orhtS. Alternatively, a simple Mixed SWAMP category (mS) may be consideredappropriate.
...Mixed (m)
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
146
1b. Tree species less than 25% cover and shrub species over 2m tall, more than 25% (Alnus rugosa,Salix petiolaris, other Salix spp., Betula pumila var. glandulifera, Cornus stolonifera, C.racemosa, Rhus vernix, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Ilex verticillata , etc). Grades into Shrub-RichMARSH in southern Ontario, from which it can be distinguished by its firm, more-or-lessconsolidated peat surface, its relative lack of open drainways and streams, and its denser andtaller shrub cover.
...Thicket (t)
BOG, FEN OR PALSA/PEAT PLATEAU
1a. Shrubs present, as low or dwarf shrubs less than 150 cm, more than 25% cover, or tall shrubs10% to 30% (rarely, to 40%) cover. Where the height of shrub cover is not discernible fromaerial photograph interpretation or when field data are unavailable, the generic physiognomicgroup Shrub-Rich (sr) can be used, and understood to include both tall-shrub and low-shrubgroups. In very few cases should more than a single physiognomic modifier be applied; wheremore than one may be considered applicable, the shrub storey takes precedence over thegraminoid/herb and sphagnum layers, the graminoid/herb layer takes precedence over sphagnum,and the latter is used only where neither shrub nor graminoid/herb is considered significantaccording to the definitions used below.
2a. Shrubs over 150 cm tall, 10% to 30% (rarely, to 40%) cover. In northern Ontario, shrubspecies include Chamaedaphne calyculata (B, F), Kalmia angustifolia (B), Thujaoccidentalis (F, as scrub cedar), Betula pumila var. glandulifera (F), Salix pedicellaris(F), Myrica gale (F). In southern Ontario, they include the above species and Aroniamelanocarpa (B,F), Nemopanthus mucronata (B), Vaccinium corymbosum (B). (B and Findicate general BOG or FEN tendencies).
...Tall Shrub
2b. Shrubs, where present, mostly 20 to 150 cm tall (or with less than 10% cover by shrubsgreater than 150 cm); low candelabra or layered black spruce less than 135 cm would beincluded in percentage estimates of shrub cover; shrubs less than 135 cm tall, greaterthan 25% cover (10% in the Hudson Bay Lowland), form the main visual impact, butsites may also have a significant graminoid component; includes most of the shrubspecies listed for Tall Shrub sites, with the addition of dwarfed candelabra Picea mariana(B), Ledum groenlandicum (F,F), Andromeda glaucophylla (B,F) A. polifolia (F),Vaccinium myrtilloides (B), Rhamnus alnifolia (F), Potentilla fruticosa (F), Gaylussaciabaccata (B). (B and F refer to general BOG or FEN tendencies). "Semi-shrubs" such asVaccinium oxycoccus, V. macrocarpon, Rubus pubescens, R. chamaemorus, R. acaulis orGaultheria hispidula should not be included in shrub cover values.
...Low Shrub (ls)
2c. On PALSA, PEAT PLATEAU, and some BOG and FEN sites in extreme northernOntario, shrubs may be very low (less than 20 cm tall) and over 10% cover; theserepresent extremes of climatic exposure or ombrotrophy and the physiognomic groupDwarf Shrub (ds) should be used. As with Low-Shrub types, "semi-shrubs" should not
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
147
be considered in this distinction....Dwarf Shrub (ds)
In extreme northern Ontario OPEN and TREED BOG and PALSA/PEAT PLATEAUcan have a conspicuous lichen cover (Cladina spp.) of over 45% to 50%, and should beindicated as Lichen-Rich (lr) formations.
...Lichen-Rich (lr)
1b. Shrubs either not present or present at cover values less than indicated above.
3a. Firm peatland above water most of the year.
4a. Conspicuous graminoid layer (sedges, grasses, reeds) more than (8% to 10%cover); graminoid cover exceeds shrub cover percentage: characteristic speciesare Carex aquatilis (F), C. chordorrhiza (F), C. diandra (F), C. interior (F), C.lasiocarpa (F), C. limosa (B, F), C. livida (F), C. oligosperma (B), C.microglochin (B), C. pauciflora (B), C. paupercula (B), C. rostrata (F), C.stricta (F), Equisetum fluviatile (F), Eriophorum spissum (B), E.viridicarinatum (F), Scirpus cespitosus (F,B), S. hudsonianus (F), Triglochinmaritimum (F). (B and F refer to general BOG and FEN tendencies). Includedin this layer are peatland forbs and "semishrubs" such as Vaccinium oxycoccus(B, F) Rubus chamaemorus (B), R. acaulis (F, ?B) and Gaultheria hispidula(B,F).
...Graminoid (g)
4b. Sphagnum moss dominant at surface; shrubs, herbs and graminoids less than10% cover.
...Sphagnum (sp)
3b. Small water-bodies occurring within the peatland, often with a patterned distribution;usually contiguous with Open BOG or FEN; rare except in the Hudson Bay Lowland.
...Pool (p)MARSH AND MEADOW MARSH
1a. Closed graminoid and herb (rarely, low-shrub) vegetation behind zones of coastal or shorelineemergent vegetation, and on wet floodplains, terraces of supertidal areas adjacent to open watersystems; some of the more common dominant species are indicated in couplet 2, below. Usuallyseasonally flooded, flooded in the recent past (e.g., due to beavers), or subject to storm or neaptide floods; graminoid cover is characteristic, so that no physiognomic modifier is required.
...Meadow (m)Low-Shrub Meadow (lsm)
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
148
In supertidal, coastal sites, low-shrub cover (less than 25% cover, mostly Salix spp.) may bedominant and can be indicated as Low Shrub Meadow MARSH (lsmM), often grading intoThicket SWAMP (tS).
1b. Emergent vegetation in or adjacent to open shallow water, pools or channels; commonlyinterspersed or dominated by clumps of vegetation (rooted, or unconsolidated and floating) withopen water channels between, or with open water beneath the canopy of sedges, grasses, reeds orcattails; cover by emergents or shrubs greater than 25%. Where ground data are unavailable forreferencing wetland types, a generic term such as Emergent MARSH (eM) should be used.
...Emergent (e)
In aerial photograph interpretation, the following classes of MARSH may not be readily distinguishable.
2a. Sedges, grasses, reeds or cattails dominant. Dominant marsh species vary a great deal acrossOntario; dominant herbaceous species may include Calamagrostis canadensis, Typha latifolia,Phlaris arundinacea, Carex aquatilis, C. leiandra, C. lacustris, C. pseudo-cyprus, C. stricta,Bidens spp., Polygonum natans, Utricularia vulgaris, Lythrum salicaria, Thelypteris palustris,and many others. May occur on mineral, muck, well-decomposed graminoid peat, or layering ofthese substrate types.
3a. Canopy cover 25% to 75%; standing water and/or muck/mud flats beneath canopy orbetween clumps; characterized by extreme variation in water levels, ranging from waterlevels at surface (e.g., after summer water drawdown, or in consolidated cattail MARSH)to standing water up to 2 m deep (e.g., Scirpus sp.).
...Deep (d)
3b. Canopy 75% to 100%; standing water and/or muck/mud flats beneath canopy or betweenclumps. Characterized by more-or-less continuous stands of tall emergents (MeadowMARSH would tend to have dominant graminoids of lower stature); with surface waterup to 1 m (floodstages), but usually less during much of the summer months.
...Shallow (s)
2b. Sedges, grasses, reeds or cattails present but dominated by shrub species (e.g., Spiraea alba,Cornus stolonifera, Ilex verticillata, Myrica gale, Decodon verticillatus, Cephalanthusoccidentalis); usually the more-or-less unconsolidated edges of Thicket or MARSH. A minorphysiognomic unit, most common in southern Ontario, grading into Thicket SWAMP in manyareas; for example, in extreme southwestern Ontario, where Cephalanthus occidentalis growsmuch larger.
...Shrub-Rich (sr)
MARSH and Meadow MARSH vary considerably in their dominant species in relation to theirproximity to the maritime coast, where they cover extensive areas (see and McKay 1980, for
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
149
James Bay dominance types).
1a. MARSH subject to spring and other exceptional tides and consequent marine icescouring; consistently Meadow MARSH, grading further away from coastal areas into
freshwater MARSH and Meadow MARSH; often broken by supertidal pools withconsiderably elevated salinity and frequency of halophytic plant species.
...Supertidal (Sup)
1b. MARSH subject to regular tidal influence; grading into Supertidal Meadow MARSH, butusually with emergent each-ridge deposits or deposits of tidal debris forming someboundary between "regular" versus "exceptional" tidal activity; halophytic plant speciesdominate, except in Estuarine areas ameliorated by freshwater input.
...Intertidal (Int)
OTHER MODIFIERS
Modifiers reflecting site history can add significantly to the meaning of mapped or reportedphysiognomic groups; modifiers should be placed in brackets after the abbreviation of the physiognomicgroup.
Flooded by beaver, roadway or other; e.g., dS(F) (F)Cutover and/or recent secondary succession (C)Post-fire succession (P)Grazed (G)Drained, or affected by drains through the area (D)Agricultural use (A)
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
150
APPENDIX 8
SAMPLE LETTER REQUESTING "ABORIGINAL VALUES" INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Wetland Evaluations and Aboriginal Values
Dear Sir:
I am writing to introduce you to the wetlands evaluation program that the Province of Ontario is currentlyundertaking, and to request some information from you about a specific wetland that we have evaluated.
What are wetlands?
Wetlands are areas where water-saturated soils favour the type of plants which are adapted to grow there;we also refer to wetlands as areas where there is too much water for a picnic but not enough forswimming. Marshes, bogs, swamps, and fens are all types of wetlands. Wetlands provide unique andspecialized habitat for a great variety of species that can live nowhere else.
What is the wetlands evaluation program all about?
The purpose of the wetlands evaluation program is to identify wetlands that must be protected fromdevelopment. This is done by applying a standard procedure for collecting information to each wetlandthat we wish to evaluate. There are two procedures in use in Ontario; one applies to wetlands south of theCanadian Shield (Southern Ontario), and the other applies to wetlands on the Canadian Shield.
...2
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
151
There are many types of information collected on each wetland which enables us to determine its value interms of its biological productivity, the diversity of habitat it supports, the human uses which it may have(like hunting or wild rice harvest), it's ability to attenuate floods and recharge ground water, and the rareor endangered plant and animal species it may support.
What does it all mean?
What this means is that once the information is collected, each wetland can then be ranked according toprovincial guidelines, which ultimately result in the designation of a wetland as "provincially significant"or not. Provincially significant wetlands are provided with high levels of protection
Why do we need your help?
One of the attributes in the wetland evaluation system is "Aboriginal Values". In this, we seek to giveextra value to a wetland should it have some special value to aboriginal people, whatever that may be.For example, a wetland may be used for wild rice harvesting or trapping, or it may have special culturalor spiritual values.
The staff in the Anytown office of the Ministry of Natural Resources have evaluated several wetlands inthe summer of 1992. What we want to do is show you the location of a wetland (see attached map), andask you to let us know if there is any special value that your community may have attached to it in orderthat this information may be incorporated into the evaluation.
You can use the attached page to write your response, or you can provide that information by callingMary Smith at the Ministry of Natural Resources in Anytown (705) 555-6827. Mary is the wildlifebiologist for the Anytown area and she is responsible for the wetland evaluations done locally. She canalso provide you with any other information about wetland evaluations you may require.
This list of provincially significant bird species is based on the 'species of concern' arising from the Atlasof the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 1987) and published in the spring 1989 issue of 'Seasons'.To reduce possible confusion, species that nest only in the Hudson Bay Lowlands have not been includedin the list below.
Regionally rare breeding bird species were based on an analysis of data from the Atlas of Breeding Birds ofOntario (Cadman et al. 1987) based on Hills’ Site Regions. This information has been updated in 1999through a review by the Natural Heritage Information Centre as well as by specialists with expertise inbreeding birds for their areas. Users should keep in mind that such lists are dynamic entities and speciesstatus may change for many reasons. From time to time, the person responsible for the wetland evaluationshould ensure that the species status is still valid by consulting with the appropriate experts and maintainingdocumentation on file.
PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT REPTILE & AMPHIBIAN SPECIES
List provided by Mike Oldham, MNR District Ecologist, Aylmer, based on Ontario HerpetofaunalSummary data May, 1992._____________________________________________________________________________________________
* Note that among the Ambystoma complex (blue spotted salamander), only the Jefferson Salamander (A.jeffersonianum) is provincially significant. Genetic analysis is required for species confirmation.
Fish species are regulated under the Federal Fisheries Act for conservation and protection but they are notlisted under the Provincial Endangered Species Act. The species listed below have been assigned officialstatus designations by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).COSEWIC, formed in 1977, is a committee of representatives from federal, provincial and privateagencies which assigns national status to species at risk in Canada.
COSEWIC status designations are the only designations for fish species of Ontario which are recognizedby the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Because status reports on fish species in Canada arereviewed or updated by COSEWIC on an ongoing bases, it is possible that in the future a species maybebe re-designated either into a more critical category, or to a less critical category when risks diminish.Therefore the most current COSEWIC listing for Ontario fish species with an assigned status should beused. The following list includes all Ontario fish species which have been assigned a COSEWIC status upto May 1992.
The criteria for the various status designations are defined as follows:
Species: "Species" means any species, subspecies, or geographically separate population.
Vulnerable Species: Any indigenous species of fauna or flora that is particularly at risk because oflow or declining numbers, occurrence at the fringe of its range or in restrictedareas, or for some other reason, but is not a threatened species.
Threatened Species: Any indigenous species of fauna or flora that is likely to become endangered inCanada if the factors affecting its vulnerability do not become reversed.
Endangered Species: Any indigenous species of fauna or flora that is threatened with imminentextinction or extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its Canadianrange.
Extirpated Species: Any indigenous species of fauna or flora no longer known to exist in the wild inCanada but occurring elsewhere.
Extinct Species: Any indigenous species of fauna or flora formerly occurring in Canada but nolonger known to exist anywhere.
The common and scientific names used in this list are those used by the COSEWIC Fish and Marine Mammal Subcommittee.
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
160
Common Name Scientific Name Status Date_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________*This species was designated rare prior to 1990. Rare is no longer a validCOSEWIC definition. After Sub-committee reviews, COSEWIC decided thatspecies designated as rare should be listed as vulnerable.
Southern Wetland Evaluation March 1993
161
APPENDIX 15
REFERENCES FOR REGIONALLY AND LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIES
Cuddy, D.G. 1991. Vascular plants of eastern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, (former)Eastern Regional Office, Kemptville. Unpublished MS. 80 pp.
Species listed as rare in all of the four local physiographic regions are considered regionallysignificant. Species listed as rare in a particular local physiographic region are considered locallysignificant.
South-central Ontario (former MNR Central Region)
Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and status of the vascular plants of Central Region. OMNR Open FileEcological Report SR8902. 110 pp.
Species listed as rare in Central Region are considered regionally significant. Species listed asrare in a county or regional municipality are considered locally significant. Note that, in some counties,the designation is only present or absent. Where no designation of 'rare' is made local significance cannotbe scored.
Oldham, M. In press. Distribution and status of the vascular plants of southwestern Ontario.
Species listed as rare in southwestern Ontario are considered regionally significant. Species listedas rare in a county or regional municipality are considered locally significant. Note that, in somecounties, the designation is only present or absent. Where no designation of 'rare' is made localsignificance cannot be scored.
FISH HABITAT_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 4.2.6.1, Spawning and Nursery Habitat, can be scored in one of two ways: wheninformation about fish use of a wetland is available, the level of use is scored; when information aboutactual use by fish is not available, the available habitat is scored. This appendix contains an example ofthe habitat-based scoring and the reference tables required to determine Vegetation Groups for habitat-based scoring.
Figure 16-1 shows a wetland containing fish habitat. The dominant vegetation form, the category offish habitat [Low Marsh (LM), High Marsh (HM), Seasonally Flooded Swamp (SF) and PermanentlyFlooded Swamp (PF)], and the area of each vegetation community is identified on the wetland map. Thedominant form and dominant species for each vegetation community are shown in Figure 16-2. Theinformation from the wetland map is summarized according to fish habitat category in Table 16-1.
During the standard mapping of the wetland vegetation communities (Section 1.2.2), two plantspecies are recorded for each vegetation form. It is very important to note that, if spawning and nurseryhabitat are to be based on habitat assessment, the most abundant species of the dominant vegetation formmust be identified. For example:
W1 su f Potamogeton nodosus, Utricularia vulgaris; Nuphar variegatum, Nymphaea odorata
In this open water marsh community, su is the dominant form, and Potamogeton nodosus is themost abundant species. To determine which Vegetation Group Potamogeton nodosus falls into, refer toTable 16-2, which breaks plant species into 12 broad groups. Potamogeton nodosus is considered to be aBroad-leaf pondweed, Group 12. The same process is followed with each marsh vegetation community.
The areas of the vegetation communities representing the same Vegetation Group from Table 16-2are then added. For example, in Table 16-1, communities W1 and W3 both represent Group 12. Theareas of W1 and W3 are added and entered on the scoring chart. Note that areas for Low Marsh and HighMarsh must be calculated separately. A size factor, determined from Table 5, is applied to the total area ofLow Marsh, High Marsh, Seasonally Flooded Swamp and Permanently Flooded Swamp. An example ofthe scoring based on the wetland in Figure 16-1 is shown below.
Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh and Swamp Communities: Total Area (ha) of fish habitat
Figure 16-2 Vegetation Communities to accompany Figure 16-1
Map Forms Dominant SpeciesCode
Marsh
W1 su Potamogeton amplifolius, Ceratophyllum demersum
M2 ne Zizania palustris
W3 su f Potamogeton nodosus, Elodea canadensis; Potamogetonnatans, Nymphaea odorata
M4 re ne gc Typha latifolia; Carex stricta, Phalaris arundinacea; Cicutabulbifera, Lycopus americanus
W5 f su ff Nymphaea odorata, Nuphar variegatum; Potamogetongramineus, Myriophyllum exalbescens
W6 be ne f su Pontederia cordata; Sparganium chlorocarpon, Carex aquatilis;Nymphaea odorata, Nuphar variegatum; Potamogetongramineus, Elodea canadensis
S3 h ts ne gc Acer rubrum, Fraxinus nigra; Acer rubrum, Betula pappyrifera; Carexintumescens, Poa palustris; Onoclea sensibilis, Bohemeria cylindrica
S4 dh f su ff dead deciduous trees; Potamogeton natans, Nymphaea odorata;Potamogeton zosteriformis, Potamogeton pectinatus; Lemna minor
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
165
Table 16-1. Summary of Fish Habitat Present in Wetland Shown in Figure 16-1. Community Code
Dominant Form
Dominant Species VegetationGroup(refer to Table17-B)
Size (ha)
Low Marsh
W1 su Potamogeton amplifolius 12 22.9 M2 ne Zizania palustris 1 8.2 W3 su Potamogeton nodosus 12 36.0 W5 f Nymphaea odorata 7 7.9 W6 be Pontederia cordata 4 2.2
High Marsh
M4 re Typha latifolia 3 10.5
Seasonally Flooded Swamp containing fish habitat
S4 n/a n/a n/a 4.0
Permanently Flooded Swamp containing fish habitat
S1 n/a n/a n/a 33.1 S2 n/a n/a n/a 0.6
EVALUATION:
Step 4: Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland
Low Marsh not present (Continue to Step 5) x Low Marsh is present (Score as follows)
Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups
Scoring is based on the one most clearly dominant plant species of the dominant form in each Low Marshvegetation community. Check the appropriate Vegetation Group for each Low Marsh community. Sumthe areas of the communities assigned to each Vegetation Group and multiply by the appropriate sizefactor from Table 5.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
166
Group Number Group Name Present as a Dominant Form (check)
Total Area(ha)
Area Factor
Table 5
Score Final Score(areafactorx score)
1 Tallgrass x 8.2 0.4 6 pts 2.4
2 Shortgrass-Sedge 11
3 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 5
4 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed x 2.2 0.2 5 1.0
5 Duckweed 2
6 Smartweed-Waterwillow 6
7 Waterlily-Lotus x 7.9 0.4 11 4.4
8 Waterweed-Watercress 9
9 Ribbongrass 10
10 Coontail-Naiad-Watermilfoil 13
11 Narrowleaf Pondweed 5
12 Broadleaf Pondweed x 58.9 1.0 8 8.0
Total Score (max. 75 points) 16
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
167
Step 5: High Marsh: marsh area from the water line to the boundaries of any other wetlandtype. This is essentially what is commonly referred to as a wet meadow, in that there isinsufficient standing water to provide fisheries habitat except during flood or high waterconditions.
High Marsh not present (Go to Step 7) x High Marsh present (Score as follows)
Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups
Scoring is based on the one most clearly dominant plant species of the dominant form in each High Marshvegetation community. Check the appropriate Vegetation Group for each Low Marsh community. Sumthe areas of the communities assigned to each Vegetation Group and multiply by the appropriate sizefactor from Table 5.
Group Number Group Name Present as aDominant Form (check)
Total Area (ha)
Area Factor
(refer toTable 5)
Score Final Score(areafactorx score)
1 Tallgrass 6 pts
2 Shortgrass-Sedge 11
3 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed x 10.5 0.6 5 3.0
4 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 5
Total Score (max. 25 points) 3
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
168
Step 6: Swamp: Swamp communities containing fish habitat, either seasonally or permanently.
Determine the total area of seasonally flooded swamps and permanently flooded swamps containing fishhabitat.
Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Go to Step 7) x Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)
Swamp containing
fish habitat
present
(check)
total
area (ha)
Area Factor
(Table 5)
score TOTAL SCORE
(factor x score)
seasonally flooded x 4.0 0.2 10 2
permanently flooded x 33.1 1.0 10 10
SCORE (max. 20 points) 12
Step 7: Calculation of Final Score
Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) = 16
Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25 = 3
Score for Swamp containing fish habitat (maximum 20) = 12
Sum (maximum score 100 points) = 31
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
169
Table 16-2: Species Representing Key Vegetation Groups
Scientific and common names of plants representing each Vegetation Group listed inSection 4.2.6.1 (based on Janecek 1988 as modified by Bill Crins, Regional Ecologist, MNRCentral Region, June 1992).
Group Number/Name Species Common Name_____________________________________________________________________________________
GROUP 1 - TALLGRASS
Calamagrostis canadensis Canada bluejointEleocharis palustris common spikerushGlyceria grandis tall mannagrassGlyceria maxima giant mannagrassLeersia oryzoides cutgrassPhalaris arundinacea reed canary grassPhragmites australis reedgrassSpartina pectinata cordgrassZizania all wild rice
GROUP 2 - SHORTGRASS - SEDGE
Alopercurus aequalis short-awn foxtailBeckmannia szyigachne sloughgrass (N)Carex all sedgeCladium mariscoides nut-sedgeCyperus all umbrella-sedgeDulichium arundinaceum three-way sedgeElatine all waterwortEleocharis most (see group 1) spikerushEriocaulon septangulare pipewortEriophorum all cotton-grassGlyceria most (see group 1) mannagrassIsoetes all quillwortJuncus most rushLittorella americana littorellaLobelia dortmanna water lobeliaPanicum all panic grassRhynchospora all beak-rushScirpus americanus American bulrush
Alisma plantago-aquatica water-plantainCalla palustris water arumCaltha all marsh marigoldPeltandra virginica arrow-arumPontederia cordata pickerelweedSagittaria all arrowheadSaururus cernuus lizard's tail (S)
GROUP 5 - DUCKWEEDS
Lemna all duckweedRiccia all liverwortRicciocarpus all liverwort
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
171
TABLE 16-2 continued
Group Number/Name Species Common Name
GROUP 5 - DUCKWEEDS (continued)
Spirodela polyrhiza big duckweedWolffia all watermeal
GROUP 6 - SMARTWEED - WATERWILLOW
Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweedDecodon verticillatus water willowGratiola aurea hedge hyssopLythrum salicaria purple loosestrifePenthorum sedoides ditch stonecropPolygonum most (see group 2) smartweedPotentilla palustris marsh cinquefoilVeronica scutellata marsh speedwell
GROUP 7 - WATERLILY - LOTUS
Brasenia schreberi watershieldNelumbo lutea lotus (S)Nuphar all spatterdockNymphaea all water-lilyNymphoides cordata floating heartPotamogeton natans common pondweed
GROUP 8 - WATERWEED - WATERCRESS
Elodea all waterweedNasturtium all water cress (S)
GROUP 9 - RIBBONGRASS
Alisma gramineum narrow water-plantainHeteranthera dubia water star-grassPotamogeton zosteriformis flatstem pondweedScirpus subterminalis water bulrushSparganium angustifolium narrow bur-reed
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
172
TABLE 16-2 continued
Group Number/Name Species Common Name
GROUP 9 - RIBBONGRASS (Continued)
fluctuans floating bur-reednatans least bur-reed
Vallisneria americana tape-grass
GROUP 10 - COONTAIL-NAIAD-WATERMILFOIL
Armoracia aquatica lake cressCeratophyllum all coontailMegalodonta beckii water marigoldMyriophyllum all water-milfoilNajas most naiadPodostemum ceratophyllum riverweedPotamogeton confervoides alga pondweed (N)
filiformis fine leaved pondweedpectinatus sago pondweedvaginatus sheathing pondweed
Proserpinaca palustris mermaid weedRanunculus aquatilis white water-crowfoot
flabellaris yellow water-crowfoottrichophyllus hairyleaf water crowfoot
Utricularia all bladderwortZannichellia palustris hornwort
GROUP 11 - NARROW-LEAF PONDWEED
Callitriche all water-starwortHippurus vulgaris mare's-tailPotamogeton epihydrus ribbonleaf pondweed
The Wetlands Policy for Ontario and associated Implementation Guidelines treat wetlandcomplexes as a single unit for mapping purposes. This Appendix provides guidelines for mapping theadjacent lands associated with wetland complexes in relation to the Wetlands Policy. The guidelines aredesigned to leave as few uncertainites as possible in the declineation of adjacent lands. Nevertheless, therewill likely be cases where best judgement must be applied.
Recall from the discussion of wetland complexes in the evaluation manual that the rules for delineating awetland complex are:
1. Watersheds: Wetlands must not be complexed across watersheds except in rare circumstances.For example, it can be difficult to determine to which watershed wetlands in major headwaterareas, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine, belong. These wetlands can be considered for complexingbecause of their cumulative importance in functions such as ground water recharge, water qualityimprovement, flood attenuation, and erosion control. If the wetland were to be physicallyremoved from the complex (e.g., by fill or drainage), the hydrological and ecological functions ofassociated and downstream wetlands would be affected. The test for determining whether acomplex should be defined is the comfort level of the biologist in defending the complex ongrounds of wetland function.
2. Distance: The maximum distance between units of a complex must not exceed 0.75 km straightline distance, i.e. “as the crow flies”. Note that this is different from the 2nd edition whichpermitted greater distances with an explanation.
3. Lacustrine Wetlands: Lacustrine wetlands often occur at the mouths of streams entering the lake.As long as these wetlands are within the 0.75 km distance criterion, they may be considered asunits of a complex, i.e. they are not considered to be in different watersheds. On the other hand,shoreline wetlands connected to one another by bands of submergent vegetation will notnecessarily be complexed. Again, it is up to the professional judgement of the biologist to ensurethat the complex is justified on functional grounds. (See Figure 3 for instructions on determiningthe outer boundary of a wetland on a lake with a shoreline band of submergent vegetation.
Adjacent Lands
Adjacent lands are defined in the Wetland Policy for Ontario as:
i) those lands within 120 m of an individual Wetland Area; andii) all lands connecting individual Wetland Areas within a wetland complex (Figure A1)
Steps for Establishing the Adjacent Lands for a Wetland Complex (Figure A-1)
Step 1: Draw a straight line along the shortest distance(s) between all Wetland Areas thatare part of the complex and are within 750 m of one another.
Step 2: Remove all lines connecting Wetland Areas that are within enclosed areas (e.g., line A inStep 2 on Figure A-1)
Step 3: Draw a line 120 m distant from the edge of each Wetland Area (exactly as if these wereindividual wetlands and not part of a complex). The line should go all the way aroundeach Wetland Area.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation May 1994
175
Step 4: Draw a line 120 m from each side of the lines connecting individual WetlandAreas except where the area between two or more Wetland Areas is enclosed andis already adjacent land. No 120 m adjacent land is established next to existingadjacent land.
The adjacent land for the wetland complex is a combination of:
i) the area enclosed by the 120 m distance around each Wetland Area.ii) the upland area(s) enclosed by the lines connecting the Wetland Areas,
andiii) the area enclosed by the 120 m distance on each side of the lines
connecting the Wetland Areas, except where the area between theWetland Areas is enclosed and is already adjacent land.
176
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation July 1994
177
APPENDIX B
PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS
Background
In June, 1992, Cabinet approved the Wetlands Policy for Ontario under Section 3 of the PlanningAct. The policy requires municipalities to have regard for provincially significant wetlands in land useplanning.
The determination of whether a wetland is provincially significant is based on evaluation. InOntario, there are now two evaluation manuals – one for the area generally south of the southern edge ofthe Canadian Shield (encompassing Hills Site Regions 6 & 7) and one for the area north of this line(encompassing Hills Site Regions 2 through 5). Both manuals provide direction for gathering data on anassortment of functions and values of wetlands which are divided into four categories (biological, social,hydrological and special features. These functions and values are assigned numerical scores whichcannot exceed 250 points in any category or 1000 points overall.
The manual for southern Ontario is a revision of the manual that has been in use since 1984.Revisions were necessary for a variety of reasons, but among the most important, were the inability of the1984 manual to adequately value rare wetland types and to adequately assess the importance of wetlandsto the hydrological regime of watersheds.
Guidelines for Wetland Management (MNR 1984) established seven classes of wetland based onthe score received during evaluation. Classes 1 through 3 we defined as provincially significant in theWetlands Policy. Because of the revisions to the manual, the score required for a wetland to becomeprovincially significant have also been revised. For northern Ontario, the definition of provinciallysignificant wetlands is new. In the future, the definition of provincially significant wetlands may changeagain as our understanding of wetland processes improves.
DEFINITION
For both northern and southern Ontario a provincially significant wetland is any wetland that:
1. Achieves a total score of 600 or more points, or
2. Achieves a score of 200 or more points in either the Biological component or the Special Featurescomponent.
OTHER WETLANDS
The wetland evaluation system for northern and southern Ontario are designed to identify importantwetlands on a provincial scale. However, all wetlands have value, both to society and intrinsically. TheWetlands Policy Statement recognizes these values in objective 3:
“to encourage the conservation of other Wetlands (e.g. Classes 4 to 7) throughout Ontario”.
Municipalities may determine that some of these ‘other’ wetlands are significant on a local scale and maydecide to protect them. The following attributes may assist the municipality in identifying these locallyimportant wetlands.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation July 1994
178
1. Ground Water Discharge. Accurate identification of ground water discharge requires detailedhydrogeological studies. Full score (30 points) in the ground water discharge section of thewetland evaluation suggests a ground water discharge function for the wetland. Beforedevelopment occurs in such a wetland, additional hydrogeological studies are encouraged.
2. Social value. High scores for Educational Uses and/or any of the sub-components ofRecreational Activities suggest a high local value for the wetland.
3. Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage. A wetland that receives the bonus score for either ofthese values may be significant on the local scale.
