86 Ontario Birds August 2017

The conservation of chimneys usedby Chimney Swifts in London,Ontario, 2004 to 2015Winifred Wake

IntroductionFrom 1970 to 2012, populations ofChimney Swifts (Chaetura pelagica) inCanada declined by 95%, the averageannual decline in Ontario being 7.77%(North American Bird Conservation Ini-tiative 2012, Environment Canada2014). In 2007, the Chimney Swift wasassessed as “Threatened” by the Com-mittee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Thespecies was subsequently accorded thesame assessment by the Committee onthe Status of Species at Risk in Ontario(COSSARO). In 2009, the Threateneddesignation became official under bothOntario and Canadian legislation to pro-tect species at risk. The Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources (2009) indicatedthat habitat of the Chimney Swift inOntario was protected “from damage anddestruction” and identified chimneysused by swifts as a component of theirhabitat. In June 2013, the provincial cab-inet approved regulations that detailednew approaches for the Chimney Swift:protection of chimneys used by swifts

was exempted from legislative require-ments, provided that certain conditionsof compensatory mitigation were met(Government of Ontario 2013). A keycomponent of the new regulations wasthat protection of chimneys and/or mit-igation was to be proponent-led (i.e., itwas up to the chimney owner to note thepresence of swifts and to initiate andundertake mitigation if the ownerintended to damage or destroy habitat).The current approach is described inOntario Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Forestry (2017).

Chimney Swifts are present inOntario from late April to early October.They nest and roost inside hollow shaftsthat have relatively low light levels and arough interior surface to which they clingby their strong claws (Figure 1). In earli-er times, swifts relied primarily on large-diameter hollow trees for nesting androosting. With the arrival of Europeansettlers, swifts began using built edifices,especially unlined brick chimneys, forthese purposes. As old-growth forests andlarge, aging trees became less common,

Volume 35 Number 2 87

Figure 1. Adult Chimney Swift clinging to a vertical brick surface, London, Ontario, 21 June 2015. Photo: David Wake.

88 Ontario Birds August 2017

swifts increasingly came to depend onhuman-made structures. Swifts mate forlife and return to the same chimney eachyear to nest — one pair per chimney(Kyle and Kyle 2005). Non-breedingindividuals often spend the night in largecommunal roosts, particularly duringmigration.

A significant factor behind thedecline of swifts is believed to be prob-lems with the food supply — insects cap-tured during flight. Following the post-war introduction of DDT (dichloro-diphynel-trichloro-ethane), the structureof insect communities was substantiallyaltered, a situation that did not reverseitself after DDT was banned in Canadain the 1970s (Nocera et al. 2012). Con-sequently, for many decades, swifts mayhave been surviving on a less-than-opti-mal diet. In more recent times, manyother factors, including habitat loss, pes-ticide use, timing of peak insect abun-dance and extreme and changing weath-er patterns associated with climatechange, may also be exacerbating theswifts’ problems and contributing to thecontinued downward slide in numbers.

A scarcity of chimneys for nestingand roosting is often mentioned as a pos-sible cause of population losses in swifts.Indeed, very few suitable chimneys havebeen built since the 1960s, while olderchimneys are increasingly falling intostates of disrepair or becoming victims ofcapping or demolition. A shortage ofchimneys is, however, not limiting swiftnumbers in this province at present, withjust 24.4% of apparently suitable chim-neys being occupied by swifts (Fitzgeraldet al. 2014). Nevertheless, Ontario’s swifts

currently depend heavily on chimneysand will do so into the foreseeable future.Even as the stock of suitable chimneysdwindles, accommodation continues tobe required by swifts occupying still-extant chimneys, swifts displaced fromnewly capped or demolished chimneysand recently paired young swifts. Retain-ing existing chimneys used by swifts(hereinafter called swift chimneys) mayalso reduce stress and increase produc-tivity for established pairs.

It has been suggested that artificialswift towers might replace chimneys thatare being lost. Yet, out of more than 60such structures erected in five provinces,only a single heated shaft in Quebec wassuccessful in attracting nesting swifts(Steeves et al. 2014). At least in the nearfuture, it seems that preserving knownswift chimneys is the most viable way toensure availability of optimal nesting androosting sites for Ontario swifts.

From 2004 to 2013, volunteers fromNature London (McIlwraith Field Nat-uralists) identified 162 active swift chim-neys in London. The bulk of the searcheffort was carried out from 2007 to2009, when 108 (67%) of the chimneyswere discovered. In the quest to findactive chimneys, no comprehensive sur-vey of potential swift chimneys wasundertaken. Nature London focusedmainly on a sampling of business, insti-tutional and industrial buildings. Chim-neys on private residences and on manyother types of buildings were not target-ed for checks. Therefore, numerous addi-tional London chimneys are likely alsoseasonally occupied by swifts.

Volume 35 Number 2 89

During the second half of 2015,Nature London’s Chimney Swift Liaisonrevisited the 162 chimneys referred toabove to document their then-currentstatus. Results are presented in Wake(2016) and are briefly summarized here.One hundred and fifteen chimneys(71%) were considered to be still suitablefor occupancy by swifts. The remaining47 chimneys (29%) had been capped ordemolished (with approximately equalnumbers experiencing each fate). Unfor-tunately, limitations in the assessmentmethodology made it difficult to deter-mine whether some chimneys remainedopen or had been capped. Thus, the 29%loss of swift chimneys is likely an under-estimate. Of 31 active chimneys foundfrom 2004 to 2006, 16 (52%) remainedavailable to swifts. Of 108 chimneyslocated from 2007 to 2009, 80 (74%)were accessible to swifts. For the 2010-to-2013 period, 19 (83%) of 23 chimneyscould still accommodate swifts.

Realizing that old brick chimneysused by Chimney Swifts were disappear-ing from Ontario’s built landscape,Nature London carried out several initia-tives in the hope of helping to conservethese chimneys. Addresses of known swiftchimneys were passed on to relevantagencies thought to be in a position totake action towards their preservation.Nature London undertook numerouseducational outreach endeavours aimedat the general public. From 2007 to 2009,the club operated an appreciation andeducation program for owners of swiftchimneys. When opportunities arose orwhen Nature London became aware thatparticular swift chimneys might face

demolition or other threats, representa-tions were made to appropriate govern-ment and other authorities. This paperreports on the successes and failures ofNature London’s efforts to promote theconservation of swift chimneys duringthe 12-year period from 2004 to 2015.

MethodsBeginning in 2004, Nature Londonbegan developing and refining protocolsfor detecting and monitoring chimneysused by Chimney Swifts in London.When Bird Studies Canada (BSC)launched Ontario SwiftWatch in 2010,London volunteers adopted BSC proto-cols, which varied slightly from those pio-neered by Nature London. In general,with the targeted chimney silhouetted (ifpossible) against the northwest sky, a per-son on the ground carefully observed andnoted all swift entries and exits during the40-to-60-minute-period bracketing offi-cial sunset. Rarely were building ownersor occupants aware their chimneys werebeing monitored. In conjunction with itsprogram to identify and selectively mon-itor a sampling of London swift chim-neys, Nature London undertook a num-ber of initiatives whose ultimate goal wasthe protection of such chimneys. Allswift-related activities were carried outunder the auspices of the club’s volunteerChimney Swift Liaison. Chimney con-servation efforts are described below, infour categories.

Sharing of data with relevant agencies At regular intervals, data collected on theactivity of swifts in London chimneyswere forwarded to selected recipients.

90 Ontario Birds August 2017

These consisted of municipalities, agen-cies, organizations and other entities thatwere believed to have the potential to usethe information in ways that would assistin the conservation of Chimney Swiftsand/or the chimneys they were occupy-ing. Addresses of swift chimney locationswere forwarded to relevant employees atthe City of London Planning Depart-ment (heritage or ecological planner), theMinistry of Natural Resources (MNR) inAylmer (species-at-risk biologist), andthe Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)(species-at-risk biologist). The hope wasthat possession of knowledge of someLondon chimneys used by swifts mightencourage these civil servants to actproactively if an issue or threat arose con-cerning any of the chimneys on the list.Nature London also regularly urged Cityof London officials to check all promis-ing-looking chimneys (especially thosenot yet known to Nature London) foractivity by swifts prior to issuing permitsfor demolition or alteration of olderbuildings. All chimney-monitoring datawere submitted to Bird Studies Canada.

Education aimed at the general publicNature London carried out a number ofinitiatives to inform the general publicabout local Chimney Swifts and theirconservation needs. These efforts includ-ed reports, pamphlets, newspaper andmagazine articles, materials posted onthe Nature London website, PowerPointpresentations delivered to schools andcommunity groups, guided walks inparts of the city where populations ofswifts tended to be highest, displays setup in public spaces such as libraries and

neighbourhood fairs and provision ofinformation on conservation of swifts.The hope was that greater communityawareness of swifts, their needs andThreatened status would lead to betterprotection of swifts and their chimneys.

Recognition and education programfor owners of swift chimneysFrom 2007 to 2009, Nature Londonoperated a stewardship program aimed atlandlords (owners, managers or otherrepresentatives) of swift chimneys. Ingeneral, landlords chosen for contactwere thought likely to be sympathetic tothe concept of protecting ChimneySwifts on their premises. Two categorieswere particularly targeted: educationalinstitutions (in the knowledge that envi-ronmental science was a component oftheir curriculum) and religious institu-tions (ones known to have an interest inenvironmental issues). Other landlordswere selected on the basis of personalknowledge; for example a swift monitorwas aware that her apartment superin-tendent would respond positively. In onecase, a business owner who discovered amonitor observing his chimney wasincluded in the stewardship program.

A representative of Nature Londonapproached each selected landlord, advis-ing of the presence of swifts in the chim-ney and explaining that the birds posedno health or fire hazard. It was suggestedthat it was an honour to provide accom-modation for an unobtrusive but charis-matic species whose numbers were insteep decline. Nature London thenexpressed the desire to present the busi-ness or institution with a framed certifi-cate of appreciation for its contribution

Volume 35 Number 2 91

to the conservation of the Chimney Swift.Almost all landlords responded positive-ly, although a few chose not to partici-pate. One business owner declined toaccept a certificate because, although hewas happy to accommodate swifts at thattime, he did not wish to be embarrassedif he changed his mind later. His buildinghas since been sold and demolished.

When feasible, a thank-you-certifi-cate-presentation event was organizedwhere a Nature London representativegave a five-minute talk about the conser-vation of swifts and left behind locallyproduced pamphlets about swifts. Inaddition, customized information aboutthe owner’s chimney and on how to be agood landlord to swifts was usually pro-vided (e.g., information on chimneycleaning). Whenever it could be arranged,certificate-presentation events were heldin the buildings in which the swift chim-neys were located and with a number ofpeople in attendance (e.g., during a gath-ering of staff, a church service, or a schoolassembly). Owners were encouraged tohang certificates in a highly visible orwell-trafficked part of their premises.

Certificates were presented to 22Chimney Swift landlords representing 38chimneys. The locations of chimneysinvolved in the program fell into the fol-lowing categories: high-rise apartments(2), businesses/offices (8), churches (10)and educational institutions (18). Theduration of Nature London’s landowner-contact program approximately coincid-ed with the interval between the assess-ment of the Chimney Swift as Threatenedin 2007 and the official designation in2009. The program ended at a time whenmany Nature London initiatives for swifts

were being wound down to make way forexpected new swift programs under theauspices of Bird Studies Canada. At thatpoint, it was also anticipated that federaland provincial governments and otherpartners would soon be adopting strate-gies to protect the Chimney Swift and itshabitat and that a recovery plan for thespecies would be in place by 2011.

Representations to government or other authorities In an effort to protect known swift chim-neys, Nature London made direct contactwith head personnel at selected publicinstitutions, and with elected federal,provincial and municipal officials, as wellas with relevant employees. Sometimesthe contact involved advocacy on behalfof swifts in general, and at other times onbehalf of specific swift chimneys. Anoverview of such activities follows.

In the spring of 2013, a delegationfrom Nature London met with DeputyPremier Deb Matthews to urge strength-ening rather than weakening of provinciallegislation and regulations relating to theprotection of the Chimney Swift and itshabitat. Nature London made submis-sions to London City Hall and MNR(Aylmer office) when it learned that ren-ovation, demolition or zoning changeswere being considered for specific Lon-don buildings that were on record for har-bouring swifts. In this manner, NatureLondon made representations (in writing,by telephone, and/or at public meetings)to the appropriate authorities on behalfof 16 swift chimneys after the ChimneySwift was officially designated as Threat-ened in 2009. In two of the 16 cases, thechimney had just been cut down and

92 Ontario Birds August 2017

capped when Nature London contactedMNR. For the other 14 chimneys, Na -ture London made representations,sometimes a number of times for a par-ticular chimney, to authorities well beforeany action was taken to demolish or capthe chimney. Two examples are high-lighted here. In 2009, the public wasinvited to make input regarding thefuture of the old London PsychiatricHospital complex and grounds on High-bury Avenue, which was owned byOntario Realty Corporation (later byInfrastructure Ontario). Because, at thetime, the public was not permitted on theproperty at dusk, volunteers could notassess the chimneys for swift occupancy.Therefore, early in the process, at the urg-ing of Nature London, a consultant wasretained and the buildings investigatedfor use by swifts. In 2014, Nature Lon-don made representations to staff andelected officials at City Hall, as well as theCEO of a large public institution, whichowned a building whose chimney annu-ally harboured a successful swift nest anda significant fall roost of up to 250 birds.The case for preserving the chimney wasalso publicized in the print news mediaand on social media.

ResultsDuring the 12-year period, Nature Lon-don was not aware that any of the gov-ernment agencies with which it hadshared swift data ever used such infor-mation to proactively protect a swiftchimney. It was not possible to quantifythe effectiveness of Nature London’sdiverse array of public outreach initiativeson behalf of Chimney Swifts. Generally,

however, in the cases of direct-contactactivities (e.g., talks, walks, staffed dis-plays, and responses to e-mailed inquir -ies), information seems to have been pos-itively received.

Recognition and education program for owners of swift chimneys Although owners were not specificallyrequested to do so, at the time of the cer-tificate presentations most made volun-tary verbal commitments to continue tomaintain and protect their chimneys forfuture use by swifts. Information (as oflate 2015) on the status of the 38 chim-neys whose owners received framed cer-tificates and stewardship information ispresented in Table 1. Twenty-three chim-neys (61%), representing 16 owners,remain intact and accessible to swifts. Ofthe other 15 chimneys (39%), seven werecapped or taken down relatively soonafter the certificate presentations (thoughone demolished chimney was subse-quently replaced following interventionby Nature London with MNR). Oneinstitutional owner of eight chimneysdemolished one a few years after receiv-ing a certificate and capped five in thepast few years, leaving just two of theoriginal chimneys available to swifts. Inat least a few cases, receipt of a certificateand educational materials caused somelandlords to take better care of theirchimneys and to ensure swifts continuedto be accommodated; e.g., one ownerrefurbished a deteriorating chimney (Fig-ures 2 and 3). Another continues to con-tact Nature London for advice relating tothe timing and appropriateness of roofand chimney maintenance.

Volume 35 Number 2 93

Figure 2. A swift chimney not long after a November 2009 certificate presentation, showingupper portion of the shaft in verypoor condition, with missing mortar, loose bricks and limedeposits, London, Ontario, 21 April 2010.

Figure 3. The chimney in Figure 2,now externally clad in metal, emergent tile liner retained, annually used by nesting swifts,London, Ontario, 11 December2015.

Photos: Winifred Wake.

Since all chimneys receiving certificates were identified in 2009 or earlier, it isinstructive to examine the status, in 2015, of all 139 chimneys first identified dur-ing this period (Table 1). Forty-three (31%) of the 139 chimneys have been lost. Forthe 101 chimneys that were not recognized with certificates, 28% were lost comparedto 39% (15 of 38) for chimneys whose owners received certificates.

Table 1. Status in 2015 of 139 London swift chimneys first identified in 2009 or earlier.

Total chimneys Building Chimney cut Chimney extant Chimneys (%) Chimneys (%)demolished down and and capped intact and unavailable to

capped available to swifts swifts

Certificate 2 5 8 23 (61%) 15 (39%)recipients (38)

Non-recipients of 5 8 15 73 (72%) 28 (28%)certificates (101)

All chimneys (139) 71 132 233 964 (69%) 43 (31%)

1 Three buildings including chimneys, one free-standing chimney, plus three free-standing silos, were razed to ground2 Chimney removed to approximately roof level and capped3 Chimney covered in a way that renders it inaccessible to swifts (11 chimneys blocked by installation of visible metal superstructures, eight by flat metal coverings, two by wire mesh animal guards, and two blocked internally)

4 Includes one chimney that was demolished to roofline and later replaced; may include an unknown number of chimneys that are blocked internally

94 Ontario Birds August 2017

Table 2. Status in 2015 of 124 London swift chimneys identified from 2004 to 2013 whose owners did not receive thank-you certificates.

Total chimneys Building Chimney cut Chimney extant Chimneys intact Chimneys demolished down and and capped and available unavailable

capped to swifts to swifts

124 4 10 14 96 (77%) 28 (23% loss rate)

Table 3. Status in 2015 of 14 London swift chimneys for which Nature London made early representations to the City of London and/or the Ministry of Natural Resources requesting they be protected (2009 or later).

Total chimneys Building Chimney partly Chimney extant Chimneys Chimneys identified demolished torn down and and capped available unavailable

capped to swifts to swifts

14 2 1 7 4 (29%) 10 (71% loss rate)

A look at the status of all swift chim-neys identified from 2004 to 2013 revealsan even greater disparity in rate of lossbetween chimneys whose owners receivedcertificates and those whose owners didnot (Table 2). By 2015, of 124 chimneyswhose owners did not receive certificates,28 (23%) had been lost, compared to 15of 38 chimneys (39%) whose owners hadreceived certificates.

One positive long-term outcome ofNature London’s chimney-owner stew-ardship initiative is noteworthy. King’sUniversity College, whose two activeswift chimneys annually host a nestingpair and a large roost (up to 1600 swifts),respectively, has enthusiastically em -braced the swift presence on campus. Inaddition to welcoming volunteer swiftmonitors, the college often serves as therelease site for orphaned swifts raised bywildlife rehabilitation centres that spe-cialize in the care of aerial insectivores(birds, including swifts, that feed by cap-turing insects on the wing). Dozens ofhand-reared swifts from London-basedSwift Care Ontario and elsewhere have

been released from the King’s UniversityCollege rooftop adjacent to the roostchimney.

Representations to government or other authorities Nature London has been unable to dis-cern any positive actions to protect swiftsor their chimneys as a result of its com-munications with elected municipal,provincial or federal officials. NatureLondon’s representations to civil servantsyielded few positive results, with onenotable exception. Before revised regula-tions were implemented in 2013, in twocases, Nature London contacted MNR(Aylmer) about chimneys that had justbeen cut down and capped. In the firstinstance, in the autumn of 2009, MNRcompelled one owner, a certificate recip-ient aware of the implications of theswift’s Threatened status, to build areplacement structure above the originalchimney shaft. In the second instance,however, a freshly capped swift chimneyreported by Nature London to MNR inearly August of 2011 remains capped.

Volume 35 Number 2 95

The status in 2015 of 14 chimneys forwhich Nature London made earlyrequests for protection is shown in Table3. Just four chimneys (29%) are current-ly available to swifts. A synopsis of thefates of the 14 chimneys follows. Twobuildings, along with their chimneys,were razed prior to 2013, leaving behindempty spaces. One of these demolishedchimneys was among five known swiftchimneys located within a defined cityplanning area; the remaining four chim-neys will likely be protected. One chim-ney was cut down to roof level and theroof extended over it (Figures 4 and 5).One chimney reported as “extant andcapped” has since been demolished(2016), with the owner, at Nature Lon-don’s urging, undertaking voluntaryreporting to provincial authorities andfollow-up mitigation. Six other cappedchimneys are located on the old LondonPsychiatric Hospital infirmary. Identified

as active swift chimneys during the sum-mer of 2009, they were capped prior tothe 2010 nesting season and remain so.

DiscussionIt will require a stronger commitmentfrom political leaders or government offi-cials before the conservation of swifts andtheir chimneys becomes a higher priorityfor civil servants. Nature London remainshopeful that 13 years of London swift-monitoring data submitted to Birds Stud-ies Canada will help to inform conserva-tion action on behalf of the ChimneySwift.

While their effectiveness cannot bequantified, outreach activities directedtowards the general public have been con-sidered to be useful, even though Lon-don’s stock of swift chimneys continuesto dwindle. It might have proved moreproductive, however, to have also target-ed specific audiences that may hold more

Figure 4. A swift chimneyoccupied annually by swiftsduring the nesting season,London, Ontario, 19 July 2007.

Figure 5. The chimney in Figure 4 after it was cut downand covered by the roof of thebuilding, rendering the shaftinaccessible to swifts, London,Ontario, 12 December 2015.

Photos: Winifred Wake.

96 Ontario Birds August 2017

potential for actual action to conservechimneys. Included among these arehome and commercial building renova-tors, brick layers, stone masons, chimneycleaners, furnace installation and main-tenance companies, and planners, con-sultants and others who facilitate zoningchanges and/or building alterations anddemolitions. Groups interested in his-toric buildings and architectural heritage,and business and community associa-tions in older urban areas might also havebeen receptive to learning about Chim-ney Swifts and their conservation needs.

Recognition and education program for owners of swift chimneys The higher rate of loss of viable swiftchimneys on buildings whose ownersreceived certificates invites attempts atexplanation. Given the relatively smallnumber of chimneys involved, the dif-ference might be random. It is also pos-sible the result was influenced by the factthat more than half the chimneys losthad just two owners or by an inherentbias in the selection of swift landlords.For the most part, chimneys in the cer-tificate program were located on build-ings that were well maintained, whilemany chimneys whose owners did notreceive certificates were found on less-well-maintained buildings. The lowerrate of capping or demolition for less-well-maintained buildings might be anartefact of neglect.

It is useful to reflect on other possiblereasons why landowner recognitionseems to be associated with higher lossesof swift chimneys and to identify weak-nesses in the program that might be

addressed in any future undertakings ofthis sort. Prior to contact by Nature Lon-don, almost all owners of swift chimneyswere unaware they were harbouringswifts. Upon so learning, some welcomedor tolerated the swifts, while others tookaction to exclude them. It is assumed thatowners of swift chimneys not contactedby Nature London were equally likely tobe oblivious to the presence of swifts intheir chimneys. In the absence of suchknowledge, they would, by definition,not take action to eliminate any birdsusing chimneys from their premises.

Given that Nature London took con-siderable care to try to contact only land-lords whom it had reason to believewould exhibit positive attitudes towardsswifts, the results of the certificate pro-gram are particularly disappointing. HadNature London contacted additionallandlords who were considered morelikely to react negatively to news of birdsin their chimneys, it is possible the chim-ney-loss rate associated with thelandowner-contact program might havebeen even higher.

When certificates were presented,efforts were made, as much as possible,to ensure they were given to the actualowner or CEO of the institution or busi-ness. The hope was that buy-in at the toplevel would be more likely to ensurecooperation from other arms of anorganization. Within a relatively shorttime, Nature London discovered that thisexpectation did not necessarily hold. Inthe case of two large institutions thateach owned a number of chimneys, theclub learned that facilities managementpersonnel did not agree with having

Volume 35 Number 2 97

swifts in chimneys, and their views tend-ed to prevail. One CEO, who had beenvery positive about accepting a certificateand committing to chimney conservationa short time earlier, when contactedabout a pending swift chimney demoli-tion, indicated he had no interest in orjurisdiction over building maintenanceissues.

The most frequent reason for the laterloss of chimneys owned by certificaterecipients related to furnace upgrades toimprove energy efficiency, which result-ed in a lined and capped chimney. Someunused and/or unstable chimneys werecut down and capped. Some chimneyswere demolished to make way for urbanrenewal. One chimney was covered withwire mesh to keep out raccoons andsquirrels, while another was coveredspecifically to exclude swifts. Most ofthese losses occurred after the ChimneySwift was designated as Threatened.

From 2007 to 2009, when NatureLondon’s chimney-owner contact pro-gram was in operation, swift chimneyshad not yet acquired protection underspecies-at-risk legislation. Thus, whenvolunteers approached swift chimneylandlords, they were trading totally ontheir ability to generate lasting goodwillfrom owners towards swifts. AlthoughNature London advised swift landlords ofthe pending designation of the ChimneySwift as Threatened, it had no incentivesto offer, no authority to require long-term cooperation from owners and nopossibility of back-up enforcement fromgovernment officials.

A very significant shortcoming of theNature London chimney-owner contactprogram was a lack of follow-up. Annu-al contact (e.g., providing updated infor-mation on swift presence and protectionpolicies, advice as needed, and perhapsopportunities for people frequenting thebuilding to actually see swifts) mighthave helped keep owner interest andcommitment high. Two owners thatmaintain regular contact with NatureLondon (for different reasons) continueto be committed to preserving theirchim neys for swifts.

Nature London’s owner-contact pro-gram was conceived and delivered entire-ly by volunteers. The program was verytime consuming to operate and, even ifthere had not been other reasons for ter-minating it in 2009, it is unlikely it couldhave been sustained indefinitely by vol-unteer labour. Nature London was dis-appointed that, after its chimney-ownercontact program ended, no other playerpicked up the ball on any similar project.No recovery plan or strategy has yet been unveiled.

In the years following the official des-ignation of the Chimney Swift as Threat-ened in September 2009, had there beena consistent, effective program of enforce-ment by provincial authorities, it is pos-sible Nature London’s initial two-year-long effort to preserve swift chimneysthrough landowner contact might haveyielded more positive long-term results.For example, later in the fall of 2009, acertificate recipient, aware of the protec-tion recently afforded the ChimneySwift, took down a swift chimney. Fol-lowing a tip from Nature London, MNRrequired that the chimney be replaced.

98 Ontario Birds August 2017

Representations to government or other authorities An assessment of Nature London’s inter-ventions to the London Planning De -part ment and/or MNR shows the rate ofsuccess to be relatively low, with one sig-nificant exception in which MNRrequired the construction of a replace-ment chimney. Nature London has beenunable to learn of any other significantenforcement action by MNR relating toLondon swift chimneys. Of 14 chimneysfor which Nature London made earlyrepresentations to municipal authorities,four survive; these are thought likely tobe protected during future development.All exhibit signs of deterioration andmaintenance issues will need to beaddressed if they are to survive in thelong term.

Nature London’s request that chim-neys on the buildings of the old LondonPsychiatric Hospital be checked for swiftoccupancy may have abetted the loss ofsix chimneys, which were capped soonafter it was learned they were being usedby swifts. Had Nature London not alert-ed the land managers to the potential ofswifts in these chimneys, it is possiblethey might still be available to swifts.

At Nature London’s urging, the insti-tutional owner of one chimney that theclub’s efforts failed to save undertook vol-untary compensatory mitigation. Theartificial chimney, constructed at greatexpense on the roof of a nearby building,did not attract swifts during its first twoseasons (2015 and 2016). MNR hasdeclined to share data regarding othermitigation that may have taken place inLondon, indicating that informationrelated to capping, removal and alteration

of swift chimneys is confidential. To date,volunteers for conservation of London’sswifts have failed to detect evidence ofcompensatory mitigation of other lostswift chimneys and it is possible that nomitigation has been undertaken for theremaining nine chimneys on Table 3. Formore information about the mitigationprocess, see https://www.ontario.ca/ page/alter-chimney-habitat-chimney-swift.

Nature London is aware of 33 Lon-don swift chimneys that have beendemolished or capped since the 2009provincial designation of the ChimneySwift as Threatened. Although thespecies and its habitat (including chim-neys) are protected by federal and provin-cial species-at-risk legislation, in practice,it appears that known nest and roost sitesrarely receive any protection beyond thatwhich applies to any migratory bird, i.e.,the prohibition of destruction of nestingsites when occupied. It is unclear, how-ever, how frequently even that basic tenetis enforced. Observations by Londonswift volunteers during the period inquestion suggest that, in the face of weakor no enforcement of legislation, ownersof chimneys used by swifts are almostalways free to cap or demolish swiftchimneys with impunity.

It is of interest to look at losses ofswift chimneys during three somewhatarbitrarily and approximately definedperiods of time, when differing protec-tion approaches were in place (Table 4).The first period covers six years, startingin 2004, when Nature London begandeveloping an inventory of swift chim-neys, and continuing to the end of 2009,shortly after the Chimney Swift was des-ignated as Threatened under provincial

Volume 35 Number 2 99

Table 4. Number of London swift chimneys lost during three periods of differing protection approaches.

2004 to 2009 2010 to 2013 2014 and 2015 (prior to SARA (approx between SARA (after Ontario regulationsdesignation) designation and and compensatory

Ontario regulations) mitigation implemented)

Cumulative number of chimneys 139 162 166known by end of period

Total number of chimneys lost (n = 47) 14 16 17

Average loss of chimneys per year 2.3 (n = 6 yr) 4 (n = 6 yr) 8.5 (n = 2 yr)

legislation. The average rate of loss was2.3 chimneys/year (Table 4). The secondperiod runs for four years from 2010 tothe end of 2013, the year in which newregulations were implemented; the aver-age rate of loss was 4.0 chimneys/year.The third period encompasses two years,2014 and 2015, during which the 2013regulations, including proponent-ledcompensatory mitigation for harmedswift chimneys, were in effect duringboth entire years; the average rate of lossduring this period was 8.0 chimneys/year.It appears that the rate of loss of swiftchimneys in London may be higher nowthan it was before the Chimney Swift andits habitat were protected under species-at-risk legislation and that the loss mayhave accelerated since the implementa-tion of cabinet-approved regulations in2013. In total, 47 swift chimneys werelost during the 12 years presented inTable 4. An additional chimney that wascut down and capped but later replacedis not included. Despite hundreds ofhours of dedicated observations at andaround London’s known swift chimneysover many years, evidence of compensa-tory mitigation has been detected for onlyone of the 47 chimneys.

General Summary and ConclusionsWith few exceptions, Nature London’svarious endeavours aimed at promotingthe conservation of Chimney Swifts andtheir chimneys in London appear to havebeen largely ineffective or even counter-productive. During most of the 12 yearsunder consideration, Nature London wasessentially working alone in its efforts toadvance the conservation of swift chim-neys in London. Without meaningfulenforcement from regulatory agenciessince swifts were designated as Threat-ened in 2009, the club, despite beingwell-intentioned, was unable to make sig-nificant progress in achieving the kinds ofoutcomes it sought.

As no viable designs for artificialchimney structures are currently avail-able, swifts must continue to rely on realchimneys in the near/foreseeable future.Mechanisms or incentives for effectivelypreserving traditionally used chimneysare needed. Old, unlined, open-toppedbrick chimneys are becoming obsolete inthe modern world. They are expensive tomaintain and often do not meet theneeds of present-day heating systems.Chimneys that currently survive likely doso only because they do not yet requiresignificant structural work or alterations.

100 Ontario Birds August 2017

Observations made in 2015 suggestthat the majority of chimneys used byswifts in London need repairs. Withoutintervention (possibly including financialassistance), it can be expected that manyof these will disappear, likely at an accel-erating rate.

Swift populations in Ontario current-ly appear to be declining more rapidlythan swift chimneys are, but this may nothold true indefinitely. Bird Studies Cana-da (2017) expects that “without conser-vation efforts, there may not be many, ifany, swift-appropriate chimneys left inCanada in the next 25 years.”

One current impediment to the pro-tection of swift chimneys appears to bethe lack of an appropriate protocol fordetermining when it can be concludedthat a chimney is no longer being used byswifts. This is complicated by a scarcity ofdata on two particular patterns of chim-ney usage by swifts that have beenobserved in London: occupancy during alimited portion of the nesting season (e.g.,late returning spring migrants, temporaryresidents and swifts that experience earlynest failure) and intermittent annualoccupancy (e.g., chimney occupied someyears but occasionally empty for a year).

With current mitigation proceduresseemingly rarely adhered to and, whenfollowed, of questionable benefit toswifts, a re-examination of the mitigationprocess is in order. Swift conservation isin urgent need of research and action atprovincial, national and international lev-els. Locally, if swift numbers keep declin-ing and the stock of old brick chimneyscontinues to dwindle, the days in whichswifts soar and chatter over the streets ofdowntown London and other Ontario

cities may well be finite. For meaningfulaction to happen, a compatible politicalclimate must be in place and organiza-tions equipped with greater resources andauthority than Nature London will needto vigorously pursue the cause.

AcknowledgementsI thank all the volunteers from Nature Londonand the London community who helped mon-itor and protect London swifts since 2004. Spe-cial thanks go to Karen Auzins who initiatedtwo Nature London swift outreach endeavours— development of a brochure and the chim-ney-owner certificate program. Thanks also goto Upper Thames River Conservation Author-ity for assistance with brochures and certifi-cates. I thank Dave Wake for photographs, fieldassistance and much other support. I thankBird Studies Canada for ongoing collaboration.Thanks are also extended to all landowners andland managers who are protecting chimneys forswifts.

Literature CitedBird Studies Canada. 2017. 2016 OntarioSwiftWatch Report (February 2017). Reportavailable from Bird Studies Canada, PortRowan, ON. 19 pp.

Environment Canada. 2014. North Ameri-can Breeding Bird Survey – Canadian TrendsWebsite, Data-version 2012. EnvironmentCanada, Gatineau, Quebec. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ron-bbs/P001/A001/?lang=e [websiteaccessed October 2016.]

Fitzgerald, T.M., E. van Stam, J.J. Noceraand D.S. Badzinski. 2014. Loss of nestingsites is not a primary factor limiting northernChimney Swift populations. Population Ecology 56:507-512.

Kyle, P.D. and G.Z. Kyle. 2005. America’smysterious birds above the fireplace. TexasA&M University Press, College Station. 140 pp.

Volume 35 Number 2 101

Government of Ontario. 2013. Environmen-tal Registry # 011-7696. Ministry of NaturalResources. Proposed approaches to the imple-mentation of the Endangered Species Actwhich could include regulatory amendmentsto authorize activities to occur subject to con-ditions set out in regulation consistent withMNR’s Modernization of Approvals. O. Reg.242/08. Decision date: 14 June 2013.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.2009. Natural. Valued. Protected. ChimneySwift (Chaetura pelagica). MNR #52578,Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2 pp. (No otherpublication details available.)

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2017. Chimney Swift. Queen’sPrinter for Ontario, 2012 17. https://www.ontario.ca/page/chimney-swift [websiteaccessed 4 March 2017.]

Nocera, J.J., J.M. Blais, D.V. Beresford, L.K. Finity, C. Grooms, L.E. Kimpe, K. Kyser, N. Michelutti, M.W. Reudink andJ.P. Smol. 2012. Historical pesticide applica-tions coincided with an altered diet of aerially

foraging insectivorous Chimney Swifts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:3114-3120.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative Canada. 2012. The State of Canada’s Birds, 2012. Environment Canada,Ottawa. 36 pp.

Steeves, T.K., S.B. Kearney-McGee, M.A.Rubega, C.L. Cink and C.T. Collins. 2014.Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), The Birdsof North America Online (P.G. Rodewald,Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;Retrieved 3 November 2016 from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/chiswi.

Wake, W.E. 2016. Loss of chimneys used by Chimney Swifts in London, Ontario,2004-2013. The Cardinal 243:33-38.

Winifred Wake597 Kildare RoadLondon, Ontario N6H 3H8E-mail: dwake@odyssey.on.ca