indian line campground study area - amazon web services
TRANSCRIPT
1
Indian Line Campground Study Area
Summary of Terrestrial Biological Inventory and Assessment
August, 2008
Contact: Sue Hayes Toronto Region Conservation Authority
Ecology Division Regional Watershed Monitoring Program
2
3
Indian Line Campground Study AreaTable of Contents
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 TRCA Surveys............................................................................................................... 62.1 Flora Survey.............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Flora Species of Concern.................................................................................. 7
2.2 Fauna Survey............................................................................................................ 8
3.0 Recommendations...................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Summary................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Site Recommendations .......................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Quality Distribution Recommendations .......................................................... 14 3.2.3 Quantity Recommendations............................................................................ 15
4.0 References .................................................................................................................. 16
Tables
Table 1: Summary and Recommendations for the Indian Line Campground Study Area by Indicator......................................................................................... 13
Maps
Map 1: 6431 & 6461 Indian Line Campground Study Area Regional Context..................... Map 2: 6431 & 6461 Indian Line Campground Study Area Site Boundary.......................... Map 3: 6431 & 6461 Indian Line Campground Study Area Vegetation Communities ........ Map 4: 6431 & 6461 Indian Line Campground Study Area Flora of Concern (L1-L4)......... Map 5: 6431 & 6461 Indian Line Campground Study Area Fauna of Concern (L1-L4).......
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of Vegetation Communities ........................................................................ Appendix 2: List of Flora Species.......................................................................................... Appendix 3: List of Fauna Species........................................................................................
4
5
6
1.0 Introduction
The Indian Line Campground Study Area is located in the middle reaches of the West Humber sub-watershed, in the City and Region of Toronto (Map 1), but situated very close to the borders of a further three cities: Brampton, Mississauga and Vaughan. The study area lies entirely within the TRCA property, on the east bank of the lower Claireville Reservoir, south of the CN Railway, and west of Hwy 427 (Map 2). It is part of a larger riparian network stretching upstream and downstream on the west branch of the Humber River River. The site is embedded in an entirely urban landscape (residential and industrial/commercial); however, it is also isolated from much of this landscape by various barriers: Highway 427 lies to the east, the reservoir to the north and west, and Finch Avenue to the south.
The Indian Line site is also on the Peel Clay Plain, which has undergone such intensive agricultural and then urban development that very few natural areas remain. The Claireville Conservation Area lands, which include the study area, are one of the only extensive areas of natural cover remaining on the Peel Clay Plain in the jurisdiction.
2.0 TRCA Surveys
TRCA has ranked all flora and fauna species within the TRCA jurisdiction using a system that identifies the species’ resilience in the face of a changing Toronto landscape. This system ranks species from L5 (very resilient) to L1 (very sensitive), with an extra category (L+) for non-native species. Species that are ranked L1 to L3 are considered to be of regional concern. Species that are ranked as L4 are considered to be of concern within urban areas. Each fauna rank (other than L+) is the sum of seven scoring criteria: local occurrence, continent-wide population trend, local population trend, area sensitivity, mobility restriction, habitat dependence and sensitivity to development. Flora ranks are the sum of scores from the following criteria: local occurrence, local population trend, habitat dependence and sensitivity to development.
2.1 Flora Survey
The flora surveys took place on 20 and 26 June 2007; complete vegetation community and species lists are attached (Appendices 1 & 2). The flora surveys were conducted by delineating the study area into vegetation communities according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998) as modified by TRCA and mapping species of concern. Compared to other inland habitats, the overall species biodiversity is low with 66 flora species in total found within the study area. This amount may not be considered low if the natural coastal habitat (dune or beach) was still intact as physical processes, such as wave action, would restrict the density and type of species present. 43 of the 66 species are non-native to the TRCA jurisdiction.
7
2.1.1 Vegetation Communities
There were four vegetation communities found in the study area (Appendix 1; Map 3). By far the largest is a 9.9 ha patch of Hawthorn Successional Savannah (CUS1-1). A small area of Fresh-Moist Manitoba Maple Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7-a) lies near the western part of the site, and there is a narrow fringe of Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD4-1) along the reservoir shoreline. A tiny area along the shoreline has been planted with deciduous trees and shrubs: Restoration Deciduous Plantation (CUP1-A).
The main hawthorn species in the savannah are dotted hawthorn (Crataegus punctata)and scarlet hawthorn (C. pedicillata). However, the less common gleaming hawthorn (C. corusca) is also present, and it is a species of regional concern. The hawthorns are mingled with a few other common deciduous trees and shrubs.
Exotic species prevail in the Manitoba maple forest, which occupies one hectare; for example, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is abundant in the ground layer and there is a large patch of the virtually ubiquitous dog-strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum) along the edge.
The immediate shoreline communities are affected by the widely varying water levels of the Claireville reservoir. The narrow willow fringe is periodically flooded. The species composition of the planting is geared in part toward coastal / wetland conditions but is well above water level almost all the time.
The site does represent opportunities for restoration, especially retaining and diversifying the hawthorn savannah and increasing treed swamp habitat. These vegetation communities tend to be characteristic of the Peel Clay Plain.
2.1.2 Flora Species of Concern
A total of 137 flora species occur naturally on site, while 15 are found in plantings. Natives comprise just 45 of the total naturally-occurring species, well under half. Most of the non-natives are species of recently-disturbed areas and only a fraction are really invasive. Nonetheless, this is a small site with a history of land use disturbance and the species composition reflects this fact.
Gleaming hawthorn (Crataegus corusca, L3) and marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre, L4) were the only non-planted species of concern mapped during the 2007 survey; the latter, a generalist wetland herb, was reassigned to a rank of L5 in 2008 (Appendix 2; Map 4). (On urban sites, species with a rank of L4 are considered to be of concern in addition to the higher-ranked L1-L3 species). Gleaming hawthorn is, like most other hawthorns, largely restricted to post-agricultural sites (specifically with a history of livestock pasture). It is fairly intolerant of shade and populations require some form of disturbance (e.g. grazing) to persist in the long term. Hence, it scores high in habitat dependence and has some reliance on a particular dynamic environment that raises its sensitivity to development score slightly. While the dotted and scarlet hawthorns on site
8
are common in the TRCA jurisdiction, occurrences of gleaming hawthorn are more scattered and local. It is considered regionally rare. Hawthorn savannahs in the TRCA jurisdiction tend to become overrun with the invasive European buckthorn (Rhamnuscathartica) once released from grazing.
The plantings include three species of regional concern (L3): white spruce (Piceaglauca), shining willow (Salix lucida), and germander (Teucrium canadense). Conditions are good at the site for the latter two species. In addition, four L4 species were planted.
Certain flora characteristic of the Peel Clay Plain, some of them with Carolinian or generally southern affinities (e.g. shagbark hickory, Carya ovata), occur elsewhere on the Claireville lands but not in the study area per se.
2.2 Fauna Survey
Fauna data were collected by the TRCA on April 19th, June 4th and July 5th, 2007. The spring survey searched primarily for frog species of regional concern but recorded incidentally the presence of any early spring nocturnal bird species (owls and American woodcocks). The summer surveys were concerned primarily with the mapping of breeding bird species of regional concern. Songbirds are surveyed in June/July in order to obtain breeding bird data and to exclude migrants. The methodology for identifying confirmed and possible breeding birds follows Cadman et al. (1987). All species considered possible breeding species were noted on a site checklist, and all L1 to L4 species were mapped on ortho-photos.
The fauna checklist compiled from the 2007 survey lists just 37 species as possible, probable or confirmed breeders within the study area. The Indian Line Campground Study Area is situated within the urbanized portion of the jurisdiction and therefore L4 fauna species are counted alongside L1 – L3 species (Species of Regional Concern) as species of concern on the site. Fauna surveys at the study area reported a total of eight L1- L4 bird species: two L3 species (American woodcock and brown thrasher) and six L4 species (including willow flycatcher and gray catbird). In addition, there were two mammal species of concern (eastern cottontail and white-tailed deer) and one herpetofauna of concern (snapping turtle). Therefore, the 2007 surveys reported a total of 11 breeding fauna species of regional and urban concern. Locations of these breeding fauna species are depicted on Map 5; Appendix 3 lists all of the fauna species reported from the study area, together with their associated ranks and scores.
Local occurrence is one of seven scoring criteria for fauna and is based on TRCA data and information from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2007) of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Using local occurrence as a measure of regional rarity, any species that is reported as a probable or confirmed breeder in fewer than ten of the forty-four 10 km squares in the TRCA jurisdiction is considered regionally rare (i.e. scores 3-5 points for this criterion). One species of regional and urban concern (i.e. ranked L4) considered regionally rare was located on site: northern rough-winged swallow. Recent inventory work across the region suggests that this species is in fact
9
somewhat more widespread than previously thought. One other species – orchard oriole, an L5 species – scores as regionally rare. This species is typically a southern species that has shown a fairly dramatic population increase within the TRCA jurisdiction in recent years as its range expands northwards from south-west Ontario and south of the Great Lakes. As is the case with flora, most regionally rare fauna species have other associated factors that explain their vulnerability and need to be taken into account in conservation strategies.
Sensitivity to development is another criterion used to determine the L-rank of fauna species. A large number of impacts that result from local land use, both urban and agricultural, can affect the local fauna. These impacts - considered separately from the issue of actual habitat loss - can be divided into two distinct categories. The firstcategory involves changes that arise from local urbanization that directly affect the breeding habitat of the species in question. These changes alter the composition and structure of the vegetation communities; for example, the clearing and manicuring of the habitat (e.g. by removal of dead wood and clearance of shrub understorey). The second category of impacts involves changes that directly affect individuals of the species in question. Examples include increased predation from an increase in the local population of predator species that thrive alongside human developments (e.g. blue jays, crows, squirrels, raccoons, and house cats); parasitism (from the facilitating of brown-headed cowbird access, a species which prefers more open, edge-type habitat); competition (for nest-cavities with bird species such as house sparrows and Eurasian starlings); flushing (causing disturbance and abandonment of nest); sensitivity to pesticides. It should also be noted that many of the negative impacts associated with urbanization can be transferred from distant urban areas by intensification of public use of any area of natural cover.
Fauna species are considered to have a high sensitivity to development if they score 3 or more points (out of a possible five) for this criterion. At the Indian Line Campground Study Area nine of the eleven species that are ranked L1- L4 receive this score and are therefore considered sensitive to one or more of the impacts associated with development or intensification of public use. These species are currently at this site because, although situated within the urban matrix, many of the negative influences associated with urbanization have been buffered by Highway 427 to the east and by the TRCA property (and reservoir) to the west. Furthermore, public use appears to have been relatively minor, and certainly there is little hiking or dog-walking on the site, most activity being concentrated on the west side of the reservoir, or at least along the shoreline.
The tendency for local urbanization and increased public use to be accompanied by the clearing and tidying of woodlands and thickets in the vicinity would dramatically disrupt species that are dependent on such scrub cover for nesting or foraging, and certainly the more sensitive species have such specific requirements (e.g. American woodcock and brown thrasher).
Several of the bird species found in the study area nest low in the ground vegetation and as such are highly susceptible both to increased predation from ground-foraging predators (house cats, raccoons) and to repeated flushing from the nest (by pedestrians, off-trail bikers and dogs) resulting in abandonment and failed breeding
10
attempts. Such sensitive bird species include American woodcock and spotted sandpiper; other ground-foraging and ground-nesting fauna species (eastern cottontail, snapping turtle) would likewise be severely affected by any increase in pedestrian or dog traffic within their habitat. Various studies have shown that many bird species react negatively to human intrusion (i.e. the mere presence of people) to the extent that nest-abandonment and decreased nest-attentiveness lead to reduced reproduction and survival. One example of such a study showed that abundance was 48% lower for hermit thrushes (a ground-nesting/foraging species) in intruded sites than in the control sites, a site being a one-hectare circle (Gutzwiller, 1999). Elsewhere, a recent study reported that dog-walking in natural habitats caused a 35% reduction in bird-diversity and a 41% reduction in abundance, with even higher impacts on ground-nesting species (University of New South Wales, 2007). The current low level of hiking and dog-walking activities allows such species to continue breeding successfully within the study area boundary.
Area sensitivity is another of the seven criteria that are used to determine the local rank for fauna. Fauna species are scored for area sensitivity based on their requirement for a certain minimum size of preferred habitat. Species that require large tracts of habitat (>100 ha in total) score the maximum five points, while species that either show no minimum habitat requirement, or require < 1 ha in total, score one point. Species scoring three points or more (require 5+ ha in total) are deemed area sensitive species. As mentioned in section 2.2.1, researchers have shown that for some species of birds area sensitivity is a rather fluid factor, dependent and varying inversely with the overall percentage forest cover within the landscape surrounding the site where those species are found (Rosenburg et al., 1999).
Just two of the fauna species of regional or urban concern that were identified are considered area sensitive. Both of these species (American woodcock and white-tailed deer) are scored as requiring more than 5 ha of natural habitat. This requirement is satisfied by the patch size attributes of natural cover within the study area.
Species’ patch-size constraints are due to a variety of factors including foraging requirements and the need for isolation within a habitat block at times of nesting. In the latter case, regardless of the provision of a habitat patch of sufficient size, if that block is seriously and frequently disturbed by human intrusion such species will be liable to abandon the site. This is particularly true of ground-nesting and ground-foraging species such as American woodcock, which also requires a variety of natural habitat types within its territory – open ground for performing aerial courtship displays in the spring and moist thicket or forest habitat for foraging and nesting. Such a variety of habitat needs are more likely satisfied within a larger extent of natural cover.
Mobility restriction in fauna measures the physical ability or the predisposition of a species to move about within the landscape and is related to the connectivity of habitat within a landscape. One example of how fauna mobility affects species populations is the need for adults to forage for food during the nestling and fledgling stage of the breeding season. By maintaining and improving the connectivity of natural cover within the landscape (e.g. by reforestation of intervening lands) we are able to positively influence the populations of such species, improving their foraging and dispersal potential.
11
At the Indian Line Campground Study Area there are no fauna species that have been scored as mobility restricted (3 or more points); however, the score for mobilityrestriction does not address the issue of species that habitually - and as a part of their life-cycle - move across a variety of habitat types. Such species will readily cross open ground but in so doing expose themselves to potentially fatal encounters with predators and vehicular traffic. This is particularly true of snapping turtles that move seasonally between their aquatic foraging habitat and terrestrial breeding habitat. Such movements vary depending on the availability of suitable nesting substrate.
Species such as snapping turtle have effectively been extirpated from much of the natural cover within the urbanized portions of the jurisdiction, but are still thriving in rural areas. As long as wetland habitat exists within the agricultural rural areas, and obstacles such as heavily used roads do not proliferate, it appears that snapping turtles are still able to successfully find appropriate nesting locations. Populations of snapping turtles within the more urbanized portion of the jurisdiction will be unlikely to sustain themselves if access to breeding habitat and opportunities for recruitment from healthier neighbouring populations is not available.
Fauna species that score greater than three points under the habitat dependencecriterion are considered habitat specialists. These species exhibit a combination of very specific habitat requirements that range from the microhabitat (e.g. decaying logs, aquatic vegetation), through requirements for particular moisture conditions, vegetation structure or spatial landscape structures, to preferences for certain community series and macro-habitat types. None of the fauna species that occur at Indian Line Campground are considered habitat specialists, however, several species do have requirements for particular nesting opportunities: brown thrasher, gray catbird and willow flycatcher are all scrub-nesting species, while northern flicker requires standing dead-wood suitable for the excavation of nest cavities.
Representation is essentially the presence or absence of a species at a site. However, beyond mere representation of single species is the idea that a natural system can be considered as a healthy functioning system if there is an association of several species thriving within that system. Each habitat type supports particular species associations. As the quality of the habitat patch improves so will the representation of flora and fauna species within that habitat. In this way representative bio-diversity is an excellent measure of the health of a natural system. The absence of any habitat dependent species, in particular species that are dependent on forest, indicates that the forest habitat is not functioning very well. Several of the other less habitat specific scrub species are fairly well-represented with multiple occurrences of gray catbird and willow flycatcher and this is perhaps a reflection of the relatively low level of public activity on the site.
3.0 Recommendations
The recommendations for the Indian Line Campground Study Area are given in relation to the regional targets for natural heritage in the TRCA jurisdiction (see section 1.1.3, also TRCA 2006a, 2006b). To reach the regional targets for quality distribution and
12
quantity of natural cover, every site will require its own individualized plan of action. Following is a short summary of the site within the regional context, followed by specificrecommendations.
3.1 Summary
Located to the south of the Claireville Conservation Area in the West Humber sub-watershed and connected to that relatively large area of natural cover by riparian cover along the West Humber Creek and associated reservoirs, the site is buffered from otherwise very negative urban matrix influences by a series of man-made obstacles – highways, railways and the reservoirs themselves. Nevertheless, the quality of habitat within the study area is rather poor and the representation of regional Species of Concern is on a par with many other such sites within the urban matrix. Proper management of the site’s habitat characteristics could result in recruitment of further Species of Concern despite the proximity of the urban matrix, as long as the current buffering persists and the site remains somewhat undisturbed. The habitat patch quality on site is “fair” (L3; Map 6) which is a little higher than the patch quality expected to be associated with the urban matrix that almost completely envelopes the site.
Landscape Analysis indicates that the majority of the natural cover in the study area is successional (9.9 of 11.2 hectares ground-truthed), with a considerably smaller proportion of the site occupied by mid-age forest, plantation and treed swamp. Although, for the purposes of Landscape Analysis successional habitat is included with forest and woodland for an over all calculation of forest habitat, on this site the successional habitat is at the very early stages and very open, almost meadow-like in places (CUS1-1). This explains the rather poor representation of forest fauna species, and the presence of fauna species associated with scrubby, early successional habitat. Under current conditions the study area supports 45 recorded species of native vascular plants, just one of which is of regional concern. There are 37 species of breeding fauna, with less than a fifth of these (eight) considered either species of regional concern or species of concern within the urban zone.
3.2 Site Recommendations
The following table illustrates the contributions made by the Indian Line Campground Study Area toward the quality distribution and quantity indicators, along with site-specific recommendations for potential improvements. It is important when considering the indicators in Table 3, to keep in mind the varying degrees of interdependence between them. These indicators have been selected as a means for describing important aspects of a natural system, a system that exists as a whole, encompassing a network of closely related and inter-dependent factors. It would be incorrect and misleading to view any one of these indicators in isolation from the others.
13
Table 1: Summary and Recommendations for the Indian Line Campground Study Area by Indicator
INDICATOR Indian Line Campground STUDY AREA SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Size,Shape, & ForestInterior
2 area-sensitive fauna species, both of which require in excess of 5 ha of natural cover.
Consider redesigning the habitat characteristics of the entire site. Possibilities include: the creation of a shallow but extensive wetland associated with the reservoir; the expansion of the currently restricted woodland into a more functional size. Such redesigning will require a full survey of the natural cover on the north side of the CN railway tracks to investigate the opportunities for recruitment and expansion.
Quality Distribution
MatrixInfluence
Matrix to the east of the site is largely industrial urban but is buffered by Hwy 427; to the west, north and south-west the matrix is largely urban but again is buffered by the presence of the natural cover associated with the TRCA property. The current matrix influence score averages 2 out of 5 points (“poor”).
- Gleaming hawthorn (L3) and a few other species are sensitive to changes in land use (loss of dynamics following abandonment of agriculture).
- 9 of the 11 fauna species of regional and urban concern are scored as sensitive to development.
Mitigate impacts of encroaching urbanization.
- manage trails to limit damage to species and habitats Prevent further invasive species spread into higher-quality natural areas.Encourage stewardship from campground managers. Retain and restore natural cover on adjacent properties
- TRCA region can retain range of flora, fauna, and community types if we protect the relatively diverse parts of the jurisdiction such as this one.
14
Quantity Based on 2007 ground truthing, the study area contains 11.2 ha of natural cover. This contributes less than 0.04% to the total natural cover within the Humber watershed. Of this, 11 ha is forest and 0.2 ha are wetland.
The site is located on the Peel Clay Plain, which has very little natural cover remaining compared to other physiographic regions in the TRCA jurisdiction.
Maintain natural cover at the Indian Line Campground Study Area.
- Vegetation communities and flora and fauna species will then have opportunities to maintain current populations.
Maintain/enhance continuous links of natural habitat between habitat patches on site and those beyond the site boundaries.
- Judicious positioning of restoration projects will have far reaching effects on all other Indicator categories.
3.2.1 Quality Distribution Recommendations
It is unlikely that Habitat Patch Quality can be improved on this site since Patch Size is constrained by the surrounding urban landscape, and Matrix Influence is unlikely to alter in the foreseeable future. One possibility would be to manage and restore the fragment of natural cover to the south-east of the site and to decommission the road access separating the two portions so as to effectively increase the total area of continuous natural cover.
If any one of the three landscape measures (size, shape or matrix influence) within the study area were to be improved, the area would increase in habitat patch total score, perhaps to the extent of introducing larger “fair” quality patches into the area. The expected results from such an increase in habitat patch score (and therefore quality) would be a subsequent increase in the quality of the local natural system (reflected in the increase and recruitment of the more sensitive communities and species). Efforts should be made to improve the habitat patch total score of the study area to the same level as currently exists within the other TRCA properties to the north of the study area, thereby maintaining and improving the function of the natural system locally, and protecting the natural system that exists in the middle reaches of the West Humber sub-watershed.
Optimize Patch Size & Shape, Forest Interior
The larger the habitat block, the more resilient the fauna and flora communities are to developments within the landscape or to increased user pressure. If, for example, the small forest patch on the site could be augmented by restoring some of the adjacent successional land, the natural function of the forest could be considerably increased, thereby improving the breeding opportunities for species already present in the larger forest patches at Claireville CA to the north (e.g. wood thrush). Alternatively, designing a new wetland installation, associated with the existing reservoir, may considerably enhance the natural function of the site, working in conjunction with the small wetland that currently exists to the north of the railway.
15
Minimize Negative Matrix Influence
It is important to act early in fostering an attitude of care and respect for the local natural system (and in the surrounding landscape) among visitors and local stakeholders. Encouraging increased natural cover in adjacent lands can further enhance the matrix. Landowner stewardship could inform neighbouring landowners on the value of natural cover and how to be a steward of the area (education on invasive species etc). Community involvement in this local natural area could ensure that some human impacts on the communities and species would be diminished.
3.2.3 Quantity Recommendations
Increase Natural Cover to Achieve Quality Distribution Targets
In order to achieve targets for natural cover quality distribution, there needs to be an adequate amount of natural cover. Insufficient natural cover in many urban parts of the TRCA jurisdiction such as the Don Valley has resulted in concentrated impacts on the remaining land base, as well as conflicts between various user groups.
The more natural cover we retain at the Indian Line Campground Study Area and vicinity, the better it can support a healthy level of biodiversity, but only if the public use of the area is properly managed. Currently, the study area accommodates a relatively low number of vegetation communities and flora and fauna species that are of concern either at the regional level or within the urban portions of the region. Restoration work should take into account the Peel Clay Plain character of the site and species that occur nearby. For example, the Carolinian species shagbark hickory (Caryaovata) and running strawberry bush (Euonymus obovata) should be considered in restoration plantings, in addition to more hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Michigan lily (Lilium michiganense). Swamp areas on the Peel Clay Plain often have a high component of silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and sedges (Carex spp.).
Improve Connectivity To Nearby Habitat
Restoration of open habitats surrounding this site would increase local natural cover, and contribute to the regional natural cover. In this respect, attention needs to be paid to the potential for east-west linkage across the Hwy 407 corridor between the riparian habitats associated with the Humber tributaries. This aspect of habitat connectivity has immense implications at both the watershed and regional levels. Connectivity through natural cover along such corridors should be maintained and enhanced to improve the opportunities for dispersal of breeding and migrating fauna. The placement of restored habitat can be planned so as to maximize its benefits to habitat quality and distribution, as well as to connectivity and to the protection of existing populations of species of concern.
16
4.0 References
Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles, and F.M. Helleiner, 1987. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press.
Gutzwiller, K.J. and S.H. Anderson. 1999. Spatial extent of human-intrusion effects on subalpine bird distributions. Condor 101:378-389.
Lee, H. W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray, 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: firstapproximation and its application. Peterborough, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch.
NHIC (Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre), 2007. Natural Heritage Information website: http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_.cfm
Rosenburg, K.V., R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S.E. Barker, R.S. Hames, and A.A. Dhondt, 1999. A Land Manager’s Guide to Improving Habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and other Forest-interior Birds. Ithaca, NY: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
TRCA, 2006a. Setting Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Targets (draft). Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
TRCA, 2006b. Evaluating and Designing Terrestrial Natural Heritage Systems (draft).Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
University of New South Wales (2007, September 12). A Dog In The Hand Scares Birds In The Bush. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/09/070905095349.htm
Toronto
Caledon
King
Vaughan
Brampton
Uxbridge
Pickering
HaltonHills
Mississauga
Markham
Whitby
Scugog
Ajax
Whitchurch-
Stouffville
Aurora
Richm
ond
Hill
New
market
Hum
ber
Don
Rouge
Duffins
Etobicoke
Highland
Mimico
Carruthers
Petticoat Frenchman's
Bay
Map
1:Indian
Line
Study
Areainthe
ContextofRegionalNaturalCover
Legend
Indian
Line
Study
Area
Lake
Ontario
Date:August2008
05
1015
2.5
Kilometers
-*Landscapeanalysisbasedon
2002
Orthophotography
NaturalCover*
Forest
Successional
Meadow
Wetland
Beach/Bluff
TRCAJurisdiction
MunicipalBoundary
Watershed
Indian
Line
StudyArea
20 0 20 40 60 8010 Meters
INDIANLINE
HWY427
Map 2:Indian Line Study Area
Date: August 2008
Orthophoto: Spring 2005, First BaseSolutions Inc.
.Legend
0 50 100 150 20025Meters
Study Area
INDIANLINE
HWY427
Orthophoto: Spring 2005, First BaseSolutions Inc.
Date: August 2008
Map 3:Vegetation Communitieswith their Associated
Local Ranks
INDIANLINE
HWY427
-0 50 100 150 20025
Meters
Vegetation Community RanksLegend
Indian LineStudy Area
L1
L4
L5
L2
L3
L+
!(
!(
!A
!A!A!A!A
!A
!A
!A
INDIANLINE
HWY427
!(
!(
!A
!A!A!A!A
!A
!A
!A
INDIANLINE
HWY427
Map 4:Location of FloraSpecies of ConcernDate: August 2008
Orthophoto: Spring 2005, First BaseSolutions Inc.
0 50 100 150 20025Meters
-Legend
Indian Line Study Area
Planted Flora Speciesof Concern (L1-L4)
L2!AL3!A
L1!A
L4!A
Flora Species ofConcern (L1-L4)
L1#S
L2#SL3#SL4#S
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
INDIANLINE
HWY427
Legend
Map 5:Location of FaunaSpecies of Concern
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
INDIANLINE
HWY427
-Orthophoto: Spring 2005, First Base
Solutions Inc.
Date: August 2008
0 50 100 150 20025Meters
Indian LineStudy Area
Fauna Speciesof Concern
L1#*
L2#*
L3$T
L4#*
L5#*
Ap
pen
dix
1: L
ist
of
Veg
etat
ion
Co
mm
uniti
es F
oun
d in
Ind
ian
Line
Stu
dy
Are
a in
200
7
area
Loca
lG
eop
hy.
Loca
lE
LCV
eget
atio
n Ty
pe
# h
aD
istr
ib.
Req
uir.
Ran
kC
od
e(*
indi
cate
s pr
esen
t as
incl
usio
n an
d/or
com
plex
onl
y)(2
002-
01)
Fore
stFO
D7-
aFr
esh-
Moi
st M
anito
ba M
aple
Low
land
Dec
iduo
us F
ores
t1.
02
02
L5C
UP
1-A
Res
tora
tion
Dec
iduo
us P
lant
atio
n0.
12
02
L5
Suc
cess
iona
lC
US
1-1
Haw
thor
n S
ucce
ssio
nal S
avan
nah
9.9
20
2L5
Wet
land
SW
D4-
1W
illow
Min
eral
Dec
iduo
us S
wam
p0.
21
01
L5
Tota
lS
core
Ap
pen
dix
2: L
ist
of
Flo
ra S
pec
ies
Foun
d in
Ind
ian
Line
Stu
dy
Are
a in
200
7
* - r
ank
reas
sign
ed to
L5
from
L4
in 2
008
"cf."
in th
e sp
ecie
s na
me
indi
cate
s th
e sp
ecie
s fo
und
was
mos
t lik
ely
nam
ed c
orre
ctly
but
cou
ld n
ot b
e co
nfirm
ed"p
L…" i
n th
e ra
nk c
olum
n in
dica
tes
that
the
spec
ies
was
onl
y fo
und
plan
ted
and
not r
egen
erat
ing
Loca
lP
op
ulat
ion
Hab
itat
Sen
sitiv
ity t
oTo
tal
Ran
kS
cien
tific
nam
eC
om
mo
n N
ame
Dis
trib
utio
nTr
end
Dep
end
ence
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Sco
reTR
CA
1-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
2-20
2007
Cra
taeg
us c
orus
cagl
eam
ing
haw
thor
n5
25
315
L3G
aliu
m p
alus
trem
arsh
bed
stra
w2
24
311
L4*
Ace
r sa
ccha
rum
ssp
. sac
char
umsu
gar
map
le1
30
26
L5A
mbr
osia
arte
mis
iifol
iaco
mm
on r
agw
eed
11
40
6L5
Am
phic
arpa
ea b
ract
eata
hog-
pean
ut2
22
28
L5A
nem
one
cana
dens
isC
anad
a an
emon
e1
22
27
L5A
scle
pias
syr
iaca
com
mon
milk
wee
d1
20
14
L5A
ster
eric
oide
s ss
p. e
ricoi
des
(Virg
ulus
eric
oide
s)he
ath
aste
r1
12
15
L5A
ster
nov
ae-a
nglia
e (V
irgul
us n
ovae
-ang
liae)
New
Eng
land
ast
er1
22
16
L5B
iden
s fro
ndos
usco
mm
on o
r de
vil's
beg
gart
icks
11
40
6L5
Car
ex c
rista
tella
cres
ted
sedg
e2
24
19
L5C
arex
vul
pino
idea
fox
sedg
e1
24
18
L5C
ornu
s st
olon
ifera
red
osie
r do
gwoo
d1
20
36
L5C
rata
egus
ped
icel
lata
scar
let o
r pe
dice
lled
haw
thor
n2
23
310
L5C
rata
egus
pun
ctat
ado
tted
haw
thor
n2
23
310
L5Ec
hino
cyst
is lo
bata
wild
cuc
umbe
r2
21
16
L5Ep
ilobi
um c
iliat
um s
sp. c
iliat
umst
icky
will
ow-h
erb
22
21
7L5
Erig
eron
ann
uus
annu
al o
r da
isy
fleab
ane
22
01
5L5
Frag
aria
virg
inia
na (
sens
u la
to)
wild
str
awbe
rry
L5Fr
axin
us a
mer
ican
aw
hite
ash
12
03
6L5
Geu
m a
lepp
icum
(G
. stri
ctum
)ye
llow
ave
ns2
32
29
L5G
eum
can
aden
sew
hite
ave
ns2
21
27
L5Im
patie
ns c
apen
sis
(I. b
iflor
a)or
ange
touc
h-m
e-no
t (sp
otte
d je
wel
wee
d)1
20
25
L5Ju
glan
s ni
gra
blac
k w
alnu
t1
12
15
L5Ju
ncus
dud
leyi
Dud
ley'
s ru
sh2
23
18
L5Ly
sim
achi
a ci
liata
fring
ed lo
oses
trife
12
22
7L5
Men
tha
arve
nsis
ssp
. bor
ealis
wild
min
t1
23
28
L5O
enot
hera
bie
nnis
com
mon
or
hairy
eve
ning
-prim
rose
21
11
5L5
Par
then
ocis
sus
inse
rta (
P. v
itace
a)th
icke
t cre
eper
22
01
5L5
Pla
ntag
o ru
gelii
red-
stem
med
or
Rug
el's
pla
ntai
n2
20
15
L5P
olyg
onum
lapa
thifo
lium
var
. lap
athi
foliu
mpa
le s
mar
twee
d2
14
07
L5P
opul
us b
alsa
mife
ra s
sp. b
alsa
mife
raba
lsam
pop
lar
12
32
8L5
Pru
nus
virg
inia
na s
sp. v
irgin
iana
chok
e ch
erry
12
01
4L5
Rub
us id
aeus
ssp
. mel
anol
asiu
s (R
. stri
gosu
s)w
ild r
ed r
aspb
erry
11
01
3L5
Rub
us o
ccid
enta
lisw
ild b
lack
ras
pber
ry2
10
14
L5Sa
lix e
xigu
a (S
. int
erio
r)sa
ndba
r w
illow
21
52
10L5
Sam
bucu
s ca
nade
nsis
com
mon
eld
erbe
rry
23
22
9L5
Scirp
us a
trovi
rens
blac
k-fru
ited
or d
ark
gree
n bu
lrush
22
42
10L5
Solid
ago
altis
sim
ata
ll go
lden
rod
12
00
3L5
Ap
pen
dix
2: L
ist
of
Flo
ra S
pec
ies
Foun
d in
Ind
ian
Line
Stu
dy
Are
a in
200
7
* - r
ank
reas
sign
ed to
L5
from
L4
in 2
008
"cf."
in th
e sp
ecie
s na
me
indi
cate
s th
e sp
ecie
s fo
und
was
mos
t lik
ely
nam
ed c
orre
ctly
but
cou
ld n
ot b
e co
nfirm
ed"p
L…" i
n th
e ra
nk c
olum
n in
dica
tes
that
the
spec
ies
was
onl
y fo
und
plan
ted
and
not r
egen
erat
ing
Loca
lP
op
ulat
ion
Hab
itat
Sen
sitiv
ity t
oTo
tal
Ran
kS
cien
tific
nam
eC
om
mo
n N
ame
Dis
trib
utio
nTr
end
Dep
end
ence
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Sco
reTR
CA
1-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
2-20
2007
Solid
ago
giga
ntea
late
gol
denr
od2
11
15
L5Ti
lia a
mer
ican
aba
ssw
ood
14
23
10L5
Ulm
us a
mer
ican
aw
hite
elm
14
02
7L5
Verb
ena
hast
ata
blue
ver
vain
22
42
10L5
Vitis
rip
aria
river
bank
gra
pe1
10
02
L5Xa
nthi
um s
trum
ariu
mcl
otbu
r or
coc
kleb
ur2
14
07
L5A
butil
on th
eoph
rast
ive
lvet
-leaf
++
++
L+A
chill
ea m
illef
oliu
m s
sp. m
illef
oliu
mE
urop
ean
yarr
ow+
++
+L+
Agr
ostis
gig
ante
a (A
. sto
loni
fera
var
. maj
or; A
. alb
a)re
dtop
++
++
L+A
lliar
ia p
etio
lata
(A
. offi
cina
lis)
garli
c m
usta
rd+
++
+L+
Ant
hem
is c
otul
ast
inki
ng m
ayw
eed
++
++
L+A
rtem
isia
bie
nnis
bien
nial
wor
mw
ood
or m
ugw
ort
++
++
L+A
rtem
isia
vul
garis
mug
wor
t or
wor
mw
ood
++
++
L+B
arba
rea
vulg
aris
win
ter
cres
s or
yel
low
roc
ket
++
++
L+B
rom
us in
erm
is s
sp. i
nerm
issm
ooth
bro
me
gras
s+
++
+L+
Cap
sella
bur
sa-p
asto
rissh
ephe
rd's
pur
se+
++
+L+
Car
agan
a ar
bore
scen
sS
iber
ian
pea-
shru
b+
++
+L+
Cen
taur
ium
pul
chel
lum
bran
chin
g ce
ntau
ry+
++
+L+
Cer
astiu
m fo
ntan
um (
C. v
ulga
tum
)m
ouse
-ear
chi
ckw
eed
++
++
L+C
heno
podi
um a
lbum
var
. alb
umla
mb'
s qu
arte
rs+
++
+L+
Che
nopo
dium
gla
ucum
ssp
. gla
ucum
oak-
leav
ed g
oose
foot
++
++
L+C
hrys
anth
emum
leuc
anth
emum
ox-e
ye d
aisy
++
++
L+C
icho
rium
inty
bus
chic
ory
++
++
L+C
irsiu
m a
rven
secr
eepi
ng (
Can
ada)
this
tle+
++
+L+
Cirs
ium
vul
gare
bull
this
tle+
++
+L+
Con
volv
ulus
arv
ensi
sfie
ld b
indw
eed
++
++
L+C
rata
egus
mon
ogyn
aE
nglis
h ha
wth
orn
++
++
L+C
ynan
chum
ros
sicu
m (
C. m
ediu
m; V
ince
toxi
cum
ros
sicu
m))
dog-
stra
nglin
g vi
ne o
r pa
le s
wal
low
-wor
t+
++
+L+
Cyn
oglo
ssum
offi
cina
leho
und'
s to
ngue
++
++
L+D
acty
lis g
lom
erat
aor
char
d gr
ass
++
++
L+D
aucu
s ca
rota
Que
en A
nne'
s la
ce o
r w
ild c
arro
t+
++
+L+
Dip
sacu
s fu
llonu
m s
sp. s
ylve
stris
teas
el+
++
+L+
Echi
um v
ulga
revi
per's
bug
loss
or
blue
wee
d+
++
+L+
Elae
agnu
s an
gust
ifolia
Rus
sian
oliv
e+
++
+L+
Elym
us r
epen
s (A
grop
yron
rep
ens;
Ely
trigi
a re
pens
)qu
ack
gras
s+
++
+L+
Epilo
bium
par
viflo
rum
smal
l-flo
wer
ed w
illow
-her
b+
++
+L+
Euph
orbi
a pe
plus
petty
spu
rge
++
++
L+Fe
stuc
a pr
aten
sis
(F. e
latio
r va
r. p
rate
nsis
)m
eado
w fe
scue
++
++
L+G
aleo
psis
tetra
hit
hem
p-ne
ttle
++
++
L+
Ap
pen
dix
2: L
ist
of
Flo
ra S
pec
ies
Foun
d in
Ind
ian
Line
Stu
dy
Are
a in
200
7
* - r
ank
reas
sign
ed to
L5
from
L4
in 2
008
"cf."
in th
e sp
ecie
s na
me
indi
cate
s th
e sp
ecie
s fo
und
was
mos
t lik
ely
nam
ed c
orre
ctly
but
cou
ld n
ot b
e co
nfirm
ed"p
L…" i
n th
e ra
nk c
olum
n in
dica
tes
that
the
spec
ies
was
onl
y fo
und
plan
ted
and
not r
egen
erat
ing
Loca
lP
op
ulat
ion
Hab
itat
Sen
sitiv
ity t
oTo
tal
Ran
kS
cien
tific
nam
eC
om
mo
n N
ame
Dis
trib
utio
nTr
end
Dep
end
ence
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Sco
reTR
CA
1-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
2-20
2007
Gal
ium
mol
lugo
whi
te b
edst
raw
or
wild
mad
der
++
++
L+H
orde
um ju
batu
m s
sp. j
ubat
umsq
uirr
el-ta
il ba
rley
++
++
L+H
yper
icum
per
fora
tum
com
mon
St.
John
swor
t+
++
+L+
Inul
a he
leni
umel
ecam
pane
++
++
L+Ju
ncus
com
pres
sus
roun
d-fru
ited
or c
ompr
esse
d ru
sh+
++
+L+
Leon
urus
car
diac
a ss
p. c
ardi
aca
mot
herw
ort
++
++
L+Le
pidi
um c
ampe
stre
field
pep
per-
gras
s+
++
+L+
Lina
ria v
ulga
risto
adfla
x, b
utte
r-an
d-eg
gs+
++
+L+
Loliu
m p
eren
nepe
renn
ial r
ye+
++
+L+
Loni
cera
tata
rica
Tart
aria
n ho
neys
uckl
e+
++
+L+
Loni
cera
x b
ella
(L.
mor
row
i x ta
taric
a)hy
brid
shr
ub o
r B
ell's
hon
eysu
ckle
++
++
L+Lo
tus
corn
icul
atus
bird
's fo
ot tr
efoi
l+
++
+L+
Lyco
pus
euro
paeu
sE
urop
ean
wat
er-h
oreh
ound
or
bugl
ewee
d+
++
+L+
Lysi
mac
hia
num
mul
aria
mon
eyw
ort
++
++
L+M
alus
pum
ila (
M. d
omes
tica;
Pyr
us m
alus
)ap
ple
++
++
L+M
atric
aria
rec
utita
(M
. cha
mom
illa)
wild
cha
mom
ile+
++
+L+
Med
icag
o lu
pulin
abl
ack
med
ick
++
++
L+M
elilo
tus
offic
inal
isye
llow
sw
eet c
love
r+
++
+L+
Myo
sotis
sco
rpio
ides
true
or
Eur
opea
n fo
rget
-me-
not
++
++
L+N
epet
a ca
taria
catn
ip+
++
+L+
Pan
icum
mili
aceu
mm
illet
++
++
L+P
astin
aca
sativ
aw
ild p
arsn
ip+
++
+L+
Phl
eum
pra
tens
etim
othy
gra
ss+
++
+L+
Pla
ntag
o la
nceo
lata
Eng
lish
plan
tain
++
++
L+P
lant
ago
maj
orbr
oad-
leav
ed o
r co
mm
on p
lant
ain
++
++
L+P
oa c
ompr
essa
Can
ada
or fl
at-s
tem
med
blu
e gr
ass
++
++
L+P
oa p
rate
nsis
ssp
. pra
tens
isK
entu
cky
blue
gra
ss+
++
+L+
Pol
ygon
um a
vicu
lare
(P
. mon
spel
iens
e)pr
ostr
ate
knot
wee
d+
++
+L+
Pol
ygon
um c
onvo
lvul
usbl
ack
bind
wee
d+
++
+L+
Pol
ygon
um p
ersi
caria
lady
's th
umb
++
++
L+P
oten
tilla
rec
taro
ugh-
fruite
d or
sul
phur
cin
quef
oil
++
++
L+R
ham
nus
cath
artic
aco
mm
on o
r E
urop
ean
buck
thor
n+
++
+L+
Ros
a m
ultif
lora
mul
tiflo
ra o
r Ja
pane
se r
ose
++
++
L+R
umex
cris
pus
curly
doc
k+
++
+L+
Salix
x r
uben
s (S
. alb
a x
fragi
lis)
Eur
opea
n tr
ee w
illow
++
++
L+Se
taria
viri
dis
gree
n fo
xtai
l+
++
+L+
Sile
ne p
rate
nsis
(S.
alb
a; S
. lat
ifolia
; Lyc
hnis
alb
a)ev
enin
g ly
chni
s+
++
+L+
Sina
pis
arve
nsis
(B
rass
ica
kabe
r)ch
arlo
ck+
++
+L+
Sisy
mbr
ium
offi
cina
lehe
dge
mus
tard
++
++
L+
Ap
pen
dix
2: L
ist
of
Flo
ra S
pec
ies
Foun
d in
Ind
ian
Line
Stu
dy
Are
a in
200
7
* - r
ank
reas
sign
ed to
L5
from
L4
in 2
008
"cf."
in th
e sp
ecie
s na
me
indi
cate
s th
e sp
ecie
s fo
und
was
mos
t lik
ely
nam
ed c
orre
ctly
but
cou
ld n
ot b
e co
nfirm
ed"p
L…" i
n th
e ra
nk c
olum
n in
dica
tes
that
the
spec
ies
was
onl
y fo
und
plan
ted
and
not r
egen
erat
ing
Loca
lP
op
ulat
ion
Hab
itat
Sen
sitiv
ity t
oTo
tal
Ran
kS
cien
tific
nam
eC
om
mo
n N
ame
Dis
trib
utio
nTr
end
Dep
end
ence
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Sco
reTR
CA
1-5
1-5
0-5
0-5
2-20
2007
Sola
num
dul
cam
ara
bitte
rsw
eet n
ight
shad
e+
++
+L+
Sonc
hus
arve
nsis
ssp
. arv
ensi
sgl
andu
lar
pere
nnia
l or
field
sow
-this
tle+
++
+L+
Syrin
ga v
ulga
risco
mm
on li
lac
++
++
L+Ta
raxa
cum
offi
cina
leda
ndel
ion
++
++
L+Tr
agop
ogon
dub
ius
lem
on-y
ello
w g
oat's
bea
rd+
++
+L+
Trifo
lium
pra
tens
ere
d cl
over
++
++
L+Tr
ifoliu
m r
epen
sw
hite
clo
ver
++
++
L+Tu
ssila
go fa
rfara
colts
foot
++
++
L+Ty
pha
angu
stifo
liana
rrow
-leav
ed c
atta
il+
++
+L+
Verb
ascu
m th
apsu
sco
mm
on m
ulle
in+
++
+L+
Vibu
rnum
opu
lus
guel
der-
rose
/Eu
high
bush
cra
nber
ry+
++
+L+
Vici
a cr
acca
cow
, tuf
ted,
or
bird
vet
ch+
++
+L+
Ace
r ne
gund
oM
anito
ba m
aple
+?
+?
+?
+?
L+?
Agr
ostis
sto
loni
fera
(A
. alb
a va
r. p
alus
tris)
cree
ping
ben
t gra
ss+
?+
?+
?+
?L+
?A
tripl
ex p
atul
a (A
. pat
ula
var.
has
tata
)ha
lber
d-le
aved
ora
che
or s
pear
scal
e+
?+
?+
?+
?L+
?Le
pidi
um d
ensi
floru
mco
mm
on p
eppe
r-gr
ass
+?
+?
+?
+?
L+?
Oxa
lis s
trict
a (O
. eur
opae
a; O
. fon
tana
)co
mm
on o
r up
right
yel
low
woo
d-so
rrel
+?
+?
+?
+?
L+?
Pha
laris
aru
ndin
acea
reed
can
ary
gras
s+
?+
?+
?+
?L+
?P
hrag
mite
s au
stra
lis (
P. c
omm
unis
)co
mm
on, g
iant
, or
grea
t ree
d+
?+
?+
?+
?L+
?P
oten
tilla
nor
vegi
caro
ugh
cinq
uefo
il+
?+
?+
?+
?L+
?P
icea
gla
uca
whi
te s
pruc
e3
54
315
pL3
Salix
luci
dash
inin
g w
illow
24
53
14pL
3Te
ucriu
m c
anad
ense
ssp
. can
aden
sew
ood-
sage
or
germ
ande
r4
34
415
pL3
Ace
r sa
ccha
rinum
silv
er m
aple
22
43
11pL
4A
mel
anch
ier
cf. a
rbor
ea (
A. c
anad
ensi
s m
isap
plie
d)do
wny
ser
vice
berr
y or
Jun
eber
ry2
24
311
pL4
Car
ex r
etro
rsa
retr
orse
sed
ge2
33
412
pL4
Pin
us s
trobu
sw
hite
pin
e1
43
412
pL4
Salix
dis
colo
rpu
ssy
will
ow2
34
312
pL4
Thuj
a oc
cide
ntal
isw
hite
ced
ar1
41
511
pL4
Pop
ulus
del
toid
esco
ttonw
ood
21
41
8pL
5P
opul
us tr
emul
oide
str
embl
ing
aspe
n1
31
38
pL5
Rhu
s ty
phin
ast
agho
rn s
umac
h1
12
26
pL5
Pic
ea a
bies
Nor
way
spr
uce
++
++
pL+
Salix
cap
rea
goat
or
Eur
opea
n pu
ssy
will
ow+
++
+pL
+
App
endi
x 3:
Lis
t of B
reed
ing
Faun
a S
peci
es F
ound
in X
XX
XX
Stu
dy A
rea
in y
ear X
XX
X.
CO
MM
ON
NA
ME
CO
DE
Sci
entif
ic N
ame
num
ber
of te
rrito
ries
LOP
TnP
TtH
DA
SM
RS
TD+
TSL-
rank
Sur
vey
Sp
ecie
s:sp
ecie
s fo
r w
hic
h t
he
TRC
A p
roto
col e
ffec
tivel
y su
rvey
s.
Bir
ds
Am
eric
an w
oodc
ock
AM
WO
Scol
opax
min
or1
02
32
32
40
16L3
brow
n th
rash
erB
RTH
Toxo
stom
a ru
fum
11
43
12
24
017
L3gr
ay c
atbi
rdG
RC
AD
umet
ella
car
olin
ensi
s6
03
11
12
30
11L4
nort
hern
flic
ker
NO
F LC
olap
tes
aura
tus
10
32
01
23
011
L4no
rthe
rn r
ough
-win
ged
swal
low
NR
WS
Stel
gido
pter
yx s
errip
enni
s1
32
32
11
10
13L4
spot
ted
sand
pipe
rS
PS
AA
ctiti
s m
acul
ariu
s2
12
32
11
40
14L4
tree
sw
allo
wTR
ES
Tach
ycin
eta
bico
lor
10
22
21
13
011
L4w
illow
flyc
atch
erW
IFL
Empi
dona
x tra
illi i
30
42
11
23
013
L4A
mer
ican
cro
wA
MC
RC
orvu
s br
achy
rhyn
chos
not m
appe
d0
21
01
11
06
L5A
mer
ican
gol
dfin
chA
MG
OC
ardu
elis
tris
tisno
t map
ped
02
20
11
10
7L5
Am
eric
an r
obin
AM
RO
Turd
us m
igra
toriu
sno
t map
ped
01
20
11
10
6L5
Bal
timor
e or
iole
BA
OR
Icte
rus
galb
ula
not m
appe
d0
22
01
11
07
L5bl
ack-
capp
ed c
hick
adee
BC
CH
Poe
cile
atri
capi
llus
not m
appe
d0
11
11
20
06
L5bl
ue ja
yB
LJA
Cya
noci
tta c
rista
tano
t map
ped
04
20
11
00
8L5
brow
n-he
aded
cow
bird
BH
CO
Mol
othr
us a
ter
not m
appe
d0
22
01
11
07
L5C
anad
a go
ose
CA
NG
Bra
nta
cana
dens
isno
t map
ped
01
01
11
00
4L5
ceda
r w
axw
ing
CE
DW
Bom
byci
lla c
edro
rum
not m
appe
d0
12
01
12
07
L5ch
ippi
ng s
parr
owC
HS
PSp
izel
la p
asse
rina
not m
appe
d0
22
01
11
07
L5cl
iff s
wal
low
CLS
WP
etro
chel
idon
pyr
rhon
ota
colo
ny0
22
21
11
09
L5co
mm
on g
rack
leC
OG
RQ
uisc
alus
qui
scul
ano
t map
ped
03
20
11
10
8L5
dow
ny w
oodp
ecke
rD
OW
OP
icoi
des
pube
scen
sno
t map
ped
02
11
12
10
8L5
east
ern
king
bird
EA
KI
Tyra
nnus
tyra
nnus
20
22
12
11
09
L5ho
use
finch
HO
FIC
arpo
dacu
s m
exic
anus
not m
appe
d0
20
01
10
04
L5ki
lldee
rK
ILL
Cha
radr
ius
voci
feru
sno
t map
ped
02
21
11
20
9L5
mal
lard
MA
L LA
nas
plat
yrhy
ncho
sno
t map
ped
01
21
11
30
9L5
mou
rnin
g do
veM
OD
OZe
naid
a m
acro
ura
not m
appe
d0
21
01
10
05
L5no
rthe
rn c
ardi
nal
NO
CA
Car
dina
lis c
ardi
nalis
not m
appe
d0
21
01
22
08
L5or
char
d or
iole
OR
OR
Icte
rus
spur
ius
13
21
01
11
09
L5re
d-w
inge
d bl
ackb
irdR
WB
LA
gela
ius
phoe
nice
usno
t map
ped
02
20
11
30
9L5
song
spa
rrow
SO
SP
Mel
ospi
za m
elod
iano
t map
ped
02
20
12
20
9L5
war
blin
g vi
reo
WA
VI
Vire
o gi
lvus
not m
appe
d0
12
01
22
08
L5ye
llow
war
bler
YW
AR
Den
droi
ca p
etec
hia
not m
appe
d0
11
11
23
09
L5E
urop
ean
star
ling
EU
ST
Stur
nus
vulg
aris
not m
appe
dL+
ring-
neck
ed p
heas
ant
RN
EP
Pha
sian
us c
olch
icus
not m
appe
dL+
App
endi
x 3:
Lis
t of B
reed
ing
Faun
a S
peci
es F
ound
in X
XX
XX
Stu
dy A
rea
in y
ear X
XX
X.
CO
MM
ON
NA
ME
CO
DE
Sci
entif
ic N
ame
num
ber
of te
rrito
ries
LOP
TnP
TtH
DA
SM
RS
TD+
TSL-
rank
Inci
den
tal S
pec
ies:
sp
ecie
s th
at a
re r
epo
rted
on
as in
cid
enta
l to
th
e TR
CA
pro
toco
l.
Mam
mal
sea
ster
n co
ttont
ail*
EA
CO
Sylv
ilagu
s flo
ridan
us1
12
20
22
40
13L4
whi
te-ta
iled
deer
WTD
EO
doco
ileus
virg
inia
nus
11
22
13
12
012
L4
Her
pet
ofa
una
snap
ping
turt
le*
SN
TUC
hely
dra
serp
entin
a1
13
22
12
40
15L3
LEG
EN
D*=
loca
l occ
urre
nce
unkn
own
LO =
loca
l occ
urre
nce
MR
= m
obili
ty r
estr
ictio
nP
Tn =
pop
ulat
ion
tren
d, c
ontin
ent-w
ide
STD
= s
ensi
tivity
to d
evel
opm
ent
PTt
= p
opul
atio
n tr
end,
TR
CA
AP
= a
dditi
onal
poi
nts
HD
= h
abita
t dep
ende
nce
TS =
tota
l sco
reA
S =
are
a se
nsiti
vity
L-ra
nk =
TR
CA
Ran
k, A
pril
2003