ontario wetland evaluation - belt line pond
DESCRIPTION
EVALUATION OF BELT LINE POND IN TORONTO, ONTARIO USING ONTARIO WETLAND EVALUATION SYSTEM (OWES)October 2009TRANSCRIPT
EVALUATION OF BELT LINE POND IN TORONTO,
ONTARIO USING ONTARIO WETLAND EVALUATION
SYSTEM (OWES)
October 2009
Produced by: Scott Cowan
Evaluators: Scott Cowan, Mike Forster, Connor Fraleigh,
Kanan Easwaran
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWARD............................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
GENERAL INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS.................................................................................................................... 4
RATIONALE FOR SITE CHOICE.................................................................................................................................... 4
WETLAND DATA RECORD ................................................................................................................................... 5
I) WETLAND NAME .............................................................................................................................................. 5
II) ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, DISTRICT AND AREA OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES ............ 5
III) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ 5
IV) COUNTY AND REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY ..................................................................................................... 5
V) TOWNSHIP ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
VI) WELTAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES............................................................................................................... 5
1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT........................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE DAYS/SOILS .................................................................................................................. 6
1.1.2 WETLAND TYPE............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.1.3 SITE TYPE ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 BIODIVERSITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES..................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES....................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT ...................................................................................................... 8
1.2.4 PROXIMITY TO OTHER WETLANDS .............................................................................................................. 8
1.2.5 INTERSPERSION ........................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES .................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 SIZE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT .................................................................................. 9
2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT.................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS ............................................................................................................ 10
2.1.1 WOOD PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 WILD RICE .................................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH) ............................................................................. 11
2.1.5 SNAPPING TURTLES ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................ 12
2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 DISTINCTNESS............................................................................................................................................ 12
2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE......................................................................................................... 12
2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS ............................................................................................................. 12
2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.3 RESEARCH AND STUDIES ........................................................................................................................... 13
2
2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT............................................................................................... 13
2.6 OWNERSHIP ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.7 SIZE.................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES .............................................................................................. 13
2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES ................................................................................................................................. 13
2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE................................................................................................................................. 14
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT.................................................................................................................. 15
3.1 FLOOD ATENUATION ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT........................................................................................ 15
3.2.2 LONG TERM NUTRIENT TRAP .................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE .................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 CARBON SINK ................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL ....................................................................................................................... 17
3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE............................................................................................................................ 17
3.5.1 WETLAND SITE TYPE .................................................................................................................................. 17
3.5.2 WETLAND SOIL RECHARGE POTENTIAL ..................................................................................................... 17
4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT............................................................................................................ 18
4.1 RARITY............................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 WETLANDS................................................................................................................................................. 18
4.1.2 SPECIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES.................................................. 19
4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES
....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.2.3 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES................................................................................... 19
4.1.2.4 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIES ..................................................................................... 20
4.1.2.5 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE REGION) ............................................................................ 22
4.2.1.6 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE DISTRICT) ................................................................................. 22
4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITATS .............................................................................................................. 22
4.2.1 COLONIAL WATERBIRDS ............................................................................................................................ 22
4.2.2 WINTER COVER FOR WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................. 23
4.2.3 WATERFOWL STAGING AND MOULTING .................................................................................................. 23
4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING............................................................................................................................ 23
4.2.5 MIGRATORY PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER.................................................................. 23
4.2.6 FISH HABITAT............................................................................................................................................. 23
4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE............................................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLAND ................................................................................................................... 24
5.0 DOCUMENTATION OF WETLAND FEATURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION ............. 24
6.0 WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD:....................................................................................... 25
1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT ............................................................................................................................... 25
2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT ....................................................................................................................................... 26
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT ......................................................................................................................... 28
3
4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES............................................................................................................................................ 29
7.0 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS.................................................................................................... 31
8.0 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................... 34
4
FOREWARD
The following document outlines the results of a wetland evaluation survey completed on the
Belt Line Pond in Toronto according to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource’s Wetland
Evaluation System. The third edition (revised in 2002) of the Southern Wetland Evaluation
System was used. The following document is broken down into several sections corresponding
to the format of the Southern Wetland Evaluation System.
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
The Belt Line Pond was created over 100 years ago in a low lying area between the Belt Line
railway embankment and a valley (City of Toronto, 2009). The Belt Line Railway was created
in the 1890s as a commuter system running as a loop from Union Station up through North
Toronto and back (TRHA, 2009). Although the train stopped running in 1894, the pond still
exists in the depression today. It is located just south of Moore Avenue and the Mount Pleasant
Cemetery and is approximately 1,900 square metres.
The Discovery Walks trail system is located next to the Belt Line Pond and is a very
popular area for dog walkers, hikers, and bike riders. The extensive use of this path system has
led to the erosion of slopes leading down to the pond. In 1997 the pond was identified as a
candidate for conversation and restoration by ‘The Task Force to Bring Back the Don’ and since
then extensive projects have been put in place. Trees and shrubs have been planted, invasive
species have begun to be removed, a fence has been erected to prevent human interaction, and a
list of short and long term goals has been created to ensure future restoration (City of Toronto,
2009).
RATIONALE FOR SITE CHOICE
This site was chosen for both its uniqueness and its history. This relatively small marsh was
created as a byproduct of the construction of a historic railway system that allowed people to
commute to the core of the city from the undeveloped northern areas. It now exists amidst a very
populated area as a small section of relatively undisturbed natural landscape. It serves as an
5
important aesthetic and recreational area for many people in an area characterized by urban
development.
WETLAND DATA RECORD
I) WETLAND NAME
Belt Line Pond
II) ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, DISTRICT AND AREA OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MNR Distinction: Southern Region, Aurora District
III) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
IV) COUNTY AND REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
Metropolitan Toronto County
V) TOWNSHIP
Township of Toronto
VI) WELTAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES
The site is a single contiguous wetland area of 0.2 hectares (City of Toronto, 2009).
Even though this is substantially lower than the suggested lower threshold of 2 hectares, this
small wetland suffices for our needs. Its small size is manageable thus allowing us to become
familiar with the wetland evaluation procedure without being overwhelmed.
6
1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
1.1 PRODUCTIVITY
1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE DAYS/SOILS
There are approximately 3500 growing degree-days
The estimated fractional area of soils is 35% clay/loam 15% sand and 50% humic/mesic
(according to field observations). The total overall scoring (achieved by rating soil type and
growing degree days) is 15.
Total score = 15
1.1.2 WETLAND TYPE
Wetland is entirely marsh. Therefore marsh occupies 100 percent of the fractional area.
Total score = 15
1.1.3 SITE TYPE
Entire wetland is isolated. Therefore isolated site type occupies 100 percent of the fractional
area.
Total score = 1
1.2 BIODIVERSITY
1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES
There is only one type of wetland (marsh) so Total Score = 9 Points
Total score = 9
1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The Belt Line pond consists of a variety of different plant/tree species communities. These
communities will play an important role in the biodiversity of the area. These communities will
7
not only provide shelter, nesting areas, and food sources. In our wetland, the most dominant
community consisted of low shrubs, tall shrubs, herbs, and mosses.
Types of vegetation
Plant/Tree species present
Jewelweed (impatiens), Red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Wild Carrot (Daucus carota),
Moss (Sphagnum), Bulrush (Typha angustifolia), Duckweed (Lemnaoideae), Horsetail
(Equisetum telmateia telmateia), High-Bush Cranberry (Viburnum trilobum), Golden rod
(Solidago virgaurea minuta), White birch (Betulaceae), Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides),
White Oak (Quercus alba), Northern Pin Oak(Quercus ellipsoidali), Sugar Maple (Acer
saccharum)
Communities observed in our wetland
One Form Communities – 4 (4.5) (ff) Duckweed (Lemnaoideae)
Two Form Communities – 3 (3.5) (re, ff) Bulrush (Typha angustifolia), Duckweed
(Lemnaoideae)
+
Four Form communities – 9 (11.5) (ls, ts, gc, m) Jewelweed (impatiens), Red osier dogwood
(Cornus sericea), Wild Carrot (Daucus carota), Moss (Sphagnum)
Five form communities – 5 (7.5) (ls ,ds, ts, m, h) Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Red osier
dogwood (Cornus sericea), High-Bush Cranberry (Viburnum trilobum), Golden rod (Solidago
virgaurea minuta), Moss (sphagnum)
+
Six form communities – 1 (3) (h, c, gc, m, ts, ds) White birch (Betulaceae), Red osier dogwood
(Cornus sericea), Wild Carrot (Daucus carota), Golden rod (Solidago virgaurea minuta),
Horsetail (Equisetum telmateia telmateia), Moss (Sphagnum)
Total points = 30 points (Out of 45 Points)
8
1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT
Habitat Types:
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Mixed forest (at least 25% conifer and 75% deciduous or vice versa)
Terrain appreciably undulating, hilly, or with ravines
Creek flood plain
Total score (1 point for each type) = 5
1.2.4 PROXIMITY TO OTHER WETLANDS
No wetland within 1 km
Total score = 0
1.2.5 INTERSPERSION
“A” line = 62.5 m
Grid Length = 62.5/12 = ~5.2m
Grid Square = 5.2m X 5.2m
#of vertical intersections – 100
#of horizontal intersections – 78
Score – 178
Interspersion between 176 and 200
Total Score = 27 points
1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES
Classified as possessing open water type 4: Open water occupies 26-75% of the wetland area,
occurring over a central area.
Total Score = 20 points
9
1.3 SIZE
For a wetland size of less than 20 hectares and a total biodiversity score of 107 the total size
score is 25.
Total score = 25
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
The Belt Line Pond can be classified as a marsh with an area of approximately 1,900m2. There is
a low amount of dissolved oxygen. Many nutrients can be found in the bottom substrate. This
pond could also be classified as Mesotrophic. The soil types surrounding this area include clays,
sands, and humic material. The location of this marsh is isolated from other wetlands. Certain
species need at least two different wetlands for breeding and lifestyle purposes which mean these
species will not exist at the Belt Line Pond.
“At that time a vegetation survey noted that the pond was surrounded by many native trees such
as white birch, trembling aspen, white oak, red oak, and sugar maple. It also noted the presence
of non-native species such as Norway maple and crack willow.” (City of Toronto, 2009) There
are also a significant amount of high shrubs, low shrubs, and herbs located around the perimeter
of the marsh.
The trees create a great buffer from the jogging/bicycle path located roughly 5m from the marsh.
The surrounding properties located on the northeast hill of the wetland would also produce a
significant amount of runoff. The density and abundance of fauna between the development and
the pond allow for an effective buffer zone.
The non-native tree species do not seem to have a current affect on the wetland. The diversity of
the surrounding habitat can be considered deciduous mixed with a few coniferous trees located
on the south-east side of the wetland. This habitat is ideal for furbearers due to the large amount
of habitat and resources available.
10
2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT
The social component is perhaps the most valuable aspect of this wetland. Situated at the
pinnacle of a large populous community, this relatively undisturbed area offers aesthetic and
natural beauty, as well as, a rare area to participate in many outdoor activities such as walking,
jogging, and biking. Although there are no significant economical or heritage values associated
with the area, it is part of the very valuable and diverse Don River system and provides a
connection between urbanization and preserved natural landscapes.
The Belt Line Pond also provides habitat for many animals in an area of intense habitat
loss, making it very valuable. Bullfrogs can be seen basking on natural vegetation, and many
furbearers such as squirrels, skunks, raccoons, and foxes reside within the area. However, the
wetland is not suitable for fish species and therefore lacks many species which rely on fish for
food.
Another important aspect of the Belt Line Pond is that it is currently under public
protection and is being restored and rejuvenated by the government as well as The Task Force to
Bring Back the Don; a local volunteer agency. Since 1997 many issues have been identified and
extensive restoration projects have been completed such as: native tree planting, invasive species
removal, slope stabilization, and wetland rejuvenation.
Intensive long term research has also been completed and continues to be published and
made available to the public in order to increase awareness. Also, many groups and schools use
this area for educational purposes and many educational signs can be seen throughout the area
further increase public understanding and awareness.
2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS
2.1.1 WOOD PRODUCTS
No trees are harvested for lumber/wood products.
Score = 0
11
2.1.2 WILD RICE
No wild rice present. Score = 0
2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH)
No fish present.
Score = 0
2.1.4 BULLFROGS
According to research bullfrogs are present
Score = 1
2.1.5 SNAPPING TURTLES
No snapping turtles present.
Score = 0
2.1.6 FURBEARERS
Table 1 - Index of furbearers at Belt Line Pond
Number Name of Species Scientific Name Source of Information
1 Red Fox Vulpes vulpes NHIC
2 Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
NHIC
3 Black Squirrel Sciurus carolinesis NHIC
4 Eastern Grey
Squirrel
Sciurus carilinesis NHIC
5 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis NHIC
12
6 Northern Raccoon Procyon lotor NHIC
Score = 12
2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
This area is used for nature enjoyment and ecosystem study.
Score = 40
2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS
2.3.1 DISTINCTNESS
Clearly distinct compared to surrounding landscape.
Score = 3
2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE
Wetland intact but impairment of ecosystem quality intense in some areas
Score = 1
2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES
Frequent educational uses.
Score = 20
2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
No interpretation centre or staff, but a system of self-guiding trails or brochures available
Score = 4
13
2.4.3 RESEARCH AND STUDIES
Long term research has been done. Research exists back to the year 2000. Refer to “Bring Back
the Don” publications (http://www.toronto.ca/don/publications.htm).
Score = 12
2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT
Within or adjoining a settlement of a population greater than 10,000.
Score = 40
2.6 OWNERSHIP
100 percent of fractional area is in public or private ownership in trust for wetland protection.
Score = 10
2.7 SIZE
Total for size dependent score = score for economically valuable products + score for
recreational activities + score for proximity to areas of human settlement.
Total for size dependent score = 13 + 40 + 40
Total for size dependent score = 93
For a wetland size of less than 2 hectares and a total size dependent score of 93 total score is 12
Score = 12
2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES
2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES
Not a significant area in regards to aboriginal values
Score = 0
14
2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE
Not a significant area in regards to cultural heritage
Score = 0
15
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
3.1 FLOOD ATENUATION
Through observation and information found online we were able to determine that the
Belt Line Pond is entirely isolated and is not part of a larger system, and has very little inflow
and outflows. The pond is located in a dense urban area, because of this there is a large amount
of runoff water from the houses located on the western side of the pond; but the pond does act as
a catchment for temporary relief from floods, for this section the Belt Line Pond received a score
of 100.
Score = 100
3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The Belt Line Pond is isolated and not located near any major river or lake. From this we know
that the Belt Line Pond has a lower value for water quality improvement. The watershed
improvement factor (WIF) 0.5, More than 50% of the land around the pond is located near a
completely urbanized area; from this we are able to tell that pond is more eutrophic and polluted
than a wetland located near natural vegetation, therefore the land use factor we attained was
(LUF) 1.0.
From observation we were able to see a lot of vegetation in and around the lake, more than 85%
is live trees, shrubs, herbs and mosses (c,h,ts,ls,gc,m), another 5% is emergent, submergent and
floating vegetation (re,be,ne,su,f,ff). The other 10% of the wetland has little or no vegetation.
Because trees and shrubs outside the pond live longer than the emergent’s and submergents they
use up most of the annual nutrients. Our pollutant uptake factor (PUT) was 0.74. The final score
for the short term water quality improvement section is (60 x WIF x LUF x PUT) 22.2 points.
3.2.2 LONG TERM NUTRIENT TRAP
We determined that the Belt Line Pond is a marsh with more than 50% of the wetland being
covered by organic soil, therefore the long term water quality decreases because the soil around
16
the wetland would be taking in more of the nutrients and chemicals than the water in the wetland.
For this section the Belt Line Pond received a score of 10 points, out of a possible 10 points.
3.2.3 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE
The potential groundwater discharge is determined by few different factors (see chart below).
Table 2 - Determination of groudnwater discharge capability
Earlier in the report we determined that the wetland is a marsh and therefore received a
score of 2 points. The pond is located at the bottom of a steep slope so it received 5 points, and is
small upslope catchment area and received a score of 5 points. Since there is no lag development,
seeps, surface marl deposits or iron precipitates all of these sections received 0 points. The pond
received a score of 10 points because it is located near a major aquifer (Don River) so there is
evidence of some groundwater discharge. An overall score of 22 points was tallied for this
section of the hydraulic component.
Score = 47.2
17
3.3 CARBON SINK
It was determined earlier that the Belt Line Pond is a marsh with more than 50% organic
soil, from this we know that there are formations of peat in the wetland area and that it absorbs
atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore the Belt Line Pond received a score of 3 points.
Score = 3
3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL
The pond received a score of 0 because the entire wetland was isolated as determined
earlier in the report; so there is no need for any type of erosion control (trees, shrubs and other
vegetation) in this pond.
Score = 0
3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE
3.5.1 WETLAND SITE TYPE
It was determined earlier that the pond is completely isolated, but due to the type of soil located
around the wetland area we are able to tell that there is a small amount of groundwater recharge
into the pond, and therefore received a score of 50 points.
3.5.2 WETLAND SOIL RECHARGE POTENTIAL
After doing some field work on the soil it was determined that there was sandy clay loam located
around the pond, and therefore received a score of 10 points for this section of the report.
Score = 60
18
4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT
The purpose of this section is to evaluate “the geographical rarity of wetlands, the occurrence of
rare species, and habitat quality for wildlife, including fish. Ecosystem age is also considered in
this component” (MNR, 2002).
4.1 RARITY
4.1.1 WETLANDS
The rarity of the site was evaluated by examining the geographical location (site district) and
wetland type.
According to figure 1 below, the Belt Line Pond is located in site district 7-4. Because of
the sites location (district 7-4) the wetland is automatically awarded 80 points. However, the
wetland is not awarded any points when examining ‘rarity of wetland type’.
Score = 80
4.1.2 SPECIES
x
Beltline Park Site Location
N
Figure 1 - Map illustrating location of Belt Line Pond in relation to MNR Site Districts and Site
Regions
19
4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES
According to our site investigation and research, we could not identify this site as a breeding
habitat for endangered or threatened species. Therefore, no points are awarded for this section.
Score = 0
4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED
OR THREATENED SPECIES
According to our site investigation and research, we could not identify this site is a traditional
migration or feeding habitat for an endangered or threatened species. Therefore no points are
awarded for this section.
Score = 0
4.1.2.3 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES
According to our site investigation and research (MNR Natural Heritage Information Center and
Toronto Ornithological Club) the following species were identified as provincially significant
animal species.
Table 3 - List of provincially significant animal species at Belt Line Pond
Number Name of Species Source of Information
1 Red Fox NHIC
2 Red Tailed Hawk NHIC
3 Mallard Duck NHIC
4 Skunk NHIC
5 Red Breasted Nuthatch TOC
6/7 various Thrush species TOC
20
8/9 various Sparrow species TOC
10/11 various Warbler species TOC
12/13 various Fly Catcher species TOC
14 Red Squirrel NHIC
15 Eastern Grey Squirrel NHIC
16 American Bullfrog NHIC
17 Striped Sunk NHIC
18 Northern Raccoon NHIC
19 American Robin NHIC
19 provincially significant animal species were identified. Therefore, 164 points were achieved
in this section.
Score = 164
4.1.2.4 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIES
According to our site investigation and research (MNR Natural Heritage Information Center) the
following species were identified as provincially significant plant species.
Table 4 - List of provincially significant plant species
Number Name of Species Scientific Name Source of Information
1 White Oak Quercus alba NHIC
2 Red Oak Quercus rubra NHIC
3 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum NHIC
21
4 Red Maple Acer rubrum NHIC
5 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum NHIC
6 American Beech Fagus grandifolia NHIC
7 Black Cherry Prunus serotina NHIC
8 American Elm Ulmus americana NHIC
9 White Birch Betula pendula NHIC
10 Hemlock Tsuga canadensis NHIC
11 White Pine Pinus strobus NHIC
12 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia NHIC
13 Aspen Populus tremuloides NHIC
14 Cottonwood Populus deltoides NHIC
15 Goldenrod Solidago canadensis NHIC
16 Fern Pteridophyta NHIC
17 Floating Marsh
Marigold
Caltha natans NHIC
18 Duckweed Lemna minor NHIC
18 provincially significant animal species were identified. Therefore, 162 points were achieved
in this section.
Score = 162
22
4.1.2.5 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE REGION)
Site Region – Southwestern Ontario
Based on research, suitability of environment and presence/absence of certain species, we were
able to determine regionally significant species which are likely to inhabit the area.
Table 5 - List of regionally significant species inhabiting the Belt Line Pond area
Number Name of Species Scientific Name Source of
Information
1 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia TOC
2 Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum TOC
Two regionally significant species were identified. Therefore, 30 points were achieved in this
section.
Score = 30
4.2.1.6 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE DISTRICT)
The Belt Line Pond is located in the Aurora MNR site district. According to the Natural
Heritage Information Center (NHIC), none of the species on the provincially and regionally
significant species list are found on the regionally significant species. Also, none of the species
identified in the field are found on the regionally significant species list. Because of this the
wetland achieves zero points for this section.
Score = 0
4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITATS
4.2.1 COLONIAL WATERBIRDS
None known. Therefore wetland achieves zero points for this section
23
Score = 0
4.2.2 WINTER COVER FOR WILDLIFE
Due to the sites small size, lack of wintering habitat and relative location to large populations of
people the wetland achieves zero points for this section
Score = 0
4.2.3 WATERFOWL STAGING AND MOULTING
It is unknown whether or not the site is used by waterfowl as a staging and/or moulting area.
Therefore the wetland achieved zero points for this section.
Score = 0
4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING
Because of its small size, large degree of disturbance and proximity to human interference makes
this site inappropriate for waterfowl breeding. Therefore the wetland achieves zero points for
this section.
Score = 0
4.2.5 MIGRATORY PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER
MNR was not consulted during the completion of this section. However, because of the
presence of hawks we can infer that the site is significant in the site district. Therefore the
wetland achieved 10 points for this section.
Score = 10
4.2.6 FISH HABITAT
No fish were present, and the site is not a suitable habitat for fish species. Therefore the wetland
achieves zero points for this section.
Score = 0
24
4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE
Because the wetland is classified as a marsh it receives zero points for this section.
Score = 0
4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLAND
Because the wetland is not located on, or in close proximity to, a coast, it achieves zero points
for this section
Score = 0
5.0 DOCUMENTATION OF WETLAND FEATURES NOT INCLUDED IN THE
EVALUATION
This section reviews and documents the presence or absence of some significant wetland
characteristics not scored in the original evaluation. These features include purple loosestrife,
seasonal flooding, and the presence of osprey and the common loon; all of which play an
important role in wetland diversity.
Investigation into the presence of these characteristics at the Belt Line Pond proved to be
brief as no significant evidence was available to prove the presence of purple loosestrife,
seasonal flooding, osprey, or common loons in the area.
On the one hand, absence of purple loosestrife is a positive outcome as it is an invasive
species which eventually dominates areas and leads to the loss of native species. It also decreases
vegetation and terrestrial diversity as it is not a significant source of shelter or food for many
species.
On the other hand, the absence of seasonal flooding negatively impacts the wetland
because seasonal flooding provides warm waters ideal for spawning beds, and habitat for frogs
and salamanders. Lastly, the absence of osprey and the common loon is expected due to the lack
of fish species existent in the wetland.
25
6.0 WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD:
1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
1.1 PRODUCTIVITY
1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 15
1.1.2 Wetland Type 15
1.1.3 Site Type 1
Total for Productivity 31
1.2 BIODIVERSITY
1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types 9
1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maximum 45) 32
1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 5
1.2.4 Proximity to Other Wetlands 0
1.2.5 Interspersion 27
1.2.6 Open Water Type 20
Total for Biodiversity 93
1.3 SIZE (Biological Component) 25
TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 149
26
2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT
2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS
2.1.1 Wood Products 0
2.1.2 Wild Rice 0
2.1.3 Commercial Fish 0
2.1.4 Bullfrogs 1
2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 0
2.1.6 Furbearers 12
Total for Economically Valuable Products 13
2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES (maximum 80) 40
2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS
2.3.1 Distinctness 3
2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance 1
Total for Landscape Aesthetics 4
2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
2.4.1 Educational Uses 20
2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 4
2.4.3 Research and Studies 12
Total for Education and Public Awareness 36
27
2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT 40
2.6 OWNERSHIP 10
2.7 SIZE (Social Component) 12
2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES 0
TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 155
28
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION 100
3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 22
3.2.2 Long Term Improvement 10
3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30) 22
Total for Water Quality Improvement 54
3.3 CARBON SINK 3
3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 0
3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
3.5.1 Site Type 50
3.5.2 Soils 10
Total for Groundwater Recharge 60
TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 217
29
4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES
4.1 RARITY
4.1.1 Wetlands
4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape 80
4.1.1.2 Rarity of Wetland Type (maximum 80) 0
Total for Wetland Rarity 80
4.1.2 Species
4.1.2.1 Endangered Species Breed 0
4.1.2.2 Traditional Use by Endangered or Threatened Species 0
4.1.2.3 Provincially Significant Animals 164
4.1.2.4 Provincially Significant Plants 162
4.1.2.5 Regionally Significant Species 30
4.1.2.6 Locally Significant Species 0
Total for Species Rarity 356
4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT
4.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 0
4.2.2 Winter Cover for Wildlife 0
4.2.3 Waterfowl Staging and Moulting 0
4.2.4 Waterfowl Breeding 0
4.2.5 Migratory Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover 10
4.2.6 Fish Habitat 0
Total for Significant Features and Habitat 10
30
4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE 0
4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 0
TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 250
31
7.0 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS
Total score for 1.0 Biological Component: 149
Total score for 2.0 Social Component: 155
Total score for 3.0 Hydrological Component: 217
Total score for 4.0 Special Features Component: 250
WETLAND TOTAL: 771
Investigators: Scott Cowan, Mike Forster, Connor Fraleigh, Kanan Easwaran
Affiliation: Seneca College
Date of site visit: Friday November 6th 2009
32
8.0 DISCUSSION
The Belt Line Pond is a small wetland (roughly 0.2 hectares). According to the OWES, it
is not recommended to perform wetland evaluations on systems measuring less than 2 hectares in
area. However, this small wetland provides an important habitat for wildlife in an area where
green space is limited (Greater Toronto Area). The survival of wetlands in densely developed
areas is essential as it helps to protect the quality of the biosphere in which humans and other
organisms must dwell (MNR, 2002). Because of this, despite its small size, evaluating wetlands
such as this one proves to be an effective step in maintaining overall ecosystem health. Because
this was our first wetland evaluation it was important to select a site that was manageable and not
overwhelming. By selecting a small site we were able to focus our energy on familiarizing
ourselves with the evaluation techniques and protocols without overwhelming ourselves with a
large complicated wetland.
Based on the findings of our study, we have determined that our wetland is ecologically
significant. Because the Belt Line Pond is located in an area of great environmental stress, it
scored relatively high on the OWES because of its rarity within the local landscape. The wetland
provides an important habitat for a variety of organisms in an area where wildlife habitat is hard
to come by. Furthermore, this wetland, albeit small, is important in the local hydrological cycle.
The wetland is located in a low lying valley corridor which is surrounded by dense development.
These developed areas are covered in impermeable surfaces (i.e. concrete) which increase the
quantity of surface runoff. Because of the wetlands relative elevation, runoff from the developed
areas tends to settle in the valley where the wetland is located. Here the runoff slowly infiltrates
the ground and returns to the water table. This is process is important as it recharges the
groundwater table and helps to manage surface runoff quality and quantity.
Because it is a relatively rare green space in an area of intense development, the Belt Line
Pond is extensively used for both recreational and educational (such as our wetland evaluation)
activities. This increases the overall value of the wetland. However, that being said, extensive
recreational use of the area also degrades the overall ecological integrity of the landscape.
33
We do agree with the results of this evaluation. A relatively low score was expected for
the wetlands overall diversity and habitat suitability for rare and/or endangered species. This is
reflected in the relatively low score achieved in the biological component of the study.
However, because the wetland is a rare landform within its local framework, we expected it to
make up points based on its rarity within the landscape. Also, knowing that the wetland, and its
surrounding green space, is a heavily utilized recreational area, we expected it to score relatively
well in the social component of the evaluation.
The wetland suffered the most in the biological component of the evaluation. So, if
interested in improving the wetland, this is the component that could use the most help. One
way to bolster this component is to increase the biodiversity of living organisms in the area.
Some of the literature read suggests that the Belt Line Pond is having problems with invasive
non-native species. Removing these species would enable native species to increase their ranges
and thrive, thus increasing the overall integrity and native biodiversity of the wetland. Another
way to encourage biodiversity is to re-introduce native species.
The Belt Line Pond would also benefit from the addition of new habitats. Because it is a
small ecosystem, suitable habitats for various fauna are hard to come by. Many species of birds
rely on cavities in trees as a habitat. So, if there are not enough trees or not enough cavities they
will not inhabit the area. The addition of bird boxes would create necessary habitats for these
species, and would thus increase the biological integrity of the ecosystem.
34
REFERENCES
City of Toronto, 2009. Belt Line Pond. Available from:
http://www.toronto.ca/don/belt_line_pond.htm
Toronto Railway Historical Association (TRHA). 2009. Toronto Belt Line – 1892. Available
from: http://www.trha.ca/beltline.html
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System: Southern Manual, 3rd
Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008. Natural Heritage Information Center. Available from:
http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_old.cfm