Conservation Strategy Part II; February 22, Rockport

 A workshop to further collaboration among the region’s conservation organizations

The content for this workshop came about from the “Next Steps” part of the conservation strategies workshop, in November.  As stated in the first month-end report, the group asked for some regional context mapping to be completed, and for a document that summarized who does what, in the conservation community, on this regional landscape. These things were done.

The workshop was held in Rockport, on February 22.  The original participants were called back, and the invitation list was extended to persons who the first group said should as well be included. This workshop was attended by 40 persons, including representatives from two land trusts in upper New York State, and from the Save the River group, the Board of which is international. The workshop was co-hosted by the Frontenac Arch Biosphere and the Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust.

Participants were given the 32 page document, on CD, containing a summary of the mission statements, contacts, tool sets/activities and priorities of all who responded to the survey. The survey was conducted by means of Survey Monkey. This will be available on the www.fabr.ca website, and updated as needed, and as information is submitted. The purpose of this part of the initiative is to facilitate collaboration and communication among conservation organizations, and to provide references to the groups for the interests and abilities of like-minded organizations.  From the Biosphere website, the document will serve the broader public in knowing where to turn for information regarding conservation and stewardship interests in the region.

Each of the conservation organizations, whether government or non-government, has a particular area and geography in which they work. All recognize, though, that the activities of other organizations, on neighbour or nearby landscapes, have an impact on the success of their activities. The conservation organizations are bounded in various ways – some by watershed, by ecodistrict, municipality, state, provincial and/or national boundaries. Nature, of course, knows no boundaries.  Accordingly, the geography of this workshop and initiative took an approach of viewing conservation at a geographical scale that was more towards ecoregion rather than ecozone; and did not confine itself to geopolitical boundaries. Accordingly, the workshop sought to provide a broader context to regional conservation strategy discussions.

An additional context for this workshop is the work on the project, “Sustaining What We Value”, itself a development offshoot from the Parks Canada-lead and Geoconnections-funded “Integrated Landscape Management” project.  The Sustaining What We Value (SWWV) project had as well become a vehicle for an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources lead project to develop a natural heritage system approach to provide information to planning decision-making regarding the natural heritage system requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement. The SWWV approach to the system development was to work with a committee, a number of which are representatives of the conservation community. The geography of the SWWV/MNR Natural Heritage System is by ecozones, of 6E 10, and 6E 11. About 90% of 6E 10 is in the boundary are of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere.  Therefore, the geography of that project is broader north-eastward than this conservation strategy initiative, but does not cover initiative areas westward, or in upper New York State.  At the same time, the SWWV focus is slanted towards planning on municipal platforms, and assumes no future conservation securement by easement or acquisition by or for land trusts, provincial parks, national parks, conservation authorities, municipalities or others.  This was somewhat of a discussion hurdle at the first conservation strategy workshop, and it was felt that hurdle needed to be addressed in this second workshop.

To that end, a presentation of the scenarios chosen by the SWWV group and MNR was solicited, and given, at this workshop.

A series of speakers were engaged to present at this workshop, for various aspects of the context for conservation for this general region. First in line was Kim C. Taylor, landscape ecologist from MNR, Peterborough. Her presentation was on the evolution of and situation today for the Mixedwoods Forest Plain. This is the ecoregions in which the Frontenac Arch is situated. The presentation as well looked at short and mid-term effects expected to this ecology due to climate change, and to the integrity of biodiversity of this region. This session informed participants that:

The Mixedwoods Forest Plain, which essentially lies along the north and south shore of Lakes Erie and Ontario and down the St. Lawrence River Valley to Quebec City, is the smallest of Canada’s forest regions comprising just 2% of Canada’s forests, and that 53% of Canadians live in this forest region. Of this forest region, there are just two areas remaining with significant forest cover – the upper Niagara Escarpment, and the Frontenac Arch.

In terms of natural vegetation, the Frontenac Arch (the smallest of the physiographic areas) has the largest percentage of natural vegetation cover of any physiographic area of Southern Ontario:

            Frontenac Arch                                 – 57%

            Escarpment                                      – 51%

            Eastern, other than Frontenac Arch    – 37%

            Central, other than Escarpment          – 35%

            Southwestern Ontario                       – 18%

In terms of forest cover, the Frontenac Arch (the smallest of the physiographic areas) has the largest percentage of remaining forest cover of any physiographic area of Southern Ontario:

            Frontenac Arch                                    – 52%

            Escarpment                                         – 49%

            Eastern, other than Frontenac Arch    – 34%

            Central, other than Escarpment          – 33%

            Southwestern Ontario                         – 17%

In addition, the Frontenac Arch has the lowest road density in Southern Ontario and also the most evenly distributed natural cover of the Mixedwoods Forest, implying that connectivity potential on the Arch is better than elsewhere in this forest region. This factor, in consideration of the stressors of climate change, suggests that the Frontenac Arch is in best position to provide for migration and connectivity than elsewhere in this forest region.

A conclusion of the presenter and group was that conservation activity and action in the Frontenac Arch is both necessary and meaningful.

A second presenter was Joy Sterritt, Manager at MNR Kempville District. Recently, MNR Kempville District had completed a mapping exercise that reconstructed through GIS maps that portrayed the region’s natural cover in broad strokes, dating at about 1762 – two decades before settlement by Loyalists. Based on soil maps and topography, the mapping showed the probability of wetland cover and forest cover.  The purpose of that map exercise was to show a comparison of today’s extent of such cover in comparison to that pre-settlement, to show a context for concerns for further habitat loss from development in this general region.  The maps were presented to this workshop as further context for the need for conservation strategic activity in this region – the maps are not available for further distribution at this point.

A third presenter was Steve Voros, of MNR Peterborough, who walked the group though the process of creating the MNR natural heritage system, by way of the Sustaining What We Value project. Presented was the “final scenario” for conserved lands from that project. That study and plan is to be released formally in March, possibly April of  this year. The scenario suggests, based on literature and expert opinion, that the regions 6E 10 and 6E 11 are currently potentially over-represented in terms of conserved land. However, the conservation group considered that in view of the natural heritage values of Frontenac Arch region, in comparison to the ecoregions of the Mixedwoods Forest as a whole, may indicate that strategic conservation actions are still required for connectivity and higher potential for the conservation of biodiversity. 

The fourth presenter was Chris Wooding, a GIS consultant in this region. He has assembled maps portraying conserved lands – those either with some protective legislation, or in ownership by conservation authorities, parks of all types, land trusts, crown lands and so forth. A conserved lands layer was also included in the MNR natural heritage system maps, however Wooding’s maps, prepared under contract for the Biosphere under this project, had broader geographic coverage for the Frontenac Arch landscape. Mapping covered upper New York State, and all of Frontenac, Leeds and Grenville counties, as well as the southern relevant portions of Lanark County.  This mapping serves to illustrate conservation activity by organizations, and relates to potential future gap analysis.

At the conclusion of this workshop, it was determined that further collaboration and communication is necessary. Future meetings of a broad group such as this are essential to strategic, effective and cost-effective actions for conservation.  As well, a means and mechanism for the location and updating of conservation activity is needed. Proposals towards this were discussed.  The overall impression of the workshop was that conservation of biodiversity is necessary, through collaboration and that this workshop was successful in allowing these conclusions to be drawn.