" http-equiv=Content-Type>

Waterfowl and Wetlands of Long Point Bay and Old Norfolk County

9.0 Historical Changes in the Land-Use and Wetland Availability in Old Norfolk County

9.2 Changes in wetland availability in old Norfolk County

9.2.3 Causes and extent of wetland loss and degradation in old Norfolk County

Table 9.5 Changes in Amount of Wetland Area in Several Extreme Southern Ontario Counties for C. 1800, 1967, and 1982.

Table 9.6 The 1982 Land Uses of Wetlands Converted since 1967 for Several Extreme Southern Ontario Counties.

Being the most densely populated area of Canada, southern Ontario has experienced dramatic wetland losses since European settlement. Prior to 1800, 2.38 million ha of wetland were distributed throughout southern Ontario, representing 25.5% of the total surface area (Snell 1987). By 1982, only 0.93 million ha remained, the majority of which is located in the northern portions of southern Ontario. Overall, wetland area was reduced by 61%, ; loss south of the Precambrian Shield amounted to 68% (Snell 1987). In Carolinian Canada, wetlands, which originally represented 28.3% of the landscape, covered just 5.1% in 1982, representing a loss of 83% of the area's wetlands (Reid et al. 1996).

Snell (1987) indicated that Haldimand-Norfolk had lost 73.2% of its wetlands by 1982, but 8.3% of the region was still considered to be wetland (Table 9.5). She further suggested that Haldimand County had lost between 80 and 100% of its wetlands while old Norfolk had lost between 40 and 60 percent. The high proportion of wetland area remaining in Haldimand-Norfolk, relative to other areas, and the disparity in wetland area reported for the two counties, can be attributed to the fact that Long Point is within old Norfolk County and there has been very little net loss in these coastal wetlands (see Chapter 7.0). In other words, if Long Point is excluded, wetland loss in old Norfolk County probably equals or exceeds the loss experienced in old Haldimand County, and the inland wetland availability in Norfolk would be comparable to other counties in southern Ontario that have undergone considerable wetland destruction (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5 Changes in Amount of Wetland Area in Several Extreme Southern Ontario Counties for C. 1800, 1967, and 1982.

County Presettlement c.1800 1967 1982 Total Wetland Loss %
  Wetland
ha
% of County Wetland
ha
% of County Wetland
ha
% of County  
Brant 8 530 7.9 4 570 4.2 4 520 4.2 47.0
Elgin 44 880 23.9 8 950 10.3 8 860 4.7 80.3
Essex 128 360 68.9 6 400 3.4 5 400 2.9 95.8
Haldimand-Norfolk 89 940 30.9 25 050 8.6 24 140 8.3 73.2
Halton 14 520 15.9 5 390 5.9 5 250 5.7 63.8
Hamilton-Wentworth 25 030 23.9 5 930 5.7 5 910 5.6 76.4
Huron 77 170 22.7 20 360 6.0 18 810 5.5 76.6
Kent 159 780 63.9 12 550 5.0 9 310 3.7 94.2
Lambton 161 080 52.9 34 550 11.3 30 380 10.0 81.1
Middlesex 46 580 13.9 10 510 3.1 8 960 2.7 80.8
Niagara 66 650 36.2 11 650 6.3 14 660 8.0 78.0
Oxford 21 600 10.6 9 820 12.8 34 510 4.8 54.8
Perth 59 090 27.0 9 120 4.2 9 080 4.1 84.6
Waterloo 9 220 7.0 6 660 5.1 6 480 4.9 29.7

Adapted from Snell 1987

Most wetland loss in southern Ontario can be attributed to dredging, draining and filling, primarily for agricultural purposes, as well as to the spread of urbanization (Table 9.6). Most of that wetland loss occurred before 1967 (Table 9.). While the rate of wetland loss has declined substantially since 1967, the majority of that loss continues to be due to agricultural practices, and old Norfolk County is no exception (Table 9.6). The extensive destruction of wetlands before 1967 can be attributed to a poorly informed farming community and to the fact that wetlands simply could not compete economically with other land uses. While small temporary and seasonal wetlands continue to be removed by certain farmers for ease of operation of large farm machinery, wetland loss has probably slowed since 1982 (Snell 1987). It is thought that this reduced rate of wetland loss over recent years is due to; 1/ lower agricultural investments in farm expansion, 2/ implementation of a provincial wetlands policy, 3/ greater farmer and public awareness of wetland values, 4/ wetland restoration projects sponsored by Ducks Unlimited Canada and other wetland conservation organizations, and 5/ land tax incentives. However, the simple fact that few wetlands remain to be drained has probably had a substantial influence on the rate of wetland loss throughout southern Ontario. Most of the wetland loss since 1967 has involved mainly scattered and relatively small wetlands (Snell 1987). This is probably due to the fact that most large wetlands are either in public ownership and protected, or owned by individuals concerned with their preservation. Snell (1987) did not include small (<10 ha), easily and readily drained wetlands in her analysis. She also did not attempt to include indirect degradation (loss of function) or partial drainage of wetlands, which have been estimated to have adversely afflicted three times more wetland area than wetland removal (Bardecki 1981). This may be particularly true on the old Norfolk Sand Plain, where seasonally and temporarily flooded depressions and swampland are highly susceptible to drainage and destruction. In contrast, the clay soils of Haldimand have numerous tiny depressions that hold water temporarily in the spring.

Table 9.6 The 1982 Land Uses of Wetlands Converted since 1967 for Several Extreme Southern Ontario Counties.

County Agriculture
ha% of total
Idle Land
ha% of total
Built-Up Uses
ha% of total
Reforestation
ha% of total
Recreation
ha% of total
Extractive Uses
ha% of total
Brant 180  100 0  0

Adapted from Snell 1987

Temporary and seasonal wetlands, which are often little more than depressions in agricultural fields, are critically important for staging and breeding waterfowl and shorebirds (Robinson 1995). This can be attributed to the fact that they thaw quickly, providing aquatic habitat while other deeper wetland areas are still frozen. They also warm up very quickly, providing the necessary nutrients for invertebrates, plants, and amphibians all of which are important food sources for migrating waterbirds. The abundant aquatic invertebrate life found in these ponds is particularly important for pre-laying and laying female ducks.

The majority of the small wetland depressions in old Norfolk County are on private property. Consequently, the conservation of these areas is often up to the custodial responsibility of the landowner (who is often highly influenced by the present state of the economy), government policy, or on an individual's level of awareness of wetland values (Snell 1987).


Back to Long Point Biosphere publications index