1 I R. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PANZER SIGNIFICANT...

li Ill

Agenda Item # Page #

B. Bergsrna

R. W. PANZER 1 I GENERAL MANAGER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

REVISIONS TO THE SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS GUIDELINE DOCUMENT

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING

That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Planning and Development, the following actions be taken:

A) that the attached revised Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands (March 2006) BE APPROVED;

B) that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to add the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands (March 2006) to the list of Council approved guideline documents pursuant to Section 19.2.2 of the Official Plan;

C) that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to add a new Policy under Section 15 -Environmental Policies, identifying the "Threshold of Woodland Significance" to be applied to Woodland Evaluations using the revised Guidelines, and;

D) that the proposed Official Plan Amendment identified in C) BE CIRCULATED for review by the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, Advisory Committee on the Environment, the Agricultural Advisory Committee, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Urban League, London Development Institute, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and other interested organizations prior to its consideration at a public meeting of the Planning Committee.

It being noted that Staff support lowering the Threshold of Significance to achieve consistency with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and to reflect identified community values and expectations and that until the Official Plan Amendment identified in Part C) is approved, the current Threshold of Significance standard from the October 2000 Guideline will remain in effect.

October 4, 2000 Planning Committee - Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecoloqically Siqnificant Woodlands ADOPTED by Municipal Council on October 16, 2000 pursuant to Section 19.2.2. of the Official Plan.

April 11, 2005 Planning Committee - Proposed revisions to the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Sianificant Woodlands was RECEIVED AND CIRCULATED for review.

May 8,2006 Planning Committee - A report entitled Tree Cover Statistics was RECEIVED for information.

1


The Provincial Policy Statement requires that municipalities identify and protect forthe long term all Significant Woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield. The City of London Official Plan Policy 15.4.5 sets out criteria for the identification of Significant Woodlands. In October of 2000 a Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands was adopted by Municipal Council and has been used to assess woodlands since that time.

An informal Guideline review process occurred over a 2-year period in 2001 - 2002 during which time input and advice was collected and contributed from a range of sources, including informal discussions, brainstorming sessions with consultants and other municipalities developing similar criteria, through participation in invited workshops on significant woodlands with the Federation of Ontario Naturalists Southern Ontario Woodlands Project, through the application of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources "Big Picture Project of Carolinian Canada", and through other municipalities undertaking significant woodland studies, most notably the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study, and finally through our own analyses using ArcView Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology.

Based on the results of this analysis, adjustments to some of the assessment criteria and editorial changes to clarify the interpretation or definition of some of the application guidelines were recommended for inclusion into a revised Guideline Document.

In the fall of 2003, the City of London awarded a contract to North-South Environmental to undertake an in-depth scientific study of the Environmental Review Lands outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and to further test the scientific assessment criteria of the Guideline. This project was initiated based on a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (order 1048, June 3 1999) which introduced a new Official Plan Policy:

80.3 iii) The City will undertake an environmental study of the Environmental Review Lands outside of the Urban Growth Area during the first ten years of the planning period (1996-2006). Lands not determined to be significant in accordance with the criteria for determining significance in Section 15.4 will be redesignated as Agriculture.

The study approach taken by North-South Environmental included the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

to conduct consistent and repeatable data collection for a varied cross-section of vegetation patches (ER Lands), to review the existing Guidelines for suitable revisions to ensure that their application reflects the intent of Official Plan Policies and that the Guideline is a useful, precise tool, to make scientific recommendations as to which vegetation patches should be classified as "significant woodlands" within the Official Plan, to determine whether the Landscape Level Evaluation used by the City is sufficient and appropriate in determining the true ecological value of forest habitats without requiring further detailed studies by development proponents.

Through this process, no changes were recommended to the five general considerations for woodland significance as outlined in Section 15.4.5 of the Official Plan.

The proposed revised Guidelines were circulated for review on April 11, 2005 to all stakeholders who have participated thus far in the ER Lands Study and to relevant Agencies and local advisory groups. Comments were received from the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC), Reforest London 150, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ecostrat Communications, Mcllwraith Field Naturalists, and BioLogic. The London Development Institute (LDI) requested additional information in order to complete their review. This was made available to them, including a presentation from North-South Environmental. The Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) requested additional time to review the revised Guidelines. As of May23,2006, final comments have not been received from either LDI or ACE.

See Appendix B for a summary of comments received through the circulation process. 2


B. Bergsma

r PART A - TECHNICAL GUIDELINE REVISIONS U

As a result of the work completed to date, refinements to the assessment criteria have been recommended by the City and the consultants to:

work more effectively with the data set recently collected; to refine the wording of factors to reduce misapplication of criteria; better define various terms and recognize currently mapped resources or features; adjust the factor thresholds based on the analysis of the data collected from this process and where supported by cumulative frequencydistribution of all patches within London to the upper quartile of patches, so that the top 25% are assigned a ranking of High; eliminate potential for double-counting of information in two or more criteria; eliminate factors or criteria that were difficult to measure consistently; establish a minimum size of mapped communities at 0.5 ha; add additional criteria for evaluation that reliably measure the quality of woodlands.

While these changes are quite technical in nature, they will assist in providing consistent and accurate ecological assessments of woodlands within the City of London. A more detailed description of the proposed edits was presented in the April 2005 report.

In September of 2005, LDI requested additional information and explanation of the proposed revisions. Based on that request the City asked North-South Environmental to assess 20 patches of the 38 woodland patches visited in 2004 for fieldwork. Each patch was evaluated using the original (2000) criteria to determine whether patches would change their overall significance based on the recommended (2005) criteria revisions. The results of this assessment were presented at a meeting of interested parties on October 18, 2005. LDI was unable to attend this meeting, so the same presentation was repeated for them on November 16, 2005.

The results of the assessment can be summarized as follows. There are eight categories of Guideline criteria for evaluating the significance of woodlands. The proposed revisions to five of the Guideline criteria did not result in changes in the Significance Rank achieved by any of the 20 patches evaluated. However, based on revisions to the other three Guideline criteria, three of the evaluated patches (1 5%) that were not considered Significant based on the original 2000 criteria did achieve a ranking of Significant based on the revised criteria. It is anticipated that of the 212 patches being evaluated as part of the ER Lands Study, approximately 32 additional patches (15%) might achieve a rank of Significant under the revised Guideline criteria.

The revised Guideline Document will be used to complete the technical review component of the ER Lands Study in 2006 as per the OMB Order. As the final results of the ER Lands Study will determine the ecological significance of all vegetation patches outside the Urban Growth Boundary and will recommend final land use designations -either "Significant Woodland" or the removal of the patch from Official Plan mapping, the City's new "threshold of significance" will be critical in establishing The Forest City's commitment to our forests.

II PART B -THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE A The outstanding issue is one that addresses the threshold of significance (previously within the Summary Score Sheet in the Guideline document) in applying the technical information obtained through the ecological criteria evaluation. As part of the previous Guideline, the threshold of significance was thoroughly debated using the science and planning context of the day, and was set to require 3 High Guideline Criteria to be met for a woodland to be designated Significant.

Since the Guideline Document is not a component part of the Official Plan, there has been no appeal mechanism available to parties who may take issue with the Guideline, particularly as it relates to the determination of a suitable threshold of significance. Comments have been received requesting that this issue be addressed so that relative significance can be established within a policy framework that is "appealable". The recommended action in Part C) and D) to remove the

3


B. Bergsma Threshold of Significance determination from the Guideline and Dlace it into the Official Plan as a policy, will address this issue. Until the new threshold has been approved, the current standard from the October 2000 Guideline will continue to be used, and is: 3 High or 2 High and 4 Medium or I high and 6 Medium or 7 Medium scorings.

Provincial Policv Statement for Sianificant Woodlands

Section 2 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) addresses the "Wise Use and Management of Resources" in Ontario and includes all Natural Heritage features, including Significant Woodlands. A Significant Woodland is defined as:

"An area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition; age of trees and stand history: functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in the planning area; or economically important due to its site quality, species composition or past management history."

Implementation of the PPS rests with various levels of planning approval authorities, but all municipal policies and approvals "shall be consistent" with the Provincial Policy Statement. Comments were received from the Province in response to our circulation and are included in Appendix B, but their position is clear- "The Guidelines should be updated to the standards of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS, 2005) ...".

Our technical updates will address the Policy as far as the "ecological features", but the broader context of woodlands within a landscape and within a greater"p1anning area" can only be dealt with by an adjustment to the Threshold of Significance. In updating the PPS and modifying the policy related to woodlands, the new PPS has clearly identified that the "amount of forest cover in the planning area" is an important issue and must be addressed.

As part of the broader Conserving Southern Woodlands Project, The Federation of Ontario Naturalists (Ontario Nature) has engaged a broad coalition of partners in bringing togetherworkable and ecologically defensible guidelines for the identification of significant woodlands. The guidelines have been reviewed by a multi-stakeholder technical review panel, represented by planners, ecologists, biologists, foresters, OMNR staff, Conservation Authority staff, and consultants, and are supported by a glossary of terms, and literature review of scientifically-defensible support for the criteria. The Suqaested Guidelines for the Identification of Siqnificant Woodlands in Southern Ontario were issued in February, 2004.

These suggested guidelines include a number of criteria and thresholds and recommended that any woodland satisfying one criterion is to be considered "Significant".

The City of London was a participant in this technical review panel, and the criteria and factors evaluated in the City of London Guideline Document are consistent with Ontario Nature - Federation of Ontario Naturalists Significant Woodland Guideline The main difference is that the City of London currently requires three criteria to be satisfied in order to be considered significant. This is not consistent with the recommended provincial standard.

Middlesex Countv Guideline for Sianificant Woodlands

The Middlesex Natural Heritaqe Study (MNHS) to identify Significant Woodlands in Middlesex County was prepared by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study Steering Committee in July 2003. The City of London was a participant on the Steering Committee. The MNHS was a pilot project forthe Carolinian Canada Big Picture Project and the Ministry of Natural Resources Ecological Land Classification System (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et. a/. 1998) as well as landowner outreach and stewardship approaches.

Incorporating the three key concepts of Riley and Mohr (1 994), as well as the results from the review of scientific literature, input from the Steering Committee and the significant correlations from regressional analysis between the independent landscape parameters and the dependent site specific forest health indicators collected in the field, six landscape criteria were identified to assess

4


B. Bergsma candidate woodland patches in Middlesex County.

A woodland patch meeting one of the criteria was recommended as a candidate for significance in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2.3 for Middlesex County.

The application of the landscape level analysis component was applied to the entire geographic County of Middlesex including the City of London, although the results for the City of London were not presented or mapped in the County's Official Plan.

As required by the PPS, a standard has been established within the greater "planning area" of Middlesex County. London is not consistent with the recommended provincial standard by requiring three criteria to be satisfied in order for a woodland to be considered significant.

Thames River Watershed

Within the even larger Thames River Watershed, the issue of forest cover has received more attention and is being studied in more detail. Other Thames watershed counties and communities have completed or are initiating woodland significance studies. The standard of "1 High" is also being endorsed and implemented in Oxford County.

Citv of London Guideline for Siqnificant Woodlands

The City of London Guideline for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands was approved by Municipal Council in October 2000. It went through a rigorous review by the MNR, UTRCA, EEPAC, the Nature Conservancy, Mcllwraith Field Naturalists, foresters, biologists and BioLogic on behalf of the LDI. At that time it had been agreed upon that three high criteria were required to be met in orderto be designated significant woodland. This high threshold of significance discriminates only the very highest qualitywoodlands and will generally account for only the upper 25% to 35% of woodlands, leaving the other 65% to 75% of existing woodlands undesignated as Ooen Soace and unprotected from their physical removal.

As reported to Planning Committee on May 8, 2006, the current percentage of woodland cover in the City is approximately 8%, well below any recommended target for a planning area. Regardless of the proposed technical updates to the ecological criteria noted above, retaining the current standard of 3 High evaluation scores will result in a significant reduction in official woodland cover- from 8% to approximately 5%. This would not be consistent with the directives of the 2005 PPS, nor reflect the growing community interest and appreciation of trees and forests in our City.

The Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) provided their rationale as to why the City should change the threshold of significance so one HIGH criterion would be sufficient to designate Significant Woodlands in the City of London in the context of the2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Their comments are included in Appendix 6, but their summary of London's current standard compared to other Cities is as follows:

London's scoring requirement of three out of eight (;.e. 37.5%j compares very poorly to many surrounding municipalities:

a) b) cj d) e) f)

The City of Hamilton uses a scoring of 25% (two out of eightj Federation of Ontario Naturalists suggest a scoring of 20% (one out of fivej Region of York uses a scoring of 20% (one out of fivej Regional Municipality of Halton uses a scoring of 14% (one out of seven) Middlesex County uses a scoring of 17% (one out of six) City of Ottawa uses a scoring of 11% (one out of nine, with the other eight being

Clearly othermunicipalities have seen the value ofretaining existinggreen coverand have shown successful evaluation methods for achieving that protection.

medium)

In adopting the recommended standard of meeting 1 High Guideline criterion (or 5 Medium) to determine a "significant woodland", up to 90% of existing woodland patches could rank as Significant and be retained. This would meet the test of the new Provincial Policy and should satisfy community expectations.

5


B. Bergsma Retaining the current "3 High" standard would result in the retention of only 30% of existing woodlands, and would clearly not meet community expectations or Provincial Policy.

A "2 High" standard would result in the retention of approximately58% woodland patches and would fall short of the current Middlesex County standard and the standards of other municipalities within our "planning area" and across the Province.

Completing the ER Lands Study process will still result in a minor decrease of forest cover (0.1 %), as not all existing vegetation patches will meet one High criterion. Staff will report back on the outcome of the ER Lands Study later this year.

Creative City task Force -April 2005

Several of the recommendations from the Creative City Task Force Report refer to "The Forest City" and improving our efforts in the areas of tree protection and planting:

82. Tourism London and other organizations will be encouraged to promote London as the centre of Canada's Carolinian Forest.

The CCTF urges City Council to provide sufficient funding for enhanced tree planting and protection of our urban forests to enhance London's reputation as the "Forest City".

The new Guideline and support for the recommended threshold of significance will greatly assist Council in meeting the intent of these recommendations.

London 150th Celebrations - 2005

Lat year London had its 150th anniversary as a City and a big part of the celebrations where community and corporate planting days. These events were huge successes and brought renewed attention to the value of trees and forest in the Forest City. Substantial efforts were made to naturalize City lands and private lands through initiatives spear headed by such groups as:

87.

ReForest London Friends of Stoney Creek London Home Builders Association Many Rate Payers Associations London Development Institute BoyScouts

Adoption of the new Guideline and support for the recommended threshold of significance signifies to these groups, London's appreciation of their efforts in increasing forest cover in the City and our commitment to retaining existing woodlands.

Corporate Strategy - 2006

In 2006, the Corporation rolled out its new Strategic Plan to focus our efforts on meeting community needs and improving corporate governance. The Plan has several Strategic Priorities that relate directly to natural heritage protection.

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY- "Cultivating a robust and diversified economy"

From attracting new businesses or highly skilled employees, to Tourism potential and basic civic pride, the quality of life in a City is critical. One proven factor is environmental awareness and a community that values their natural heritage features.

Retaining our woodlands and working with our corporate partners to grow them is good for business.

6


B. Bergsma CORE INFRASTRUCTUR€ SUSTINABILIN - "Building and sustaining an efficient. - - effective municipal foundation"

Woodlands, tree cover and natural areas help to clean our air, absorb, filter and slow storm water run-off and reduce temperatures (saving us energy) - basic infrastructure roles at a minimal capital and operational cost.

COMMUNIN WTALIN- "Growing a strong and caring community"

A recent publication identified key areas that the community believed were critical to making London one of the best places to "live, work and play". One of eleven themes was "Green and Healthy Environment" and the outcome of this consultation was four objectives:

I

I I

Ill

iv

Improved air quality and improved water quality More Londoners are actively participating and promoting a green and healthy environment More green space is preserved Improved preservation of our watershed system

...

Retaining existing woodlands helps to satisfy all of these objectives.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY- "Promoting the care and protection of our natural resources"

Natural resources include a variety of features and functions that occur in the Urban Area and in our more rural lands. These resources are critical to the health of our environment and to the quality life in our City.

Protection of these features and functions also supports the other Priorities

€NRIC/f€D CULTURAL IDENTIN- "Developing and broadening our distinctive identity

The intent of the priority is far-reaching in dealing with many community cultural issues and objectives, but our "identity is intimately tied to trees in London - a tree is our logo and "Forest City" is our moniker.

The new Guideline and support for the recommended threshold of significance will demonstrate that Council is taking steps to address stated community values and meet the priorities in our Strategic Plan.

Trees 8, Forests Advisory Committee - 2006

Council endorsed the creation of a permanent committee to provide advice and direction to the City in our efforts to manage our trees and forests. Three specific areas will be targeted:

Planning & Protection Planting & Renewal Management & Maintenance

The new Guideline and support for the recommended threshold of significance will indicate Council's commitment to the Planning & Protection of our existing forests.

OMBl I MPMP -Yearly

The Ontario Municipal Benchmark Initiative and the Municipal Performance Monitoring Program track key factors that represent a wide cross-section of standards and services in Cities. Both have criteria that measure a municipality's natural open space area relative to other jurisdictions:

PKRSI 03

PKRS210

Percentage of Open Space Area

Hectares of Natural Parkland / Population

7

I' Ill


B. Bergsma The new Guideline and support for the recommended threshold of significance will support Council in their discussions among Municipal leaders that we are striving to meet maintain and increase these measures.

U CONCLUSION U The proposed technical changes to the Guideline document will not result in major differences in the scoring of each assessment criteria or a major shifi in the determination of woodland significance. These changes are recommended to more accurately reflect the local conditions of woodland cover and distribution, and aid in data collection and analyses, while still being consistent with recommended provincial approaches.

Staff are proposing that the threshold of significance to identify Significant Woodlands be established at meeting one HIGH or 5 Medium criteria. This proposal is based on the comments received through this process, and in the context of more recent provincial and regional reviews of significant woodland guidelines that have been developed and implemented to meet the Provincial Policy Statement

To recognize the importance of the threshold of significance within planning processes, the determination of significance should be addressed by Official Plan policy, endorsed by Council.

Adoption of the new Guideline document and support of the "1 High" threshold of significance will clearly demonstrate a commitment to addressing the growing community interest in, and an appreciation of the benefits of tree and forest cover in the City of London and meet the test of Provincial Policy.

PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

R. W. PANZER

June 7, 2006 Y:\Shared\ParksPlanning\REP&RECSVOOG\SigWoodlandsRevisions.doc

a

I' Ill

Agenda \tam # Page #

B. Bergsma APPENDIX A :

REVISED GUIDELINE DOCUMENT FOR THE EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS

9


B. Bergsma

ondon C A N A D

CITY OF LONDON

GUIDELINE DOCUMENT FOR THE EVALUATION OF

ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS

March 2006

10

Agenda Item # Paw #

B. Bergsma EXECUTNE SUMMARY

The conservation and protection of woodlands has been identified as a priority for some time and has more recently been an issue of increasing public attention and concern (Larson et. al. 1999; OMNR 1993a; Hilts 1977; Upper Thames Valley Conservation Report 1952). Particular focus has been directed on the state of southern Ontario's landscape, woodlands being one component of the natural heritage of southern Ontario that is recognized in Natural Heritage section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). This guideline document presents a methodology for evaluating the ecological significance of vegetation patches identified with woodland components within the boundaries of the City of London. The adoption by Council of this document pursuant to section 19.2.2., of the Official Plan will provide a consistent approach to the evaluation for significance based on criteria contained in section 15.4.5 of the Official Plan. The criteria in 15.4.5 recognize that significant Woodlands may be selected for ecological or socioeconomic benefits. This guideline document focuses on an evaluation of ecological values that discriminate high quality woodlands. Ecological values include features and conditions that are associated with mature woodlands, processes and functions that generate and maintain biodiversity and ecological integrity. The socioeconomic values of woodlands will be evaluated in a separate process.

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS

The criteria for identifying Woodlands, is outlined in Section 15.4.5. of the Official Plan (City of London):

15.4.5 Woodlands Woodlands are complex ecosystems of different tree species, shrubs, ground vegetation and soil complexes that provide habitat for many plants and animals. Woodlands is a general term which collectively refers to areas occupied by trees, treed areas, woodlots and forested areas. Woodlands identified through the Subwatershed planning Studies and located outside of the recognized Environmentally Significant Areas are shown as "Vegetation Patches" on Schedule "B".

The significance of Woodlands will be based on an evaluation of the following considerations:

The Woodland contains natural features and ecological functions that are important to the environmental quality and integrity of the Natural Heritage System.

The Woodland provides important ecological functions and has an age, size, site quality, diversity of biological communities and associated species that is uncommon for the planning area.

The Woodland is important for the balanced distribution of open space amenities and passive recreational activities across the urban area.

The Woodland provides significant habitat for endangered or threatened species.

The Woodland contains distinctive, unusual or high quality natural communities or landforms.

APPLICATION These guidelines will apply to all vegetation patches outside ESAs and wetlands as identified on Schedule B and designated as Environmental Review on Schedule A. These patches, generally 4 ha in size or larger, were identified through the Subwatershed Planning Studies. The patch is the trigger for the application of these evaluation guideli vegetation patches (lands) that meet and those that do Woodland components of the Natural Heritage System. for significance, the lands determined to be significant

The evaluation will identify those the criteria for significance as

patch meets the criteria as Open Space on

11 I


E. BerQSma Schedule "A, and delineated on Schedule "B" according to the significant characteristics of the lands (88.3. and 15.3.), in this case as a "Woodland. Future investigation, (Environmental Impact Statement) may result in a change (reduction or expansion) of the boundary of the significant woodland.

Boundaries of the woodland patch may be revised using principles for boundary delineation of Environmentally Significant Areas (City of London 1997). Non-woodland areas may have importance to the maintenance of long-term integrity and biodiversity values of the woodland either as contributing to the ecological significance of the whole patch, or as buffers for protection of more sensitive areas within the patch. These aspects and the refinement of patch boundaries would be explored in more detail as part of an Environmental Impact Study for development applications within 50 m of the Woodland patch. Not all areas of the patch may be carried forward or identified as "significant". The Subwatershed Studies Implementation Plan (MMM 1995) established the options for vegetation patches pending the results of more detailed studies: protection of the whole patch as significant and "no development and/or site alteration";

a) b) c)

This evaluation system is the first step to identification of patches in the last category (not significanffdevelopment permitted) and those falling in the first two categories (significantlno development or site alteration unless it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Statement that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The scoring sheets will clearly indimcate woodland's ecological strengths and weaknesses relative to other woodlands. The degree of development permitted or not permitted will in part reflect the overall value of scores of each woodland; i.e. woodlands with more high scores are relatively more significant than those with one or no high and more medium scores. In the former instance, development may not be supported within any portions of the patch, while in the latter case some development may be permitted within a portion of the patch.

protection of portions of the patch that will maintain functions; replacement or compensation of all or portions of the patch; identification of the patch as not significant and development permitted without replacement or compensation.

WOODLAND IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

The City of London has completed a digital polygon layer of vegetation communities at the ELC Community Class and Community Series levels using airphoto interpretation and topographic layers in a GIS model. The basis for the classification was the original vegetation patch outlines from the subwatershed studies, inventory reports, aerial photographs and field inventory. Patches in the former City of London boundaries (prior to annexation) identified in the Remnant Woodlot Inventory For the City of London (1991) and/or that are currently designated Open Space as parks or within flood plain regulated lands were also identified and mapped (Bergsma & Boitson 2000). This mapping is linked to the terrestrial subwatershed database (Bowles et. ai. 1994) and another database of audit and inventory information on patch characteristics. This mapping will greatly facilitate the identification and evaluation of significant woodlands within the City of London.

Most potential Woodlands are shown as "Vegetation Patches outside of ESAs and Wetlands" on Schedule " 6 of the Official Plan and as Environmental Review "ER on Schedule "A. Patches that contain treed areas meeting the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) definitions for a Woodland, as given below, will be evaluated through an appropriate ecological inventory in accordance with the Draft City of London Data Collection Standards For Natural Areas (July 1997) and using the methodology described below and in the Woodland Patch Assessment Score Sheets.

Application of the evaluation guidelines will apply to the entire patch, regardless of community type, with some standards applied only to natural woodlqnd communities within the patch. Woodlands will be evaluated for their significance using p recognized evaluation model (Smith & Theberge 1987) that meets several requirements:

12 , I

Agenda Item # PCge #

B. Bergsma

a) Measurements are made on an ordinal scale (high-medium-low); b) Minimum standards can be set for each criterion; c) It recognizes that criteria are not independent; d) It enables the use of information at different spatial scales and recognizes the relationships

between criteria; e) It is a simple and repeatable method that will support and highlight the choices being made

without clouding important issues or concealing value judgements

This evaluation system ranks sites on the basis of whether they meet an acceptable minimum standard for any given criterion. It readily identifies the reason(s) why the site is "significanV'without trying to weigh or compare criteria that are not comparable or are measured on different scales.

Each criterion will be rated using an ordinal ranked scale (high-medium-low). In general, the higher the rating for each standard, the more valuable or significant is the woodland.

The rationale behind the criteria are based on the key ecological concepts in natural heritage system planning as presented in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (OMNR 1999). There are 15 concepts presented as A-0 and are based on the following factors:

Representation Distribution Size Shape Fragmentation Connectedness Arrangement Proximity Habitat Diversity Complexity Community Diversity Species Diversity Species Rarity Naturalness and Disturbance Hydrologic and Related Values.

13


B. Bergsma 1. CRITERION 15.4.5 (i) The Woodland contains natural features and ecological functions that are important to the environmental quality and integrity of the Natural Heritage System.

1.1 Site Protection

Presence of hydrological features within or contiguous with the patch. Based on RULE " 0 : Patches that contain waterbodies are generally more important than those that do not. Based on other concepts developed for the London Subwatershed Studies to recognize: a) the linkage between protection of groundwater and vegetation on the surface; b) the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems which is very rich and the focus of important activities and functions; and c) the important hydrological functions of wetlands that complement and enhance those provided by woodlands.

Includes groundwater recharge areas (Schedule B); headwater/ I* order watercourses, 2"d, 3d6, and 4'h or higher watercourses (includes flood plain regulated lands and river, stream and ravine corridors outside of flood plain regulated lands and riverslstreams (subwatershed studies category 1 patches and/or as mapped on Schedule B); wetlands (evaluated on Schedule B and unevaluated identified on the ELC digital layer).

0 HIGH one or more hydrological features/functions located within or contiguous with the patch (category 1 patch l within ground water recharge area I contains a wetland >2 ha size.

0 MEDIUM within 50 m of a watercourse or contains a wetland c 2 ha size. 0 LOW no hydrological features present within or contiguous with the patch

b) Erosion and Slope Protection. Based on the need to protect runoffprocesses, ground stabiky and aquatic habitat (erosion potential) for slopes > 10% (MNR, Design Guidelines for Forest Management).

As mapped in the Slope Stability Mapping Project (UTRCA 1996) and also using the surface mapping for slope and aspect based on a TIN surface file generated by ArcView 3D Analyzer. Additionally, this criterion requires knowledge of the soil textures and types as described in the Ecological Land Classification manual (MNR 1998) based on the Ontario Institute of Pedology (1 985) and Canadian Soil Classification System (1 978).

0 HIGH patch present on steep slopes >25% on any soil type, OR on a remnant slope associated with other features such as moraines or remnant valley slopes no longer continuous with the river system OR on moderate to steep slopes >IO% - 25% with erodible soils (silty loam, sandy loam and loam, fine to coarse sands).

0 MEDIUM patch present on moderate to steep slopes > 10% - 25% with less erodible soils (heavy clay and clay, silty clay)

0 LOW patch present on gentle slopes c 10% with any soil type.

Score for criterion 1 .I based on the highest standard achieved for any one of the two standards 1

14

Agenda Item # Pig. #

B. Bergsma 1.2 Landscape Integrity (Richness, Connectivity and Distribution)

a) Landscape Richness. The density of landscape fragmentation, or patchiness as measured by the total area of all patches per unit area of land. Based on the demonstration that Native plant richness and flora quality are significantly related to local forest cover (UTRCA 1997; Bowles and Bergsma 1999). Based generally on RULE "G: Clusteredpafches are usually better than in-line patches of the same total area.

Percent cover of vegetation (all habitat types) within a 2 km radius circle from patch centroid. Thresholds reflect cumulative frequency distribution of patches within London).

0 HIGH > 10% local vegetation cover MEDIUM 7 - 10% local vegetation cover

0 LOW c 7% local vegetation cover.

b) Landscape Connectivity (linkage and distance between patches not separated by permanent cultural barriers). Based on RULE "E: Connected patches are usually better than unconnected patches and RULE "N": Patches that are relatively unaffected by human use are more valuable than more disturbed patches.

0 HIGH patches directly connected by: i) waterways or riparian habitat (generally primary or secondary aquatic

corridors and streams with bridges andlor underpasses: include Thames, Dingman, Medway, Stoney, Pottersburg, Kettle, Dodd, Sharon, Oxbow, Kelly, Stanton, Crumlin);

ii) Contiguous or semi-contiguous habitat.

0 MEDIUM patches indirectly connected by: i) ii)

habitat gaps < 40 m; areas identified as Anti-fragmentation, Terrestrial Corridor, Big Picture Corridor (to enhance the viability of isolated woodlands by re-connection, buffering, expanding OR to infill disturbed areas or replace abandoned fields (Riley & Mohr 1994); abandoned rails, utility ROWS (hydro corridors, waterlgas pipeline) Open space greenways and golf courses

iii) iv) v) Active agriculture or pasture; vi) Watercourses connected by culverts; vii)

patches not connected due to the presence of permanent cultural barriers: i) major roads and highways with no culverts; ii) urban or industrial development, large parking lots; iii) infrastructure; iv) dams, buried watercourses, channelized third or greater order

watercourses v) very active recreational (campground, parks with major facilities -

community centres, arenas).

First or second order streams channelized.

0 LOW

15

Agenda Item # +ge #

B. Bergsma

on RULE "C": Large patches are usually better than clusters of smallerpatches with the same total area and RULE " F : Closely clustered patches are usually better than less closely clustered patches. The interaction or flow of organisms among patches appears to be influenced by the size of patches and the distance separating them - the "gravity model" theory**

HIGH

c) Patch Distribution (isolation & arrangement of patches I patch clusters*). Based

patch clusters with total area > 40 ha OR identified as a Meta Core in the Carolinian Canada Big Picture Project (2000) OR is an isolated patch > 20 ha size. patch clusters with total area 20 - 40 ha OR identified as an Island Core in the Carolinian Canada Big Picture Project (2000) OR is an isolated patch 210 to 20 ha size patch clusters with total area < 20 ha OR is an isolated patch

0 MEDIUM

LOW 10 ha.

Score for criterion 1.2 based on the highest standard achieved for any one of the three standards

*Patch Clusters were defined by patches within 250 m of each other not separated by major roads, highways, railways or urban development.

** Gravity Model Theory - A Gravity Model can be used to predict the migration and interaction potential between populations or communities of species from nearby patches based on co-efflcients for distance, habitat heterogeneity (or indices of patch similarity), and the dispersal behaviours of organisms. This was demonstrated in the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (UTRCA 2003) in which a statistically significant negative relationship was shown between the number of native plant species to distance from a recognized natural heritage feature (ANSI and Wetland). In other words, the closer the distance between the woodland patch and a recognized natural heritage feature, the greater the number of native plant species in the woodland.

2. CRITERION 15.4.5 (ii) The Woodland provides important ecological functions and has an age, size, site quality, diversity of biological communities and associated species that is uncommon for the planning area.

2.1 Age and Site Quality

a) Community successional stage I seral age. Community age is based on definitions in the provincial Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et. al. 1998). Seral age reflects the composition of the plant community (especially trees) with respect to light tolerance and moisture conditions). Generally, mature or advanced seral stage community types are under-represented in the London Subwatershed (Bowles 1995); Middlesex County (MNHS, 2003) and Oxford County (OCTES, 1997).

0 HIGH patch contains one or more mature or older growth community 0 MEDIUM patch contains one or more mid-aged community 0 LOW patch contains only pioneer to young community

b) Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (MCC) of communities or whole patch. The MCC is based on the Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario (Oldham et.al. 1995), analysis of distribution in the London Subwatershed area (Bowles & Bergsma 1999), results of the MNHS (UTRCA 2003) and OCTES (UTRCA 1997).

0 HIGH one or more vegetation community with a MCC 2 4.6; OR MCC of patch > 4.5

0 MEDIUM one or more vegetation community with a MCC 4.2 - 4.5; OR MCC of patch 2 4.0 - 4.5

0 LOW all vegetation communities with a MCC c 4.2; OR MCC of patch c 4.0.

16

I' Ill


6. Bergsma c) Disturbance related to Human Activity. Based on the assessment of vegetation

patches to classify them as Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor for overall condition.

HIGH One community in excellent condition; or All communities in Good condition. 0 MEDIUM A combination of communities in Good, Fair and Poor condition 0 LOW All communities in Poor condition

Score for criterion 2.1 based on the highest standard achieved for any one of the three standards I

2.2 patch may be able to support. Guilds include "interior dependent" (forest interior species), "forest dependent" (forest interior-edge species), "area dependent" (area-sensitive species) and "generalists" (edge species). The number of native plant species has been found to be positively related to patch area, and negatively related to interior habitat (MNHS 2003) which means that patches with more interior had fewer native plant species than the same size patch with less interior.

Size and Shape. These parameters influence the type of bird species "guilds" that a

a) Patch Size. Based on RULE "B": Large patches are usually better than smaller patches.

Thresholds derived from cumulative frequency curve distribution for London patches.

0 HIGH Patch > 9.0 ha in size OR patch contains a woodland >4 ha. 0 MEDIUM Patch 2.0 - 9.0 ha in size OR patch contains a woodland 2-4 ha. 0 LOW Patch < 2.0 ha in size.

b) Patch Shape and Presence of Interior. Based on RULE "D : A compact patch with a limited amount of edge is better than a narrowpatch of the same area with more edge.

Calculated as the presence of interior area based on a 100 m interior edge zone. Based on analysis of subwatershed studies patches and calculation of perimeter to area ratios.

0 HIGH Patch contains interior habitat that is more than 100 m from the edge, or has a Perimeter:Area ratio 4 . 5 m/m2.

0 MEDIUM Patch contains no interior habitat but has a Perimeter:Area ratio 1.5 - 3.0 m/m2. 0 LOW Patch contains no interior and has a Perimeter:Area ratio > 3.0 m/mZ

c) Conservative Bird Species - Birds are indicators of habitat quality and the degree of forest fragmentation.

Evaluated based on Southern Ontario Conservation Priorities Scores for Middlesex County (Couturier 1999). Presence of species with high Jurisdictional Responsibility, Preservation Responsibility andlor Area Sensitivity as identified for all three categories of forest, marsh and open country birds.

0 HIGH

0 MEDIUM

0 LOW

Confirmed, probable, or possible breeding of one or more species at Level 1 or two or more at Level 2 or > five at Levels 2-4 in the patch. Confirmed, probable, or possible breeding of one species at Level 2 or two or more at Level 3 or four to five at Levels 3-4 in the patch Confirmed, probable, or possible breeding of one to three species in Level 3-4; or no conservative bird species present in the patch.

Score for criterion 2.2 based on the highest standard achieved for any one of the three standards

17

I1 Ill


B. Bergsma Diversity of Communities, Landforms and Associated Species

a) ELC Community Diversity. Based on RULE "J": Patches that contain more than one

2.3

natural heritage feature or area may be more valuable than patches with a single natural heritage feature or area. Native plant species diversity is related mainly to the number of communities in the patch, also to patch area and landscape richness (OCTES, 1997).

Applied at the patch level to all communities (including cultural) identified at the Community Series level in the City of London digital GIS layer. Thresholds derived from cumulative frequency distribution of London patches for a total of 23 community series categories.

0 HIGH Patch contains 6 or more Community Series MEDIUM Patch contains 3-5 Community Series

0 LOW Patch contains 1-2 Community Series

b) Community and Topographic Diversity (variation and heterogeneity). Based on the concept that vegetation structure and landform variability positively influences biodiversity.

Applied to all communities as defined by this study and based on ELC Community Tables (Lee et. al. 1998) and topographic feature description. There are 7 possible topographic feature cateaories for the City of London: riverine, bottomland, terrace, valley slope, tableland, rolling upland, bluff

0 HIGH

0 MEDIUM

0 LOW

Patch contains 3 or more Ecosites in one Community Series OR four or more Vegetation Types OR three or more topographic features (e.g tableland, rolling upland, valley slope, terrace, bottomland). Patch contains 2 or more Ecosites in one Community Series OR by three Vegetation Types OR two topographic features, or one Vegetation Type with inclusions or complexes. Patch relatively homogenous; 1 Ecosite OR one to two Vegetation Types on one topographic feature.

c) Diversity (species and individuals) and Critical Habitat Components for Amphibians. Based on RULE "L" Patches that contain a high diversity of species are usually more valuable than patches that contain fewer species. Amphibians are indicators of healthy woodlands with well functioning processes (OMNR 1999,2000).

Applied at the patch level, based on presence of amphibians and/or important habitat components including 1) unpolluted shallow water that remains wet for the breeding season (presence of vernal pools); 2) emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation (presence of aquatic ELC community types); 3) presence of instream logs and shoreline shrubs (fish habitat data); 4) closed canopy offering a shaded moist understorey environment (presence of forest or treed swamp communities): 5) abundance of coarse woody debris (deadfallllogs, firm or decayed in the 10-24, 25-50 or >50 cm size classes).

0 HIGH

0 MEDIUM

0 LOW

3 or more species of amphibians present in the patch, OR 1 species of amphibian that is abundant in one or more communities; OR 2 or more critical habitat components present in the patch. 1-2 species of amphibians present in the patch; OR 1 species of amphibian that is occasional in one or more communities; OR 1 critical habitat components present in the patch. No species of amphibian present in the patch, OR no critical habitat components present in the patch.

18

Agenda Item X Page #

B. Bergsma d) Presence of Conifer Cover. Important for providing winter food and shelter for a

variety of wildlife species (OMNR 1999, 2000). Conifer communities include FOC, FOM, SWC, SWM and CUP.

0 HIGH Patch contains conifer communities that are > 4.0 ha in size. 0 MEDIUM Patch contains conifer communities that are between 2.0 and 4.0 ha in size. 0 LOW Patch contains conifer communities < 2.0 ha in size or no coniferous, mixed

forest, swamp or plantation communities.

e) Fish Habitat Quality. The health of an aquatic habitat is determined by the health of the water body and surrounding land use practices. Even intermittent watercourses can provide critical habitat for many species. Fish provide an early warning of environmental problems.

HIGH

0 MEDIUM

0 LOW

Dissolved oxygen > 8.0 mg/L or abundant instream woody debris and rocks and watercourse with a natural channel located within or contiguous with the patch. Dissolved oxygen 5.0 - 8.0 mg/L or moderate amount of instream woodydebris and rocks and portions of channelized watercourses within or contiguous with the patch. Dissolved oxygen c 5.0 mg/L or no instream woody debris and sparse structure and entire watercourse channelized within or contiguous with the patch.

Score for criterion 2.3 based on the highest standard a&ieved for any one of the five standards

3. CRITERION 15.4.54~) The Woodland provides significant habitat for endangered or threatened species. [Note: refer to Policy 15.4.4 re: Endangered and Threatened Species habitat]

Identification, evaluation and listing of provincially endangered or threatened species (species- at-risk (SAR) in Ontario designated by both COSEWIC/COSSARO) is the responsibility of the MNR. Planning Authorities may wish to have assessments of the significant portions of the habitat of SAR reviewed by the MNR. The MNR and Planning Authorities may take a co- operative approach on identification of the extent of habitat, with differing roles depending on the status of the species and if there is a recovery plan or not (OMNR 1999).

SAR present or previously identified 0 YES 0 NO ~ 1 The presence of SAR will add one HIGH score to the over-all assessment I

4. CRITERION 15.4.5 (v). The Woodland contains dirstinctive, unusual or high quality natural communities or landforms.

4.1 community types present.

web page (http:/www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/veg/lists/commlist.html).

HIGH One or more communities with an SRANK of S3/S4 or higher MEDIUM No communities with an SRANK higher than 54.

0 LOW No communities with an SRANK higher than S5.

Distinctive, unusual or high quality communities. Applied at the patch level to all

a) ELC Community SRANK. Based on Bakowsky (1996) OR current status from NHlC

19


Rare tree or shrub Rare herbaceous

Northern and Specialized habitat treekhrub Carolinian treekhrub Regionally Rare plant

Uncommon plant

1 1 3 2 1 6 3-5 1-2 4 1-3

1

c) Size and distribution of trees

HIGH trees > 50 cm dbh abundant in one or more communities within the patch

0 MEDIUM trees > 50 cm dbh rare or occassional in one or more communities within the patch

0 LOW trees > 50 cm dbh not present in any communities within the patch

d) Basal Area This criterion is being added to evaluate stand characteristics for total basal area, and basal area by tree species and size classes for each community. The post-logging provincial standard for tolerant hardwoods will be used as a measure of high quality woodlands (MNR 2000). It has been shown in other studies that 45% (MNHS 2003) to 73% (Bowles 2001) of forests had basal areas lower than the recommended for optimal vegetation community resiliency and stability (MNR 2000).

HIGH Average basal area of trees for any community in the patch 2 16m ’/ha for trees >25 cm DBH; OR > 24 mzlha for trees > 10 cm DBH; OR all diameter class sizes are represented in the stand (saplings c 10 cm; polewood 10-24 cm; small sawlog 26-36; medium sawlog 38-48 cm; large sawlogs 50-60 cm; x-large or veteran trees > 62 cm.

0 MEDIUM Average basal area for any community in the patch 12 - 24 mYha of trees >IO cm DBH; OR missing one of polewood, small, medium, or large size classes.

i3 LOW Average basal area for all communities in the patch c 12 m2/ha for trees > 10 cm DBH; OR missing two or more of polewood, small, medium, or large size classes.

Score for criterion 4.1 based on the highest standard achieved for any one of the four standards

NOTE: 4. lc and 4.ld require site visits to conduct adequate field investigation. The list of rare and unusual species may also change, and will be based on the most up-to-date lists. It has been found in other natural heritage studies in Oxford County (OCTES 1997), City of London Subwatershed (1995) and Middlesex County (MNHS 2003) that unique species of plants and birds (i.e. where a species was recorded in only one vegetation patch) accounted for 14% to 20% of all patches. For the latter two studies, data also indicated that all physiographic types contained at least one species that was not found in any other physiographic type, suggesting the importance of all individual patches and physiographic types for maintaining species diversity.

20

I1 Ill

AgendaItem# Page#

B. Bergsma 4.2 Distinctive, Unusual or High Quality Landforms

a) Distinctive landform types. Based on RULE " A : Natural heritage systems that include the full range of habitat-landform types are better than those that contain fewer habitat- landform types.

As identified by the MNR (Earth Science ANSI) and City of London glacial geomorphology mapping (City of London GIS layer). Landform-vegetation representational significance was derived from calculating the proportion of all patches, including core areas, which are present and protected on each of the five major landform types.

0 HIGH

0 MEDIUM 0 LOW

Patch located on an Earth Science ANSI OR on the Beach Ridge or Sand Plain physiographic landform units. Patch located on the Till Plain or Till Moraine physiographic landform unit. Patch is located on the Spillway physiographic landform unit.

Score for criterion 4.2 (based on the highest standard achieved). I Beach Ridge landform is unusual and rare in the City with portions identified as Earth Science ANSI and Provincially Significant WetlandlESA. Sand Plain landform has very little protected areas present. It is considered high quality for the aggregate extraction industry. Till Plain is the largest landform unit with the least amount of protected areas (No ESAs) and the highest amount of vegetation. Most of the land is considered high quality agricultural. Till Moraine is the 3m largest landform unit with fair amount of protected land. It accounts for the patches that fall on the hei hts of land (Westminster Ponds - Pond Mills ESA l Meadowlily Woods). Spillway is the 2" largest landform unit with the greatest proportion of protected areas and contains most of the ESA's. It is the most distinctive landform unit including the Thames River, Stoney Creek, Medway Valley and Dingman Creek.

9

21


B. Bergsma

kl L] Woodland Patch Assessment Score Sheet March 2006

Criterion 1 Factors for Evaluation I Score for each Factor I HIGH-MEDIUM-LOW

Landscape 1 Community I Species Level

of the three standards 2.2 Size and Shape

Score for 2.2: Circle the of the three categories 2.3 Diversity of Natural Communities and Associated Species

Score for 2.3: Circle the

a) ELC Community Diversity

b) ELC Vegetation Type and Topographic Diversity (variation

c) Diversity (species and individuals) &Critical Habitat Components for Amphibians

d) Presence of Conifer Cover

azs,”n/n/n.,mn/. e) Fish Habitat Quality

’ highest standard achieved for any one HIGH

YES = HIGH NO = no score

or High Quality Natural Communities

nn/.,n,n,,/-/.,#,n.

MEDIUM LOW

I trees

, Score for 4.1: Circle the highest standard achieved for any one $ HIGH

Landforms

22

AgendaItem# Page#

CRITERION

CRITERION 1.1 Site Protection

B. Bergsma

SCORE

Woodland Patch Evaluation Summary Scoresheet March 2006

Assessment for Woodland Sianificance :

A woodland will be considered as a significant component of the Natural Heritage System and designated as open space based on the following categories:

CRITERION 1.2 Landscape Integrity

CRITERION 2.1 Age and Site Quality

CRITERION 2.2 Size and Shaoe I ~ ~

CRITERION 2.3 Diversity of Natural Communities and Associated Species 1 CRITERION 3 Endanaered and Threatened SDecies (TE Habitat) I CRITERION 411 Distinctive, Unusual or High Quality Natural Communities 1 CRlTERiON 4.2 Distinctive, Unusual or High Qualib Landforms I

Patch Number: Subwatershed:

Woodland Patch is a Significant Component of the Natural Heritage System: YES

Refer to Official Plan Policy 15.4.5., Woodlands for the Council approved threshold of significance

Prepared by:

Date:

0 NO

23


B. Bergsma Glossary of Terminology

Biodiversity totality of the richness of biological variation, ranging from within-species genetic variation, through subspecies and species, to communities and the patterns and dynamics of these on the landscape.

Carolinian TreelShrub SDecles includes Kentucky coffee tree, American chestnut, Tulip-tree, Pawpaw, Blue ash, Pumpkin ash, Honey locust, Sycamore, Cottonwood, Hackberry, Butternut, Red mulberry, Shagbark hickory, Sweet pignut hickory, Black walnut, Blue beech, Black willow, Swamp white oak, Chinquapin oak, Dwarf hackberry, Sassafras, Black maple, Eastern red cedar, Flowering dogwood, Wild crab, Wild plum, Canada plum and the following Hawthorn species: Crataegus brainerdii, Crataegus calpodendron, Crataegus compacta, Crataegus dissona, Crataegus dodgei, Crataegus lumaria, Crataegus mollis, Crataegus schuefei, (Reference: Citv of London Guide to Plant Selection for ESAs 1994).

Community is an assemblage of species or populations that live in a defined environment at a defined spatial-temporal scale, and interact with one another forming together a distinctive living system with its own comoosition. structure, environmental relations, develoament and function (Whittaker 1975). A commun(ty may be described and classified using the Ecoloaical Land Classification for Southein Ontario (Lee et.al. 1998) or any other recognized system.

Complex pattern of two or more ecosites or vegetation types forming a mosaic that cannot be mapped at the level of resolution being employed.

- Cover the absolute area of ground covered, or the relative proportion of coverage that a particular plant species, vegetation layer or plant form represents.

Cultural Barrier (permanent) includes roads (primary collector, arterial, highway as identified on Schedule ' C ), buildings and railroads, unless connected by a culvert or bridge that allows movement of wildlife.

Cultural Community a vegetation community originating from , or maintained by, anthropogenic influences and culturally based disturbances; after containing a large proportion of non-native species.

Cultural Corridor includes abandoned rail or roads, utility easements or right-of-ways, recreational greenway parkslopen space, abandoned agricultural land.

ELC Communitv Series is the lowest level of classification using ELC that can be identified through maps, air-photo interpretation and other remote sensing techniques. Community series are distinguished on the type of vegetation cover (open, shrub, or treed) and/or the plant form that characterizes the community (ie. deciduous, coniferous, mixed).

ELC Ecosite is a part of an Ecosection that consists of a mappable area or land having a consistent set of environmental factors (hydrology, soils) and patterns of vegetation characteristics.

ELC Vegetation TvDe is the finest level of resolution in the ELC, identified through site and stand level research and inventory. Vegetation types are generated by grouping similar plant communities based on plant species composition and dominance, according to relative cover. The goal is to distill the natural diversity and variability of plant communities to a small number of relatively uniform vegetation units.

Ecosection A subdivision of an Ecodistrict based on distinctive assemblages of relief, geology, landforms, soils and vegetation. Canadian ecological land classification (ELC) system mapping unit, usually mapped at a scale of 1:250 000 to 150 000.

- Forest a terrestrial vegetation community with at least 60% tree cover of coniferous or deciduous trees

Indigenous Conifer SDecies includes white pine, hemlock, eastern white cedar, eastern red cedar, tamarack, black spruce, white spruce.

Landform is a topographic feature. The various slopes of the land surface resulting from a variety of actions such as deposition or sedimentation, erosion and movements of the earth crust.

m a s it refers to individual tree species; the age and size t which a species is considered to be old or overmature for the particular region and site, based on best aiailable information.

a seral stage in which a community is dominated pri rily by species that are replacing themselves and are likely to remain an important component f the community if it is not disturbed again. 4 I 24


B. Bergsma Significant remnants of early seral stages may still be present.

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism [MCC) is calculated from the conservatism coefficients of all native species in a patch. MCC aids in measuring the overall quality of a site. The conservative coefficient describes the probability of finding a species in a particular habitat type or undisturbed habitat. Coefficients range from 0 (widespread) to 10 (found only in specialized habitats).

MidAaed a seral stage of a community that has undergone natural thinning and replacement as a result of species interaction; the community often contains examples of both early successional and late successional species.

Natural Corridor includes hedgerows, streams, drainage features, plantations, valley and stream corridors, riparian zones, thickets, woodlands. A corridor may be interrupted by some cultural features (such as bridges and culverts) which still allow movement of wildlife along the corridor.

Non-native Conifer SDecies include Jack pine, Noway spruce, European larch, Austrian pine, Scots pine.

Northern and SDecialized Habitat Tree/Shrub SDecieq Tamarack, Eastern hemlock, Eastern white cedar, Balsam poplar, Slender willow, Paper birch, Pin cherry, Dwarf hackberry, American mountain ash, Roundleaf Juneberry (Amelanchier sanguinea),Smooth serviceberry/juneberry (A. laevis).

Old Growth a self perpetuating community composed primarily of late sucessional species that usually show uneven age distribution, including large old trees without open-grown characteristics.

Phvtosocioloaical referring to a recognizable and repeatable community of interacting plant species that occurs across a landscape under the same conditions.

Pioneer a community that has invaded disturbed or newly created sites and represents the early stages of either primary or secondary succession.

Plantation a coniferous or deciduous treed community in which the majority of trees have been planted

Rare Herbaceous SDecies includes those with an element ranking of SI-S3 (For a complete listing of Ontario's rare plant species consult NHlC at www.mnr.qov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.htmI).

Rare TreelShrub SDecies includes Black spruce, Sweet pignut hickory (C), Blue ash (C), Pumpkin ash (C), Kentucky coffee tree (C), American chestnut (C), Black gum, Pawpaw (C), Red mulberry (C), Dwarf hackberry, American Mountain Ash, Juneberry (Arnelanchier sanguinea), and the following Hawthorn species: Crataegus apiomorpha, Crafaegus brainerdii, Crafaegus corusca, Crataegus dissona, Crataegus flabella fa, Crafaegus lumaria, Crataegus rnargaretta, Crataegus pedicellata, Crafaegus perjucunda, Crataegus scabrida, Crataegus suborbicufata, Crataegus sylvestris. Reference: Citv of London Guide to Plant Selection for ESAs, (1994) and Citv of London Tree Preservation Policies (1990).

Relative Abundance is the proportion of coverage a particular plant species, vegetation layer or plant form represents:

Rare

Occasional

Abundant

Dominant

-

-

a plant species that is represented, in the area of interest, by only one to a few individuals. plants that are present as scattered individuals throughout a community or represented by one or more large clumps of many individuals. Most species will fall into this category. a plant that is represented throughout the community by large numbers of individuals or clumps. Likely to be encountered anywhere in the community; usually forming > I O % ground cover. a plant with the greatest cover or biomass within a plant community and represented throughout the comimunity by large numbers of individuals. Visually more abundant than other species in the same layer and forming > I O % of the ground cover and 235% of the vegetation cover in any one layer.

-

-

Reaionallv Rare SDecies include species that are rare in SA/ Ontario based on SWFLORA database for the Subwatershed Life Science Inventories (Bowles et. al. 199b), and Status of the Vascular Plants of Southwestern Ontario (Oldham 1993). Species with 1-4 statio@ (records) in Middlesex County.

25

Agenda Item f Page 11

B. Bergsma Savanna a treed community with 1 Z to 35% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees.

SeeDaae the slow movement of water near the soil surface, often occurring above an impermeable subsoil layer or at the boundary between bedrock and unconsolidated material that is exposed at ground surface. Usually occurs downslope of the recharge area.

Seral Aae The stage in a vegetation chronosequence or succession at a given site

SRANK ranking system that considers the provincial rank of an element (=species or community type) as a tool to prioritize protection efforts. SRANKS are assigned based on best available information on 3 factors; estimated number of occurrences, estimated areal extent and estimated range. S1 to S3 include extremely rare, very rare and rare to uncommon ranks.

Swamp a mineral-rich wetland community characterized by a cover of coniferous or deciduous trees,

- Treed a community with tree cover of >lo%

Urban develoDment includes areas of the landscape that have been converted to other permanent uses such as buildings and lots, roads, parking areas. It would exclude areas of open space such as treed boulevards, parks, cemeteries, quarries, storm water management facilities and other natural vegetated areas. Includes all draft approved OMNR 1993a. A Significant Woodlands Workshop Proceedings.

OMNR 1993b. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual - 3’ edition with 1994 updates and registered developments.

Watercourse is defined as having one or more of the following characteristics: - a distinct channel in which water naturally flow$ at some time of the year (i.e. either permanent or

intermittent flow) - natural riparian vegetation - Type I-IVaquatic habitat

Wetland as defined by the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual, 3w edition (OMNR 1993b), with a minimum community size of 0.5 ha.

Woodland a treed community with 35 to 60% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees.

Youna a seral stage of a plant community that has not yet undergone a series of natural thinnings and replacements. Plants are essentially growing as independent individuals rather than as members of a phytosociological community.

References

Bakowsky, W.D. 1996. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Vegetation Communities of Southern Ontario and NHlC SRANKS for communities in site regions 6 and 7. Natural Heritage Information Centre, OMNR, Peterborough.

Bergsma, Bonnie and Tracey Boitson 2000. Ecological Land Classification Project

Bowles, Jane, William Draper, Audrey Heagy, Michelle Kanter and Brendon Larson 1994. City of London Sub-watershed Studies Life Science Inventories.

Bowles, J. and B. Bergsma November 30, 1999. Components of the Natural Heritage System Guidelines

Canada Soil Survey Committee, Subcommittee on Soil Classification 1978. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Can.Dep.Agric., Ottawa, Ontario. Publ. 1646.

City of London 1990. Guidelines for the Preparation of Tree Preservation Reports and Tree Preservation Plans. Appendix V - Rare Tree Species in the London Region. Adopted by Council December 3, 1990. Planning and Development, Room 609, City Hall, London, Ontario.

and Recreation.

for the Evaluation of Patches.

City of London 1991. Remnant Woodlot Inventory For the1CiM of London. Nancy McMinn (editor), Parks

City of London 1994. Guide to Plant Selection for ESAs. Plaining & Development, Room 609, City Hall,

26


London.

City of London Official Plan (Office Consolidation January 1 2000).

B. Bergsma

City of London 1997. Guideline Documents for Environmentally Significant Areas Identification, Evaluation

City of London 1997. Draft Data Collection Standards For Natural Areas. Parks Planning and Design.

Couturier, Andrew 1999.

and Boundary Delineation. Approved by Council August 5, 1997.

Conservation Priorities for the' Birds of Southern Ontario, Bird Studies, Canada, OMNR, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlie Service.

Hilts, Stewart G. (editor) 1977. Natural Areas in London, Ontario: Towards an Appreciation. Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

Ontario: A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, S. McMurray 1998. Ecological Land

Larson, B.M., J.L. Riley, E. Snell and H. Godschalk November 1999. Woodland Heritage of Southern

Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministly of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. Field Guide FG-02.

Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited 1995. City of London Subwatershed Studies implementation Plan

Oldham, M.J. 1993. Distribution and status of the Vasculer Plants of Southwestern Ontario. OMNR,

Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for

Aylmer District.

Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resouces, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario.

OMNR 1993a. A Significant Woodlands Workshop Proceedings.

OMNR 1993b. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual - 3rd edition with 1994 updates.

OMNR 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Polioy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement.

OMNR 2000. A Silvicultural Guide to Managing Southern Ontario Forests. In Press

Ontario Institute of Pedology 1985. Field Manual for Desoribing Soils. Third edition. Guelph, Ontario.

Provincial Policy Statement 1997. Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Smith, Paul and John Theberge 1987. Evaluating Natural Areas Using Multiple Criteria: Theory and Practice. Environmental Management 11 (4) : 447-460.

System., National Vegetation Working Group on the Canada Committee on Ecological Land Classification. Series No. 25 Sustainable Development, Corporate Policy Group, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Strong, W. L., E.T. Oswald and D.J. Downing eds. 1990. The Canadian Vegetation Classification

Upper Thames Valley Conservation Report 1952. Department of Planning and Development. Queen's Printer, Toronto.

UTRCA 1996. Slope Stability Mapping Project for the City of London. Prepared for Vision London '96.

UTRCA 1997. The Oxford County Terrestrial Ecosystem (OCTES): A Natural Heritage Study for Oxford County.

27


B. Bergsma

APPENDIX B : SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

THROUGH THE CIRCULATION PROCESS

There were several comments received through the circulation process. The following is a summary of the comments received.

Ministrv of MuniciDal Affairs and Housinq (MMAH)

The proposed revisions were reviewed by the Ministry of Natural Resources on behalf of MMAH. Their major comment was that the guideline should be updated to the standards of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS, 2005). They had a minor comment on the age of trees in criterion 4 . 1 ~ .

Environmental and Ecoloaical Plannina Advisorv Committee (EEPAC)

EEPAC has carefully reviewed the proposed criteria and applauds the many positive changes proposed. EEPAC has also reviewed the evaluation criteria used by several other municipalities in order to benchmark London's degree of commitment to protecting greenspace vs. other municipalities. Additionally, the Suggested Conservation Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario (Federation of Ontario Naturalists) was considered.

EEPAC recommended the following areas of improvement to the Guideline. Each of their recommendations contained detailed rationale for support to their proposed changes:

1 . I Site Protection a) Hydology - Recommendation: The MEDIUM criteria should be 50 meters not 30. b) Erosion - Recommendation: The proposed MEDIUM criteria should be moved to the HIGH criteria as an OR condition. The first proposed condition of LOW criteria (Le "moderate to steep slopes > 10% - 25% with less erodible soils" should become the MEDIUM and the LOW criteria would then remain "gentle slopes 4 0 % with any soil type".

a) Landscape Richness - Recommendation : The proposed HIGH and MEDIUM criteria should be revised to reflect that any vegetation cover of 10% or greater is highly desirable to London. The HIGH and MEDIUM condition should be revised as follows: HIGH: MEDIUM: 7-10% local vegetation cover. b) Landscape Connectivity - Recommendation : The MEDIUM criteria concerning habitat gaps (< 40 m) should be revised to 100 m. Agricultural areas and golf courses should be moved from the proposed LOW criteria to MEDIUM.

a) Patch Size - Recommendation: Add "OR conditions to HIGH and MEDIUM criteria level in order to accurately adjudimte the size of woodlands within the patch community. The revised criteria would be as follows: HGH: MEDIUM: LOW:

a) Conifer Cover - Recommendation : The proposed conifer community size criteria should be aligned with the woodlahd criteria proposed by EEPAC for criteria 2.2 a) Patch size. That being as fo lows

1.2 Landscape Integrity

21 0% local vegetation cover

2.2 Size and Shape

Patch > 9.0 ha in size OR patch contains a woodland > 4 ha. Patch 2.0 - 9.0 ha in size OR patch contains a woodland 2-4 ha. Patch < 2.0 ha in size.

2.3 Diversity of Communities

28 1 : I


B. Bergsma HIGH: Patch contains conifer communities > 4 ha in size MEDIUM: Patch contains conifer communities 2-4 ha in size LOW: Patch contains conifer communities e 2 ha in size

Recommendation : If the patch contains an identified species at risk, the patch should be automatically designated as significant.

a) Distinctive Landforms - Recommendation: The proposed criteria should contain the same landform criteria as the current criteria. That is Sand Plain should be within the HIGH criteria and Till Moraine should be within the MEDIUM criteria.

Recommendation : The scoring for criterion 2.3 should be "any two of five" and for criterion 4.1, it should be "any one of three".

Recommendation : EEPAC strongly recommends that one HIGH rating be sufficient to designate a patch as a significant component of the Natural Heritage System.

Recommendation: Evaluation criteria be developed to recognize that some patches have a high potential for ecological enhancement and that these patches through either benign neglect or direct management have the potential to become highly valued green spaces in the future.

3. Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat

4.2 Distinctive, Unusual or High Quality Landforms

Score Ratings within CRITERION 2.3 AND 4.1

Summary Score Sheet

Assessment of Potential for Ecological Enhancement

Rationale for altering the threshold of significance:

i) The proposed system is clearly not achievimng the desired level of protection of green cover in London. With a green cover of only 10% and an ultimate goal to increase green cover to the recommended minimum 30% (Environment Canada), the scoring system needs to be more protective than is currently the case.

By their nature, these evaluation guidelines are telling us not only which woodlands to retain but which ones are expendable. Without significant alteration of the scoring formula, London will continue to lose green cover. The question is simply how much and how quickly.

Strengthening the protective nature of the evaluation guidelines is a very cost effective way for the City to protect existing green cover.

Natural areas have a very long life span and a commensurate potential greatness. Discarding patches that have even one highly rated aspect would be to disregard the future potential of these spaces - not to mention to disregard the future needs of the City.

London's scoring requirement of three out of eight (i.e. 37.5%) compares very poorly to many surrounding municipalities:

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

a) b) c) d) e) 9

The City of Hamilton uses a scoring of 25% (two out of eight) Federation of Ontario Naturalists suggest a scoring of 20% (one out of five) Region of York uses a scoring of 20% (one out of five) Regional Municipality of Halton uses a scoring of 14% (one out of seven) Middlesex County uses a scoring of 17% (one out of six) City of Ottawa uses a scoring of 11% (one out of nine, with the other eight

Clearly other municipalities have seen the value of retaining existing green cover and have shown successful evaluation methods for achieving that protection.

The Forest City should most certainly be a leader in the protection of green cover, not a laggard.

being medium)

vi)

ReForest London 150

The major change in the Proposed Revisions is t$ identify a vegetation patch that satisfies one criterion at a rank of HIGH. The comments {hat follow are suggestions for edits that

29


6. Bergsma may improve the document. The proposed edits were technical and mainly added clarity to the interpretation and application of the criteria.

Mcllwraith Field Naturalists

You have done a great job in tidying up some obsurdities in the document and making it more comprehensive. What follows are a very few minor editorial comments.

BioLoqic

In your significant Woodlands Application Guidelines, 2005, how do I determine a Perimeter:Area ratio? Also, a word of warning about the use of basal area: The MNR has done considerable work to come up with a good model to optimize basal area by size class. This model was designed to produce periodic harvests of sawlog quality trees in Shade Tolerant Hardwood (mainly Sugar Maple) stands. Total basal area by itself should not be used as a goal as it does not reflect the structure of the stand. Other common species, such as Hickories, Oaks, Ashes, and Black Cherry, need more sunlight and do not regenerate as well, if at all, under the MNR model.

Ecostrat Communications

The protection and restoration of woodlands will enhance the quality of air and water for human health and provide critical habitat for wildlife, including species-at-risk, in southern Ontario. Southern Ontario’s woodlands are seriously threatened. About 80 percent of original woodland cover in the southern part of the province has been lost since European settlement began.

Through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act, responsibility for identifying significant woodlands lies with municipalities, but the PPS provides very little guidance as to how municipalities can identify these woodlands. Ontario Nature and its conservation partners have developed easy-to-ube and ecologically defensible significant woodland guidelines that can be used by planning authorities to identify significant woodlands regardless of their own resources.

Thus, l would ask that London’s City Council seek approval of Ontario Nature’s woodland guideline as official guidance to planning authonfies in implementing the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act.

30

1 I R. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PANZER SIGNIFICANT...

Documents

Transcript of 1 I R. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PANZER SIGNIFICANT...