Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Documents/reports/natural_heritage... ·...

Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Phase 1: Components and Policy Templates

Prepared for:

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

A Collaboration of: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and

Beacon Environmental

July 2007

Acknowledgements

The development of the Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System was a collaborative effort between the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental. We are grateful to the LSEMS partners who provided useful review comments that contributed to the successful conclusion of this project. We would particularly like to thank Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service) for permission to use excerpts from their publications. We also thank Bird Studies Canada (Jon McCracken) for providing timely data on colonial nesting birds in the watershed. Three workshops were undertaken which were well-attended by a wide-variety of stakeholders which included: several provincial ministries, municipalities, conservation authorities, land development industry, non-governmental organizations (such as Ducks Unlimited Canada) and citizen interest groups amongst others. In addition to their verbal comments and feedback, many of these stakeholders have also provided valuable written comments. We are truly grateful for all of these contributions which have greatly improved the product. The data contained in the maps in this report have been compiled from various sources. While every effort has been made to accurately depict the information, data mapping errors may exist. Some data are © Queens Printer for Ontario, 2007. Reproduced with Permission. The opinions and recommendations herein remain those of the authors.

Suggested Citation: Beacon Environmental and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2007. Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Prepared for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy. 142 pp plus appendices.

Profiles of Primary Members of the Study Team Beacon Environmental, Markham, Ontario Brian Henshaw Ecologist and principal of Beacon Environmental, Brian was the project manager of this study for Beacon, and was a primary author of this report. He has been consulting in Ontario for 18 years. He has a wide range of experience relating to analysis of features and functions relating to wildlife, wetlands and landscape connectivity. He has undertaken several important review projects including an update to the Environment Canada publication “How Much Habitat is Enough?” and a review of urban effects on forest birds. Adèle Labbé B.Sc. Biologist at Beacon Environmental, Adele was a contributing author, responsible for the research elements and for organization of the project at Beacon, preparation of report writing, ELC field checking, liaison among the project team members. Adele also assisted with mapping quality control. Donald M. Fraser M.Sc. Ecologist and principal at Beacon Environmental, with 25 years experience in natural heritage assessment and environmental planning, Don has undertaken several landscape-level ecological analyses. He was responsible for quality assurance and review of the component analyses. Don contributed to the development of policy and provided ongoing support as required. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario Kimberley Baker B.Sc. Senior Natural Heritage Biologist with the Authority, Kim has over a decade of experience in natural heritage planning and plan review. Kim was a primary author and was responsible for the co-ordination of the contribution of Authority staff to the project and provided input into the policy development and oversaw the mapping and analysis components. Michael Dennis B.A. As GIS Analyst, Michael was responsible for the data management of the project and provided on-going GIS support in the form of analysis and graphical representations. Christine Deschamps M.Sc. As Natural Heritage Ecologist, Christine undertook ELC field checking, data acquisition and contributed to the quality control of the mapping. Rob Baldwin B.Sc., Manager Watershed Science, was the LSRCA’s project manager and acted as the liaison with the other Authority partners. Janice Bennett B.Sc., provided her GIS skills and expertise with the regulation mapping to identify and digitize the significant valleylands component of the system. Darren Campbell B.A., GIS co-ordinator, provided data and graphics related to the woodland data. Jeff Andersen, Senior Fisheries Biologist, assisted with the Habitat for Fish analysis.

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Executive Summary................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................5 2.0 Policy Background..................................................................................9 3.0 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................10 4.0 Approach 4.1 Literature Review ........................................................................11 4.2 Component Discussion Papers....................................................11 4.3 Development of GIS Mapping ....................................................12 4.4 Policy Development......................................................................12 Natural Heritage System Components 5.0 Significant Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species

5.1 Introduction..................................................................................15 5.2 Why are Endangered and Threatened Species Important? ....16 5.3 Endangered and Threatened Species in the Lake Simcoe Watershed.....................................................................................16

5.4 Criteria..........................................................................................17 5.5 Literature Cited ...........................................................................18

6.0 Significant Wetlands 6.1 Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed ..................................19

6.2 Wetland Types in the Watershed ...............................................21 6.3 Why are Wetlands Important?...................................................23

6.4 Policy Framework........................................................................26 6.5 Criteria..........................................................................................27 6.6 Literature Cited ..........................................................................33

7.0 Significant Woodlands 7.1 History of Woodland Cover ........................................................34

7.2 Woodland Functions....................................................................35 7.3 Overview of Science .....................................................................36

7.4 Socially Significant Woodlands ..................................................40 7.5 Woodlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed...............................41 7.6 Policy Framework .......................................................................48

7.7 Review of Criteria ........................................................................49 7.8 Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS.........................53 7.9 Literature Cited ..........................................................................63

8.0 Significant Valleylands 8.1 Valleylands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed ..............................68

8.2 Why are Valleylands Important? ...............................................68 8.3 The Identification of Significant Valleylands............................69

8.4 Policy Framework........................................................................70 8.5 Criteria..........................................................................................71

8.6 Literature Cited ...........................................................................73 9.0 Significant Wildlife Habitat

9.1 Background: What is Significant Wildlife Habitat? ................75 9.2 Why is Wildlife Habitat Important?..........................................75 9.3 Use of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Designation .................77


9.6 Literature Cited ...........................................................................85 10.0 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

10.1 Background ..................................................................................87 10.2 Why are ANSIs Important?........................................................87 10.3 Life Science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed..................88


10.6 Literature Cited ...........................................................................93 11.0 Habitat for Fish

11.1 Background: What is Habitat for Fish? ....................................94 11.2 The Importance of Habitat for Fish ...........................................94 11.3 Habitat for Fish in the Lake Simcoe Watershed.......................95


11.6 Literature Cited .........................................................................100 12.0 Linkages 12.1 Overview .....................................................................................101 12.2 Key Assumptions........................................................................101

12.3 Differing Perspectives on Connectivity....................................102 12.4 Policy Framework......................................................................105

12.5 Criteria........................................................................................105 12.6 Literature Cited .........................................................................109

13.0 Suggested Policy Templates

13.1 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Suggested Policies.......................................................................111 13.2 Suggested Implementation Policies for Official Plans............119

14.0 Mapping Interpretation......................................................................127 15.0 Where Do We Go From Here? ..........................................................128 16.0 Conclusions..........................................................................................129 17.0 Additional Literature Cited ...............................................................135 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Lake Simcoe Watershed..........................................................................8 Figure 6.1 Example of Significant Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS...............................................................32 Figure 7.1 Ecodistricts .............................................................................................43 Figure 7.2 Woodland Patch Analysis – Whole Watershed...................................45 Figure 7.3 Woodland Patch Analysis – Black River Subwatershed....................47 Figure 7.4 Woodland Patch Analysis – Barrie Creeks Subwatershed Group......................................................................................................47 Figure 7.5 Subwatershed Woodland Cover...........................................................58 Figure 7.6 Big Woods Policy Areas ........................................................................59 Figure 7.7 Example of Significant Woodlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS .....................................................................................62 Figure 8.1 Example of Significant Valleylands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS .....................................................................................74 Figure 9.1 Example of Significant Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS .....................................................................................84 Figure 10.1 Example of ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS....................92 Figure 11.1 Example of Habitat for Fish in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS .....................................................................................99 Figure 12.1 Example of Linkages ...........................................................................108 Figure 16.1 Example of GIS Mapping Product.....................................................131 Figure 16.2 Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System...........................132 List of Tables Table 1.1 LSRCA Municipalities ............................................................................7 Table 4.1 Recommended Policy Levels.................................................................14 Table 5.1 NHIC Endangered and Threatened Element Occurrences for the Lake Simcoe Watershed ...........................................................17 Table 6.1 Distribution of Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed..................20 Table 6.2 Wetland Analysis by Ecodistrict ..........................................................21 Table 6.3 Status of Wetland Designations in the Watershed..............................27 Table 6.4 Summary of Significant Wetland Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed...............................................................................................31 Table 7.1 Woodland Cover by Type in the Watershed.......................................41 Table 7.2 Woodland Cover Analysis by Ecodistrict ............................................42 Table 7.3 Total Woodland Cover by Subwatershed Areas.................................44 Table 7.4 Criteria Recommended by Others for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario...................................50

Table 7.5 Criteria Used for the Determination of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario ..........................................................51 Table 7.6 Summary of Significant Woodland Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed .................................................................................61 Table 8.1 Summary of Significant Valleylands Criteria in the Lake Simcoe Watershed .................................................................................73 Table 9.1 Summary Criteria for the Identification of SWH in the Lake Simcoe Watershed .............................................................83 Table 10.1 Provincially Significant Life Science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed .............................................................89 Table 10.2 Regionally Significant Life Science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed .............................................................90 Table 10.3 Summary of ANSI Criteria in the Lake Simcoe Watershed .............................................................91 Table 11.1 Summary of Habitat for Fish Criteria in the Lake Simcoe Watershed .............................................................98 Table 12.1 Key Woodland Habitat Criteria for Woodland Breeding Birds (taken from EC 2007).............................103 Table 12.2 Corridor Pros and Cons......................................................................104 Table 12.3 Summary of Linkage Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed.............................................................................................107 Table 16.1 The Natural Heritage System by Subwatershed Area......................130 Table 16.2 Area of the Natural Heritage System Components ..........................133 List of Photographs Photograph 6.1 A marsh in the Town of Innisfil (the rare Great Egret, a white heron, can be seen centre left)................22 Photograph 6.2 Locally rare Swamp Pink or Calapogon Orchids in Gibson Hill Fen, one of the few fens in the Lake Simcoe Watershed.............................................................25 Photograph 6.3 Derryville Bog, one of the very few true bogs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Note the die-back caused by stress that limits the growth of the trees to below 25% cover....................................................................................29 Photograph 7.1 An example of an isolated remnant woodlot, which has largely developed since the landscape was settled ............35 Photograph 10.1 A seared pine in the provincially significant life science ANSI – DeGrassi Point Tallgrass Relict ......................88 List of Appendices Appendix 1. Ecological Land Classification Methodology ....................................139 Appendix 2. Blind Field Checking of LSRCA ELC Data......................................143 Appendix 3. Technical Methodology for Determining Significant Valleylands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed ......................................155 Appendix 4. Terms of Reference: Environmental Impact Study..........................159 Appendix 5. Acronyms..............................................................................................165 Appendix 6. Summary of NHS Components and their Policy Recommendations................................................................................167 Appendix 7. Glossary ................................................................................................169

Executive Summary The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) partnered with Beacon Environmental to develop a Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the 350,000 ha Lake Simcoe Watershed. The development of the system was initiated to provide the information required for the Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Basin Wide Plan, subwatershed plans in development, as well as support to the plan and development review activities. The Natural Heritage System has two phases: Phase 1 Components and Policy Templates, and Phase 2 Restoration, Enhancement and Securement Strategy. The latter will be completed in the future. The goal of Phase 1 will be achieved by fulfilling the following objectives:

1) Develop criteria that help define significant areas; 2) Identify existing ecological linkages between significant areas;

3) Create an interactive system map in a GIS platform;

4) Review and incorporate key provincial legislation and policy that will assist in the

protection of natural heritage features and functions and policy development; and

5) Review existing municipal and LSRCA natural heritage policies and develop suggested policy templates for use with the NHS that may be adopted by the LSRCA, as well as its member municipalities.

The foundation of this NHS is the Provincial Policy Statement 2005, as it is the principal tool designed by the Province to incorporate natural heritage planning across the watershed. Science is the support structure of the NHS and it will serve to provide comprehensive criteria based on recent scientific concepts in order to identify lands of ecological value within the watershed. Policy suggestions will guide the implementation of the NHS with a four-tiered strategy, proposing policies for application by the LSRCA, as well as policies for use by the partner municipalities. A literature review included formal scientific literature, existing natural heritage policies, as well as other Natural Heritage System approaches and recommended approaches. The review explored in detail several components of the NHS, especially those that are still the subject of debate. In addition, studies on the identification of significant woodlands undertaken by individual municipalities (e.g., Region of York, City of Hamilton) were reviewed. The components that comprise the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS are described and include: Significant Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species; Significant Wetlands; Significant Woodlands; Significant Valleylands; Significant Wildlife Habitat; Areas of Natural and

Scientific Interest; Habitat for Fish; and Linkages. This led to the development of criteria to determine provincial and watershed significance for system components. The NHS was based on the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and land use mapping that has been undertaken over the past five years by the LSRCA for the entire watershed. GIS techniques were used to further develop criteria, and for some components (e.g., valleylands) GIS became the primary mechanism for developing a process with which to identify elements of the component. Once criteria were developed, GIS algorithms were used to create the NHS mapping. Each component was mapped as a GIS layer, which were overlain onto the base watershed map. The maps were fine-tuned with reviews of the final product. The component layers were then integrated into one final layer which retains each of the components. Following the development of criteria for each of the components an initial draft of this document was circulated and comments were received from a wide variety of stakeholders. The LSRCA also hosted two well-attended and constructive workshops which provided further feedback and important suggestions for improvements. Following these discussions with stakeholders and receipt of further review comments, substantial changes were made to the NHS. For example, a four-tiered (rather than a three-tiered) policy approach was used to direct the protection of the natural features of the NHS. The first two levels of this policy approach are assigned a “provincially significant” designation and are considered to be those features that would be identified if following the guidelines and intent of the PPS. Level 3 features are determined to represent significance at the watershed level, while Level 4 – supporting features are considered to be supporting elements of the natural heritage system within the watershed. Where features fit into more than one Policy Level, the highest Level will prevail. The policy levels are summarized in the following table.

Recommended Policy Levels

Significance Policy Level NHS Intent Implications for Replacement

Level 1 • Retain • No development or land use change

Replacement can be considered for impacts due to projects associated with non-Planning Act mechanisms such as Environmental Assessments

Provincially Significant

Level 2 • Retain • No negative impact

When there is no “negative impact”, replacement can be considered for loss of area or function

Watershed Significant

Level 3 • Generally retain and avoid, some flexibility • No net negative impact

Retention preferred but replacement acceptable

Supporting Level 4 • Supporting features Not a development constraint, replacement encouraged

Big Woods Policy Areas

BWPA • Retain • No net loss of woodland

Target area for replacement, restoration and stewardship priorities

The following table provides a summary of the NHS by discrete subwatershed area and by policy level.

The Natural Heritage System by Subwatershed Areas

Percent of Subwatershed by Component Level Area of Subwatershed

(ha)

Percent of Subwatershed in

NHS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 -

supporting Maskinonge River 7,179 18.7 10.7 2.8 2.6 2.6 Barrie creeks 3781 19.3 7.1 4.2 6.1 1.9 Hewitt’s Creek 1,751 22.3 10.5 3.1 6.9 1.8 West Holland 35,410 30.5 21.6 2.2 3.8 2.9 East Holland 23,910 33.1 24.2 2.5 3.6 2.8 Innisfil creeks 10,757 33.3 17.4 5.6 6.0 4.3 Lover’s Creek 5,995 34.0 21.8 5.2 3.4 3.6 Beaver River 32,724 36.0 17.0 10.7 5.3 3.0 White’s Creek 10,520 38.4 19.3 8.2 6.7 4.2 Ramara creeks 14,350 41.6 28.9 2.6 5.8 4.3 Talbot River 7,056 42.3 21.5 6.5 7.0 7.3 Georgina creeks 4,946 42.3 28.2 3.0 3.2 7.9 Uxbridge Brook 17,495 44.5 31.0 8.7 2.2 2.6 Oro South creeks 5,769 44.5 25.6 9.2 5.6 4.1 Oro North creeks 8,344 45.2 31.8 3.1 5.3 5.0 Pefferlaw Brook 28,482 49.6 35.7 8.4 2.5 3.0 Black River 37,536 52.0 37.5 8.8 3.0 2.7 Hawkestone Creek 3,971 54.4 40.7 5.3 4.1 4.3

Islands in Lake Simcoe combined

1,912 87.1 63.1 7.4 1.8 14.8

Total 261,887 40.2% 26.4% 6.3% 4.1% 3.4%

This document also provides two suggested implementation policy templates designed to assist the LSRCA and planning authorities. The identification and description of the Natural Heritage System provides a tool to:

• Protect natural heritage resources and move towards the sustainability of ecosystem services;

• Examine landscape change over time;

• Refine existing municipal natural heritage systems;

• Guide the scope of environmental studies and assess the impacts of proposed

developments;

• Guide future ecological planning initiatives (e.g., wetland evaluations);

• Help identify priority communities/subwatersheds/planning jurisdictions for

restoration or enhancement opportunities;

• Identify high value restoration or enhancement areas (i.e., those locations where the greatest ecological benefit can be realized for the least amount of dollars); and

• Identify land acquisition targets for conservation organizations.

It is the belief of the authors of this report that it reflects both the most recent science and a pragmatic approach, which should enable a wide range of stakeholders to lend support to this initiative. In the future, it is hoped that new scientific research, watershed data, updates and revisions can further improve the NHS. The Conservation Authority intends to adopt the NHS as a tool for plan review, providing advice to its municipal partners and members of the public. This will also further and foster partnerships and land stewardship, as well as contributing to protection and research initiatives across the watershed. It is recommended that the planning authorities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed use the NHS as a basis to identify sustainable natural heritage systems within their jurisdictions as well as to amend and adopt supporting implementation policies and to embed these within their respective Official Plans. Based on the experiences of the project team, the following recommendations are offered:

1. The development of a restoration and enhancement strategy that includes the restoration of linkages and integrates stewardship initiatives;

2. The NHS be used to further refine land acquisition strategies and priority areas in the

watershed; 3. The Conservation Authority maintain and upgrade the ELC and land use mapping on a

regular basis; 4. Efforts be established to improve knowledge of Species at Risk in the watershed; 5. The Authority prepare “watershed rare” lists for all faunal groups; and 6. The NHS be used to direct targeted wetland evaluations under the Ontario Wetland

Evaluation System.

1.0 Introduction The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) is an environmental agency working to protect, restore and manage the natural resources of the Lake Simcoe Watershed (Figure 1.1). The Lake Simcoe Watershed drains 261,887 ha of land into the 72,252 ha lake and is home to approximately 350,000 people. The LSRCA has been active for over 50 years under the Conservation Authorities Act and has gained many municipal partners along the way (Table 1.1). The LSRCA mission (2006) is:

…to provide leadership in the restoration and protection of the environmental health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed with our Community, Municipal and other Government partners.

The LSRCA has partnered with Beacon Environmental to develop a Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the Lake Simcoe Watershed, which will provide information required for the Lake Simcoe Comprehensive Basin Wide Plan, subwatershed plans, as well as to support plan and development review. In addition to the intrinsic values associated with flora and fauna, protection of the natural features and ecological functions of the watershed will aid to improve air quality (OMNR 2006), provide safe drinking water (Gabor et al. 2001) and maintain a better quality of life (MPIR 2006) for its many human inhabitants. Natural Heritage Systems generally consist of core conservation lands and waters linked by natural corridors, and are identified as landscape networks for the conservation of biological diversity, natural processes, and viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems (Riley and Mohr 1994). Landscapes across the world are a matrix of agricultural, rural, urban and natural areas. A major challenge when confronted with land use change is ensuring that appropriate long-range planning is in place. The consequence of current trends in land use is that humans appropriate an ever-larger fraction of the biosphere’s goods and services while simultaneously diminishing the capacity of global ecosystems to sustain food production, maintain freshwater and forest resources, regulate climate and air quality, and mediate infectious disease (Foley et al. 2005). As the population of Ontario continues to increase, the associated stress of the effects of land use change also continues to increase. There has been a long history of concern for the loss of biodiversity and this has often been addressed with the establishment of greenways (Pierce et al. 2005). Some examples of greenways in Ontario are identified in the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Ontario Greenbelt Plan and the National Capital Commissions Greenbelt in Ottawa. It has long been common practice to set aside parcels of land to preserve their natural values, as exemplified by Algonquin Park, the first wildlife sanctuary established in Canada in 1893. However, early conservation practice in Ontario mainly consisted of protected areas created for recreational use such as Point Pelee National Park and Rondeau Provincial Park (Environment

Canada 2005). This ‘islands of green’ approach was a pillar in the movement to preserve lands, but did not necessarily conserve on the basis of ecological value. Rather, land was often acquired because it was considered to represent a rare feature in the landscape or that was habitat for rare species (Hilts et al. 1986). The practice of conservation planning has generally not been systematic and protected lands have often been located in places that do not contribute to the representation of biodiversity (Margules and Pressey 2000). Systematic conservation planning was first introduced in Ontario during the early 1990s as Natural Heritage Systems. This core and natural corridor approach, as defined by Riley and Mohr (1994), played a role in the development of the Provincial Policy Statement 1997 and began to connect conservation science to implementation policy. The concept of a Natural Heritage System is two-fold. First, it aims to identify, by using sound scientific concepts, the important natural features of a landscape in order to preserve biodiversity. Second, the system attempts to respect these scientific principles with the use of direct policy tools, such as directed development and land use policies to implement the protection of important natural features through municipal official plans. Natural Heritage Systems contribute as part of an integrative land use planning approach to conservation biology. The preservation of biodiversity has become an international objective with respect to conservation (Redford and Richter 1999) through initiatives such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ontario Biodiversity Strategy (2005). The term biodiversity has become somewhat ambiguous due to its use across a wide range of disciplines such as ecology, policy development, and planning. For the purpose of this study we have adopted the definition of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR 1999) definition of “biodiversity”, which is:

…the variability among organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Not all natural heritage features are protected on the basis of their ecological function. Some features are preserved on the basis of social values. For example, small woodlands in urban areas are often valued for providing improved air quality, buffering extreme temperatures and noise, providing an aesthetic value as well as their contribution to the physical and psychological well-being of residents (FON 2006). It can be beneficial in many respects to integrate social criteria into a Natural Heritage System. Preserving natural features in urban centres can maintain a healthy link between the heritage of indigenous knowledge and biodiversity-based tradition that still exists amongst many rural migrants who may now live in urban centres (Pierce et al. 2005). Economic, social, and ecological systems all have interconnecting parts (Polasky 2006). Associating an economic value to ecological function is a more recent approach to protecting natural features. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) has been a leader in promoting the concept of Ecological Goods and Services (EG&S). Ecological Goods and Services are the benefits that society derives from healthy ecosystems such as the purification of air and water, groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2006). It is likely that in sometime in the not too far distant future it will be possible to establish a dollar value on

the Natural Heritage System of the Lake Simcoe Watershed that will help to demonstrate the importance of these ecosystems to the public. This report identifies a Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed using an integrated approach, as follows:

1) The foundation of this NHS is the Provincial Policy Statement 2005, as it is the principal tool designed by the Province to incorporate natural heritage planning across the watershed;

2) Science is the support structure of the NHS and it will serve to provide comprehensive

criteria based on recent scientific concepts in order to identify lands of ecological value within the watershed;

3) Policy recommendations will guide the implementation of the NHS with a four-tiered

strategy, proposing policies for application by the LSRCA, as well as policies for use by the partner municipalities (Table 1.1); and

4) Although the NHS is based on the two cornerstones of science and policy, it also draws

heavily on common sense, thereby ensuring that the NHS is a reasonable, understandable and defensible system.

Table 1.1 LSRCA Municipalities

Regional Municipality of York Town of Aurora Town of Newmarket Town of East Gwillimbury Town of Georgina Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Township of King

Regional Municipality of Durham Township of Uxbridge Township of Brock Township of Scugog

County of Simcoe Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury Town of Innisfil Township of Oro-Medonte Township of Ramara Town of New Tecumseth

City of Barrie City of Orillia* City of Kawartha Lakes

*Note: the City of Orillia and a very small portion of the Town of Caledon are within the physical watershed of Lake Simcoe, but are not within the Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction.

2.0 Policy Background The LSRCA has taken action to identify and designate a Natural Heritage System to fulfill information requirements for the Comprehensive Basin Wide Plan, other subwatershed plans, and to support plan and development review. The Comprehensive Basin Wide Plan is a requirement of the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (LSEMS). LSEMS is a partnership of all levels of government, first nations and community groups. The partnership includes one Conservation Authority (LSRCA), one federal department (Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO], four provincial ministries (i.e., Ministry of the Environment [MOE], Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR], Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing [MMAH], Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal [MPIR], Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food [OMAF]), the Cities of Orillia, Barrie and Kawartha Lakes, three upper tier municipalities, 14 lower tier municipalities, as well as one first nations group (the Chippewas of Georgina First Nations). The partnership began in response to the deteriorating health of Lake Simcoe, particularly the loss of natural coldwater fisheries as a consequence of nutrient overload caused by surrounding land use practices. Designating and protecting a Natural Heritage System is a specific objective of LSEMS in support of their mandate. The LSEMS (2006) mandate is:

to improve and protect the health of the Lake Simcoe watershed ecosystem and improve associated recreational opportunities.

In Ontario, land use planning responsibilities lie with the approval authority, which depends on what approval has been delegated by the Province of Ontario. There are some planning decisions that are approved by the Province, mainly Official Plans and Official Plan updates. There are also some planning approvals likewise delegated from the County/Region to the lower tier municipality. For instance, some Counties/Regions have delegated approval of subdivisions to some lower tier municipalities. In this document and for the purposes of the Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System policy recommendations, the term “planning authority” refers to the upper and lower tier municipal governments and the Cities of Barrie, Orillia and Kawartha Lakes. Natural heritage planning is now more usually undertaken on a watershed basis and therefore one study area may span several planning jurisdictions. Since planning authorities are the decision-makers, it is beneficial to involve them in natural heritage planning in order to ensure stakeholder input and to promote implementation. The government of Ontario has attempted to direct land use change with recent legislation such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and the Places to Grow Act, 2005. However, 36% of the Lake Simcoe Watershed is outside of the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine, and even within these areas, the components of Natural Heritage (e.g., significant woodlands) have not always been identified by the province or the planning authorities. For example, the Greenbelt Plan delineates a Natural System, but does not define the specific natural heritage features within that system, although technical guidelines for doing so are anticipated in the near future.

The Growth Plan sets out a vision and strategic policy direction for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which includes the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The Plan contains policies that encourage the development of more compact and complete communities, with the right mix of housing, jobs and community services. This type of development will make more efficient use of infrastructure and ensure that important natural heritage features and agricultural lands are protected from urban sprawl. The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS) is the underlying foundation for Natural Heritage System planning in Ontario. The PPS 2005 (MMAH 2005) defines a Natural Heritage System as:

features and areas linked by corridors that are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. These systems can include lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state.

Section 3 of The Planning Act confirms that all decisions pertaining to planning “shall be consistent with” the Provincial Policy Statement 2005. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, which was established under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, sets out a vision and strategic policy direction for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which includes Lake Simcoe. The PPS 2005 infers that a healthy Ontarian landscape is dependent upon protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage. Section 2.1 of the PPS 2005 outlines the policies that identify and protect natural heritage features from development. Section 4.5 of the PPS 2005 notes that municipal Official Plans are the most important vehicle for the implementation of the PPS. 3.0 Goal and Objectives The goal of this project is to identify a Natural Heritage System (NHS) within the Lake Simcoe Watershed and to develop suggested policy templates to assist in protecting its functions and features. This goal will be achieved by fulfilling the following objectives:

1) Develop criteria that help define the components of the NHS; 2) Identify existing ecological linkages between significant areas;

3) Create an interactive system map in a GIS platform;

4) Review and incorporate key provincial legislation and policy that will assist in the

protection of natural heritage features and functions and policy development; and

5) Review existing municipal and LSRCA natural heritage policies and develop suggested policy templates for use with the NHS that may be adopted by the LSRCA, as well as member municipalities.

4.0 Approach The goals and objectives outlined above were addressed through several project phases. First was a literature review to provide a solid scientific backbone to the design of the system components. Next was the development of the criteria and interaction with the LSRCA Geographic Information Systems (GIS) team. The mapping process required the development of appropriate algorithms in the ArcGIS format. The subsequent development of policy recommendations and templates involved a firm understanding of the policy background, including those of the partner municipalities within the watershed. 4.1 Literature Review The literature review included formal scientific literature, existing natural heritage policies, as well as other Natural Heritage System approaches and recommended approaches. The scientific review explored in detail several components of the NHS, especially those that are still the subject of debate. In addition, studies on the identification of significant woodlands undertaken by individual municipalities (e.g., Region of York, City of Hamilton) were reviewed. 4.2 Component Discussion Papers The literature review led to the development of each system component (i.e., woodlands, wetlands, etc.) described as a separate entity through eight independent discussion papers. The discussion papers allowed a detailed interpretation of each component in relation to Natural Heritage planning and facilitated an understanding as to how they interact in the system. The discussion papers were then incorporated into the final report as separate chapters. For each component, criteria were developed to identify a feature as significant. These criteria were then translated into a GIS platform to produce the mapping. The components that comprise the Lake Simcoe Natural Heritage System are described in Sections 5.0 through 12.0 of this document and are the following:

• Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species; • Significant Wetlands; • Significant Woodlands; • Significant Valleylands;

• Significant Wildlife Habitat; • Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest; • Habitat for Fish; and • Linkages.

4.3 Development of GIS Mapping The Natural Heritage System was largely based on the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and Land Use Mapping (Appendix 1) that has been undertaken over the past five years by the LSRCA for the entire watershed. A blind field checking protocol was developed and executed to confirm the accuracy of the base mapping (Appendix 2). GIS techniques were used to further develop criteria, and for some components (e.g., valleylands) GIS became the primary mechanism for developing a process with which to identify components. Once criteria were developed, algorithms were used to create the mapping. Each component was mapped as a GIS layer, which were overlain onto the base watershed map. The maps were fine-tuned with a review of the final product. 4.4 Policy Development Following discussions with stakeholders and receipt of review comments, a four-tiered policy approach was used to direct the protection of the natural features of the Natural Heritage System (Table 4.1). This four level approach was largely based on the PPS. The first two levels of this policy approach are assigned a “provincially significant” designation and are considered to be those features that would be identified if following the guidelines and intent of the PPS. Level 3 of this approach is determined to represent significance at the watershed level, while Level 4 – supporting features are those features that are considered to be supporting features within the watershed. The following paragraphs expand on these policy levels. Level 1 features are considered to be provincially significant and they represent critical components of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS, whose maintenance and longevity are imperative to the health and the function of the watershed and of Lake Simcoe. These features are to be retained on the landscape and an EIS is required to demonstrate that there are no negative impacts on the natural features when development is proposed adjacent. The EIS will recommend an ecologically defensible limit of development adjacent to the feature. When negative impacts or land use changes are permitted, such as they may be through an Environmental Assessment process, replacement measures are required. These could include creation, enhancement or restoration on or off site. Level 2 features are also considered to be provincially significant components of the Natural Heritage System. These features and their ecological functions should be retained on the landscape. When development or land use change is proposed within or adjacent to a Level 2

feature, an EIS is required to demonstrate that there are no “negative impacts”, consistent with the terms and definitions of the PPS. If it is demonstrated that there are no negative impacts (or when negative impacts are permitted, such as through an Environmental Assessment process), and the loss of part or all of a feature area can be contemplated, subject to the identification of measures to replace lost areas or functions. These could include creation, enhancement or restoration on or off site. Level 3 features are considered to be significant at the watershed level. It is the overall intent that these features should be retained on the landscape. However, flexibility is contemplated in the way in which these features are addressed when a land use change or other development is considered. An EIS is required to demonstrate that there are no net negative impacts on the Natural Heritage System. Mitigation for the loss of a natural heritage feature, or an identified impact, is intended through replacement. This could include creation, enhancement or restoration on or off site. Level 4 - supporting features are considered to be supporting Level 1, 2 and 3 NHS features. Retention of these features is encouraged, though they are not necessarily a constraint to land use change. Replacement mechanisms are encouraged and could include enhancement or restoration on or off site for impingement on the feature or its functions. The Big Woods Policy Areas are those areas where there is a high percentage of woodland cover and large woodland patches. These areas are considered most likely at the landscape scale to represent high ecological function, diversity, connectivity and are priority natural areas within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Special efforts will be directed at protecting the long-term integrity of these areas by ensuring that there is no net loss of woodland cover through an approved EIS. Restoration and stewardship initiatives are encouraged and when appropriate, by preferentially directing replacement toward these policy areas. Areas within the watershed that are regulated by provincial planning tools such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2002 (ORMCP) and the Greenbelt Plan 2005 supersede the NHS. There is a structural hierarchy within the planning process, which this document does not override. The ORMCP and the Greenbelt Plan and their requirements apply to all lands within their respective jurisdiction. Similarly, regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act and the LSRCA Regulations under the Act (whereby, for example, all wetlands and watercourses are regulated by the Authority) and the federal Fisheries Act also apply. For example, the ORMCP has a suite of technical papers that serve to aid planning authorities with the identification and delineation of the Key Natural Heritage Features found within the ORMCP plan area. The Province is presently producing a similar set of technical papers for the Greenbelt Plan. Two separate policy templates were developed in order to facilitate the implementation of the system, as follows:

1) For the LSRCA, to provide suggested policy approaches for integrating the NHS into watershed policy documents of the Authority; and

2) For planning authorities to provide suggested policy approaches to assist in the

integration of the NHS into their Official Plans. The policy templates take into account the Provincial Policy Statement (2005), the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002) and the Greenbelt Plan (2005).

Table 4.1 Recommended Policy Levels

Significance Policy Level NHS Intent Implications for Replacement

Level 1 • Retain • No development

or land use change

• Replacement can be considered for impacts due to projects associated with non-Planning Act mechanisms such as Environmental Assessments


Level 2 • Retain • No negative

impact

• When there is no “negative impact”, but there is a loss of area or reduction in function, replacement can be considered

Watershed Significant

Level 3 • Generally retain, some flexibility

• No net negative impact

• Retention preferred but replacement acceptable

• No net loss of area or function

Supporting

Level 4 – supporting

• Supporting features

• Not necessarily a development constraint, replacement encouraged

Big Woods Policy Areas

BWPA • Retain • No net loss of

woodland

• Target area for replacement, restoration and stewardship priorities

15

Natural Heritage System Components

The following chapters of the report provide the criteria for each of the components, along with a discussion, rationale and a cited literature section.

5.0 Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species 5.1 Introduction

The significant habitat of endangered and threatened species is a major component of the Natural Heritage section of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS (MMAH 2005) states that:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species.

The PPS (MMAH 2005) defines Endangered and Threatened (E&T) species as the following:

Endangered species:

means a species that is listed or categorized as an “Endangered Species” on the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ official species at risk list, as updated and amended from time to time.

Threatened species:

means a species that is listed or categorized as a “Threatened Species” on the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ official species at risk list, as updated and amended from time to time.

Note that the definition of “Endangered” within the PPS now encompasses both regulated and non-regulated Endangered species, which it did not prior to the 2005 PPS update.

Significant in regard to the habitat of endangered species and threatened species means:

the habitat, as approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, that is necessary for the maintenance, survival, and/or the recovery of naturally occurring or reintroduced populations of endangered species or threatened species, and where those areas of occurrence are occupied or habitually occupied by the species during all or any part(s) of its life cycle.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is responsible for the identification, evaluation and listing of E&T species, but not for the assessment of the “significant habitat of”. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual is a guide to the application of Section 2.l - Natural Heritage Section 2.1 of the PPS (OMNR 1999). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that the planning authority may wish to have assessments reviewed by MNR staff. However, the

16

definition within the PPS (MMAH 2005), reproduced above, implies that MNR must approve such assessments. The concept of E&T species is already well-represented within the application of the PPS. This is because the occurrence of one of these species within any part of an evaluated wetland almost always results in the entire wetland being considered Provincially Significant (PSW). In addition, many approaches to the designation of significant woodlands (another PPS component) include an automatic designation of “significant” with the occurrence of such species. To some extent, this means that E&T species are given greater planning weight. For example, the occurrence of the endangered Butternut (Juglans cinerea) within an evaluated wetland unit would make the wetland a PSW and in many cases, the woodlot within which it is located a significant woodland, plus any Natural Heritage System (NHS) designation specifically aimed at addressing “the significant habitat” of that Butternut tree or population. 5.2 Why are Endangered and Threatened Species Important? There is general consensus among ecologists that special efforts should be made to protect species that are at a risk of becoming extirpated from a region or province. This is related to objectives of maintaining or enhancing biodiversity at regional, provincial and national levels. In the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999), MNR notes that the protection of endangered and threatened species is necessary in order to slow or prevent the loss of species from the province, and in some cases, their extinction on a global basis. The MNR coordinates the development of recovery plans for designated species that are only or predominantly found in Ontario, which can either be single or multi-species plans, or even watershed or ecosystem based plans. As of September 2006, no single or multi-species plans were available on the MNR website (OMNR 2006); although several are in preparation. One recovery plan for a watershed was available. The Species at Risk Act (SARA) public registry is also a source to check for recovery strategies. 5.3 Endangered and Threatened Species in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, the only reliable and easily accessible source for information on these species is the MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) on-line database and follow-up detailed data requests from the relevant District Office of the MNR. The District Office of the MNR may also have additional data, but in practice, rarely are E&T records readily available from any other source (such as reports provided by consultants). Information on the occurrence elements of E&T species was requested from MNR for the Lake Simcoe Watershed. These data were displayed on a GIS platform. Records for extinct or extirpated species were deleted. Historical records that were 20 years or older were not used. This is consistent with the typical approach taken by others when using element occurrences that incorporate older records.

17

In total, 15 “current” element occurrences of E&T species were provided for the watershed. These are indicated in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 NHIC Endangered and Threatened Element Occurrences for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Common Name Scientific Name Prov.

S-Rank MNR Status

Subwatershed

Eastern Prairie Fringed-orchid

Platanthera leucophaea S2 END-NR West Holland

Purple Twayblade Liparis lilifolia S2 END-NR West Holland King Rail Rallus elegans S2B,SZN END-R West Holland Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus S2B,SZN END-R East Holland Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus S2B,SZN END-R Talbot River Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis S3B,SZN THR West Holland Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis S3B,SZN THR Beaver River Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis S3B,SZN THR West Holland Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis S3B,SZN THR Beaver River Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis S3B,SZN THR East Holland Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus S3 THR West Holland Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus S3 THR East Holland Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus S3 THR West Holland Blanding's Turtle Emydoideas blandingii S3? THR Black River L. Simcoe Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis S? THR Lake Simcoe

Of these 15 element occurrences, 13 (87%) are captured within the proposed Natural Heritage System (this includes the Lake Simcoe whitefish for which no recent record was available). The two that are not captured within the NHS are the two records of Loggerhead Shrike (from 1989 and 1996). Extensive areas within the Lake Simcoe Watershed have not had extensive, intensive or even any recent field investigations. Therefore, it is common for the known occurrences of E&T species to be from evaluated wetlands, designated ANSIs, or areas where development applications have resulted in detailed field investigations or data collection efforts from local naturalists. This lack of data in general and strong bias towards “investigated areas” doubtless reflects, at least to some extent, the real distribution of these species, but it may also underestimate the importance of other habitat patches within the watershed that have been lightly surveyed or not surveyed at all. 5.4 Criteria Including E&T species on the basis that they might indicate areas of particular biodiversity that should be included in the NHS was considered. Indicator groups (such as landscape features) or “keystone species” have been touted as a means to identify biodiversity “hotspots” or the likely locations of otherwise undocumented rare species. However, these approaches have met with mixed success.

18

The use of rare or “at-risk” species in particular, has been investigated to see if they represent good surrogates for the identification of biodiversity. One study found that only where data on distributions of at-risk species are available were at-risk species good candidate indicators for selecting sites to represent biodiversity (Lawler et al. 2003). The concept of building a transparent NHS in a GIS environment upon the principal PPS components also created another challenge, as areas that harbour E&T species would need to be identified, which would be problematic as this practice is not supported by MNR as it might lead to increased disturbance of some sites. Further, the extent of “significant habitat of” could not be determined without site-specific data, analysis and approval by MNR and/or the planning authority. For these reasons, and the related issue of creating a bias away from areas that have not been surveyed in the past, the NHS does not directly incorporate E&T species distribution data as a component. Clearly, where these species contribute to the designation of other features such as PSWs or ANSIs, they will, in fact, be included. It is important to note that the presence of an E&T species anywhere in the watershed will still trigger protection under the Planning Act and the PPS (and, where appropriate, the Endangered Species Act or the federal Species at Risk Act). This mechanism will be related in the NHS through suggested policies addressing the preparation of Environmental Impact Studies and the consideration of supporting parts of the system that have not been directly addressed (e.g., adjacent lands, indirect fish habitat), but that nevertheless will be required. Clearly the presence of E&T species must be addressed through on-site investigations when development or land use change is contemplated. As previously discussed, the data available from the NHIC were overlain on the proposed NHS and 87% of the records were located within the system. 5.5 Literature Cited Lawler, J.J., D. White, J.C. Sifneos and L. L. Master. 2003.

Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conservation Biology 17: 875-882.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999.

Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough. 127 pp.


Natural Heritage Information Centre. Available online: http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_.cfm Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006.

Species at Risk. Available online: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/speciesatrisk/links.html

Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. 2005.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. Toronto.

19

6.0 Significant Wetlands 6.1 Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Wetlands define the interface of open water and terrestrial habitats. They consist of a wide variety of habitats that are generally classified as those within which 50% or more of the plant cover is hydrophytic, or in other words, adapted to water (OMNR 2002). In total, there are approximately 35,251 ha of wetlands within the watershed, which is approximately 13.5% of the watershed (excluding the lake). Evaluated wetlands in the watershed have been evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OMNR 2002). Unevaluated wetlands in the watershed are identified using the following Ecological Land Classification codes (Lee et al. 1998): fen (FEO, FES), bog (BOO, BOS, BOT), marsh (MAM, MAS, SAS, SAM, SAF), and swamp (SWT, SWD, SWM, SWC) (see Appendix 1, Section 4.0). The distribution of wetlands across the Lake Simcoe Watershed is not uniform. Table 6.1 provides a breakdown of wetlands by subwatershed grouping. Also indicated is the percentage of wetlands that have not been evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OMNR 1994) or are not Oak Ridges Moraine wetlands (which are largely protected by the ORMCP). Although an assessment of wetland cover should more correctly be made against both historical and current wetland patterns across the subwatersheds (Bedford 1999; Detenbeck et al. 1999) watersheds with over 10% wetland cover are in relatively fair shape from a hydrological and biological perspective (although the distribution of wetland within the watershed is also important) (Environment Canada 2004). For example, one study found that having 15% of a watershed in wetlands resulted in a reduction of phosphorus loadings by 66% (Wang and Mitch 1995 cited in Environment Canada 2004), while another found that percentage land use determines the water and sediment quality of 22 marshes in the Great Lakes Basin (Crosbie and Chow-Fraser 1999). Although guidelines are general in nature, and each watershed has unique characteristics, the literature strongly suggests that those subwatersheds with less than 10% wetland cover are much less likely to be in good condition from a hydrological and biological perspective. Clearly, further wetland loss within those subwatersheds listed in the upper half of Table 6.1 would be more likely to result in deleterious effects on subwatershed function and water quality.

20

Table 6.1 Distribution of Wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Area of Subwatershed

(ha)

Total Wetland Area by

Subwatershed (ha)

Total Wetlands by

Subwatershed (% of

subwatershed)

Unevaluated Wetland Area

by Subwatershed

(ha)

Unevaluated Wetlands by

Subwatershed (% of

wetlands) Barrie creeks 3,781 109 2.9 82 74.9 Hewitt’s Creek 1,751 70 4.0 25 36.0 Maskinonge River 7,179 451 6.3 36 8.1 Talbot River 7,056 533 7.6 490 91.9 West Holland River 35,410 2,935 8.3 647 22.1 East Holland River 23,910 2,124 8.9 410 19.3 Oro creeks (north) 8,344 805 9.7 216 26.8 87,431 7,027 8% Oro creeks (south) 5,769 599 10.4 390 65.1 Innisfil creeks 10,757 1,145 10.6 597 52.1 Lover’s Creek 5,995 647 10.8 88 13.6 Uxbridge Brook 17,495 1,950 11.1 620 31.8 Georgina creeks 4,946 627 12.7 84 13.4 Pefferlaw Brook 28,482 4,133 14.5 1,390 33.6 Beaver River 32,724 5,378 16.4 1,393 25.9 White’s Creek 10,520 1,926 18.3 1,045 54.3 Black River 37,536 7,392 19.7 2,097 28.4 Hawkestone Creek 3,971 862 21.7 191 22.2 Ramara creeks 14,350 3,200 22.3 775 24.2 Islands in Lake Simcoe combined 1,912 663 34.7 182 27.5 Totals 261,887 35,596 13.6% 10,747 30.2% The right-hand column of Table 6.1 also indicates that there are a number of subwatersheds in the Lake Simcoe Watershed in which a relatively high percentage of the wetlands have not been formally evaluated (e.g., Talbot River, Oro south, White’s Creek), suggesting where future wetland evaluations might be a valuable contribution to natural heritage planning. Distribution of wetlands by ecodistrict does not appear to demonstrate any strong bias (Table 6.2). Note that site district 6E-7 is the Oak Ridges Moraine, an environment where wetlands are naturally scarce due to the porous sandy soils. There is a high percentage of unevaluated wetlands on the Moraine.

21

Table 6.2 Wetland Analysis by Ecodistrict

All wetlands Unevaluated wetlands Ecodistrict Area of Ecodistrict (excl. the lake) (ha)

Percent of watershed Area (ha) Percent of

Ecodistrict Area (ha) Percent of

wetlands in Ecodistrict

6E-6 156,684 60% 21, 515 13.7% 5, 831 27.1% 6E-7 33,603 13% 2, 041 6.1% 1, 051 51.5% 6E-8 65,433 25% 10, 237 15.6% 3, 219 31.4% 6E-9 6,166 2% 1, 803 29.2% 645 35.8%

6.2 Wetland Types in the Watershed When asked to describe a wetland, most people will likely describe open water environments that are dominated by bulrushes, cattails and water-lilies. The habitat of several types of herons, waterfowl and perhaps, Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) would also be described. Other wildlife such as American Beaver (Castor canadensis), Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) or even River Otter (Lutra canadensis) are also strongly associated with wetlands. There are four types of wetlands represented in the Lake Simcoe Watershed: marshes, fens, bogs and swamps. Open shallow water wetlands are called Marshes. Marshes are often (but not always) characterized by the presence of open water and are subject to fluctuations in this water level, which may bring with them relatively high levels of nutrients. Marshes are commonly associated with lakes, ponds, rivers and creeks; they make up approximately 10% of all wetlands in southern Ontario and 12.6% of the wetlands within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. In Ontario, wetlands are generally classified when aquatic vegetation is present to a maximum depth of 2 m water. At depths greater than 2 m they are described as open water systems (e.g., the open water of the lake itself). Two of the other wetland types are rare in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The first is the Fen. Fens are primarily characterized by specific kinds of plants that are found only in these habitats (and are therefore often referred to as “fen indicators”). In the Lake Simcoe Watershed, almost all known fens are peat-based and there are approximately 450 ha of this wetland type currently identified. These peat-based systems are sometimes referred to as “poor” fens, as compared to the “rich” fens that can develop on mineral-rich limestone systems (which are commonly found on the Bruce Peninsula). Fens occasionally develop along the sides of slow moving rivers or around kettle lakes. Fens are typically found in areas of slow constant drainage (such as seepage areas). Regardless of whether “rich” or “poor”, all fens are characterized by these stable water conditions, which are therefore usually maintained through groundwater inputs (as opposed to surface water, which tends to be fluctuating, leading to the development of other wetland types such as mashes). In Ontario, and by definition, wetland communities with 25% tree cover (at 6 m tall) are not classified as fens, but are known as swamps (see below).

22

Photograph 6.1 A marsh in the Town of Innisfil (the rare Great Egret, a white heron, can be seen centre left).

The second of the two other rare wetland types in Lake Simcoe is the Bog. Although the word “Bog” is often attached to wetlands as part of their proper name (e.g., Wilfred Bog), no more than a handful of wetlands actually meet the very precise definition for this very rare wetland type within the watershed; only 25 ha of true bogs have been identified within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Bogs are unusual in that all of their nutrients are delivered by rainfall (a condition referred to as “ombrotrophic”); consequently they are nutrient poor and the pH is often very acidic (e.g., 3.9 – 4.2), further reducing the availability of nutrients to plants. Wetlands which receive groundwater inputs, or receive nutrients through a floating mat around a lake or pond, are actually more often some other wetland type (i.e., a fen, marsh or swamp) rather than a “kettle bog”, which they are sometimes described as. Unlike fens, bogs are not characterized by any particular assemblage of indicator plant species. Rather, they are characterized by a distinct lack of plant species richness. Rarely are more than 14 species of vascular plants (i.e., not including non-vascular plants such as mosses) found in a true bog. Stunted trees (typically Black Spruce [Picea mariana], rather than Tamarack [Larix laricina]) less than 6 m tall are often found in bogs. In Ontario, and by definition, bogs with more than 25% tree cover (at a height of 6 m) are actually classified as swamps.

23

The Swamp is the only other wetland type in Ontario. It is generally defined as a community with at least 25% cover by woody vegetation (i.e., trees or shrubs). Swamps can be very wet, or alternatively surface water can be absent. Many treed swamps (with species such as soft maples, Black Ash [Fraxinus nigra] and Green Ash [F. pennsylvanica]), are quite dry by July and walking through them in the fall, one might not realize that they were wetlands, were it not for the species of plants that are present. Swamps dominated by shrubs tend to be wetter than treed swamps. Typically, as conditions get wetter, the treed swamp communities give way to shrub swamps, then to grass and sedge marsh communities, and finally to open water. Many of the wetlands away from Lake Simcoe are treed swamps, and up to 86% of all remaining wetlands in the basin are swamps. They have developed or persisted in seasonally wet areas (i.e., during the spring) that have not been farmed, although some are used for livestock grazing and shade in the summer and fall. It can be difficult to differentiate between treed swamps and moist upland forest, especially in disturbed and regenerating areas. In these cases, specially trained biologists determine whether a community is wetland or upland based on the dominance of hydrophytic plants and sometimes by using soil properties (moisture and composition) as additional evidence. In summary, there are four wetland types. The most familiar, the marsh, is characterized by grasses, sedges and open water communities with water-lilies, cattails and bulrushes. The second and third, fens and bogs, are specialized communities that are rare in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The fourth, and most common of all, is the swamp, which can be treed or characterized by shrubs, which vary from wet to almost dry and can be very similar to moist uplands. 6.3 Why are Wetlands Important? Wetlands have been used, abused and drained extensively in southern Ontario over the past two centuries. In some parts of the province wetland loss has been in the order of 90 to 100% (Snell 1987 as cited in Detenbeck et al., 1999). Given this, one could conclude that wetlands are not important. However, the consequences of wetland loss and degradation are just beginning to be felt both by people and the ecosystems that they support. These costs are directly related to long-term sustainability of human activities and the health and sustainability of our natural heritage systems. Hydrology and Water Quality In preparing a submission for the Walkerton Inquiry, Ducks Unlimited Canada produced a review and summary of wetland functions and values for water quality and quantity (http://vm.ducks.ca/aboutduc/news/archives/pdf/pipefull.pdf) (Gabor et al., 2001). This document reviewed the current literature and summarized a series of wetland functions as follows:

24

Hydrological Functions • Water storage and flood reduction • Erosion prevention • Groundwater recharge and discharge

Water Quality Functions • Nutrient Assimilation (Nitrogen, Phosphorus) • Sediment removal • Pathogen removal • Pesticide loss and dissipation

Not all wetlands perform all of these functions simultaneously. For example, wetlands can provide seasonal storage for flood water, such as in a treed swamp during the fall. But the same treed swamp might have no water storage capacity in the spring, during snow melt. Many wetlands can both recharge and discharge groundwater, depending on the season and fluctuations in the water table. Nutrient flows within wetlands are also complex, and they too vary by season. Some functions ascribed to wetlands, such as sediment removal or pesticide dissipation, can be detrimental to other aspects of wetland ecology. For example, sedimentation is one of the leading causes of impairment to wetland function and it is also one of the three leading causes of outright wetland loss. Clearly, these wetland hydrologic and water quality functions are complex and dependant on a wide range of variables, both spatial and temporal. It is certain however, that wetlands contribute towards the sustenance of freshwater resources, which are used by humans and wildlife alike. Wildlife Values Many of Ontario’s fish, fauna and flora species use wetlands during all or part of their life-cycles. A high proportion of the designated “Species At Risk” are wetland-associated species. This is not surprising given that wetland loss within the Great Lakes Basin is estimated at 68% south of the pre-Cambrian shield (Snell 1987 as cited in Detenbeck et al., 1999). Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, Detenbeck et al. (1999) provide a map summary that indicates wetland loss within the 26 to 50% range. Marshes are often critical fish nursery and spawning areas. They also provide habitat for a wide range of other obligate aquatic species that have relatively narrow habitat niches (i.e., they need permanent water). This includes a wide variety of insects, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Extensive marshes are now relatively rare and only 10% of southern Ontario wetlands have been estimated to represent marsh (Riley 1989). Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, only 1.7% of the total land area is currently marsh, while marsh comprises 12.6% of all wetland areas. Fens and bogs are rare and represent habitat for relatively specialized species. Consequently, a variety of plants can be found in these communities that are rare at various levels (i.e., locally,

25

regionally, provincially and nationally). They also provide specialized habitat for other species (e.g., non-vascular plants and insects).

Photograph 6.2 Locally rare Swamp Pink or Calapogon Orchids in Gibson Hill Fen, one of the few fens in the Lake Simcoe Watershed.

Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed there are only 25 ha of bog (and some of this may actually be poor fen). This is one of the rarest habitats of any type in the watershed. There are more fens, but even this wetland type represents only 1.3% (about 448 ha) of all the wetlands identified within the watershed. Both of these wetland types are exceedingly rare and together comprise less than 0.2% of the total land cover of the watershed. Swamps support a wide variety of habitat niches due to the structural diversity that they exhibit. This structural diversity includes: tall canopies, tree cavities, dense shrub layers, dense winter cover (from conifers), pits and mounds on the forest floor and seasonal pools. In turn, these features can provide habitat for a wide range of attributes such as area-sensitive forest breeding birds, winter deer yards, amphibian breeding pools and even seasonal fish spawning when swamps are flooded by wetland riverine systems. Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed (and excluding the lake itself), swamps represent 11.5 % of the total land area and 86% of all wetland areas.

26

6.4 Policy Framework Wetland protection has been one of the more successful aspects of the natural heritage policies within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Partly, this is because the initial push to evaluate wetlands was undertaken by the province rather than the planning authorities. However, wetlands evaluated as provincially significant are only protected by the PPS under the Planning Act. Therefore, wetlands continue to be lost to projects such as road and other infrastructure construction that fall under the Environmental Assessment Act, by agricultural projects such as drainage improvements and peat extraction, and by existing zoning provisions that pre-date wetland protection. As the NHS closely follows the building blocks established through application of the natural heritage policies of the PPS, Provincially Significant Wetlands are a major component of the system. The PPS 2005 defines wetlands as:

lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favored the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens.

The PPS defines a significant wetland as:

an area identified as provincially significant by the Ministry of Natural Resources using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time.

Section 2.1.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 specifies that:

development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E.

The Ontario Wetlands Evaluation System (OWES) was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 1984 and has been periodically updated since (OMNR 1994). The OWES evaluates the importance of a wetland based on a scoring system where four principal components (i.e., biological, social, hydrological, and special features) each worth a maximum of 250 points, combine for a total of 1,000 possible points. Subcomponents and attributes receive a varying number of possible points dependent on predetermined criteria.

Once evaluated, a wetland can become either a provincially significant wetland (PSW), or an evaluated non-provincially significant wetland (non-PSW). Planning authorities sometimes designate non-PSWs as “Locally Significant Wetlands” in their Official Plans.

27

Approximately three-quarters of all wetlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed have either been evaluated using OWES and/or are protected wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine. This leaves approximately 25% of all the watershed’s wetlands (or almost 9,300 ha) unevaluated (Table 6.3). Many of the existing evaluated non-PSWs were originally evaluated under the first or second edition of OWES. Based on recent updates in the watershed, it is likely that many of these non-PSWs would attain PSW status if they were reevaluated in accordance with the updates and methodological changes to OWES that are reflected in its current edition.

Table 6.3 Status of Wetland Designations in the Watershed

Area (ha) Percent of all wetlands

Percent of watershed (not incl. the lake)

Evaluated Wetlands (OWES) 24,951 70.7 9.9% Wetlands Identified but not Evaluated (non-ORM)

9,306 25.4 3.6%

Non-evaluated Wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine

1,445 3.9 0.6%

Total 36,702 100% 13.5%

6.5 Criteria

As is the case with other components of the Lake Simcoe NHS, significant wetlands may reside within more than one designated criteria. For example, a significant swamp forest might also meet the definition of significant woodland.

The criteria for the designation of significant wetlands in the NHS have been based primarily on the existing policy framework. However, the NHS must go beyond just addressing evaluated wetlands, as 25% of all wetlands in the watershed have not been evaluated. These criteria are discussed in the following sections.

Evaluated PSWs

All PSWs will be included within the NHS as Level 1 features.

Evaluated non-Provincially Significant Wetlands and Planning Authority Designated Locally Significant Wetlands

The MNR does not designate “Locally Significant Wetlands” (LSWs). This status can only be assigned by the planning authority. A review of the Official Plans of municipalities within the watershed was undertaken to examine how each had addressed non-PSWs.

Some planning authorities, perhaps assuming that MNR-designated “non-provincially significant wetlands” were synonymous with LSWs, identified them for some level of protection in the text portion of the Official Plan policies, but did not actually identify the locations of these features

28

on a schedule. Other Official Plans did not address this group of wetlands at all, or were not explicit in their intentions. Some planning authorities afforded all of these wetland designations (LSW, PSW, non-PSW) some protection.

Given this wide range of municipal approaches within the watershed, the following criteria have been applied:

1. Where local planning authorities have designated Locally Significant Wetlands in their existing or draft Official Plans, they will be included as Level 3 NHS features.

2. Non-Provincially Significant Evaluated Wetlands will appear as Level 3 NHS

features.

Fens and Bogs

All ELC or OWES identified fens and bogs will be included within the NHS. Fens and bogs will also be included under Significant Wildlife Habitat on account of their rarity and contribution to biodiversity, regardless of their status as significant wetlands. Unevaluated Wetlands

Unevaluated wetlands are found in many parts of the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Indeed, approximately 11,000 ha of wetland within the watershed remain unevaluated. The criteria listed below reflect a need to capture unevaluated wetlands when they might be supporting other NHS components or are sufficiently extensive to be included in their own right (but have not been evaluated). The 10 ha criterion was used as the limit in part based on the experiences of the authors in reviewing and evaluating wetlands under the updated Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Once wetlands approach this size they are now quite likely to become provincially significant. This is especially the case when one considers that through complexing wetlands units of 10 ha in area could be added to others that are functionally related (and within 750 m). In addition, all wetlands are regulated by the LSRCA and interference with them is prohibited except where permitted.

The criteria are also loosely based on those selected for significant woodlands (and many of the unevaluated swamp forests will also be designated as significant woodlands) and are as follows:

1. All PSWs are Level 1 features;

2. Any unevaluated wetland that is contiguous with a designated PSW will be included as a Level 2 feature (but if and when it is incorporated into the PSW boundary by MNR it will become a Level 1 feature);

3. All evaluated Non-PSWs and designated Locally Significant Wetlands are included Level 3 features;

29

Photograph 6.3 Derryville Bog, one of the very few true bogs in the Watershed. Note the die-back caused by stress that limits the growth of trees to below 25% cover.

4. Any unevaluated wetland that is contiguous with an Evaluated Non-PSW or a designated Locally Significant Wetland will be included as a Level 3 feature;

5. Unevaluated wetlands that are 10 ha or greater in area will be designated as a Level 2 feature;

6. The entirety of any wetland greater than or equal to 0.5 ha that overlaps with or falls within 30 m of any identified Level 1, Level 2 and /or Level 3 NHS feature is designated a Level 3 feature;

7. Any other wetland unit that is greater than 0.5 ha but less than 10 ha is recognized as a supporting habitat feature in the watershed, but not as part of the NHS (i.e., Level 4 – supporting).

Wetlands that are 10 ha or greater in extent have been automatically included in Level 2, rather than Level 3. This might appear to be counterintuitive as evaluated non-PSWs and designated LSWs are only assigned Level 3. This precautionary approach is appropriate, as wetlands that

30

have not been formerly evaluated could turn out to be provincially significant, if upon evaluation they are not, then they can be determined to be Level 3 features.

The policy direction of this NHS identifies a mechanism for updated or new evaluations to be incorporated into the NHS in the future. The policy implications of each level (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4 - Supporting) can be found in Section 13.0 Suggested Policy Templates. Greenbelt Plan Wetlands Within the Greenbelt Plan area, the Greenbelt Plan definition of a Key Natural Heritage Feature or Key Hydrologic Feature is used for wetlands, as determined through criteria established by the MNR. As these criteria were not available at the time of writing, wetlands within Greenbelt have not specifically been identified as key natural heritage or key hydrologic features. Wetlands that meet the criteria will be considered Level 1 features as the Greenbelt Plan tales precedence over the NHS. Oak Ridges Moraine Wetlands Within the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) definition of a Key Natural Heritage Feature is used, and replaces the wetland criteria presented above. While some of the ORMCP criteria are easily mapped (such as evaluated wetlands), some other criteria cannot be applied as a mapping product for the NHS, as determining the presence of the “Key Natural Heritage Features” or “Hydrologically Sensitive Features” within the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan Area requires detailed site-specific investigations. It is important to note however, that the requirements and definition (including the draft technical guidelines) apply to the identification of all wetlands on the Moraine whether or not they are illustrated as part of the NHS in Authority maps. Regardless of these challenges, to the extent possible these features were mapped for the regulated ORM area. However, this mapping is intended as a guide only, and confirmation of a feature boundary and the presence of any other wetlands will be required to ensure conformity with the ORMCP. For example, when a wetland is discovered on a property it is subject to the ORMCP, regardless of whether it appears on any map. On the ORM, all wetlands, including those less than 0.5 ha have been mapped as Level 1 features, upon detailed investigation, these 0.5 ha wetlands may not remain as a Level 1 constraint in accordance with the direction of the current draft ORMCP technical guidelines. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Ontario Regulation 179/06 Under Ontario Regulation 179/06, the LSRCA regulates (among other ‘hazard lands’) wetlands and their adjacent lands. In accordance with the Regulation:

31

Section 2(1): No personal shall undertake development, or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas with the jurisdiction of the Authority that are,…wetlands, or other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland, including areas within 120m of all provincially significant wetlands and areas within 30m of all other wetlands…. Section 3 (1): The Authority may grant permission for development in or on the areas described in subsection 2 (1) if, it its opinion, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development. The Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS significant wetlands criteria are summarized in Table 6.4. Figure 6.1 depicts a mapping example.

Table 6.4 Summary of Significant Wetland Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Feature Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Criterion Level Attribute

Name Provincially Significant Wetland

All PSWs Level 1 WE1

All Non-PSWs and designated LSWs Level 3 WE3-A Evaluated Non-PSWs; plus designated Locally Significant Wetlands Unevaluated wetlands contiguous to

evaluated non-PSWs and designated LSWs Level 3 WE3-B

The entirety of any wetland ≥ 0.5 ha that overlaps with or falls within 30 m of any identified Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 NHS feature

Level 3 WE3-C

Any other wetland unit that is ≥ 10 ha in area

Level 2 WE2-A

Unevaluated wetlands contiguous to PSWs Level 2 (until

formally incorporated into PSW)

WE2-B

Unevaluated wetlands

Any other wetland unit that is ≥ 0.5 ha and < 10 ha is recognized as a supporting habitat feature in the watershed

Level 4 - supporting

WE4

Greenbelt Plan Area Wetlands consistent with the definition of the Greenbelt Plan

Level 1 NA

Oak Ridges Moraine Wetlands

ORM wetlands consistent with the draft ORMCP Technical Paper

Level 1 MWE

33

6.6 Literature Cited Bedford, B. 1999.

Cummulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19:775-788.

Crosbie, B. and P. Chow-Fraser. 1999.

Percentage land use in the watershed determines the water and sediment quality of 22 marshes in the Great Lakes Basin. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 56: 1781-1791.

Detenbeck, N.E., S.M. Galatowitsch, J. Atkinson and H. Ball. 1999.

Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin. Wetlands 19: 789-820.

Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 2004.

How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Second Edition). Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 80 pp.

Gabor, T.S., A.K. North, L.C.M. Ross, H.R. Murkin, J.S. Anderson, and M.A. Turner. 2001.

Beyond the pipe: the importance of wetlands & upland conservation practices in watershed management: functions and values for water quality and quantity. Prepared for the Walkerton Inquiry. Ducks Unlimited Canada. Available online: <http://www.ducks.ca/aboutduc/news/archives/pdf/pipeshrt.pdf>.

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

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern Manual. 1993 3rd Edition. Updated. OMNR # 502254-1.

Riley, J.L. 1989.

Southern Ontario bogs and fens off the Canadian Shield. pp. 355-367. In: Bardecki, M.J. and N. Patterson (eds.). Wetlands: inertia or momentum? Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, 426 pp.

Snell, E. A. 1987.

Wetland distribution and conversion in southern Ontario. Inland Waters and Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Table 6, Working Paper 48, En 73-4/48E.

Wang, N. and W. J. Mitch. 1995.

Estimating phosphorus retention of existing and restored wetlands in the Quanicassee River watershed, Saginaw Bay, Michigan. Prepared for the Wetland Initiative, Chicago, Illinois.

34

7.0 Significant Woodlands 7.1 History of Woodland Cover Prior to European settlement the dominant land cover type of the Lake Simcoe Watershed was woodlands of various forms. Estimates of total cover were in the 80% range, rather than the more commonly thought 90%, as Simcoe County was known as one of the most densely settled areas by aboriginal inhabitants (the Hurons) who may have farmed as much as 20,000 ha (Heidenreich 1971 as cited in Larson et al. 1999).

Some authors have estimated that 70% of woodland cover south and east of the Canadian Shield has been lost since settlement (Riley and Mohr 1994). Post-settlement forest loss is thought to have peaked around 1920 and in some areas there has been some recovery since then. In 1978, woodland cover in Simcoe County was estimated at 29% and in York Region at 18.5% (Larson et al. 1999). The original woodlands throughout most of southern Ontario were converted to non-forest uses. For instance, upland woodlands found on prime agricultural soils have largely been transformed into agricultural lands, while woodlands once surrounding urban centres have been developed into residential subdivisions.

35

Photograph 7.1 An example of an isolated remnant woodlot, which has largely developed since the landscape was settled.

7.2 Woodland Functions The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) lists a variety of important functions associated with woodlands and Larson et al. (1999) summarize the importance of woodlands. These important functions can generally be described as follows:

• Economic Services and Values o oxygen production, carbon sequestration, climate moderation, water quality and

quantity improvements, woodland products, economic activity associated with cultural values

• Cultural Values o education, recreation, tourism, research, spiritual and aesthetic worth

• Ecological Values o diversity of species, structural heterogeneity, energy (photosynthesis), nutrient

and energy cycling. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH 2005) definition of woodlands also touches on these themes:

[Woodlands means]…treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefit to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-

36

term storage of carbon, provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the sustainable harvest of a wide range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlands or forested areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels.

Structural diversity of habitat is a key driver of biodiversity. In woodlands, habitat niches can range from microhabitats such as the surfaces of fissured trunks, leaves and rotting logs to macrohabitat features such as the horizontal layers within the forest (e.g., supercanopy, canopy, subcanopy). In addition, woodlands are present in a wide variety of topographic settings and soil and moisture regimes. These can range from talus slopes to heavy clay soils; from saturated organics to very dry sandy soils. For all of these reasons it is not surprising that many woodland species are obligates (i.e., they are only found in woodlands), or that woodlands provide habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna. They form important building blocks of the natural heritage system. 7.3 Overview of the Science The following sections discuss some of the relevant literature that was used to develop appropriate criteria for the selection of significant woodland in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Fragmentation Fragmentation describes the process that results from larger forest patches being separated into ever smaller patches or fragments. Fragmentation has many repercussions for forest habitat, such as increased edge effects, increased predation and decreased species richness (Austen et al. 2001). As well, fragmentation leads to increased woodlot isolation, which in turn can reduce dispersal, immigration and recolonization (Burke and Nol 2000; Trzcinski et al. 1999). Fragmentation can result in habitat blocks that are too small to support certain species of flora or fauna (e.g., those that are considered to be area-sensitive) or are too small to provide relatively undisturbed and high quality habitat conditions. Fragmentation can also result in the degradation of connectivity to a critical habitat type (e.g., an amphibian breeding pond). However, it can be very difficult to tease apart the relative importance of fragmentation from patch size, which is confounded by the fact that in real landscapes these two factors are often interrelated. One review of 134 fragmentation studies showed evidence that the ecological mechanisms and effects of habitat fragmentation are poorly understood (McGarigal and Cushman 2002).

37

Patch Size Many researchers agree that fragmentation can affect woodland composition in terms of species and vegetation composition, but many have also found that woodland patch size is a more significant component (Trzcinski et al. 1999; Villard et al. 1999; Austen et al. 2001; Nol et al. 2005). Larger patches of woodlands tend to have a greater diversity of habitat niches and therefore they are more likely to support greater biodiversity. Very large patch sizes are also associated with total forest cover, as these conditions tend to occur simultaneously in real-world landscapes (Villard et al. 1999). It is now generally accepted that when it comes to woodland patch size, bigger really is better (Austen et al. 2001; Burke and Nol 2000; Bayne and Hobson 2002; Margules and Pressey 2000; Miller and Hobbs 2002; Trzcinski et al. 1999). Large woodlands are more likely to contain a greater diversity of plant and animal species and communities than smaller woodlands and are better buffered against the harmful edge effects of agricultural or urban activities than smaller areas (OMNR 1999). In a landmark paper, Robbins et al. (1989) determined habitat area requirements for forest birds (based on presence/absence, not productivity) in the mid-Atlantic states and considered 100 ha as an absolute minimum guideline for forest patch size. The probability of detecting some of the more sensitive woodland bird species in 100 ha woodland patches was as low as 20 to 30%. More recently, some researchers have raised the concept of the “Big Woods” (Mancke and Gavin 2000; Environment Canada 2004). Few, however, have tackled the idea of establishing minimum sizes for productive, high quality forest patches in southern Ontario. Burke and Nol (2000) recommend preservation of tracts that are at least 500 ha in extent to guard against local population declines in some bird species (notably the Ovenbird [Seiurus aurocapillus]). Environment Canada (2004) summarized the anticipated response of forest birds to patch size using data from one area of southern Ontario. It was concluded that 200 ha woodland patches will support 80% of sensitive species, 100 ha patches 60%, while few were supported at the 50 ha patch level. (Environment Canada [2004] and Environment Canada [in prep] are good sources for further information on this topic.) Based on Illinois data, Herkert et al. (1993) suggest that a 400 ha woodland patch was required to support 75 to 80% of the highly sensitive woodland bird species. They predicted that a 100 ha patch should contain about 60% of the highly sensitive species. In Maryland, guidelines suggest that blocks of 3,000 ha of mature forest should be preserved (Maryland Partners in Flight 1997). Mancke and Gavin (2000) stress the importance of the “Big Woods” (meaning >5,000 ha) for regional productivity of some forest birds. Clearly, woodland patch size can be important for many species of flora and fauna. The relative importance of patch size, patch characteristics and landscape cover varies and so too does the interaction of these for different species.

38

Habitat Quality Habitat quality usually relates to a range of metrics such as: shape, interior (usually that which is more than 100 m from an edge), age, composition, structure and the presence of invasive species. Today, most of the woodlands in southern Ontario are young (Larson et al. 1999), due to having been clear-cut, then abandoned and left to regenerate naturally. This has altered the composition of trees in southern Ontario’s woodlands as well as the composition of species found within them. Species that use older-growth woodlands or characteristics of old trees (e.g., flying-squirrels [Glaucomys spp.] and Brown Creepers [Certhia americana]) are now less frequent in southern Ontario (Larson et al. 1999). Determination of habitat quality, while a useful exercise, mostly requires detailed field investigations that are beyond the scope of a regional conservation planning exercise. It is clear that plantations and cultural woodlands generally do not provide high quality habitat for woodland flora and fauna. However, they do make valuable contributions to the NHS in other ways and often serve as nurseries for future woodlands. There is also some doubt regarding the necessity of gathering detailed, quality-related information to determine significant woodlands at the landscape level. For example, one study that did gather detailed data in southern Ontario (UTRCA 2003), ultimately used selection criteria that were all GIS driven. Where woodland cover falls below critical thresholds (see following section), it could be argued that all woodlands become important; perhaps understanding woodland quality becomes more critical when forest cover is high and planning authorities need to consider which woodlands could be lost to alternate land use. There is also conflicting evidence in the literature regarding the response of birds to edge habitats (or lack of interior). Some studies have found evidence that linear habitats may have higher densities or that edge-use avoidance is linked to overall density of the species within the patch (Bollinger and Switzer 2002). The literature appears relatively consistent on the increased negative effects of cowbird nest parasitism and avian predators on edge-nesting birds (Chalfoun et al. 2002). Edge effects (e.g., predation, disturbance, changes in food supply) may be important in some circumstances for some species. These effects likely extend from birds to other groups such as plants (Bowles 1999) and bryophytes (Hylander et al. 2002). However, many of the empirical data demonstrating the use of “interior forest” do not originate from the temperate zone. In trying to resolve the question of interior forest functions, it is not possible to draw direct parallels between temperate and tropical ecosystems. For example, data on skulking Amazonian breeding birds show that they avoid crossing even relatively small rivers (and with good reason given the numbers of predators) (various citations in Hilty et al. 2006), whereas most birds that inhabit temperate ecosystems are either highly mobile or migrate hundreds of kilometres twice a year. There is no doubt that habitat quality is an important metric, and it may be as important as patch size. Recognizing that all these different woodland metrics are interrelated to some extent, the literature suggests that neither patch size nor habitat quality are as important as overall woodland cover.

39

Woodland Cover There is increasing scientific evidence that the total woodland cover of a landscape may exert the most important influence on biodiversity. Obviously the loss of woodland cover results in a direct loss of habitat of that type. This reduction in habitat can result in proportionally smaller population sizes, and animals in habitat remnants may experience altered dispersal rates, decreased rates of survival, decreased productivity, altered foraging behaviours and decreased mating opportunities (Brooker and Brooker 2002). Research that has examined the independent effects of habitat loss versus habitat fragmentation suggests that habitat loss has a greater effect than habitat fragmentation on the distribution and abundance of birds (Fahrig 2002). Golet (2001) also found that bird relative abundance was not related to patch size and that the pattern of distribution of breeding birds was consistent with that of total forest cover. This is further supported by southern Ontario research that found that woodland area and edges effects did not significantly affect either nesting success or the productivity of neotropical songbirds (Friesen et al. 1998). There is now substantive evidence that total woodland cover is a critical metric (e.g., Austen et al. 2001; Golet 2001; Fahrig 2002; Lindenmayer et al. 2002; Trzcinski et al. 1999; Friesen et al. 1998, 1999; Rosenburg et al. 1999). Perhaps less clear are the thresholds for biodiversity. These thresholds, or general patterns, will be influenced by a wide variety of interacting metrics, such as the quality of woodland, and the type of matrix (meaning the in-between areas, such as agriculture, exurban or urban land uses). Presumably, where the dominant landscape is woodland, wildlife will respond primarily to local habitat effects rather than woodland cover metrics, as described by Lichstein et al. (2002). What is known with reasonable certainty is that as woodland cover decreases, species fail to occupy remaining patches and many of those that remain become rare, or fail to successfully attract mates or reproduce. These two latter concerns are particularly relevant, for the mere presence of a species in a woodlot does not mean that it is successfully reproducing, and many studies that examine wildlife use of woodlands rely on presence-absence data, not productivity data. Near Ottawa, Ontario, several species of woodland birds disappeared as breeders when woodland cover declined below 30% (Freemark 1988). There is additional research that supports a 20 to 30% woodland cover threshold beyond which the persistence of bird species was virtually ensured or that habitat configuration had little or no effect on species richness or abundance (Fahrig 1997; Andrén 1994 both cited in Villard et al. 1999). In another study woodland bird species favouring interior habitat conditions continued to increase in number in areas with 20% to at least 35% woodland cover, depending on the scale of the analysis (Tate 1998). For one classic woodland bird species, the Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea), research coordinated by Rosenberg et al. (1999) has established a sliding scale whereby tanagers show almost no area sensitivity at 70% forest cover (i.e., they were occurring in almost all woodland patches), but would not be expected to occur in any patches where the forest cover falls much below 20 to 30%.

40

Woodland patches in regions with higher forest cover have been found to be particularly important for so-called forest interior species (Austen et al. 2001). Based on the findings of that study, a priority might be to ensure the presence of larger expanses of woodland within highly forested landscapes (Austen et al. 2001), which is often the reverse of approaches that seek to identify significant woodlands. One interesting study found that agricultural crop damage by voles actually decreased with increasing forest cover (Delattre et al. 1992 cited in Hilty et al. 2006). This finding could open up other useful avenues of research. Overall, the literature indicates that one primary woodland cover threshold is probably somewhere in the 30 to 40% percent cover range. Currently, there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the use of 30% as a threshold. The use of this figure probably would not be described as precautionary. 7.4 Socially Significant Woodlands The socio-economic value of woodlands is also important. Air and water quality benefits, and direct economic and recreational uses of woodlands are often recognized, but rarely are they explicitly explored in details for the development of significant woodland criteria. The aesthetic and spiritual value to humans should also be expressed in this component. Failure to recognize the full suite of socio-economic values placed on woodlands can lead to the pressure to designate relatively small woodland patches as “ecologically significant”, which can be a difficult scientific position to defend, when the real reasons for their importance may be more often related to social and economic values. Ecological values are often incompatible with human use. Separation of woodlands that are specifically identified for their social values can be important. This avoids the problem of automatically assuming that areas with the greatest woodland cover can afford to withstand losses of woodland cover (which is more of a social paradigm), and that woodland patches in areas with the least woodland cover are ecologically the most important, when the scientific evidence may be entirely to the contrary. One source for the economic value of woodlands (e.g., for discussion on services performed such as air quality improvement) is the American Forests website (www.americanforests.org). Through the CITYgreen campaign, American Forests puts a dollar value on the air quality benefits and carbon sequestration of woodlands and urban trees. In their recent publication Natural Spaces – The Socio-economic Benefits of Southern Ontario’s Greenspaces (www.naturalspaces.mnr.gov.on.ca), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) explore this topic in an Ontario context.

41

7.5 Woodlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Woodlands were identified within the Lake Simcoe Watershed through the procedures described in Appendix 1 – Ecological Land Classification. Woodlands include all treed communities, whether upland or wetland. The ELC communities that were considered to represent woodlands are: forest (FOD, FOM, FOC), swamp (SWD, SWM, SWC), and culturally woodlands (CUP, CUW) as shown in the table (Table 7.1) below. Some woodlands that are designated as “Significant Woodlands” may also be designated “Significant Wetlands”. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Woodlands of all qualities and types combined comprise approximately 71,000 ha (or 27%), of the total area of the watershed (excluding the lake itself). Of this area, approximately 9,000 ha (i.e., 12.7% of the available woodland cover) could be considered to be of lower ecological quality (i.e., they are plantations, which are standing crops, or cultural woodlands); excluding these two cover classes, the woodland cover within the watershed is approximately 23.7%.

Table 7.1 Woodland Cover by Type in the Watershed

Forest Cover Class – Woodland Type

ha % Cultural Plantation (CUP) 5,788 8.1 Cultural Woodland (CUW)* 3,272 4.6 Conifer Forest (FOC) 4,621 6.5 Deciduous Forest (FOD) 20,310 28.6 Mixed Forest (FOM) 15,417 21.7 Conifer Swamp (SWC) 3,028 4.3 Deciduous Swamp (SWD) 10,825 15.2 Mixed Swamp (SWM) 7,809 11.0 Total 71,070 100 Approximate Area of Watershed (excl. lake)

261,887 27.1

*This category includes substantial hedgerows which are continuous with other natural features (ca. 608 ha).

As described in the ELC metadata (Appendix 1), hedgerows were included in the LSRCA ELC base map layer as Cultural Woodlands (CUW) where they were substantial and continuous with other natural heritage features, with an attached attribute note indicating that they were hedgerows. However, for the purpose of the NHS, hedgerows are not intended to be included as woodlands and therefore unless they are part of another designated feature such as Significant Wildlife Habitat, are not considered to be a NHS feature. In addition to the amount of woodland cover within the watershed, there are two ways in which the distribution of that cover may be examined. The general spatial distribution of cover (for example by subwatershed, ecodistrict or other spatial characteristic) is most likely uneven. Another characteristic is the size of forest patches. Both of these spatial parameters will be discussed in the following sections.

42

Spatial Distribution of Woodland Cover An analysis of woodland cover was undertaken by ecodistrict. An ecodistrict is an area defined by the MNR that has a distinct combination of landforms, soils, waters, plants and animals. Ecodistricts are therefore a useful mechanism to describe biodiversity, as the species associated within similar community patches would be expected to some extent to reflect the influence of the ecodistrict. If woodland cover types are well represented within each ecodistrict this can be expected to maximize biodiversity potential. Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed there are four ecodistricts (Figure 7.1). Most of the watershed, and all of the lake itself, are contained within ecodistrict 6E-6, while a quarter of the watershed is within ecodistrict 6E-8. Only 13% of the watershed is within the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) ecodistrict 6E-7, and a relatively tiny proportion (2.4%) is within ecodistrict 6E-9, in the extreme northeast portion of the watershed. Table 7.2 provides the results of the analysis by ecodistrict. Not surprisingly, woodland cover is highest in the 6E-7 ORM ecodistrict. However, it is noteworthy that almost one-third of the woodland cover within that particular ecodistrict is either plantation or cultural woodland. Without these cultural communities, woodland cover within this 6E-7 would be about 29%. Woodland cover is notably low (20.5%) in ecodistrict 6E-8, which accounts for approximately one-quarter of the entire watershed.

Table 7.2 Woodland Cover Analysis by Ecodistrict

6E-6 6E-7 6E-8 6E-9

ha % ha % ha % ha % Ecodistrict area (excl. Lake Simcoe) 156,684 59.8 33,603 12.8 65,433 25.0 6,166 2.4 Cultural Plantation 1,644 3.9 3,511 25.1 587 4.4 46 2.6 Cultural Woodland 2,020 4.8 715 5.1 463 3.4 74 4.2 Conifer Forest 1,973 4.7 920 6.6 1,703 12.7 25 1.4 Deciduous Forest 12,709 30.4 4,824 34.5 2,295 17.1 481 27.2 Mixed Forest 10,044 24.0 2,434 17.4 2,499 18.6 440 24.8 Conifer Swamp 1,118 2.7 411 2.9 1,402 10.4 97 5.5 Deciduous Swamp 8,020 19.2 344 2.5 1,966 14.6 495 27.9 Mixed Swamp 4,329 10.3 837 6.0 2,529 18.8 113 6.4 Total Woodland Cover 41,857 13,996 13,445 1,771

Ecodistrict Woodland Cover % 26.7 41.7 20.5 28.7

44

To provide as complete a picture as possible of the spatial variation in woodland cover, an analysis was undertaken by subwatershed. For greater clarity, some discrete but proximal subwatersheds were combined (e.g., “Barrie creeks”). Table 7.3 provides the results of this analysis. The data in Table 7.3 have been sorted in ascending order by watershed to show the lowest percent forest cover at the top of the table, and the greatest percent cover at the bottom. Subwatersheds vary in area from less than 2,000 ha to more than 40,000 ha and these differences must be taken into account when examining these data.

Table 7.3 Total Woodland Cover by Subwatershed Areas

Area of Subwatersheds

Woodland Cover by % of subwatershed

Maskinonge River 7,179 11.7 Barrie Creeks 3,781 14.1 Hewitt’s Creek 1,751 16.8 Beaver River 32,724 17.1 West Holland River 35,410 20.6 East Holland River 23,910 20.9 White’s Creek 10,520 21.8 Innisfil Creeks 10,757 25.2 Ramara Creeks 14,350 26.9 Lover’s Creek 5,995 27.2 Talbot River 7,056 27.6 Georgina Creeks 4,946 30.3 Uxbridge Brook 17,495 31.0 Pefferlaw Brook 28,482 35.1 Oro South Creeks 5,769 35.4 Oro North Creeks 8,344 35.9 Black River 37,536 37.4 Hawkestone Creek 3,971 43.4 Islands in Lake Simcoe combined 1,912 68.5

Woodland Patch Size Analysis A woodland patch is defined here as the total area of a contiguous patch of wooded habitat as mapped by the LSRCA ELC mapping project. This analysis does not incorporate other parameters of “quality” that by and large could only be established with detailed field work. A calculation of the area of “interior” habitat within each subwatershed was not undertaken as part of this analysis. The presence of interior conditions or habitat is highly variable according to factors such as the type of woodland, its position in the landscape and the organism of interest

45

(“interior” distances are much different for plants versus birds, for example). The concept of “interior” breeding bird species is not robust and many species thought to be “interior” are actually either area-sensitive (requiring large areas of habitat in which to successfully breed) or require certain specialized habitat conditions (e.g., Brown Creeper). Indeed, some studies have even found higher densities of forest breeding birds in linear woodlands with limited “interior” habitat (Bollinger and Switzer 2002) and few studies, if any, have looked at breeding success for various flora and fauna versus edge effects over several different community patches in temperate climates. For this analysis, GIS was used to calculate all contiguous woodland areas and to compute a graph of the distribution of woodland patch sizes within the watershed. This analysis does not in any way incorporate the benefits of adjacent or nearby natural areas, nor does it discount woodland patches that have exurban development envelopes within them. The results of this analysis are provided in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 Woodland Patch Analysis - Whole Watershed

Watershed

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

< 0.

5

>0.5

<=2

>2 <

=4

>4 <

=10

>10

<=15

>15

<=20

>20

<=25

>25

<=50

>50

<=100

>100

<=5

00

>500

<=10

00

> 1

000

Patch Size (ha)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Tot

al A

rea

(ha)

# ofPatches

Total Area

Figure 7.2 demonstrates that for the entire watershed, approximately 9,387 ha of woodland (or 13.2% of the total woodland) are accounted for in the first four columns (i.e., patches up to 10 ha). The (unlikely) total loss of this woodland cover (and without the “recruitment” of new patches) would reduce the percent of the watershed that is wooded from the current 27.1% to 23.6%. This analysis also indicates the importance of woodlands over 25 ha in terms of total forest cover, even as the number of patches declines sharply. Conversely, relatively few hectares (less

46

than 2,000) are encapsulated within the two smallest categories, even though they include over 2,000 patches. There is only one patch (of approximately 1,100 ha) in the greater than 1,000 ha class. This is somewhat deceiving, however, as the definition of a break in contiguous cover was conservatively applied consistent with the ELC methodology employed (Appendix 1). Considering that the overall size of the watershed is around 260,000 ha, it is perhaps surprising that there are only ten woodland patches greater than 500 ha. One more patch would be added to this category if a large contiguous wooded area that extends outside the edge of the Lake Simcoe Watershed is included. Given that many scientific authorities consider 500 ha wooded patches to be at the lower end of what is required for successful reproduction by many sensitive species, this analysis shows that the watershed is not in good shape from a patch size perspective. Three of these ten larger patches are located on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Although this analysis was undertaken for all ecodistricts and all subwatershed groupings within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, only the results of the analysis for the Black River subwatershed (Figure 7.3) and the Barrie Creeks subwatershed (Figure 7.4) are included below by way of example. The Black River subwatershed, with a total woodland cover of almost 38%, shows a distribution of patch size that includes only 1,321 ha of its woodland cover (3.5%), in the smallest four size categories (Figure 7.3). The Barrie Creeks subwatershed grouping shows a much higher percentage of its woodlands in the smaller patch size group (Figure 7.4). This figure also demonstrates the relative importance of the six remaining patches within the Barrie creeks area that are greater than 25 ha in area.

47

Figure 7.3 Woodland Patch Analysis – Black River Subwatershed

Black River

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

< 0.

5

>0.5

<=2

>2 <

=4

>4 <

=10

>10

<=15

>15

<=20

>20

<=25

>25

<=50

>50

<=10

0

>100

<=5

00

>500

<=1

000

> 1

000

Patch Size (ha)

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00

7000.00

8000.00

9000.00

Tot

al A

rea

(ha)

# of Patches

Total Area

Figure 7.4 Woodland Patch Analysis – Barrie Creeks Subwatershed Group

Barrie Creeks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

< 0.

5

>0.5

<=2

>2 <=4

>4 <

=10

>10 <

=15

>15

<=20

>20 <

=25

>25

<=50

>50

<=10

0

>100

<=50

0

>500

<=1

000

> 1

000

Patch Size (ha)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00T

otal

Are

a (h

a)

# of Patches

Total Area

48

Big Woods Analysis Two related metrics were investigated to form the basis of a Big Woods approach. These were the aggregation of woodland patches and the identification of the largest woodland patches. A series of GIS queries were run that merged different woodland patches that were within various stipulated distances from each other (ranging from 12 m to 21 m) into one “patch”. After several trial runs and comparison to the woodland cover map, use of 18 m was found to represent areas of high contiguous woodland cover within which Big Woods Policy Areas could be contemplated. This had the effect of identifying the largest aggregations of woodland patches within the watershed. The resulting “aggregated patches” were sorted and those that were close to or exceeded 1,000 ha were overlain on the largest contiguous patches. These largest patches came from a simple query to identify all patches in the watershed > 500 ha (woodlands extending outside of the watershed were included). The result was confirmed with a raster based analysis of woodland cover density based on a 25 m grid. Woodland density was calculated as the area of woodland within a 2 km radius of each grid cell. The Big Woods Policy Areas identified previously were overlain on the woodland density map to verify that areas with high forest density (a high proportion of woodland cover within 2 km) were identified as Big Woods Policy Areas. 7.6 Policy Framework Over the past decade, the notion of woodland protection has been slowly gathering support throughout much of southern Ontario. However, unlike the guidance provided by the MNR for the identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands, detailed technical guidance for the identification of significant woodlands is not presently available. There is some general guidance offered in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999), which states that:

…the identification and evaluation of significant woodlands is a planning authority [i.e., municipal] responsibility. Approaches to compiling and assessing woodlands information will vary depending on the resources of the planning authority, availability of information, development pressures and the nature and extent of the woodlands present in the planning authority.

In section 2.1.4 of the PPS 2005 (MMAH 2005), it is specified that:

…development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological function.

This level of protection is sometimes approached or met in municipal Official Plans. However, in some cases the development and implementation of policies to embed protection for significant

49

woodlands within Official Plans have not always kept pace with the actual designation of the features. Often, “greenland” or “environmental protection” designations are prescribed to include significant woodlands among a list of other significant features, but the actual limits of the features or specific criteria for their identification are lacking. This can lead to piecemeal and inconsistent levels of protection, and at times, litigation at the Ontario Municipal Board over the determination of significance for a particular unit on the landscape. 7.7 Review of Criteria There are two general approaches that have been applied to the development of criteria for the identification of significant woodlands. The first method is a scoring system, which demands a high level of knowledge on several criteria that may include, for example: area, contagion, age, rare or conservative species, diversity, scenic values, resource values and various disturbance criteria. A score is provided for each of the criteria, which if desired may then be weighted for relative importance, and a final score is calculated. Significant woodlands can then be selected by setting a score level similar to the manner in which the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System works (e.g., Eastern Ontario Woodland Valuation System [Rowsell 2003]). In some respects this method is perhaps the most defensible, as decisions to assign significance are based on a high level of understanding of the features and functions of patches. It is probably more useful in areas where there is an extensive amount of woodland or in cases where the study area is relatively small (i.e., at a subwatershed level). Drawbacks associated with this method are that it requires detailed data gathered from repeated site visits by highly-trained field investigators. As this method is site-intensive, it can also lead to the underestimation of the role of the individual woodland in a landscape perspective, such as regional woodland cover. The second approach involves the identification of a suite of GIS-oriented criteria, whereby if a woodlot meets any one (or several) of the criteria it is considered to be significant. This approach has the advantage of being a landscape level of investigation that can be applied efficiently using GIS tools. Drawbacks are that species-level information is usually lacking and woodland quality is generally (though not entirely) excluded; a small woodland dominated by non-native species may be identified for protection as “significant woodland” or conversely, small high quality woodlands may not. In these approaches criteria are seldom weighted. Table 7.4 provides criteria that have been recommended by others for the determination of significant woodlands in southern Ontario. Taken together, the authors of these recommendations have reviewed a significant body of literature and brought together a wide range of expertise to provide these guidelines. Of particular note is the report commissioned by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON) (now Ontario Nature) who undertook an extensive review of approaches for determining significant woodlands (Reid 2002). This became an

50

important background report for Ontario Nature’s “Suggested Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario” (FON 2004). The guidelines appear in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Criteria Recommended by Others for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario

Criteria Natural Heritage

Reference Manual (OMNR 1999)

Ontario Nature (FON 2004)

Eastern Ontario Woodland Valuation

System (Rowsell 2003)*

Patch Size If percent cover: <5%, 2 ha; 5-15%, 4 ha; 15-30%, 40 ha (300 m min. width); >30%, min. size not suggested

If percent cover: <5%, all; 5-10%, 2 ha; 11-15%, 4 ha; 16-20%, 10 ha; 20-30%, 15 ha; 31-50%, 25 ha; >50%, 40 ha

Urban: >4 ha (=3) 2-4 ha (=2) <2 ha (=1) Rural: >200 ha (=3) 20-200 ha (=2) <20 ha (=1)

Forest Interior / Shape

More interior better <30% cover: minimum 4 ha interior using 100 m from edge criteria; OR if total forest interior (in the total forested area) is less than 10%, any patch containing forest interior where >30% woodland cover, all patches with 4 ha interior using 200 m edge

≥ 4 ha remains after 200 m edge removed (3); ≥ 4 ha remains after 150 m edge removed (2); ≥ 4 ha remains after 100 m removed (1 or 0)

Proximity/ Connectivity

Closer is better, overlap with other NH features; One or more natural heritage features within boundary; Potential to form linkage to another feature or area

Any woodland that falls within or overlaps with a core or corridor in any identified natural heritage system incl. Big Picture 2002

Closest edge between patches: < 100 m (3); 100 - 250 m (2); >250m (1)

Hydrology/ Groundwater

Occupy a substantial part of a watershed; Close or adjacent to groundwater discharge, recharge or headwaters

30 m from streams, wetlands, lakes, headwaters sources and catchments of first order watercourse

Proximity to water: <30 m (3); 30-50 m (2); >50 m (1)

Other Slope: > or equal to 10%; Soils subject to wind and erosion

Slope: >30% (3); 15-30% (2); <15%(1)

Note: * The Woodlands Valuation System rates the criteria evenly relative to one another (i.e., not weighted) and then sums up the score from each criterion to give a final number to an individual woodland patch. For the NHS a limited review of criteria for significant woodlands used or proposed by others in Official Plans and Natural Heritage Systems was undertaken. The results are presented in Table 7.5.

51

Table 7.5 Criteria Used for the Determination of Significant Woodlands In Southern Ontario

Criteria Halton Region (GLL 2002)

Quinte West /Belleville

(Lower Trent CA 2001)

Hamilton (City of Hamilton

2004)

York Region (2005 – draft)

Town of Innisfil (2006)1

Upper Thames River C. A.

Natural Heritage Study (2003)

Couchiching Conservancy –

The Oro Moraine Habitat Project

(2005) Patch Size Urban Area: ≥2 ha

Rural: South of Escarpment: ≥4 ha North of Escarpment ≥10 ha

> 40 ha (forest cover in study area 30.6%)

If percent cover in planning unit (urban vs. rural by watershed): <5%, 1 ha 5-10%, 2 ha 11-15%, 4 ha 16-20%, 10 ha 21-30%, 15 ha

South of ORM: ≥ 4 ha North of ORM: ≥ 10 ha (Any woodlands on the ORM will follow the ORMCP guidelines)

≥10 ha Any woodland > 10 ha in area or any woodland patch less than 25 ha that contains forest interior

Based on the degree of Forest Cover; >40 ha

Forest Interior / Shape

4 ha or greater interior for 100 m, 200 m and 300 m from perimeter

100 m from edge and patch width at least 300 m

Greater than 100 m from edge

Since all woodlands over 10 ha defined as significant, deemed unnecessary to include criteria for interior or age

Any woodland patch with a minimum of 4 ha of interior habitat, defined using a 100 m buffer from the woodland edge

Proximity/ Connectivity

Corridors associated with major creeks and river valleys within 50 m of creek or river edge Woodlands within 150 m either side of the top of the Niagara Escarpment (incl. creeks and rivers designated as coldwater)

Patches adjacent or overlapping with other features (including PSWs, ANSIs, ESAs)

Located within 50 m of a significant natural area

Any native woodland over 2 ha: 1) within 100 m of another significant feature OR 2) that occurs within the Regional Greenlands System

Within 100 m of another significant feature (2 ha minimum area)

1. Where 50% of the patch is within 750m of a “core area” 2.Within 100 m of a patch ≥ 10 ha 3. For patches exempt from watercourse criteria any within a “Big Picture” corridor along the n. branch of

Any woodland that falls within a designated core or corridor area defined by the Bigger Picture project or a municipal natural heritage network is considered significant for this criterion

52

Criteria Halton Region (GLL 2002)

Quinte West /Belleville

(Lower Trent CA 2001)

Hamilton (City of Hamilton

2004)

York Region (2005 – draft)

Town of Innisfil (2006)1

Upper Thames River C. A.

Natural Heritage Study (2003)

Couchiching Conservancy –

The Oro Moraine Habitat Project

(2005) Thames River

Hydrology/ Groundwater

Watercourse passing through or arising in a woodland (cold and warm water fisheries) Within 30 m of a watercourse or Drainage to first- order streams

Any woodland > 1 ha adjacent to watercourse

Within 30 m of any hydrological feature, including all streams, headwater areas, wetlands and lakes

Within 30 m of watercourse, surface water feature or an evaluated wetland

Within 30 m of watercourse, surface water feature or an evaluated wetland (2 ha minimum area)

1. Any woodland patch containing or within 50 m of a watercourse. 2. Any woodland on porous soils that may have sensitive groundwater recharge or discharge resources

If any portion is within 30 m of a stream or wetland, or within the catchment area of first-order watercourses, or within recharge, discharge, or shallow aquifer areas

Age

Polygon average age >99 years

100 years or more 100 years or more

Other Core Area: ≥ 25 ha with core at least 4 ha, 100m from edge Slope ≥ 10%

Any woodland containing threatened, endangered, special concern, provincially or locally rare plant or wildlife species

G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, S3 plant or animal species Any species designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as Threatened or Endangered, or of Special Concern

G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, S3 plant or animal species Any species designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as Threatened or Endangered, or of Special Concern

Any woodland on slopes greater than or equal to 10%, or on soils subject to wind and water erosion

1Note: according to the source, criteria were based on “other recently completed Significant Woodland studies”, as data on Innisfil woodlands were lacking

Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System

53

In addition to the many approaches reviewed by Ontario Nature, and those reviewed in the above table, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has also recently completed a Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TRCA 2006). The TRCA selected a weighted scoring system based on quality (patch area, shape and matrix influence), quantity (% cover) and distribution (location of natural cover and its quality). This approach evaluates the landscape as one functional unit and therefore does not evaluate each natural heritage component (e.g., woodlands, valleylands and wetlands). The basic unit used is the “habitat patch”, which can be examined at various scales and under various restoration scenarios, which was a primary goal of the development of this approach.

7.8 Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS The development of criteria for the selection of significant woodlands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed was based on a combination of the following: literature review, approaches recommended by others, the practical application of criteria elsewhere in southern Ontario, and professional judgment. It is important to note that some recommendations made by others for the designation of significant woodlands were not necessarily made in the context of the development of a multi-component natural heritage system. For example, recommendations to include woodlands overlapping with the Big Picture 2002 mapping made by Ontario Nature (Table 7.4), presumably speak to a desire to ensure a linked system. However, within this NHS, other components (e.g., valleyland, wetlands and linkage) will be used to address the development of the system and subsequent initiatives will build on the NHS. The same issue applies to the use of rare species (e.g., Endangered and Threatened Species), which are discussed under two different components (i.e., Endangered and Threatened Species and Significant Wildlife Habitat). In a similar vein, the designation of some other features is not a function of a natural heritage planning exercise. For example, the use of “slope” (as a criterion for the determination of significant woodland), is more correctly a hazard-related descriptor. As pointed out by North


54

South Environmental Inc. (NSEI) (2005) woodland cover may actually discourage the growth of dense ground cover (which in turn prevents erosion). The following paragraphs provide a review of the selected criteria for significant woodlands within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Patch Size – Ecology The literature indicates that some woodland patches begin to provide some appreciable level of function for woodland flora and fauna at 10 ha and that area-sensitive breeding birds, for example, can at least be anticipated to occur at the 25 ha level (depending on other interrelated factors such as woodland cover and habitat quality). The patch size analysis indicated that woodland cover within the watershed would be seriously undermined if these classes for patch size were compromised. The larger woodlands (25 ha or greater) were assigned to Level 1 (for retention – see Policy Section 13.0). Intermediate-sized woodlands at 10 ha to 25 ha were placed in Level 2 (i.e., for retention with very limited flexibility). Smaller woodlands (2 – 10 ha) are identified as Level 4 - supporting features, which have an increasing ecological role as total forest cover increases. In part, this is reflected in the Big Woods Policy Areas.


55

Patch Size – Socially Significant Woodlands Recognizing the social importance of woodlands is contemplated by the natural heritage section of the PPS. Excluding small urban woodlands from protection for socio-economic factors can lead to weak ecological arguments being advanced for their protection and in their absence to more “people pressure” on ecologically functional patches that are maintained. There are few guidelines developed to meet this definition. Within urban areas 0.5 ha has been used or suggested in other jurisdictions. Following comments from stakeholders the lower threshold applied in the NHS was 4 ha. The patch size analysis indicates that the amount of woodland cover represented by patches less than 4 ha within urban areas is small, but this cumulative area number is obviously biased downwards, as the smaller the patch, the less likely it is to be mapped using ELC in the first place. These urban woodlands with an area of 4 ha to 10 ha have been designated a Level 3 feature, recognizing their significance both socially, to the overall forest cover within the watershed and limited ecological function, while permitting flexibility in the planning process. Whether or not these features are dominated by native species is of little consequence, as their value is not being assessed strictly on an ecological basis. Contribution to Watershed Cover Perhaps the most important factor affecting the integrity of the watershed from a woodland perspective is the total percentage of woodland cover. There is substantive evidence that the key cover number lies between 20 and 40%, and is probably closer to the higher end of this spread; the use of 30% as a minimum ecological threshold is becoming widely adopted. Woodland cover within the Lake Simcoe Watershed is already below this minimum threshold. The portions of each the four ecodistricts represented within the watershed also fall below the 30% threshold when plantations and cultural woodlands are deducted. With plantations and cultural woodlands included, only the Oak Ridges Moraine ecodistrict meets the threshold (note that woodland cover by entire ecodistrict was not considered, just the portion within the Lake Simcoe Watershed). However, seven of the 18 Lake Simcoe subwatershed groups (plus the islands) did meet the 30% threshold (Figure 7.5). In terms of area, these subwatersheds represent approximately 41% of the land base of the watershed. For many organisms, it is possible that this “group of seven” contains many of the productive woodlands and that the presence of sensitive species in other areas may in part be predicated by the high level of landscape woodland cover in those areas. Frequently, the approach applied in natural heritage planning exercises is that as forest cover increases, the recommended minimum patch size (for retention) also increases (e.g., OMNR 1999). In a real landscape and until a lower woodland cover level is reached, this effectively


56

results in a declining amount of woodland cover. It is likely that in similar terrains, patch size and total woodland cover are also interrelated metrics. The scientific evidence seems to suggest that this approach is not the best way to maintain functional ecosystems; if productive areas are those with the largest woodland patches and the highest amounts of cover, then protecting less of these woodlands will ensure that the landscape is managed to the lowest common denominator. To recognize the ecological contribution of smaller woodlands to the overall forest cover threshold, all woodlands 2 ha or larger (to 10 ha) in the entire watershed are recognized as supporting features (Level 4 - supporting). Although these features do not receive a “significant woodland” designation, it is intended to recognize the role that these small patches play in maintaining a healthy landscape. Note that it is not the intent of the NHS to include typical hedgerows as woodlands, even when they may have been designated by the ELC mapping as “Cultural Woodlands”. For the purposes of applying the woodland criteria only, hedgerows are excluded unless they are at least 40 m in width. Consistent with other approaches to the designation of significant woodlands, plantations have been included. Plantations contribute in an important way to overall forest cover, have many wildlife functions, social functions and provide other services such as the sequestration of carbon. Many plantations are in various stages of succession to forest cover. Plantations are difficult to address as many are also intended to act as nurseries for reforestation projects, and the definition of an “actively managed” plantation (in the context of exclusion from the NHS) is subjective and requires detailed site-level information. Nothing in the NHS is meant to detract from the ability of the owners of plantations to legally harvest their crop. Individual planning authorities may wish to address this issue in further detail based on their individual circumstances. The Big Woods The arguments provided above and the supporting literature speak strongly to source areas of high aggregations of woodland patches and/or the inclusion of patches which are more than 500 ha in size. The concept here is to recognize and elevate the importance of aggregations of woodland patches and perhaps to provide guidance for future replacement efforts. The analysis methods employed resulted in areas of known aggregations overlain with areas of contiguous patches more than >500 ha. Several Big Woods Policy Areas were determined relative to these forested areas and were selected to represent as many ecodistricts as possible and all four quarters of the lake so as to encompass latitudinal and longitudinal variation (Figure 7.6) (See section 7.5 for methods).


57

Proximity/Connectivity The interaction (“contagion effects”) of natural heritage patches and components is a constant theme in the literature. However the science is less than robust when it comes to determining a distance within which adjacent features should be considered part of the system, based only on this criterion. This is also consistent with the notion that amount of habitat is more important than configuration or connectivity. For the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS, many of the connectivity issues are being addressed through the designation of other components, such as Big Woods Policy Areas, habitat for fish, significant valleylands and linkages. This is a different challenge compared to studies that only address significant woodlands. Therefore, and in the absence of compelling science to the contrary, a conservative criterion has been selected that identifies the entirety of any woodland (≥0.5 ha) that overlaps or is located within 30 m of any other identified Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 NHS feature. A Level 3 designation will apply to the connected patch. Greenbelt Plan Woodlands Within the Greenbelt Plan area, the Greenbelt Plan definition of Significant Woodland takes precedence over the woodland criteria presented above. At the time of writing, the criteria for the determination of ‘significant woodland’ within the Greenbelt Plan were not available from the Province. Once the criteria are available woodlands that meet the Greenbelt criteria and that are within the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan will be identified as Level 1 features. Woodlands outside of the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan are subject to the requirements of the PPS and therefore shall be identified by the LSRCA NHS.


58


59


60

Oak Ridges Moraine Woodlands For that portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine within the Lake Simcoe Watershed jurisdiction, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) definition of a Significant Woodland is used, and replaces the woodland criteria presented above. The ORMCP criteria (OMNR 2004) for significant woodlands are as follows:

• 4 ha or larger in the Countryside or Settlement Areas;

• 0.5 ha or larger in the Natural Core or Natural linkage Areas. The following criterion is also used to designate Significant Woodlands on the ORM:

• When located wholly or partially within key natural heritage or hydrologically sensitive features or their vegetation protection zones (minimum 0.5 ha).

Unfortunately, these criteria cannot be applied for the purposes of this NHS, as the presence of the “key natural heritage features” or “hydrologically sensitive features” require detailed site-specific investigations. Similarly, the definition of woodland on the ORM includes almost all cultural thickets (CUT) and potentially some cultural meadows, a definition that is not consistent with the definition of a woodland polygon in this NHS (which strictly follows the ELC system for southern Ontario). Regardless of these challenges, to the extent possible ORM woodlands were mapped for the regulated ORM area. However, this ORM mapping is intended as a rough guide only, as the full suite of ORMCP criteria as specified in the draft technical paper demands detailed, site-specific field investigations to ensure conformity with the ORMCP. The Lake Simcoe Watershed significant woodlands criteria are summarized in Table 7.6. Figure 7.7 depicts a mapping example.


61

Table 7.6 Summary of Significant Woodland Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Feature Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Criterion Level Attribute

Name Woodland patches ≥ 25 ha Level 1 WO1 Woodland patches ≥ 10-25 ha Level 2 WO2

Patch Size: Ecology

Cultural Thicket (CUT) units that are contiguous to Level 1, 2 or 3 woodlands are to be considered part of the patch for NHS determination purposes (but not for patch size calculations)


WO4-A

Patch Size: Social All woodland patches ≥ 4.0 ha to < 10 ha in urban areas

Level 3 UWO3

Proximity / Connectivity

The entirety of any woodland ≥ 0.5 ha and < 10 ha that overlaps or is located within 30 m of any identified Level 1, 2 or 3 feature

Level 3 WO3

The Big Woods As defined in Figure 7.6, designated as Big Woods Policy Areas

BWO

Contribution to Watershed Woodland Cover

All woodlands ≥ 2.0 ha and < 10 ha Level 4 - supporting

WO4-B

Greenbelt Plan Woodlands consistent with the definition and criteria of the Greenbelt Plan, within the Greenbelt NHS

Level 1 NA

Oak Ridges Moraine

All woodlands that qualify as Key Natural Heritage Features under the ORMCP and its technical guidelines

Level 1 MWO1

Note: For definitions of woodland see Appendix 5.


62


63

7.9 Literature Cited Austen, M.J.W., C.M. Francis, M.S.W. Bradstreet and D.M. Burke. 2001.

Landscape context and fragmentation effects on forest birds in Southern Ontario. Condor 103:701-714.

Andren, H. 1994.

Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355-366.

Bayne, E.M. and K.A. Hobson. 2002.

Apparent survival of male ovenbirds in fragmented and forested boreal landscapes. Ecology 83: 1307-1316.

Bollinger, E.K. and P.V. Switzer. 2002.

Modelling the impact of edge avoidance on avian nest densities in habitat fragments. Ecological Applications 12: 1567-1575.

Bowles, J. 1999.

Forest fragments and plants. Southern Ontario Woodlands: The Conservation Challenge. Conference Casebook. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 164 pp.

Brooker, L and M. Brooker. 2002.

Dispersal and population dynamics of the blue-breasted fairy wren, Malurus pulcherrimus, in fragmented habitat in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Wildlife Research 29: 225-233.

Burke, D.M. and E. Nol. 2000.

Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of forest-breeding birds in Ontario. Ecological Applications 10: 1749-1761.

Chalfoun, A.D., M.J. Ratnaswamy and F.R. Thompson III. 2002.

Songbird nest predators in forest-pasture edge and forest interior in a fragmented landscape. Ecological Applications 12: 858-867.

City of Hamilton. 2005.

Discussion Paper #4a: Review of Significant Woodland Criteria Technical Discussion Paper. 16 pp.

Couchiching Conservancy. 2005.

The Oro Moraine Habitat Project. Available online: http://www.couchconservancy.ca/oromoraine.htm.


64

Delattre, P., P. Giraudoux, J. Baudry, P. Musard, M. Toussaint, D. Truchetet, P. Stahl et al. 1992.

Land use patterns and types of Common Vole (Microtus arvalis) population kinetics. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 39:153-168.

Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. In prep.

Area Sensitive Forest Birds in Urban Areas. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.



Fahrig, L. 1997.

Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:603-610.

Fahrig, L. 2002.

Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 12: 346-353.

Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 2004.

Suggested Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Don Mills, Ontario.

Freemark, K. 1988.

Landscape ecology of forest birds in the Northeast. pp. 7-12 in DeGraaf, R.M. and W.M. Healy (Eds.). United States Department of Agriculture, Northeast Forest Experimental Station, General Technical Report NE-140. 32 pp.

Friesen, L.E., M. D. Cadman and R. J. MacKay. 1998.

Nesting success of neotropical migrant songbirds in a highly fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13: 338-346.

Friesen, L. E., V. E. Wyatt and M. D. Cadman. 1999.

Pairing success of wood thrushes in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Wilson Bulletin 111: 279-281.

Gartner Lee Limited. 2002.

Final Report: Rationale and Methodology for Determining Significant Woodlands in the Regional Municipality of Halton. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton. 66 pp. plus appendices.


65

Golet, F.H., Y. Wang, J.D. Merrow and W.R. DeRagon. 2001. Relationship between habitat and landscape features and the avian community of red maple swamps in southern Rhode Island. Wilson Bulletin 113: 217-227.

Heidenreich, C. 1971.

Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians 1600 – 1650. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto.

Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen and J.E. Schwegman. 1993.

Habitat establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois. Natural Heritage Technical Publication #1, Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield, Illinois. 22 pp.

Hilty, J. A., W.Z. Lidicker Jr. and A.M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology. Island Press. Washington, D. C. Hylander, K., B.G. Jonsson and C. Nilsson. 2002.

Evaluating buffer strips along boreal streams using bryophytes as indicators. Ecological Applications 12: 797-806.

Larson, B.M., J. Riley, E. A. Snell and H. G. Godschalk. 1999.

The Woodland Heritage of Southern Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Don Mills, Ontario. 262 pp.

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

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.

Lichstein, J.W., T.R. Simons and K.E. Franzreb. 2002. Landscape effects on breeding songbird abundance in managed forests. Ecological Applications 12: 836-857.

Lindenmayer, D.B., R.B. Cunningham, C.F. Donnelly, H. Nix and B.D. Lindenmayer. 2002.

Effects of forest fragmentation on bird assemblages in a novel landscape context. Ecological Applications 72: 1-18.

Lower Trent Conservation. 2001. Natural Heritage Report. 41pp. plus appendices. Mancke, R.G. and T.A. Gavin. 2000.

Breeding bird density in woodlands: Effects of depth and buildings at the edges. Ecological Applications 10: 598-211.

Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.


66

Maryland Partners in Flight Management Committee. 1997. Habitat management guidelines for the benefit of landbirds in Maryland. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Annapolis field office. Available online: http://www.mdbirds.org/mdpif/lmg.html

McGarigal, K. and S.A. Cushman. 2002.

Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecological Applications 12: 335-345.


Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. Toronto. 37 pp.

Miller, J.R. and R.J. Hobbs. 2002.

Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16: 330-337. Nol, E., C.M. Francis and D.M. Burke. 2005.

Using distance from putative source woodlands to predict occurrence of forest birds in putative sinks. Conservation Biology 19: 836-844.

North–South Environmental Inc. 2005.

York Region Significant Woodlands Study Draft Final Report. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of York, Transportation and Works Department.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2004 (draft).

Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper 7. Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Unpaginated.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough. 127 pp.

Reid, R. 2002.

Evaluation of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario: A Review of the State of the Art. Prepared for the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Pp. 103-125. In Appendix E. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 2004. Suggested Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Don Mills, Ontario.

Riley, J. L. and P. Mohr. 1994.

The natural heritage of southern Ontario's settled landscapes. A review of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR-001. 78 pp.


67

Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson and B.A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103: 34 pp.

Rosenburg, K. V., R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S. E. Barker, J. D. Lowe, R. S. Hames and A. A. Dhondt. 1999.

A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and other forest-interior birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Rowsell, M. 2003.

Woodland Valuation System version 2.0. Eastern Ontario Natural Heritage Working Group. Available online: http://woodlandvaluation.eomf.on.ca/

Tate, D. P. 1998.

Assessment of the Biological Integrity of Forest Bird Communities: A draft methodology and field test in the Severn Sound Area of Concern. Severn Sound RAP Technical Report. Canadian Wildlife Service – Ontario Region.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2006.

Draft July 27 2006. Toronto and Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. 40 pp. plus maps.

Trzcinski, M. K., L. Fahrig and G. Merriam. 1999.

Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 586-593.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2003.

The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study. A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County. Final Draft, July 2003. 41 pp.

Villard, M.-A., M. K. Trzcinski and G. Merriam. 1999.

Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774-783.


68

8.0 Significant Valleylands 8.1 Valleylands in the Lake Simcoe Watershed A valleyland is a natural depression in the landscape that is often, but not always, associated with a river or stream. Valleylands act as the framework of a watershed and the landscape of the Lake Simcoe Watershed is a mosaic of valleylands and tablelands. Valleylands vary in size from tiny headwater features (which create much debate about the definition of a “valley”) to wide valleys containing substantial rivers and expansive wetlands that everyone would recognize as a valleyland. Most definitions of valleylands refer to one aspect or another of their distinctiveness in the landscape. Using the methods described in Appendix 3 of this report, significant valleylands were identified in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. As the landscape of the watershed ranges from the rolling topography of the Oak Ridges Moraine to the relatively flat landscape of Ramara Township, so too does the distinctiveness of valleylands. 8.2 Why are Valleylands Important? The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) refers to valleylands as the “backbone” of a watershed because of the many important ecological functions they perform, such as:

• channeling water and wildlife; • providing a connection between natural heritage features; • providing important migration corridors; • providing microclimates; • transporting sediment and nutrients; • acting as natural drainage areas; • maintaining water levels by acting as floodplains and seepage areas; and • maintaining water quality through riparian vegetation communities.

Valleylands are also often associated with cultural significance. Whether they were the location of aboriginal travel routes or settlements, or post-settlement development patterns, they often strongly influence human settlement patterns. Valleylands are generally not developed because of the inherent hazards associated with them. Natural hazards such as flooding or bank instability and erosion are common in valleys. This has left many highly urbanized or agricultural areas with valleylands as the only remaining natural areas. The fact that valleylands are often relatively undisturbed areas existing in relatively developed areas also renders them as an important feature in the overall natural heritage system.


69

8.3 The Identification of Significant Valleylands Despite the importance of valleylands to the mandate of Conservation Authorities, they have generally not been specifically addressed (except perhaps indirectly as part of connectivity pathways) when it comes to the development of natural heritage systems. In part, this is related to the complexity of identifying the limits of valleylands at a landscape scale. However, the advent of GIS tools has made it possible to use digital elevation models and other analytical approaches to identify valleylands at a regional scale using chosen design inputs (e.g., depth, length, height and slope). A precursor of determining valleylands has been the recent update of the LSRCA regulations. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) suggests several factors to apply to the evaluation of the relative importance of valleylands. These are:

• Prominence of a distinctive landform; • Degree of naturalness; • Ecological functions (e.g., habitat, linkage); • Restoration potential; and • Historical-cultural value.

There is at least one example in southern Ontario where the challenge of identifying significant valleylands was explicitly addressed. As part of the development of a NHS, the Raisin Region Conservation Authority (RRCA) identified and evaluated valleylands within its watershed (Land Ethic Group 2005). The RRCA mapped valleylands on the basis of its new (2006) Regulation and then applied a weighted scoring system based on the following criteria:

• Prominence as a distinctive landform; • Degree of naturalness; • Habitat value; • Degree of alteration; • Linkage function; • Restoration potential; and • Historical-cultural value.

The valleylands were then classified into one of three categories of importance: lower, medium and high. However, once this was complete, the RRCA and its steering committee decided that all valleylands are equally important and included all valleylands in its natural heritage system. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan’s draft technical paper entitled Identification of Key Natural Heritage Features on the Oak Ridges Moraine (OMNR 2004) chose a more prescriptive method for the identification of Oak Ridges Moraine Significant Valleylands. The following was included within the definition of a valley:

• All streams with well-defined valley morphology having an average width of 25 m or more; or


70

• All spillways and ravines with the presence of flowing or standing water, an average width of 25 m or more, a length of greater than 50 m, two valley walls with a slope of 15% or greater with a minimum height of 5 m, and an overall area of 0.5 ha; or

• Additional features identified by the approval authority that are consistent

with one or more of the functions described [in the draft ORM technical paper].

8.4 Policy Framework Provincial policy is directed at the identification and protection of significant valleylands. Section 2.1.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH 2005) states that:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield...unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

Pertinent definitions found within the PPS are as follows:

Valleyland …[a] natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year.

Significant …ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system.

The Lake Simcoe Watershed Development Policies 20061 (LSRCA 2006) define valleylands as:

A depressional feature associated with a river or stream whether or not it contains a watercourse.

The LSRCA Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act requires that a permit be issued by the Authority prior to any development within valleylands. The Authority mapping (i.e., the Regulation mapping) used to administer the regulation includes “apparent valleys” which are valley features that are determined using a digital elevation model, along with a 15 m additional area on either side of the feature.

1 LSRCA Watershed Development Policies (2006) were based on the definitions from the “Guide for

Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas August 2003”.


71

The Greenbelt Plan identifies significant valleylands as Key Natural Heritage Features. However, at the time of writing, the criteria for determining significant valleylands were not available from the Province. Once the criteria are available, they and the definitions and policies of the Greenbelt Plan shall apply. 8.5 Criteria The LSRCA regulates all valleylands (significant or otherwise) within its jurisdiction and these valleylands have been identified independently of this NHS definition. The Authority’s regulatory mapping includes all “apparent” valleylands and while a useful starting point, does not provide sufficient resolution to separate out a subset of “significant valleylands” specifically for the purpose of the development of the NHS. For example, many shallow, “apparent” valley features extend into areas of built urban form, or extend across farm fields as actively ploughed lands. To provide further resolution, ArcGIS software (Appendix 3) was used with a variety of shapefiles to identify valleylands in two areas: off the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and on the Oak Ridges Moraine, which met the following criteria: Off the Oak Ridges Moraine

Off the ORM, significant valleylands are defined in the NHS as follows:

• All physical features with an average width of 25 m or more, a length of greater than 50 m, two valley walls with a slope of 8% or greater with a minimum height of 5 m.

These valleys were identified at a large scale (1:60,000) using the “hillshade” shapefile, a slope classification file and a point layer of stable top of slope. In addition, the “slope erosion” layer, constructed for the LSRCA’s Regulation, was also used to verify the location of the slope. As this layer was based on a much broader set of criteria, the valleylands were most often situated within the slope erosion polygons. The slope criterion (8%) was also run at various alternate levels (starting at the ORM’s 15%) but was eventually reduced to 8% after extensive testing of degrees of slope. This percentage was found to delineate the more prominent valleys that could reasonably be expected to be of “significance” at the watershed scale. Greater slopes resulted in very few valleylands being delineated and lesser slopes resulted in many relatively unobtrusive valleys being identified as significant. The valleylands were then digitized into polygons to permit greater manipulation and to allow confirmation that they met the width and length criteria.


72

On the Oak Ridges Moraine Within the ORM regulated portion of the Lake Simcoe Watershed, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) definition of a Significant Valleyland is used. A significant valleyland on the ORM is as follows:

• All physical features with an average width of 25 m or more, a length of greater than 50 m, two valley walls with a slope of 15% or greater with a minimum height of 5 m.

The ORM valleylands were digitized using the same methodology as those off the Moraine. However the greater slope criteria of the Moraine created smaller, tighter valleylands, necessitating the digitizing to be done at a much smaller scale (1:5,000). Once the polygons were produced, there was some degree of subjectivity, such as where the valley began and ended. Various additional technical GIS tools were used to assist in some of the more difficult areas. The guidelines for the identification of “significant valleylands” on the ORM were largely implemented as recommended in the draft ORMCP technical paper (OMNR 2004). To the extent possible these features were mapped for the regulated ORM area. However, this ORM mapping is intended as a guide only, as the full suite of ORMCP criteria requires detailed, site-specific field investigations to ensure conformity with the ORMCP. Summary of Criteria Significant valleylands on the Oak Ridges Moraine were included as Level 1 features. Significant valleylands in the rest of the watershed (not ORM) were included as Level 2 features. Undoubtedly there are many valleys within the watershed that have not been identified as “significant valleylands”, as they did not meet the above criteria. Some of these valleys may be captured within the NHS as other natural heritage components, such as linkages, significant wetlands or habitat for fish. The Lake Simcoe Watershed significant valleylands criteria are summarized in Table 8.1. Figure 8.1 illustrates an example.


73

Table 8.1 Summary of Significant Valleylands Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Feature Criterion Details Lake Simcoe

Watershed NHS Level Attribute

Name

Width 25 m

Length 50 m

Slope 8%

Significant Valleyland off

the Oak Ridges

Moraine Height 5 m

Valleylands that meet these criteria will be included in

the NHS

Level 2 SVL2

Width 25 m

Length 50 m

Slope 15%

Height 5 m

Significant Valleyland on

the Oak Ridges

Moraine

Area ≥ 0.5 ha

Valleylands that meet these criteria will be included in

the NHS

Level 1 MVL1

The LSRCA regulates all valleylands (significant or otherwise) within its jurisdiction and these valleylands are identified independently of this NHS definition. 8.6 Literature Cited Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2006.

Watershed Development Policies. Resolution No. BOD-06-72. 21 pp plus appendices. Land Ethic Group. 2005.

Natural Heritage Strategy for the Raisin Region Conservation Authority. 39 pp. plus maps.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. Toronto. 37 pp.


Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern Manual. 3rd Edition. OMNR #502254-1.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2004 (draft). Identification of Key Natural Heritage Features on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Technical Paper-1.


74


75

9.0 Significant Wildlife Habitat 9.1 Background: What is Significant Wildlife Habitat? In the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS) (MMAH 2005), wildlife habitat is identified as:

areas where plants, animals and other organisms live and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their population. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species.

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is an area that is considered to be an important habitat of a particular species or group of species. Examples of SWH include: hibernation grounds, waterfowl nesting habitats, amphibian breeding woodland ponds, seeps and springs and unique habitats (such as bat hibernacula). The importance of SWH is based on the premise that some habitat types are no longer plentiful and it also encompasses areas where species concentrate to breed or to hibernate, as well as unique habitat. The scale of importance can vary from national (e.g., a migratory stopover/concentration area for waterfowl) to local (e.g., an important amphibian breeding pond) (OMNR 2000). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999), which is currently under review, guides the identification of natural heritage features. Further guidance is also provided in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) (OMNR 2000). This document suggests approaches for defining, identifying and evaluating SWH features. The evaluation of SWH is challenging, as not all areas that contain a “suggested” feature will be significant. The technical guide suggests over 30 sub-criteria in order to identify significant habitats (e.g., winter deer yards, bat hibernacula, mineral licks). Almost all of these sub-criteria are relative, meaning that some scale of relative importance needs to be applied. This may render one example significant, while excluding another. For example, there are many amphibian breeding ponds found in woodlands, but not all will be identified as “significant”. Only the more important breeding ponds within any given jurisdiction (e.g., municipality) are to be considered as significant. As this is a relative assessment, extensive fieldwork to identify all or most of the breeding ponds would be required in order to decide which ponds might qualify as “significant”. In addition to the requirement for detailed field investigations, there is some level of subjectivity involved, which further contributes to the difficulty of SWH evaluation. 9.2 Why is Wildlife Habitat Important? The driving force for the designation of SWH is the protection of biodiversity. The provision of habitat is one of the main functions of natural heritage features (OMNR 1999). There are five principal types of SWH suggested. These are:


76

• Seasonal concentration areas; • Rare vegetation communities; • Specialized habitats for wildlife; • Habitats of species of conservation concern; and • Wildlife movement corridors.

Seasonal concentrations of animals Areas of seasonal concentrations of animals provide important cover and protection from inclement weather conditions and predators (OMNR 2000). They may also be areas where there is an abundance of resources, such as food or breeding sites. These habitats directly influence the persistence of species. Some examples include: winter deer yards, waterfowl stopover and staging areas, and reptile hibernacula. Rare vegetation communities Rare vegetation communities often provide habitat for rare species that in turn depend on these habitats for survival (OMNR 2000). If rare vegetation communities are lost, the number of rare species will increase and therefore further reduce biodiversity. Some examples of rare vegetation communities in southern Ontario are tallgrass prairies, fens, bogs, and alvars. Specialized habitats for wildlife Specialized habitats for wildlife are considered to be those that serve specialized species. Some species have particular requirements in order to ensure their survival. This is a rather poorly defined category, but could, for example, include seepage areas that support certain flora and fauna. These specialized habitats are often of seasonal use. Habitats of species of conservation concern This category includes species that may be locally rare or in decline, but that have not reached the level of rarity that is normally associated with Endangered or Threatened designations. It is suggested that the highest priority for protection be provided to habitats of the most rare species (on a scale of global through to local municipality); and that habitats that support large populations of a species of concern should be considered significant. Wildlife movement corridors Movement corridors are included in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) as especially important features for those species that require a variety of habitats to survive. Movement corridors allow animals to travel across the landscape with cover that


77

protects them from predators and provides shelter from harsh weather conditions (OMNR 2000). However, the provision of connectivity of natural features, natural heritage systems, and the linkages between and among them is explicitly addressed in the PPS in Section 2.1.2 and will be treated in its own category (“Linkage”) in the Lake Simcoe NHS. 9.3 Use of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Designation Rarely has SWH been explicitly determined by planning authorities or others preparing Natural Heritage Systems. This is generally due to a lack of available data. The Raisin Region Conservation Authority and the Eastern Ontario Natural Heritage Working Group have both addressed SWH but concluded that the available data were inadequate (Land Ethic Group 2005; Stow and Hamill 2003). The Lower Trent Conservation Authority has addressed SWH more closely than most others, and included it within its proposed NHS system (Lower Trent Conservation 2001). However, the inadequacy of available data is highlighted and the SWH component is incomplete. Natural heritage systems that do not specifically identify the designated components that collectively comprise the system (e.g., the provincial Greenbelt) imply that SWH is included within the system. However, without the designation of the specific components of the system, it is unclear as to which features, if any, are included specifically as SWH, as opposed to other components. However, many SWH elements are inevitably included in other components. For example, most important woodland breeding ponds will be captured within designated Significant Woodlands. Ideally a planning authority or agency would first compile detailed field data gathered within its jurisdiction. The planning authority would then determine the criteria that would be applied using the suggestions of MNR’s Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines as a guide. Many of the suggested criteria do not represent clearly defined thresholds (e.g., for colonial waterbirds: “permanence of the site” “species representation in the planning area” or “least disturbed sites”). Therefore this process is probably best informed by the results of the detailed field data gathering across the jurisdiction. This example also demonstrates the difficulty of applying the SWH designation at the site level (e.g., by a proponent or review agency). It is often not possible to determine whether or not a particular feature on an individual property might represent, for example “a least disturbed site” or a site with “the highest plant species diversity” in the planning area, as comparative data are frequently lacking or restricted. Where, during site-specific investigations a feature or function is located that clearly meets the SWH test as determined by a particular planning authority, it will be addressed according to the direction within the Official Plan. It is unlikely that data of the required extent and quality are going to be forthcoming for the Lake Simcoe Watershed in the near future for either LSRCA or for planning authorities to undertake this comparative assessment as a jurisdictional scale.


78

9.4 Policy Framework Provincial Policy Statement Significant Wildlife Habitat is addressed by Section 2.1.4 of the PPS, which specifies that:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wildlife habitat unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

The PPS defines wildlife habitat as significant where it is:

ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or Natural Heritage System.

Generally, there are no municipal Official Plans that have designated significant wildlife habitat, although some specific elements may have been addressed. Significant Wildlife Habitat in the Greenbelt Plan Area The Greenbelt Plan identifies SWH as a Key Natural Heritage Feature. However, at the time of writing, the criteria for the identification of SWH within the Greenbelt Plan area have not been made available by the Province. Once the criteria are available, they and the definitions and policies of the Greenbelt Plan shall apply. Significant Wildlife Habitat on the Oak Ridges Moraine On the ORM, SWH is identified by the MNR (OMNR 2004). The identification procedure is site-specific and follows the suggested guidelines of the draft Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) includes SWH as a Key Natural Heritage Feature. However, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Paper (OMNR February 2004) notes that “…a majority of SWH on the ORM can be found either wholly or partially within the boundaries of other Key Natural Heritage Features or Hydrologically Sensitive Features”. The technical paper states that municipalities are not responsible for the identification of SWH, but rather SWH will be identified in response to site-specific planning and is the responsibility of the proponent. Application of the MNR criteria for mapping purposes in the NHS would require detailed site-specific investigations.


79

9.5 Criteria

In the Lake Simcoe Watershed sufficient data to designate SWH on a watershed-wide basis are restricted to four subcomponents based on known information. These are:

• Winter Deer Yards; • Colonial Waterbird Nesting Sites; • Rare Ecological Land Classification (ELC) communities (e.g., tallgrass prairies,

alvars, fens, and bogs); and • Grassland Communities.

For all other suggested features (e.g., bat hibernacula), extensive and intensive fieldwork would be required over a large watershed (~250,000 ha), that would likely take many years to complete. If and when data for analysis become available at the landscape scale then additional criteria can be added to the SWH component. Winter Deer Yards Deer yard mapping is typically undertaken by the MNR. Because White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) do not move well in deep snow, they sometimes remain in sheltered areas during the winter, or as snow begins to accumulate. Yards typically consist of a core area of coniferous forest (over 60% canopy cover), surrounded by mixed or deciduous forest. Yards can persist over many years and the use of specific yards is likely learned by successive generations of deer. The core area is considered by MNR to represent SWH. The understory of the deer yard areas usually consists of small trees, especially Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), which serve as winter food. If snowfall is heavy, the deer stay within the core of the yard. Deer tend to use the same yards year after year and are not highly adaptable in moving to a new yard. These yards can be critical to the survival of White-tailed Deer in some parts of the Province (OMNR 2000). The core deer yard (Stratum 1) mapping provided by the MNR (NRVIS mapping 1999) was used to designate this component of SWH as a Level 2 feature. Colonial Waterbird Nesting Sites Colonially-nesting waterbirds concentrate in relatively small areas for nesting purposes. These species include cormorants, herons, terns and gulls. Individual colonies may support the entire breeding population for a given species across a relatively large area. Because colonial waterbirds typically nest in relatively confined areas, they can be particularly susceptible to disturbance, disease or habitat destruction. The Ontario Heronry Inventory database has not been updated for 15 years (Jon McCracken, Bird Studies Canada, pers. comm., 2006); it also appears that the database of historical information regarding heronries may not be available. Bird Studies Canada kindly provided


80

information from the Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario database, which is based on data which were gathered by volunteers from 2001 to 2005 inclusive. The locations of colonies, as taken from this database, were mapped and included within the designated SWH as Level 2 features. The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) also gathers information on colonial nesting birds for the Great Lakes and some additional inland locations. At the time of writing these data were also unavailable. If these data become available, the locations of the colonies should be mapped and included within the designated SWH as a Level 2 feature. Rare Vegetation Communities Based on the southern Ontario ELC mapping program, rare vegetation communities identified within the Lake Simcoe Watershed include: alvars, tallgrass prairies, fens and bogs. These communities are designed SWH as Level 2 features. Alvars are provincially vulnerable communities (as ranked by the NHIC) that are characterized by naturally open areas of thin soil over essentially flat limestone or marble rock with trees absent or at least not forming a continuous canopy (LSEMS 2003). Approximately 27 ha of alvars have been identified in the Lake Simcoe Watershed, all of which are situated on the Carden Plain in the northeast portion of the watershed. Tallgrass prairies are open (or semi-open) plains covered in tall grass, with little to no tree cover. They are characterized by droughty soil conditions and ground fires. These ecosystems support a high concentration of rare plants and associated insects. Fifteen percent of the watershed’s rare plant species are found in tallgrass prairies. Tallgrass prairies once covered sandy areas in the southwest portion of Lake Simcoe at Holland Landing, DeGrassi Point and Fox Island. These areas have experienced a long history of occupation by First Nations. It is probable that the First Nations encouraged the ground fires that are essential for the maintenance of the prairies. These prairies have become significantly diminished in size due to natural woody succession, which was once kept in check by the fires (LSEMS 2003). However, in limited areas some maintenance is being undertaken by conservation groups such as Tallgrass Ontario. Fens are primarily characterized by specific kinds of plants that are only found in these wetland habitats (See Section 6.2). In the Lake Simcoe Watershed, almost all known fens are peat-based and comprise a total of approximately 450 ha. Bogs are unusual in that all of their nutrients are delivered by rainfall (a condition referred to as “ombrotrophic”); consequently they are nutrient poor and the pH is often very acidic (e.g., 3.9 – 4.2), further reducing the availability of nutrients to plants. Only 25 ha of this rare wetland type have been identified within the Lake Simcoe Watershed (See Section 6.2). Grassland Communities Grassland communities (which in this case refers to upland ELC communities of Cultural Meadows [CUM] and Cultural Thickets [CUT]) in the Lake Simcoe Watershed are generally


81

dominated by non-native cool season grasses, native and non-native forbs and a variety of native and non-native shrubs. Shrub cover may vary from 0 to 100%. Grasslands generally do not include pasture lands, which, to the extent possible, are mapped separately within the Lake Simcoe Watershed as an agricultural use (i.e., they are actively grazed by livestock). Grassland communities are generally not identified as parts of woodlands or wetlands and they seldom feature as major components of Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) or other protected areas. However, despite the fact that grasslands are often dominated by non-native vegetation species, many native flora and fauna species use them. Indeed, many of these species (e.g., Bobolink [Dolichonyx oryzivorus] and Eastern Meadowlark [Sturnella magna]) are found in no other habitat types and are therefore considered habitat specialists. Presumably, in pre-settlement times these species were confined to habitats such as burns, previously flooded areas, prairie habitats and then as today human-altered environments. Today, some of these species attempt to use active agricultural lands, or at least their edges. However, expansive areas of “less disturbed” grassland communities are critically important for the productivity of a wide-variety of species, many of which are in decline not only within southern Ontario but across North America. Some authorities consider that the decline of grassland birds in North America has been more pronounced than any other group of birds (McCracken 2005). A Natural Heritage System which seeks to maintain biodiversity should address this community type, even if its long-term maintenance requires human intervention (e.g., fire management, cutting, etc.). Some of the rarest breeding birds in the province occupy grasslands. This includes species such as Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) and Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), both of which are rapidly declining and have almost become extirpated from Ontario. Of the 14 Endangered bird species that breed in Ontario, five use this type of habitat. The most recent addition to the “Threatened” category is also a specialist of younger “old-field” – the declining Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). Across the province many species typical of these habitats have shown declines. These include species such as Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Horned Lark (Alpestris eremophila), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), Eastern Meadowlark, Bobolink and Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). Some species that presently are abundant may also be in decline (e.g., Savannah Sparrow [Passerculus sandwichensis]). A similar picture could probably be described for other grassland flora and fauna, such as many snake species, Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), mammals (e.g., weasels) and native flora with prairie affinities. Although there appears to be general agreement on the need for including these habitats in Natural Heritage Systems, very few attempts have been made to explicitly include them. In most cases it appears that grasslands are generally included within “corridors” or “linkages”. Environment Canada (2004) did not address grassland habitats in its publication entitled How Much Habitat is Enough? However, on the Oak Ridges Moraine the MNR (2004) identified grasslands greater than 10 ha as “Specialized Habitat” which is significant for guilds or communities of wildlife species. The thresholds established by the MNR (i.e., numbers of pairs of certain species, such as 15 pairs of thrashers) are rather high compared to typical distributions of breeding birds found in remaining grasslands and are also provided without reference to the


82

extent of a grassland patch. In addition, areas that meet the criteria are only to be assessed as “Candidate SWH” when a change in land use is proposed. There are many smaller patches of grassland habitat which some authors argue may still be important contributing habitats for grassland species (Davis 2004; Henningsen and Best 2005). The MNR (2004) provides information indicating that grassland areas 10 ha or larger provide habitat for many of the above species, with 25 ha required for Upland Sandpiper and 50 ha for Bobolink. This resulted in the recommended 10 ha threshold for the Oak Ridges Moraine, described above. McCracken (2005) reviewed the literature and concluded that the optimal size of a grassland patch cannot be determined, but that patches less than 10 ha were unlikely to be of great benefit. Brown Thrasher was found to be rare in habitat patches less than 4 ha (Forman et al. 1976 cited in Cavitt and Haas 2000). For the Bobolink, larger fields have higher densities than small fields; fields ≥ 30 ha were found to support more than twice the number of males (per 100 m of transect) than fields ≤ 10 ha (Bollinger and Gavin 1992). In Maine, the abundance of Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) was positively correlated with increasing area; the species reached 50% incidence at 20 ha in grassland barrens (Vickery et al. 1994). Grasshopper Sparrows are also more likely to occupy large tracts of habitat than small fragments (Herkert 1994; Vickery et al. 1994). Minimum area requirements in Maine were about 100 ha (Vickery et al. 1994), but in Illinois were about 30 ha (Herkert 1994). The Endangered Henslow’s Sparrow, appears to prefer tallgrass fields also of at least 30 ha. The newly designated “Threatened” Golden-winged Warbler is usually found in early successional habitat and territories are most often located in habitat patches that are 10 ha to 50 ha (Confer and Knapp 1981). One of the challenges of incorporating grasslands into the NHS is identifying those areas that are “less disturbed”. For example, it is not the intent of this NHS to capture lands that are manicured grassland, hydro-seed grasslands, lawns, high use pasture lands, or intensive or rotational fallow farmland. The highest quality grasslands for wildlife, and therefore the targets of the NHS, are:

1. marginal farmlands (and therefore usually only lightly grazed, if at all); 2. grassland over shallow bedrock; and 3. very sandy soils that do not support more intensive land uses.

However, the ELC system has a poorly developed cultural grassland/thicket section that does not permit differentiation among all of these grasslands types which are simply all lumped together as cultural meadow or cultural thicket. The criteria in this section are meant to apply to the above three categories and areas that are mapped that do not reflect one or more of these characteristics are not intended to be part of the NHS. Overall, while smaller patches of grassland habitat may have an increasing role to play in the conservation of grassland birds, only substantive habitat patches consisting of 15 ha of meadow or 15 ha of thicket (as defined through LSRCA’s ELC mapping; see Appendix 1) will be


83

included within the NHS as SWH. For contiguous shrub and meadow patches the threshold is 20 ha. Smaller patches of grassland that are ≥10 ha, but surrounded by other NHS components, will also be included in the system. These grassland designations will be Level 4 - supporting NHS components. Cultural thickets which are contiguous with woodlands or wetlands that are part of this NHS will be included as Level 4 – supporting features (as they are in Woodlands, see Section 7.8). Summary of Criteria

As with other components, SWH may well overlap with one or more other designated components. For example, a SWH area might also be a significant woodland. Table 9.1 presents a summary of the criteria used to define SWH in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Figure 9.1 depicts a mapping example. Table 9.1 Summary Criteria for the Identification of SWH in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Feature

Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Criterion Level Attribute Name

Rare Vegetation Communities (i.e., prairie, alvar, fen and bog)

All ELC communities of these types Level 2 WH2-A

Core Winter Deer Yards Core yard areas (Stratum 1) as designated by MNR

Level 2 WH2-B

Colonial Waterbird Nesting Sites

Colony sites as mapped by BSC and CWS Level 2 WH2-C

Cultural Thicket (CUT) ELC communities ≥ 15 ha


WH4-A

Cultural Meadow (CUM) ELC communities ≥ 15 ha

Level 4 –supporting

WH4-B

Contiguous CUT/CUM communities ≥ 20 ha Level 4 –supporting

WH4-C

CUT or CUM and contiguous CUT/CUM communities ≥ 10 ha, when surrounded by other NHS features


WH4-D

Grassland Communities

CUT communities that are contiguous with woodland or wetland patches that qualify as Level 1, 2 or 3 NHS features


WH4-E

Greenbelt Plan SWH criteria will be provided within the Greenbelt Plan area in the future by the Province

N/A

Oak Ridges Moraine Features on the ORM were identified using same criteria as above. However determination of SWH must at least be consistent with the requirements of the draft ORMCP Technical Paper

N/A


84


85

9.6 Literature Cited Cavitt, J. F., and C. A. Haas. 2000.

Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum). In The Birds of North America, No. 557 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Bollinger, E.K. and T. A. Gavin. 1992.

Eastern Bobolink populations: ecology and conservation in an agricultural landscape. Pp. 497–506 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston, eds.). Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C

Confer, J. L. and K. Knapp. 1981.

Golden-winged Warblers and Blue-winged Warblers: the relative success of a habitat specialist and a generalist. Auk 98:108 – 114.

Davis, S. K. 2004.

Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121: 1130 – 1145.

Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Services. 2004.


Forman, R.T.T., A. E. Galli and C. F. Leck. 1976.

Forest size and avian diversity in New Jersey woodlands with some land use implications. Oecologia 26: 1–8.

Herkert, J.R. 1994.

Breeding bird communities of midwestern prairie fragments: the effects of prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural Areas Journal 14: 128–135.

Henningsen, J. C. and L. B. Best. 2005.

Grassland bird use of riparian filter strips in southeast Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 198 – 210.

Jones, S. L., and J. E. Cornely. 2002.

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). In The Birds of North America, No. 624 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy. 2003.

State of the Lake Simcoe Watershed.


86

Land Ethic Group. 2005.

Natural Heritage Strategy for the Raisin Region Conservation Authority. 39 pp. plus maps.

Lower Trent Conservation. 2001. Natural Heritage Report. 41 pp. plus appendices. McCracken, J. D. 2005.

Where the Bobolinks roam: the light of North America’s grassland birds. Tropical Conservancy Biodiversity 6: 20 – 29.

McCracken, J. D. 2006. Personal communication, October 2006. Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowan, Ontario.






Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 151 pp.


Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Paper for the Oak Ridges Moraine. MNR Technical Paper-2 (Draft).

Stow, N. and S. Hamill. 2003. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Report. Eastern Ontario Natural Heritage Working Group. 10 pp.

Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, Jr. and S. M. Melvin. 1994.

Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds of Maine. Conservation Biology 8: 1087–1097.


87

10.0 Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) 10.1 Background A wide variety of natural landscapes rich in natural heritage features are found in southern Ontario. To encourage the protection of these features and landscapes, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has led the provincial Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) program. The ANSI program began in 1983 with regulation through the Ontario Heritage Act to meet the objective of ultimately achieving Provincial Park protection status for these biologically or geologically significant areas (OMNR 1988). The evolution of this provincial program led to the protection of ANSIs under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) as natural heritage features. There are two types of ANSIs: life science and earth science. Life science ANSIs are based on biological and ecological characteristics. Earth science ANSIs are based on geological landform characteristics. The selection criteria used by the MNR to define ANSIs are:

1. Representation; 2. Diversity; 3. Condition; 4. Ecological function; and 5. Special features.

ANSIs can be designated within one of two levels of significance: regional and provincial. These levels are not based on jurisdictional boundaries but rather are based on ecodistricts. Provincial significance relates to the best representation of a particular feature within an ecodistrict, while regional significance is good representation within the ecodistrict, but not the best. Only provincially significant ANSIs are specifically addressed by the PPS 2005 and they are identified by the MNR using procedures established by the Province. Presently, there are more than 500 provincially significant ANSIs in Ontario (OMNR 1999). 10.2 Why are ANSIs Important? ANSIs are important because they are chosen to represent the full range of biological (life science) and geological (earth science) resources of a particular area. This means that a provincially significant life science ANSI is especially important for representing Ontario’s natural diversity. Regional ANSIs were not selected to be provincially significant but are still significant within the ecodistrict. Protecting the range of biological resources of an area will help maintain a high diversity of habitat types, which in turn will aid the maintenance of high biodiversity.


88

With respect to the Natural Heritage System (NHS), only life science ANSIs will be included. Earth science ANSIs are omitted as they are based on geological criteria and are of tangential importance to the development of a Natural Heritage System.

Photograph 10.1 A seared pine in the provincially significant life science ANSI - DeGrassi Point Tallgrass Prairie Relict.

Candidate ANSIs are sites that have been selected by MNR to become official ANSIs but for which the review process has not yet been completed by MNR. According to the MNR, at the time of writing, there are eight candidate (i.e., not yet designated) provincially significant life science ANSIs and three candidate regionally significant life science ANSIs within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Candidate ANSIs will be added to the NHS for the Lake Simcoe Watershed if and when they are designated as confirmed ANSIs by the MNR. 10.3 Life Science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed The Lake Simcoe Watershed has seven provincially significant life science ANSIs, comprising a total of just over 2,000 ha (Table 10.1). This represents a very small proportion of the watershed (approximately 0.6%).


89

Table 10.1 Provincially Significant Life Science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

ANSI

Area (ha)

Primary Features

Allandale Lake Algonquin Bluffs

3.7 Oak-maple and hemlock-beech forest, 70 m above old Algonquin lake plain, best bluff complex in Site District 6-8

DeGrassi Point Prairie Relict

31 Relict prairie-parkland complex on a sandy, till slope reworked by Lake Algonquin. This oak-pine savanna has some 27 species with prairie affinities (i.e., Sorgastrum nutans, Andropogon scoparius, Desmodium canadense)

Derryville Bog 237 Situated on the Peterborough Drumlin field, this bog is the largest, most diverse and least disturbed in Ecodistrict 6-8, and may be one of the only in the watershed that meets the strictest definition of a true bog

Duclos Point Park Reserve & Adjacent Lands

388 Illustrates a variety of different community types associated with wetland habitat. Contains a lakefront, sandbar and associated backshore marsh complex, unique to Lake Simcoe

Holland Landing Prairie

32 The prairie at Holland Landing is dominated by two prairie grasses, the Big and Little Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii and A. scoparius). This is the largest and most extensive prairie remnant in the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region

Holland Marsh 1,309 Extensive area and a historical remnant of one of the largest marshes in southern Ontario. Two regionally significant features: 1) breeding and migratory waterfowl habitat and 2) contains a shrub fen, an uncommon vegetation type

Rugby West 106 Rugby West offers the best example of relatively undisturbed kame hills with upland semi-mature woods in Ecodistrict 6-6

Total area

2,106.7

Source: OMNR (2005). There are seven regionally significant life science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed (Table 10.2). These regional ANSIs occupy a total area of 6,870 ha. Excluding the lake, this represents 2.62% of the watershed.


90

Table 10.2 Regionally Significant Life Science ANSIs in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

ANSI

Area (ha)

Primary Features

Beaverton River Swamp

1,712 River-swamp complex along Beaverton River valley with various swamp communities

Martin Farm South 120 Gentle to moderate rolling kame hills with immature to semi-mature sugar maple-ash-beech with sugar maple forest

McGinnis Point 281 Shoreline swamp on north shore of Lake Simcoe in Barnstable Bay with two creek outlets.

Pefferlaw Brook Swamp

1,177 River swamp and lake complex along a portion of the Pefferlaw Brook and Mud Lake

Pottageville Swamp North

214 This section of the swamp lies on glaciolacustrine deposits overlain by organics

Wilfred Bog 49 Mature, rich kettle-hole sphagnum-dominated community. Now mostly extracted for peat.

Zephyr Creek Swamp 3,317 River swamp complex Total area

6,870

Source: OMNR (2005).

10.4 Policy Framework The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) addresses provincially significant ANSIs in Section 2.1, Natural Heritage. Section 2.1.4 of the PPS (MMAH 2005) states that:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant areas of natural and scientific interest unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological function.

This policy includes both provincially significant life science and earth science ANSIs. The PPS defines Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) as:

…areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education.

Municipal official plans generally incorporate the provincially significant ANSIs within their environmental protection policies. Occasionally, regionally significant ANSIs are also afforded some policy protection.


91

10.5 Criteria As with other components, ANSIs may well reside within more than one NHS criterion (for example, the Derryville Bog ANSI is also designated a Provincially Significant Wetland). The criteria for ANSIs have been based primarily on the existing provincial policy framework but have extended beyond the PPS to include regionally significant ANSIs. This is discussed further below. Provincially Significant Life Science ANSIs All confirmed provincially significant ANSIs will be included in the NHS as a Level 2 Natural Heritage System component. Regionally Significant Life Science ANSIs Regionally significant ANSIs will be included in the NHS as Level 3 Natural Heritage System components. Candidate Life Science ANSIs If and when a candidate life science ANSI is evaluated to a provincially or regionally significant status the intention is that it be added to the NHS. The local MNR District Office can be consulted for the latest information on the status of ANSIs. The Lake Simcoe Watershed ANSI criteria are summarized in Table 10.3. Figure 10.1 depicts a mapping example.

Table 10.3 Summary of ANSI Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Feature Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Criterion Level Attribute

Name Provincially Significant ANSIs

All confirmed provincially significant ANSIs

Level 2 A2-P

Regionally Significant ANSIs

All confirmed regionally significant ANSIs Level 3 A3-R


92


93

10.6 Literature Cited Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Toronto. 37 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1988. Implementation Strategy: Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 19 pp.




Natural Heritage Information Center. Natural Areas Report by Area List. Available online: http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/areas/areaslist.cfm.


94

11.0 Habitat for Fish 11.1 Background: What is Habitat for Fish? Many wet areas provide habitat for fish such as lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands, intermittent streams and at certain times of the year seasonally flooded areas (OMNR 1999). The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (MMAH 2005) defines fish habitat as:

…spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life process.

This broad definition, which is also consistent with the federal Fisheries Act (FA), includes many organisms (i.e., plants, insects, larvae, mollusks, arthropods and others) as part of the food supply (LSEMS 2003). Fish habitat provides food and cover and conditions for successful reproduction. Fish habitat also includes most of the tributaries within a watershed, as they are directly or indirectly related to the life-cycle of a fish. Included are in-water structures, such as logs and stumps, pools and riffle areas, riparian and aquatic vegetation, groundwater recharge/discharge areas and areas of permanent, seasonal and ephemeral flow. Fish habitat includes the watercourses that act as direct habitat and also as corridors allowing fish to move from one area to another. Different fish species have different habitat requirements which can vary with the life-stage, season and even the time of day (OMNR 1999). The intent of the Natural Heritage System (NHS) is not to reflect or employ the legal definition of “fish habitat” as defined by the FA. Any activity that may affect fish habitat must satisfy the regulatory requirements of LSRCA and the federal Fisheries Act, whether or not the NHS identifies the presence of habitat for fish. The Natural Heritage System generally seeks to include those areas where direct fish habitat is found, either permanently or seasonally. To avoid confusion with the requirements of the Fisheries Act, the NHS for the Lake Simcoe Watershed will use the terminology “Habitat for Fish”. 11.2 The Importance of Habitat for Fish As stated in Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999), habitat for fish is important because:

Fish and their habitats are a vital component of natural ecosystems. Fish habitat commonly occurs in many of the other natural heritage areas (e.g., wetlands, valleylands, woodlands, ANSIs). It therefore contributes to the value of the other areas and is influenced by the protection they are provided through the planning process. Fish also provide important social and economic benefits. For example,


95

angling is an important leisure activity that contributes substantially to the tourism industry. Fish depend on clean water, ground water discharge areas and other elements of healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Habitat for fish is critical in maintaining fish populations and biodiversity. Nearly one-half of the described vertebrate species of the world are “bony” fishes (Allan and Flecker 1993). Fish are biologically diverse and exhibit many particular characteristics that place them at high value. For instance, as organisms that are immersed in their surrounding environment, fish are exposed to every contaminant that is carried in the water. Fish are indicators of environmental change. If the health of aquatic ecosystems declines, fish populations can soon suffer. Like the “miner’s canary”, fish populations provide early warning signals of environmental degradation. Conversely, improvements in fisheries may indicate progress with rehabilitation and inspire society to continue to manage for healthy aquatic ecosystems (OMNR 2003). Fish are important economically, supporting the sport fishing and tourist industries, as well as the commercial fishery. Healthy fish communities are a source of pleasure to the many people who watch fish (OMNR 2003). Fish can also sustain a way of life including that of aboriginal communities, commercial fishing operations and communities whose livelihood is dependant upon tourism. 11.3 Habitat for Fish in the Lake Simcoe Watershed In addition to the Lake (72,300 ha), which is the dominant feature providing habitat for fish, there are numerous creeks and rivers that flow into the lake, which are also an important component of the habitat for fish within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The Lake itself supports 49 fish species that together form a complex and diverse assemblage of warm water and coldwater species, each with specific habitat requirements (LSEMS 2003). Lake Simcoe’s Coldwater Fishery The cold water fish species of Lake Simcoe have undergone a dramatic decline in abundance due to eutrophication. Concerns over the declining cold water fishery began over 30 years ago, which prompted the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to investigate the situation in 1979. Excessive amounts of phosphorus were identified as the leading source of pollution compromising the water quality of Lake Simcoe and its cold water fishery (LSEMS 2001). A reduction in phosphorus loading was, and still is, necessary to ensure that the cold water fish of the lake prosper. The provincial government has enacted laws, policies and regulations that direct municipalities, private landowners and developers to create ponds controlling urban stormwater run-off. Direct urban runoff accounts for nearly 15% of the total phosphorus load entering Lake Simcoe every year (Scott et al. 2005).


96

Municipalities within the watershed were also required to upgrade their sewage treatment plants (STPs). In 1988 STPs contributed 12.5 tonnes of phosphorus to the total load. By 1995 every STP in the watershed was using the best available technology for phosphorus reduction, and by 1997 their combined loads were reduced to 6.2 tonnes (LSEMS 2001). The average STP load in 2003/04 was down to 4.2 tonnes (Scott et al. 2005).

Populations of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) have been sustained by annual stocking programs as indicated by angler catch surveys and fall trap-netting results. Other coldwater species in the lake include: lake herring (Coregonus artedii), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) and burbot (Lota lota) (LSEMS 2003). Lake Simcoe whitefish is listed as “Threatened” by the MNR and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Lake Simcoe’s Warmwater Fishery Functional warm water habitat cannot exist without suitable water quality/quantity and a healthy adjoining ecosystem. Any human activity that negatively affects water quality/quantity or the terrestrial ecosystem will have an effect on the healthy of aquatic habitat. The management issues that are common throughout the majority of urbanized and/or agricultural subwatersheds are nutrient input, accumulation of sediment, altered stream flow patterns and channel morphology, the lack of stream side vegetative cover, the presence of instream barriers and obstructions limiting fish migration and to a lesser degree, water temperature (LSRCA 1998).

Today, Lake Simcoe supports a relatively stable population of warm water fish such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris). The effects of some rather well known introduced exotic species such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) have not necessarily been realized to date (LSEMS 2003).

Creek Systems within the Watershed The Lake itself is to some extent the sum of all its tributaries. The tributaries themselves, whether small headwaters creeks or the approximately 78 km of larger watercourses such as the Beaver River; all contribute to the value of the fishery within the entire watershed. Some of the supporting creeks and rivers are directly supporting the fishery of the Lake by providing food, nursery habitat and refuge habitat. Others have their own self-sustaining warm or cold water fisheries associated with them. These watersheds, many of which originate as headwaters in the Oak Ridges Moraine and drain northwards to Lake Simcoe, contain extremely diverse vegetation communities and land cover types, ranging from forest to grassland to urban environments.


97

Management issues regarding the protection of groundwater recharge and discharge and water quality, as well as flood storage, are key elements for the Authority’s guiding principles within the fisheries management plans. Economic Benefits The most important industries directly associated with Lake Simcoe are recreation and tourism. Lake-related recreational activities produce millions of dollars annually for the local and regional economy. The lake also affords considerable social benefits by improving the quality of life and enhancing the well-being of many watershed residents.

Lake Simcoe hosts more angling than any other inland lake in the province. In 2000, an estimated 130,000 anglers visited Lake Simcoe (LSEMS 2003). Ice fishing is extremely popular and accounts for most of the angling activity, with an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 ice-fishing huts erected on Lake Simcoe each winter. During the ice-fishing season the most sought after species are perch, lake whitefish and lake trout.

Ice fishing alone generates an estimated annual revenue of $112 million dollars. During the winter of 2001, and for the first time in more than 50 years, the surface of Lake Simcoe did not freeze over; the consequence of this was the worst economic year in the history of the ice-fishing industry (LSEMS 2003). It is not only the lake fishery itself that generates economic activity. Many anglers who use the creeks and rivers also contribute directly and indirectly to the overall economic value that is generated by fish within the Lake Simcoe Watershed. 11.4 Policy Framework With respect to Natural Heritage planning, fish habitat is regulated by Section 2.1.5 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2005 (MMAH 2005), which states that:

development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

Although the PPS definition of “fish habitat” is consistent with the Fisheries Act it does not state that all issues of fish habitat revert to the Fisheries Act. The federal Fisheries Act prohibits anyone from carrying out a process that will cause harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat (known as a “HADD”), unless approved by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Fisheries Act typically applies at the implementation and permitting stages of a project and therefore it is not a planning tool. Through the PPS, the MNR has the lead role for planning matters in Ontario as they relate to the protection of fisheries resources and fish habitat.


98

11.5 Criteria As with other components, habitat for fish may well reside in more than one of the criterion that collectively make up the NHS. For example, a polygon recognized as habitat for fish may also be a Significant Valleyland which typically contains a watercourse, or perhaps a Significant Wetland. The Habitat for Fish layer for the NHS was developed by merging four LSRCA GIS layers that together depict Lake Simcoe and all other waterbodies, including on-line and mapped offline ponds, watercourses including rivers and creeks (but generally excluding ditches, swales and depressions), as well as all identified Municipal (Agricultural) Drains. The Authority undertook the classification of all known municipal drains in accordance with the guidelines of the Fisheries Act on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (LSRCA 2003). Drains and constructed off-line ponds may occasionally be maintained (i.e., dredged). This combination of data layers was found to best describe habitat for fish strictly for the purposes of the NHS as a Level 3 feature. Under existing policies and regulations fish habitat has for many years been subject to compensatory mechanisms when a HADD has been identified. For this reason Level 3 was selected as the appropriate policy level for the NHS. The designation in the NHS or the NHS map does not in any way replace the identification of direct or indirect fish habitat by the LSCRA. Mapped on-line ponds will be included in the natural heritage system as a Level 3 feature. Mapped off-line ponds will be included in the NHS as a Level 3 feature, only if they are within 30 m of another designated natural heritage feature (Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3). The rationale is that ponds located that close to existing features are likely to support other natural heritage functions associated with adjacent natural areas. Only mapped ponds are included as the mapping process generally avoided mapping “fire ponds” and very small pond areas. The Lake Simcoe Watershed habitat for fish criteria are summarized in Table 11.1. Figure 11.1 depicts a mapping example.

Table 11.1 Summary of Habitat for Fish Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Feature Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Criterion Level Attribute Name

Watercourses identified in the Habitat for Fish layer

Level 3 HF3-A Watercourses and waterbodies Online waterbodies (including Lake

Simcoe) in the Habitat for Fish layer Level 3 HF3-B

Drains Mapped drains identified in the Habitat for Fish layer

Level 3 HF3-C

On-line ponds All on-line ponds Level 3 HF3-B

Off-line ponds Mapped off-line ponds within 30 m of another designated (Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3) NHS feature

Level 3 HF3-E


99


100

11.6 Literature Cited Allan, J. D. and A. S. Flecker. 1993.

Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience. 43: 32-43. Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy. 2001.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Annual Report 2001. Available online: http://www.lsrca.on.ca/AboutUs/AnnualReports/ar2001.html#lsems.

Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy. 2003. State of the Lake Simcoe Watershed.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 1998.

Maskinonge River Remedial Strategy Final Report 1998. Available online: <http://www.lsrca.on.ca/Studies/Maskinonge.html>.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2003.

South Central Conservation Authorities Municipal Drain Classification Project, 2003 Final Report.






Why is the fisheries resource important? Available online: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/fishing/import.html.

Scott, L.D., Winter, J.G., Girard, R.E. 2005.

Annual Water Balances, Total Phosphorus Budgets and total Nitrogen Chloride Loads Lake Simcoe (1998 – 2004). Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy implementation Phase III, Technical Report No. Imp. A.6.


101

12.0 Linkages 12.1 Overview Linkages, often referred to as corridors, or landscape connectivity (meaning the connecting of natural areas and the function that is provided by those connections) is a complex and often contentious topic. Arguments regarding the utility of corridors continue in the literature (e.g., Hannon and Schmiegelow 2002; Whitfield 2001) and recent high-profile Ontario Municipal Board hearings in southern Ontario have highlighted some of the opposing arguments. There can be no doubt that connectivity at the landscape level is an important element in the function of ecosystems and in the maintenance or enhancement of ecosystem services and biodiversity. However, just as the science and public policy have progressed from the protection of largely recreational parks, to “islands of green” (Hilts et al. 1986), to the core and natural corridor approach defined by Riley and Mohr (1994), it will surely evolve and respond again to an increasing understanding and appreciation of ecosystem function and response. 12.2 Key Assumptions In developing the Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System there are several key assumptions that have been made regarding landscape connectivity. These are discussed in the following paragraphs. Connectivity can take many forms Connectivity can and does occur among patches that are not physically connected by natural habitat or that are only connected by the surrounding landscape matrix (e.g., agricultural lands). These patches can still be considered to be connected and are sometimes referred to as “stepping stones of habitat”. Relatively isolated habitat patches may still be used by a wide range of species and their apparent isolation may be less complete than a one-dimensional GIS-generated map might indicate. For example, wide-ranging species (e.g., many mammals, raptors, and woodpeckers) that can use the matrix will move among woodland patches, and many species of wildlife will use isolated woodland patches even if the matrix is inhospitable (e.g., birds while on migration). In the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS such isolated habitat patches can be considered part of the NHS.


102

The prescribed “System” does not have to be continuous The approach taken for the development of some natural heritage systems can result in the presentation of a continuous uninterrupted NHS designation on a map. In reality, these systems are always fragmented by highways, roads and a variety of other linear infrastructure (e.g., railways, hydro lines, pipeline easements, etc.) or alternate land uses. The detailed ELC and land use mapping that is available to LSRCA has negated the need to generalize these pathways and all “mappable” component breaks (such as roads, railways, hydro corridors and pipelines) are being shown where the response of the vegetation is visible using ELC. Therefore the NHS is not a continuous fabric, but is a series of polygons that can be continuous, separated by a few metres in some cases and up to a few kilometres in others. Existing and proposed connectivity are different The development of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS was predicated on following the PPS as closely as possible. The PPS speaks to functions and features that are present “on the ground” such as woodlands, wetlands, the existing linkages among them, as well as the potential for restoring natural heritage features. However, this NHS does not explicitly address restoration opportunities for woodlands, wetlands, ANSIs, habitat for fish or any other components. Rather, the existing patterns of natural heritage features have been incorporated into the NHS. This is largely the same approach that will be applied to the designation of linkages, although this component will differ with the inclusion of “proximity linkage areas”, which are not to be confused with restoration areas. 12.3 Differing Perspectives on Connectivity Given the approach taken by this study to build the NHS based on existing functions and features, it is beyond the scope of the project to provide an extensive review of landscape connectivity functions that could be restored in a fragmented, temperate zone landscape. Rather, this topic, along with other approaches to restoration within the watershed, is addressed in Chapter 15: Where Do We Go From Here? However, as many approaches to the building of natural heritage systems appear to elevate the relative importance of connectivity by including restored connectivity (and not other restored components), it is worthwhile considering some of the arguments around this topic. Riley and Mohr (1994) presented some arguments both for and against the role of corridors and cited Noss and Harris (1986), who proposed a conservation strategy that considers the pattern of existing high-quality nodes relative to actual and potential corridors. This was the general approach taken by the authors of the Big Picture (McMurtry et al. 2002), which is one proposed connected system for southern Ontario that incorporates a series of natural feature core areas connected by proposed corridors 200 m in width.


103

A review of recent literature associated with various woodland habitat metrics was undertaken for the second edition of “A Framework for Guiding Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern” (Environment Canada 2004). The relative importance of the four Framework criteria for woodland habitat (i.e., woodland cover, quality, patch size and connectivity) was assessed based on that review and presented in the document “Area Sensitive Forest Birds in Urban Areas” (Environment Canada, in prep.). Table 12.1 is an excerpt taken from that document, and it provides a subjective assessment on the relative importance of the underlying criteria used in forming the guidelines. Although the Environment Canada review was primarily concerned with breeding area-sensitive forest birds, it does shed some light on the relative importance of landscape connectivity. It is possible that with the advent of new scientific methods more information on the use of pathways of connectivity will be forthcoming. This will help resolve outstanding questions, as many of the empirical data that support corridor theory are not based on examples from the fragmented landscapes of the temperate zone.

Table 12.1 Key Woodland Habitat Criteria for Woodland Breeding Birds (taken from EC 2007 )

General Category

Likely Relative Importance Comments

Total Cover Very High • Threshold may be around 30% for area-sensitive woodland birds,

below which they decline and other habitat metrics start to play a greater role (e.g., patch size, connectivity)

Habitat Quality High

• A general concept that incorporates a range of metrics such as: community structure, shape, interior, age, composition, invasive species, community heterogeneity

Less than 30% cover: High

• In fragmented landscapes with less than 30% woodland cover this metric may play a greater role. Little guidance is available in the literature on the upper level of patch size effect on area-sensitive woodland birds, likely to be landscape/species dependant and in the thousands of hectares

More than 30% cover: Moderate

• In landscapes with more than 30% woodland cover, patch size appears to be less critical, but it is difficult to isolate the effect of patch size from other key metrics

Patch Size

More than 70% cover: None

• In landscapes with more than 70% woodland cover, patch size may not be important

Connectivity Moderate

• There are few empirical studies demonstrating the importance of connectivity for woodland birds. It has been difficult to tease apart the relative importance of woodland cover and connectivity; ecological mechanisms and effects of fragmentation are poorly understood. Connectivity is likely to be more important once woodland cover is less than 30%, and less important over 70%


104

In the recent publication entitled Corridor Ecology (Hilty et al. 2006), which promotes the importance of corridors, the authors state the following:

…it is not always clear that connecting wildlands through linear habitat features across a disturbed landscape enhances species’ persistence within reserves. In many cases it is premature to suggest methods for enhancing connectivity when not enough is known about the requirements of focal species and whether increased connectivity will result in boosting their persistence.

These words are particularly relevant considering that many ecologists consider that introductions of non-native species are second only to direct habitat loss as causes of the decline and extinctions of species across the planet. The role of corridors in facilitating the spread of exotic species, whether they are insects, plants or pathogens (aquatic and terrestrial), needs to be carefully considered. Table 12.2 summarizes many of the major pros and cons of connecting the landscape, largely taken from Hilty et al. (2006).

Table 12.2 Corridor Pros and Cons

Potential Benefits

Potential Negative Effects

Provision, maintenance or enhancement of habitat

Increased predation, parasitism or disease risks in edge-dominated corridors

Potential for increased populations (i.e., within the corridor)

Competition from exotic species within edge-dominated corridors

Conduits for dispersal among patches Disturbance from adjacent matrix Rescuing populations or increasing genetic diversity

Sex and age filtering of target species

Increased resilience to environmental change

Invasions of exotic species from matrix or from connected patches

Support for productive populations Invasions of deleterious native species (i.e., predators, disease, parasites and competitors)

Increase species’ persistence in patches Demographic effects (e.g., dispersal sinks, exposure to human depredations)

Help dispersers avoid predation or human-caused death

Social impacts (e.g., inhibition of movements by territorial residents)

Facilitate range shifts in response to broader changes (e.g., climate change)

Economic impacts (e.g., costs of acquisition and maintenance)

Help retain healthy functioning ecosystems (e.g., when riparian, or by allowing predators to move among patches)

Impacts on the adjacent matrix

Diversion of conservation dollars and efforts from other aspects of the NHS


105

The careful and considered reconnecting of the natural landscape is a laudable goal that should be addressed in the context of other restoration objectives. The future development of a connectivity strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed needs to consider landscape features and attributes such as natural cover and the composition of surrounding matrix (i.e., to what are we connecting), matching habitat for target species, corridor opportunities and constraints, as well as a balanced view of potential ecological and non-ecological effects, both positive and negative. 12.4 Policy Framework The Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH 2005) addresses linkages and landscape connectivity in Section 2.1.2 as follows:

The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) defines “natural heritage system” as follows:

…a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, linked by natural corridors which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. These systems can include lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state.

The PPS acknowledges that the connectivity of natural features should be maintained, or where possible restored. It also recognizes that lands with potential for restoration to a natural state can be included within natural heritage systems, but does not state this as a requirement. The potential restoration of landscape features is not only recognized by the PPS for the purposes of connectivity; it is applied to all natural heritage features and areas. In the development of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS, up to this point, restoration potential has not been explicitly addressed for any features (i.e., wetlands, woodland, valleylands, habitat for fish, etc.); except perhaps tangentially for woodlands through the Big Woods Policy Areas (see Section 7.8 Significant Woodlands). 12.5 Criteria The criteria applied for the identification of linkages in the NHS recognize that most existing natural connectivity has been incorporated into other components, such as wetlands, habitat for fish or valleylands. This has led to the development of two types of linkages in the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS.


106

The first of these two is stream linkages, which are existing linkages that connect two features along either side of a watercourse. The second linkage type, proximity linkage areas, identify linkage between two designated features that are within close proximity to one another (i.e., 60 m or less). This linkage differs from almost all other NHS components in that the exact location, size or shape of the linkage itself is not prescribed. This is because in order to identify the most appropriate linkage between two components, site specific field work is required. The criteria for these two linkage types are described below. Stream Linkages Steam linkages connect designated Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 NHS features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features) along watercourses that are recognized as Habitat for Fish in the NHS. The linkage consists of a minimum 30 m area applied to either side of the Habitat for Fish feature. Stream linkages are intended to cross breaks, such as roads, where the watercourse passes beneath. This is consistent with the LSRCA’s regulated area and is also consistent with the area that is often determined to be indirect fish habitat. This results in the designation of portions of roads as Stream Linkage areas whenever a watercourse passes beneath them. While these areas are clearly not of value from a NHS perspective it does highlight the importance of the area for other planning exercises such as municipal Environmental Assessments for road upgrades. A corridor ranging in width from 50 m to 100 m is generally supportable when its primary function is to facilitate movement, rather than the provision of habitat patches. These Level 3 stream linkages will be over 60 m in width, which can facilitate movement for common generalist species and provide habitat for up to 90% of riparian plant species (Spackman et al. 1995). The stream linkage area will be treated as a Level 3 feature. Proximity Linkage Areas Although the approach taken in this NHS recognizes only existing pathways of connectivity (rather than “potential” corridors), in the absence of a restoration opportunities analysis, there is a need to “connect” NHS components that are in very close proximity. There can be no doubt that there is biotic exchange and support (the so-called “contagion effect”) between features that are only a few metres apart. How far apart this function extends is variable and is at the heart of connectivity discussions. This NHS has taken a conservative approach; where Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 NHS features or their contiguous Level 4 - supporting features (e.g., cultural thickets that are contiguous with Level 1 or 2 woodlands; see Section 7.8 Woodlands) are located within 60 m of each other, a symbol is used to indicate that a proximity linkage area exists in that general location. The proximity linkage area, when determined through further study (see below), will be a minimum of 60 m wide or the width of the feature


107

(whichever is less). An example is illustrated in Figure 12.1. The linkage area will be treated as a Level 3 flag. When proximity linkages occur along the Lake Simcoe shoreline and an “inland” feature such as a riparian system, wetland or a forest, the intent remains the same: to recognize functional connectivity between the lake and terrestrial systems. This could be related to wide range of flora and fauna and ecological functions. In situations where development and site alteration is proposed and a proximity linkage area occurs, the width, location and configuration of the linkage is to be addressed as part of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) (see Appendix 4). Where more than one linkage opportunity exists between the same two features on the same parcel of land the EIS shall determine the most appropriate location, which does not necessarily need be at the closest proximity between the two features, but rather where functionality can be maximized. Hedgerows can be incorporated into proximity linkage areas during the EIS process. Oak Ridges Moraine Linkages The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) requires the application of the connectivity technical guideline in areas designated as “Countryside” (OMNR 2004). This can only be addressed at the site level and therefore ORM linkage areas are not shown as a GIS layer in this NHS. Table 12.3 provides a summary of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Linkage criteria.

Table 12.3 Summary of Linkage Criteria for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Feature Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS Criterion Level Attribute Name

Linkage: stream linkage

Minimum 30 m on either side of designated Habitat for Fish when located between two designated Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 components (or their continuous Level 4 – supporting features)

Level 3 LS3

Linkage: Proximity linkage

At a minimum, the smaller of: 60 m or the width of the feature, where Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 components (or their continuous Level 4 – supporting features) are located within 60 m of each other, subject to an EIS where appropriate

Level 3 LP3

Oak Ridges Moraine

All requirements of the ORMCP and draft technical guidelines

Requires site-specific

investigations


108


109

12.6 Literature Cited Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 2007.

Area Sensitive Forest Birds in Urban Areas. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.



Hannon, S.J. and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2002.

Corridors may not improve the conservation value of small reserves for most boreal birds. Ecological Applications 12: 1457-1468.

Hilty, J. A., W.Z. Lidicker Jr., A. M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology. Island Press. Washington, D. C. McMurtry M., Riley, P. Sorrill and T. Sorrill. 2002. Summary of Methodology for Big Picture, 2002. Available online:

<http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/projects/bp/bigpict_2002_main.cfm >. Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. 2005.



Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper. Supporting Connectivity Within the Oak Ridges Moraine T. P. 3. February 2004 Draft.

Noss, R.F. and L.D. Harris. 1986.

Nodes, networks and MUMS: Preserving biodiversity at all scales. Environmental Mangement 10: 299-309.

Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994.

The natural heritage of southern Ontario’s settled landscapes. A review of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report, TR-001. 78 pp.

Spackman, S.C., C. Hughes and W. Jeffrey. 1995.

Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological conservation: Species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, U.S.A. Biological Conservation 71:325-332.


110

Whitfield, J. 2001. Urban wildlife may not use green corridors. Nature News Service/Macmillan Magazines Ltd., 2001.


111

13.0 Suggested Policy Templates The policies presented here are meant to represent a framework of suggestions; they are not meant to be either prescriptive or comprehensive. Neither are they meant to be adopted wholesale without adaptation for local circumstances and conditions. They are offered to further the interests of good planning in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement and in recognition of natural heritage features and functions that may be important to the residents of the Official Plan (OP) area, and to the long-term sustainability of ecological functions and services provided by important natural areas within the watershed. There are two policy frameworks presented in this section. The first (presented in Section 13.1) has been designed for consideration by the LSRCA. The second (presented Section 13.2) is for use by municipalities (i.e., Regions, Counties, Cities, Towns and Townships) or other planning authorities that may seek to adopt the Natural Heritage System or a version of it, in order to meet the natural heritage policy requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement or to further their ambitions of sustainability and good planning. A template for a “Terms of Reference for Environmental Impact Studies” is also provided as Appendix 4. In the following policy sections the term “EIS” is meant to encompass all environmental evaluations, environmental impact studies, natural heritage evaluations, environmental assessments or similar undertakings. 13.1 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Suggested Policies 1.0 Preamble The suggested policies outlined below are meant to assist the Authority in implementing its program to conserve, restore, develop and manage the natural resources in its watershed. As the Natural Heritage System is based on the premise of the Provincial Policy Statement, the implementation will be through the LSRCA planning program. It will also provide direction in addressing natural heritage issues during the development of subwatershed plans, fisheries management plans, and the Authority’s Land Acquisition Program and in implementing its Section 28 Regulation. The mission of the LSRCA is:

To provide leadership in the protection and restoration of the environmental health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed with our community, municipal and other government partners.

In working towards achieving this mission, the LSRCA has developed a Natural Heritage System (NHS) to identify the natural heritage features and functions that contribute to the environmental health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. The policies of the NHS are designed to protect the existing system, and to ensure no net loss of the system. The NHS strives to achieve


112

a balance between development pressures on the watershed and the natural heritage features and functions required to achieve and then sustain a functional ecosystem and a healthy lake. The NHS is based upon the principles of the Provincial Policy Statement. 2.0 Objectives 2.1 To identify and protect the natural heritage features of the Lake Simcoe Watershed by

identifying a NHS; 2.2 To support biodiversity and ecological functions and to maximize the conservation of

native flora and fauna in the Lake Simcoe Watershed; 2.3 To protect the natural heritage system by encouraging planning authorities to adopt the

Natural Heritage System and appropriate policies in their Official Plans; 2.4 To assist member municipalities in directing development in a manner that will provide a

sustainable ecosystem for the residents of the Lake Simcoe Watershed. 3.0 General Policies 3.1 The Authority supports and encourages an ecosystem approach to land use planning that

considers natural heritage features, functions and attributes and how they interact in the landscape as expressed by the NHS.

3.2 The Natural Heritage System shall be protected and enhanced. 3.3 The NHS consists of four levels of protection. These are: Levels 1 through 3 and Level 4

- supporting. Level 1 features should be retained on the landscape. Level 2 features should be retained, though some flexibility is envisaged provided no negative impact has been identified. Both of these levels are considered to be provincially significant. Level 3 features are considered watershed significant, are generally to be retained, and no net negative impacts are contemplated, but replacement is intended. Level 4 - supporting features are not necessarily development constraints and replacement is encouraged.

3.4 The Authority shall encourage planning authorities to adopt the NHS and incorporate

appropriate policies in their Official Plans to protect and enhance the system. 3.5 The precise limits of the NHS shall be further refined based on the criteria described

through subwatershed plans or through development applications. Municipalities and the Province will be encouraged to use these criteria to refine the System.

3.6 Designation of lands as NHS does not imply intent of the planning authority or other

public agency to purchase such lands, nor does it imply their use as publicly accessible


113

open space. Such land will not be accepted as part of the park dedication required by the Planning Act but conveyance of these areas to a public authority will be encouraged as part of the development process and may be considered for acquisition by CAs, municipalities, and other conservation organizations.

3.7 The Authority will pursue and encourage a range of land stewardship initiatives within

the NHS, including conservation easements and rehabilitation/restoration. 3.8 The Authority will undertake to assist the planning authority with the technical expertise

and assistance required to deal with matters relating to the NHS as identified by the Authority.

3.9 The Authority will maintain and update data and mapping related to the NHS, as

required. 3.10 Interested individuals and groups will be encouraged to use the Authority's procedures in

identifying additional components of the NHS and are encouraged to share their information with the Authority and the planning authority (and where appropriate, the MNR) for consideration.

3.11 Removal, damage or modification of natural features within the NHS, through natural or

other causes, will not necessarily result in their deletion from the NHS and all policies will continue to apply as though the feature had not been altered.

3.12 Within the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan Area the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

requirements shall apply. 3.13 Within the Greenbelt Plan Area the Greenbelt Plan requirements shall apply. Until the

Province releases guidelines for the identification of Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) within the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt, this plan can be used to identify KNHFs.

3.14 Within sub-area assessment areas of the Growth Plan, this NHS can be used as a tool to

identify natural heritage features. 3.15 Nothing in these policies is meant to prevent an existing legal use of lands within the

NHS. 3.16 The policy requirements of the NHS do not apply to the following:

a) Normal farming practices in areas which are currently farmed (as of January 1, 2006). This includes land that has been left fallow as part of regular crop rotation. Peat extraction is not classified as a normal farming practice.

b) Development proposals which have been approved pursuant to the Planning Act or Environmental Assessment Act, where impacts from the


114

proposed development on the NHS have been previously assessed and approved.

c) Municipal proposals which have been approved pursuant to the Municipal Environmental Assessment Class EA where impacts from proposed developments on the NHS have been previously assessed and approved.

4.0 Watershed Development Policies - Natural Heritage System 4.1 The Authority encourages the planning authority to designate the NHS as Environmental

Protection Areas. 4.2 The boundaries of the NHS may be refined through an EIS prepared to the satisfaction of

the Authority and as outlined in Appendix 4.

4.3 Once a formal development proposal or application has been made, the boundaries of features within the NHS will be staked in the field and approved by the planning authority in consultation with the Conservation Authority, and in the case of PSWs, or Endangered and Threatened species the MNR, and subsequently surveyed.

4.4 The approved and surveyed boundaries of features and the resulting limits of the NHS

will be shown in environmental reports. NHS Level determinations (i.e., Level 1, 2 3 or 4 supporting) will be shown on draft plans of subdivision or other application documents.

4.5 All development or site alteration applications will generally require an Environmental

Impact Study (EIS) (see Appendix 4). When the NHS is further than 120 m from the proposed development or site alteration, the requirement for an EIS may be waived at the discretion of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority.

4.6 An EIS is required for all development or site alteration proposals or applications which

are located inside or within 120 m of any Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 NHS features. Removal and potential replacement of Level 4 - supporting features should be addressed through an EIS.

4.7 The EIS must be prepared by a qualified professional in the environmental sciences,

completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority.

4.8 Once an EIS is triggered, the study must address all elements of the NHS, its functions and features within and adjacent to the subject property, as outlined in the EIS Terms of Reference, and will be required to determine appropriate critical functions zones and protection zones (i.e., buffers).

4.9 It is mandatory that the applicant and/or its consultant meet with the Authority in

consultation with the planning authority to determine the specific scope and terms of reference of the EIS prior to the commencement of these studies to ensure that the work


115

needed to complete the study is clearly identified at the outset. This will facilitate a more streamlined and timely review process.

4.10 Where the applicant has not undertaken pre-submission consultation, the EIS will be used

by LSRCA to determine the appropriate Terms of Reference in order to assure that appropriate requirements are met.

4.11 Where an EIS has indicated that the development would have a negative effect (or net

negative effect after replacement has been applied where appropriate) on the NHS or the environmental functions, attributes or linkages for which the lands were identified, the application will not be supported by the Authority.

5.0 Level 1 Features 5.1 Level 1 features are considered to be provincially significant and they represent critical

components of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS, whose maintenance and longevity are imperative to the health and the function of the watershed and of Lake Simcoe. These features are to be retained on the landscape. Level 1 features consist of the following*:

Component Feature Wetlands • Provincially Significant Wetlands

Woodlands • Woodland Patches ≥ 25 ha

Wildlife Habitat

• Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species

*Plus ORMCP features as determined by the draft ORMCP technical guidelines and Greenbelt features

in accordance with guidelines when available 5.2 The significant habitat of Endangered and Threatened species, as approved by MNR, are

considered to be Level 1 features. 5.3 The Authority shall not support development or site alteration in Level 1 features. 5.4 Development or site alteration shall not be permitted adjacent to a Level 1 feature unless

it has been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

5.5 When confirming the limits of Provincially Significant Wetlands, all contiguous wetlands will generally be included within the PSW limits, subject to approval by MNR. 5.6 Where development is permitted through other legislation (e.g., Environmental

Assessment Act, etc.), replacement for the loss of the feature (or portions of) is


116

encouraged and shall be determined in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Authority.

6.0 Level 2 Features 6.1 Level 2 features are considered to be provincially significant components of the Natural

Heritage System. These features and their ecological functions should be retained on the landscape. Level 2 features areas are subject to limited flexibility within the planning process where no negative impact (consistent with the definitions of the PPS) can be demonstrated. These features consist of the following*:

Component Feature Wetlands • Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 10 ha

• Unevaluated wetlands contiguous with PSWs

Woodlands • Woodland patches ≥ 10 and < 25 ha Valleylands • Significant valleylands as identified in the NHS mapping Wildlife Habitat • Core winter deer yards (Stratum 1)

• Colonial waterbird nesting sites • Rare vegetation communities (alvars, prairies, fens and bogs)

ANSIs • Confirmed Provincial Life Science ANSIs as determined by the MNR

*Plus ORMCP features as determined by the draft ORMCP technical guidelines

6.2 The Authority shall discourage development or site alteration in Level 2 features. 6.3 Development or site alteration would not be accepted by the Authority unless it has been

demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions consistent with the definitions of the PPS.

6.4 Mitigation for impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions that are

permitted by the PPS may include replacement approaches, at the discretion of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority. These could include enhancement or restoration on or off site.

6.5 Replacement shall be determined in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the

Authority. To the extent possible, replacement shall occur within the same subwatershed. 7.0 Level 3 Features 7.1 Level 3 features are considered to be significant within the watershed. It is the overall

intent that these features should be retained on the landscape. However, flexibility is


117

contemplated in the way in which these features are addressed when a land use change or other development is considered. Level 3 features consist of the following:

Component Feature Wetlands • Evaluated non-Provincially Significant Wetlands (Non-PSW)

and designated Locally Significant Wetlands (LSW) • Unevaluated wetlands contiguous to evaluated Non-PSWs and

designated LSWs • Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 0.5 ha that overlap with, or fall

within, 30 m of any identified Level 1 or other Level 2 NHS features

Woodlands • Socially Significant Woodlands ≥ 4 ha to < 10ha (only in designated Urban Areas)

• The entirety of any woodland ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha that overlaps or is located within 30 m of any other identified NHS Level 1 Level 2 or Level 3 feature

ANSIs • Confirmed Regional Life Science ANSIs as determined by the MNR

Habitat for Fish • Watercourses and waterbodies, drains, online ponds, mapped offline ponds within 30 m of another NHS feature

Linkages • Stream linkages between Level 1, Level 2 features and/or Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

• Proximity linkages between Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

7.2 An EIS is required to demonstrate that there are no net negative impacts on the Natural

Heritage System. Mitigation for the loss of a natural heritage feature, or an identified impact, is recommended through replacement. Approaches to address replacement could include creation, enhancement or restoration on or off site.

7.3 Development or site alteration would not be accepted by the Authority unless it has been

demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no net negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

7.4 Mitigation for net negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions

may include replacement approaches, at the discretion of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority. These could include enhancement or restoration on or off site.


Authority. To the extent possible, replacement shall occur within the same subwatershed.


118

7.6 The precise location and configuration of proximity linkage areas is to be determined

through an EIS. 7.7 Development or site alteration shall not be permitted within Habitat for Fish except in

accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 8.0 Level 4 – Supporting Features 8.1 Level 4 - supporting features are considered to be supporting Level 1, 2 and 3 NHS

features. Retention of these features is encouraged, however, they are not necessarily a constraint to land use change. These features consist of:

Component Feature

Wetlands • Unevaluated wetland units that are ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha

Woodlands • Cultural thickets continuous with NHS Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 woodlands and/or wetlands

• Woodland patches ≥ 2 and < 10 ha that are not otherwise a NHS woodland feature

Wildlife Habitat • ELC grassland communities as follows (subject to the supporting text):

o CUM and CUT ≥15 ha o CUT and CUM ≥ 10 ha when

surrounded by other NHS components

o Contiguous CUT/CUM communities ≥ 20 ha

8.2 Development or site alteration shall avoid Level 4 - supporting features where reasonable

and possible. 8.3 If it is not reasonable or possible to avoid the removal of part or all of a Level 4 -

supporting feature, replacement is encouraged, and is at the discretion of the planning authority, in conjunction with the Authority, through the EIS process.

9.0 Big Woods Policy Areas 9.1 The Big Woods Policy Areas are those areas where there is a high percentage of woodland cover and large woodland patches. These areas are considered most likely at the landscape scale to represent high ecological function, diversity, connectivity and are priority natural areas within the Lake Simcoe Watershed.


119

9.2 The Authority shall generally identify these areas in the NHS for restoration and stewardship within its Stewardship and Land Acquisition Programs.

9.3 The Authority encourages the planning authority to recognize the ecological importance

of these areas and to incorporate these areas into their Official Plans and restoration/stewardship programs.

9.4 In addition to addressing other policies of this Plan, development applications within or

overlapping with Big Woods Policy Areas shall strive to ensure no net loss of woodland cover within the Big Woods Policy Areas.

9.5 All other applicable NHS policies of this NHS still apply to Big Woods Policy Areas.

The underlying designated NHS Level (i.e., Level 1, 2 or 3) applies. 13.2 Suggested Implementation Policies for Official Plans 1.0 Preamble The purpose of these policies is to provide guidance to all of those involved in land use planning in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. As the Official Plan is the primary document guiding the growth and management of resources by the municipality, the following policies are provided as a means of implementing the Natural Heritage System. The Natural Heritage System includes of features listed within the Provincial Policy Statement. These features are: Wetlands, Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species, Habitat for Fish, Woodlands, Valleylands, Wildlife Habitat, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, and Linkages. These natural areas are important in ensuring sustainable ecological health and the quality of life of residents of the Official Plan (OP) area. They also serve to create distinct boundaries separating Urban Areas and Agricultural Lands. 2.0 Objectives 2.1 To identify and protect the natural heritage features by designating a Natural Heritage

System (NHS) as an essential structural component of the OP area;

2.2 To support biodiversity and ecological function and to maximize the conservation of native flora and fauna in the OP area;

2.3 To provide opportunities for controlled access and recreational activities where these do

not significantly affect negatively natural heritage resources; and 2.4 To ensure that proposed changes in land use have minimal negative impacts on the NHS.


120

3.0 General Policies

3.1 To protect and where possible enhance the Natural Heritage System. 3.2 To coordinate planning and management initiatives with adjacent municipalities, particularly for those features that are ecologically and physically linked.

3.3 The boundaries and limits of the Natural Heritage System shall be confirmed based on

application of the criteria that define the elements of the NHS, through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study or by periodic refinements by the planning authority and conservation authorities. Minor changes or adjustments will not require an amendment to this Plan. However, the addition or deletion of an NHS feature may require an amendment to the OP.

3.4 There are four Levels of protection assigned to features within the NHS. These are Level

1, Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4 - supporting. 3.5 Nothing in these policies is meant to prevent an existing legal use of lands within the

NHS. 3.6 To direct major land use changes away from the Natural Heritage System. Where this is

not possible, it is the intention to protect the Natural Heritage System by using such techniques as:

� Justifiable increases in density; � Appropriate reductions and/or modifications in public realm elements

(e.g., reduction in road allowance) through revised development standards; � Reconfiguration of public uses; � Shared facilities; � Other financial arrangements, which may include replacement; and/or � Sharing the equity in protecting the Natural Heritage System through

comprehensive developer agreements and comprehensive public/private agreements.

3.7 Designation of lands as NHS does not imply intent of this planning authority or any other

agency to purchase those designated lands or to promote their use by the public. 3.8 Removal of all or portions of a NHS feature does not necessarily result in their deletion from the NHS. 3.9 The planning authority will cooperate with the conservation authorities and Ministries of the Province of Ontario in establishing, maintaining and improving a data base on the Natural Heritage System.


121

3.10 The planning authority will pursue and encourage a wide variety of land stewardship options, including: easements, trusts, tax incentives and right-of-way approaches to preserving, enhancing and accessing features.

3.11 The planning authority will explore and develop land securement strategies to implement

the Natural Heritage System and support Conservation Authority and land trust organizations where possible with the securement of lands containing NHS features.

3.12 Within the Oak Ridges Moraine Planning Area, outside of Urban Areas, Towns and

Villages shown on Schedule X, the Natural Heritage System shall be comprised of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Natural Core Area and Natural Linkage Area designations and subject to the applicable policies of the ORMCP.

3.13 Within Urban Areas and Towns and Villages, the Natural Heritage System shown on

Schedule X may be further refined through municipal Official Plans and zoning by-laws without amendment to this plan. The Policy provisions of this Plan or local Official Plans or secondary plans, whichever are the more restrictive, shall prevail.

3.14 Within the Greenbelt Plan area the Greenbelt Plan requirements shall apply. Until the

Province releases guidelines for the identification of Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) within the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt, the NHS can be used to identify KNHFs. It can also be used to identify features outside of the Natural Heritage System.

3.15 Within sub-area assessment areas of the Growth Plan, this NHS can be used as a tool to

identify natural heritage features. 4.0 Natural Heritage System 4.1 The planning authority will designate and zone the NHS as Environmental Protection

once the boundaries have been refined through an official plan or zoning by-law amendment based on an approved EIS and any other time the opportunity arises.

4.2 The boundaries of the features within the NHS will be staked in the field and approved by

the planning authority in consultation with the Conservation Authority, and in the case of PSWs and the Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species the MNR, and subsequently surveyed.

4.3 The approved and surveyed boundaries of features and the resulting limits of the Natural

Heritage System, as determined through studies, will be shown on a map in EIS reports. NHS Level determinations (i.e., Level 1, 2, 3 or 4 supporting) will be shown on draft plans of subdivision or other application documents.

4.4 For development and site alteration applications, an EIS will generally be required for all

applications. When the NHS is further than 120 m from the proposed development and


122

site alteration, the requirement for an EIS can be waived at the discretion of the planning authority, in conjunction with the Conservation Authority.

4.5 An EIS will be required for all such applications which are located inside or within 120 m

of any Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 NHS feature. Removal and potential replacement of Level 4 - supporting features should be addressed through an EIS.

4.6 The EIS must be prepared by a qualified professional in the environmental sciences,

completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority.

4.7 Once an EIS is triggered, the study must address all elements of the NHS, functions and features within and adjacent to the subject property (not just the feature that triggered the study) as outlined in the EIS Terms of Reference and will be required to determine appropriate critical functions zones and protection zones (i.e., buffers).

4.8 It is mandatory that the applicant and/or its consultant meet with the Authority in

consultation with the planning authority to determine the specific scope and terms of reference of the EIS prior to the commencement of these studies to ensure that the work needed to complete the study is clearly identified at the outset. This will facilitate a more streamlined and timely review process.

4.9 The terms of reference for the EIS must be confirmed in writing with the Conservation

Authority in conjunction with the planning authority, and will in most circumstances include addressing Endangered and Threatened species.

4.10 That where an EIS has indicated that the development would have a net negative impact

(after replacement has been applied if appropriate) on the NHS or the environmental functions, attributes or linkages for which the lands were identified, the application will not be supported or approved by the planning authority.

4.11 EIS guidelines are to be followed (Appendix 4), subject to policy 4.4. 5.0 Level 1 Features 5.1 Level 1 features are considered to be provincially significant and they represent critical

components of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS, whose maintenance and longevity are imperative to the health and the function of the watershed and of Lake Simcoe. These features are to be retained on the landscape. Level 1 features consist of the following*:


123

Component Feature Wetlands • Provincially Significant Wetlands Woodlands • Woodland Patches ≥ 25 ha Wildlife Habitat

• Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species

*Plus ORMCP features as determined by the draft ORMCP technical guidelines and Greenbelt features

in accordance with Greenbelt guidelines when available

5.2 Development and site alteration is not permitted within Level 1 features. 5.3 Development or site alteration is not permitted adjacent to a Level 1 feature unless it has

been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

5.3 The Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened species, as approved by the MNR,

is to be considered a Level 1 feature. 5.4 When confirming the limits of Provincially Significant Wetlands, all contiguous wetlands will generally be included within the PSW limits, subject to approval by MNR.

6.0 Level 2 Features 6.1 Level 2 features are considered to be provincially significant components of the Natural

Heritage System. These features and their ecological functions should be retained on the landscape. Level 2 features areas are subject to limited flexibility within the planning process where no negative impact can be demonstrated. These features consist of the following*:

Component Feature Wetlands • Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 10 ha


Woodlands • Woodland patches ≥ 10 and < 25 ha Valleylands • Significant valleylands as identified in the NHS mapping Wildlife Habitat

• Core winter deer yards • Colonial waterbird nesting sites • Rare vegetation communities (alvars, prairies, fens and

bogs) ANSIs • Confirmed Provincial Life Science ANSIs as determined

by the MNR *Plus ORMCP features as determined by the draft ORMCP technical guidelines


124

6.2 The planning authority shall discourage development or site alteration in Level 2 features.

6.3 Development or site alteration would not be accepted by the planning authority unless it

has been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions consistent with the definitions of the PPS.

6.4 Mitigation for impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions that are permitted by the PPS may include replacement approaches, at the discretion of the planning authority (in conjunction with the Conservation Authority). These could include enhancement or restoration on or off site. 6.5 Replacement shall be determined in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the planning authority. To the extent possible, replacement shall occur within the same subwatershed. 6.6 The precise location and configuration of proximity linkage areas is to be determined through an EIS. 7.0 Level 3 Features 7.1 Level 3 features are considered to be significant at the watershed level. It is the overall

intent that these features should be retained on the landscape. However, flexibility is contemplated in the way in which these features are addressed when a land use change or other development is considered. Level 3 features consist of the following:

Component Feature Wetlands • Evaluated non-Provincially Significant Wetlands (Non-PSW)

and designated Locally Significant Wetlands (LSW) • Unevaluated wetlands contiguous to evaluated Non-PSWs and

designated LSWs • Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 0.5 ha that overlap with, or fall

within, 30 m of any identified Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 NHS features

Woodlands • Socially Significant Woodlands ≥ 4 ha to < 10ha (only in designated Urban Areas)

• The entirety of any woodland ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha that overlaps or is located within 30 m of any other identified NHS Level 1 Level 2 and/or Level 3 feature

ANSIs • Confirmed Regional Life Science ANSIs as determined by the MNR


125

Component Feature Habitat for Fish • Watercourses and waterbodies, drains, online ponds, mapped

offline ponds within 30 m of another NHS feature Linkages • Stream linkages between Level 1, Level 2 features and/or

Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

• Proximity linkages between Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

7.2 An EIS is required to demonstrate that there are no net negative impacts on the Natural

Heritage System. Where impacts can not be avoided, further mitigation for the loss of a natural heritage feature, or an identified impact, is recommended through replacement. Approaches to address replacement could include creation, enhancement or restoration on or off site.

7.3 Development or site alteration would not be accepted by the planning authority unless it

has been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no net negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

7.4 Mitigation for negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions may

include replacement approaches, at the discretion of the planning authority in conjunction with the Conservation Authority. These could include enhancement or restoration on or off site.


planning authority in conjunction with the Conservation Authority. To the extent possible, replacement shall occur within the same subwatershed.

7.6 The precise location and configuration of proximity linkage areas is to be determined

through an EIS. 7.7 Development or site alteration shall not be permitted within Habitat for Fish except in

accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 8.0 Level 4 – Supporting Features 8.1 Level 4 - supporting features are considered to be supporting Level 1, 2 and 3 NHS

features. Retention of these features is encouraged, however, they are not necessarily a constraint to land use change. These features consist of:


126

Component Feature

Wetlands • Unevaluated wetland units that are ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha

Woodlands • Cultural thickets continuous with NHS Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 woodlands and/or wetlands

• Woodland patches ≥ 2 and < 10 ha that are not otherwise a NHS woodland feature

Wildlife Habitat • ELC grassland communities as follows (subject to the supporting text):

o CUM and CUT ≥15 ha o CUT and CUM ≥ 10 ha when

surrounded by other NHS components

o Contiguous CUT/CUM communities ≥ 20 ha

8.2 Development or site alteration shall avoid Level 4 - supporting features where reasonable

and possible. 8.3 If it is not reasonable or possible to avoid the removal of part or all of a Level 4 -

supporting feature, replacement is encouraged, and is at the discretion of the planning authority, in conjunction with the Conservation Authority, through the EIS process.

9.0 Big Woods Policy Areas 9.1 The Big Woods Policy Areas (BWPAs) are those areas in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

where there is a high percentage of woodland cover and large woodland patches. These areas are considered most likely at the landscape scale to represent high ecological function, diversity, connectivity and are also priority natural areas within the municipality.

9.2 The planning authority recognizes the importance of the BWPAs and will preferentially

direct reforestation opportunities towards these areas whenever possible. 9.3 In addition to addressing other policies of this Plan, development applications within or

overlapping with BWPAs shall ensure no net loss of woodland cover within BWPAs. 9.4 The planning authority will seek opportunities to reduce the impact of linear

infrastructure, including roads, through BWPAs. 9.5 All other applicable NHS policies of this NHS apply to Big Woods Policy Areas. The

underlying designated NHS Levels apply.


127

14.0 Mapping Interpretation The mapping product for this Natural Heritage System was developed using a GIS-based platform. This map is to be used as an information tool; the text is intended to provide the overarching definition for the NHS. The map is subject to ongoing refinements and updating as LSRCA improves the ELC database and integrates the mapping with improving aerial photography and other information sources. The intent of the Authority is that the map eventually be accessible online. As the NHS study was undertaken on a landscape scale (i.e., 350,000 ha), inevitably some mapping irregularities occur. In addition, the GIS queries that are run occasionally produce unintended results. These will be eliminated over time. However, in addition to the priority of the text over the mapping (in a similar fashion to the Authority’s regulation), the reader’s attention is drawn to these commonly occurring anomalies:

• The symbol for proximity linkages (a red “P”) sometimes occurs in clusters. This is because two features often approach to within 60 m of each other at multiple points, which causes several proximity linkage opportunities to be generated side by side. Only one “P” is intended.

• On occasion stream linkages are generated in areas where one or both of the two NHS

features that are supposed to be being connected are actually absent. This is a GIS query error and should be disregarded.

• Where a Habitat for Fish feature (and if appropriate, an associated Stream Linkage) is

shown but such a feature is determined (in conjunction with the Authority) not to exist, the updated information is intended to take precedence.

• The land use layer used in the NHS mapping was examined for accuracy. However,

where discrepancies arise the municipal data set shall prevail.

• Some areas that are subject to pending Ontario Municipal Board hearings and/or decisions, regarding land use planning have been excluded from the system mapping.

It is intended that through consultation with municipal partners and greater scrutiny of the mapping that changes may be made to the mapping to reflect known existing conditions, such as draft plan approved subdivisions. Furthermore, instances may arise where the ELC mapping may be amended based on more detailed, site-specific information.


128

15.0 Where Do We Go From Here? The NHS primarily represents an understanding of the natural heritage system that is in place in the watershed today. This project was primarily concerned with the “maintenance” aspect of the PPS, rather than identifying opportunities for restoration or enhancement. In many areas of the watershed, the NHS is highly fragmented and many subwatersheds are close to or below certain thresholds that indicate the potential loss or impairment of some functions and attributes. They could benefit substantially from efforts to improve the quality and quantity, and therefore the function, of the system. Landscape level restoration and enhancement is contemplated by the PPS and approaches to landscape restoration have been suggested by others. There is an opportunity and an imperative to develop an approach, suitable for this watershed, to address restoration, enhancement and securement initiatives building on the existing natural heritage framework as described by Phase 1 of the NHS.

In particular, once planning authorities have established the components of their NHS, the careful and considered reconnection of core natural areas, such as those within Big Woods Policy Areas, could be a priority. Analysis undertaken during the process of developing this NHS will provide a solid foundation upon which to build connectivity in the landscape. Based on the experiences of the project team, the following recommendations are offered for consideration by LSEMS and the LSRCA:

1. The development of Phase 2: Restoration, Enhancement and Securement strategy that

includes the expansion of linkages and integrates stewardship initiatives;

2. The NHS be used to further refine land acquisition and securement strategies and priority

areas in the watershed;

3. The Conservation Authority maintain and upgrade the ELC on a regular basis;

4. Efforts be established to improve knowledge of Species at Risk in the watershed;

5. The Authority prepare “watershed rare” lists for all faunal groups; and

6. The NHS be used as a basis for targeted wetland evaluations under the OWES.


129

16.0 Conclusions The report provides the criteria and rationale for the identification of the components of a Natural Heritage System based on the Provincial Policy Statement. The intent of this project is to provide interactive mapping that can be used by a range of users in addition to the Conservation Authority, such as planning authorities and the public. The development of criteria for each of the components used a combination of existing practices (in both ecological and planning contexts), recommended approaches by credible sources, and examination of the pertinent literature. The NHS was developed on the basis of existing conditions and generally avoided the realms of restoration and enhancement. However, these aspects will be addressed in the second phase of the project in which strategies for restoration and enhancement will be developed. This strategy will also incorporate components of the LSRCA Land Acquisition Strategy as well as its numerous stewardship activities. This will ensure that these programs are effectively contributing to the NHS for the Lake Simcoe Watershed. As part of the gathering of background data, the Ecological Classification System and Land Use mapping that underpins the NHS was examined to ensure accuracy. The criteria for the components of the Natural Heritage System have been input to ArcGIS and processed to develop the resulting ‘system’. The mapping is based on an ArcGIS platform, which enables users to delineate the location of the NHS, and to determine the individual features (i.e., woodlands, wetlands or other features) that comprise the system. The user can click anywhere on the system and an attribute table will be displayed, indicating the components that are contained within the system in that location and its respective level (Figure 16.1). To view and use the mapping, software that supports shape files, such as ArcExplorer, ArcView, ArcGIS, and Manifold, is required. Overall, and excluding the lake itself, 105,000 ha have been identified as part of the Natural Heritage System (Figure 16.2). This is approximately 40% of the total land mass within the watershed, although this total includes valleylands, within which a variety of land uses occur. provincially significant Level 1 and Level 2 components comprise about 32.7% of the land mass, and watershed significant Level 3 components comprise about 4% and Level 4 - supporting components comprise approximately 3.4%. The following table (Table 16.1) indicates the distribution of the NHS by the subwatershed areas used in this report.


130

Table 16.1 The Natural Heritage System by Subwatershed Areas

Percent of Subwatershed by Component Level Area of Subwatershed

(ha)

Percent of Subwatershed

in NHS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 -

supporting Maskinonge River

7,179 18.7 10.7 2.8 2.6 2.6

Barrie Creeks 3781 19.3 7.1 4.2 6.1 1.9 Hewitt’s Creek 1,751 22.3 10.5 3.1 6.9 1.8 West Holland 35,410 30.5 21.6 2.2 3.8 2.9 East Holland 23,910 33.1 24.2 2.5 3.6 2.8 Innisfil Creeks 10,757 33.3 17.4 5.6 6.0 4.3 Lover’s Creek 5,995 34.0 21.8 5.2 3.4 3.6 Beaver River 32,724 36.0 17.0 10.7 5.3 3.0 White’s Creek 10,520 38.4 19.3 8.2 6.7 4.2 Ramara Creeks 14,350 41.6 28.9 2.6 5.8 4.3 Talbot River 7,056 42.3 21.5 6.5 7.0 7.3 Georgina Creeks

4,946 42.3 28.2 3.0 3.2 7.9

Uxbridge Brook 17,495 44.5 31.0 8.7 2.2 2.6 Oro South Creeks

5,769 44.5 25.6 9.2 5.6 4.1

Oro North Creeks

8,344 45.2 31.8 3.1 5.3 5.0

Pefferlaw Brook 28,482 49.6 35.7 8.4 2.5 3.0 Black River 37,536 52.0 37.5 8.8 3.0 2.7 Hawkestone Creek

3,971 54.4 40.7 5.3 4.1 4.3

Islands in Lake Simcoe combined

1,912 87.1 63.1 7.4 1.8 14.8

Total

261,887 40.2% 26.4% 6.3% 4.1% 3.4%


131


132


133

Acknowledging that many of the components are overlapping (e.g., wetlands can also be woodlands and both can be in valleylands) the NHS breakdown is presented in Table 16.2.

Table 16.2 Area of the Natural Heritage System Components

NHS Component Area in Lake Simcoe Watershed including the Lake (ha)

Wetlands 36,673 Woodlands 76,104 Valleylands 20,036 Wildlife Habitat 12,501 ANSIs 10,383 Habitat for Fish 74,203 Linkages (Stream)* 3,546

*624 Proximity Linkage points have also been identified In addition to providing an important tool for the LSRCA, as the NHS closely follows the general framework of the Provincial Policy Statement, it is also well-positioned for inclusion within municipal Official Plans that seek to meet the policy requirements of the province. The identification and description of the Natural Heritage System provides a tool to:

• Protect natural heritage resources and move towards the sustainability of ecosystem services;

• Examine change over time;

• Refine existing municipal natural heritage systems;

• Guide the scope of environmental studies and assess the impacts of proposed land

use change;

• Guide future ecological planning initiatives (e.g., wetland evaluations);

• Help identify priority communities/subwatersheds/planning jurisdictions for restoration or enhancement opportunities;

• Identify high value restoration or enhancement areas (i.e., those locations where

the greatest ecological benefit can be realized for the least amount of dollars); and

• Identify land acquisition targets for conservation organizations.


134

There have been several landscape planning initiatives that have been initiated (e.g., MNR’s “Natural Spaces”) or completed (e.g., MNR’s “The Big Picture”, various municipal woodland studies). However, most have not been incorporated into critical planning documents. One objective of this study was to provide a NHS that could be supported and adopted by planning authorities. During the review process for this document several reviewers requested further guidance on the principles of Replacement. The authors of this document believe that this subject requires considerable review of practices elsewhere in North America and current restoration science. In general, younger and less structurally diverse communities (such as some marshes, grasslands and thickets) are relatively easy to replicate and with the appropriate application of the current state of restoration science, there can be considerable certainty regarding the success of their replication. Other systems, such as forested communities, take longer to establish (i.e., more than a human lifetime) and there is increased uncertainty regarding the final outcome. A third group may not be easily re-established (e.g., treed swamps, fens and bogs) and uncertainty is high. Wetlands are often replaced at ratios of three (replaced) to one (removed). However, to maximize success, replacement strategies need to consider a wide range of possibilities that include: variable ratio-based replacement, targeted restoration or enhancement, banking of replacement commitments, cash alternatives and other joint ventures. It is the belief of the authors of this report that it reflects both the most recent science and a pragmatic approach, which should enable a wide range of stakeholders to lend support to this initiative. In the future, it is hoped that new scientific research, watershed data, updates and revisions can further improve the NHS. In many developed countries formerly common and widespread flora and fauna species are in decline; in the end, this project will have been successful when a functional and sustainable Natural Heritage System appears as a Schedule within municipal Official Plans, and is used as part of the daily business of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. The Conservation Authority intends to adopt the NHS as a tool for plan review, providing advice to its municipal partners and members of the public, as well as furthering and fostering partnerships and land stewardship, and contributing to protection and research initiatives across the watershed. It is recommended that the planning authorities within the Lake Simcoe Watershed use the NHS as a basis to identify sustainable natural heritage systems within their jurisdictions and to amend and adopt the supporting implementation policies and to embed these within their respective official plans.


135

17.0 Additional Cited Literature Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2006.

Leading ag economist weighs in on sustaining landscapes. Ducks Unlimited Canada Conservator 27: 12.

Environment Canada. 2005. Beyond Islands of Green: A Primer for Using Conservation Science to Select and Design Community-based Nature Reserves. Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario. 80 pp.

Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 2006.

Available Online: http/::www.ontarionature.org:pdf:urban_forest.pdf.

Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard, C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, P.K. Snyder. 2005.

Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570-574. Gabor, T.S., A.K. North, L.C.M. Ross, H.R. Murkin, J.S. Anderson, and M.A. Turner. 2001.

Beyond the Pipe - The Importance of Wetlands & Upland Conservation Practices in Watershed Management: Functions & Values for Water Quality & Quantity. Ducks Unlimited Canada. 43 pp.

Hilts, S., M. Kirk. and R. Reid. 1986.

Islands of Green. Natural Heritage Protection in Ontario. Ontario Heritage Foundation. Toronto. 200 pp.

Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy. 2006

Available online: http://www.lsems.info/index.html. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2006.

Available online: http://www.lsrca.on.ca/AboutUs/index.html. Margules, C.R. and R. L. Pressey. 2000.

Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405: 243-253. Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. 2005.


Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs, 2005. Greenbelt Plan 2005. ISBN:0-7794-7642-5. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto. 57 pp.


136

Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs, 2002. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2002. Ministry of Municipal Housing and

Affairs. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto. 73 pp. Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. 2006.

Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 48 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999.

Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. 127 pp.


Protecting Natural Areas Through Land Trusts. Available online: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/Csb/news/2006/may11bg_06.html.

Pierce, S.M., R.M. Cowling, A.T. Knight, A.T. Lombard, M. Rouget and T. Wolf. 2005.

Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. Biological Conservation 125: 441–458.

Polasky, S. 2006.

You can’t always get what you want: Conservation planning with feedback effects. PNAS 103: 5245-5246.

Redford, K.H. and B.D. Richter. 1999.

Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use. Conservation Biology 13: 1246-1256. Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994.

The natural heritage of southern Ontario's settled landscapes. A review of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR-001. 78 pp.


137

APPENDICES


138

This page intentionally blank.


139

Appendix 1

Ecological Land Classification Methodology 1.0 Introduction The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) (Lee et al. 1998) map layer is a primary building block of the Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System. This data layer is more accurately described as the Natural Heritage and Land Use Map as it consists of two principal land classification data components: natural heritage and land use. The LSRCA initiated the mapping program in 2000 to map the entire LSRCA jurisdiction of the Lake Simcoe Watershed in order to achieve a mapping product with complete coverage. 2.0 Methodology A grid was created for each subwatershed and hard copy sheets of aerial photographs were printed. Additional layers such as evaluated wetlands (from MNR), 5 m contours, watercourses, and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) were superimposed onto the photographic base. The landscape was then delineated on the hard-copy sheets using on-screen information for assistance. In addition to the layers on the hard-copy sheets, other sources of information included: soils, parcel fabric, and watershed boundaries. The minimum polygon size for a natural heritage feature was generally 0.5 ha, however some smaller units (generally wetlands) were included where it was thought to be appropriate. Natural Heritage Each natural heritage feature identified was assigned a unique code, specific to that watershed. Each code referred to a unique natural heritage record, comprised of an ELC code to Community Series (i.e., deciduous forest, mixed swamp, cultural meadow, etc.), which also included the other standard ELC community information: System (terrestrial, wetland, aquatic); Site (open water, surface deposits, etc.); Substrate (organic, mineral); Topography (rolling upland, tableland, bottomland, etc.); History (cultural, natural); Cover (treed, shrub, open); Form (submerged, deciduous, mixed, etc.); and Community (swamp, fen, forest, etc.). The natural heritage records were entered into an Access 97 database, created specifically for this mapping. Land Use Land use was identified concurrently with the delineation and identification of the natural heritage features. The land use codes were based on the codes used by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority in its mapping. Land uses include: intensive agriculture (i.e., row crop, sod farm, etc.); non-intensive agriculture (hay, pasture); urban; rural development; estate residential; manicured open space; institutional; rail; and roads. Each unique land use code was also entered into the Access database.


140

Mapping Upon completion of hard copy delineation of polygons, sheets were heads-up digitized at a scale of 1:4000 using ArcView 3.2 (and more recently ArcGIS 9.1). Following the digitization of the polygons, points were added to each polygon that contained the natural heritage record code. The mapping was then processed such that each polygon contained a unique code. The mapping was then linked to the Access database containing the detailed record information. The resulting data layer enables the user to click on any polygon and read the information for that polygon. Timing and Photographic Resources The mapping was generally undertaken on a subwatershed basis, commencing with the 1999 colour orthophotography. The Region of York and the Township of Innisfil were originally mapped using 1999 50 cm colour orthogonally-rectified aerial photography (orthophotography). The original mapping for the Region of Durham was done using 2000 20 cm black and white photography. The City of Barrie was mapped using 2001 10 cm black and white orthophotography. Oro-Medonte, Orillia and Ramara were mapped using 2002 20 cm colour orthophotography. York, Durham, Innisfil and Barrie were updated using 2002 20 cm colour orthophotography. Staff Three GIS staff were involved in the mapping process led by Darren Campbell, GIS Coordinator. There were four natural heritage interpreters involved in the mapping procedure led by Kim Baker, Senior Natural Heritage Biologist. 3.0 Other Information Wetlands The mapping contains three categories of wetlands: Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) evaluated wetlands (Natural Resources and Values Information System - NRVIS), Oak Ridges Moraine wetlands (NRVIS), and interpreted wetlands. The MNR evaluated wetlands were integrated into the mapping as “Evaluated Wetlands”, as they existed in NRVIS; no edits were made to these polygons, except where obvious change had occurred (e.g., residential development). The ELC mapping is updated on an on-going basis to reflect recent MNR wetland evaluation updates. The wetland community information contained within the wetland evaluations was used to assist in applying the ELC protocol. The Oak Ridges Moraine wetlands (those that were not evaluated wetlands) were originally identified and mapped by the MNR. These wetlands are included in the mapping as mapped by the MNR as “ORM wetlands” where they are greater than 0.4 ha. The third category of wetland was “Interpreted”. These were wetland units that were identified through interpretation of aerial photography and/or field checking. These wetlands may include areas adjacent to evaluated wetlands that had been missed during the evaluation, or may be in areas that have not been evaluated at the time of the ELC mapping.


141

Breaks in Polygons Polygons generally begin and end based on either a change in vegetation community (e.g., FOD to FOC) or a change in topography (e.g., tableland to valleyslope). Anthropogenic features such as hydro transmission lines and pipelines were mapped according to their vegetative characteristics within ELC; usually as cultural meadow or cultural thicket. These linear features are therefore often visible in the vegetation mapping as a result of the linear vegetation community and do therefore represent breaks in other features such as forest. This approach, while conservative is also ecologically defensible. In general, all municipal road rights-of-way constitute a break in the vegetation. Roads were also delineated as polygons. Unopened road allowances were not mapped out as roads, but were strictly mapped based on their ELC vegetation communities. Single family dwellings and their associated manicured areas, including driveways, were identified as rural development or estate residential, depending on the size and setting of the lot. Built up areas such as towns and cities were identified as urban. Trails were generally included within the vegetation community, unless they represented a change in vegetation community. Railways were delineated as “Railway” as a land use. Old railway lines that have been converted to trails are identified as “Manicured Open Space” (this category was also used for parks). Watercourses that were digitizable at 1:4,000 for a reasonable length were identified as “Open Water” and were delineated from the adjacent vegetation communities. Other Features Known Christmas tree farms and orchards were mapped as “Intensive Agriculture”. All hedgerows that were continuous with another natural heritage feature were mapped as Cultural Woodlands (CUW) and noted as 'Hedgerow' in the attribute table. Isolated hedgerows (i.e., those not connected to another feature) were generally not mapped. However, some isolated hedgerows that were deemed to be 'substantial' (i.e., several trees wide or were dominant on the landscape) may have been mapped. All mapped hedgerows are identifiable in the attribute table. The ELC definition of “savanna” was not used, as no examples of this community type were interpreted or are thought to occur as natural communities within the watershed. Field Checking Field checking was undertaken intermittently throughout the watershed, mostly by roadside reconnaissance by the Natural Heritage Biologist and Natural Heritage Technician. In addition, a blind field test of ELC data was undertaken as part of the NHS development and is reported in Appendix 2.


142

ELC Codes The following table provides the ELC codes used in this document.

ELC Community Code ELC Community AL Alvar BOO Open bog BOS Shrub bog CUM Cultural meadow CUP Cultural plantation CUT Cultural thicket CUW Cultural woodland FEO Open fen FES Shrub fen FOC Coniferous forest FOD Deciduous forest FOM Mixed forest MAM Meadow marsh MAS Shallow marsh OAO Open aquatic SAF Floating-leaved shallow aquatic SAM Mixed shallow aquatic SAS Submerged shallow aquatic SWC Coniferous swamp SWD Deciduous swamp SWM Mixed swamp SWT Swamp thicket TP Tall grass prairie

4.0 Cited Literature Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998.

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


143

Appendix 2

Blind Field Checking of LSRCA Ecological Land Classification Data

1.0 Introduction The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and land use layer forms the basis of the Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System. The goal of ELC is to establish a uniform and consistent method for identifying, describing, naming, mapping and organizing landscape patterns and vegetation communities (Lee et al. 1998). The vegetation communities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed were classified to the Community Series level of the ELC System. This involved delineating the natural heritage features into polygons based on similar broad level vegetation communities. The Community Series level is determined by the type of vegetation or plant form that characterizes the community (Lee et al. 1998). The polygons were identified based on the community's cover (open, shrub or treed), and whether the tree or shrub form is deciduous, coniferous or mixed or whether the plant form is herbaceous or graminoid. LSRCA began the classification process in 2000 and is continuously updating it to reflect recent orthophotography. The Regional Municipality of York and the Town of Innisfil were originally mapped using 1999 colour orthogonally-rectified aerial photography (orthos). The Regional Municipality of Durham and the City of Barrie were mapped using the 2000 black-and-white orthos. Oro-Medonte, Orillia and Ramara were classified using 2002 colour orthos. York, Durham, Innisfil and Barrie were all updated using 2002 colour orthos. Three LSRCA GIS staff were involved in the mapping process. This was coordinated by Darren Campbell, the GIS Coordinator at the Authority. The ELC classification work was undertaken by three natural heritage interpreters, and was overseen and reviewed by Kim Baker, Senior Natural Heritage Biologist. For details on the ELC protocols see Appendix 1. 2.0 Methods A blind protocol was used in order to ensure accurate, unbiased results. A GIS technician from the LSRCA generated a random sample of 69 ELC polygons with unique site identification numbers. Provided by the LSRCA were close-up images of the polygons on 2002 air photo maps, an overview map in order to locate the polygons, as well as an attribute table with the polygon information. Four field technicians went into the field to locate the polygons and assign to each an ELC designation. The field exercises were undertaken in the late summer and fall of 2006. Following the completion of field checking for the polygons the field check designations were compared to the attribute


144

table designations. The attribute table was not shown to the field technicians prior to the completion of fieldwork. Following the field check comparison to the attribute table, each polygon was placed into one of six categories. The categories are as follows: correct call, correct call with minor mapping issue, minor error, moderate error, major error – LSRCA, and major error – MNR. These six categories are part of two larger groups: correct call and incorrect call. Determination of acceptable accuracy was based on the latter two groups. 3.0 Results Table 1 presents the comparison of the field check including the site identifier, the ELC code, the field check code, species information, notes and analysis. The analysis column presents whether the polygon was properly evaluated in comparison to the field and the notes column provides information on the error type.


145

Table 1. Results of the Field Tests

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code

Species Information Notes Analysis

W1749 SWC FOD Populus trembuloides, Populus, Fraxinus sp., Betula papyrifera, Equisetum sp., Rhamnus cathartica, Upland Solidago spp., Toxicodendron radicans

Mapping error, whole thing looks like FOD, or FOM

Major Error MNR mapping error to evaluated wetland

W1454 CUM MAM Typha, Phalaris, Solidago sp., some shrubs but less than 25%

Riparian, degree of wetness hard to interpret.

Major Error Riparian wetland mapped as cultural upland

B895 SWT CUM Daucus carota Next to SWT. Overmapped, included a MAS.

Major Error

OS270 FOD SWM Acer saccharinum, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Populus tremuloides, Pinus strobus, Onoclea sensibilis, Equisetum sp., Typha sp.

~ 30% Pinus sp., wet, vernal pooling Major Error

P2172 FOC SWC With Rhamnus cathartica, Populus balsamifera, Thuja occidentalis (dominant)

Deep organics >60cm. Couldn't view the understory from aerial photo

Moderate Error

B1162 MAM CUT Acer negundo, Rhamnus cathartica Presumed non-natural region. Very moist but not 50% wetlands veg. Unit mismapped, 50% meadow (probably MAM) and 50% part of wooded unit. Looks wet as it is beside a river, hard to interpret from photo

Moderate Error Includes portion from woodland, some could have been mapped as MAM

W2423 FOM SWM Canopy: Thuja occidentalis (~ 50%), Betula papyrifera (~ 35%). Ground- Fraxinus sp. Organic soil, depth unknown.

Soil was very dark black and very wet even at the top of the hill. Photo indicates topography that would lead to dry rather than wet soils

Moderate Error Called upland when was wetland, but could be difficult call

OS698 SWD FOD Acer saccharum, Fraxinus Americana, Betula papyrifera, Ulmus americana

All species were upland species. Groundcover was minimal.

Moderate Error Called wetland when was


146

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code


upland. Air photo indicates drainage area, could be a difficult call

E2471 CUT CUT/MAS

Solidago sp., Thuja occidentalis Mapped too general – are two MAS in this polygon.

Moderate Error

407 FOC FOC/ SWC

Thuja occidentalis Difficult to see on aerial, combined SWC/FOC polygon

Moderate Error Difficult to map wet polygon

2744 FOC SWC Thuja occidentalis, Acer saccharum

Swamp on a slope; old shoreline? Some upper sections were FOC

Moderate Error High slopes made interpretation of swamp difficult

P2254 CUW SWT Thuja occidentalis, Salix sp. Overmapped Moderate Error

P5729 FOD FOD, SWM, SWD

Ulmus americana, Acer rubrum, Acer Xfreemanii, Onoclea sensibilis, Thuja occidentalis, Populus tremuloides, Rhamnus cathartica

Undermapped Moderate Error

1831 FOM SWM Picea glauca, Betula papyrifera, Ulmus americana, Acer rubrum, Populus tremuloides

10 yrs ago could have been SWD Moderate Error

I852 FOD SWD Fraxinus sp., Populus tremuloides, Acer saccharum, Thuja occidentalis, moss, Crateagus sp., Cornus stolonifera, Ulmus americana, Geranium robertianum

An unusual Sugar Maple, Black Ash swamp. Vernal pooling, complex microtopography

Moderate Error

I418 CUW SWD Ulmus americana, Populus tremuloides, Acer rubrum, Betula alleghaniensis, Thuja

Clay component in soil. Area being filled with compost. Severely

Moderate Error


147

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code


occidentalis, ferns, mosses encroached. % cover close to 60. Dry swamp

L214 CUM MAS & SWT

Typha sp., Phragmites sp., Phalaris arundinacea, Salix sp., Cornus stolonifera

Undermapped. Was ag., but has regenerated to wetland.

Moderate Error

T271 FOC CUP/ CUW

Acer saccharum, Picea sp., Abies balsamea (CUP)

Mapping error, combined two types Moderate Error Overestimated % cover and overmapped a CUP

ON198 FOM SWM Populus tremuloides, Thuja occidentalis, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Larix laricina, Abies balsamea

Moderate Error Difficult to discern soil moisture

ON795 SWC SWM Thuja occidentalis co-dominant with Fraxinus nigra > Picea spp., Betula, Carex lacustris, Equisetum sp., Osmunda cinnamomea, moss, dead trees

Minor Error Underestimated deciduous component

P5618 CUW CUP Pinus sylvestris Aerial is deceiving Minor Error

ON795 SWC SWM Thuja occidentalis (co-dominant), Fraxinus nigra (co-dominant) > Picea spp., Betula, Carex lacustris, Equisetum sp., Osmunda cinnamomea, moss, dead trees

Minor Error Underestimated deciduous component

P937 CUW CUP Pinus sp. and Picea sp. Mapping error Minor Error

B5298 CUW FOC Thuja occidentalis >> Tilia americana, Populus sp., Ulmus americana, Malus sp., Rhamnus cathartica

Moist not wet, no understorey, soils were siC

Minor Error Difficult to interpret, could be mostly hedgerow, inconclusive rules

B358 MAS MAS Typha sp. Small mapping errors on both ends OK

350 MAS MAS Typha sp. >> Aster puniceus, Impatiens capensis

Groundwater discharge OK


148

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code


P910 CUP CUP Pinus strobus P. resinosa, Picea glauca OK

W626 CUP CUP Pinus strobus, Picea sp. Watercourse runs through, good call OK

L449 CUM CUM /CUT

Solidago sp., grasses, Cercium sp. Successional change, very minor mapping error

OK

I916 FOD FOD Acer saccharum, Populus sp., Betula papyrifera Understory: Acer saccharum Groundcover: Equisetum sp., Trillium grandiflorum,

OK

I987 FOD FOD Understory: Fagus grandifolia, Ground cover: Convallarina montana, Carex sp., Canopy: Populus, Betula papyrifera, Acer saccharum

OK

I819 SWD SWD > 60% deciduous cover May be slightly over split from surrounding units

OK

HA356 FOM FOM Picea sp., Pinus strobus (>40%), Acer saccharum (>40%), Ulmus americana (one), Rhus sp., Solidago, Picea pungens, Acer saccharum, Understory: Populus tremuloides

The 2002 air photo shows differences from current. CUP in the adjacent polygon (as indicated on photo), also development (single family dwellings) in the subject polygon

OK

B2018 FOD FOD Populus balsamifera (dominant), dead Ulmus americana (few), Fraxinus nigra (few), Populus tremuloides (few), Picea glauca, Thuja occidentalis, Rhamnus cathartica, Understory: Rhamnus cathartica, Thuja occidentalis, Fraxinus sambucifolia, Cornus stolonifera

Transitional. Upland but close to wetland. Could easily be called SWD

OK

178 FOM FOM, FOD

FOM: Acer saccharum > Tsuga canadensis 30% to East. FOD: Acer saccharum > Prunus serotina > Betula sp., Understory 25% Tsuga Canadensis

Mapping call OK


149

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code


B1211 CUW CUT Thuja sp., Rhamnus cathartica, Ulmus Americana (dead and sapling line)

All grazed, % tree cover, height of veg. mistaken

OK Minor mapping issue

B95 CUM NAG Pasture OK Could be agricultural change

U5190 FOD FOD Acer saccharum, Tsuga canadensis (one) Polygon over mapped to include valley features, 80% correct

OK Minor mapping issue

502 SWC SWM Tsuga canadensis, Thuja occidentalis, Picea glauca > Populus tremuloides, Betula papyrifera

Groundwater seepage, % deciduous underestimated

OK Small error in % conifer

1440 CUP CUP Pinus sylvestris Over-mapped (too small) OK Minor mapping issue

892 CUM CUT Thuja occidentalis, Rhamnus cathartica Open, 30% shrubs, would have been CUM five years ago

OK Minor mapping issue, succession

W1484 FOM FOD Populus tremuloides, Pinus sp., Fraxinus sp., Equisetum sp. (lots), Toxicodendron radicans, Asclepias tuberose

Disturbed, natural regeneration OK Negligible error in % conifer % which may have been removed for hedging

W575 CUW FOD Populus; Understory: Pinus strobus, Solidago sp., Equisetum sp., Rhus typhina

Natural regeneration small mapping error, upland sandy soils


E1689 SWD SWC Thuja occidentalis Combined with small MAS OK Minor mapping issue


150

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code


W353 FOD FOD Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Tsuga canadensis

Aerial looks like FOD, close to FOM OK

W9203 FOD FOM/FOD

Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, Tsuga canadensis

OK

W241 CUM CUM Solidago sp., with Cornus stolonifera and Malus sp. (<25%)

Very transitional with CUW, CUM and CUT in one polygon

OK

6050 FOC FOC Pinus resinosa, Pinus strobus, Ulmus americana, Fagus grandifolia

Extensive path throughout, but has >60% cover

OK

P2315 MAS SWT Salix sp. Most likely was MAS five years ago. Hydro corridor


U2229 CUM CUM OK

B321 FOM FOM Pinus strobus, Picea glauca, Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia

OK

171 CUP CUP Pinus resinosa OK

U1193 CUP CUP Pinus strobus OK

R408 SWD SWD Lots of Vincetoxicum rossicum, Equisetum sp., Fraxinus nigra, Ulmus americana, Populus tremuloides, Thuja occidentalis, moss, Onoclea sensibilis, dominant Aster sp.

Somewhat overmapped; included some FOD, are man-made berms. siS soils on slopes, organics in depression, wetter

OK

L249 FOD FOD Acer saccharum, Prunus serotina No wetland near stream OK

ON414 FOM FOM Rhus typhina, Pinus strobus, Picea glauca, Betula papyrifera, Acer saccharum

OK


151

Site ID ELC Code

Field Check Code


BC277 CUW CUW Thuja occidentalis, Picea glauca, Acer negundo, Populus tremuloides, Tilia americana

Very close to being a FOD/FOM OK

1175

SWC

SWC

Thuja occidentalis, Ledum groenlandicum, Pinus strobus, Athyrium sp., Larix laricina, Abies balimea, Ulmus americana

Groundwater discharge

OK

W1064 CUM CUM Solidago sp. Some Malus sp., Juniperus virginiana, but less than 25% will become CUT in next few years

OK

E2411 SWT SWT Salix sp. In the middle of Holland Marsh, could be SWD

OK

W416 CUM CUM Solidago sp. OK

I114 CUT CUT Malus sp., Cornus stolonifera, grasses Cattle paths, mapped farm in. OK

R488 CUM CUM MAM

CUM: Solidago sp., Rubus, Urtica dioica, MAM: Phalaris >> Salix sp.

OK

R237 SWT SWT Salix sp., Cornus stolonifera, Eupatoria maculatum, Euthamia graminifolia, Phalaris arundinacea, Phragmites australis

OK

TA148 SWT SWT Alnus incana, Saccharum freemanii, Cornus stolonifera

A little over-mapped OK

L7 CUM CUM/CUT

Cornus stolonifera, Pinus sp., Rhus typhina Small % difference in tree cover. Included CUW in polygon with CUM.

OK Minor mapping issues

OS723 FOD FOD Acer sp., Solidago sp., Alliaria petiolata Could be bigger polygon. OK

OS736 FOM CUW/FOM

Pinus strobus, Thuja occidentalis, Fraxinus americanum

Backyards mown. Could connect to URB polygon.

OK Minor mapping issues

ON276 CUT CUM Cornus stolonifera, Salix sp., asters, Asclepias syriaca

SWT in pockets; the majority is CUM OK Minor mapping issues


152

The data in Table 1 have been assigned to various categories and summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Results Call Type Definition Number % Comments

Correct Correct in type and area 32

Correct with minor mapping issues

Essentially correct, some non-significant issues with call or mapping

13

Minor Error Essentially correct, underestimating deciduous or coniferous component

5

Moderate Error Wetland versus upland or community mapping problems; due to difficult to interpret conditions

15

95% Based on information levels available to the interpreter, these categories are generally considered to be a correct call. Woodland cover and land use categories generally correct.

Major Error – LSRCA Wetland versus upland, or community mapping; should have been correctly called

3

Major Error – OMNR evaluated wetland layer

Wetland versus upland, or community mapping; should have been correctly called

1

5% These categories are considered to be an incorrect call that could affect watershed-wide data.

Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System – Final Draft

153

4.0 Discussion It is recognized that the sample size of the test is insufficient to properly test the ELC data set and provide statistically valid accuracy, given that some 34,767 polygons have been interpreted over the multi-year program. However, the test is a useful qualitative exercise that can form the beginning of a more robust quality control program and increase the accuracy of mapping in the future. Overall, 95% of the Ecological Land Classification units that were field checked were correct. generally the mapping, which integrates both land use and land cover (i.e., there is no “white space”) is remarkably accurate. Gross errors that are typically common to landscape-level remote sensing techniques were almost absent. For example, the identification of intensive agricultural lands, infrastructure and residential/industrial/commercial land uses was usually correct. The lines created by the digitizing methods were generally precise (e.g., roadside edges were in the correct locations) and “bleed” into adjacent polygons very limited in extent. Some of the errors that were observed in ELC designations appear to be related to the\ experience of interpreters (e.g., the designation of a cultural meadow along a stream, that should clearly have been designated as wetland), and therefore it is likely that those types of errors have gradually declined over the five years of the program. Some units had been altered due to changes in agricultural practices or successional processes. Two of the major errors resulted from upland being mapped as wetland and of these one was sourced from an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources wetland evaluation map. As discussed above, these data were taken as they were provided, and by rule they were not re-interpreted, even if a mapping error was visible to the technician. Under-mapping of wetlands occurred in 12 of the test plots while over-mapping of wetlands only represented only two of the test plots. This is not surprising, as wetland calls can be difficult even for experienced evaluators when standing in the field. Most of the errors were in these upland versus wetland calls (particularly in treed units) and in the relative proportions of deciduous versus coniferous trees. Both of these are known to be potential pitfalls of aerial photograph interpretation. However, these types of errors are unlikely to substantially affect the development of the natural heritage system and the net result is that wetlands are likely to be somewhat under-represented by the ELC mapping. The aerial photographs used were of various ages and types, and the classification program extended over several years. These two practical realities are bound to introduce some level of variability in the final product. In addition, a seven year period (from the first 1999 photos) induces some potentially significant shifts in communities (e.g., from CUM to CUT to CUW, or shifts from and to alternative land uses. In general, all of the ELC mapping correctly identified cultural meadows, treed units and cultural thicket/cultural woodlands. This means for example that forest cover data for the watershed are likely to be accurate.


154

It is also notable that the blind test did not include land use polygons. If it had, the percentage of correct calls would likely increase. 4.1 Recommendations The ELC and land use mapping program has become an important planning tool for the Authority and an integral part of the Natural Heritage System. It also provides a powerful tool for measuring future changes in landscape composition. Ongoing improvement and upgrading should be undertaken. The following recommendations are offered in this regard.

1. At least one subwatershed area should be upgraded annually, to the highest level of

photography available at that time. Efforts should be made to have only watershed-experienced and ELC-qualified interpreters undertake the work.

2. An annual blind quality control program of at least 50 polygons, stratified to reflect the

results of the initial batch, should be tested by ELC-qualified staff (and preferably not those who did the original interpretation).

3. To provide greater definition, greater accuracy and to allow more detailed ecological

analysis, the Authority should consider moving the ELC towards Ecosite determination.


155

Appendix 3

Technical Methodology for Determining Significant Valleylands The following is a technical description of how significant valleylands were determined for the purposes of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS. 1.0 Off the Oak Ridges Moraine 1.1 Large Valleys Scale 1: 60,000 - 75,000 To determine the location of large significant valleys and their respective shapes the following layers were used:

• Swp_shd_50m2 (hillshade file); • Raster file of slope classification (≥8%) Classified breaks occur <8%, 8-9.99%, 10-14.99%, and ≥15%; and • Point layer of Stable Top of Slope which is derived from a script which calculated

average slope and bank height and then queried to select points which are ≥ 5m and ≥ 8% average slope.


156

Scale 1:40,000 Digitizing the top of valley when the slope is clearly defined by the above mentioned layers.

An additional layer from the Authority’s Regulation data (i.e.“SlopeErosion”) was used to verify that the valley is appropriately located. As the “Slope Erosion” criterion was much broader than valleyland criterion, the valleylands should be situated in most cases within the “Slope Erosion” polygons. Scale 1:20,000 Digitizing top of valley when slope is not clearly defined by the layers mentioned above. An additional layer has been used to render these areas more clearly defined.

• Raster file of slope classification (>=7%) Classified breaks occur <7%, 7-9.99%, 10-14.99%, and >=15%.

As these areas are sometimes ill-defined, the portion of polygon serves more as a link to provide a continuous valley. See examples below.


157

1.2 Smaller Valleys These valleys are not connected to the large significant valleys yet nevertheless they appear as relatively obvious features on their particular watercourse Scale 1: 5,000 Valleys were digitized using the following criteria:

• Polygons must be greater than 50m x 25m; • Valleys must be two sided; and • Slope must be >= 8% with a rise >= 5m.


158

2.0 On the Oak Ridges Moraine Scale 1: 5,000 Valleys were digitized using similar criteria to the small significant valleys above. The only difference in criteria being:

• Slope must be ≥15% with a rise ≥ 5m, which is consistent with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP).

This captured most of the ORMCP Significant Valleylands. However, as with all ORMCP components, site specific investigations and the appropriate guidelines must be applied at the site specific level to ensure conformity with the requirements of the ORMCP.


159

Appendix 4

Terms of Reference: Environmental Impact Study The following are the general Terms of Reference for an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to determine the potential impacts on the Natural Heritage System (NHS) from development and site alteration proposals. The actual Terms of Reference for any particular application will be determined by the planning authority in conjunction with the Conservation Authority. 1.0 Objectives The objectives of the Terms of Reference are as follows: 1.1 To provide an outline to applicants and their consultants of the expectations of the Authority for an EIS, subject to a Terms of Reference meeting with the Authority. 1.2 To ensure that the required work and/or studies are known and agreed to prior to the

commencement of work, to facilitate a cost-effective, stream-lined and timely review process.

2.0 General Policies 2.1 It is mandatory that the applicant and/or their consultant meet with the Authority to

determine and agree upon the Terms of Reference of the EIS prior to the commencement of any work. Failure to hold this meeting and/or to reach agreement on the scope of the study prior to commencement of the EIS may result in refusal on the part of the Authority to review or approve the EIS.

2.2 The EIS must be undertaken by a qualified professional in environmental or related

sciences to the satisfaction of the Authority. 2.3 A visit to the site may be required by the Authority prior to, during, or upon receipt of the

EIS. 2.4 The staking of regulated areas (i.e., wetlands, top of bank, etc.) and NHS features (i.e.,

woodlands, etc.) by the Authority may be required. Staking will generally occur between the end of May and the end of October. Any staking that occurs outside of this time may require a confirmatory visit between May and October.


160

3.0 Terms of Reference 3.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.1 The existing conditions of the subject property must be clearly described and clearly mapped on aerial photographs. 3.1.2 The description must include the zoning and all designations of all Official Plans on and

adjacent to the subject property. This includes any land use designations from other municipal planning documents, such as Secondary Plans.

3.1.3 Land use designations from any other applicable planning documents (i.e., Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Greenbelt Plan) must be clearly described and the limits identified in the mapping. 3.1.4 The EIS shall identify the components of the Natural Heritage System and their

respective Levels. The boundaries of the NHS shall be staked in the field by the proponent and approved by the Authority and the planning authority. The staked and surveyed boundaries shall be provided on a figure in the report.

3.1.5 All designated environmental features (i.e., the NHS or natural features identified in the

OPs) must be identified in the mapping and described in the report. These features include provincial or regional Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), etc.

3.1.6 The vegetation communities must be identified using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system to vegetation type. The communities must be identified in the mapping, using the appropriate ELC codes, as well as described in the text. A three-season survey may be required. 3.1.7 As a component of the ELC, a plant list must be included as an appendix. The list must

include an analysis for the presence of federal, provincial, regional and/or watershed rare, threatened or endangered species. This should include information from the MNR district office and NHIC.

3.1.8 The EIS may require a breeding bird survey. The need for such a survey will be

determined as part of the initial Terms of Reference/scoping meeting. The survey must be conducted during the breeding bird season at an appropriate time of day in appropriate weather conditions and by a qualified professional. A minimum of two surveys are required and they must follow generally accepted scientific protocols, not necessarily atlassing methods.

3.1.9 A list of the breeding birds is required as an appendix. The list must include an analysis

for the presence of federal or provincial rare, threatened or endangered species. Watershed rarity status shall be determined in conjunction with the Conservation Authority.


161

3.1.10 The EIS may require a breeding amphibian/reptile survey. The survey must be conducted during the breeding amphibian season and by a qualified professional. For calling amphibians a minimum of three surveys are required. These surveys must span the full amphibian breeding season to ensure that the peak periods of activity for early and late breeding species are accounted for. For non-calling amphibians, appropriate methodology must be used.

3.1.11 A list of the breeding amphibians is required as an appendix. The list must include an

analysis for the presence of federal, provincial, threatened or endangered species. Watershed rarity status shall be determined in conjunction with the Conservation Authority.

3.1.12 If any watercourses or waterbodies identified in the NHS as habitat for fish are present, a

fisheries assessment shall be provided. Existing data regarding fish species shall be obtained from LSRCA and/or the MNR. Where necessary, fish will be sampled through electrofishing and/or netting during the appropriate season, under a collection permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The assessment shall include a description of watercourses or other fish habitat on and/or adjacent to the property.

3.1.13 All incidental wildlife observed shall be reported on and listed in an appendix. The list

must include an analysis for the presence of federal or provincial rare, threatened or endangered species. Watershed rarity status shall be determined in conjunction with the conservation authority.

3.1.14 A functional assessment of the subject property describing the ecology of the natural

heritage features and functions should be provided. This shall include a consideration of the hydrological requirements of natural heritage features, particularly wetlands.

3.1.15 Where the NHS has identified a stream linkage or potential proximity linkage on or

adjacent to the property, the EIS must identify the location, width and proposed vegetation composition of the linkage. Once the limits of the linkage have been determined to the satisfaction of the planning authority and the Conservation Authority, these shall be staked in the field and subsequently surveyed.

3.1.16 Mapping (at a minimum) shall consist of the following:

a) All mapping must have a title, figure number, north arrow, legend and scale or

scale bar.

b) A site location map that provides the regional or watershed context of the subject property. c) The extent of the Natural Heritage System and its components must be clearly demarcated on an orthophoto base.


162

d) The locations of all watercourses and waterbodies and an indication of their flow and thermal regimes.

e) Vegetation communities must be delineated and identified using ELC. f) The location of any rare, threatened or endangered species and/or populations shall be identified.

g) The location of any important wildlife features (i.e., hibernacula, den, stick nest, etc.) shall be identified.

3.2 Assessment of Impacts 3.2.1 The potential impacts to the features and functions of the Natural Heritage System shall be identified and discussed. 3.2.2 An assessment of the potential impact on wildlife at a local, watershed and provincial (if applicable) level shall be provided. 3.2.3 In the case of Level 1 and Level 2 features, the EIS must demonstrate that there is no

development or site alteration within the feature or negative impacts. The EIS must determine appropriate buffers from Level 1 and Level 2 features through the identification of critical function and protection zones

3.2.4 In the case of Level 3 features, the EIS must demonstrate no net negative impacts on the

natural features or ecological functions, which may involve the identification of buffers from Level 3 features and other mitigation measures.

3.2.5 A description of the natural features proposed for removal shall be provided. The quantity of removal shall also be included. 3.2.6 An assessment of the potential impact on the Natural Heritage System, including any

Linkages areas that have been identified. 3.3 Recommendations and Mitigation Measures 3.3.1 Avoidance of any NHS feature, regardless of its assigned Level, is the preferred approach

to mitigation. In the case of Level 1 features, avoidance is required. 3.3.2 Determine adequate buffers through the identification of the critical function and

protection zones of the NHS.


163

3.3.3 Where avoidance of a feature is not feasible or possible, mitigation approaches/techniques must be provided. These may include edge management plans, buffer plantings, fencing, etc.

3.3.4 In cases where a Linkage area has been identified on a property, the EIS must

demonstrate how it will be integrated into the proposed development plan. 3.3.4 Recommendations for Best Management Practices during construction should be provided. This may include silt fencing, tree protection, fencing, identification of timing or seasonal constraints to construction or restoration, etc. 3.3.5 Mitigation for negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions (or to achieve no net negative impact) may include, at the discretion of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority, approaches to replace lost areas or functions. 3.3.6 If acceptable, replacement shall, to the extent possible, occur within the same

subwatershed as the proposed development or site alteration. 3.3.7 The appropriate amount of replacement will be determined through discussions with the Authority and the planning authority and will be agreed to by all parties in writing. 3.3.8 If monitoring is required, the details of a monitoring program must be agreed to in writing by the Authority, planning authority and other parties. 3.4 Conclusions The EIS must demonstrate the following: 3.4.1 No development or site alteration within NHS Level 1 features. 3.4.2 No negative impacts to NHS Level 2 features. 3.4.3 No net negative impacts to NHS Level 3 features. 3.4.4 How NHS Level 4 - supporting features have been addressed. 3.4.5 Conformity with the policies and requirements of the Official Plan(s). 3.4.6 Conformity with the policies and requirements of other applicable planning documents

(i.e., ORMCP, Greenbelt Plan, etc). 3.4.7 Conformity with the requirements of the LSRCA’s Watershed Development Policies.


164



165

Appendix 5

Acronyms

Acronym

Definition

ANSI Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest BWPA Big Woods Policy Area CWS Canadian Wildlife Services DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans E&T Endangered and Threatened EIS Environmental Impact Assessment ELC Ecological Land Classification GIS Geographic Information Systems LSEMS Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy LSRCA Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority LSW Locally Significant Wetland MMAH Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing MNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources MOE Ministry of the Environment MPIR Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal NHIC Natural Heritage Information Centre NHRM Natural Heritage Reference Manual NHS Natural Heritage System Non-PSW Non-Provincially Significant evaluated wetland OMAF Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food OP Official Plan ORM Oak Ridges Moraine ORMCP Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan OWES Ontario Wetlands Evaluation System PL Proximity Linkage PPS Provincial Policy Statement PSW Provincially Significant Wetland RRCA Raison Region Conservation Authority SL Stream Linkage SWH Significant Wildlife Habitat SWHTG Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide


166



167

Appendix 6

Summary of NHS Components and their Policy Levels

Level of Significance

Policy Level

Feature Description


Level 1

• Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs)

• Woodland Patches ≥ 25 ha • Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species


Level 2

• All non-evaluated wetlands ≥ 10 ha

• Any wetland contiguous with evaluated non-PSWs where the total area ≥ 10 ha


• Woodland patches ≥ 10 and < 25 ha

• Significant valleylands

• Core Winter Deer Yards (Stratum 1)

• Colonial waterbird nesting sites

• Rare vegetation communities (alvars, tallgrass prairies, fens and bogs)

• Confirmed Provincial Life Science ANSIs Watershed Significant

Level 3

• Evaluated non-PSWs and designated Locally Significant Wetlands • Watercourses, waterbodies, drains, online ponds and mapped offline

ponds within 30 m of another NHS feature (Habitat for Fish) • Confirmed Regional Life Science ANSIs • Woodlands ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha that overlap or are within 30 m or less of

any other identified Level 1, 2 or 3 feature

• Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 0.5 ha that overlap or fall within 30 m or less of any identified Level 1, 2 or 3 NHS feature

• Woodlands ≥ 4 ha and < 10 ha in urban areas

• Stream Linkages minimum 30 m from creek between Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

• Proximity Linkages between Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

Supporting Level 4

• Unevaluated wetland units ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha • Cultural thickets (CUTs) that are continuous with NHS Level 1, Level

2 and/or Level 3 woodlands and/or wetlands • Woodland patches ≥ 2 and < 10 ha

• Grassland communities as follows: CUM and CUT ≥ 15 ha; CUT and CUM ≥ 10 ha when surrounded by other NHS components; and contiguous CUT/CUM ≥ 20 ha

Note: within the Oak Ridges Moraine area the draft ORMCP technical guidelines apply and within the Greenbelt, the Greenbelt technical guidelines shall apply.


168



169

Appendix 7

Glossary

Apparent valleyland: a depressional feature associated with a river or stream (regardless of whether it contain a watercourse) and with valley walls of at least 3 metres in height. Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI): areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified by the MNR as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education. Big Woods: a colloquial phrase indicating the concept of identifying expansive productive habitats or ecosystems (i.e., thousands of hectares), usually but not always applied to woodlands. In the NHS, referring to areas of known woodland aggregations overlain with areas of contiguous patches >500 ha, that represent areas of enhanced ecological function. Biodiversity: the variability among organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (OMNR 1999). Exurban: areas outside of the urban area where there are single family dwellings or subdivisions, often within natural areas, not usually serviced by municipalities. Ecological Land Classification (ELC): the southern Ontario classification of lands from an ecological perspective; an approach that attempts to identify ecologically similar areas. Ecodistrict: is an area defined by the MNR that has a distinct combination of landforms, soils, waters, plants and animals. Fish habitat: spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life process (as defined in the PPS 2005). Habitat for Fish: those areas in the NHS where direct fish habitat is expected to be found, either permanently or seasonally. Lake Simcoe Watershed: all lands within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority jurisdictional boundary, including the islands and the Lake itself, as well as the City of Orillia within the physical watershed boundaries. The total area of the watershed (including the Lake) is 334,139 hectares (Figure 1.1).


170

Negative impacts: degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities (PPS definition). Net Negative impacts: degradation that threatens the habitat and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities that persists after consideration of mitigation, including where appropriate, replacement. Normal farming practices: a farming practice that: a) is consistent with the Nutrient Management Act, 2002; b) is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances; or c) makes use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices. Peat extraction is not considered a normal farming practice. Proximity linkage: the smaller of: 60 m or the width of the feature, where Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 3 components (or their continuous Level 4 – supporting features) are located within 60 m of each other. This feature is represented by a symbol on the mapping product. Replacement: a mitigative strategy that allows for the provision of habitats or areas to be restored in exchange for the loss of an existing feature or area. Replacement may be at various ratios. Stream linkage: minimum 30 m on either side of designated Habitat for Fish when located between two designated Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 components (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features). Stream Linkages are existing features and are treated as Level 3 policy features. Urban area: an urban area in this NHS is an area defined by the respective municipality in their official plan mapping as “urban”. Wetlands: there are two wetland definitions within the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS. They are as follows:

Unevaluated wetlands: unevaluated wetlands in the watershed are identified using the following ELC codes: FEO, FES, BOO, BOS, BOT, MAM, MAS, SAS, SAM, SAF, SWT, SWD, SWM and SWC.

Evaluated wetlands: evaluated wetlands in the watershed have been evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.


171

Wetlands as defined in the ORMCP: those wetlands as defined in the Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper MNR T.P.-1.

Significant Wetlands as defined in the PPS 2005: an area identified as provincially significant by the Ministry of Natural resources using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time.

Woodlands: all treed communities, whether upland or wetland. The ELC communities that were considered to represent woodlands are: FOD, FOM, FOC, SWD, SWM, SWC, CUP and CUW.

Significant Woodland as defined in the ORMCP: those woodlands as defined in the Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper MNRT.P.-7.

Significant Woodland as defined in the PPS 2005: 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 site quality, species, composition, or past management history.

Woodland cover: the amount of woodland in a certain area, usually expressed as a percentage of that area. Woodland patch: the total area of a contiguous patch of wooded habitat as mapped by the LSRCA ELC mapping project. Valleyland: a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year. Wildlife habitat: areas where plants, animals and other organisms live and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their population. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species (as defined in the PPS 2005).

Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Documents/reports/natural_heritage... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Documents/reports/natural_heritage... ·...