The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPSD-027-13 Clarftw-n REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 8, 2013 Resolution #: 919(4X95-1313y-law#: N/A Report #: PSD-027-13 File #: PLN 38.6.2.1, PLN 38.6.1.1 Subject: OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW RELEASE OF THE NATURAL HERITAGE DISCUSSION PAPER AND THE PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS DISCUSSION PAPER RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-027-13 be received. Submitted by: Reviewed by: 0/avid/j. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu Director, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer LB/COS/df/nl 28 March 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: PSD-027-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Official Plan Review has been broken into several major components including: Community Vision; Built Environment and Planning Process; Planning for Prosperity and Growth (Growth Management and Intensification); Planning for the Countryside; and Planning for Sustainable and Healthy Communities. Special Projects Courtice Main Street; Robinson/Tooley Creeks Existing Conditions and Watershed Management Plan; Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan; and Parks, Open Space and Trails Policy Review. 1.2 Each component follows the same process, beginning with Discussion Papers and finishing with an Official Plan Amendment. Public input and review opportunities are presented as often as possible to ensure that the Official Plan Amendments proposed to Council meet the needs of the community and conform to Provincial Plans and policies. 1.3 To date, staff has released the following discussion papers: • Introductory Discussion Paper, April 2008 • Let's Have a Discussion...Improving our Built Environment and the Planning Process, December 2009 • Courtice Main Street Study Issues Review Paper, January 2010 • Community Forecasts Population and Employment Projections, February 2010 • Economic Base and Employment Lands, July 2010 • Intensification Discussion Paper, September 2011 • Robinson/Tooley Creeks Watershed Management Plan, January 2012 • Growth Management Discussion Paper, May 2012 1.4 Also, Council has approved two Official Plan Amendments; • OPA 77 (including policies related to the planning process, urban design, cultural heritage and employment lands) and, • OPA 89 which includes the corridor policies and the replacement of the Courtice West Shopping District Secondary Plan with the Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan. 2. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 2.1 The purpose of this report is to announce the release of the Natural Heritage Discussion Paper, the imminent release of the Parks, Open Space and Trails Discussion Paper and the Public Information Sessions related to these two discussion papers. REPORT NO.: PSD-027-13 PAGE 3 3. NATURAL HERITAGE DISCUSSION PAPER 3.1 The Natural Heritage Discussion Paper is a component of Planning for Sustainable and Healthy Communities theme. The Paper has been prepared with the assistance of the Ganaraska Region and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authorities. Supporting information has been provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 3.2 The term "natural heritage" commonly refers to species (plant, animal, terrestrial and aquatic) ecosystems and the geological features that support them. The features that make up the Natural Heritage systems benefit from an overall analysis. The various methods used to define these systems and the component parts of the natural heritage system including valleylands, wetlands and woodlands. 3.3 The natural heritage system proposed for Clarington includes those features that are part of a linked system as well as those natural heritage features (i.e. Woodlands) that are spatially separated from the linked system. This proposed approach is applicable to all parts of the Clarington including urban areas, lands within the Greenbelt, the Oak Ridges Moraine and other rural areas. 3.4 The discussion paper explains how the natural heritage system is currently identified and protected through a combination of policies, land use designations and supporting Official Plan maps. The paper concludes with recommendations of how to update the existing natural heritage system policies and the associated mapping and the policies that protect this system for the purposes of inclusion into the Clarington Official Plan. 4 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS DISCUSSION PAPER 4.1 The Parks, Trails, and Open Space Discussion Paper has been prepared by Dillon Consulting Ltd. and will be released in late April 2013. The Discussion Paper will discuss the existing policy framework and potential updates where necessary. This information, on a municipal wide basis, will provide the quantitative and qualitative information on which to base future recommendations for parkland and open space (including trails) delivery. The outcome of the Parks, Open Space and Trails Discussion Paper is to identify areas where existing policy could be improved or further developed 4.2 The Parks, Open Space, and Trails Policy Review will supplement growth and land use objectives of the Official Plan and the Strategic Plan. Other related themes within the current policy review include Growth Management and Sustainable and Healthy Communities. 5. COUNTRYSIDE DISCUSSION PAPER 5.1 The Countryside Discussion Paper is under preparation by staff and will evaluate the effectiveness of rural and agricultural Official Plan policies in achieving the goals and objectives identified. A major part of the review is ensuring that the Clarington Official Plan is in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan. REPORT NO.: PSD-027-13 PAGE 4 6. PUBLIC CONSULTATION 6.1 The release of the Natural Heritage Discussion Paper, and the Parks, Open Space and Trails Discussion Paper (late April 2013), will be followed by five Public Information Sessions. All five sessions are scheduled as follows: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - Newcastle and District Recreation Complex Wednesday, May 1, 2013 - G.B. Rickard Recreation Complex Thursday, May 2, 2013 - Solina Community Hall Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - Orono Arena Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - Faith United Church, Courtice 6.2 All meetings are scheduled for 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Staff from the Municipality, CLOCA, GRCA and MNR will be available to answer any questions. 6.3 A notice will be sent to all interested parties announcing the release of Natural Heritage Discussion Paper and the Parks, Open Space and Trials Discussion Paper and the public consultation sessions. 6.4 The Natural Heritage System Discussion Paper is available on the Official Plan Review website http://www.clarington.net/ourplan/. The Parks, Open Space and Trails Discussion Paper will be posted by mid-April. Compact discs of all Discussion Papers are available. The public is encouraged to provide comments. The Discussion Papers are available to the public in all Clarington Library branches. 6.5 As Council may recall, staff proposed amendments to the Official Plan (former Amendment 80; Public Meeting April 2011; Staff report PSD-030-11) to place the lands identified as Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) by the Ministry of Natural Resources into Environmental Protection Area designations, and to update the natural heritage features information of the Plan to accurately reflect the location of PSWs. Following the public meeting in April, 2011 , a mediated session was held with a group of concerned residents. 6.6 In response to an inquiry regarding follow-up meetings with residents who were concerned with MNR identified PSWs, Council passed a resolution requesting the Ministry of Natural Resources staff, CLOCA, MP Bev Oda and MPP John O'Toole and other parties be invited to a Town Hall meeting to make a presentation and answer questions from residents and further requested that affected landowners be advised of the public meeting by ordinary mail. 6.7 Staff re-evaluated the originally proposed PSW amendment in the context of the entire Official Plan Review. Staff determined, and communicated to Council, that it was more appropriate have follow-up meetings with concerned landowner's within Hancock Neighbourhood separately since this was the area that urgently needed an update to the PSW policies. The balance of the PSW areas, largely within the rural areas, would be considered in the context of the Natural Heritage Discussion Paper. REPORT NO.: PSD-027-13 PAGE 5 6.8 Staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources and both Conservation Authorities will be present at the five Public Information Sessions to address questions. All landowners affected by the PSW designation in the Municipality will be notified by ordinary mail. MPP John O'Toole and MP Erin O'Toole will be advised of the public information sessions. 7. CONCURRENCE - Not Applicable 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The Natural Heritage Discussion Paper identifies an approach for the definition and delineation of the Natural Heritage System and the proposed land use designations, policies and supporting schedules for inclusion in the Clarington Official Plan. Public input will be sought over the next few months. 8.2 The Parks, Open Space and Trails Discussion Paper recommends enhancements that can be made to the existing Official Plan policies to ensure that Clarington continues to provide the necessary amenities for residents of the community. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: X Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington X Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Lisa Backus, Senior Planner; Carlos Salazar, Manager Community Planning Attachments: Attachment 1 - Natural Heritage Discussion Paper (Under Separate Cover) List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: (List of interested parties can be obtained from the Planning Services Department) NaturalHeritageSystem DiscussionPaper Preparedby: PLANNINGSERVICESDEPARTMENT FOR THEMUNICIPALITYOFCLARINGTON April2013(Revised) ThemanyanddiversenaturalheritagefeaturesfoundinClarington, togetherwiththeirecologicalfunctions,collectivelycomprisethe -µÆ©£©∞°¨©¥?΄≥naturalheritagesystem. (Policy4.4.1ClaringtonOfficialPlan,1996) Urbanization Agriculture Recreationand AtmosphericPollutionandClimateChange. ThisdiscussionpaperrecommendsaNaturalHeritageSystemthatincludestheprotectionof bothanaturallinkedsystemaswellasnaturalfeaturesthatarelocatedoutsideofthe system.Thisapproachallowsforrestorationandenhancementwithinasystemandalso providesforprotectionoffeaturesoutsideofthesystem.Thisistheapproachselectedfor thecurrentOPreviewforallareasofthemunicipalityincludingtheOakRidgesMoraine,the Greenbelt,otherruralareasaswellaswithinurbanareas. NaturalHeritageProtection #¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥firstOfficialPlan(OP),1996setanewstandardfortheprotectionofnatural heritagefeaturesinSouthernOntario.Almosttwentyyearslaterthesesamepoliciesarestill consideredtobepioneering.ItistheobjectiveofthisOfficialPlanreviewtocontinueto protect#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagesystemfromincompatibledevelopment. Throughacombinationoflandusedesignationspoliciesandsupportingmaps(schedules)in thecurrentOPthenaturalheritagesystemisdescribedandprotectedforClarington.This discussionpaperonlyproposesminormodificationstothisexistingframework. UsingtheupdatedinformationprovidedfromtheConservationAuthoritiesandtheMinistry ofNaturalResources,andthemethodologiesdescribed,theMunicipalityhasmappedallof thenaturalheritagefeaturesthroughoutClarington.Allofthefeatureswerethen combinedtogetherinasinglemaptocreatetheproposedNaturalHeritageSystem(See Figures14A;14B;14Cand14D).Therecommendedapproachtodefine#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥ NaturalHeritageSystemisinconformitywiththepoliciesoftheProvincialPolicyStatement, theGreenbeltPlan,TheOakRidgesMoraineConservationPlan,theGrowthPlan,andthe RegionalOfficialPlan. TherecommendedNaturalHeritageSystemandtherelatedOfficialPlanpoliciesanswerthe £Ø≠≠µÆ©¥?΄≥firstpriorityoftheOfficialPlanreviewprocess.Thecommunityexpressedthe protectionoftheenvironmentasthemostimportantissuethroughsurveysandatthe differentmeetingsheldaspartoftheOfficialPlanreviewprocess.Thispriorityhasalsobeen reflectedinothersurveysandwasraisedatothercommunitymeetingsrelatedtosite specificprojects. 1.INTRODUCTION Whenaskedwhattheylikemostabouttheircommunity,themajorityofresidentssurveyed in2008respondedwith?¥®•abundanceofgreen≥∞°£•΄ỳTheresidentsindicatedthatthe abundanceofgreenspaceiswhatsetsClaringtonapartfromothercommunitiesandthe protectionofthisgreenspacewasidentifiedasthetoppriority.Alsoofimportanceisthe protectionofagriculturallandsandthecreationofjobs.Thesethreeprioritieswerealso identifiedin1993,priortothecreationofexistingOfficialPlan,asthetoppriorities. Inresponsetothecommunityconsultation(1993)whentheOfficialPlanwasadoptedbythe MunicipalityofClaringtonin1996,itcontainedsomeofthemostadvancednaturalheritage protectionpoliciesintheprovince.Thesepoliciesarestillrelevantintheirabilitytoprotect ourexistingfeatures,buttheyneedtobereviewedandthelanguageupdatedtoensure continuedprotectionaswellasbeingconsistentwithbothRegionalandProvincialpolicy. ThenaturalheritagesystemidentifiedinthecurrentPlaniscomprisedofmanynatural heritagefeaturessuchasfishhabitat,valleylands,wetlands,woodlandsandthelinkages betweenthem. Overthepasttwodecades,sciencehasdevelopedabetterunderstandingofthe interrelationshipsbetweentheindividualfeaturesandhowtodelineatenaturalheritage systems.Thesystemsapproachincludesthenaturalfeatures,theirnaturalfunctionsandthe connections(existingorfuture)tofacilitatemovementofspecies.Also,identificationof, andmappingofnaturalheritagefeatureshasbecomemoreprecisewiththeuseof geographicinformationsystems,remotesensing,andorthogonallyrectifiedaerial photography. 1.1DiscussionPaperObjectives Thisdiscussionpaperhasfourobjectives; toeducatethereaderaboutnaturalheritage; toexplainthepurposeofandhowtodevelopanaturalheritagesystem; todescribethefeaturesandfunctionsofthenaturalheritagesysteminClarington; and toexplainhowtheOfficialPlanpoliciesandassociatedmappingprotectthese featuresforfuturegenerations. 1 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Thepaperconcludeswithrecommendationsofhowtoupdatetheexistingnaturalheritage systempoliciesandtheassociatedmappingandthepoliciesthatprotectthissystemforthe purposesofinclusionintotheClaringtonOfficialPlan. ThisdiscussionpaperhasbeenpreparedincollaborationwiththeGanaraskaRegion(GRCA) andtheCentralLakeOntarioConservation(CLOCA)Authorities.Thispaperpresentsour combinedlocalapproachtonaturalheritagesystemsidentificationandprotectionfor ClaringtonaspartoftheOfficialPlanreview. 2 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section2 ContextforNaturalHeritageSystems concernistheeconomy,onemustspeakthesamelanguage.Thishasledtotheconceptof ΈÆ°¥µ≤°¨£°∞©¥°¨ΉandattemptingtoplaceadollarfigureontheΈ•£Ø¨Øß©£°¨goodsand ≥•≤∂©£•≥Ήprovidedtosocietybynaturalareas.Advocatesofthisapproacharguethat demonstratingtheeconomicworthofnatureistheonlywaytosaveit. Othersbelievethatthisapproachisquestionableethically,thatnatureshouldnothaveto payitswaytobeprotected.Furthermore,humansareonlyonespeciesamongmillionsand itisarrogantforustojudgetheworthofnatureforoursakealone.Tosomeplacinga monetaryvalueonecologicalservicessetsadangerousprecedentbecauseitreduces speciesandecosystemstocommoditiesthatcanthenbeboughtandsoldinthe marketplace,orwhichmayloseoutinacostbenefitanalysis. Whatevertheperspective,itiswidelyrecognizedthatecosystemsprovideuswithagreat varietyofvaluableservices,andindeedwecouldnotsurvivewithoutthem.Someofthese servicesaffectingourdailylivesincludestormwaterretentionandfiltration,pollution uptake,provisionofwildfoods(fish,game,berriesetc.),provisionofwoodproducts, recreationalactivitiesandaestheticvalues. InOntarioattemptshavebeenmadetoquantifyecosystemservicesatavarietyofscales. TheOntarioMinistryofNaturalResourcescalculatedthevalueofecosystemservicesfor southernOntariousing15x15metrepixels(gridsquares)andbasedonwatersheds(Troy andBagstad2009).AstudyofecologicalservicesoftheGreenbelt(Wilson2008)calculated thatforestshaveaservicevalueof$5,414perhectareperyearwhilewetlandshaveaservice valueof$14,153perhectareperyear.TheCreditValleyConservationAuthoritycalculated ecologicalservicevaluesfortheirwatershed(KennedyandWilson2009)tobeasmuchas $371millionperyear.Thisstudyestimatedthataninvestmentof$8millionintreeandshrub plantingonabandonedanddegradedlandsovertenyearswouldbringareturnof$13 millioninservicesperyear.Acalculationsuchasthiscertainlymightinfluencedecision makersfortheneedtocreateanaturalheritagesystem. 4 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section3 ANaturalHeritageSystem 3.ANATURALHERITAGESYSTEM 3.1TheNaturalHeritageSystem(NHS)Concept Theprocessofhabitatlossandfragmentationhasoccurredovertimewithlimitedregardto theneedsofspeciesorthefunctionsofnaturalecosystems.Asaresultnaturalfunctions acrossthelandscapesuchasspeciesdispersalhavebeencompromised.Inshort,thehealth ofecosystemsisunderthreat.Toassistinprotectingandperhapsrestoringthehealthof theecosystemitisnecessarytoidentifyandprotectanaturalsysteminamannerthatcan bebalancedwithhumanneeds.Asidentifiedina2008surveyofClaringtonresidents, protectionofthenaturalenvironmentisthenumberonepriority. Untilthemid⁪??⁯΄≥conservationistswereusinganΈ©≥¨°Æ§≥ofß≤••ÆΉapproach,attempting tohavethebestofthebestrepresentedinprotectedparksandreserves.Inmanycasesthe landssurroundingsuchprotectedareashadbeen,orlaterbecameconvertedtohuman uses,leavingtheprotectedareasasisolatedislandsofnaturalhabitat. Thenewsciencesofconservationbiologyandlandscapeecologydevelopedamore comprehensiveapproachtoconservationthattookintoconsiderationwildlifepopulations andpopulationgeneticsinrelationtohabitatandthestructureoflandscapes.Principles fromeachofthesesciencesaregraduallybeingincorporatedintoprovincialpoliciesand municipalplanningthroughafocusonnaturalheritageandtherecognitionoftheneedto definenaturalheritagesystems. Althoughtherearemanyfactorstoconsider,conservationbiologytheorysuggeststhat recentlyisolatedpopulationsofspeciessuchasthoseinfragmentedlandscapesmayhavea reducedcapacitytosurviveinthelongtermandarethereforeofconservationconcern(but thatdoesnotmakeitnotworthyofprotection).Forexample,aspeciesmayconsumeall availableresourcesinahabitatpatchandthengoextinctfromthatpatch.Ortheycanbe easilylosttodiseaseordisasterssuchasfire,ortheintroductionofnewpredatorstothat patch.Amoreinsidiousthreatisthatwithoutinteractionwithotherpopulationsforgenetic exchange,inbreedingandareductioninfitnesswithinhabitatpatchesislikely.In combinationwithallofthestressesonnaturalareasΜoveruse,highratesofpredationand parasitism,invasivespecies,disease,pollution,andclimatechangeΜitcanbearguedthat fitnessandtheabilityforaspeciestoadapthaveneverbeenmoreimportant. 5 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Althoughitcannotstopthenegativeimpactsofinvasivespecies,roads,aggregate extraction,urbanization,recreation,andpollution,aNHSthatdefinesaprotectedarea,with thesupportofapolicyframeworkthatallowsforimprovementstotheNHSwillleadto morerobustandhealthierecosystemsthathaveabetterabilitytoresistthenegativeeffects associatedwithotherlanduses.ANHScanevenaddressglobalclimatechange.Indeed, definingandprotectingsuchsystemsmaybeoneofthebestthingswecandointhisregard. Theplantingoftreestosequestercarbon,morenaturalcoveronthelandscape,especially forest,regulateslocalclimatebyabsorbingheat,retainingwaterandcontributingto precipitation.Beyondthis,aconnectedsystemofhabitatsmeansthatspecieswillhavea betteropportunitytomoveinresponsetoclimatechange,whichnotonlywillreducethe riskofextinction,itwillhelptomaintaintolerantorresistantecosystems.Toaugmentthis connectedsystemofhabitats,itisalsoimportanttoincludewithinaNHSthosefeatures thatareworthyofprotectioneventhoughtheyarenot?£ØÆÆ•£¥•§΄totheremainderofthe NHS. BenefitsofaNaturalHeritageSystem Maintainsorincreasestheoverallamountofnaturalcoverinthelandscape,thus improvingtheecologicalservicesoffreshairprovision,waterretentionandfiltration,soil production,erosioncontrol,pollutionassimilation,etc. Addstotheaestheticvalueofthelandscapeandimprovesrecreationalopportunitiesthat relyonnaturalareas,whileincreasinggamespeciespopulationsandimprovingfish habitat. Improveshabitatpatchsize,shapeandconnectivity,whichinturnimproveshabitat qualitytosupportsamoreviablewildlifepopulation. Overthelongtermwillprovidehighqualitylumberproductsandnontimberforest products. Reducesproblemwildlifepopulationsbyreducingpopulationsofhabitatgeneralistand edgespecies. Buffersagainstclimatechangebycarbonsequestrationandbyabsorbingheat,while regulatinglocaltemperatureandhumidity. Allowsforwildlifeandplantmovementinresponsetoclimatechange,thusmaintaining biodiversityandecologicalfunction. 7 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 3.2ApproachesfortheCreationofaNaturalHeritageSystem Therearenumerousapproachesandmethodsfordefiningnaturalheritagesystemsat differentlandscapescalesandcontexts.Thesescalesrangefromasmallwatershed,to international,suchastheAlgonquintoAdirondackproject,tocontinentalnaturalheritage systemvisionssuchasthePanEuropeanEcologicalNetworkortheMesoamericanBiological Corridor.Contextscanbepolitical,suchaswithinamunicipalboundaryornatural,suchasa watershedorgeophysicalregion. Somedefinednaturalheritagesystemsarefeaturebased,thatistheysimplydefineand protectexistingsignificantnaturalheritagefeaturessuchaswoodlandsorwetlands. Becausetheyareoftenisolated,thesefeaturesmayhavelimitedfunctionasaninteracting system.Definingandprotectingsignificantvalleylandsasafeaturecanprovidesome connectivityfunctionbylinkingmanyofthefeatures.AmoreeffectiveNHSapproach,one thatistruetotheconservationbiologyliterature,definesafunctionalsystemmadeupof coreandlinkageareas(typicallycorridors),althoughthesetermsarenotalwaysused. IsolatednaturalfeaturesorpatchesthatarenotlinkedtotheΈ≥?≥¥•≠Ήviacorridorsmaybe included. Theapproachesfordefiningthenaturalheritagesystemscanbeassimpleasusingset criteriatodefineaseriesofcoreareasandthenhanddrawingpotentialcorridorsbetween themonamap,ortheycaninvolvecomplexcomputermodelsordecisionsupporttoolsthat makeuseofgeographicinformationsystems(GIS)software.Thedefinednaturalheritage systemcanbebasedentirelyonwhatcurrentlyexistsinthelandscape,oritcanalsoinclude areasidentifiedashavingpotentialtoincreasenaturalcoverandimproveecological function.Theprocesscanbeopenandparticipatory,involvingawiderangeofstakeholders todeterminecriteriarelatedtoperceivedpriorities,oraNHScanbedefinedfirstby conservationbiologypractitionersbasedonecologicalprinciples,thenpresentedforreview andcommentbystakeholders.Alloftheseapproacheshaveadvantagesanddisadvantages andnonecanbeconsideredtobethebestorthecorrectprocessbecausethe circumstancesandlandscapecontextfordefiningaNHSalwaysdiffer. Appendix1describesafewapproachesusedbyotherMunicipalitiestodefinenatural heritagesystems.Somewerepurelyamappingexercise,othersutilizedcomplexcomputer modellingviaaGeographicalInformationSystem(GIS)andsomeareahybridbetween thesetwo. 8 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section4 NaturalHeritageSystems: PolicyProtection SignificantWoodlands SignificantValleylands SignificantWildlifeHabitat SignificantAreasofNaturalandScientificInterest FishHabitat Vulnerablesurfaceandgroundwaterfeatures Sensitivesurfaceandgroundwaterfeaturesandtheirrelatedhydrologicfunctions ThePPSalsospecifiesareaswheredevelopmentandsitealterationarenotpermittedatall, suchaswithinProvinciallySignificantWetlands.Further,Sections2.1.4,2.1.5and2.1.6 identifyareas(woodlands,valleylands,wildlifehabitat)wheredevelopmentandsite alterationarenotpermittedunlessithasbeendemonstratedthattherewillbenonegative impactsontheidentifiedfeatureortheirecologicalfunction.Thissametestisappliedto developmentadjacenttonaturalheritagefeaturesandareas. AlthoughmanyofthePPSpoliciesregardingnaturalheritagefocusonindividualfeatures (i.e.ProvinciallySignificantWetlands)itdoesrecognizetheimportanceofconnections, linkagesandsystems.Section2.1.2ofthePPSstatesthat: Έ4®•diversityandconnectivityofnaturalfeaturesinanarea,andthelongterm ecologicalfunctionandbiodiversityofnaturalheritagesystems,shouldbe maintained,restoredor,wherepossible,improved,recognizinglinkagesbetween andamongnaturalheritagefeaturesandareas,surfacewaterfeaturesandground water¶•°¥µ≤•≥ỳΉ ItisimportanttonotethatthedefinitionofNaturalHeritageSystem(Section6.0 Definitions,PPS2005)includesΈ¨°Æ§≥withthepotentialtoberestoredtoanatural≥¥°¥•ỳΉ Thisisacrucialpoint,becauseitmeansthatnotonlydoestheProvincerecognizetheneed toprotectexistingfeatures,butalsoareasthathaverestorationpotentialtocreatean improvednaturalheritagesystem.ThusthePPSpromotesprotectionandimprovementsof naturalheritagefeaturesandsystemsandtheirecologicalfunctions.ThepoliciesinthePPS representminimumstandardsandthePPSisnotmeanttopreventmunicipalpolicyfrom goingbeyondtheminimumstandardsforprotectionofalocallydefinedNaturalHeritage System,butthisprotectionmustalsobebalancedwithotherlanduseneeds. TheOntarioMinistryofNaturalResources(MNR)haspreparedtheNaturalHeritage ReferenceManual(OMNR2010)toprovideguidanceininterpretingthePPSpolicieson naturalheritage.Thedocumentincludesanappendixoutliningarecommendedapproach tonaturalheritagesystemplanning.TohelpplanningauthoritiesidentifySignificantWildlife 1010 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 HabitatasperthePPS,theMNRalsoproducedtheSignificantWildlifeHabitatTechnical Guide(OMNR2000).TheMNRalsoproposedavisionstatementforthedesiredfuturestate ofnaturalheritagesystemsinsouthernOntario.ItstatesthatnaturalheritagesystemsΈ∑©¨¨ effectivelyconservebiodiversity,includingcompositionstructureandfunction,andsupport ahighqualityoflifeinSouthern/Æ¥°≤©ØΉ(OMNR2006). OakRidgesMoraineConservationPlan ThepurposeoftheOakRidgesMoraineConservationPlan(2002) istoprovide?¨°Æ§useandresourceplanningdirectiontoa multitudeofagenciesandstakeholders,onhowtoprotectthe -Ø≤°©Æ•΄≥hydrologicalandecologicalfeaturesand¶µÆ£¥©ØÆ≥΄ỳ Thelandusedesignations,NaturalCoreAreas,NaturalLinkage Areas,CountrysideAreasandSettlementAreasare representativeofthelanditself.TheNaturalCoreAreas designationappliestothoseareaswithhighconcentrationofkey NaturalHeritagefeatures,hydrologicallysensitivefeaturesor landformconservationareas.ThelandsdesignatedNatural LinkageAreasΈ°≤•areasformingpartofacentralcorridorsystemthatsupportorhavethe potentialtosupportmovementofplantsandanimalsamongtheNaturalCoreAreas, NaturalLinkageAreas,rivervalleysandstream£Ø≤≤©§Ø≤≥ΉỳSimilartothePPS,specific policiesareprovidedfortheprotectionofindividualfeatures,yetthecoreandlinkagearea landusedesignationsfulfillthefunctionofanaturalheritagesystem. AmongtheobjectivesoftheOakRidgesMoraineConservationPlan(ORMCP)aremaintaining andimprovingecologicalandhydrologicalfunctionandintegrityofthemoraine.Inpartthis istobeaccomplishedbyrecognizinginmunicipalplanningdocumentssuchastheOfficial PlanandtheZoningBylaw,thelandusesthataremostappropriatetoprotecttheintegrity oftheMoraine. ClaringtonhasalreadyundergoneaconformityexercisetorespondtotheORMCP(2003 2005).PoliciesrelatedtotheORMCP,includingthosefocussedonnaturalheritage,have beenincorporatedintotheOfficialPlanandtheZoningBylawandarebeingimplemented bytheMunicipality.Aspartoftheconformityexercise,twoscheduleswereaddedtothe OfficialPlan,MapsD1(SeeFigure2)andD2,whichdepictthenaturalheritagesystem featuresidentifiedontheOakRidgesMoraine.AspartoftheORMCPconformityexercise ClaringtonhasbeenworkingwiththeConservationAuthoritiestodevelopwatershedplans forallofitswatershedsincludingthosewithheadwatersontheMoraine. 1111 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Plan. Official Clarington System. Heritage Natural Moraine Ridges Oak D1 Map 2. Figure 1212 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 GreenbeltPlan TheGreenbeltPlan(MMAH2005)similartotheORMCPisaland useplanningdocumentthatprovidesaframeworkwhich Έ©§•Æ¥©¶©•≥whereurbanizationshouldnotoccurinorderto providepermanentprotectiontotheagriculturallandbaseand theecologicalfeaturesandfounctinsoccurringonthe¨°Æ§≥£°∞•Ή (Greenbelt,p.3).ItistheintentoftheGreenbeltPlantobuild upontheexistingpolicyframeworkestablishedbytheProvincial PolicyStatement. TheGreenbeltPlanhasdefinedanaturalheritagesystemwhich,inadditiontocoreand linkageareasdefinedintheNiagaraEscarpmentPlanandtheOakRidgesMoraine ConservationPlan,containssixteenNaturalCoreAreasandthelinkagesbetweenthem withintheProtectedCountrysideAreaacrosstheGreaterGoldenHorseshoe. TheGreenbeltPlanrecognizesanaturalheritagesystemwithintheProtectedCountryside areathatismadeupofaNaturalHeritageSystemandaWaterResourceSystem.According totheGreenbeltPlan,theNaturalHeritageSystem: Έ©Æ£¨µ§•≥areasoftheProtectedCountrysidewiththehighestconcentrationofthe mostsensitiveand/orsignificantnaturalfeaturesandfunctions.Theseareasneedto bemanagedasaconnectedandintegratednaturalheritagesystemgiventhe functionalinterrelationshipsbetweenthem,andthefactthissystembuildsuponthe naturalsystemscontainedintheNiagaraEscarpmentPlanandtheOakRidgesMoraine Plan.TogetherwiththelandscapesurroundingtheGreenbelt,thesesystemscurrently comprise,andfunctionas,aconnectednaturalheritage≥?≥¥•≠ỳΉ TheGreenbeltNaturalHeritageSystemcoversanextensivearea,linkingcorenatural featureswithcorridors.AsyoucanseeinFigure3theGreenbeltPlan(Includingthe ORMCP)doesnotapplytoalllandswithinClarington,assuchthereisagapinthenatural heritagesystemasdefinedbytheGreenbeltPlan.ThegapintheGreenbeltdefinedNatural HeritageSystemislocatedbetweentheGreenbeltPlanlimitssouthwardtoLakeOntario. ThroughthemunicipalGreenbeltconformityexercise,municipalitiesarerequiredto delineatetheboundaryoftheGreenbeltArea,theProtectedCountrysideandtheNatural HeritageSystemintheOfficialPlan. TheGreenbeltPlanalsoindicatesthatmunicipalofficialplansshouldprovideamap illustratingknownkeynaturalheritageandkeyhydrologicfeaturesandanyassociated minimumprotectionzones.Asaresult,withintheGreenbeltAreaacombinationapproach 1313 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 the among connections system natural showing Schematic Plan. Moraine. Greenbelt Ridges I: Oak Appendix the and from Countryside Excerpt 3. Protected Figure 1414 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 GrowthPlanfortheGreaterGoldenHorseshoe,2006 TheGrowthPlanprovidestheframeworkforimplementing the0≤Ø∂©Æ£•΄≥visionforbuildingstronger,moreprosperous communitiesbymanaginggrowthto2031.Anylanduse planningdecisionmadebyamunicipalityinurbanareaswithin theGreaterGoldenHorseshoeisrequiredtoconformtothe policiesoftheGrowthPlan.Althoughthefocusofthis legislationistomanagegrowth,theGrowthPlanrecognizes thevastanduniquenaturalheritagefeaturesthroughoutthe GreaterGoldenHorseshoeandtheirroleinthelongterm healthandprosperityofthearea.Policiesinchapter4ofthe GrowthPlanfocusontheprotectionofnaturalheritage features,culturalheritagesites,renewableandnonrenewableresourcesandagricultural landbyshiftingthemoretraditionalpatternofsuburbandevelopmenttomorecompactand denserurbanforms. ThislegislationsupportsandbuildsuponthepoliciesinthePPS,2005,theGreenbeltPlan, 2005andtheOakRidgesMorainePlan,2005fortheprotectionfornaturalheritagesystems. TheGrowthPlanidentifies(Policy2.2.7.3)thatwhenapplyinggrowthpolicies,theyarenot toapplytoareasthathavebeenidentifiedforprotectionthroughtheabovenoted legislation.Policy4.2.1.3oftheGrowthPlanalsoencouragesMunicipalitiestoΈ©§•Æ¥©¶? naturalheritagefeaturesandareasthatcomplement,linkorenhancenatural≥?≥¥•≠≥Ήỳ 4.2RegionofDurham #¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥landuseplanningdecisionsarerequiredtobeinkeepingwiththeDurham RegionalOfficialPlan(DROP).TheDROPhasidentifiedtheGreenbeltNaturalHeritage SystemasprovidedforintheGreenbeltPlan.TheDROPalsoidentifiesandprotectskey naturalheritageandhydrologicalfeatures(SeeFigure4).Althoughlinkagesandareas targetedfornaturalcoverarenotidentified,the2•ß©ØÆ΄≥OfficialPlandoesincludepolicies fortheidentification,protectionandenhancementofconnectivitybetweenfeatures; includingtargetareastoachieveoverallwoodlandcoverobjectives. AswithotheruppertierOfficialPlans,theDROPsetstheparametersforthelowertier municipalities,includingClarington,tofurtherrefinetheidentifiedNaturalHeritagesystem duringtheOfficialPlanconformityexercise.TheDROPalsoincludespoliciesrequiringthe preparationofanEnvironmentalImpactStudyfordevelopmentproposalsadjacenttokey naturalheritagefeatures. 1616 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Durham the of B1e Map on identified Features Hydrological and Heritage Natural Key the of Plan. Excerpt Official 4. Region Figure 1717 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 WatershedPlans Awatershedistheareawhereallwaterdrainstowardsonecommonwaterbody.A watershedplanexaminesthestructuralandfunctionalpartsofthewatershedecosystem andhowtheyworktogether.Watershedplanningiscurrentlyrecognizedasoneofthe mosteffectivemechanismsfortheprotection,managementandenhancementofthe naturalenvironment.Itusesaholisticapproachtomanagingallaspectsofa∑°¥•≤≥®•§΄≥ naturalheritagesystem,includinghydrologicalresources(groundwaterandsurfacewater), terrestrialresources(wildlifehabitatandhabitatconnectivity),aquaticresourcesand habitat(e.g.fish,streams,wetlands),andtheinterrelationshipsthatexistbetweenthese resources.Watershedplansarealsolocallybasedandthereforereflect,andareresponsive to,theuniqueconditionsincludinghumanlandusesthatexistwithineachwatershed. In2002,theprovincialgovernment,throughtheOakRidgesMoraineConservationPlan, directedeveryuppertierandsingletiermunicipalitytopreparewatershedplansforevery watershedwhosestreamsoriginateontheMoraine;theGreenbeltPlanalsoendorses watershedplanning.Inresponsetotheselegislativerequirements,the#!΄≥inpartnership withtheRegionofDurhamandtheMunicipalityofClaringtonandotherwatershed municipalities,havecoordinatedthepreparationofwatershedplans. Acompletedwatershedplanprovidesasolidfoundationuponwhichtomake environmentallysounddecisionsthatwillmaintainandimprovethe∑°¥•≤≥®•§΄≥future health.Italsoprovidesabasisonwhichplanningdecisionscanbemadehavingregardfor potentialcumulativeimpactsofchangeonallcomponentsoftheecosystem. ThecompletedGRCAWatershedPlanswithinClaringtonwerereferredtotheOPReviewin March2010.Sincethen,theKawarthaRegionConservationAuthority(KRCA)hascompleted watershedplansforBlackstockandEastCrossCreeksinfinaldraftandCLOCAhascompleted theOshawaCreek,Black/Harmony/FarewellCreeks;andBowmanville/SoperCreekWatershed ManagementPlans.ClaringtonhasalsocompletedtheRobinsonandTooleyCreeks WatershedManagementPlan.Allofthewatershedplanningworkwhethercompletedorin progresshasbeenusedasthebasisfortheNaturalHeritageSystemsDiscussionPaper. 1818 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section5 ThreatstoOurNaturalHeritage 5.THREATSTOOURNATURALHERITAGE Toappreciatetheneedfordefiningandprotectingnaturalheritagefeaturesandsystems,it isnecessarytounderstandsomeofthekeyconservationissuesrelatedtobiodiversityand naturalheritage.Thereareagreatnumberofthreatstobiodiversitythatresultfromhuman activitiesanddifferentlandusesincluding; HabitatlossandFragmentation InvasiveSpecies Roads Urbanization Agriculture Recreationand AtmosphericPollutionandClimateChange. Thesethreatsaffecttheecologicalfunctionwithinindividualecosystemsandacrossthe landscape.Forhumansthismeansthelossordegradationofimportantecologicalgoods andservicesprovidedbythesesystems. ThissectionreviewsthesethreatstobiodiversityinsouthernOntarioandClarington,among themostsignificantofwhichishabitatlossandfragmentation.Theimpactsofhabitat fragmentationandconservationconcernsrelatedtohabitatpatchcharacteristics,suchas sizeandshape,inafragmentedlandscapearediscussed,followedbyareviewofsomemore generalsignificantconservationissues.Anaturalheritagesystemapproachaddressesallof themajorconservationproblemsoutlinedhere,eitherdirectlyorindirectly. 5.1HabitatLossandFragmentation Habitatlossisaconceptthatiseasilyunderstoodandwidelyrecognizedasan environmentalconcern.Habitatlosscanincludetheshrinkageofaparticularhabitattype byremovalfromanoutsideedgeresultinginpartialorcompleteloss,ortheperforationofa habitattypebyremovalofinternalsections.Incontrast,habitatfragmentationisaprocess ofbreakingawholeintosmallerpieces,suchasthroughbisecting.Forexampleifasection ofawoodlotwereremovedthatwouldbehabitatloss.Ifaroadwasdriventhroughthe woodlotsplittingitintotwoseparateareas,thatwouldbehabitatfragmentation(aswellas somehabitatloss). FollowingEuropeansettlement,southern/Æ¥°≤©Ø΄≥extensiveforestswentthrougha profoundperiodofhabitatlossduetoagricultureandurbanization.Sincethattimemuchof thehabitatthatremainshasbeenfurtherfragmented,splittingitintosmallerandsmaller 1919 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 pieces.Afragmentedlandscapeisthuscharacterizedbyremnantpatchesofnaturalhabitat surroundedbyhumanlandusessuchasagricultureandurbanareas(SeePhoto1). Photo1.FragmentedHabitat ExamplelandscapenorthofBowmanvillewheretheoriginalforestcoverhasbeen fragmentedbyagriculture.PhotocourtesyofCLOCA,2008 Theeffectsofhabitatfragmentationonbiodiversityarepredominantlyrelatedtothesize andshapeoftheremaininghabitatpatches,thedegreeofconnectivitybetweenthem,the surroundingdominantlanduse,andtheirpositioninthelandscaperelativetoeachother.It isimportanttokeepinmindthat,whiletheseconceptsmayseemcomplicated,they representthebasicprinciplesbehindthemethodologytodefinenaturalheritagesystems. 5.2HabitatPatchSize Abasicprinciplewhendealingwithhabitatpatches,biggerisgenerallybetter.Thelargera habitatpatchis,thehigherthediversityofconditionsitislikelytocontain(suchasslope, vegetationtypes,treematurity,etc.),andthereforethemorespeciesitislikelytosupport. Inadditionitiseasytoacceptthatalargepatchofhabitatislikelytohavemoreresources 2020 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 suchasfoodandshelter,andthereforecouldsupportmoreindividualsofeachspecies. Thusalargehabitatpatchismorelikelytosupportalocalpopulationofthatspecieswhich canbemaintainedthroughreproduction.Incontrastasmallpatchmightonlysupporta fewindividualsofthatspecies.Ifallofthemareofonesexorbeyondbreedingagethat specieswouldeventuallydisappearfromthepatch. Manyspecies,includingbirdssuchastanagers,somethrushesandnumerouswarblers,are Έ°≤•°≥•Æ≥©¥©∂•ẄΉthatis,theyrequirelargeblocksofhabitatforanindividual,apair,ora populationtosurvive.Largerpatchesarealsomorelikelytomaintainecologicalfunctions andtobeshelteredfromnegativeexternalimpacts. Fragmentationreducesthesizeofhabitatpatchesandthereforelimitstheabilityofa naturalareatosupportspeciespopulations,especiallyofareasensitivespecies.Asspecies disappearduetohabitatfragmentation,wholeecologicalcommunitiesareaffected.This meansthatvitalinteractionsfortheecosystemmaybelost. 5.3HabitatPatchShape Patchsizeandshapearecloselyrelatedandthereciprocalinfluenceofsizeandshapeon biodiversityisnotalwaysclearorexclusive. Patchshapeisimportantfortwomainreasons.Thefirstisinrelationtotheconceptof interiorhabitat,whichisofimportanceprimarilyforforests.Forestinteriorstendtobe darker,cooleranddamperthanareasneartheouteredge.Thisisaspecializedhabitat requiredbymanywildlifespecies,particularlybirdssuchasthrushes.Whenforests dominatedthelandscapeforestinteriorswouldhavebeenthenormandthesebirdswould havebeenabundant.Currentlynumerousforestbirdspeciesareexperiencingpopulation declines.Habitatfragmentation,withassociatedlossofforestinterior,hasbeenimplicated asafactor(Terborgh1989,Burkeetal.2011).Largerandmorecompactpatchesarelikelyto havemoreforestinteriorthansmallernarrowpatches(SeeFigure5). 2121 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Figure5.Anillustrationofhowhabitatpatchsizeandshapeaffect forestinterior.(BarnesandAdams1999). Thesecond,shapeisalsoimportantbecauseof©¥΄≥exposuretonegativeexternalinfluences orΈ•§ß••¶¶•£¥≥ỳΉTheseincludehighertemperatures,droughtandstormdamagecaused byexposuretosunlightandwind,increasedinvasionbyexoticspecies,andhigherratesof predationandparasitism.Generallyspeaking,themoreunevenlyshapedapatchis,the moreitisexposedtonegativeedgeeffects.Conversely,compactshapedpatcheshaveless exposure.Asquareshapeisgood,butacirclehasthelowestedgetoarearatioand thereforetheleastexposure. 5.4HabitatPatchIsolation/Connectivity Speciesthathavelimitedmobilityorthatrequireveryspecifichabitattypesareparticularly vulnerabletohabitatfragmentationbecausetheyhavedifficultymovingfromonepatchto another,includinginsects,snakesandrodents.Forexample,aspecieswithlimitedmobility maynotbeabletophysicallytraversethedistancebetweenpatchesor,thelandscape betweenthepatchesisinhospitable,andthereforecreatesabarriertomovement.The moreisolatedthepatches,thelessopportunitythereisformovementbetweenthem. 2222 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Generallyspeaking,isolatedpopulationsaremorepronetoextinction.Forexample,the populationcoulduseupallofthefoodresourcesinahabitatpatchandhavenomeansof movingtoanotherlocation.Or,aspeciesthatrequiresmorethanonehabitattypeto completeitslifecycle,suchasanamphibian,maynolongerhaveaccesstoeachhabitat type. Ofparticularconcernisthefactthatisolatedpopulations,especiallyiftheyaresmall,have limitedgeneticdiversity.Bynotbreedingwithindividualsfromoutsidepopulationsthey maybesubjecttoinbreedingandthelossoffitness.Thiscanultimatelylimitpersistence becausetheoptionsforadaptingtoenvironmentalchangeorresistingdiseasehavebeen diminished.Thisisaverysignificantpointinrelationtobiodiversityconservationbecauseit meansthatthepresenceofaspeciesinoneormorehabitatpatchestodaydoesnot guaranteethatitwillstillbethereinthefuture.Thepopulationmayalreadybeatrisk. Photo2.HabitatCorridor Examplelandscapewherehabitatconnectivityhasbeenmaintained.Photoislooking eastwardtowardOldScugogRoadwithQuarryLakesGolfCourseinthebackground. PhotocourtesyofCLOCA,2008 2323 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Themostobvioussolutiontodealingwiththeproblemsassociatedwithpatchisolationisto maintainorrestorehabitatconnectivity.ConnectivityhasbeendefinedasΈ¥®•degreeto whichthelandscapefacilitatesorimpedesmovementamongresource∞°¥£®•≥Ή(Tayloret al.1993).Provinciallegislationhasrecognizedtheneedforconnectivitybysupportingthe creationofnaturalheritagesystemsinsteadofonlyfeatures.Twomaintypesof connectivityarerecognized,structuralandfunctional.Structuralconnectivityrelatestothe spatialarrangementofhabitatsinthelandscape.Functionalconnectivityisthebehavioural responseoforganismstothatstructure(Bennett1999). Themostwidelypromotedformoflandscapelinkageformaintainingconnectivityisthe habitatcorridor(aformofstructuralconnectivity).Seephoto2.Acorridorcanbedefined asΈ°linearlandscapeelementthatprovidesformovementbetweenhabitat∞°¥£®•≥Ή (Rosenbergetal.1997).Theymayalsobereferredtoaswildlifemovementcorridors, biologicalcorridors,andgreenways,althoughthelattertermisoftenusedforsomething designedmuchmoreforhumanmovementthanforwildlife(Little1995).Theideaisto provideanopportunityforwildlifetonavigatesafelyfromonehabitatpatchtoanother(to createfunctionalconnectivity).Bydoingsoadditionalresourcesmaybeavailableorthere maybeanimprovedopportunityforgeneticexchangebetweenpopulations,promoting fitness. Ingeneral,themorespecializedthehabitatrequirementsofaspeciesare,orthemore sensitiveitistopredation,themoreitwillrelyoncontinuityofthehabitat(s)formovement acrossthelandscape,andthereforewouldbenefitfromcorridors.Otherformsofstructural connectivitymaysufficeforlessspecializedormoremobilespecies.Forexampletheclose proximityofpatchescanallowforsomespeciestomovebetweenthemprovidedthe interveninghabitatisnotinhospitableandnobarriersareinplace.Aseriesofpatchesin closeenoughproximitycanprovideaΈ≥¥•∞∞©Æß≥¥ØÆ•Ήfunctionforsomespeciesasthey movebetweenlargerpatchesinanotherwiseinhospitablelandscape.(SeeFigure6) 2424 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Figure6.Typesofhabitatconnectivityfrompatchisolationtosteppingstones,to linearcorridor(Bentrup2008). 5.5HabitatPatchLocation Patchlocationrelatestothepatterninwhichpatchesoccurwithinthelandscape.The proximityanddirectionoflargeversussmallpatchesofdifferentshapes,habitattypeand qualitywithinthecontextofvaryinglandusetypeshasaprofoundinfluenceonbiodiversity. Allofthepatchcharacteristicsdiscussedpreviously,combinedwithpatchlocation determinethestructureandinteractionoftheindividualsubpopulationsofspecieswithin eachpatchandthetotalofallofthosepopulationsinthelandscape(referredtoasthe metapopulation). Thepresenceofaspecieswithinindividualpatchesmayfluctuateovertimethrough extinctionandrecolonization(Levins1969).Tomaintainaspeciesthatrequirespatch specifichabitatitiscriticalthatthereisinteractionbetweenthespeciesofdifferentpatches tooccursoastoprovideenoughgeneticdiversitytosupportthepopulationasawhole. Forexample,ifalloftheremaininghabitatpatchesinanareaaresmall,farapartand separatedbyurbanlandstherewillbelittleornoopportunityforspeciestomovebetween them,andovertimethesubpopulationswithineachpatchwillstarttodisappear. Eventuallytheentirepopulationthroughoutthewholelandscapedisappears.Ontheother hand,ifsmallpatchesareincloseproximitytoalargepatchseparatedbyagriculture,then 2525 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 lackthenaturalecologicalcontrols(e.g.predation,herbivoryordisease)thatregulate populationsofnativespecies. TwoinvasiveexoticinsectspeciesareofpotentialconcerninClarington.Chiefamongthese istheEmeraldAshBorer(Agrilusplanipennis)(Seephoto3).Thisspecieshasrecently spreadtonumerouspartsofsouthernOntario,includingClarington,andpresentsaserious threattoashtrees.ThesecondspeciesistheAsianLonghornedBeetle(Anoplophora glabripennis),whichconsumesanumberofhardwoodtrees.Thisinsectwasfirstdetected innorthwestToronto,andalthoughitappearstohavebeencontainedasathreatdueto massiveeffort,itcouldyetappearinotherareas. Manyinvasiveplantshavebecomewellestablishedinsouthern OntarioandClarington,andwithpopulationgrowthandcross bordermovementofgoods,morespeciesarelikelytoarrivein thefuture.Eradicationofmostspeciesisnotfeasible;therefore controlmeasuresmustbebasedonavailablefundingand targetingpriorityareas,suchashighqualitynaturalareasor habitatsofspeciesatrisk. Roads Roadecologyisarapidlyexpandingscienceconcerningthe impactsofroadsonecosystems.Theseimpactsincludehabitat fragmentation(asdiscussedpreviously),creatingbarriersfor wildlifemovement,wildlifemortality,spreadingofinvasive species,increasingnoise,artificiallighting,andtheintroduction ofpollutantsintotheenvironment(Formanetal.2003).Photo4.TurtleCrossing Sign.Postingturtle Themainconcernaboutroadsistheirimpactonwildlife crossingsignsinareas populations.Forexample,somesmallmammals(i.e.mice)are thatareknownasturtle reluctanttocrosswideopeningscreatedbyroadsbecausethey crossingareashelpsto alertthepublicthatthe riskexposuretopredators,especiallybyhawks.Thisrestricts speciesisinthearea. dispersalofindividualsbetweenpopulations,potentially Signsinstalledon reducinggeneticdiversity.Roadkillalsohasadirectimpacton WestbeachRoadatthe wildlifepopulations. BowmanvilleWestside MarshesConservation Amphibiansandreptilesarevulnerabletoroadmortality AreainBowmanville. becauseoftheirsmallsizeandrateofmovement.Turtlesare Photocourtesyof particularlyatriskduetotheirslowspeed.Complicatingfactors CLOCA,2008 includemassmigrationofamphibiansacrossroadstoreach 2727 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 breedingpoolsunderidealweatherconditionsandtheattractionofspeciessuchassnakes tothewarmthretainedbyroadsinearlymorningorevening.Identifyingknowncrossing areasadvisestravellersthattherearespeciesatrisk,andhelpsreduceroadkill(Seephoto 4.) Thefunctionofanaturalheritagesystemisclearlycompromisedbythepresenceofroads andtraffic.Theuseofmitigationmeasuressuchasunderpassesoroverpasses(collectively referredtoasΈ•£Ø∞°≥≥°ß•≥ΉΨisgrowinginNorthAmerica.Anassessmentofroadsas barrierstowildlifemovementaswellasofroadkillhotspotsisrecommendedasameansof identifyingpriorityareasforecopassages(OntarioRoadEcologyGroup2010). Urbanization Urbanizationisessentiallythepermanentconversionofnaturaloragriculturallandsto humanhabitatthatischaracterizedbydenseroadnetworks,housingand/orindustry. Urbanizationcanhaveprofoundimpactsonbiodiversitythatgowellbeyondhabitatloss (seeJohnsonandKlemens,2005foranexcellentsummary).Forexample,thehuman habitatthatcomprisesurbanareasisincompatibletomostspeciesthatrequireaparticular typeofnaturalhabitat.Instead,asuiteofspeciesthatarehighlytolerantof,oractually benefitfromtheurbanenvironmentthrivehere,suchasskunksandraccoons.Manyof thesearenonnative,andintotaltheirdiversityisfarlowerthanthediversityofnative speciesinnaturalecosystems. Lawnsandgardensaredesignedforthebenefitofhumans,thusevenwhenwildlife attractionisthestatedgoalitisalwaysthespeciesthatpeoplewishtoattractbecauseof qualitiestheyfindappealing.Underthesecircumstances,realbenefitstobiodiversityare limited.Mostlawnandgardenplantsareexoticspecies,andsome,suchasNorwayMaple, honeysuckles,EnglishIvy,andPeriwinkletonameafew,areinvasive,andhavenegative impactsastheyspreadintonearbynaturalareasandravines(Pridham2009). Urbanareasalsohaveconcentratedsourcesofmanypollutants.Theseincludeatmospheric pollutantssuchascarbondioxide,andlowlevelozoneresultingfromcombustionoffossil fuels,aswellasroadsaltandpetroleumproductslikeoilsthatwashintocatchbasinsand maketheirwayintostreamsandrivers.Pesticidesusedtomaintainlawnsandgardensalso findtheirwayintowaterbodiesandnaturalareasandmayhaveimpactsonnontarget beneficialspecies.Otherpollutantsthateffectwildlifeincludehighlevelsofnoiseand artificiallighting,whichisknowntoaffectthebehaviourofmanyspecies(Richand Longcore2006). 2828 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Agriculture TheestablishmentoffarmsfollowingEuropeansettlementresultedinthelossofvastareas ofhabitatinsouthernOntario.Today,habitatlossandfragmentationcontinuesinareas suchasClaringtonbecauseagriculturaloperationsneedtoexpandtofeedtheever expandingpopulation,aswellasthelossofagriculturallandtourbanization.Incontrast,for areaswithpoorsoilstheremaybeanincreaseinhabitatcoverasfarmlandisabandoned. Itwouldbeerroneoustoconcludethatagricultureinherentlyhasanetnegativeimpacton thelandscape.Agriculturallandscanhavebothpositiveandnegativeimpactsonterrestrial biodiversity,andbestmanagementpracticescanbeimplementedtohelpensurethatthe formeroutweighthelatter.Inadditiontoerosioncontrolandgroundwaterrecharge functions,hedgerowsprovideaconnectivityfunctionforsmallandlargemammalswhile opencroplandcanbetraversedbymanyanimals,includingamphibiansmigratingfrom foresttowetlandandback.Ontheotherhand,someformsofagriculture,suchaspasture andhayfield,providehabitatforwildlife,mostnotablygrasslandbirds. RecreationalUse Therearenumerousrecreationalusesofterrestrialnaturalareas(i.e.hikingtrails)anda varietyofimpactsassociatedwiththem(WallandWright1977).Infact,asmuchasthese activitiesmayhavehumanhealthbenefits,noformofrecreationiscompletelybenignin relationtobiodiversity.Evenaccessingnaturalareasonfootcandisturbwildlifeorresultin theintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplants,theseedsofwhichmaybeclingingtoboots, clothing,orpethair.Wellusedtrailscanalsoresultintramplingofvegetation,soil compactionanderosion. Alloftheaboveimpactsaremultipliedbygrowingpublicdemandforrecreation opportunitiesandtheincreasinguseofoffroadvehiclessuchasmountainbikes,dirtbikes andallterrainvehicles.Fewnaturalareasarefreeofatleastoneoftheseactivities,andthe resultingdamageisusuallyobvious.Bothpublicandprivatelandsareaffectedbythese uses,althoughtheformertendtosufferfromheavieruse.Inattemptstoprotectsome highlysensitiveareas,manyagenciesusemitigationmeasuressuchascontrollingthe numberofvisitorstoasite,orrestrictingaccessduringaparticularseason. AtmosphericPollutionandClimateChange Naturalareasarecontinuouslysubjectedtovariousformsofatmosphericpollutionincluding groundlevelozonethatcontributestosmog.Plantsthataresensitivetogroundlevel ozonedevelopspottingontheleaves,givingthemabrownishappearance.Thisrestrictsthe 2929 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 abilityoftheleavestoundertakephotosynthesisandthereforeaffectsthehealthand resilienceoftheplants. Automobileexhaustandairborneparticlesoffertilizerscanleadtohigherthannormal atmosphericlevelsofnitrogen.Rainfallthendepositssomeofthisnitrogenasnitratesin naturalareaswhereitentersthesoil.Nativeplantsthatareadaptedtolowerlevelsof nitrogenmaythenbecomestressedwhileplantsthatbenefitfromhighnitrogenlevels, includingsomeinvasiveplants,thriveandgainacompetitiveedge.Theresultisalossof plantbiodiversityandadeclineinecologicalhealth(Sauer1998). Aboveandbeyondallofthestressorsdiscussedabove,globalclimatechangewillhave unpredictableandpossiblycatastrophicimpactsonecosystems.Allmodelspredictarateof globaltemperatureincreasethatwilloccuroveramuchshorterperiodthanatanytimein thepast.Manyspecies,andplantsinparticular,areadaptedtoagivenrangeof temperatureandprecipitation,thusifconditionssurpassthisrange,thosespecieswill becomestressedandeventuallydisappear.Althoughsomemodelspredictmajorgeographic shiftsinforesttypes,therealityisthatthenaturaldispersalcapacityofmanytreesandother specieswillnotallowthemtoshifttheirrangesfastenough.Tomakemattersworse, fragmentedlandscapesalreadypreventthedispersalofmanyspecies,andthereforewill exacerbatetheproblem.Theresultmaybenovelecosystemsmadeupofspeciesthatare abletotoleratethechangesandthosewhichhaverecentlyemigratedfromotherareas. Howwellthesesystemswillbeabletofunctionremainstobeseen,howeverthereisno doubttheywillbelesshealthyandproductivethansystemsmadeupofspeciesthathave evolvedtogetherovermillennia.Obviouslythishasimplicationsforuseofnatural resourcessuchastimber. 3030 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section6 Overviewof CurrentNaturalHeritageConditions InClarington 6.OVERVIEWOFCURRENTNATURALHERITAGECONDITIONSIN CLARINGTON GiventhatthemunicipalityislocatedinapartofOntariowherethelandscapeishighly fragmented,allofthethreatstonaturalheritageoutlinedintheprevioussectionare relevanttoClarington,andcanpartiallybeaddressedthroughdefininganaturalheritage system.Amorespecificlookatthestatusofnaturalhabitatinrelationtolandcoveris providedbelow.ThestatisticsinthissectionarebasedonanEcologicalLandClassification system(ELC)andlandcovermappingbyCLOCAandGRCA.TheELCandlandcovermapping isbasedon2008colourairphotography. Figure7showsapiechartdepictingtherelativecoverofmajorhabitatandlandcovertypes. Forthisanalysis,CommunitySerieslevelELCtypeswerelumpedintothebroadercategories offorest,wetland,meadow,beachbluffandopenwater.Forestswamphasbeendepicted asaseparatecategoryasthisfunctionsasbothforestandwetland,andcanbeaddedtothe totalcoverofeitherone.DetailedlandcovercategoriesusedbytheConservation Authoritieshavebeengroupedintoagriculture/ruralandurbanlandcover. 6.1Forest TheMunicipalityofClaringtoncovers61,350hectares.Ofthisarea29.3percentcanbe consideredforestbasedonELCforestwhenforestswampsareincluded.Thisfigureis slightlybelowthe30percentforestcoverguidelinerecommendedasaminimum (EnvironmentCanada2004).AlthoughtheseguidelinesweredesignedtoaddressGreat LakesAreasofConcern,theyhavebeenwidelyusedforotherlandscapesbecausetheyare sciencebased.TheforestcoverfigureforClaringtonsuggeststhattoevenmeetwhatmany biologistshavecriticizedasaveryconservativeminimumallremainingforestshouldbe maintainedandthereshouldbeanincreaseincovertoimproveecologicalhealthand functioninthelandscape. AlthoughtherearesomeverylargeforestpatchesontheOakRidgesMoraine(ORM),many oftheremainingwoodlandsinClaringtonaresmallandisolatedΜespeciallythoseinurban areas.Furthermore,giventhatmanyarefoundinvalleylandsandstreamcorridors,the shapeofpatchesisoftenlinearorconvoluted,reducingtheamountofforestinterior. ThedistributionofforestcoverinClaringtonisskewedtowardsthenorthendofthe MunicipalityontheORM.Althoughthishasthebenefitofhelpingwithwaterretentionand maintainingthehealthofstreamheadwaters,theloweramountofcoverinsouthern portionsoftheMunicipalityresultsinpoorconnectivityandlowercapacitytosupport 3131 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 wildlifepopulations.Furthermoreurbanimpactscontributetohighernegativeimpactson theremainingwoodlands,whichareallreadycompromisedduetotheirsizeandshape. Figure7.Piechartshowingpercentcoverof#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥majorhabitattypesandlanduses. 6.2Wetland Wetlands,includingforestswamp,cover6.6percentof#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥area.TheEnvironment Canadaguidelinesuggeststhatgreaterthan10percentofalandscapeshouldbewetland. However,theamountofwetlandinagivenareaisbasedtoalargedegreeonsoiltypesand precipitationpatterns,thereforesomeregionsmaynaturallysupportmoreorlessthanthis recommendedtarget.Arecentstudy(DucksUnlimited2010)notesthatforDurhamRegion thepresettlementwetlandcoverwas12.6percentandthatby2002thishaddecreasedto 7.8percent.SomeofthislossundoubtedlyoccurredinClarington,andgiventhatthe remaining6.6percentisbelowboththe10percentguidelineandthepresettlementfigure inDurhamitcanbearguedthatallofwhatremainshassignificanceandthatopportunities torestorewetlandsshouldbesought. 3232 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 MostofthewetlandinClaringtoniscomposedofforestswampaswouldhavelikelybeen thecasehistorically.Assuchmanyoftheconservationconcernsdescribedforforestsize andshapeofpatches,theirconnectivityanddistribution,appliesforthesefeaturesaswell. Photo5.ProvinciallySignificantBowmanvilleCoastalWetlandComplex. PhotoislookingnorthwardtowardtheBowmanvilleUrbanArea.Photocourtesyof CLOCA,2008. OtherlargewetlandsincludethemarshesalongtheLakeOntarioshoreline,mostofwhich havesomeprotectionbyProvinciallypolicy. Thicketswampisadifferentcommunitytypethatisdominatedbyshrubcover,whileoften maintainingopenspacesallowingsunlighttopenetrate.Theseareoftenprimeamphibian breedinghabitatsandarepreferredbytheWesternChorusFrog,currentlylistedasfederally Threatened.Becauseamphibiansareimportantfortransferringlargeamountsofenergy andnutrientsbetweenwetlandsandforests,maintainingtheconnectivitybetweenthese ecosystemtypesisvital. 3333 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 6.3Meadow Meadowhabitatscover9.6percentofClaringtonbasedon2008airphotos.Forthe purposeofthispaper,meadowhabitatsincludeopengrassland,grasslandwithminimaltree cover(savannah),andearlysuccessionalcommunitiessuchasthickets.Mostmeadowsin southernOntarioandClaringtonareoldfieldhabitats;areasthathistoricallywouldhave beenforest,butwhichwereatonetimeoranotherclearedoftreecover.Thisandthefact thattheytendtohaveahighpercentageofexoticplantspeciesmakesthedegreetowhich meadowscanbearguedtobeΈÆ°¥µ≤°¨Ήisopentodebate.Nevertheless,manyspeciesthat usenativegrasslandsalsomakeuseofoldfields,thereforetheycanbeusefulforsupporting biodiversity.Alargepercentoftheareamappedasmeadowisfallowfieldwhichmaylater bereconvertedtoagriculture.Thereforethiscoverfigurewillfluctuateovertime. Giventheirephemeralnatureandthefactthatmeadowsusuallyrepresentareasclearedof forestcoveritisdifficulttosuggestatargetcoverfigureforsuchopengrasslandhabitats. Thefactthatmanynativespeciesusethem,andthatsomegrasslandbirdsarethreatened species,suggeststhatthereshouldatleastbesomerepresentationofthefeatureswithina naturalheritagesystem.Nativegrasslandsuchastallgrassprairiewashistorically representedonsandysoilsoftheOakRidgesMoraine.Thefactthatthisisnowoneofthe rarestecosystemsinNorthAmerica(Rodger1998)suggeststhatremnantsshouldbe protectedandthatrestorationshouldbepromotedinsuitableareas. 6.4BeachandBluff Beachandbluffhabitatsarecreatedbyveryspecificconditions,thepresenceofwhich dictatesthenaturalcoveranddistributionofthesenativeecosystems.InClaringtonthe coverfigurefortheseareasisonly86.8ha,0.14percentofthemunicipality.Thisnatural rarity,coupledwiththefactthatnumerousrareplantandanimalspeciesareassociatedwith themsuggeststhatprotectionofnaturalbeachandbluffcommunitiesshouldbeapriority. 3434 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Photo6.BondHeadBluffs PhotolookingnortheasterlytowardtheBondheadBluffsfromLakeOntario.Photo courtesyofGRCA. 6.5OpenWater Openwater,primarilyintheformofpondsandportionsofriverswithouttreecover,makes uponly0.29percentoftheClaringtonlandscapeaccordingtoELCmapping.Theseareasdo notincludepondsorportionsofpondswithfloatingoremergentvegetationsasthese wouldbeclassifiedaswetlands.Muchoftheopenwaterismadeupofartificialponds becauseitisoftendifficulttodistinguishthesefromnaturalpondsduringairphoto interpretation.Nocovertargetscanbesetforopenwaterbecausethereisnohistorical dataontheextentofsmalllakesorpondsinClarington. Insummary,althoughtheamountofnaturalcoverinClaringtonisgreaterthansomeother municipalitiesintheGreaterTorontoAreaandthoseinsouthwesternOntario,theproblems associatedwithhabitatfragmentationarepresentandshouldbeaddressed.Furthermore whathasbeenpresentedhereislargelybasedonremoteassessmentthroughairphoto interpretation.Whatisabsentisanunderstandingoftheconditionofthesehabitatsand howtheircomponentspeciesarerespondingtothelandscapestructureandimpactsofland useinthesurroundingmatrix. 3535 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section7 NaturalHeritageSystemPolicies ClaringtonOfficialPlan 7.NATURALHERITAGESYSTEMPOLICIESΜCLARINGTONOFFICIALPLAN 7.1ExistingNaturalHeritageSystem #¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥firstOfficialPlan,1996setanewstandardfortheprotectionofnaturalheritage featuresinSouthernOntario.Almosttwentyyearslaterthesesamepoliciesarestill consideredtobepioneering. Therearemanydiversenaturalheritagefeaturesandtheirfunctionsthatcollectively comprise#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥existingnaturalheritagesystemanditistheobjectiveoftheOfficial Plantoprotectthisnaturalheritagesystemfromincompatibledevelopment.Agoalofthe OPistomanageandenhance#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagefeaturesandtocreatean integratedandcontinuoussystem(Section14.4,ClaringtonOfficialPlan). Theexistingnaturalheritagesystemiscomprisedofthefollowingfeaturesaswellasthe linkagesbetweenthem: ProvinciallySignificantWetlands; Woodlands; Valleylands; ANSIs; LongSaultandGanaraskaForests; LakeIroquoisBeach;and Streams. OntheOakRidgesMoraine,additionalnaturalheritagefeaturesandhydrologicallysensitive featureshavebeenincludedinthenaturalheritagesystemincluding: FishHabitat; Significantportionsofhabitatofrare,threatenedandendangeredspecies; RavevegetationcommunitiesincludingSandBarrens,SavannahsandTallGrass Prairies; SignificantWildlifeHabitat; HydrologicallySensitiveFeatures; Allwetlands; Permanentandintermittentstreams;and Seepageareasandsprings. 3636 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 LandformfeaturessuchastheOakRidgesMoraine,theLakeIroquoisBeachandtheLake OntarioWaterfrontarealsoconsideredpartoftheNaturalHeritageSystemandhave existingpolicyprotectionintheOP.Theprotectionoftwosignificantlylargewoodlands, theGanaraskaForestandtheLongSaultForestandtheconnectionbetweenthemalsohave specializedpolicies. Throughacombinationoflandusedesignations(asdepictedonMapA),landusepolicies (Chapters4and14)andsupportingschedules(SchedulesCandD)inthecurrentOPthe naturalheritagesystemisdescribedforClarington. TheLandUsemapsintheofficialplanindicatethegenerallandusedesignation.Alanduse designationdescribesthepredominanttypeofdevelopmentplannedforanarea,suchas residential.MapALandUseidentifiesthegenerallocationofidentifiedEnvironmental ProtectionAreas.EnvironmentalProtection(EP)areasarerecognizedasthemost significantcomponentofthe-µÆ©£©∞°¨©¥?΄≥naturalenvironment.ThecurrentEPareasas shownonMapALandUse,arecomprisedmainlyofSignificantValleylands,andafew significantwoodlandsandwetlands(SeeFigure8.MapA1Darlington).Asdescribedinthe landusepolicies,theseareasaretobepreservedandprotected.Development,withafew minorexceptions,isnotpermittedwithintheEPareasanddevelopmentproposalsadjacent toanEPareamustincludeasetback.Thissetbackisusuallydeterminedaspartofan EnvironmentalImpactStudy(EIS). Theapproximatelocationofthemajorityof#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagefeaturesare documentedonSchedulesCandDofthecurrentOfficialPlan(SeeFigure9.MapC3Natural HeritageSystem).OPpolicyallowsfortheinformationontheseschedulestobeupdated withoutanamendmenttotheOfficialPlanbecausethisinformationisnotalanduse designation.MapCdoesnotdescribelanduse.Itisasupportingmapwhichdepictsthe approximatelocationoftheidentifiedNaturalHeritageFeatures.MapsCandDhavebeen updatedanumberoftimestoreflectrecentnaturalheritageinformation. Inaddition,thecurrentOPrecognizesthatnotallnaturalheritagefeaturesandfunctions areorcanbemapped.Therefore,OPpoliciesareincludedtoaddressthenaturalheritage protectionofanynaturalheritagefeaturesthathavenotbeenidentifiedbytheMunicipality, RegionofDurham,aConservationAuthorityortheProvince(ClaringtonOfficialPlanpolicy 4.4.9). 3737 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Plan.Plan. OfficialOfficial ClaringtonClarington Clarke,Clarke, SouthSouth SystemSystem HeritageHeritage NaturalNatural C3C3 MapMap 9.9. FigureFigure 39393939 NaturalNaturalHeritageHeritageSystemSystemDiscussionDiscussionPaperPaperAprilApril20132013 Figure10describestheexistingNaturalHeritageSystemthatisdescribedandprotectedby thecurrentOP.ThisfigureisacompilationofthelandusedesignationfromMapA(Land Use)andthenaturalheritagefeaturesidentifiedonMapsCandD(NaturalHeritage System).Togetherwiththepolicies,thisrepresentstheexistingnaturalheritagesystemof theClaringtonOfficialPlan. 4040 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Figure10.ExistingNaturalHeritagePolicyAreasfromtheClaringtonOfficialPlan. 4141 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section8 ProposedNaturalHeritageSystem Directions 8.PROPOSEDNATURALHERITAGESYSTEMDIRECTIONS 8.1DefinetheApproachNaturalHeritageSystems ThemultipleapproachestodefininganddevelopingpolicyapproachestoanNHS(see AppendixI),(whileallareintendedtoachievethesamegoalofprotectingnaturalfeatures andanNHSforthelongterm),canbecomplicatedandconfusing.Therearethreebasic definitionandpolicyapproachestonaturalheritagesystems. Afeaturesapproachprotectsallnaturalfeatures,however,unlesstheindividualfeatures arephysicallylinked,theyremainisolated.Thisapproachdoesnotprovidefornatural linkagesneededforwildlifemovementanddoesnotassistinachievingrestorationor providingenhancementstonaturalareasandthereforecanleadtothelossand/or degradationoffeatures.ThePPSprovidesfeaturebasedpolicysupport;howeveritalso providespolicydirectionforaconnectedsystemsapproach. Asystemsapproachestablishesalinkednaturalheritagesystemcomprisedoffeaturesand corridorsorlinkagesbetweenthefeatures.Asystemsdefinedapproachhasagreater abilitytosustainitselfcomparedtothefeatureapproach.Asystemsapproachincludes protectionforareasthatmaynotcurrentlysupportnaturalfeaturesbutareprotectedfor corridorandrestoration/enhancementpurposes.Howeverthesystemsapproachdoesnot provideprotectionforisolatedfeatureslocatedoutsideofthelinkedsystemthatstill provideecologicalbenefits. Acombinationapproachincludesprotectionforbothanaturallinkedsystemaswellas naturalfeaturesthatarelocatedoutsideofthesystem.Thisapproachallowsforrestoration andenhancementwithinasystemandalsoprovidesforprotectionoffeaturesoutsideof thesystem.ThisistheapproachselectedforthecurrentOPreviewforallareasofthe municipalityincludingtheOakRidgesMoraine,theGreenbelt,otherruralareasaswellas withinurbanareas. Acombinedapproachprovidesthemostrobustapproachtoprotectingvaluednatural features.ThepoliciesinthePPSandGreenbeltPlansupportacombinationapproachto naturalheritageplanningbyprovidingatieredlevelofprotectiontobothanaturalheritage systemandtonaturalheritagefeatures.Essentially,theGreenbeltPlanprohibits developmentwithinkeynaturalheritagefeaturesandkeyhydrologicalfeatureswithinthe NaturalHeritageSystem,whereaswithfeaturesoutsideofthesystem(exceptprovincially significantwetlandsandhabitatofendangeredspeciesandthreatenedspecies) developmentmaybepermittedprovideditisdemonstratedthattherewillbenonegative impact. 4242 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 8.3Woodlands Woodlands ThedefinitionofΈ∑ØØ§¨°Æ§≥Ήinthe Meanstreedareasthatprovideenvironmental PPSdescribesΈ¥≤••§°≤•°≥Ήthatprovide andeconomicbenefitstoboththeprivate anumberofenvironmentaland landownerandthegeneralpublic,suchas economicbenefits.However,what erosionprevention,hydrologicalandnutrient constitutesaΈ¥≤••§°≤•°Ήisopento cycling,provisionofcleanairandthelongterm interpretation.TheELCcanprovide storageofcarbon,provisionofwildlifehabitat, assistanceinthismatterasitdefinesa outdoorrecreationalopportunities,andthe seriesofvegetationcommunitytypes sustainableharvestofawiderangeofwoodland accordingtotheamountoftreecover. products.Woodlandsincludetreedareas, Someofthese,suchasdeciduousforest woodlotsorforestedareasandvaryintheirlevel (FOD),coniferousforest(FOC),and ofsignificanceatthelocal,regionaland mixedforest(FOM),areobvious provinciallevels.PPS,2005 candidatesforwoodlands,asiscultural plantation(CUP),asthesearegenerallymanagedasforestsandprovidemanyofthe functionstypicalofmorenaturalwoodlands.Allofthesecommunitytypesareconsidered tobewoodlandsasareELCtreedswampcommunities(SWD,SWCandSWM),whichare consideredtobebothwoodlandandwetland. Othervegetationcommunitiescomposedoftreesorshrubsmayormaynotbeconsidered woodlandsorforestdependingonthefunctionsbeingconsidered.Theseincludecultural woodland(CUW)communitieswhichhavebetween35to60percenttreecoverandcultural savanna(CUS)communitieswhichhave25to30percenttreecover.CulturalWoodlands mayalreadymeetthedefinitionofΈ∑ØØ§¨°Æ§ΉaccordingtotheForestryActbasedontheir size,andthereforeshouldbeincludedinaSignificantWoodlandsanalysis.ThoseCUWand CUScommunitiesthatmaynotmeetthedefinitionofSignificantWoodlandshouldnotbe devaluedfortheirpotential.Iftheyarenotvaluedforthispotentialthesecommunitytypes areatriskofincrementalloss,thusreducingtheamountofneartermfutureforestonthe landscape.Ontheotherhandifoneisconcernedaboutspeciesrepresentationthenthese habitatsaretooopentosupportforestinteriorbirdsthatrequirethecool,moist,shady conditionsfoundunderaclosedcanopy,orspeciesthatrequirematuretreesfornesting,to citejusttwoexamples.Thereforetodefinetheseareasasforestorwoodlandwould exaggeratethetrueamountofforestcoverandfunction. SignificantWoodlands BoththePPSandGreenbeltdefinesignificantwoodlandsasanareawhichisecologically importantintermsoffeaturessuchasspeciescomposition,ageoftreesandstandhistory; functionallyimportantduetoitscontributiontothebroaderlandscapebecauseofits 4444 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 ProposedPolicyDirection Theproposedapproachtodefineanddelineatewoodlandsdoesnotvaryfromthecurrent approach.ConservationAuthoritydelineatedELCwoodlands,basedontreecovercriteria, includingdeciduousforest(FOD),coniferousforest(FOC),mixedforest(FOM),andcultural plantation(CUP)willdefinewoodlands.Alsoproposedtobeincludedaretreedswamp communities(SWD,SWCandSWM),becausetheyareconsideredtobebothwoodlandsand wetlands.TheseabovenotedELCcommunitiesmustalsomeettheOPdefinitionofsizeto beconsideredwoodland.WithinUrbanAreas,theminimumsizeforawoodlottobe includedintheNaturalHeritageSystemis1ha.Withintheruralareas,butnotontheORM, theminimumsizeis4ha.OntheORM,theminimumsizeis0.5haforthosewoodlands locatedwithintheNaturalLinkageandNaturalCorelandusedesignationsand4ha otherwise. 8.4Wetlands Wetlands TheGreenbeltPlanandthePPSdefine wetlandsquitesimilarly,bothincluding Meanslandsthatareseasonallyor thefourmajortypesofwetland, permanentlycoveredbyshallowwater,aswell swamps,marshes,bogsandfens. aslandswherethewatertableisclosetoorat Howeverlandsthatareperiodically thesurface.Ineithercasethepresenceof soakedorwetandusedforagricultural abundantwaterhascausedtheformationof purposes,arenotconsideredtobe hydricsoilsandhasfavouredthedominanceof wetlandsaccordingtothisdefinitionin eitherhydrophyticplantsorwatertolerant theGreenbeltPlan plants.Thefourmajortypesofwetlandsare swamps,marshes,bogsandfens.PPS,2005 ELCfurtherdivideswetlandsinto CommunitySerieslevel.Hereswamp includesdeciduous,coniferousandmixedforestswamp(SWD,SWCandSWM),aswellas thicketswamp(SWT).Fensandbogscanbeopen(FEO,BOO),shrub(FES,BOS),ortreed (FET,BOT).Marshesincludemeadowmarsh(MAM)andshallowmarsh(MAS).Shallow waterwetlandsincludesubmergedshallowaquatic(SAS),mixedshallowaquatic(SAM),and floatingleavedshallowaquatic(SAF)vegetationtypes. SignificantWetlands ThePPSdefinessignificantwetlandsaswetlandsidentifiedasprovinciallysignificantbythe OntarioMinistryofNaturalResourcesusingevaluationproceduresestablishedbythe Province,asamendedfromtimetotime.CriteriadescribedintheOntarioWetland EvaluationSystemforSouthernOntario(OMNR1993)areusedbyMNRtodetermine whetherornotawetlandisconsideredprovinciallysignificant.Criteriaincludebiological, 4646 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 social,hydrological,andspecialfeaturescomponents.Ifwetlandsachieveascoreof600 pointsormore,or200pointsinthebiologicalorspecialfeaturescomponent,itis consideredtobeProvinciallySignificant.Althoughawetlandmayachievealowerscore,it canstillbeconsideredafeatureworthyofprotection.Municipalitieshavetheabilityto definewhatitconsiderstobeawetlandworthyofprotection,includingwetlandsthatmay nothavebeenevaluated. TheGreenbeltPlanconsiderswetlandstobebothaKeyNaturalHeritageFeature(KNHF) andaKeyHydrologicFeature(KHF).TheGreenbeltPlandoesnotpermitdevelopment withinawetlandoritsminimumvegetationprotectionzone,regardlessofwhetheritisa KNHForaKHF. CurrentApproach ThepoliciesinthecurrentOfficialPlanconsidersallwetlandstobesignificantandworthyof protectionfromincompatibledevelopment.Theadvantageofthisapproachisthatitis precautionary.Apolicythatprotectsallwetlandsismorelikelytoensurethatallwetland valuesaremaintained.Furthermore,evenifawetlandhasnotbeenmapped,itiscovered bytheexistingnaturalheritagepoliciesonceidentifiedonsite.Thedisadvantageofthis approachisthatsomeverysmallwetlandssuchasroadsidecattailmarshesareprotected eventhoughtheymaynotreallybeassignificantassomeofthelarger,morediverse wetlandsfoundinClarington. ThecurrentOfficialPlanMapA(LandUse)doesnotidentifyallProvinciallySignificant Wetlands(PSWs),howeverthemajorityofthemhavebeenincludingonMapsCandD (NaturalHeritageFeatures).Otherwetlands(ELCidentifiedorunevaluatedwetlands)have notbeenidentifiedonanycurrentOfficialPlanmapping,butasnotedabove,theyare protectedfromincompatibledevelopmentthroughtheexistingOPpolicy. ProposedPolicyDirection ItisrecommendedthatboththeProvinciallySignificantWetlandsandELCdelineated wetlandsbeincludedwithin#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagesystem.Thedefinitionand boundariesofProvinciallySignificantWetlandsareprovidedbyMNRandthereforeshould beacceptedasprovided.ThewetlandsidentifiedbytheConservationAuthoritiesusingELC arealsorecommendedforinclusion. Regardingthesizeofawetlandtobeprotected,thisissuecouldbedealtwithbyplacinga minimumsize(o.5ha)onwetlandstobeprotected.Howeveritisnotuncommonforsome wetlandsunder0.5hatohavehighbiologicalfunction.Forexampleasmallopenwater wetlandmaybetheonlybreedingsiteavailableforalltheamphibianswithinalargearea. 4747 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Orasmallwetlandmightsupportapopulationofrareplants.Inaddition,somesmaller wetlandsmaynotcurrentlybetheidealsiteforsomespeciesbuthavethefuturepotential tobe.Suchoccurrencescanonlybedeterminedthroughonthegroundsurveys.Surveys aremorelikelytooccuratsitesthataremapped,areaccessible,andarelargeenoughto warranttheeffort.Thereforesmallerwetlandsthathavesuchvaluescaneasilybemissed unlessthereisblanketprotection. TakingtheaboveintoconsiderationitisrecommendedthatClaringtonmaintainthepolicy thatallwetlandsaresignificant,howeverwiththecaveatthatcertainwetlands,i.e.below 0.5ha,maybeexempted.However,exemptionfromprotectionwouldonlybeconsidered basedontheresultsofanEIS. 8.5WildlifeHabitat WildlifeHabitat ThePPSandGreenbeltPlanbothdefinewildlife Meansareaswhereplants,animalsand habitatsimilarly.Specificwildlifehabitatsof otherorganismslive,andfindadequate concernmayincludeareaswherespecies amountsoffood,water,shelterand concentrateatavulnerablepointintheirannuallife spaceneededtosustaintheir cycle;andareasthatareimportanttomigratoryand populations.Specificwildlifehabitatsof nonmigratoryspecies. concernmayincludeareaswhere SignificantWildlifeHabitatisgenerallydefinedby speciesconcentrateatavulnerable thePPSandGreenbeltPlanasecologically pointintheirannualorlifecycle;and importantintermsoffeatures,functions, areaswhichareimportanttomigratory representationoramount,andcontributingtothe ornonmigratoryspecies.PPS,2005 qualityanddiversityoftheNaturalHeritageSystem. TheProvince(MinistryofNaturalResources)identifiescriteriarelatingtotheforegoing. TheSignificantWildlifeHabitatTechnicalGuide(OMNR2000;NHRM2010)wasproducedto provideplanningauthoritieswithguidanceintheidentificationofSignificantWildlifeHabitat (SWH).TheguidedescribedfourcategoriesofSWH: Habitatsofseasonalconcentrationsofanimals Rarevegetationcommunitiesorspecializedhabitatforwildlife Habitatofspeciesofconservationconcern Animalmovementcorridors MunicipalitieswereencouragedtoidentifySWHortoprotectareasthatqualifiedasSWH throughOPpolicy.ThisapproachisdescribedintherevisedNaturalHeritageReference Manual(NHRM,2010),whichrecommendsandoutlinesanewprocessforidentifyingand confirmingtheoccurrenceofSWHaspartofdevelopmentapplications. 4848 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 TheNHRMstatesthatΈ∑®©¨•MNRcanrecommendcriteriaandaprocessforidentifying SWH,theultimateresponsibilityforprotectingSWHlieswiththeplanningauthority.To ensureprotectionofthehabitat,theplanningauthoritywillneedtoundertakethe necessarystudiesorestablishpoliciesforproponentstoidentifyandevaluate37(ỳΉ CurrentApproach ThecurrentOPhasmappedSWHasacomponentoftheOakRidgesMoraineNatural Heritagesystem.TheseSWHareasincludetwotallgrassprairiesoneintheBurketonarea andtheotherintheGanaraskaForest.Seethetextboxonthefollowingpagefora descriptionofNativeTallgrassPrairies.Otherthanthesefeatures,theidentificationand protectionofSWHisprovidedforthroughsitespecificEISworkandasinformation becomesavailable. ProposedPolicyDirection Nochangesproposed. 4949 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 ProtectingRareNativeTallgrassCommunitiesΜSignificantWildlifeHabitat Nativetallgrassecosystems,includingprairieandsavannathriveondrysandysoils.They arecharacterizedbyprairiegrassessuchasBigBluestem(Andropogongerardii),Little Bluestem(Schizachyriumscoparium)andIndianGrass(Sorghastrumnutans),butalso supportadiversityofnativewildflowersassociatedwiththedry,sandyconditions. HistoricallytallgrasscommunitiesdominatedthelandscapeofmuchoftheAmerican Midwest,stretchingintoOhioandsouthernOntariowheresuitableconditionsoccurred. TheseconditionsincludedpartsoftheOakRidgesMoraine.Thevastmajorityofthe tallgrasswasconvertedtoagriculturebyearlysettlers,suchthatcurrentlylessthan3 percentoftheoriginalcoverremains.Thismakestallgrassoneoftherarestecosystem typesinNorthAmerica(Roger1999). Despitethelandclearingandsubsequentextensivetreeplantingprojectstocontrol erosion,afewsmalltallgrassprairieremnantssurvivedonpartsoftheORM,includingin Clarington.TheknownremnantsweremappedbytheOntarioMinistryofNatural Resources. Eventhoughtheyaredegraded,tallgrasshabitatsareimportantformaintaining biodiversity.Inadditiontosupportingtheplantsandanimalsuniquetotheseconditions, protectionandrestorationprojectscanhelpprovidehabitatforthenumerousgrassland birdspeciesthatareexperiencingpopulationdeclines.Thereforeaneffortshouldbe madetoprotectandrestoretallgrassprairiesorsavannaswhereverfeasible. 5050 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 8.6FishHabitatandRiparianCorridors ThePPSandtheGreenbeltPlandefinesfish FishHabitatAsdefinedintheFisheries habitatinaccordancewiththeFederalFisheries Act,c.F14,meansspawninggrounds Act,c.F1.TheConservationAuthoritiesand andnursery,rearing,foodsupply,and Claringtonutilizethissamedefinition migrationareasonwhichfishdepend directlyorindirectlyinordertocarry Adequateripariancorridorsprotect/enhance outtheirlifeprocesses.PPS,2005 sensitivefisheryhabitatincludingspawning areas,protectsandcanimproveuponthe thermalregimeofthewatercourse,capturessedimentandnutrientsbeforereachingthe watercourse,enhancesfoodsupplysourcesincludinginvertebrates,supportsbiodiversity andwildlifemovement,providesrechargeopportunities,reduceserosion,andoffersflood storagecapacity.Ripariancorridors,definedasallofthelandwithin30metreofeitherside ofawatercourse,iswelldocumentedasprovidingprotectiontonaturalfeatures,functions andconditionsthatsupportfishlifeprocessesandprotectfishhabitatasdefinedbythe FisheriesAct.Watercoursescanbepermanent,intermittent,ephemeralandincludes headwaterdrainagefeaturesandlakes/ponds. CurrentApproach OntheOakRidgesMoraine,thecurrentOPhasidentifiedfishhabitatasasignificant componentoftheNaturalHeritageSystem.CurrentOPpolicyalsoprovidesforthe protectionofaminimum30mvegetativeprotectionzone(VPZ)fromfishhabitat(a watercourse),howeverthisOPpolicycurrentlyonlyappliesontheORM. TodelineatefishhabitatandtheripariancorridorwithintheNaturalHeritageSystemonthe ORM,a30moffset(torepresenttheVPZ),fromeithersideofwatercoursewasgenerated usingtheMunicipalitiesGISsystem.Allofthelandwithinthisoffsetareaisconsideredtobe fishhabitatandripariancorridor. ProposedPolicyDirection Toprovidefortheprotectionoffishhabitatandtheripariancorridorsthroughouttherestof theMunicipality,itisproposedthatallofthelandlocatedwithinthe30mVPZfromeither sideofallwatercoursesbeincludedin#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagesystem.Thisapproach providesforacontinuousandminimumsizedripariancorridorthroughouttheMunicipality. Thisripariancorridoralsorepresentsanintegrationpointbetweenaquatichabitatsandthe terrestrialnaturalheritagesystem.Inaddition,protectinglinearfeaturessuchasthis contributestotheconnectivityfunctionofanaturalheritagesystem. 5151 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 8.7Valleylands ThePPSandGreenbeltPlandefinesvalleylandsasanaturalareathatoccursinavalleyor otherlandformdepressionthathaswaterflowingthroughorstandingforsomeperiodof theyear(PPS,2005).ThefactthatitisΈ°naturalareathatoccursinthe∂°¨¨•?Ήsuggests thatitisnotthelandformitselfthatisthesubjectofthepolicy,butthenaturalfeature withinthelandform. SignificantValleylands ThePPSandGreenbeltPlangenerallydefinessignificantvalleylandsasecologically importantintermsoffeatures,functions,representationoramount,andcontributingtothe qualityanddiversityoftheNaturalHeritageSystem.TheProvince(MinistryofNatural Resources)identifiescriteriarelatingtotheforgoing. TheProvincialGuidelinesmaterialprovidesthatsignificantvalleylandsincludeanyofthe featuresidentifiedinanyofthefollowingthreecategories: allstreamswithwelldefinedvalleymorphology(i.e.floodplains,riparianzones, meanderbeltsand/orvalleyslopes);thephysicalboundaryisdefinedbythestable topofbank(asdefinedbytheconservationauthority);or allspillwaysandravineswiththepresenceofflowingorstandingwaterforaperiod ofnolessthantwomonthsinanaverageyear;or additionalfeaturesbeyondtheonesdescribedabovethathavebeenidentifiedby theplanningauthorityasprovidingoneormoreofthefeaturesorfunctionsrelated to: Surfacewaterfunctions o Groundwaterfunctions o Landformprominence o Distinctivegeomorphiclandforms o Degreeofnaturalness o Communityandspeciesdiversity o Uniquecommunitiesandspecies o Habitatvalue o Linkagefunction o Restorationpotentialandvalue o 5252 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 thefollowingapproachesusedforconfinedandunconfinedstreamsystems.Thisdefinition usesatechnicalapproachthatisreproducibleandsupportedbyscience. Thefollowingsections,MeanderBelt,ErosionHazardandTopofBankdescribethe proposedapproachtodefineValleylands. MeanderBelt Withinareaswherethevalleywallsdonotconfinethestream,butwherealandformexists associatedwiththewatercourse,abuffertothewatercoursewillbedefinedtomaintainthe valleylandconnectivityandnaturalheritagefunctions. ThemeanderbeltistheshallowerlandinanUnconfinedValleySystemwherewaterisfreeto flow,itisthemaximumorpredictedextentthatawatercoursewillmigrate.The meanderingtendenciesofthewatercourse,areasofconfluenceandareasofgeographical changemustbethoroughlyexaminedtoaccuratelydesignaterepresentativereachesalong thewatercourse.Forthispurpose,areachisdefinedasareasofsimilarchannel characteristicsalongthewatercoursebetweenconfluences. Themeanderbeltallowance(Figure11)providesalimittodevelopmentwithintheareas wheretheriversystemislikelytoshift.Thisallowanceisbasedon20timesthebankfull channelwidthandcentredonthemeanderbeltaxis.Thebankfullchannelwidthis measuredatthewidestrifflesectionofthereach.Ariffleisasectionofshallowrapids wherethewatersurfaceisbrokenbysmallwaves. Figure11.TypicalapplicationoftheMeanderBeltAllowanceforanUnconfinedSystem Erosionhazardforanunconfinedsystemisdefinedasanallowanceforthefloodinghazard ormeanderbeltallowance,plusanaccessallowance. ConfinedSystems Theallowancesorfunctionalelementsthatwillbeincludedinthedefinitionofwhatformsa valleyandvalleylandswillincludethefurthestextentofthe: ErosionHazardor TopofBank 5454 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 ErosionHazard Erosionhazardsforconfinedsystemsaredefinedasthetoeerosionallowanceplus allowanceforstableslopeplusanaccessallowance. TheToeErosionAllowanceisimplementedtobufferdevelopmentfromthehazardous effectsoftoeerosion,andalsotobufferthenaturalriverprocessesfromtheinfluencesof development.ToeErosionmeanserosionatthebaseortoeofalandform,thelandform herebeingthevalleywallorsteeplyslopedportionofthevalley.Toeofslopecanbe definedasthelowestpointonaslope,wherethesurfacegradientchangesfromrelatively shallowtorelativelysteep. TOEEROSIONALLOWANCE15 IFDISTANCE?!?⁬ METRESLESS LESSTHAN15METRESTHENREQUIRES DISTANCE?!? TOEEROSIONALLOWANCE Έ!Ή TOPOFSLOPE NORMALWATER LEVEL TOPOFBANK TOEOFSLOPE Figure12.WatercourseCrossSectionwithToeErosion Thisallowanceisbasedonaminimumdistanceof15metresbetweentheedgeofariver system,andthetoeofitsconfiningvalleywall.Iftoeoftheslopeislessthan15metresfrom theedgeofthewatercourse,thentheremainingdistancetoequal15metresisaddedtothe topoftheslope.SeeFigure12. TheStableSlopeAllowanceisimplementedtobufferdevelopmentfromthehazardsofvalley slopeinstability,andalsotopreventtheinfluenceofdevelopmentontherateofvalley slopemovement.Thisallowanceisbasedonanassumedstableslopegradientof3 horizontalunitsto1verticalunit(3:1). Forslopesatsteepergradients,theallowanceisequaltothedistancebetweentheactual valleytopofslopeandthepointatwhichaslopeata3:1gradient,risingfromthesametoe position,wouldintersectthegroundsurface(Figure13). 5555 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Figure13.StableSlopeallowance(confinedsystem). TopofBankisdefinedasthepointwheretheupwardinclinationofavalleyslopehasavisible discerniblebreakinslopeorlevellingoff.Generallyslopesmustbesteeperthat5:1(v:h) withelevationfromthebottomofthevalleytothetopofbankgreaterthan2m. 8.8AreasofNaturalandScientificInterest AreasofNaturalandScientificInterest(ANSI)playanimportantroleintheprotectionof /Æ¥°≤©Ø΄≥naturalheritage,sincetheybestrepresentthefullspectrumofbiological communities,naturallandformsandenvironmentsacrossOntariooutsideofprovincialparks andconservationreserves.Inaddition,ANSIsprovideafocusforbothpublicandprivate sectorstocontributetotheprotectionof/Æ¥°≤©Ø΄≥naturalheritage. TherearetwotypesofANSIs,lifescienceand AreasofNaturalandScientificInterest earthsciencebothofwhicharedefinedbythe (ANSI) MinistryofNaturalResources(MNR). Meansareasoflandandwater LifescienceANSIsaresignificant containingnaturallandscapesor representativesegmentsof/Æ¥°≤©Ø΄≥ featuresthathavebeenidentifiedas biodiversityandnaturallandscapes,including havinglifescienceorearthscience specifictypesofforests,valleys,prairies, valuesrelatedtoprotection,scientific savannahs,alvarsandwetlands,theirnative studyoreducation.PPS,2005 plantsandanimals,andtheirsupporting environments.Theycontainrelatively undisturbedvegetationandlandformsandtheirassociatedspeciesandcommunities. ProvinciallysignificantlifescienceANSIsincludethemostsignificantandbestexamplesof thenaturalheritagefeaturesintheprovince,andmanycorrespondtoothersignificant featuresandareassuchaswetlands,valleylandsandwoodlands. 5656 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 EarthscienceANSIsaregeologicalinnature,consistofsomeofthemostsignificant representativeexamplesofthebedrock,fossilsandlandformsinOntario,andinclude examplesofongoinggeologicalprocesses. CurrentApproach ThecurrentOfficialPlanhasidentifiedanumberofANSIsthroughoutClarington.Identified lifescienceANSIsincludestheEnfieldWetlandComplexandtheGanaraskaForest.The BondHeadBluffshavebeenidentifiedasanearthscienceANSI.Thesefeaturesare identifiedonMapCasANSIsandontheLandUseMapsasEnvironmentalProtectionAreas. Thelandusepoliciesofthecurrentplandonotpermitdevelopmentwithinthefeature,and requirethepreparationofanEIStobecompletedfordevelopmentproposalsthatare adjacenttothesefeatures. ProposedPolicyDirection TheMNRhasrecentlyprovidedtheMunicipalitywithupdatedinformationregardingANSIs. Insomecases,theboundariesoftheANSIshavebeenrefinedthroughdetailsite investigations,andinothercases,newANSIshavebeenidentified.Asthenewest informationismadeavailablebyMNR,thelocationoftheANSIswillbedelineatedand includedwithintheNaturalHeritageSystem.Thepoliciesregardingprotectionof,or developmentonlandsadjacenttoaANSIarenotproposedtochange. DefiningSignificantHabitatofEndangeredSpeciesandThreatenedSpeciesandSignificant AreasofNaturalandScientificInterestareProvincialresponsibilitiesandtheProvincehasor isdevelopingitsowncriteriaforthese.Theroleofthemunicipalityissimplytoaddressthe protectionofthesefeaturesthroughpolicyintheOfficialPlanasitrelatestoconformityto theGreenbeltPlanandPPS. 5757 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 8.9SignificantHabitatofEndangeredSpeciesandThreatenedSpecies ThePPSdirectsthatnodevelopmentor Endangeredspecies:meansaspeciesthatis sitealterationispermittedinsignificant listedorcategorizedasanΈ%Æ§°Æß•≤•§ habitatofendangeredorthreatened 3∞•£©•≥ΉontheOntarioMinistryofNatural species.Thedelineatedhabitatof 2•≥Øµ≤£•≥΄officialSpeciesatRisklist,as endangeredandthreatenedspeciesis updatedandamendedfromtimetotime. consideredsensitiveinformation.The exactlocationsofthesespeciesshould Threatenedspecies:meansaspeciesthatis notbeidentifiedinmunicipalplanning listedorcategorizedasaΈ4®≤•°¥•Æ•§ documents,andtrainingisrequiredto 3∞•£©•≥ΉontheOntarioMinistryofNatural workwiththedata. 2•≥Øµ≤£•≥΄officialspeciesatrisklist,as updatedandamendedfromtimetotime. Theprotectionofsignificanthabitatof endangeredandthreatenedspecies, Significant:meansΈ‛b)inregardtothe especiallyhabitatessentialfor habitatofendangeredspeciesandthreatened reproductionorforsurvivalatcritical species,meansthehabitat,asapprovedbythe pointsinthelifecycle,isfundamentalfor OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources,thatis therecoveryofthesespeciesatrisk. necessaryforthemaintenance,survivaland/or Protectionisnecessarytopreventthe recoveryofnaturallyoccurringor extirpationofspeciesfromOntarioandto reintroducedpopulationsofendangered assistwiththeirrecovery. speciesorthreatenedspecies,andwherethose areasofoccurrenceareoccupiedorhabitually CurrentApproach occupiedbythespeciesduringallorany part(s)ofitslifecycle;‛ΉPPS,2005 Theidentificationofsignificanthabitat variesconsiderablyfromspeciesto species,dependingontheindividual≥∞•£©•≥΄habitatneeds.Currently,andproposedto remain,arethepoliciesrelatedtosignificanthabitatofthreatenedandendangeredspecies; thepreciseconfigurationofthesignificanthabitatareashouldbedeterminedbyan individualwithexpertknowledgeoftherequirementsofthespecies,takinginto considerationlocaltopographicfeaturesandotherfactors. ProposedPolicyDirection Nochangeswillbeproposed. TheCombinedApproach Asdescribedatthebeginningofthissection,#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagesystemis proposedtobedefinedusingacombinedapproach,whichnotonlydelineatesthose 5858 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 featuresthatarelinkedtogether,i.e.alongvalleylands,butalsothefeaturesthatare geographicallyseparatedfromthelinkedsystemi.e.awoodland. UsingtheinformationprovidedfromtheConservationAuthoritiesandtheMNR,andthe methodologiesdescribed,themunicipalityhasmappedallofthenaturalheritagefeatures. Allofthefeatureswerethencombinedtogetherinasinglemaptocreatetheproposed NaturalHeritageSystem.SeeFigures14A;14B;14Cand14D.Therecommendedapproach fordefiningaClaringtonNaturalHeritageSysteminthisdiscussionpaperwillcreateaNHS thatisinconformitywiththepoliciesofthePPS,theGreenbeltPlanandtheRegional OfficialPlan. 8.10SourceWater Sourcewateristheuntreatedwatertakenfromrivers,lakesorundergroundaquifersto supplyprivateandpublicdrinkingwatersystems.Therearetwotypesofsourcewater: surfacewaterandgroundwater.Surfacewateriswaterthatlaysonthe%°≤¥®΄≥surfacesuch aslakes,riversandstreams.Surfacewateriseasilycontaminatedbypollutionflowingover thelandordirectlyintolakes,riversandstreams.Groundwateristhewaterbeneaththe %°≤¥®΄≥surfacefoundinthecracksandspacesbetweensoil,sandandrockparticles.Surface waterandgroundwatercanbeinterconnected,withwaterflowingfromonetotheother. Groundwatercanalsobecontaminatedbypollutantsthataredepositedonthesurfacesoil orundergroundbutitoftentakesmuchlongerforthecontaminationtoreachawellthana surfacewaterintake.Forthesamereasonsittakeslongerforcontaminationtoreacha groundwatersourceitisalsomuchmoredifficulttofixagroundwatercontamination problem. Itisvitaltoprotectsourcewaterbecauseit'sthemostcosteffectiveandreliablewayto protectourdrinkingwaterforgenerationstocome.Althoughthe2•ß©ØÆ΄≥Water TreatmentFacilitiesareequippedwithsomeofthe∑Ø≤¨§΄≥mostadvancedwatertreatment equipment,thebestmethodofsafeguardingourdrinkingwateristopreventsourcewater frombecomingcontaminatedinthefirstplace. ASourceWaterProtectionPlancontainsaseriesofpoliciesdevelopedinconsultationwith thelocalcommunitytoprotectdrinkingwatersourcesfromexistingandfuturethreats. ThreeSourceWaterProtectionPlansarebeingproposedforwatershedsinClaringtonby threeSourceWaterProtectionCommittees.GenerallyaSourceProtectionPlanwillbean agreementamongthemunicipalitiesandthepeoplewithinawatershedabouthowtheywill protecttheirlocalsourcesofdrinkingwater.Theseplansaimtokeepsourcewaterclean andencouragewisewateruse.ItisexpectedthattheSourceProtectionPlanswillbe completedforallofClaringtonbytheendof2013(CTCandTCCwebsites). 5959 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 CurrentApproach TheOfficialPlancontainspoliciesprotectingsurfaceandgroundwaterresourcesasavital componentoftheecosystem(Section4.5ClaringtonOfficialPlan).Surfacewaterresources areidentifiedandprotectedthroughtheestablishmentoftherecommendedNatural HeritageSystem.However,withtheexceptionoftheOakRidgesMoraine,thecurrent OfficialPlandoesnotcontainmappingindicatingthelocationofsensitivegroundwater resources.TheDurhamRegionOfficialPlancontainsmappingofHighAquiferVulnerability Areasbasedonthebestavailableinformationatthetime.Workcompletedthroughthe SourceWaterProtectionPlans(CleanWaterAct,2006)andwatershedplanswillresultin morerefinedmappingofsensitivegroundwaterresourceareas. ProposedApproach ForClarington,itisproposedthattheidentificationofandpolicydirectionsforthe protectionofHighVolumeRechargeAreasΧ(62!΄≥ΨthroughoutClarington,asprepared throughSourceWaterProtectiondirectivesandwatershedplans,beutilized.However,this updatewilltakeplacewhentheSourceWaterProtectionPlansarecompleted. 6060 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section9 OfficialPlanPolicyRecommendations 9.OFFICIALPLANPOLICYRECOMMENDATIONS Asdescribedintheprecedingparagraphs,itisproposedthatthefollowingnaturalheritage featuresbeconsideredtobethecomponentsof#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥naturalheritagesystem; Woodlands Wetlands WildlifeHabitat FishhabitatandRiparianCorridors Valleylands ANSIsand SignificantHabitatofendangeredandthreatenedspecies ThemostsignificantchangefromhowthecurrentOPaddressesthenaturalheritagesystem iswithrespecttomapping.Thesedescribedfeaturesareallcurrentlyprotectedfrom developmentthroughtheenvironmentalpoliciesofChapters4and14.Forthemostpart, theapproximatelocationoffeatureshavebeenidentifiedonMapsCandD,butallofthese featureshavenotbeenincludedwithintheEnvironmentalProtectionlandusedesignation asdescribedbyMapAlanduse.Thisdiscussionpaperrecommendsthattheybeincluded. ThefollowingchangestothecurrentOfficialPlanPoliciesarerecommended: BuildupontheexistingpolicyfortheEnvironmentalProtectionAreasthatisin conformitywiththePPS,theGreenbeltPlanandtheRegionofDurhamOfficialPlan. Thisisnecessarytoresolvetheissueofmultiplepolicyapproachesduetothe numberofprovincialplansthatmustbeconsidered. OutlinetheimportanceofaNaturalHeritageSystemtosupportecologicalintegrity includinghealthyterrestrialandaquaticecosystems Recognizethatthenaturalheritagesystemprovidesecosystemservicesthatprovide fertilesoil,cleanwater,breathableairandanamenableclimate. DescribeanddefinethecomponentsthatmakeuptheNaturalHeritageSystem. Builduponexistingpoliciesthatrecognizethatnaturalheritagefeaturesmayexist outsideoftheNaturalHeritageSystemthatshouldbeprotected.Development withinoradjacenttothesefeaturesshouldbesubjecttoastudytodemonstratethat therearenonegativeimpacts. ContinuetoprotecttheestablishedNaturalHeritageSystembylimitingpermitted usestoforest,fishandwildlifemanagement,lowintensityrecreationandfloodor erosioncontrolprojects,exceptstormwatermanagementfacilities. ContinuetoprotecttheNaturalheritagesystemfromimpactsofpublicinfrastructure projectswhereverpossible,primarilylimitedtocrossings.Infrastructuremaybe 6161 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 permittedwithintheNaturalHeritageSystemprovidedimpactsareminimizedand sensitivefeaturesareavoidedtotheextentpossible.Thiswouldonlybeallowed basedonthespecificenvironmentalimpactstudyfortheprojectwiththegoalto ensurethatinfrastructureprojectsareonlybuiltwithintheNaturalHeritageSystem asalastresortandtheonlyviablealternative. Recognize,wheredevelopmentisproposed,theultimateboundaryoftheNatural HeritageSystemmayhavetobedeterminedthroughdetailedsitespecificstudies. Thestudymustalsodemonstratenonegativeimpacttothefeature/functionand whereappropriate,setbacks/buffersbetweenthedevelopmentandtheNatural HeritageSystem.Thiswouldapplytobothprivateandpublicprojects. Harmonizeandexpandthecurrentminimumvegetationprotectionzones requirementsandtheEnvironmentalProtectionsetbackrequirements EstablishpoliciestointroducevegetationrestorationareasforlandswithinUrban andSettlementAreas.Thevegetationrestorationareatargetsestablishedinthe respectiveWatershedPlansaretobeconsideredthroughtheSecondaryPlan processandconcurrentlyaspartofthedevelopmentapplicationprocess. Includepoliciesrequiringthecompletionofapreliminarynaturalheritagesystem analysistobeincludedwithinthebaselineinformationsubmittedwiththerequest forapreconsultationmeeting. Update/modifyexistingpolicylanguage. Thefollowingchangestotheofficialplanschedulesareproposedasfollows ReplacetheexistingEnvironmentalProtectionAreaasdesignatedcurrentlyonMap A,LandUse,withanupdatedEnvironmentalProtectionAreadesignationwhichis basedonacombinationoftheNaturalHeritageSystemmappingandfloodplain mappingaspreparedbytheconservationauthorities.(SeeFigures15A;15B;15C;15 D) UpdatetheexistingMapCNaturalHeritageSystemmapsandconsolidatewithMap DNaturalHeritagefortheOakRidgesMoraine(SeeFigures14A;14B;14Cand14D). 6262 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 ImplementingtheNaturalHeritageSystem TheGrowthPlanandtheNaturalHeritageSystem Afundamentalcomponentof#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥GrowthPlanconformityexerciseistodetermine theamountoflandwehaveavailablefordevelopmentwithinthedesignatedurbanareas. TheProvincedelineatedtheBuiltBoundaryforurbanareasthroughouttheGreaterGolden Horseshoefinalizedin2007.TheBuiltBoundaryisalinethatrepresentsthelimitsofwhat wasbuiltonthegroundasofJune2006.ThelandswithintheBuiltBoundaryareconsidered Intensification,whilethelandsbetweentheBuiltBoundaryandtheUrbanBoundaryare consideredGreenfield. SitesinbothGreenfieldandIntensificationareasmaycontainnaturalheritagefeatureslike floodplainlandsandwoodlotsprotectedfromdevelopmentbyeithertheProvince,Region and/orbythemunicipality.Todeterminehowmuchlandisavailablefordevelopmentto arriveatGrossDevelopableAreawithintheUrbanAreasofClarington.Thefirststepisto determinehowmuchlandispartthenaturalheritagesystem.ThetotalGreenfieldand IntensificationareasminustheNaturalHeritageSystemasdefinedinthisdiscussionpaper areconsideredtobetheGrossDevelopableArea. SecondaryPlansandtheNaturalHeritageSystem SecondaryPlansareamechanismavailabletomunicipalitiestoguidethedetailedplanning ofourcommunities.SecondaryPlansprovidethetoolsfortheimplementationofRegional andlocalpoliciessuchasprotectionofthenaturalenvironment,watershedplanning, sequentialdevelopment,servicingandtransportationneeds,design,density,publicspaces, andphasing.SecondaryPlanswouldalsoallowthemunicipalitytomonitorgrowth managementtargetsandpolicyimplementation.DevelopmentofGreenfieldlandsgreater thanapproximately20hamayonlyproceedfollowingthepreparationandapprovalofa SecondaryPlan.TheseSecondaryPlansaretobeinitiatedbytheMunicipality. ThecompletionofawatershedplanisoneofthemanycomponentsofaSecondaryPlan. BoththeCLOCAandtheGRCAarenearingthecompletionofwatershedplansforthe majorityof#¨°≤©Æß¥ØÆ΄≥watersheds,inconcertwiththeidentificationofthenaturalheritage systemaspartofthisOPreview,muchofthebackgroundnaturalheritagestudieswillbe complete.AspartoftheSecondaryPlanprocess,therefinementofbothnaturalheritage andtargetnaturalheritagesystemsasidentifiedintherespectiveWatershedPlanscanbe undertakeninrelationwiththeothercomponentsoftheSecondaryPlan. 6363 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Section10 NextSteps 10.NEXTSTEPS Itisproposedthatthisdiscussionpaperandtheabovenotedrecommendedchangestothe currentOfficialPlanbepresentedtotheClaringtoncommunityataseriesofpublic informationsessions.Anyfeedbackreceivedregardingtheproposeddirectionswillbe consideredpriortothepreparationofanOfficialPlanAmendment. ItisalsonecessarytoensurethattherecommendationsfromtheParks,TrailsandOpen SpacesDiscussionPaperandtheCountrysideDiscussionPaperhavebeenconsideredwith respecttotheNaturalHeritageSystempolicyrecommendations.Bothofthesepaperswill bethebackgrounddocumentsthatwillprovidethesupportfortheOfficialPlan AmendmentthatimplementstheGreenbeltPlan. 6464 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Appendices APPENDIX1 ApproachestotheCreationofaNaturalHeritageSystem Mapping/DesktopMethodology HaltonRegionhasdefinedtheirNHSaspartoftheSustainableHaltonRegionalGrowth program.In(°¨¥ØÆ΄≥casetheNHSwasdefinednotthroughaGISmodel,butbyidentifying naturalfeaturesandothercomponentsthatshouldbeincludedinthesystem,and developingthesystemthroughwhatwasessentiallyamappingoverlayprocess(North SouthEnvironmental2009). ThecomponentsoftheHaltonNHSincludetheGreenbeltNaturalHeritageSystem, protectedareasfromtheNiagaraEscarpmentPlan,naturalheritagefeaturesandfunctions withinurbanareasbasedonpreviousstudies,coreareascomposedoftheremainingnatural featuresinHalton,coreareaΈ•Æ®°Æ£•≠•Æ¥≥Ήmadeupofadjacentlands,centresfor biodiversitycomposedofmultiplecoresandenhancementareas,watercourse,surface waterfeaturesandfloodplains,definedlinkageareasandlastly,buffersonexistingfeatures andwatercourses. ThelinkageareasincludedΈ≤•ß©ØÆ°¨ΉandΈ¨Ø£°¨Ήlinkagesbasedontheirwidth,howeverit appearsthattheseweredefinednotthroughamodelingprocess,butthroughadesktop mappingexercise.ThisisagoodexampleofasimpleoverlayprocesstodefininganNHS withinamunicipalboundarycontext. AdifferentΈ§•≥´¥Ø∞ΉapproachwastakenfortheLakeSimcoeWatershed(Beacon& LSRCA2007).Inthiscase,insteadofdefiningcoreareas,thecomponentsoftheNHSare madeupofsignificantfeaturesasdefinedaccordingtothePPS.Linkageareasbetween theseweredefined,recognizingthatsomeofthesefeaturesalreadyprovidedalinkage function.Thesefeaturesandlinkageswerefurthersupplementedbydefiningstream linkagesandthelinkageareasdefinedintheOakRidgesMoraineConservationPlan(MMAH 2002).Ofparticularinterest,thisapproachrecognizesthataconnectivityfunctioncanbe providedforsomespeciesbycloseproximitybetweenhabitatpatches(asopposedtodirect linkagebycorridors)thusthiswasaddedasalinkagecriteria. GeographicalInformationSystemsApproaches TheOntarioMinistryofNaturalResources(OMNR)hasrecentlybeenusingageographic informationsystems(GIS)decisionsupporttoolcalledMarxantodefinenaturalheritage systemsinvariouspartsofsouthernOntario(Lemieux,2011).ThisusestheSouthern OntarioLandResourceInformationSystem(SOLRIS)habitatlayerandotheravailabledata 6565 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 sourcesandcombinesthesewithcriteriarelatedtonaturalandculturalheritageprotection prioritiesagreeduponthroughamultistakeholderprocess.Thelandscapeisdividedinto hexagons,eachofwhichmayormaynothaverepresentationoffeaturesrelatedtothe variouscriteria.UsingamethodreferredtoasΈ≥©≠µ¨°¥•§°ÆÆ•°¨©ÆßΉhexagonsareselected atrandomthroughalongseriesofcomputermodelruns,andthosehexagonsthataremost consistentlyselectedbasedonhowwellthecriteriaarerepresentedformtheframeworkof thenaturalheritagesystem. TheTorontoandRegionConservationAuthority(TRCA)developedaGISapproachthat evaluateshabitatpatchfeaturesanditalsohastheabilitytoidentifypotentialimprovement areas(TRCA2004).ThismethodusestheEcologicalLandClassificationSystemforSouthern Ontario(Leeetal.1998)toprovidebasemappingofnaturalcoverandlanduse,allofwhich aredigitallymappedaspolygons.Vegetationtypesarelumpedintomajorhabitat categoriessuchasforest,wetlandandbeach/bluff(asdescribedearlierinthisdocument).A vectorGISanalysisscoreshabitatpatches(polygons)basedontheirsize,shape,andthe surroundinglandusetype(thelandscapematrix)withina2kmradiusofthepatch. AGISrasteranalysisisthenundertakeninwhichtheentirelandscapeisdividedintosquare pixels,eachofwhichisgivenpointsbasedonrepresentationofvariouscriteria,including ecologicalcriteriarelatedtowildlifemovementandpatchproximitytootherpatches,to aquaticfeatures,ortoroadsorurbanareasthatcanhaveanegativeinfluence.Withevery pixelinthelandscapeassignedavalue,aΈ∂°¨µ•≥µ≤¶°£•Ήmapcanbeproducedto demonstratewhichpartsofthelandscapehavehighorlowvaluesfornaturalheritage(see Figure1).Thehigherthevalue,thebetterthechancethatpartofthelandscapewillbe includedinthenaturalheritagesystemoridentifiedasapotentialimprovementarea. 6666 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Figure1.AsampleΈ∂°¨µ•≥µ≤¶°£•Ήmapshowingnaturalheritagevaluesacrossa landscape. TheTRCAmodelcanalsoidentifyatargetNHS(areasofpotentialecologicalimprovement orvegetativerestoration).Thisisdonebychoosingathresholdthatcanthenbeselected fromthevaluesrepresentedinthepixelstoΈß≤Ø∑Ήthenaturalheritagesystemfrom existingtopotentialconditionsrepresentingaΈ¥°≤ß•¥ΉNHS(Figure2).Ifdesiredthiscan thenberefinedthroughaconstraintsanalysis.Thetargetsystemisconvertedbackto polygonswhicharethenrescoredandrankedwiththevectorlandscapeanalysisto evaluateanddemonstrateimprovements.TheΈ¥°≤ß•¥ΉNHSdefinedthroughtheGIS analysisdemonstrateswhereonecanpotentiallyachievethegreatestimprovementsin ecologicalfunctiononthelandscapebystrategicallyaddingnaturalcover.Theareas identifiedforimprovementfillholesandroundouttheedgesofhabitatpatchestoincrease interiorhabitatandreducenegativeedgeeffects.Becausemanyofthecriteriausedinthe modelarebasedonproximityofnaturalfeatures,potentialimprovementsinconnectivity arealsoidentifiedaspartofthetargetsystem. 6767 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Figure2.Asampleportionofatargetnaturalheritagesystem (Green=existinghabitat,Red=potentialhabitat,Blue=openwater) 6868 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 Appendix2 DataAvailableforDefiningaNaturalHeritageSystem Manydatasourcesareavailabletomunicipalitiestoassistinthedefinitionanddelineationof aNHS.Afewofthesedatasourcesaredescribedinthefollowingsections. EcologicalLandClassification(ELC) TheEcologicalLandClassification(ELC)protocolclassifiesvegetationcommunitiesata rangeoflevels,themostbasicofwhichcanbeundertakenremotelythroughair photographyinterpretation,andthemostdetailedthroughonthegroundsitesurveyand soilanalysis.UsingGeographicInformationSystems(GIS)softwaretheGanaraskaRegion ConservationAuthority(GRCA)andtheCentralLakeOntarioConservationAuthority (CLOCA)havemappedvegetationforallofClaringtonattheCommunitySeriesELClevel throughinterpretationofcolourorthorectifiedairphotosdated2008.Thishasbeen complimentedbyaclassificationofhumanlandusetypes.Thisprovidesaseamless classifiedmappedlandscapecomposedofdigitizedpolygons,eachofwhichhasatypelabel accordingtovegetationcommunityorlandusetype.AsampleoftheELCmappingcanbe foundinFigure1.Eachofthecodesonthemap,(i.e.FOD)representseitheratypeof vegetationcommunity(ForestΜDeciduous)orlanduse. Figure1.ExampleofELCandLandUseCodes 6969 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 closelyfollowstheEcologicalLandClassification(ELC)SystemforSouthernOntario(Leeet al.1998).SOLRIScanbeusedasabasisfordefiningnaturalheritagesystems,however ConservationAuthoritiesthathavegonethroughthedetailedprocessofELCmapping generallyuseELCinsteadofSOLRISbecauseittendstobemoreaccurateatthelocalscale. Additionally,inmanycases,thereleaseoftheMNRSOLRISproductcameafter#!΄≥had investedlargescaleeffortinELCmapping. 7171 NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaperApril2013 References Barnes,T.G.,andL.Adams.1999.AGuidetoUrbanHabitatConservationPlanning. UniversityofKentuckyCooperativeExtensionServices. BeaconEnvironmental.2007.NaturalHeritageSystemfortheLakeSimcoeWatershed Phase1:ComponentsandPolicyTemplates.LakeSimcoeConservationAuthority. BeaconEnvironmentalandLakeSimcoeRegionConservationAuthority.2007.Natural HeritageSystemfortheLakeSimcoeWatershed.PreparedfortheLakeSimcoeRegion ConservationAuthorityandtheLakeSimcoeEnvironmentalManagementStrategy. Bennett,A.F.1999.LinkagesintheLandscape:TheRoleofCorridorsandConnectivityin WildlifeConservation.WorldConservationUnion,Gland,Switzerland. Bentrup,G.2008.ConservationBuffers:DesignGuidelinesforBuffers,Corridorsand Greenways.GeneralTechnicalReportSRS109,USDAForestService,AshevilleNC. Bonnin,M.,Bruszik,A.,andB.Delbaere.ThePanEuropeanEcologicalNetwork:TakingStock. NatureandEnvironment#146.CouncilofEuropePublishing. Burke,D.,K.Elliott,K.FalkandT.Paraino.2011.ALand-°Æ°ß•≤΄≥GuidetoConserving HabitatforForestBirdsinSouthernOntario.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResourcesScience andInformationResourcesDivisionandTrentUniversity. CentralLakeOntarioConservationAuthority,2010.Developing#,/#!΄≥UltimateNatural HeritageSystem:AMethodology. Crooks,K.R.andM.Sanjayan(Eds.).2006.ConnectivityConservation.CambridgeUniversity Press. DucksUnlimitedCanada.2010.SouthernOntarioWetlandConversionAnalysis.FinalReport. EnvironmentCanada.2004.HowMuchHabitatisEnough?:AFrameworkforGuiding HabitatRehabilitationinGreatLakesAreasofConcern.SecondEdition.MinisterofPublic WorksandGovernmentServices. Forman,R.T.T.1995.LandMosaics:TheEcologyofLandscapesandRegions.Cambridge UniversityPress. Forman,R.T.T.andM.Godron.1986.LandscapeEcology.JohnWileyandSons,NewYork. NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaper 7272 April2013 Forman,R.T.T.,D.Sperling,J.A.Bissonette,A.P.Clevenger,C.D.Cutshall,V.H.Dale,L.Fahrig, R.France,C.R.,Goldman,K.Heanue,J.A.Jones,F.J.Swanson,T.Turrentine,andT.C.Winter. 2003.RoadEcology:ScienceandSolution.IslandPress,WashingtonDC. GovernmentofCanada.2004.InvasiveAlienSpeciesStrategyforCanada.Environment Canada. Johnson,E.A.andM.W.Klemens.2005.NatureinFragments:TheLegacyofUrbanSprawl. ColumbiaUniversityPress,NewYork. Kennedy,M.andJ.Wilson.2009.EstimatingtheValueofNaturalCapitalintheCreditRiver Watershed.PembinaInstituteandCreditValleyConservation. Lee,H.T.,W.D.Bakowsky,J.Riley,J.Bowles,M.Puddister,P.Uhlig,andS.McMurray.1998. EcologicalLandClassificationforSouthernOntario:FirstApproximationanditsApplication. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources,SouthcentralScienceSection,ScienceDevelopment andTransferBranch.SCSSFieldGuideFG02. Lemieux,C.M.2011.ConnectingNatureandPeople:AGuidetoDesigningandPlanning NaturalHeritageSystems(NHS)inSouthernOntario.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources. Levins,R.1969.Somedemographicandgeneticconsequencesofenvironmental heterogeneityforbiologicalcontrol.BulletinoftheEntomologicalSocietyofAmerica15:237 240. Little,C.E.1995.GreenwaysforAmerica.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore. NorthSouthEnvironmentalInc.2009.NaturalHeritageSystemDefinitionand Implementation.Phase3SustainableHaltonReport3.02.HaltonRegion. Noss,R.F.1983.Aregionalapproachtomaintaindiversity.BioScience33:7007006. Noss,R.F.1992.TheWildlandsProjectlandconservationstrategy.WildEarthSpecialIssue: 1024. Noss,R.F.andL.D.Harris.1990.Habitatconnectivityandtheconservationofbiological diversity:Floridaasacasehistory.Pages131135inProceedingsofthe1989Societyof AmericanForestersNationalConvention,SpokaneWA.SocietyofAmericanForesters, Bethesda,MA. Noss,R.F.andA.Cooperrider.1994.Saving.°¥µ≤•΄≥Legacy:ProtectingandRestoring Biodiversity.IslandPress,WashingtonDC. NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaper 7373 April2013 OntarioMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing.2002.OakRidgesMoraineConservation Plan.QueensPrinterforOntario. OntarioMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing.2005.ProvincialPolicyStatement. OntarioMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing.2005.GreenbeltPlan.QueensPrinterfor Ontario. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.1992.ANaturalHeritageAreasStrategyforOntario (draft).OntarioMinistryofNaturalResourcesProvincialParksandNaturalHeritagePolicy Branch. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.1993.OntarioWetlandEvaluationSystemSouthern Manual.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.2000a.TheBigPictureProject:developinganatural heritagevisionforCarolinianCanada.NaturalHeritageInformationCentreNewsletter,Winter 2000.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.2000b.SignificantWildlifeHabitatTechnicalGuide. 1µ••Æ΄≥PrinterforOntario. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.2005.ProtectingWhatSustainsUs:/Æ¥°≤©Ø΄≥ BiodiversityStrategy.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.2010.NaturalHeritageReferenceManualforNatural HeritagePoliciesoftheProvincialPolicyStatement2005.OntarioMinistryofNatural Resources,1µ••Æ΄≥PrinterforOntario,Toronto. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.2010.NaturalHeritageReferenceManualfor NaturalHeritagePoliciesoftheProvincialPolicyStatement,2005.1µ••Æ΄≥Printerfor Ontario. OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources.2011.InvasivePhragmitesΜBestManagement Practices.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources,Peterborough,Ontario. OntarioBiodiversityCouncil.2011./Æ¥°≤©Ø΄≥BiodiversityStrategy:ProtectingWhatSustains Us.OntarioBiodiversityCouncil,Peterborough,Ontario. OntarioRoadEcologyGroup.2010.AGuidetoRoadEcologyinOntario.TorontoZoo. Pridham,D.2009.ALandownersGuidetoControllingInvasiveWoodlandPlants. NaturalHeritageSystemDiscussionPaper 7474 April2013 Section 10 Next Steps 10 1 *A' kl� U-1 I t is proposed that this discussion paper and the above noted recommended changes t o t he current Official Plan be presented to the aarington community at a series of public information sessions. Any feedback received regarding the proposed directions will be considered prior to the preparation of an Official Plan Amendment. It is also necessary to ensure that the recommendations from the Parks, Trails and Open Spaces Discussion Paper and the Countryside Discussion Paper have been considered with respect to the Natural Heritage System policy recommendations. Both of these papers will be the background documents that will provide the support for the Official Plan Amendment that implementsthe Greenbelt Plan. Natural Heritage stem Discussion Paper April 2013 Appendices roaches to the Creation of a Natural Heritaae %%em ► i . • • : 11=.T • • ►i M Me7e C•7 =1 Halton Region has defined their NHS as part of the Sustainable Halton Regional Growth program. In ( " case the NHSwas defined not through a GlSmodel, but by identifying natural features and other components that should be included in the system, and developing the system through what was essentially a mapping overlay process (North - South Environmental 2009). The components of the Halton NHS include the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System, protected areas from the Niagara Escarpment Plan, natural heritage features and functions within urban areas based on previous studies, core areas composed of the remaining natural features in Halton, core area "EAPAE•# •A&�H made up of adjacent lands, centres for biodiversity composed of multiple cores and enhancement areas, watercourse, surface water features and flood plains, defined linkage areas and lastly, buffers on existing features and watercourses. The linkage areas included'E FAK —Hand "EW "Hlinkages based on their width, however it appears that these were defined not through a modeling process, but through a desktop mapping exercise. This is a good example of a simple overlay process to defining an NHS within a municipal boundary context. A different "E§• >_ "- '�Happroach was taken for the Lake Simcoe Watershed (Beacon & LSRCA 2007). In this case, instead of defining core areas, the components of the NHS are made up of significant features as defined according to the PPS. Linkage areas between these were defined, recognizing that some of these features already provided a linkage function. These features and linkages were further supplemented by defining stream linkages and the linkage areas defined in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (MMAH 2002). Of particular interest, this approach recognizes that a connectivity function can be provided for some species by close proximity between habitat patches (as opposed to direct linkage by corridors) thus thiswas added asa linkage criteria. Geographical Information *sterns Approaches The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has recently been using a geographic information systems (GIS) decision support tool called Marxan to define natural heritage systems in various parts of southern Ontario (Lemieux, 2011). This uses the Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) habitat layer and other available data Natural Heritage stem Discussion Paper April 2013 sources and combines these with criteria related to natural and cultural heritage protection priorities agreed upon through a multi - stakeholder process. The landscape is divided into hexagons, each of which may or may not have representation of features related to the various criteria. Using a method referred to as "EL4 p"* § °AZE "4 Hhexagonsare selected at random through along series of computer model runs, and those hexagons that are most consistently selected based on how well the criteria are represented form the framework of the natural heritage system. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) developed a GIS approach that evaluates habitat patch featuresand it also hasthe abilityto identify potential improvement areas (TRCA2004). This method uses the Ecological Land Classification System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) to provide base mapping of natural cover and land use, all of which are digitally mapped as polygons. Vegetation types are lumped into major habitat categories such asforest, wetland and beach /bluff (as described earlier in this document). A vector GIS analysis scores habitat patches (polygons) based on their size, shape, and the surrounding land use type (the landscape matrix) within a 2 km radius of the patch. A GIS raster analysis is then undertaken in which the entire landscape is divided into square pixels, each of which is given points based on representation of various criteria, including ecological criteria related to wildlife movement and patch proximity to other patches, to aquatic features, or to roads or urban areas that can have a negative influence. With every pixel in the landscape assigned a value, a 'E "'p• �!p_T£• "H map can be produced to demonstrate which parts of the landscape have high or low values for natural heritage (see Figure 1). The higher the value, the better the chance that part of the landscape will be included in the natural heritage system or identified asa potential improvement area. Natural Heritage Sjstem Discussion Paper April 2013 Final SC \ , �0 10 l 030 -40 f 4or . Sao -so ' A 04 . * , N% 0 A Figure 1. A sample UO-p• �!p-T£• "Hmap showing natural heritage values across a landscape. The TRCA model can also identify a target NHS (areas of potential ecological improvement or vegetative restoration). This is done by choosing a threshold that can then be selected from the values represented in the pixels to "H3 <E"Hthe natural heritage system from existing to potential conditions representing a'13Y 3 &*I -INHS (Figure 2). If desired this can then be refined through a constraints analysis. The target system is converted back to polygons which are then re- scored and ranked with the vector landscape analysis to evaluate and demonstrate improvements. The '13Y11- *H NHS defined through the GIS analysis demonstrates where one can potentially achieve the greatest improvements in ecological function on the landscape by strategically adding natural cover. The areas identified for improvement fill holesand round out the edgesof habitat patchesto increase interior habitat and reduce negative edge effects. Because many of the criteria used in the model are based on proximity of natural features, potential improvements in connectivity are also identified as part of thetarget system. Natural Heritage stem Discussion Paper April 2013 Figure 2. A sample portion of atarget natural heritage system (Green = existing habitat, Red = potential habitat, Blue =open water) Natural Heritage stem Discussion Paper April 2013 Appendix 2 Data Available for Defining a Natural Heritage System Many data sources are available to municipal itiesto assist in the definition and delineation of a NHS. Afew of these data sources are described in the following sections. Ecological Land aassification (RQ The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) protocol classifies vegetation communities at a range of levels, the most basic of which can be undertaken remotely through air photography interpretation, and the most detailed through on- the - ground site survey and soil analysis. Using Geographic Information Systems (GS) software the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRGA) and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOG') have mapped vegetation for all of Clarington at the Community Series ELC level through interpretation of colour ortho- rectified air photos dated 2008. This has been complimented by a classification of human land use types. This provides a seamless classified mapped landscape composed of digitized polygons, each of which hasatype label according to vegetation community or land use type. A sample of the ELCmapping can be found in Figure 1. Each of the codes on the map, (i.e. FOD) represents either a type of vegetation community (Forest MDeciduous) or land use. Figure 1. Example of ELCand Land Use Codes Natural Heritage stem Discussion Paper ELC community series mapping is not perfect due to possible error in air photo interpretation and changes in the landscape subsequent to the date of the photos. For example the boundaries of forested swamps are particularly difficult to discern under heavy tree cover and the colour and texture of meadow marshes versus shallow marshes and old fields can be very similar. Nevertheless ELCcommunity series level mapping is a reasonably accurate, highly detailed and very useful product that is used throughout Ontario. The Conservation Authorities use it for many purposes ranging from defining regulation lines to watershed planning projects. As it is updated on a regular basis the mapping can be used to track changes in vegetation and land use types overtime. For GRCA, CLOCA and Clarington, the ELCmapping also providesthe basis for defining a natural heritage system. Land Information Ontario Mapping - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource; Since the earlyfi[ 1 I " >_the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has been preparing Wetland mapping. In 2011, MNRupdated their provincial wetland mapping based on various sources, including remote sensing, and on -site boundary marking. This wetland mapping now includes three defined categories: Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), Evaluated Wetlands, and Other Wetlands. Of these three categories, only the Provincially Significant Wetlands have corresponding Provincial policy protection. An additional data layer available from the MNR that is of particular relevance to Clarington is the Oak Ridges Moraine Sandbarren layer. This identifies known tallgrass prairie and savanna remnants as well as natural sandbarren habitat. It is suggested that this data be used as an overlay on the defined natural heritage system in an effort to ensure that these rare features are protected. These areas can also be considered as Significant Wildlife Habitat. Land Information Ontario, administered by the MNR, has a number of other data layers that can be taken into consideration when defining a NHS. In addition to Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), it also includes wildlife breeding areas, feeding areas, den sites, wintering areas, staging areas and travel corridors used during migration. This data may not cover all jurisdictions and is not necessarily comprehensive in its scope but it can be used as a data overlay to assist in the delineation of a natural heritage system. Some of the data related to wildlife features might be considered when defining Significant Wildlife Habitat. The Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) is an MNR mapping product available through the Land Information Ontario website. This product, which covers all of southern Ontario, consists of a vector GIS layer of woodlands and "E¢p4 up °::�- ° >Has well as a raster GIS layer of vegetation and land use that was created through remote sensing technology with some field validation. The SOLRISvegetation classification Natural Heritage Sjstem Discussion Paper April 2013 closely follows the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). SOLRIS can be used as a basis for defining natural heritage systems, however Conservation Authorities that have gone through the detailed process of ELC mapping generally use ELCinstead of SOLRIS because it tends to be more accurate at the local scale. Additionally, in many cases, the release of the MNR SOLRIS product came after #! " >_ had invested large -scale effort in ELCmapping. Natural Heritage stem Discussion Paper April 2013 �� El References Barnes, T.G., and L. Adams. 1999. A Guide to Urban Habitat (bnservation Planning. Universityof Kentucky Cooperative Extension Services. Beacon Environmental. 2007. Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Phase 1: Oomponents and Policy Templates. Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority. Beacon Environmental and 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. Bennett, A.F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Oonservation. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Bentrup, G. 2008. (bnservation Buffers: Design Guidelines for Buffers, (brridors and G'eenways. General Technical Report SRS-109, USDA Forest Service, Asheville NC Bonnin, M., Bruszik, A., and B. Delbaere. The Pan European Ecological Network: Taking Stock. Nature and Environment #146. Council of Europe Publishing. Burke, D., K. Dliott, K. Falk and T. Paraino. 2011. A Land - O /E&:s < >_ Guide to (bnserving Habitat for Forest Birds in Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Science and Information Resources Division and Trent University. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 2010. Developing #, / #! " >_ Ultimate Natural Heritage System: A Methodology. Crooks, K.R and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). 2006. (bnnectivity(bnservation. Cambridge University Press. Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2010. Southern Ontario Wetland ODnversion Analysis. Final Report. Environment Canada. 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. Forman, RT.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press. Forman, RT.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Natural Heritage 34ystem Discussion Paper April 2013 Forman, RT.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, CD. Oatshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R France, GR, Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Scienceand Solution. Island Press, Washington DC. Government of Canada. 2004. Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada. Environment Canada. Johnson, EA. and M.W. Klemens. 2005. Nature in Fragments: The Legacy of Urban Sprawl. Columbia University Press, New York. Kennedy, M. and J. Wilson. 2009. Estimating the Value of Natural Capital in the Credit Rver Watershed. Pembina Institute and Credit Valley Conservation. 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, South - central Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Lemieux, CM. 2011. Connecting Nature and People: A Guide to Designing and Planning Natural Heritage Systems (NHS) in Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Levins, R 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237- 240. Little, CE 1995. aeenways for America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. North -South Environmental Inc. 2009. Natural Heritage S,stem Definition and Implementation. Phase 3 Sustainable Halton Report 3.02. Halton Region. Noss, RF. 1983. A regional approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33: 700 -7006. Noss, RF. 1992. The Wildlands Project land conservation strategy. Wild Earth Special Issue- 10-24. Noss, RF. and L.D. Harris. 1990. Habitat connectivity and the conservation of biological diversity: Florida as a case history. Pages 131 -135 in Proceedings of the 1989 Society of American Foresters National Convention, Spokane WA. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MA. Noss, RF. and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Legacy: Protecting and Festoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington DC. Natural Heritage 34ystem Discussion Paper April 2013 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2002. Oak Fudges Moraine (bnservation Plan. Queens Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Greenbelt Plan. Queens Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1992. A Natural Heritage Areas Strategy for Ontario (draft). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Provincial Parks and Natural Heritage Policy Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation S,stem Scuthern Manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000a. The Big Picture Project: developing a natural heritage vision for Carolinian Canada. Natural Heritage Information Cbntre Newsletter, Winter 2000. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000b. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 1 p• • /B� Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005. Protecting What Sustains Us- Biodiversity Strategy. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1 p• • AF—> Printer for Ontario, Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. 1 p••AF—> Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011. Invasive Phragmites M Best Management Practices. Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. Ontario Biodiversity Council. 2011. / Ag':�O>_Biodiversity Strategy: Protecting What Sustains Us. Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, Ontario. Ontario Road Ecology Group. 2010. A Guide to Road Ecology in Ontario. Toronto Zoo. Pridham, D. 2009. A Landowners Guide to Controlling Invasive Woodland Plants. Natural Heritage 34ystem Discussion Paper April 2013 Rich, C and T. Longcore (Eds.) 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington D.0 Rodger, L. 1999. Tallgrass(bmmunitiesof Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan. World Wildlife Fund and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Rosenberg, D.K., B.R Noon, and EC Meslow. 1997. Biological corridors: Form, function and efficacy. BioScience47: 677 -687. Sauer, L.J. 1998. The Once and Future Forest. Island Press, Washington DC. Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, an dG. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos68 : 571 -573. Temple, S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modelling dynamics of habitat - interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology2: 340 -347. Terborgh, J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2004. Toronto and Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. Troy, A. And K. Bagstad. 2009. Estimation of Ecosystem Service Values for Southern Ontario. Spatial I nformat ics Group, LLC, Pleasanton CA, and Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources. Vitousek, P.M., C.M. $ "! AM340N.L. Loope, and R Westbrooks. 1996. Biological invasion as global environmental change. American Scientist 84: 468 -478. Wall, G. and C Wright. 1977. The Environmental Impact of Outdoor Recreation. Department of Geography Publication Series No. 11, University of Waterloo. Wilson, S.J. 2008. / AT:�O>_ Wealth, # ° /E§° " >_ Future: Estimating the Values of the ' ::�- -M-'. ( >_Eco- Services. The David Suzuki Foundation. Websites CTCSource Protection http- / /www.ctcswp.ca/ TOCSource Protection http:// www .trentsourceprotection.on.ca/ Natural Heritage 34ystem Discussion Paper April 2013