Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System Peer Review · 2019-03-26 · NVCA report, including...

Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System

Peer Review

Prepared for: The Town of Collingwood

97 Hurontario Street Collingwood, Ontario L9Y 2L9

Project No. 1344 Date: August 2012

225 Labrador Drive, Unit 1, Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 4M8Tel: (519) 725-2227 Web:www.nrsi.on.ca Email: [email protected]

Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System

Peer Review

Project Team:

Staff Role David Stephenson Senior Biologist, Project Manager Katharina Walton Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist Tara Brenton Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist Sierra Gillies Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist

Report submitted on August 24, 2012

Dave Stephenson, M. Sc.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Review of Science and Methodology .................................................................... 3

3.0 Natural Heritage System ..................................................................................... 12

4.0 Case Study Review ............................................................................................ 19

5.0 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 32

6.0 References ......................................................................................................... 35

List of Tables

Table A. Species of Conservation Concern (OMNR 2010a) ......................................... 10

Table B. Species of Conservation Concern (BSC et al. 2006) ...................................... 11

List of Figures

Figure A. Case Study Areas ......................................................................................... 20

Figure B. Alternate NHS - Study Area 1 ....................................................................... 26

Figure C. Alternate NHS - Study Area 2 ....................................................................... 27

Figure D. Alternate NHS - Study Area 3 ....................................................................... 28

Figure E. NHS Comparison - Study Area 1 .................................................................. 29

Figure F. NHS Comparison - Study Area 2 ................................................................... 30

Figure G. NHS Comparison - Study Area 3 .................................................................. 31

List of Appendices

Appendix I Georgian Triangle Development Institute letter (November 16, 2011)

Appendix II Terms of Reference – Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System Update and Review 2010 (Featherstone 2010)

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 1 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review

1.0 Introduction

The Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System (NHS) study was completed by the

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) in October 2011. The NHS is to

form the basis for an update to the Environmental Protection policies of the Town’s

Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which are to be developed by Town staff, Council, and

the NVCA, in consultation with the public.

An update of the NHS report and the draft proposed NHS was presented to Town

Council on October 17, 2011, whereupon the Georgian Triangle Development Institute

(GTDI) submitted a letter to the Mayor and Council dated November 16, 2011,

expressing concerns with the objectivity of the study and requested a peer review of the

study be completed by a third party. The GTDI letter is attached in Appendix I. Natural

Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained by the Town in June 2012 to undertake this

peer review, reviewing the methodology used by the NVCA and assessing whether the

methodology was appropriate, as well as to evaluate the proposed NHS.

The Town of Collingwood is located on the south shore of Lake Huron’s Georgian Bay.

The Town falls within Simcoe County and within the jurisdiction of the NVCA.

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (OMMAH 2005) provides direction on matters of

provincial interest that relate to land use planning and development. Policy 2.1 of the

PPS deals with natural heritage and states that natural features and areas shall be

protected for the long term (Policy 2.1.1), as well as

“The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and

the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage

systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible,

improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural

heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground

water features” (Policy 2.1.2).

Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy Target 12 mandates that by 2015, “natural heritage

systems plans and biodiversity conservation strategies are developed and implemented


at the municipal and landscape levels” (Ontario Biodiversity Council 2011). As such, the

Town of Collingwood is doing its due diligence in ensuring its Official Plan is consistent

with provincial policy and direction. In addition, the County of Simcoe’s new Official Plan

also requires an update to the Town’s Official Plan.

The following definition of Natural Heritage Systems is provided in the PPS:

“…a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, linked by

natural corridors which are necessary to maintain biological and geological

diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species and

ecosystems. These systems can include lands that have been restored and

areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state.”

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) (OMNR 2010b) was developed to

provide technical guidance on the implementation of the natural heritage policies of the

PPS. The NHRM provides guidance on developing Natural Heritage Systems.

This report provides the review of the NHS developed by the NVCA in their report,

assessing the science and methodology used in Section 2 (Sections 1-7 in the NVCA

report). Section 3 outlines the steps used to delineate the NHS (Sections 8 and 9 in the

NVCA report). Section 4 of this report reviews 3 case study areas that were evaluated

by NRSI to compare the NHS developed by the NVCA in these areas to an alternate

NHS based on the same criteria as listed by the NVCA. Recommendations are made

throughout the report and are reiterated in Section 4.


2.0 Review of Science and Methodology

The NVCA developed a Terms of Reference (TOR) to guide the development of the

NHS for the Town of Collingwood (attached in Appendix II). The work was proposed to

be completed in 3 phases, of which the first 2 phases are finished.

Phase 1 consisted of the classification of all natural heritage features within the Town

using a pared down version of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) protocol (Lee et

al. 1998), a standard vegetation mapping tool in Ontario. The individual vegetation units

were classified to Vegetation Type, an ambitious project to be completed for the entire

Town. The NVCA reviewed existing studies (Environmental Impact Study reports) and

aerial photography, and supplemented this with original field surveys. The field surveys

were completed in the fall (September, October, November) of 2010, mostly from the

roadside, with an additional survey date in May 2011. These methods are acceptable

and meet the requirements of such a broad-scale study. More detailed surveys are

required for Environmental Impact Studies (EIS), where a development proposal exists

in or adjacent to a natural heritage feature.

Phase 2 evaluated the natural heritage features and developed the NHS. This was done

in consultation with a Stakeholder Committee that was comprised of public and private

sectors. Various meetings were held to gain committee input. The NVCA developed 3

NHS scenarios which it presented to the Stakeholder Committee. After discussion and

further input, the NVCA developed the proposed NHS in draft, which it stated was

completed based on “consensus discussion” (NVCA 2011, p. 97). Public consultation is

proposed to occur after completion of Phase 2 in the form of an open house, which has

not yet been held.

Phase 3 has not been completed and is to involve the development and implementation

of Natural Heritage Schedules and Policies to be included in the Town of Collingwood’s

Official Plan and Zoning By-law. This work is to be completed by NVCA and Town staff.

After having provided an introduction and summary of the Terms of Reference in

Sections 1 and 2, the NVCA report provides a background discussion on natural

heritage system planning, including the PPS and NHRM in Section 3, and other relevant

documents in Section 4. The authors should consider combining these two sections into


one. The NVCA based their NHS development strongly on the guidance within the

NHRM (OMNR 2010b), which is a very appropriate method and the recommended route

to approach NHS design. The NVCA report provides a thorough review of natural

heritage planning in Ontario, as well as related documents that guide the development of

NHS in Ontario. These documents include:

Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010 (Federal, Provincial,

and Territorial Governments of Canada 2010)

Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011: Renewing Our Commitment to Protecting

What Sustains Us (Ontario Biodiversity Council 2011)

Great Lakes Conservation Blueprints (Henson and Brodribb 2005, Henson et al.

2005)

MNR Big Picture 2002 (OMNR 2002)

The Sweetwater Sea: An International Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for

Lake Huron - Technical Report (Taylor et al. 2010)

Lake Huron-Georgian Bay Watershed – A Canadian Framework for Community

Action (Lake Huron Community Action 2012)

Status and Trends in Shoreline Development and Alteration Along the Southern

Georgian Bay Shoreline (OMNR 2010d)

Background Environmental Study – Town of Collingwood (Gartner Lee Ltd. 2004)

Some of the references given in the NVCA report are incorrect or a newer report version

is now available, others are not referenced in the Reference Section of the report

(Section 10), and yet others appear in the Reference Section, but are not cited in the

report itself. A more recent version of the report, La Mer Douce – The Sweet Sea, is

available (Taylor et al. 2010) and the text listing applicable strategies should be revised

to the most current wording in Section 4 (p. 15) and Section 8.12 (p. 110) in the NVCA

report.

The discussion of the natural heritage background studies and their relation to, and

influence on, the NHS for the Town of Collingwood is comprehensive and provides an

extensive overview of the many other studies completed in the area, providing a solid

background. Once the proposed NHS for the Town is presented in Section 8.4, the

NVCA report provides an explanation about how the proposed NHS has integrated the


recommendations of these other reports (Section 8.12), thereby closing the loop on

these.

The existing natural heritage features and designations are discussed in Section 5 of the

NVCA report, including provincially significant wetlands, County of Simcoe Greenlands,

and the existing Environmental Protection Areas as designated in the current Town of

Collingwood Official Plan, which are divided into Category 1 and 2 lands. This

background of these very local designations and policies is vital to the development of

the NHS. The NVCA builds upon these existing designations.

Figure 3 of the NVCA report shows the Simcoe County Greenlands. This figure should

highlight the different Greenland components as discussed in the report (e.g. WL1 –

Collingwood Shores - Northwest Collingwood; WL2 – Stayner Swamp). The County of

Simcoe’s Greenlands have changed with the County’s draft proposed modified Official

Plan Schedule 5.1, becoming more extensive. The revised Greenlands system should

be shown and discussed in the NVCA report. Figures 4 and 5 of the NVCA report

include Schedules A and B of the Collingwood Official Plan. Figure 5 (Schedule B)

contains a large pink rectangle, which hides much of the figure and should be corrected.

The PPS protects natural heritage features and areas, which include significant

wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, fish habitat, significant woodlands south and east

of the Canadian Shield, significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield,

significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife

habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest. These are explained

within the NHRM (OMNR 2010b), and rely on a thorough background review, field work,

and general knowledge of the area in question. Section 6 of the NVCA report provides

detailed information on the ecological and cultural history in Collingwood, under the

following headings:

Cultural History

o Aboriginal History

o Recent History

Post-glacial History [this discussion is very brief and is best integrated with the

next topic]


Geology, Physiography and Soils

o Paleozoic/Bedrock Geology

o Physiography and Quaternary Geology [the post-glacial history text can

be added here]

o Soils

Wetlands

o Functions and Historical Trends

o Study Results

Forest Cover

o Temporal Trends

o Forest Interior Habitat

o Hydrological and Air Quality Functions

o Study Results

Non-treed Upland Habitats [this discussion includes cultural woodlands and

savannahs, which are treed (up to 59%), so a more appropriate title for this

section might be Open Upland Habitats]

o Functions and Historical Trends

o Study Results

Watercourses

[Each watercourse within the Town is described and shown on Figure 11.

The figure is very helpful, but needs some revisions. Townline Creek is

not clearly shown. One of the Pretty River tributaries shows colouration

of the main river.]

Groundwater

o Hydrogeology

o Groundwater Discharge Areas and Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

o Significant Recharge Areas

Shoreline

o Shoreline Impacts

Islands

Climate Change

Invasive Species


Sections 5, 6, and 7 provide background information on the current characteristics of the

natural heritage of Collingwood, including designated areas, natural heritage features,

and significant features. There is a fair bit overlap in these three sections, and the

authors should consider combining these three into one section, perhaps organized in

subsections such as wetlands, woodlands, wildlife, etc. As currently structured, the

reader must read Sections 5.1, 6.4 and 7.1 to get information on wetlands in the area.

The initial discussion on provincially significant wetlands as designated features (Section

5.1) and the Silver Creek Wetland Complex (Section 5.1.1) are repeated in Sections 7.1

and 7.1.1 respectively, where significant features as listed in the PPS were highlighted.

This discussion in Section 6 of the NVCA report provides a background on the natural

heritage features within the Town, their functions, history and impacts, as well as other

features that impact the designations within a NHS. Section 6.6.1, which develops the

functions and historical trends of the open upland habitats refers to large expanses of

“successional habitat” for area-sensitive bird species. It is unclear what successional

habitat means, although it is surmised to include meadows and thickets. Successional

habitat can refer to almost anything, as one plant form is succeeded by another (e.g.

meadow to shrub to sparse trees to forest). The area sensitive birds referred to in this

section prefer open country, grassland habitat (which includes meadows, hayfields,

pastures, and fallow fields).

Figures 8, 9, and 10 depict forest cover within the Town of Collingwood. It is noted that

the extent of “Existing Forest Cover (2008)” shown on Figures 8 and 10 appear to be the

same, but the extent on Figure 9 differs. Figure 8 could be omitted as this information is

shown on Figure 9. The correct forest cover layer should be used.

Section 7 of the NVCA report details the natural heritage features and functions as laid

out in the PPS (as listed above). Table 7 in Section 7.2 of the NVCA report lists the

Species at Risk known from the Town of Collingwood. This list should be updated once

the report is finalized, as additional species have been added to the Species at Risk Act

(SARA) since the draft NVCA report was completed, and other species status’ may

change by the time the report is finalized. As the discussion pertains to threatened and

endangered species as defined by the PPS, this table should not contain species of

Special Concern. A search of the Natural Heritage Information Centre’s (NHIC)


Biodiversity Explorer website by NRSI (on June 20, 2012) listed butternut (Juglans

cinerea) as endangered, and eastern Massassauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus

catenatus) as threatened from the Collingwood area. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas

(OBBA) (BSC et al. 2006) lists barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), bobolink (Dolichonyx

oryzivorus), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna),

and eastern whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus) as threatened from the Collingwood

area. The NVCA text should state what background sources were used to create the

species list in Table 7.

Section 7.3 of the NVCA report discusses significant woodlands. Significant woodlands

are included in the NHS as per the NHRM (OMNR 2010b), and are evaluated based on

the criteria and explanations given in the NHRM. The analysis provided in the NVCA

report is comprehensive. Areas may be clarified by providing individual figures (maps)

that highlight the areas referred to in each subsection (e.g. woodlands that exceed 20ha

as per the discussion in Section 7.3.1). It is also suggested that a figure be provided

highlighting all significant woodlands within the Town of Collingwood, based on the

NVCA’s analysis.

Significant wildlife habitat is discussed in Section 7.4 of the NVCA report. The wildlife

habitat is listed in the report based on the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide

(SWHTG) (OMNR 2000), which is the authoritative document on the subject. The report

should also refer to the significant wildlife habitat criteria tables (OMNR 2012a), which

list more habitat and specify how significant wildlife habitat is identified. The NVCA does

not list the 4 main significant wildlife habitat classifications in the same way as in the

SWHTG or the NHRM, and it is suggested that this be changed for consistency. The 4

main categories are based on the SWH criteria tables (OMNR 2012a):

1) Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals

2) Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitat for Wildlife

3) Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern

4) Animal Movement Corridors

Under “Rare Vegetation Communities”, the NVCA lists “Great Lakes Coastal Marsh”,

which is not listed within the SWHTG (OMNR 2000) and criteria tables (OMNR 2012a)

and should therefore be omitted here, but discussed in section 7.4.2. The NHRM


(OMNR 2010b) states more broadly that rare vegetation communities include “areas that

contain a provincially rare vegetation community” and “areas that contain a vegetation

community that is rare within the planning area” (p. 83). This discussion should include

more communities than those listed in the SWHTG and the NVCA report, as it would, for

instance, also include communities listed as significant from the Great Lakes

Conservation Blueprint (Henson and Brodribb 2005) for Ecodistrict 6E-6 (which is one of

the documents discussed by the NVCA in Section 4 of their report).

Each seasonal concentration area, rare vegetation community, specialized habitat for

wildlife, and habitat for species of conservation concern that is found in Collingwood is

discussed in Sections 7.4.1 to 7.4.7. (areas not found in Collingwood were omitted in this

discussion). This discussion may need to be expanded to include other areas as listed

in the criteria tables (OMNR 2012a). Some of the information is fairly general based on

the project’s scope. More information may become available with more detailed surveys

required for site specific surveys (i.e. Environmental Impact Studies) and would need to

be taken into account in the NHS development/refinement. For instance, the NVCA

report currently makes statements like “Cranberry Marsh likely provides locally important

waterfowl stopover and staging habitat during the spring and fall” (p. 68, italics ours), but

this cannot be confirmed based on the scope of the NHS project, timing, and property

access. Also, the NVCA report currently states that foraging areas with abundant mast

is limited to non-existent in Collingwood and therefore does not discuss this in the report.

If such areas are identified in the future (based on guidance from the SWHTG), they

would likely be included in the NHS.

Section 7.4.4 includes a very short discussion on the diversity associated with habitats in

the northwest corner of the Town. The text refers to Figure 18, which introduces the

term ‘biodiversity hotspot’, and uses the name “Nottawasaga Island/East Black Bass

Island Complex”. It is unclear if the term ‘complex’ is being used as it relates to wetland

evaluations, or is used in a looser context. Regardless, the two terms on Figure 18

should be more fully explained in the text. This area should be reiterated under

subsequent sections in the report.


The definitions of the S-ranks (sub-national/provincial ranks) provided in Section 7.4.6

are outdated. The current definitions, as provided by the MNR on the NHIC website,

are:

S1 – critically imperiled

S2 – imperiled

S3 – vulnerable

Table 9 of the NVCA report lists the species of conservation concern from the Town of

Collingwood. This table should include the species of special concern from the

COSSARO list (as removed from Table 7). A search of the NHIC Biodiversity website by

NRSI (on June 20, 2012) came up with the following list of species of conservation

concern:

Table A. Species of Conservation Concern (OMNR 2010a)

Species SRANK COSSARO COSEWIC

Birds Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla S3B SC SC Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor S3B NAR NAR Dragonflies

Variegated Meadowhawk Sympetrum corruptum S3 Mammals Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis S3 Plants Hart's-tongue Fern Asplenium scolopendrium

var. americanum S3 SC SC

Houghton's Flatsedge Cyperus houghtonii S3 Lichen Melanelia subargentifera S1S3 Schweinitz's Sedge Carex schweinitzii S3 Shrubby St. John's-wort Hypericum prolificum S2 Smith's Bulrush Schoenoplectus smithii S3 Stiff Yellow Flax Linum medium var. medium S3? Woodland Pinedrops Pterospora andromedea S2 Reptiles Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus S3 SC SC Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica S3 SC SC


The OBBA (BSC et al. 2006) reports the following species of conservation concern from

the Collingwood area (OBBA squares 17NK52, 17NK53, 17NK62):

Table B. Species of Conservation Concern (BSC et al. 2006)

Species SRANK COSSARO COSEWIC

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron S3B,S3N Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler S4B SC T Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk S4B SC T Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler S4B SC T Larus marinus Great Black-backed Gull S2B Ardea alba Great Egret S2B Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush S3B SC SC Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-headed Woodpecker S4B SC T

Legend Provincial Rank (SRANK) COSSARO COSEWIC S1 - Critically Imperiled NAR - Not at Risk NAR - Not at Risk

S2 - Imperiled SC - Special Concern SC - Special Concern

S3 - Vulnerable THR - Threatened T - Threatened

S4 - Apparently Secure END - Endangered E - Endangered S5 - Secure B - Breeding N - Not breeding

Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) is reported from the NHIC, but not the OBBA

(neither the first or second atlas). According to the NHIC report, this species was last

observed in 1927 from the Collingwood area. As prairie warbler was not observed

during the OBBA surveys, this species is no longer present in the area. The species

listed in the 2 tables above should be included in Table 9 of the NVCA report, along with

the other species from additional background sources. Very dated records (such as that

of the prairie warbler) can be omitted if more recent (significant) surveys did not make

any observations, as is the case with the prairie warbler.

Section 7.4.7 focuses on animal movement corridors. The text notes some

recommended corridor widths, but there is no follow-up on this in the subsection related

to Collingwood. The text notes that corridors exist at different scales, but no metrics are

provided (this issue is also noted in Section 8.8, see below).


3.0 Natural Heritage System

The NHS is presented by the NVCA in Section 8. The NHS was developed “closely with

study stakeholders” (NVCA 2011, p. 81). Three NHS scenarios were developed by the

NVCA, which were brought forward to the Stakeholder Committee for review. After

receiving input, the NVCA developed a draft proposed NHS which was presented to the

stakeholders, and elaborated in their report. This proposed NHS was considered by

Town Council in October 2011.

The NVCA reviewed their field work and background review data to assess natural

heritage features and functions within the Town of Collingwood. Natural groupings of

habitats were given recognizable names, similar to the Simcoe County Greenlands

approach. This allows people familiar with the community to understand the various

components of the NHS, at least to their location. In total, 17 different units were

identified as candidate greenlands and shown on Figure 20 of the NVCA report. Each

candidate area was then described as to location, ecological functions, and ownership

(private or public), as well as pertinent history.

The intent of Figure 20 is likely to generally identify and name clusters of habitats for

subsequent discussion. However, by comparing Figure 20 with subsequent maps in the

report, it is evident that not all existing natural features are captured by the 17 candidate

greenlands. This should be noted in the report. It is recommended that all natural

heritage features be shown on Figure 20 and be included in one of the 17 candidate

greenlands.

One of the functions discussed in Section 8.1 is habitat for species at risk, such as

bobolink. This discussion needs to be updated with the addition of other species that

are now also considered at risk, or species of conservation concern.

There are numerous references to ‘limited connectivity’ and ‘weakly linked’, without

substantive discussion of how this was determined. This is in contrast to the author’s

earlier comments regarding the connectivity provided by ‘stepping stone’ habitats (p. 64

of the NVCA report).


Section 8.2 discusses the NHS scenario development, highlighting the considerations

that were agreed upon through consensus of the Stakeholder Committee:

- Draft Plan Approved areas were excluded

- Lots of Record were generally excluded

- Small, isolated features within the urban areas were excluded

- Regenerating areas were challenging decision-points and were excluded unless

they met several criteria

Although not clearly articulated, it appears that the delineation of the NHS has not

included buffers. The last bullet above refers to criteria that would include restoration

lands or successional habitats with the intent of ‘bulking up’ existing habitats, but it is not

clear where this has actually occurred. For the most part the delineated NHS appears to

be strictly a feature-based system.

Cultural meadows or open grasslands are part of the discussion of “Non-treed Upland

Habitats” in Section 6.6, which state that these can provide habitat for area-sensitive bird

species such as bobolink, eastern meadowlark, and grasshopper sparrow

(Ammodramus savannarum). The first 2 species are threatened in Ontario (OMNR

2012b). Some municipalities are having the foresight to include large open country

habitat to provide for these at risk species. Bobolink require 50ha or more of open

country habitat, and eastern meadowlarks require at least 10ha (OMNR 2000).

Provision for these species has not been made within the proposed NHS, but this does

not mean that landowners are exempt from considering these habitat types as Species

at Risk habitats. This is in notable contrast to the statements made by the NVCA in

Section 3.2 (p. 10) in which they note that these types of habitats are particularly

important in fragmented landscapes.

Three NHS scenarios were developed by the NVCA. It is important for the reader to

understand that this analysis is not looking at different ways to delineate the NHS, rather

than looking at what types of features fall into Category 1 versus 2, i.e. the level of

protection of the features, not their inclusion/exclusion from the NHS.


The Town of Collingwood’s Official Plan currently divides its Environmental Protection

Areas into 2 categories, as described in Section 4.1 of the OP:

- “Category 1 lands are lands where development is prohibited. Category 1

lands are included within the Environmental Protection Areas designation on

Schedule A in order to provide a heightened level of protection to

Collingwood’s most sensitive natural resources. Category 1 lands, by virtue

of their significant functions, attributes and linkages, are those considered to

make the greatest contribution to the natural heritage system of the Town of

Collingwood and include, for example, Provincially-significant wetlands,

major river valleys, fish habitat located within significant valley-lands and

primary woodlands encompassing in excess of 4 hectares (9.9 acres) that

are more than 75 years old.”

- Category 2 lands encompass “locally significant wetlands, younger

woodland encompassing an area in excess of 10 hectares (25 acres),

and/or fish habitat located outside significant valley-lands. Category 2

lands are where limited forms of development, in accordance with the land

use designations on Schedule A, may be possible subject to the findings

of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).”

The NHS scenarios developed in the NVCA report use the same categories, but do not

rationalize why they will continue to be used. Section 8.6 of the NVCA report states that

most areas within the draft proposed NHS have been included as Category 1 lands, and

explains the rationale for including some areas as Category 2. The explanation of

Category 2 lands could be expanded on in this section to clarify what is implied (i.e.

provide a definition as per the Town’s Official Plan). The NVCA report states that

Category 1 land designations have been expanded compared to the existing areas

protected in the current Official Plan. This expansion is “consistent with NHRM direction

to provide stronger protection for lands that are to remain natural within urbanizing

areas” (p. 97). However, an alternative NHS approach that is being used in many

municipalities across Ontario is one that incorporates all key natural and hydrological

features which have been assessed and confirmed as requiring protection in a NHS,

along with appropriate buffers into one system without the use of separate categories.

This approach gives clear direction to policy development and development proposals.

There is insufficient information available at this study scale to definitively establish the


NHS boundary, but where development is proposed, the ultimate boundary will be

determined through more detailed studies, which is supported by the Town and County

Official Plans.

The NVCA report lists the components within each scenario (Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2, and

8.2.3), but does not give a rationale behind which areas are added to each category in

the more stringent scenarios. Such a discussion would be helpful in understanding how

the scenarios were developed. Core forests are added in the Middle Scenario, but no

definition is given. A map would help identifying which these are, as well as identifying

the areas classified as ecological linkages from page 97 of their report.

The draft proposed NHS is presented in Section 8.4 of the NVCA report, and shown in

Figure 24. Section 8.5 lists the key NHS components. A couple of these are not

consistent with the nomenclature given previously in Section 8.1 and on Figure 20.

Collingwood Harbour Greenlands is listed as a key NHS component in Section 8.5, but

is divided into Harbour East and Harbour West in Section 8.1. As well, Lighthouse Point

is previously referred to as Lighthouse Bay.

Several notable differences are found between the draft proposed NHS and the

scenarios:

1) A large area in Georgian Bay, north of Lighthouse Bay appears in the proposed

NHS, but not in the scenarios. According to Figure 16, this is an unevaluated

wetland. ELC mapping received from the NVCA shows this area as a

submerged shallow aquatic ecosite (SAS1). This wetland has been included as

Category 1 within the NHS, but no text is provided as to why it was included in

the proposed NHS, or not included in the scenarios. It should have been

included in all 3 scenarios, as the PPS/Existing Official Plan Scenario included

“unevaluated wetlands” as Category 2, and the Middle Scenario included “all

wetlands except for fragmented features” as Category 1.

2) A large block is included as Category 2, located between Mountain Road and

Sixth Street, west of Hill Street (west of the Mair Mills Estates). This is a gravel

pit, but no text is provided as to why it was included in the draft proposed NHS

and not in the scenarios.


3) A small area is included as Category 1, adjacent to another Category 1 area that

was included in all 3 scenarios, located north of Sixth Street, and southeast of

the gravel pit. This area was included as Category 2 in the Protective Scenario,

along with adjacent lands. In the proposed NHS, only a remnant of the area

remains, but it is classified as Category 1. No text is provided to explain this

change. ELC mapping shows this area as a dry-fresh sugar maple deciduous

forest (FOD5-1), which is a locally significant vegetation community in

Collingwood (see p. 73 of the NVCA report).

The inclusion of these areas should be explained and justified within the report.

Section 8.6, as mentioned earlier, explains which areas were included as Category 2

lands within the NHS. The area to the northeast of the First St. and Hickory St.

intersection was not included in this discussion, unless it is considered part of the

northwest Collingwood explanation. This should be clarified. Section 8.6 would be an

appropriate section to include text on the inclusion of the submerged shallow aquatic

wetland, the gravel pit, and the area north of Sixth Street.

Section 8.7 deals with the integration of the NHS with settlement area needs and

basically explains why some areas were excluded from the NHS and where

development potential lies within the Town. Policies within the Town’s Official Plan

should consider natural heritage features left out of the NHS and whether or not they

require protection or further study in the form of an EIS prior to development. The

authors should consider whether all natural features outside the NHS should be

Category 2 (or at least require some further level of assessment, e.g. for Species at

Risk, significant wildlife habitat, etc.).

Explanation as to how the proposed NHS integrates with the PPS features, the Simcoe

County Greenlands, adjacent municipal environmental protection features, the Areas of

Concern Habitat targets, and other local, provincial, and international initiatives is

covered in Sections 8.8 to 8.12 of the NVCA report. There is no discussion here of


integration with the Endangered Species Act or the NVCA’s own regulations (e.g. for

wetlands outside the NHS).

Section 8.8 (p. 103) includes a short discussion of corridors. As noted previously, it is

not clear what is meant by ‘local corridors’ versus ‘broader corridors’ (i.e. different

widths?), nor where any of these connections actually are.

The discussion of the Areas of Concern Habitat targets should be introduced in greater

detail in Section 5, as a separate sub-section. Table 10 lists the habitat targets and

makes reference to the percent of first to third order streams with 30m buffers. An

asterix at the base of the table defines stream ranking, but some of the text is from

another project and should be revised for this report. Table 11 should be clarified as to

the Town’s state compared to the AOC target. Is the percentage given under the Town

column based on current conditions, or what is included in the proposed NHS?

Section 9 of the NVCA report speaks to effective implementation of the NHS, referring to

challenges and opportunities. The NVCA recommends the Town develop a Terms of

Reference (TOR) to complete Environmental Impact Studies (EIS). The Town of

Collingwood’s current Official Plan provides general guidance on issues and content that

may be part of an EIS (Section 11.2 of the Plan). The County of Simcoe has EIS

guidelines and a Terms of Reference appended to their Official Plan, which can be used

within the Town as well. Such a detailed TOR can be helpful in guiding the Town’s EIS

process. The NVCA also recommends the development of performance indicators to

track the health and integrity of the NHS over time. This is also a useful

recommendation, as it will allow the Town to evaluate its NHS and see if it is functioning

as intended, as well as to determine areas of stewardship and

maintenance/management.

In Section 9.2 the NVCA should clarify that infrastructure projects under Municipal Class

EAs are not exempt from considering the components of the PPS, despite the possibility

of there being greater latitude in terms of application of the level of protection (as per the

PSW example provided in the text).


Section 9.4 identifies adjacent lands as 120m (except for Earth Science ANSIs), but it is

not clear from the text whether the authors are suggesting that the adjacent lands zone

is from the NHS boundary, or from the features within it.


4.0 Case Study Review

In order to assess the implications of the NHS, 3 test study areas were used (Figure A).

These sites were agreed upon in consultation with Nancy Farrer (Director of Planning

Services at the Town of Collingwood) at the project start-up meeting. The sites were

chosen to represent the typical range in natural feature contexts found in the Town, as

well as to cover some contentious areas based on development proposals. The most

recent data available for the study area sample sites was gathered independently to

verify the information gathered for the NHS by the NVCA. Reconnaissance-level field

visits to these sites were undertaken on June 28, 2012 to ground truth available

background information. Property access was not available, so areas were viewed from

the road, limiting the accuracy of the data collection with regards to species and

boundary verification.

The NHS methodology and criteria as developed by the NVCA were applied to these

test sites to explore implications of data scale, coarse versus fine scale delineation,

criteria overlap, redundancy, etc. The tests were also used to examine the impacts of

modifications to the criteria as a sensitivity analysis. Based on the NHS review, no

overlap or redundancy was noted, as criteria for the NHS were not developed. Rather,

features were listed to fall into one of two categories. The NHS was developed at an

appropriate scale.

ELC community, valleyland, and floodplain mapping was obtained from the NVCA.

Watercourse and wetland mapping was acquired from the LIO (Land Information

Ontario) database, as well as from the Southern Georgian Bay Coastal Initiative (OMNR

2010c).

The NVCA report does not specify watercourse buffers. Watercourses are included in

the NHS and the boundary seems to follow ELC community boundaries, which in many

cases is cultural meadow. In such cases, it is not necessary to include the entire cultural

meadow in the NHS, and a buffer should be determined. Common practice is 15m on

either side of the watercourse from intermittent streams, and 30m on either side of

permanent streams.

Georgian Bay

BATTEAUX RD

GREY RD 19

COUNTY RD 124

SIDERD POPLAR

10TH LINE

6TH LINE

FAIRGROUNDS RD N

SIDERD NOTTAWA

HUME ST

6TH ST

MTN RD

GREY RD 19

Case Study Area 3

Case Study Area 2

Case Study Area 1

Silver Creek Wetland Complex (CL7)

556000

556000

558000

558000

560000

560000

562000

562000

564000

564000

566000

566000

568000

5680004922

000

4922

000

4924

000

4924

000

4926

000

4926

000

4928

000

4928

000

4930

000

4930

000

4932

000

4932

000

4934

000

4934

000 Town of Collingwood

NHS Peer ReviewCase Study Areas

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This map isproprietary and confidential and must not be duplicated or distributed by any means withoutexpress written permission of NRSI. Data provided by the Town of Collingwood and MNR© Copyright: Queen’s Printer Ontario. Imagery: County of Simcoe, 2008. ¢0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Metres

Path: X:\1344_CollingwoodPeerReview\NRSI_1344_FigA_CaseStudyAreas_65K_2012_07_24_ELF.mxd

Project: 1344Date: July 25, 2012

NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 8.5 x 11"

1:65,000

LegendCase Study Area

Municipal Boundary

Highway

Primary Road

Secondary Road

RailwayProposed Natural Heritage System

Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)

Other Wetland

Wooded Area

Waterbody

Permanent Watercourse

Intermittent Watercourse

Figure A


Buffers are not mentioned in the NVCA report. Buffers are areas of permanent

vegetation surrounding a natural heritage feature in order to protect the feature and its

functions by mitigating the impacts of adjacent land use. Where buffers are unvegetated

at their establishment, they are restored to a natural state through seeding and/or

planting. Typically buffers are required around woodlands, wetlands and watercourses.

Woodland buffers are prescribed based on protecting the trees and their root zones, as

well as allowing an area for edge trees and limbs to fall without damaging personal

property. Aquatic and wetland buffers are required to protect feature, form and function,

as well as the species that inhabit them. Buffers should be included in the NHS

delineation. The following buffers are recommended:

30m from wetlands (any kind),

30m from either side of a permanent watercourse,

15m from either side of an intermittent watercourse,

10m from the dripline of trees in upland forests and cultural woodlands, and

5m from cultural meadows (CUM) and cultural thickets (CUT) to accommodate

trails and components of stormwater management facilities.

The following exceptions apply:

Buffers are eliminated/reduced adjacent to existing roads.

Watercourses with existing development may have a reduced buffer. Any

redevelopment of the area should reestablish the recommended width of

naturalized buffers.

Wetlands adjacent to existing development may have a reduced buffer,

especially adjacent to hard development (i.e. paved areas, buildings).

Figure B, C, and D show the NHS as developed by NRSI in the case study areas using

the criteria listed by the NVCA (Sections 8.2.1 – 8.2.3), along with an understanding of

the area based on field investigations. Figure E, F, and G compare the Alternate NHS

(as developed by NRSI) to the draft Proposed NHS (as developed by the NVCA). The

NHS in the Alternate NHS includes the appropriate buffer, as recommended above. In

most cases, the Alternate NHS is very similar to the draft Proposed NHS by the NVCA.

Differences are highlighted in the figures, with additional information provided here:


All 3 Scenarios developed by the NVCA contain valleylands, watercourses, and

floodplains in the NHS as Category 1 features. In practice, mapping does not

follow valleyland or floodplain boundaries. These were incorporated to a much

greater extent within the Alternate NHS. This is especially the case within Study

Area 1 along the northern, western, and southern portions of the test site. The

floodplain was not included in an area of Draft Plan Approval (along one of the

main branches of Black Ash Creek). Case Study Area 2 contains a large

floodplain area along its western boundary, which overlaps with rural

development. In this area, the NHS boundary followed the 30m buffer of the

watercourse, and in the southern section, a corridor was formed to create a

linkage between the NHS components. Corridor/linkage dimensions are not

defined in the NVCA report. In this case, a 100m wide linkage is suggested to

link a couple areas together.

In Study Area 2 (Figures C and F), the Alternate NHS includes the potential for

an Extended NHS, which is shown as green hatching on the figures. The NVCA

report (p. 102) states that “the Southwest Regeneration Greenland provides an

excellent opportunity to connect the Silver Creek South, Black Ash Creek and

Southwest Forest Greenlands in southwest Collingwood. […] The most

appropriate configuration of this Greenland has yet to be determined.” This area

contains cultural meadows which can provide habitat for Species at Risk such as

bobolink and eastern meadowlark, habitat that is not provided for elsewhere in

the Town. The extended NHS would provide a much greater connection

between isolated features, incorporating the mixed coniferous/deciduous forest

located partway between the gravel pit and Sixth Street. The Extended NHS

also provides a greater connection to natural areas in the Town of The Blue

Mountains and Clearview Township. The gravel pit was not included in the

alternate NHS as no rationale is given for its inclusion in the NVCA report. This

area is highly impacted and does not provide a connection to adjacent natural

areas. It may, however, provide some wildlife habitat, especially if it can be

restored in the future.

The NVCA report states that “forests and wetlands in draft approved

subdivisions are similarly excluded from the natural heritage system.”


Although not stated, NVCA’s mapping shows the exclusion of watercourses

in these areas as well. In the Alternate NHS, watercourses have been

shown with an appropriate buffer. Although natural features within these

Draft Plan Approved areas (see especially Study Area 3, Figure D and G)

have been excluded from the NHS, buffers for adjacent features have been

shown. The development plans for these areas must have regard for these

features and protect their functions as per the PPS. Two small areas with

Draft Plan Approval are located on the north side of Highway 26. These

areas have been entirely excluded from the NHS, although they would be

completely encompassed by buffers from neighbouring natural features.

This must be addressed in an EIS for each of the sites.

Within Study Area 1, the central natural heritage features were included as

Category 2 lands within the Proposed NHS because of development

pressure in this area (see Section 8.6 of the NVCA report). Based on the

forested and wetland nature of these habitats, it is recommended that this

area be included as Category 1 within the NHS, if a category approach is

maintained. These habitats form a core area, providing a strong linkage

from the Georgian Trail Greenland south into habitats surrounding Black Ash

Creek.

Policy must address existing development adjacent to the proposed NHS, or

overlapping the NHS in buffer areas.

Based on the review of the draft Proposed NHS by the NVCA within the Case Study

Areas, it can be surmised that the NHS outside of these areas is fairly accurate and

similar to the Alternate NHS as well. The following recommendations with regards

to the NHS should be taken into account:

Address buffer dimensions in policy and NHS development

Review floodplain areas for inclusion in the NHS

Address implications of existing development areas within NHS buffer areas

and adjacent lands

Address watercourses and buffers within Draft Plan Approved Areas


Consider abandoning category approach and addressing all areas outside

the NHS in policy (requiring further assessment e.g. Species at Risk,

significant wildlife habitat)

Alternatively, consider including all natural heritage features currently outside

the draft Proposed NHS as Category 2 lands

Consider including larger areas of open country habitat for Species at Risk

protection (such as suggested in the Extended NHS on Figures C and F)

The draft Proposed NHS follows a features based approach. The feature based

approach to the protection of natural resources is based on the delineation of specific

natural features, the identification of suitable buffers around the feature and

consideration of adjacent land use implications on the feature’s structure and function.

This approach parallels the identification of specific, significant features, a buffer around

the feature boundary and an adjacent lands zone within which analysis of potential

impacts of land use changes are assessed. This approach to the protection of individual

significant natural features is consistent with the PPS.

Mechanically, the feature based approach is a ‘bottom-up’ approach in which pieces of

habitat are identified based on their specific characteristics and determined to be

significant based on their existing characteristics. The features are viewed

independently and are delineated based on the limits of the feature at the point in time

that a study is completed. As such, there is little or no opportunity to include additional

lands that could allow for restoration, connectivity, etc. In some instances it has been

recognized that a specific individual feature is not sustainable, and this has led some

researchers to the identification of substantial zones of complementary habitats,

sometimes called ‘buffers’ around the individual features to promote sustainability. In

addition, the bottom-up approach is susceptible to feature-level criticisms of significance.

In that case, a single feature may be reviewed and found to not satisfy some test of

significance and as such may be lost regardless of how it relates to other habitats in the

area.

The PPS notes that the diversity of natural features in an area and the natural

connections between them should be maintained and improved where possible. The

definition of “ecological function” is broadly defined and reflects the importance of the


environment to support connections within or between species and their habitats. Using

the NHRM (OMNR 2010b) approach, the fundamental components of a natural heritage

system consist of cores and linkages. Core areas are generally the building blocks of

the natural heritage system and consist of large natural areas that perform vital

ecological functions, such as provincially significant wetlands and significant

woodlands. Cores are identified based on a number of factors including size, integrity,

shape, rare species and other significant designations as well as other

factors. Linkages, or corridors, are components of the natural heritage system that allow

movement of wildlife and plant species.

Generally, the systems based approach is a ‘top down’ approach to identifying the

natural heritage system. Clusters of habitats that are readily apparent become the basis

for the potential cores that are then reviewed as a whole in terms of diversity and other

significant characteristics (as per the PPS). In addition, the systems approach can

encourage the consideration of future natural environment conditions including

restoration areas (to bulk up or fill in gaps in features), and connectivity, where there are

currently little or no natural habitats. When identifying natural heritage systems, it is

essential to understand the landscape in and around the study area. In the system-

based approach the natural features are treated as clusters of habitats in a range of

successional stages, including potential restoration areas.

1ST ST

BALSAM ST

MTN RD

HIGH ST

HIGH ST

6TH ST

10TH LINE

6TH ST

559000

559000

559500

559500

560000

560000

560500

560500

561000

561000

561500

561500

4926

500

4926

500

4927

000

4927

000

4927

500

4927

500

4928

000

4928

000

4928

500

4928

500

Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review

Alternate Natural Heritage SystemStudy Area 1

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This map isproprietary and confidential and must not be duplicated or distributed by any means withoutexpress written permission of NRSI. Data provided by the Town of Collingwood and MNR© Copyright: Queen’s Printer Ontario. Imagery: County of Simcoe, 2008. ¢0 100 200 300 400 500 Metres

Path: X:\1344_CollingwoodPeerReview\NRSI_1344_FigB-D_AlternateNHS1-3_10K_2012_07_24_ELF.mxd

Project: 1344Date: August 9, 2012


1:13,000


Municipal BoundaryAlternate NHS

Extended NHS

Highway

Primary Road

Secondary Road

Railway

Waterbody



Figure B

6TH ST

GREY RD 19

MTN RD

GREY RD 19

556500

556500

557000

557000

557500

557500

558000

558000

558500

558500

4925

500

4925

500

4926

000

4926

000

4926

500

4926

500

4927

000

4927

000

4927

500

4927

500







1:13,000



Extended NHS

Highway

Primary Road

Secondary Road

Railway

Waterbody



Figure C

Georgian Bay

HWY 26

MONTERRA RD

GREY RD 21

OSLER BLUFF RD

556500

556500

557000

557000

557500

557500

558000

558000

558500

558500

4929

000

4929

000

4929

500

4929

500

4930

000

4930

000

4930

500

4930

500

4931

000

4931

000







1:13,000



Extended NHS

Highway

Primary Road

Secondary Road

Railway

Waterbody



Figure D

Draft Plan Approved Area

Wetland & Forest Buffer

Floodplain

Wetland

15m Watercourse Buffer Wetland Buffer

Floodplain &Woodland

Forest

Buffers

Gravel Pit Not Included

See Text in Report on Extended NHS

Included in NHS (Category 1)



Area of CurrentDevelopment

HIGH ST

HIGH ST

6TH ST

10TH LINE

6TH ST

MTN RD

559000

559000

559500

559500

560000

560000

560500

560500

561000

561000

561500

561500

4926

500

4926

500

4927

000

4927

000

4927

500

4927

500

4928

000

4928

000

4928

500

4928

500

Town of Collingwood NHS Peer ReviewNatural Heritage System Comparison

Study Area 1

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This map is proprietary and confidential and must not be duplicated or distributed by any means withoutexpress written permission of NRSI. Data provided by the Town of Collingwood and MNR© Copyright: Queen’s Printer Ontario. Imagery: County of Simcoe, 2008.

¢0 200 400 600 Metres

Path: X:\1344_CollingwoodPeerReview\NRSI_1344_FigE-G_NHSComparison1-3_10K_2012_07_24_ELF.mxd


NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 11x17"

1:10,000

LegendCase Study AreaMunicipal BoundaryProposed Natural Heritage SystemAlternate NHSExtended NHS

Highway

Primary Road

Secondary RoadRailwayWaterbodyPermanent Watercourse


Figure E

Gravel Pit Not Included

NHS Boundary Follows Floodplain

See Text in Report on Extended NHSWetland &

30m Buffer

Included as this is floodplain, as wellas meadow marsh, as per NRSI field observation

Connection Between NHS Components

Connection Between NHS Components

30m WatercourseBuffer

Floodplain connected to swamp community

Open field included to protect narrow forested community to east

30m Watercourse Buffer NHS Follow Forest

Boundary, Plus 10m Buffer


6TH ST

GREY RD 19

GREY RD 19

MTN RD

556500

556500

557000

557000

557500

557500

558000

558000

558500

558500

559000

559000

4925

500

4925

500

4926

000

4926

000

4926

500

4926

500

4927

000

4927

000

4927

500

4927

500


Study Area 2


¢0 200 400 600 Metres

Path: X:\1344_CollingwoodPeerReview\NRSI_1344_FigE-G_NHSComparison1-3_10K_2012_08_24_KEB.mxd



1:10,000


Highway

Primary Road



Figure F

HWY 26

Georgian Bay

Wetland Buffer

NHS Boundary Follows Floodplain

Developed Area

Wetland &Buffer

Wetland &Buffer

Wetland & Watercourse Buffers

Meadow Marsh Observed by NRSI

Buffers

Floodplain

Forest & Floodplain Buffers Wetland Buffer

Wetland Buffers& Woodland

Watercourse Buffer

Draft Plan Approved Area See Notes in Report

Watercourse Buffer

Watercourse Buffer

Draft Plan Approved Area See Notes in Report

MONTERRA RD

OSLER BLUFF RD

GREY RD 21

556000

556000

556500

556500

557000

557000

557500

557500

558000

558000

558500

558500

4929

000

4929

000

4929

500

4929

500

4930

000

4930

000

4930

500

4930

500

4931

000

4931

000


Study Area 3


¢0 200 400 600 Metres

Path: X:\1344_CollingwoodPeerReview\NRSI_1344_FigE-G_NHSComparison1-3_10K_2012_07_24_ELF.mxd



1:10,000


Highway

Primary Road



Figure G


5.0 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made with respect to the NVCA report. The order of

these is as they appear within this peer review.

Combine Sections 3 and 4

Correct references throughout the report and in the Reference Section

Update the wording of the applicable strategies from the Sweetwater Sea report

(Taylor et al. 2010) (referred to as La Mer Douce in the NVCA report) in Section

4 (p. 15) and Section 8.12 (p. 110)

Consider combining Sections 5, 6 and 7, organizing them into subsections such

as wetlands, woodlands, wildlife, etc.

Sections 7.1 and 7.1.1 are repetitive from Sections 5.1 and 5.1.1 – revise so it is

less repetitive

Label the Greenland sections on Figure 3

Reformat Figure 5 (to eliminate pink rectangle)

Revise Section 6 to include text from Section 6.2 Post-glacial History in with

Section 6.3.2 Physiography and Quaternary Geology

Revise title of Section 6.6: Non-treed Upland Habitats

Revise Figure 11 to show Townline Creek and correct the Pretty River tributary

colouration

Define what is meant by “successional habitat” in Section 6.6.1 (p. 40) or revise

term

Revise Figures 8, 9, and 10 so the mapped existing forest cover (2008) is the

same – Figure 8 may be omitted

Revise Table 7

o Exclude species of special concern

o List references (in text leading up to Table 7)

o Update species search and status’ (as well as in Section 8)

Provide maps showing areas referred to in Section 7.3 (areas that meet each

significant woodland criterion, e.g. interior forest, proximity)

Provide figure showing significant woodlands as developed in Section 7.3

Clarify significant wildlife habitat categories as per the SWHTG (OMNR 2000),

SWH criteria tables (OMNR 2012a), and the NHRM (OMNR 2010b)


Define the terms ‘biodiversity hotspot’ and ‘complex’ (from Figure 18) in Section

7.4.4

The “Nottawasaga Island/East Black Bass Island Complex” should be reiterated

under subsequent sections in the report (after Section 7.4.4)

Update the SRANK definitions in Section 7.4.6

Update Table 9 with the most recent species updates and status’, as well as

include all species of special concern (from Table 7)

Relate corridor widths from Section 7.4.7 directly to Collingwood and clarify what

is meant by ‘local corridors’ versus ‘broader corridors’ (Section 8.8)

Not all existing natural features are captured by the 17 candidate greenlands

shown on Figure 20, which should be noted in the report (or Figure 20 should be

revised to include all natural features within the Town)

Numerous references to ‘limited connectivity’ and ‘weakly linked’ in Section 8

require a discussion of how the authors determined this

Consider providing open country habitat within the NHS for Species at Risk such

as bobolink and eastern meadowlark (such as proposed in the Extended NHS of

Case Study Area 2)

Consider abandoning the category approach within the NHS. If not, provide

justification for its continued use as per the Town’s Official Plan

Provide rationale to adding components to the Middle and Protective Scenarios

Define “core forests” and provide a map showing these (Section 8.2.2)

Provide a map showing “ecological linkages” (as referred to on p. 97)

Make the nomenclature in Section 8.5 consistent with earlier references in

Section 8.1 and Figure 20

Provide an explanation to including the following within the proposed NHS:

o The submerged shallow aquatic wetland in Georgian Bay

o The gravel pit

o The small area north of Sixth Line

This explanation can be provided in Section 8.6

Provide an explanation for the inclusion of the area northeast of the First Street

and Hickory Street intersection as Category 2


Consider including all natural features outside the Category 1 NHS as Category 2

(or at least require some further level of assessment, e.g. for Species at Risk,

significant wildlife habitat, etc.)

Discussion integration of the NHS with the Endangered Species Act and the

NVCA’s regulations (e.g. for wetlands outside the NHS)

Create Section 5.4 to introduce Areas of Concern

Revise text at the base of Table 10 as it refers to a different project

Clarify whether the Town column in Table 11 refers to the current state within the

Town, or only to what is found within the proposed NHS

Develop buffers and include these in the NHS delineation

In Section 9.2, clarify that infrastructure projects under Municipal Class EAs are

not exempt from considering the components of the PPS, despite that possibility

of there being greater latitude in terms of application of the level of protection (as

per the PSW example provided in the text)

Clarify whether the adjacent lands zone is from the NHS boundary or from

features within it (Section 9.4)

Revise the glossary to eliminate terms not used within the text, and to include

others that require a definition (as listed in this report)

Complete the NHS process as outlined in the TOR:

o Finalize the NHS report

o Consult the public with the recommended Open House format

o Complete Phase 3

Recommendations with regards to policy development are as follows:

Develop Official Plan policies that deal with the natural heritage features outside

of the NHS

Develop Official Plan policies that deal with existing development adjacent to the

NHS or overlapping with the buffer areas of the NHS

Develop policies with regards to buffer widths adjacent to various features

(wetlands, woodlands, cultural meadows, etc.)


6.0 References

Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Nature,

Ontario Field Ornithologists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Database, 31 January 2008. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/aboutdata.jsp?lang=en

Featherstone, D. 2010. Terms of Reference – Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage

System Update and Review. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. July 2010.

Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada. 2010. Canadian

Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010. http://www.biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F7EB059-1&wsdoc=A519F000-8427-4F8C-9521-8A95AE287753

Gartner Lee Ltd. 1996. Development of a Natural Heritage System for the County of

Simcoe. Prepared for the County of Simcoe. Henson, B.L., K.E. Brodribb, and J.L. Riley. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint

for Terrestrial Biodiversity. Volume 1. Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for

Terrestrial Biodiversity. Volume 2 Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Lake Huron Community Action. 2012. www.lakehuroncommunityaction.ca (Site

accessed July 6, 2012) Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray.

1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. 2011. Town of Collingwood Natural

Heritage System. Prepared by David Featherstone and Natosha Fortini, NVCA. October 2011.

Ontario Biodiversity Council. 2011. Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011: Renewing

Our Commitment to Protecting What Sustains Us. Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

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

Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat

Technical Guide. October 2000.


Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. Big Picture 2002. Information available on the Natural Heritage Information Centre website: http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/projects/BP/bigpict_2002_main.cfm

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010a. Natural Heritage Information

Centre: Biodiversity Explorer. https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do (Accessed June 20, 2012).

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010b. Natural Heritage Reference

Manual for Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second Edition. March 18, 2010.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010c. Southern Georgian Bay Coastal

Initiative. Data obtained through: http://www.forestry.utoronto.ca/imsa/GeorgianBay/index.html#project

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010d. Status and Trends in Shoreline

Development and Alteration Along the Southern Georgian Bay Shoreline. Prepared to support the Southern Georgian Bay Coastal Initiative. Prepared by the Southern Science and Information Section, Science and Information Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. July 29, 2010, Version 1.1.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2012a. Significant Wildlife Habitat

Ecoregion Criteria Schedules: Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule. February 2012.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2012b. Species at Risk in Ontario

(SARO) List. Last updated January 13, 2012. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html (Accessed July 18, 2012).

Taylor, F., R. A. Derosier, K. Dinse, P. Doran, D. Ewert, K. Hall, M. Herbert, M. Khoury,

D. Kraus, A. Lapenna, G. Mayne, D. Pearsall, J. Read, and B. Schroeder. 2010. The Sweetwater Sea: An International Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Huron - Technical Report. A joint publication of The Nature Conservancy, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Michigan Natural Features Inventory Michigan Sea Grant, and The Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Appendices

Appendix I

Georgian Triangle Development Institute Letter (November 16, 2011)

Appendices

Appendix II

Terms of Reference Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System

Update and Review 2010 (Featherstone 2010)

Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System Peer Review · 2019-03-26 · NVCA report, including...

Documents

Transcript of Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System Peer Review · 2019-03-26 · NVCA report, including...