Post on 09-Jul-2020
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: info@nrsi.on.ca
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 2 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 3 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 4 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 5 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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]
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 6 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 7 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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)
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 8 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 9 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
(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.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 10 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 11 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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).
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 12 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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).
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 13 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 14 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 15 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 16 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 17 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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).
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 18 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 19 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 21 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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:
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 22 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.”
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 23 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 24 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 25 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 8.5 x 11"
1:13,000
LegendCase Study Area
Municipal BoundaryAlternate NHS
Extended NHS
Highway
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Railway
Waterbody
Permanent Watercourse
Intermittent Watercourse
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
Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
Alternate Natural Heritage SystemStudy Area 2
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: July 25, 2012
NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 8.5 x 11"
1:13,000
LegendCase Study Area
Municipal BoundaryAlternate NHS
Extended NHS
Highway
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Railway
Waterbody
Permanent Watercourse
Intermittent Watercourse
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
Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
Alternate Natural Heritage SystemStudy Area 3
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: July 25, 2012
NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 8.5 x 11"
1:13,000
LegendCase Study Area
Municipal BoundaryAlternate NHS
Extended NHS
Highway
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Railway
Waterbody
Permanent Watercourse
Intermittent Watercourse
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)
Included in NHS (Category 1)
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
Project: 1344Date: August 9, 2012
NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 11x17"
1:10,000
LegendCase Study AreaMunicipal BoundaryProposed Natural Heritage SystemAlternate NHSExtended NHS
Highway
Primary Road
Secondary RoadRailwayWaterbodyPermanent Watercourse
Intermittent 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
Included in NHS (Category 1)
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
Town of Collingwood NHS Peer ReviewNatural Heritage System Comparison
Study Area 2
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_08_24_KEB.mxd
Project: 1344Date: August 27, 2012
NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 11x17"
1:10,000
LegendCase Study AreaMunicipal BoundaryProposed Natural Heritage SystemAlternate NHSExtended NHS
Highway
Primary Road
Secondary RoadRailwayWaterbodyPermanent Watercourse
Intermittent Watercourse
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
Town of Collingwood NHS Peer ReviewNatural Heritage System Comparison
Study Area 3
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
Project: 1344Date: July 24, 2012
NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 11x17"
1:10,000
LegendCase Study AreaMunicipal BoundaryProposed Natural Heritage SystemAlternate NHSExtended NHS
Highway
Primary Road
Secondary RoadRailwayWaterbodyPermanent Watercourse
Intermittent Watercourse
Figure G
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 32 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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)
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 33 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 34 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.)
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 35 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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.
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 36 Town of Collingwood NHS Peer Review
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)