6. Natural Heritage - Town of Whitby€¦ · Wetland Monitoring Project: 6-Year Technical Report...

52 The Plan for Port Whitby Technical Background Study – February 26, 2013

6. Natural Heritage

6.1 Introduction

Dougan & Associates Ecological Consulting and Design (D&A) is undertaking the natural heritage component of the Plan for Port Whitby. The natural heritage work being conducted in support of the planning process is a characterization of the natural heritage features in the study area and analysis of opportunities and constraints presented by the features identified. This characterization is being accomplished through review and validation of existing natural heritage data for the study area. This data has also been reviewed within the applicable natural heritage policy framework to provide an assessment of the constraints and opportunities related to the alternative land use options, thereby providing the study team with guidance on logical options for policy on conservation and green infrastructure initiatives.

6.2 Methods

The characterization of natural heritage features conducted for this project consists of a desktop review of available background resources, including Ecological Land Classification mapping, monitoring and watershed reports from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), completed Town of Whitby planning studies, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database. The time of year was not conducive to definitive collection of new field data to validate these background resources. 6.2.1 Available Background Resources The following sources were checked as part of the background review for vegetation resources, wildlife resources, and aquatic species of the Port Whitby study area:

Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program;

CLOCA. 2008. Aquatic Monitoring Report;

CLOCA and Environment Canada. 2010. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project: 6-Year Technical Report;

CLOCA with Durham Region and Conservation Ontario. 2011a. Aquatic Monitoring Report;

CLOCA. 2012a. Interactive Watershed Map;

CLOCA with Durham Region and Conservation Ontario. 2011c. 2011 Wildlife Monitoring Report – Report No. 2012-01MR;

CLOCA. Date varies. Ecological Land Classification Mapping;

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2012. COSEWIC Species Assessments;

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Monarch Danaus plexippus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada;

Durham Region and CLOCA. 2008. Wildlife Monitoring Program (Long Term);


MacCulloch, R.D. 2002. The R.O.M. (Royal Ontario Museum) field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Ontario;

M.D. Cadman, D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier editors. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001 – 2005;

NHIC. 2012a. NHIC Element Occurrence database, (Biodiversity Explorer) for 10 X 10 kilometre square 17PJ65 (NHIC 2012a);

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre). 2012b. NHIC Srank definitions;

NHIC. 2012c. NHIC List of Ontario Amphibians;

NHIC. 2012d. NHIC List of Ontario Birds;

OMNR. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide;

OMNR. 2012. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List;

planningAlliance et al. 2009. West Whitby Secondary Plan – Phase 1 Final Report: Background Studies and Urban Structure Options; and

Town of Whitby. 2009. Whitby Official Plan (Office Consolidation Copy). 6.2.2 Natural Heritage Characterization Of the sources listed in section 6.2.1, Table 6.1 summarizes the resources that were used to characterize the vegetation communities and significant vegetation species; the wildlife resources; the aquatic resources; and the significant features (including PSWs, significant species listed within the NHIC database, species-at-risk, and area sensitive birds) within the study area. Table 6.1 Summary of Resources Used to Characterize the Natural Heritage of the Study Area

Vegetation Resources

CLOCA (Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority). Date varies. Ecological Land Classification mapping

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre). 2012a. NHIC Element Occurrence database (Biodiversity Explorer) for 10 X 10 kilometre square 17PJ65 (NHIC 2012a)

Wildlife Resources

BSC (Bird Studies Canada). 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2012. COSEWIC Species Assessments

CLOCA with Durham Region and Conservation Ontario. 2011c. 2011 Wildlife Monitoring Report – Report No. 2012-01MR

Durham Region and CLOCA. 2008. Wildlife Monitoring Program (Long Term)

NHIC. 2012a. NHIC Element Occurrence database, (Biodiversity Explorer) for 10 X 10 kilometre square 17PJ65 (NHIC 2012a)

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre). 2012b. NHIC Srank definitions

NHIC . 2012c. NHIC List of Ontario Amphibians

NHIC . 2012d. NHIC List of Ontario Birds

OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide

OMNR. 2012. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List


planningAlliance et al. 2009. West Whitby Secondary Plan – Phase 1 Final Report: Background Studies and Urban Structure Options

Town of Whitby. 2009. Whitby Official Plan (Office Consolidation Copy)

Aquatic Resources

CLOCA and Environment Canada. 2010. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project: 6-Year Technical Report;

CLOCA with Durham Region and Conservation Ontario. 2011a. Aquatic Monitoring Report

CLOCA. 2012a. Interactive Watershed Map.

Significant Features

CLOCA. 2008. Aquatic Monitoring Report

CLOCA and Environment Canada. 2010. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project: 6-Year Technical Report

CLOCA (Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority) with Durham Region and Conservation Ontario. 2011c. 2011 Wildlife Monitoring Report – Report No. 2012-01MR

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Monarch Danaus plexippus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

MacCulloch, R.D. 2002. The R.O.M. field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Ontario

M.D. Cadman, D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier editors. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001 – 2005

NHIC. 2012a. NHIC Element Occurrence database, (Biodiversity Explorer) for 10 X 10 kilometre square 17PJ65 (NHIC 2012a)

6.2.3 Legislation and Policy Review Legislation and policy were reviewed in order to determine any natural heritage constraints to planning development in the study area. The documents reviewed are summarized in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Summary of Legislative Documents Reviewed

Legislation

Federal Fisheries Act (1986)

Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994)

Provincial

Endangered Species Act (2007)

Ontario Regulation 42/06 (2006)

Policy

Provincial

Provincial Policy Statement (2005), Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe & MNR Technical Guidelines

Greenbelt Plan

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002)

Policy Regional and Local

Durham Region Official Plan/ROPA 128 (2008)

Town of Whitby Official Plan (2009)

CLOCA Natural Heritage System (no date)


6.3 Findings

Regionally, the study area is located in the deciduous forest region of Ontario and is south of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the post-glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline. The majority of the Ontario Greenbelt lies north of the study area, with a portion extending to the Lake Ontario shoreline just west of the study area. Glacial till is the overburden foundation of the study area. 6.3.1 Vegetation Resources 6.3.1.1 Ecological Land Classification The vegetation units within the study area are categorized according to a variety of classifications including Community Series and Vegetation Type (Lee et al. 1998). They are summarized according to Community Series in Table 6.3 and mapped in Figure 6.1. Table 6.3 Summary Community Series within Port Whitby Study Area

Community Series No. Polygons Area (Hectares)

% Study Area

Anthropogenic / Other n/a 148.24 66.7%

Port Whitby – Open Water n/a 34.81 15.7%

Cultural Communities

Cultural Meadow 13 17.13 7.7%

Cultural Thicket 4 1.47 0.7%

Cultural Woodland 5 3.00 1.3%

Plantation 1 1.48 0.7%

Forest Communities

Deciduous Forest 8 3.18 1.4%

Aquatic and Wetland Communities

Open Aquatic 7 4.70 2.1%

Mixed Shallow Aquatic

1 0.27 0.1%

Meadow Marsh 5 1.98 0.9%

Shallow Marsh 3 0.79 0.4%

Thicket Swamp 4 1.37 0.6%

Deciduous Swamp 2 1.64 0.7%

Open Communities

Open Beach / Bar 1 1.12 0.5%

Open Bluff 2 1.18 0.5%

Total 222.36 100%

The majority of the vegetation communities are along Pringle Creek and around Whitby Harbour, including a portion of a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). Anthropogenic Lands not classified under the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system have been deemed as anthropogenic. These lands include areas that have been cleared of natural vegetation and are in use for human activities such as parking lots, lawns, residential dwellings, commercial outlets, and industrial structures. Due to the removal of natural habitats, features, and functions from these areas, these lands are considered to be low quality in terms of ecological significance.


Figure 6.1 Vegetation Communities


Cultural Communities Cultural meadows represent a very early stage of natural succession. They lack woody species and are dominated primarily by opportunistic forbs and grasses. Depending on soil moisture regimes, these communities can vary from dry pasture grasses to the aster/goldenrod assemblages on fresh to moist substrates. Cultural thickets include areas in a somewhat later stage of succession than cultural meadow, where shrub cover is greater than 25% but tree cover remains below 25%. Cultural thicket communities are dominated by woody shrubs and often have an understory of forbs and grasses. Cultural woodlands are treed areas characterized by canopy coverage between 35–60%. These communities often represent the stage of natural succession between cultural thicket and forest, but may also represent a highly disturbed or fragmented forest. Of all the cultural vegetation community types, cultural woodlands generally have the greatest ecological function due to their similarity to natural forest communities. Coniferous plantations are areas where canopy cover is greater than 60% and the dominating canopy trees are conifers planted in rows. Although cultural in nature, plantations may provide substantive benefits to overall natural functions when associated with existing wetland cover and upland forest. Conifer plantations have important benefits for wildlife in terms of winter shelter and nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species including raptors. Forest Communities Deciduous forests are characterized by their canopy layer, which is dominated by deciduous species and has greater than 60% canopy cover. FOD7 is a Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest and FOD8-1 is a Fresh-Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest characterized by young forest with Poplar (Populus sp) dominant canopies and moist substrates. Aquatic and Wetland Communities Open aquatic communities are typically low-lying areas dominated by open water, robust emergents, submerged or floating-leaved macrophytes, or plankton. Standing water in these communities is generally > 2m in depth. Mixed shallow aquatic communities are characterized by the permanent presence of standing water up to 2m in depth and a mixture of submerged and floating-leaved macrophytes. Meadow marshes are characterized by a lack of woody vegetation and a dominance of emergent hydrophytic vegetation species. Meadow marshes can have permanent or ephemeral standing water up to 2m. Meadow marshes that do not exhibit standing water have a high water table below the ground surface that significantly influences the vegetation composition and results in the presence of mottles and/or gley within 20cm of the ground surface.


Shallow marshes are characterized by their lack of woody cover, dominance of hydrophytic emergent macrophytes and variable flooding regimes with up to 2m of standing water. Thicket swamps are areas with canopy closure of trees less than 25% and hydrophytic shrubs greater than 25%. Thicket swamps have variable hydrologic regimes and often exhibit standing water or vernal pooling. Deciduous swamps are characterized by their canopy layer, which contain at least 75% hydrophytic deciduous species and often exhibit standing water or vernal pooling. Open Communities The mineral open beach/bar communities have vegetation cover varying from patchy and barren to continuous meadow, with unconsolidated mineral substrates. This community is found along the Lake Ontario shoreline. The open bluff community has substrate that has recently been disturbed and is subject to ongoing erosive processes. Tree and shrub cover are </= 25% with species indicative of disturbance. 6.3.1.2 Significant Vegetation Species The NHIC database (2012a) was checked for significant species records for the 1 X 1 km square 17PJ65_58, which encompasses the northwest portion of the Port Whitby study area. The database contained 1 vegetation species record for the vicinity, Red Mulberry (Morus rubra), which is a historical record over a century old. When plotted, this record is north of the study site. The record is shown in Table 6.4. Table 6.4 Summary of vegetation records in the NHIC database (NHIC 2012a)

Species S-rank (NHIC)

National Status

Provincial Status

Observation dates

Red Mulberry S2 END END July 1894

Notes: SC – Special Concern; THR – Threatened; END – Endangered; EXP – Extirpated S1 – Critically Imperiled; S2 – Imperiled; S3 – Vulnerable; S4 – Apparently Secure; SX – Presumed Extirpated

6.3.2 Wildlife Resources The majority of the background documents reviewed for the characterization do not contain specific wildlife species records. However, the West Whitby Secondary Plan (planningAlliance et al 2009), CLOCA Long Term Wildlife Monitoring Program report (Durham 2008), CLOCA Wildlife Monitoring Report (2011c), and NHIC database (2012a) do have wildlife-specific records, which are summarized below. The West Whitby Secondary Plan, encompassing areas north of Highway 401, lists 43 species of birds found during reconnaissance surveys conducted in June 2009.


However, no specific breeding bird or mammal surveys were carried out at this time. Of the 43 species of birds recorded, six of them are considered Area Sensitive: Pileated Woodpecker, Brown Creeper, Veery, Northern Parula, Ovenbird and Savannah Sparrow (see section 6.3.4.4 for more information on area sensitive bird species). All six of these species have S-ranks of S5 in Ontario (NHIC 2012d), indicating that their populations are secure within the province (NHIC 2012b). The Long-Term Wildlife Monitoring Program (Durham 2008) summarizes Forest Bird Monitoring Program data for the Pringle Creek Watershed, however, there have been no point counts done in the vicinity of Port Whitby due to the lack of forest cover in the area. Similarly, there have been no Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) surveys conducted in the area due to a lack of sizable wetlands. The 2011 Wildlife Monitoring Report (CLOCA 2011c) includes data from both breeding bird surveys (including point counts, roadside surveys and nocturnal owl surveys) and amphibian monitoring throughout the small watersheds of the CLOCA region. The areas covered by the study include Lynde Shores Conservation Area and Cranberry Marsh, which are located approximately three kilometres to the west of Port Whitby, the Long Sault (Darlington Forest Tract) Conservation Area, and points at each of the Coastal Wetlands in the jurisdiction. The report lists over 75 species of birds that were detected, including 21 species that are considered area sensitive (OMNR 2000). Of these 21 area sensitive species, all are associated with forested habitat except for savannah sparrow and eastern meadowlark, which are open field species. Of the 75 species, four of them are considered species-at-risk, either provincially (OMNR 2012) or federally (COSEWIC 2012): barn swallow (threatened in both Ontario and Canada), hooded warbler (threatened in Ontario), bobolink (threatened in both Ontario and Canada), and eastern meadowlark (threatened in both Ontario and Canada). The report also details five species of amphibians that were detected at the 21 Marsh Monitoring Program point counts: American toad, gray treefrog, green frog, spring peeper and wood frog. All five species have S-ranks of S5 (NHIC 2012c), indicating that their populations are secure in the province (NHIC 2012b), and widespread in southern Ontario. In addition, eight species of mammals were detected on an incidental basis during the breeding bird and amphibian surveys; all of them are considered widespread and common in Ontario (Dobbyn 1994). Finally, two additional species-at-risk were found during the surveys: snapping turtle and monarch butterfly, which are both considered special concern provincially (OMNR 2012) and federally (COSEWIC 2012). The NHIC database was checked for significant species records for the 10 X 10 km square 17PJ65, which encompasses the Port Whitby area entirely. The database contained records of 15 wildlife species for the vicinity, which are summarized in Table 6.5.


Table 6.5 Summary of Wildlife Records in the NHIC Database (NHIC 2012a)

Species S-rank (NHIC)

National Status

Provincial Status

Observation dates

Least Bittern S3 THR THR July 17, 1956; June 12, 1938 – 1991

Yellow Rail S4 SC SC 1982 – September 16, 1994; May 16, 1990

King Rail S2 END END May 18, 1962 – July 5, 1971

Northern Bobwhite S1 END END 1800 – 1885

Little Gull S1 --- --- 1983 – June 25, 1991

Black Tern S3 --- SC June 18 – 25, 1989

Loggerhead Shrike S2 END END 1963 – 1976; May 27, 1932 – May 27, 1977

Henslow’s Sparrow

S1 END END 1963 – 1976

Blanding’s Turtle S3 THR THR May 17, 1987 – June 21, 1989

Spiny Softshell S3 THR THR 1970 – 1978

Milksnake S3 SC SC August 8, 1987

Eastern Ribbonsnake

S3 SC SC May 17, 1968

Spring Salamander

SX SC EXP 1877

Redside Dace S2 END END June 28, 1978

Pronghorn Clubtail S3 --- --- June 23, 1996

Notes: SC – Special Concern; THR – Threatened; END – Endangered; EXP – Extirpated S1 – Critically Imperiled; S2 – Imperiled; S3 – Vulnerable; S4 – Apparently Secure; SX – Presumed Extirpated

6.3.2.1 Other Species Of the eight species of mammal detected incidentally during the 2011 wildlife surveys in the CLOCA jurisdictional area, five of them are common and widespread in urban and other disturbed areas, so are likely to occur in the Port Whitby study area; these are coyote, eastern chipmunk, eastern cottontail, striped skunk and raccoon. If further mammal surveys were conducted in the study area, it is highly likely that additional species would be detected, such as gray squirrel or white-footed mouse (CLOCA 2011c). However, it is not likely that any species detected would be provincially and/or regionally rare, nor species-at-risk. Five species of amphibians were detected during the 2011 wildlife surveys in the south Durham area; a total of 21 point counts were surveyed, one of them being on the east side of the mouth of Port Whitby Harbor (CLOCA 2011c). All five species (American toad, gray treefrog, green frog, spring peeper and wood frog) detected during the surveys are common and widespread in southern Ontario, with S-ranks of S5 (NHIC


2012c), indicating secure populations (NHIC 2012b) and none of them are considered species-at-risk, either provincially (OMNR 2012) or federally (COSEWIC 2012). Of the five species, three of them – American toad, green frog and spring peeper – could likely be breeding in the wetlands on the east side of the harbour, between Brock Street South and Harbour Street, south of Watson Street East. Spring surveys using the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) protocols (BSC 2003) would determine what level, if any, this site is being utilized by these or other species. 6.3.3 Aquatic Resources The fish species occurring in the Pringle Creek Watershed include rainbow trout (north of Rossland Road), Chinook salmon (observed in both 2010 and 2011), white sucker, walleye, pumpkinseed and largemouth bass (CLOCA 2012a). A sampling of Pringle Creek showed it to be a cool water system (CLOCA 2011a). Fish community conditions at the Whitby Harbour Wetland Complex in 2007 were considered the poorest of all of the coastal wetlands sampled for the Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project with no centrarchids, piscivores, or yellow perch caught and few numbers of native species caught (CLOCA and Environment Canada 2010). Common species were caught in this wetland, including common carp, white sucker, fathead minnow and gizzard shad. In 2007, the area was assigned a Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score of 9.4 out of 100 which is in the “poor” category. In 2010 it received a slightly improved score of 13, and in 2011 a score of 32. There is potentially a trend toward improvement shown in the limited monitoring results. Three new species were first detected in 2011; largemouth bass, rock bass and round goby (CLOCA and Environment Canada 2010). 6.3.4 Significant Features 6.3.4.1 Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) The Port Whitby study area contains portions of the Whitby Harbour Wetland Complex PSW, which is 8 hectares total in size and includes a barrier beach. The complex is made up of 76% marsh and 24% swamp. The condition of water quality condition is ‘very degraded’, with the highest levels of nitrates in all of the Durham Region Coastal Monitoring Project (CLOCA and Environment Canada 2010). The Whitby Harbour Wetland Complex PSW contains 13 significant plants and animals and is a waterfowl staging area. It is noted as a remnant coastal wetland. The relatively degraded habitat includes soil, sediment and biota contamination, due to historic use of Whitby Harbour as an active industrial port (CLOCA 2008). 6.3.4.2 NHIC Database Significant Species Of the 16 species listed in Tables 6.4 and 6.5, ten of them are from historical records that are over 25 years old (that is the observation(s) took place before October, 1987 and their presence has not been recorded since). These species are unlikely to be found in the study area as they have not been spotted in the region for a significant period of time, some not in over 100 years. For the six more recent species records, the following notes provide comments on the likelihood of these species being found in the study area (NHIC 2012a):


Least bittern – the 1991 record pertains to Cranberry Marsh, which is approximately three kilometres to the west; the Port Whitby study area does not contain appropriate breeding habitat for this species (Cadman et al 2007).

Yellow rail – both the May 1990 and September 1994 records, which are from Cranberry Marsh to the west, likely pertain to migrants, which are occasionally found in southern Ontario; the Port Whitby study area does not contain appropriate breeding habitat for this species, which is a very rare breeder in southern Ontario (Cadman et al 2007).

Little gull – the 1991 record is from Second Marsh, which is approximately 11 kilometres to the east; while it could potentially show up as a migrant at Port Whitby during spring or fall, it would not breed at the site due to a lack of suitable habitat (Cadman et al 2007).

Black tern – as with the previous species, black tern requires extensive marsh habitat for breeding (Cadman et al 2007), but could be seen at the Port Whitby site as an occasional migrant in spring or fall.

Blanding’s turtle – these records are from one location approximately five kilometres to the west of Port Whitby; not likely to be found at the site considering the lack of suitable wetland habitat available (Harding 1997; MacCulloch 2002).

Pronghorn clubtail – this record is from approximately nine kilometres to the north and, considering its wetland habitat requirements (Jones et al 2008), it is not likely to be found at the Port Whitby site.

6.3.4.3 Species-at-Risk The following six species are considered species-at-risk, either provincially or federally, and have recent records (see section 6.3.2 Wildlife Resources) in Durham Region. Their potential status within the Port Whitby study area is as follows:

Barn swallow – although not recorded specifically within the Port Whitby study area, this species prefers open foraging areas adjacent to water with human-made structures for building nests on (Lepage 2007). Therefore, considering that it is also common and widespread in southern Ontario, it is likely that it breeds within or adjacent to the study area.

Hooded warbler – this species is a forest breeder and rare along the north shore of Lake Ontario (Badzinski 2007); considering the lack of forest habitat in the study area, this species would not be found breeding within the study area.

Bobolink – this species is widespread in southern Ontario, utilizing open agricultural areas (Gahbauer 2007). Furthermore, it was detected at a number of roadside point counts to the north of Port Whitby during the 2011 Wildlife Monitoring field work. This species could therefore be present as a breeder along the more open sections of Port Whitby, particularly along the western edge of the harbour as well as open areas south of Victoria Street East.

Eastern meadowlark – like bobolink, this species is also widespread and common in southern Ontario (Leckie 2007) and was also found breeding along roadsides in 2011 in areas north of Port Whitby. It is possible that this species breeds in open areas to the west and north of Port Whitby harbour, particularly in the agricultural fields between Gordon Street and Watson Street, directly south of Victoria Street East.


Snapping turtle – this species is common in wetlands in southern Ontario (MacCulloch 2002) and one was found dead along a roadside in Clarington during the 2011 wildlife surveys by CLOCA. However, the NHIC database did not contain any records closer to the Port Whitby study area. Therefore, it is not known if it presently occurs in the vicinity of the site. The wetlands associated with the watercourse on the east side of the harbour, between Brock Street South and Harbour Street could potentially provide habitat for this species.

Monarch butterfly – this common and widespread species was recorded incidentally during 2011 wildlife surveys in the CLOCA jurisdictional area, which includes Port Whitby. This species has largely been listed as special concern in Ontario due to threats to its wintering habitat in Mexico (COSEWIC 2010). As such, its numbers fluctuate yearly in Ontario and it can occur almost anywhere as a migrant, especially in lakeshore areas such as Port Whitby. Furthermore, its host plant, common milkweed, is common in open, disturbed areas. Therefore, it is highly likely that it occurs during spring and fall migration within the Port Whitby study area. Where common milkweed is available, it would occur as a breeder as well.

6.3.4.4 Area Sensitive Birds During the breeding bird surveys in the small watershed area in 2011, a total of 21 area sensitive species were tallied. Of these, 19 species are associated with forest and, due to the limited availability of forested habitat within and adjacent to the Port Whitby study area, are not likely to breed within the site. These 19 species are:

Red-shouldered hawk;

Sharp-shinned hawk;

Cooper’s hawk;

Barred owl;

Hairy woodpecker;

Pileated woodpecker;

Veery;

Hermit thrush;

Winter wren;

White-breasted nuthatch;

Red-breasted nuthatch;

Black-and-white warbler;

Black-throated green warbler;

Black-throated blue warbler;

Pine warbler;

Ovenbird;

Northern waterthrush;

Hooded warbler; and

Scarlet tanager. Savannah sparrow is an open field species that could possibly breed along the western portion of Port Whitby, as well as the agricultural areas in the northern areas (between


Gordon Street and Watson Street, directly south of Victoria Street East). As discussed in the previous section, eastern meadowlark (a species-at-risk; see section 6.3.4.3) could also be found in these same open areas (Durham 2008).

6.4 Legislation and Policies

6.4.1 Legislation 6.4.1.1. Fisheries Act (1986) The Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s (DFO) Ontario-Great Lakes Area Fish Habitat Management Program has the mandate for administering the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. The federal Fisheries Act provides for the protection of fish habitat, which is defined as “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.” Under section 35 of the Fisheries Act no one may carry out any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, unless this HADD has been authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 6.4.1.2 Species at Risk Act (2005) This legislation provides the federal mandate for the protection of species identified as endangered, threatened or special concern at the federal level. While these are only fully protected on federal lands, they are recognized under the Province’s Significant Wildlife Habitat categories under the PPS (2005). 6.4.1.3 Endangered Species Act (2007) This legislation provides the provincial mandate for the protection of species identified as endangered, threatened or special concern at the provincial level. Significant habitats of provincially endangered and threatened species are specifically protected from development in the PPS and habitats of provincial special concern species are recognized under the Province’s Significant Wildlife Habitat categories. 6.4.1.4 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) This federal legislation protects the nests, eggs and offspring of listed migratory bird species from destruction or disturbance. In its application it requires best management practices to detect and avoid disturbance to active nests during development activities. 6.4.1.5 Ontario Regulation 42/06 (2006) CLOCA is authorized under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to implement and enforce the Ontario Regulation 42/06 – Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Permits are required to identify potential interference in areas within the 100-year floodline, 15 metres of the shoreline, 15 metres within a valley’s top of bank, Hazard Lands and 120 metres around all PSWs and ELC wetlands greater than 2 hectares and 30 metres around all ELC wetlands greater than 0.5 hectares.


6.4.2 Policies 6.4.2.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) Section 2.1, which relates specifically to natural heritage, establishes clear direction on the adoption of an ecosystem approach and the protection of resources that have been identified as “significant” such as wetlands, habitats of endangered or threatened species, fish habitat, woodlands, valleylands, wildlife habitat and areas of natural and scientific interest. A natural heritage system is defined under the PPS as:

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

The PPS also defines the watershed as the “ecologically meaningful scale for planning.” 6.4.2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) is to be read in conjunction with the PPS. Where there is a conflict between the two in the case of natural environment, the direction that provides more protection to the natural environment prevails (as per section 1.4 of the Growth Plan). In addition, it should be noted that the Growth Plan is intended to be read in its entirety and all relevant policies applied to each situation (section 5.4.1.1). Its focus is on growth management and limited direction is provided with respect to the natural environment. Section 4.2.1.3 provides direction regarding natural systems stating that “planning authorities are encouraged to identify natural heritage features and areas that complement, link or enhance natural systems.” 6.4.2.3 MNR Technical Guidelines (2010) In March 2010, the Province released the finalized second edition of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM), which is intended to guide the implementation of the PPS. The first edition NHRM reflected the focus and wording of the 1997 PPS, which was strengthened significantly in 2005, explicitly recognizing linkages “between & among natural heritage features & areas, surface water features & ground water features, & hydrological functions” which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of watersheds. The 2010 NHRM suggests an approach to the identification of natural heritage systems that builds on the 1999 version in referencing the system approach first identified in Riley and Mohr (1994), however there is increased detail and reference to more current scientific information to support the suggested approach. The 2010 NHRM updates the treatment of specific PPS-identified categories. Significant habitat of endangered and threatened species is now subject to a strengthened provincial Endangered Species Act (2007). Significant wetlands have greater focus on linkage to hydrological regimes and are subject to strengthened protection under the updated Conservation Authority Regulations. Significant woodlands are recognized in some upper tier municipal official


plans and are subject to region-specific identification criteria. Significant valleylands are recognized as having cultural heritage value in addition to ecological and hydrological significance. Significant wildlife habitats are encouraged to be identified on a comprehensive rather than site-by-site basis. And significant areas of natural and scientific interest and fish habitat are increasingly protected under the 2010 updates. The 2010 NHRM also provides helpful guidance on development of natural heritage systems in settlement areas, whether in existing built-up areas, or in designated growth areas as defined in the PPS; this has direct application to the associated secondary planning process. This guidance reflects that the Province has also enacted the Places to Grow Act and related Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe which includes policies to promote more compact and efficient urban development, which place greater emphasis on higher population densities and well integrated land uses. The interpretation of this new legislation, in concert with the PPS requires that well-defined natural heritage system strategies be developed that balance protection of natural features and functions for the long-term, with efficient land use approaches. 6.4.2.4 Greenbelt Plan (2005) Schedule 1 (Greenbelt Plan Area) of the Greenbelt Plan (2005) reveals that Port Whitby is categorized as a settlement area outside the greenbelt. As such, the study area is not governed by the regulations contained within the Greenbelt Plan. The study is however approximately 700m due east of the Greenbelt natural heritage system. The Greenbelt features closest to the study area are the Lynde Creek Marsh and Cranberry Marsh PSWs. These function as two of the few remaining coastal wetlands found along this section of the Lake Ontario shoreline. 6.4.2.5 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002) The Oak Ridges Moraine Land Use Designation Map (Ontario Regulation 140/02) reveals that Port Whitby is outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine. As such, the study area is not governed by the regulations contained within the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan. 6.4.2.6 Durham Region Official Plan / ROPA 128 (2008) Section 2.2.1 of the Durham Region Official Plan defines the natural environment to include areas designated as waterfront, major open space, and key natural heritage and hydrologic features. Schedule B (Map B1d Greenbelt Natural Heritage System & Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features) shows that the Port Whitby study area is designated as primarily urban area, with several polygons dotted throughout indicating “key natural heritage and hydrologic features.” The study area does not have any Greenbelt Natural Heritage System designation. Key natural heritage features include significant habitat of endangered, threatened, special concern and rare species; fish habitat; wetlands; biological areas of natural scientific interest (ANSI); significant valleylands; significant woodlands; significant wildlife habitat; sand barrens; savannahs; tallgrass prairies; and alvars.


Section 2.3.16 states that development in urban areas within proximity to key natural heritage or hydrologic features must determine the appropriate vegetative protections zone through the preparation of EIS requirements (section 2.3.43). Additionally, section 2.2.12 states that light pollution abatement measures are encouraged and lighting is to be directed away from key natural heritage and/or hydrologic features and vegetative protection zones. 6.4.2.7 Town of Whitby Official Plan (2009) As a lower tier municipality, the Town of Whitby Official Plan further implements the policies of the Regional Official Plan. The municipality states therein that it will encourage an ecosystem approach to environmental issues in the preparation of secondary plans. Schedule C of the Official Plan (Environmental Management) designates an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) within the study area; the Whitby Harbour Wetland Complex PSW. It also identifies Hazard Lands in the form of floodplain along Pringle Creek and lands along the Lake Ontario shoreline. ESAs are to be retained in a natural state (section 5.3.2.1). Permitted uses include non-intensive recreation, woodlots, wildlife and fisheries management and conservation areas. Development applications within an ESA will require an environmental impact assessment (EIS); development applications on land adjacent to ESAs may require an EIS (section 5.3.2.3). Proposed development on lands within120 metres of PSW also requires an EIS showing full conformity with the PPS (section 5.3.3.5). An EIS requires the following:

The type and degree of sensitivity of the environmental conditions and potential impacts of the proposed development;

The compatibility of the proposed development with the ESA;

The need for, and description of, mitigation measures to protect the sensitivity of the environmental conditions;

The location, amount and type of development; and

The location and extent of those sensitive area(s) which should be preserved.


6.4.2.8 CLOCA Natural Heritage System The goal of the CLOCA Natural Heritage System (NHS) is to its principles, targets and mapped system reflected in municipal and regional official plans and policies. These recommendations are not official policy unless they are adopted by the Town. The conservation authority’s approach to developing their NHS involved the mapping of existing features in addition to existing and potential landscape and riparian corridors which was done through a GIS buffering exercise. A Targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System (TTNHS) was developed through vector mapping of NHS components. A raster analysis determined the value of specific patches and where to increase natural cover. The functional NHS components include core habitat areas, corridors, riparian corridors, species-at-risk corridors, wetlands >/= 0.5 hectares, woodlands >/= 0.5 hectares, PSWs and ANSIs (CLOCA 2012b). A manual edit process was then conducted to fill in gaps where it was logical from an ecological standpoint and target areas were removed where not feasible (i.e. within the whitebelt area) (GGH Natural Heritage Subcommittee 2011). Figure 6.2 (following page) illustrates the CLOCA Natural Heritage System for the Port Whitby study area. The targets are to be used as a tool in watershed plans and to guide acquisition programs; they will further focus public restoration efforts to where they can be most effective and potentially guide private land stewardship initiatives. The intention is for the NHS to be flexible to allow for regional targets to be met at the site level even as land use change proposals are introduced (CLOCA 2012b).


Figure 6.2 CLOCA Natural Heritage System


6.5 Summary of Natural Heritage

Planning for the long-term protection and conservation of natural heritage is recognized for its many environmental, social and economic benefits. Some of these include the sustainability of biodiversity across the landscape, soil erosion prevention, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, flood and erosion reduction, clean air, the long-term storage of carbon, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities and the sustainable harvest of natural resources. The Town of Whitby has adopted an ecosystem based approach in the development of Secondary Plans. The systems approach at the Provincial level has evolved from a planning and administrative framework, to an ecological system of core areas, connecting corridors and linkages, which is reflected in the 1997 and 2005 versions of the PPS. This framework for natural heritage now has broad resonance in Official Plans and with the general public. It has become increasingly focused on criteria-based identification of significant natural heritage features as a defensible, transparent and practical approach to natural heritage planning. Currently, Durham Region’s Official Plan identifies key natural heritage and hydrologic features in addition to adopting the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System (NHS). The Town of Whitby designates the Whitby Harbour Wetland Complex PSW an environmentally sensitive area within the study area, and identifies Hazard Lands in the floodplain along Pringle Creek, and lands along the Lake Ontario shoreline. CLOCA has developed a NHS and a Targeted Terrestrial NHS using specific criteria (see section 6.4.2.6) and can be seen in Figure 6.2 for reference. While D&A is not recommending specific criterion for the delineation of an NHS, an analysis of existing data has been used to assess the land use opportunities and constraints based on the sensitivity of ecological features and functions. 6.5.1 Constraints Section 6.3 summarizes the known terrestrial and aquatic resources within the Port Whitby study area based on background research. Resources that form the fundamental natural heritage features and attributes within the study area have been identified, including wetlands, Hazard Lands, fish habitat and the Lake Ontario shoreline. These form constraints to development as summarized below and illustrated in Figure 6.3:

a. The Whitby Harbour Wetland Complex is a PSW and an ESA. As a provincially regulated feature, any proposed development on lands within 120 metres of a PSW requires an EIS. The wetland components are also identified as key natural heritage features in the region’s Official Plan. Development in urban areas within proximity to key natural heritage or hydrologic features must determine the appropriate vegetative protections zone through the preparation of an EIS.

b. The Lake Ontario shoreline (including Whitby Harbour) is designated as Hazard Lands by the Town, and is a regulated area (CLOCA), which requires a permit to identify potential interference. An additional constraint is that the shoreline could be potential significant wildlife habitat. Landbird migratory stopover areas are recognized as a form of seasonal concentration area. Appendix Q of the


Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000) lists suggested criteria to assist in the interpretation of landbird migratory stopover areas. The Port Whitby study area is not currently known as a significant migratory bird stopover area. There are few other lakeshore locations within the Town of Whitby to compare to, but nearby wetlands provide better and more extensive lakeshore stopover habitat. Nearby lakeshore locations outside of the Town of Whitby, such as Humber Bay, the Toronto Islands and Tommy Thompson Park (Leslie Street Spit), also provide more suitable and extensive stopover habitat. Therefore, considering the proximity of large tracts of suitable stopover habitat to the west of Port Whitby, it would likely not fulfill this suggested criterion on a regional level. However, on a local or municipal level, it would perhaps fulfill the criterion simply because the Town of Whitby has little lakeshore stopover habitat available.

c. Pringle Creek’s floodplain is designated as Hazard Lands by the Town, and the 100-year floodline is a Regulated Area (CLOCA), which requires a permit to identify potential interference. The creek itself is fish habitat. Under the Fisheries Act, no one may carry out any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

d. Pringle Creek and two other un-named creeks have been identified as key hydrologic features in the Region’s OP. These areas have been approximated on Figure 6.3 as digital data was not available. Development in urban areas within proximity to key hydrologic features must determine the appropriate vegetative protections zone through the preparation of an EIS.

e. Several wooded areas (including a cemetery) are identified as key natural heritage features in the Region’s OP. These areas have been approximated in Figure 6.3 as digital data was not available. Development in urban areas within proximity to key natural heritage or hydrologic features must determine the appropriate vegetative protections zone through the preparation of an EIS.


Figure 6.3 Constraints to Development


6.5.2 Opportunities Natural heritage planning should focus on identifying features of preservation priority. The planning framework identifies both significant natural heritage areas and other areas appropriate for protection, enhancement and integration with adjacent cultural heritage and new uses. In terms of natural heritage, the framework is composed according to the following objectives:

protect and link nodes of natural heritage areas;

protect connections to movement corridors and open space systems off-site;

capitalize on contiguous cultural heritage and natural heritage protection areas; and,

enhance natural features to frame and protect cultural heritage attributes. 6.5.2.1 Nodal Areas Nodal areas are contiguous regions of natural cover comprised of individual wetlands and woodlands (see Figure 6.4). These are important blocks that should not only be protected, but also buffered and enhanced. Roads and servicing should consider these areas and be aligned to enhance natural heritage features and open space. Enhancement plantings would serve to buffer ecological functions from existing and future development and to improve natural levels of diversity to this area (see section 6.5.2.4). 6.5.2.2 Connections Major connections provide connectivity among major physiographic and topographic features across the landscape. The major connection in the study area is to the Greenbelt and along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Secondary connections provide a subwatershed-scale connection, which for this study area is Pringle Creek, and the features linking components of the Whitby Harbour PSW. These secondary connections maintain localized linkages to terrestrial features and provide the only contiguous corridor of natural cover within the site. Local connections provide important movement corridors between natural features. They also provide movement corridors to tableland natural features that are otherwise relatively disconnected (see Figure 6.4). To achieve effective connections, the number of road crossings of terrestrial habitat features and stream crossings should be minimized or placed perpendicular to linear features where necessary. The distance between streams and roads should be maximized. Any enhancements (see section 6.5.2.4) should seek to improve the local connectivity to nodal areas and to provide natural cover for stopover migrants to shelter and forage. 6.5.2.3 Public Spaces The Secondary Plan update has the opportunity to capitalize on contiguous cultural heritage and natural heritage protection areas to form meaningful, protected, publicly accessible spaces. Community amenities could be located adjacent to natural heritage areas to take advantage of learning and recreational opportunities afforded by the natural settings. These can also serve as gateways to the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail.


6.5.2.4 Enhancement Opportunities In addition to the natural heritage component there are many other aspects of the Secondary Plan update that represent competing interests in the available land resource. Growth stipulates servicing targets such as stormwater, parks and transportation needs. Given these priorities it makes strategic sense to develop plan options with these attributes guiding the site geometry while looking for synergistic opportunities for the inclusion of natural heritage and natural capital content. Enhancement opportunities include capitalizing on the ecological function of connections (see section 6.5.2.2), including maximizing the length and width of connections to both natural heritage features and other open spaces. Boulevards and pedestrian circulation routes can be used to establish additional canopy connections between parks and other green spaces. An increase in canopy cover provides a reduction in urban heat island effect. The amount of manicured turf in public open spaces can be reduced and naturalized landscapes used instead such as forests, meadows and wetlands. Native species are to be used in plantings, including street trees. Species selections should be made based not only on historical plant communities but also on an understanding of the underlying functional characteristics currently driving the community trajectory. Consideration should also be given to the selection of species that complements other design strategies. In the existing natural areas opportunities exist to locate green infrastructure elements such as pedestrian trails and stormwater management facilities where synergies exist to enhance forested cover and native plant diversity as part of development implementation. The result would provide additional and enhanced wildlife habitat for a variety of woodland, grassland and shoreline species. Where necessary enhancement may include the removal of non-native and invasive species, diversification of species within specific areas and managed restoration of lost or disturbed habitat to improve overall ecological function. Green infrastructure features should be introduced into the built environment, including opportunities such as green roofs, bioswales and permeable paving. Vegetated treatment facilities improve stormwater retention and quality control, which is particularly important for a site on the Lake Ontario shoreline. The design of buildings adjacent to natural areas, their materials and all exterior lighting should take into consideration their potential effect on birds.


Figure 6.4 Natural Heritage Opportunities

6. Natural Heritage - Town of Whitby€¦ · Wetland Monitoring Project: 6-Year Technical Report...

Documents

Transcript of 6. Natural Heritage - Town of Whitby€¦ · Wetland Monitoring Project: 6-Year Technical Report...