Northumberland County Natural Heritage System Plan · 7/9/2018 · was prior to development, and...

Prepared for Northumberland County July 9, 2018

North-South Environmental Inc.

35 Crawford Crescent, Suite U5 P.O. Box 518 Campbellville, Ontario L0P 1B0

Northumberland County Natural Heritage System Plan Background Report

Northumberland NHS Plan DRAFT Background Report – 9 July 2018 page i

Project Study Team

North-South Environmental Inc.

Sal Spitale – Project Manager, Report Author

Mirek Sharp – Project Advisor

Melissa Tonge – Report Author

Meridian Planning Consultants

Nick McDonald – Report Author

Northumberland NHS Plan DRAFT Background Report – 9 July 2018 page ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Northumberland County Setting .................................................................................... 4

1.2 Local Government and Conservation Authorities .......................................................... 5

1.3 Land Use and Geography ................................................................................................ 7

2.0 What is a Natural Heritage System? ................................................................................... 7

2.1 NHS as a Planning Tool ................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Planning and Policy Context for Natural Heritage Systems in Northumberland County ... 9

3.1 Matters of Provincial Interest ......................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 ............................................................................................ 9

3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) ........................................................................... 11

3.1.3 Growth Plan (2017) ................................................................................................... 16

3.1.4 The Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan .............................................................. 25

3.1.5 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................ 26

3.2 County of Northumberland Official Plan (2016) ........................................................... 26

4.0 Methods and Best Practices for Developing a NHS .......................................................... 28

4.1 Ecological Principles in Conservation Biology ............................................................... 29

4.2 General Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 29

5.0 Developing the County’s Natural Heritage System .......................................................... 30

5.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest ........................................................................ 31

5.3 Habitat of endangered species and threatened species .............................................. 31

5.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................... 32

5.5 Woodlands .................................................................................................................... 33

5.6 Valleylands .................................................................................................................... 35

5.7 Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................... 36

5.8 Water ............................................................................................................................ 36

5.9 Other Components of the County’s NHS ...................................................................... 37

5.9.1 County Forests and Lands Owned by the Conservation Authority .......................... 37

5.9.2 Linkage Areas ............................................................................................................ 38

5.10 Additional NHS Components for Consideration ........................................................... 39

Northumberland NHS Plan DRAFT Background Report – 9 July 2018 page iii

5.10.1 Successional habitats ............................................................................................ 40

5.10.2 Other Conservation Lands .................................................................................... 40

5.10.3 Enhancement Areas .............................................................................................. 40

5.10.4 Buffers ................................................................................................................... 41

6.0 Greater Golden Horseshoe Natural Heritage System....................................................... 42

6.1 Mapping the GGH NHS ................................................................................................. 43

6.2 Municipal Refinement................................................................................................... 43

7.0 Existing Data and Available Mapping................................................................................ 44

8.0 Natural Heritage Protection Targets ................................................................................. 45

9.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 46

10.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 48

List of Tables

Table 1: NHS component features, sources of GIS data, and area/length of each component

feature within Northumberland County. .............................................................................. 44

List of Figures Figure 1: Municipalities of Northumberland County ...................................................................... 6

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Figures of Northumberland County NHS Components

Northumberland NHS Plan DRAFT Background Report – 9 July 2018 page 4

1.0 Introduction Natural Heritage Systems have

been shown to be an ideal

approach to maintain the long-

term viability of ecological systems

and to sustain biodiversity.

Consequently, the development of

natural heritage protection in

Ontario has evolved from a

“features-based” approach, often

characterized by the identification

of “Environmentally Sensitive

Areas”, to a systems-based approach that recognizes the importance of connecting natural

heritage features. The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) requires that, “Natural Heritage

Systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E and 7E [which includes all of Northumberland

County], recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement

areas, rural areas and prime agricultural areas” (PPS s. 2.1.3).

When the Province approved Northumberland County’s Official Plan in July 2015, policies were

included in the Official Plan to require that the County establish a NHS. At the time the Official

Plan was approved, there was widespread recognition that the County would undertake this

after all outstanding appeals were dealt with and updates to other applicable Provincial Plans

(e.g., Growth Plan 2017), were completed. Now that this has occurred, the time has come for

the County to take the lead on the establishment of a NHS in consultation with the local

municipalities and Conservation Authorities.

The background information, preliminary mapping product and results presented in this report

are intended to provide a starting point for the Technical Advisory Committee and other

stakeholders to discuss, and ultimately define, a Northumberland County NHS.

1.1 Northumberland County Setting From an ecological perspective, every place is defined by a unique suite of conditions including

landform, soils, drainage and climate, which gives rise to the vegetation and wildlife that

characterize it. Northumberland County is no exception. The physical and biotic features of the

County provide the character that identify it and which constitute the County’s natural

heritage. This includes the iconic and well-known features such as Presqu’ile Bay and the Rice


Lake Plains, as well as the plethora of lesser know wetlands, woodlands, rivers and other

features. The rich natural resources (soil, water, vegetation, etc.) have determined to a large

extent settlement patterns, thus, natural heritage features and cultural history of the County

are inextricably linked. A Natural Heritage System will not only protect the biodiversity and

ecological functions for the future, it will provide a lasting legacy of the natural heritage as it

was prior to development, and as an essential component of the County’s identity. Although

we will focus on the policy-driven requirements of the Natural Heritage System, we maintain

this larger perspective and encourage a broader integration of an NHS into the policy

framework that guides the future of the County.

Northumberland County is characterized by a varied physiographic setting as identified by

Chapman and Putnam in The Physiography of Southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam 1984).

These physiographic regions are generally described as: clay plain, sand plain, till moraine, till

plain, kame moraine and swamp and bogs. The physiography represented in Northumberland

is characterized by five physiographic regions that provide the basis for the County’s natural

heritage: the Oak Ridges Moraine, the South Slope, the Peterborough Drumlin Field, the

Dummer Moraine and the Iroquois Plain. The County has a rich diversity of physical features

including interlobate moraines, washed ancient shorelines, spillways, drumlins and eskers. The

main surface water features are the shoreline of Lake Ontario, southern shore of Rice Lake,

Trent River, Seymour Lake and the Ganaraska River. An older study by Susan Hall and Roger

Jones (1976) was probably the first County-wide documentation of natural heritage features. It

revealed 23 environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) in Northumberland County. These include

many (over 17) Provincially Significant Wetland areas including Presqu’ile Bay Marsh, Harwood

Marsh, Osaca and Murray Marsh. Northumberland also has a diversity of Provincially

Significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) include Carr Marsh,

Shelter Valley, Millvalley Hills Forest, and Murray Marsh. Earth Science ANSIs include Brighton

Bluff, Hilton, Cramahe Hill Beaches, Lakeport, Betterwood, Garden Hill Pitted Outwash,

Petherick Island Beaches, Petherick Corners Esker and Healey Falls. The woodlands fall into two

Forest Regions; the Deciduous Forest in the southern areas of the County and the Great-Lakes

St. Lawrence to the north. Together, this assemblage of features produces the diverse

landscape of the County and a basis with which to build a robust NHS.

1.2 Local Government and Conservation Authorities The County of Northumberland is the upper tier level of municipal government that contains

the following seven municipalities (Figure 1):

• Township of Alnwick/Haldimand


• Municipality of Brighton

• Town of Cobourg

• Township of Cramahe

• Township of Hamilton

• Municipality of Port Hope

• Municipality of Trent Hills

Figure 1: Municipalities of Northumberland County

The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) and the Lower Trent Conservation

Authority (LTRCA) are the two largest Conservation Authorities within the County. There are

also smaller areas of overlap between the County and the Crowe Valley CA and the Otonabee

Region CA. Conservation Authorities (CAs) are local resource management agencies working on

a watershed basis, with the aim of protecting natural areas and open spaces, and restoring and

protecting aquatic and natural habitats. Some Conservation Authorities have developed their

own natural heritage systems (e.g., Credit Valley Conservation Authority within Halton region)

and provided guidance to municipalities within their watersheds on natural heritage system

identification and management. In 2013, the GRCA developed a Terrestrial Natural Heritage

Strategy (GRCA 2013) to evaluate the status of habitat patches within the landscape, and to use

a GIS model to define target areas for an NHS. The LTRCA also prepared NHS mapping as well


as The Proposed Natural Heritage Strategy for consideration by the municipalities and First

Nations Territory of the Bay of Quinte Region - Final Report (2015). The recommendations and

guidance from the GRCA and LTRCA NHS mapping will be considered in developing the County’s

NHS.

1.3 Land Use and Geography The County covers an area of approximately 197,904.79 ha. Primary land use in the County is

mixed agriculture with approximately 97,594 hectares of farmland in use (Northumberland

County, 2018). Constituting such a large component of the land cover, it is necessary to

understand the importance of the agricultural industry and farming in shaping and protecting

the natural heritage within the County. As such, the NHS and related policies will be cognisant

of the important role of agriculture and farming in maintaining, protecting and enhancing the

NHS.

2.0 What is a Natural Heritage System?

A NHS is a network of interconnected natural features and areas such as forests, lakes, rivers,

valleylands and wetlands. These natural features provide many ecosystem services (e.g.,

pollination, clean water, soil erosion control) which support healthy rural areas and urban

communities within the County. These ecosystem services are also considered Municipal

Natural Assets, which “refers to the stocks of natural resources or ecosystems that contribute

to the provision of one or more services required for the health, well-being, and long-term

sustainability of a community and its residents” (Municipal Natural Assets Initiative, 2018).

Natural heritage systems also support many ecological functions (e.g., movement corridors for

wildlife, biodiversity maintenance, and species at risk habitat) which contribute to ecological

integrity and are valued by broader society.

The definition of natural heritage system (NHS) has been defined in the County’s OP, consistent

with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) as:

a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide

connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to

maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous

species, and ecosystems. These systems can include natural heritage features and areas,

federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other natural heritage features, lands


that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state, areas that

support hydrologic functions, and working landscapes that enable ecological functions to

continue. The Province has a recommended approach for identifying natural heritage systems,

but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may able be used.

The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) puts a greater emphasis on NHS and the use of a

systems approach to protect natural heritage, and now requires municipalities to identify NHS

while recognizing that they will “vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and

prime agricultural areas” (Policy 2.1.3, PPS 2014). The definition of NHS also now includes

“working landscapes”, which is interpreted to mean agricultural land that can be included in a

NHS owing to the ecological function it provides, but it does not mean that it needs to be

naturalized or restrict regular farming practices. The concept of working landscapes is key to

the discussion and consideration for options related to the NHS.

2.1 NHS as a Planning Tool The natural heritage systems approach is a planning tool intended to mitigate the impact and

stresses associated with existing and future development by establishing a connected system of

protected areas consisting of core areas that protect significant features and functions, and

functional ecological linkages that accommodate the natural movement patterns of plants and

animals. A natural heritage system is the appropriate approach for the protection of natural

heritage features and areas because it recognizes that individual areas and features have strong

ecological ties to each other, as well as other physical features and areas in the overall

landscape. A natural heritage system comprises a connected ecological system composed of

woodlands, wetlands, river corridors, lakes and meadows, and other natural heritage features.

These natural features may include or be augmented by areas that are in need of restoration to

improve connectivity between and among adjacent ecosystems and ecological features or to

maximize the ecological integrity of core areas through enhancement, combining core areas, or

refining boundaries to reduce the edge to interior ratio of core areas.

Ecological systems do not correspond to political boundaries, thus another aspect to consider is

the potential for connection to ecological systems beyond the boundaries of Northumberland

County, such as to the Greenbelt to the west.


3.0 Planning and Policy Context for Natural Heritage Systems in Northumberland County

Natural heritage systems planning within the County of Northumberland is supported by a

variety of provincial, regional and municipal policies. Additionally, there are many laws and

regulations directing land use planning in Ontario which serve to consider the impacts of

development and growth on the landscape, including impacts to natural resources, loss of

biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Within Northumberland County, a suite of laws and

policies have been developed to guide municipal land use planning with respect to NHSs. This

includes specific plans such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), the

Greenbelt Plan, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. These plans provide

additional levels of direction under the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

for municipal planning in the County, as discussed below.

3.1 Matters of Provincial Interest The Provincial planning system in Ontario is intended to guide growth and development across

the Province and particularly the Greater Golden Horseshoe in a co-coordinated and

comprehensive manner. As such, all Official Plans are required to be consistent with the

Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) and conform to Places to Grow: The Growth Plan for the

Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017).

3.1.1 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990

The Ontario Planning Act (Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13) is “provincial legislation that sets

out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario. It describes how land uses may be

controlled, and who may control them”. Section 1.1 of the Act states that the purposes of the

Act are:

(a) To promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within

the policy and by the means provided under this Act;

(b) To provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy;

(c) To integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions;

(d) To provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely

and efficient;

(e) To encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests;

(f) To recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in

planning.


Sub-section (a) above is intended to support sustainable economic development while

providing for a healthy natural environment.

Sub-section (b) clearly articulates the Provincial requirement that the 'land use planning system'

in Ontario be 'led by Provincial policy'. In this regard, Provincial policies clearly set out the

requirements for the establishment of a natural heritage system.

Sub-section (c) builds upon sub-section (b) by indicating that matters of Provincial interest

should be integrated into Provincial and municipal planning decisions.

Sub-section (d) provides for open planning process while sub-section (e) encourages co-

operation among various interests.

Lastly, sub-section (f) recognizes the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal

councils in making planning decisions.

Section 2 of the Planning Act sets out the responsibilities of the Council of a municipality and

the Ontario Municipal Board, with items particularly relevant to NHS emphasized in bold, as

follows:

The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal

Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other

matters, matters of provincial interest such as,

(a) The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

(b) The protection of the agricultural resources of the province;

(c) The conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;

(d) The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological

or scientific interest;

(e) The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

(f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and

water services and waste management systems;

(g) The minimization of waste;

(h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(h.1) The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to

which this act applies;

(i) The adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and

recreational facilities;


(j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

(k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities;

(l) The protection of the financial and economic well-being of the province and its

municipalities;

(m) The co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;

(n) The resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;

(o) The protection of public health and safety;

(p) The appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit

and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(r) The promotion of built form that,

(i) Is well-designed,

(ii) Encourages a sense of place, and

(iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and

vibrant.

(s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.

3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

Context For Decision Making

Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that decisions ‘in respect of the exercise of any

authority that affects a planning matter’ shall be consistent with the PPS (2014). The overall

context for decision making in this regard is established in the first two paragraphs of the Part 1

Preamble to the PPS (2014):

The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest

related to land use planning and development. As a key part of Ontario’s policy-led planning

system, the Provincial Policy Statement sets the policy foundation for regulating the

development and use of land. It also supports the provincial goal to enhance the quality of life

for all Ontarians.

The Provincial Policy Statement provides for appropriate development while protecting

resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built

environment. The Provincial Policy Statement supports improved land use planning and

management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system.

The matters of Provincial interest mentioned in the first paragraph above are included within

Section 2 of the Planning Act, as discussed above.


Provincial Vision

Part IV of the PPS (2014) establishes the vision for Ontario's land use planning system and it

clearly indicates that one of the keys to the long-term prosperity and social well-being of

Ontario residents is a strong economy. Below (emphasized in bold) are those components of

the vision that speak to natural heritage resources and which have a bearing on the

development of a natural heritage system:

The long-term prosperity and social well-being of Ontario depends upon planning for strong,

sustainable and resilient communities for people of all ages, a clean and healthy environment,

and a strong and competitive economy.

Ontario is a vast province with diverse urban, rural and northern communities which may face

different challenges related to diversity in population levels, economic activity, pace of growth

and physical and natural conditions. Some areas face challenges related to maintaining

population and diversifying their economy, while other areas face challenges related to

accommodating and managing the development and population growth which is occurring,

while protecting important resources and the quality of the natural environment. The

Provincial Policy Statement reflects this diversity and is based on good planning principles that

apply in communities across Ontario.

The Provincial Policy Statement focuses growth within settlement areas and away from

significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety. It

recognizes that the wise management of land use change may involve directing, promoting or

sustaining development. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate

development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient

development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose

a risk to public health and safety.

Efficient development patterns optimize the use of land, resources and public investment in

infrastructure and public service facilities. These land use patterns promote a mix of housing,

including affordable housing, employment, recreation, parks and open spaces, and

transportation choices that facilitate pedestrian mobility and other modes of travel. They also

support the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term, and

minimize the undesirable effects of development, including impacts on air, water and other

resources. Strong, liveable and healthy communities promote and enhance human health and

social well-being, are economically and environmentally sound, and are resilient to climate

change.


The Province’s natural heritage resources, water, agricultural lands, mineral resources, and

cultural heritage and archaeological resources provide important environmental, economic

and social benefits. The wise use and management of these resources over the long term is a

key provincial interest. The Province must ensure that its resources are managed in a

sustainable way to protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety,

minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet its long-term needs.

It is equally important to protect the overall health and safety of the population. The Provincial

Policy Statement directs development away from areas of natural and human-made hazards,

where these hazards cannot be mitigated. This preventative approach supports provincial and

municipal financial well-being over the long term, protects public health and safety, and

minimizes cost, risk and social disruption. Taking action to conserve land and resources avoids

the need for costly remedial measures to correct problems and supports economic and

environmental principles.

Strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy are inextricably

linked. Long-term prosperity, human and environmental health and social well-being should

take precedence over short-term considerations.

The fundamental principles set out in the Provincial Policy Statement apply throughout Ontario.

To support our collective well-being, now and in the future, all land use must be well managed.

The Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System may be further articulated through planning

direction for specific areas of the Province issued through provincial plans, such as those plans

created under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Oak Ridges

Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, which are approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The introductory paragraph in Section 2.0 (Wise Use and Management of Resources) of the PPS

(2014) states the following:

Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on

conserving biodiversity, protecting the health of the Great Lakes, and protecting natural

heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for

their economic, environmental and social benefits. Accordingly:

It is noted that this paragraph sets the stage for the remaining policies in Section 2.0 of the PPS

(2014) as a result of the use of the word ‘accordingly’ at the end.

Section 2.1.2 of the PPS (2014) states the following:


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 in areas,

surface water features and ground water features.

In this case, natural heritage features in areas are defined as follows:

Natural heritage features and areas: means features and areas, including significant wetlands,

significant coastal wetlands, other coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, fish habitat,

significant woodlands and significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in

Lake Huron and the St. Marys River), habitat of endangered species and threatened species,

significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are

important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an

area.

The definition of natural heritage system in the PPS (2014) was also significantly expanded in

the 2014 version of the PPS. Below are the additions to the definition emphasized in bold:

Natural heritage system: means a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and

linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural

processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions,

viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. These systems can include natural

heritage features and areas, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other

natural heritage features, lands that have been restored and areas with or have the potential

to be restored to a natural state, areas that support hydrologic functions, and working

landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. The Province has a recommended

approach for identifying natural heritage systems, but municipal approaches that achieve or

exceed the same objective may also be used.

The expanded definition of natural heritage system in the PPS (2014) expands upon the nature

of the features and functions that need to be considered in developing such a system and it

recognizes that municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be

used.

The Use of Words in the PPS 2014

The PPS (2014) significantly expanded upon Part III (How to Read the Provincial Policy

Statement) from the PPS (2005).

There is now a discussion in Part III on the need to read the entire PPS, the need to consider

specific policy language and the geographic scale of the policies.


This section also confirms that the policies represent minimum standards and it also articulates

the relationship of the 2014 PPS with Provincial plans.

This new section also contains direction on defined terms and meanings and guidance material.

There is one enhancement in Part III of interest that was made in 2014 and it deals with the

language used in the 2014 PPS. This enhancement is reproduced below:

When applying the Provincial Policy Statement it is important to consider the specific language

of the policies. Each policy provides direction on how it is to be implemented, how it is situated

within the broader Provincial Policy Statement, and how it relates to other policies.

Some policies set out positive directives, such as “settlement areas shall be the focus of growth

and development.” Other policies set out limitations and prohibitions, such as “development

and site alteration shall not be permitted.” Other policies use enabling or supportive language,

such as “should,” “promote” and “encourage.”

The choice of language is intended to distinguish between the types of policies and the nature

of implementation. There is some discretion when applying a policy with enabling or supportive

language in contrast to a policy with a directive, limitation or prohibition.

On the basis of the above, it is clear that the Province, in writing and updating the 2014 PPS,

was very cautious and deliberate with respect to the words used.

Of particular interest to decision-makers is whether a particular policy incorporates the word

“shall”, “should”, “promote” or “encourage”. The latter three are enabling or supportive, while

the first (shall) when applied to a policy is a directive, limitation or prohibition.

This is supported by the statement in Part III of the 2014 PPS, which indicates that there is some

discretion when applying a policy with enabling or supportive language in contrast to a policy

with a directive, limitation or prohibition. In this regard, wherever the word ‘shall’ is used, it is

a directive, limitation or a prohibition.

With respect to the development of a natural heritage system in the County of

Northumberland, below is a list of a few of the relevant directives, limitations and prohibitions

(using the word 'shall') from the 2014 PPS that will need to be considered:

Section 1.2.4 e) - Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier

municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall identify and provide policy

direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries.


Section 1.6.7.5 – Transportation and land use considerations shall be integrated at all stages of

the planning process.

Section 2.1.1 - Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

Section 2.1.3 - Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E1, recognizing

that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and

prime agricultural areas.

Section 2.1.5 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in……..unless it has been

demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological

functions.

Section 2.1.8 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural

heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of

the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative

impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

Section 4.4 - This Provincial Policy Statement shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to

be applied to each situation.

3.1.3 Growth Plan (2017)

Background

The Provincial Government adopted the Places To Grow Act in June 2005. The Act provides a

framework for the adoption of regional-scale Growth Plans. The first of these, the Growth Plan

for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, was adopted by Regulation in June 2006.

The Growth Plan is a statement of Provincial policy directing growth-related planning decisions

over the next 30 years. The intent of the Growth Plan is to significantly reduce urban sprawl

and land consumption while making more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The Growth

Plan requires that municipalities look to new ways to accommodate growth that breaks from

the past, in terms of how communities are designed, and how land uses are mixed, all in an

effort to improve our quality of life, our health and our general well-being.

The Growth Plan contains a vision for 2041 for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This vision is

described through a series of maps and text, and contains policies dealing with the essential

aspects of the Plan. The Growth Plan contains specifics on where and how the area will grow

and the infrastructure that may be needed to support that growth. A section of the Growth


Plan also deals with the natural heritage system, agricultural system, rural areas and mineral

aggregate resources.

The Growth Plan establishes specific policies dealing with forecasts, intensification, urban

growth centres and intensification corridors, employment areas, urban boundaries, and small

cities and towns. It also establishes minimum densities that new development must achieve,

requires that urban growth centre and intensification corridor boundaries be delineated,

creates strong policies dealing with the preservation of employment areas and lists the criteria

to be met to justify urban boundary expansions.

A chapter on infrastructure deals with transportation and water/wastewater systems. A

chapter entitled "Protecting What is Valuable" establishes policies related to the natural

system, agricultural system, rural areas, mineral aggregate and cultural heritage resources.

There is also a chapter providing for implementation measures, including monitoring and

review of the Plan’s policies and projections.

The Growth Plan was recently updated in 2017 and it contains updated requirements for

municipal comprehensive reviews and it increases the minimum intensification target and the

minimum designated Greenfield area targets.

One of the key changes made in the updated Growth Plan deals with natural heritage. In this

regard, Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 of the Growth Plan now states the following:

1. The Province will map a Natural Heritage System for the GGH to support a comprehensive,

integrated, and long-term approach to planning for the protection of the region's natural

heritage and biodiversity. The Natural Heritage System mapping will exclude lands within

settlement area boundaries that were approved and in effect as of July 1, 2017.

2. Municipalities will incorporate the Natural Heritage System as an overlay in official plans,

and will apply appropriate policies to maintain, restore, or enhance the diversity and

connectivity of the system and the long-term ecological or hydrologic functions of the

features and areas as set out in the policies in this subsection and the policies in

subsections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.

This new policy set the stage for the release of Provincial mapping (which is discussed later in

this report).

Section 4.2.2.3 of the Growth Plan then states the following, with the relevant direction to

municipalities emphasized in bold:

3. Within the Natural Heritage System:


a) New development or site alteration will demonstrate that:

i) There are no negative impacts on key natural heritage features or key

hydrologic features or their functions;

ii) Connectivity along the system and between key natural heritage features

and key hydrologic features located within 240 metres of each other will be

maintained or, where possible, enhanced for the movement of native plants

and animals across the landscape;

iii) The removal of other natural features not identified as key natural heritage

features and key hydrologic features is avoided, where possible. Such

features should be incorporated into the planning and design of the

proposed use wherever possible;

iv) Except for uses described in and governed by the policies in subsection 4.2.8,

the disturbed area, including any buildings and structures, will not exceed 25

per cent of the total developable area, and the impervious surface will not

exceed 10 per cent of the total developable area;

v) With respect to golf courses, the disturbed area will not exceed 40 per cent

of the total developable area; and

vi) At least 30 per cent of the total developable area will remain or be returned

to natural self-sustaining vegetation, except where specified in accordance

with the policies in subsection 4.2.8; and

b) The full range of existing and new agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, on-

farm diversified uses, and normal farm practices are permitted. However, new

buildings or structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, or on-farm

diversified uses are not subject to policy 4.2.2.3 a), but are subject to the policies in

subsections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.

It is noted that the Growth Plan does not use the word 'shall' as in the PPS (2014). In the case

of the Growth Plan, the word 'will' is used instead, which has the same meaning as 'shall' and is

therefore mandatory.

Section 4.2.2.4 deals with existing natural heritage systems as set out below:

4. The natural heritage systems identified in official plans that are approved and in effect as

of July 1, 2017 will continue to be protected in accordance with the relevant official plan

until the Natural Heritage System has been issued.


This policy does not apply to the County of Northumberland, since such a natural heritage

system has not been established in its Official Plan. Section 4.2.2.5 then deals with

implementation:

5. In implementing the Natural Heritage System, upper- and single-tier municipalities may,

through a municipal comprehensive review, refine provincial mapping with greater

precision in a manner that is consistent with this Plan.

One of the products of our work will potentially be a revised natural heritage system, which can

then be implemented by the County through a Municipal Comprehensive Review.

One of the challenges that will face the County in the implementation of the Growth Plan

originates in Section 4.2.2.6 below:

6. Beyond the Natural Heritage System, including within settlement areas, the municipality:

a. Will continue to protect any other natural heritage features in a manner that is

consistent with the PPS; and

b. May continue to protect any other natural heritage system or identify new systems

in a manner that is consistent with the PPS.

The above means that different policies may apply in different parts of the County based on

whether the lands are within the natural heritage system provided for in the Growth Plan. This

is because the policies above only apply to lands that are within the 'natural heritage system' as

mapped by the Province, as per the definition of natural heritage system below:

The system mapped and issued by the Province in accordance with this Plan, comprised of

natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the

regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological

and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and

ecosystems. The system can include key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features,

federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other natural heritage features and

areas, lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state,

associated areas that support hydrologic functions, and working landscapes that enable

ecological functions to continue. (Based on PPS, 2014 and modified for this Plan)

Section 1.2.3 of the Growth Plan also indicates the following on this matter:

The PPS provides overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to land use

and development in Ontario, and applies to the GGH, except where this Plan or another

provincial plan provides otherwise.


Like other provincial plans, this Plan builds upon the policy foundation provided by the PPS and

provides additional and more specific land use planning policies to address issues facing specific

geographic areas in Ontario. This Plan is to be read in conjunction with the PPS. The policies of

this Plan take precedence over the policies of the PPS to the extent of any conflict, except where

the relevant legislation provides otherwise. Where the policies of this Plan address the same,

similar, related, or overlapping matters as policies in the PPS, applying the more specific policies

of this Plan satisfies the requirements of the more general policies in the PPS. In contrast, where

matters addressed in the PPS do not overlap with policies in this Plan, those PPS policies must be

independently satisfied.

It is the last sentence above that essentially indicates that where a PPS policy addresses a

matter (such as natural heritage features and areas outside of the Provincial natural heritage

system), the PPS applies. Options for the County to consider moving forward include:

1. Creating one County-wide natural heritage system and applying the Growth Plan policy

framework on permitted uses and development criteria to all parts of the system, which

has the effect of going beyond the minimum standards set out in the PPS (2014) for areas

outside of the Provincial natural heritage system; or

2. Creating one County-wide natural heritage system, but divide it into components A and B

and apply different policies for each.

Section 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan (2017) contains extensive policies on key features with the

relevant direction to municipalities emphasized in bold as per below:

4.2.3 Key Hydrologic Features, Key Hydrologic Areas and Key Natural Heritage Features

1. Outside of settlement areas, development or site alteration is not permitted in key natural

heritage features that are part of the Natural Heritage System or in key hydrologic

features, except for:

a) Forest, fish, and wildlife management;

b) Conservation and flood or erosion control projects, but only if they have been

demonstrated to be necessary in the public interest and after all alternatives have

been considered;

c) Activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental

assessment process;

d) Mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries;

e) Expansions to existing buildings and structures, accessory structures and uses, and

conversions of legally existing uses which bring the use more into conformity with


this Plan, subject to demonstration that the use does not expand into the key

hydrologic feature or key natural heritage feature or vegetative protection zone

unless there is no other alternative, in which case any expansion will be limited in

scope and kept within close geographical proximity to the existing structure;

f) Expansions or alterations to existing buildings and structures for agricultural uses,

agriculture-related uses, or on-farm diversified uses and expansions to existing

residential dwellings if it is demonstrated that:

i. There is no alternative, and the expansion or alteration in the feature is

minimized and, in the vegetation protection zone, is directed away from the

feature to the maximum extent possible; and

ii. The impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is

minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent possible; and

g) Small-scale structures for recreational uses, including boardwalks, footbridges,

fences, docks, and picnic facilities, if measures are taken to minimize the number of

such structures and their negative impacts.

2. Outside of settlement areas, proposals for large-scale development proceeding by way of

plan of subdivision, vacant land plan of condominium or site plan may be permitted within

a key hydrologic area where it is demonstrated that the hydrologic functions, including the

quality and quantity of water, of these areas will be protected and, where possible,

enhanced or restored through:

a) The identification of planning, design, and construction practices and techniques;

b) Meeting other criteria and direction set out in the applicable watershed planning or

subwatershed plans; and

c) Meeting any applicable provincial standards, guidelines, and procedures.

It is noted that by virtue of indicating that the natural heritage system and key hydrologic

features are separate items in the first sentence of Section 4.2.3.1 that the policies that follow

also apply to key hydrologic features that are outside of the Provincial natural heritage system.

It would also appear that Section 4.2.3.2 applies to the entire County.

Section 4.2.4 of the Growth Plan (2017) then deals with adjacent lands and also applies to lands

within the Provincial natural heritage system and key hydrologic features as per below:

4.2.4 Lands Adjacent to Key Hydrologic Features and Key Natural Heritage Features

1. Outside settlement areas, a proposal for new development or site alteration within 120

metres of a key natural heritage feature within the Natural Heritage System or a key


hydrologic feature will require a natural heritage evaluation or hydrologic evaluation that

identifies a vegetation protection zone, which:

a. Is of sufficient width to protect the key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic

feature and its functions from the impacts of the proposed change;

b. Is established to achieve and be maintained as natural self-sustaining vegetation;

and

c. For key hydrologic features, fish habitat, and significant woodlands, is no less than

30 metres measured from the outside boundary of the key natural heritage feature

or key hydrologic feature.

2. Evaluations undertaken in accordance with policy 4.2.4.1 will identify any additional

restrictions to be applied before, during, and after development to protect the hydrologic

functions and ecological functions of the feature.

3. Development or site alteration is not permitted in the vegetation protection zone, with the

exception of that described in policy 4.2.3.1 or shoreline development as permitted in

accordance with policy 4.2.4.5.

4. Notwithstanding policies 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2 and 4.2.4.3:

a. A natural heritage or hydrologic evaluation will not be required for a proposal for

development or site alteration on a site where the only key natural heritage feature

is the habitat of endangered species and threatened species;

b. New buildings and structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, or on-

farm diversified uses will not be required to undertake a natural heritage or

hydrologic evaluation if a minimum 30 metre vegetation protection zone is provided

from a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature; and

c. Uses permitted in accordance with policy 4.2.4.4 b):

i) Are exempt from the requirement of establishing a condition of natural self-

sustaining vegetation if the land is, and will continue to be, used for

agricultural purposes; and

ii) Will pursue best management practices to protect and restore key natural

heritage features, key hydrologic features, and their functions.

5. Outside of settlement areas, in developed shoreline areas of inland lakes that are

designated or zoned for concentrations of development as of July 1, 2017, infill

development, redevelopment and resort development is permitted, subject to municipal

and agency planning and regulatory requirements, if the development will:

a) Be integrated with existing or proposed parks and trails, and will not constrain

ongoing or planned stewardship and remediation efforts;

b) Restore, to the maximum extent possible, the ecological features and functions in

developed shoreline areas; and


c) In the case of redevelopment and resort development:

i) Establish, or increase the extent and width of, a vegetation protection zone

along the shoreline to a minimum of 30 metres;

ii) Increase the extent of fish habitat in the littoral zone;

iii) Be planned, designed, and constructed to protect hydrologic functions, minimize

erosion, and avoid or mitigate sedimentation and the introduction of nutrient or

other pollutants into the lake;

iv) Exclude shoreline structures that will impede the natural flow of water or

exacerbate algae concerns along the shoreline;

v) Enhance the ability of native plants and animals to use the shoreline as both

wildlife habitat and a movement corridor;

vi) Use lot-level stormwater controls to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and

pollutant loadings;

vii) Use natural shoreline treatments, where practical, for shoreline stabilization,

erosion control, or protection;

viii) Meet other criteria and direction set out in applicable watershed planning and

subwatershed plans;

ix) Be serviced by sewage works which reduce nutrient inputs to groundwater and

the lake from baseline levels; and

x) Demonstrate available capacity in the receiving water body based on inputs

from existing and approved development.

Section 4.2.4 above is very detailed and it establishes new policy minimums that will need to be

included within the County Official Plan, including the requirement for a minimum vegetation

protection zone of 30 metres measured from the outside boundary of key hydrologic features,

fish habitat, and significant woodlands, where development and site alteration is not

permitted. In addition, a vegetation protection zone with a minimum width of 30 metres is also

required adjacent to the shoreline of inland lakes such as Rice Lake. The policies relating to the

conditions under which development and site alteration may be permitted are also very specific

and will need to be incorporated in the County Official Plan verbatim.

It is also noted that there are a number of new policy requirements that apply to new or

expanding mineral aggregate operations in the Provincial natural heritage system in Section

4.2.8.2 as well that will need to be incorporated in the County Official Plan as well. This section

is reproduced below:

2. Notwithstanding the policies in subsections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, within the Natural

Heritage System, mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries are subject

to the following:


a. No new mineral aggregate operation and no new wayside pits and quarries, or any

ancillary or accessory use thereto, will be permitted in the following key natural

heritage features and key hydrologic features:

i) Significant wetlands;

ii) Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; and

iii) Significant woodlands unless the woodland is occupied by young plantation or

early successional habitat, as defined by the Province, in which case, the

application must demonstrate that policies 4.2.8.4 b) and c) and 4.2.8.5 c)

have been addressed and that they will be met by the operation;

b. Any application for a new mineral aggregate operation will be required to

demonstrate:

i) How the connectivity between key natural heritage features and key

hydrologic features will be maintained before, during, and after the extraction

of mineral aggregate resources;

ii) How the operator could replace key natural heritage features and key

hydrologic features that would be lost from the site with equivalent features

on another part of the site or on adjacent lands;

iii) How the water resource system will be protected or enhanced; and

iv) How any key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features and their

associated vegetation protection zones not identified in policy 4.2.2.3 a) will be

addressed in accordance with policies 4.2.8.4 b) and c) and 4.2.8.5 c); and

c. An application requiring a new approval under the Aggregate Resources Act to

expand an existing mineral aggregate operation may be permitted in the Natural

Heritage System, including in key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features

and any associated vegetation protection zones, only if the related decision is

consistent with the PPS and satisfies the rehabilitation requirements of the policies

in this subsection.

The implication of this new section above is that new mineral aggregate operations are no

longer permitted within significant woodlands within the Provincial natural heritage system,

but would be permitted within significant woodlands outside of the natural heritage system

subject to the PPS (2014). Given the directive nature of this policy, this means that there would

be two policy frameworks applying to mineral aggregate resources in the County depending on

whether the lands were within the Provincial natural heritage system or subject to the PPS

(2014). There are also a number of new policies on rehabilitation in Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5,

some of which are specific to lands within the Provincial natural heritage system and others,

which would apply to the entire County.


Lastly, Section 4.2.1.2 of the Growth Plan requires that water resource systems be identified as

set out below:

Water resource systems will be identified, informed by watershed planning and other available

information, and the appropriate designations and policies will be applied in official plans to

provide for the long-term protection of key hydrologic features, key hydrologic areas, and their

functions.

The Growth Plan defines water resource system as per below:

A system consisting of ground water features and areas and surface water features (including

shoreline areas), and hydrologic functions, which provide the water resources necessary to

sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and human water consumption. The water

resource system will comprise key hydrologic features and key hydrologic areas.

3.1.4 The Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP 2017) was developed “to provide land use

and resource management planning direction to provincial ministers, ministries, and agencies,

municipalities, landowners and other stakeholders on how to protect the Moraine’s ecological

and hydrological features and functions.

Objectives of the ORMCP

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 establishes the following objectives for the Oak

Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan:

(a) protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area;

(b) ensuring that only land and resource uses that maintain, improve or restore the ecological

and hydrological functions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area are permitted;

(c) maintaining, improving or restoring all the elements that contribute to the ecological and

hydrological functions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, including the quality and quantity of its

water and its other resources;

(d) ensuring that the Oak Ridges Moraine Area is maintained as a continuous natural landform

and environment for the benefit of present and future generations;

(e) providing for land and resource uses and development that are compatible with the other

objectives of the Plan;

(f) providing for continued development within existing urban settlement areas and recognizing

existing rural settlements;


(g) providing for a continuous recreational trail through the Oak Ridges Moraine Area that is

accessible to all including persons with disabilities;

(h) providing for other public recreational access to the Oak Ridges Moraine Area; and

(i) any other prescribed objectives.

Land use designations identified in the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) include:

Natural Core Areas, Natural Linkage Areas, Country Areas and Settlement Areas. The Natural

Core Areas designation applies to those areas with high concentration of key Natural Heritage

features, hydrologically sensitive features or landform conservation areas. The lands designated

Natural Linkage Areas “are areas forming part of a central corridor system that support or have

the potential to support movement of plants and animals among the Natural Core Areas,

Natural Linkage Areas, river valleys and stream corridors”. The Natural Heritage policies of the

ORMCP will continue to be applied to key features within the ORMCP boundary. In addition,

the criteria for mapping significant features within the ORCMP will be based on the definitions

and technical papers developed for the ORMCP.

3.1.5 Endangered Species Act The provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007, protects Endangered and Threatened species that

have been identified by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)

and for which are listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. Under this Act, the habitat of

Endangered and Threatened species is also protected. In NHSs, the habitat of threatened and

endangered species may be included, however due to uncertainties for where habitat occurs,

especially at a large scale, it is not often mapped. Further, threatened and endangered species

occurrences and habitats is considered sensitive information, and generally restricted.

In order to balance social considerations with the protection of Species at Risk (SAR), the ESA

enables the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to issue permits in order to

authorize proponents and landowners to enter into agreements that allow activities that would

otherwise be prohibited (e.g., in some circumstances habitat for SAR may be moved or

recreated elsewhere). Wherever reference to Species at Risk are made within the natural

heritage policies of the Official Plan, reference will be made to the ESA as the prevailing Act

with regulations. This will include directing consultation with the MNRF pertaining to SAR.

3.2 County of Northumberland Official Plan (2016)

The County of Northumberland recognizes the importance of natural heritage in Guiding

Principle 10, where these principles are intended to establish the basis for making land use

planning decisions in the future: To protect natural heritage features and areas and their


associated ecological functions so that they can be enjoyed by future generations and serve as a

legacy to all peoples within the County.

Section D1 of the approved Northumberland Official Plan ('NOP') deals with natural heritage

and it establishes the following objectives in Section D1.1:

It is the objective of this Plan to:

a) Provide the basis for the establishment of a natural heritage system through the

preparation of an Official Plan Amendment that is initiated by the County;

b) Raise the public’s awareness that natural heritage features are important to the County

of Northumberland and to its local municipalities and should be protected for future

generations;

c) Maintain, improve and where possible, restore the health, diversity, size and

connectivity of natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive features and related

ecological functions;

d) Maintain natural stream form and flow characteristics and the integrity and quality of

watercourses;

e) Ensure that only land uses that maintain, improve or restore the ecological and

hydrological functions of the natural heritage and hydrologic features are permitted;

f) Encourage the acquisition of land that is the site of significant natural heritage features

by public authorities for conservation purposes;

g) Provide the tools to properly assess development applications located in close proximity

to natural heritage features;

h) Ensure that development is appropriately setback from significant natural heritage

features;

i) Encourage and support the Ministry of Natural Resources and the appropriate

Conservation Authority in conducting evaluations of unevaluated wetlands within the

County; and,

j) Provide opportunities, where appropriate, for passive outdoor recreational activities.

Section D1.2 then deals with the establishment of a natural heritage system as set out below:

The County of Northumberland is committed to maintaining and promoting a healthy natural

environment and protecting its unique and special natural heritage features for the present

generation and all successive generations. On the basis of this, it is a policy of this Plan that a

natural heritage system be established, in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources

and Forestry, resulting in an Official Plan Amendment to identify the system and incorporate

appropriate policies. This Amendment will be undertaken within three years of the approval of

this Plan.


Section D1.3 lists the Components of a Natural Heritage System, which include the following:

a) Provincially significant wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, which are

designated Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A to this Plan;

b) Provincially significant coastal wetlands;

c) Habitat of endangered species and threatened species;

d) Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest;

e) Significant wildlife habitat areas and other wildlife habitat areas;

f) Significant woodlands and other woodlands;

g) Significant valleylands and other valleylands;

h) Fish habitat;

i) Non-Provincially significant coastal wetlands and other wetlands;

j) Watercourses;

k) County forests and lands owned by the Conservation Authority; and,

l) Linkage areas subject to Section D1.4 of this Plan.

Section D1.4 describes what comprises a Linkage Area:

Linkage areas may include linear natural features such as streams, floodplains, and steep

slopes, valleys, contiguous narrow woodlands and wetlands that connect two or more natural

heritage features which provide for movement of plants and animals. It is the intent of the

County to identify these corridors when a natural heritage system is developed in accordance

with Section D1.2 of this Plan.

As noted above, Linkage Areas will be further defined and identified as part of the

development of the NHS.

4.0 Methods and Best Practices for Developing a NHS

Various methods have been used to assess and develop NHSs, with most evaluations using

more than one criterion such as size, connectedness, regional representation and hydrologic

function (Riley and Moore, 1994, Forman 1995), as well as ecological characteristics such as

wildlife habitat, community and species diversity, quality and condition (OMNR 2005). The

Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRN) was developed by the province of Ontario to

provide technical guidance to implement the natural heritage policies of the PPS (OMNR 2010).

In particular, the NHRM recommends that NHSs should be identified using a ‘comprehensive

approach’ that evaluates the contribution of all land cover and habitats to the ecological


function and biodiversity of landscapes and examines deficiencies that should be rectified to

address diversity and connectivity.

The comprehensive NHS approach is founded on a recognition that individual natural areas and

features have strong ecological ties to one another as well as ecological interdependencies

within the larger landscape. The approach places a strong emphasis on maintaining and

enhancing the ecological functions (e.g., corridors, linkages) that sustain biodiversity rather

than simply serving to protect individual features or patches of habitat, based on their own

merit. As a result, the NHS approach should serve to preserve and enhance the functional

connections amongst features and areas to sustain the movement of plants and animals, in

recognition of the importance of daily, seasonal, annual and long-term movement patterns.

This approach to NHS planning supports a key guiding principle in Northumberland County’s

Official Plan, “To protect natural features and areas and their associated ecological functions so

that they can be enjoyed by future generations and serve as a legacy to all peoples within the

County”.

4.1 Ecological Principles in Conservation Biology

The development of a resilient system of linked natural heritage features should consider

ecological principles in conservation biology, which focus on protecting species and habitat

diversity, ecosystem structure and functions, and ensuring the resiliency of natural systems to

disturbance. Such ecological principles include:

• Island biogeography - examines the factors that affect the species richness of isolated

natural communities (e.g. fragmented forests)

• Ecological resilience – “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize

while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure,

identity, and feedbacks” (Walker et.al. 2004)

4.2 General Guidelines

Based on a scientific review, Environment Canada has provided some minimum guidelines for

natural cover in watersheds (Environment Canada 2004):

• At least 30% of a watershed should be in forest cover;

• The proportion of a watershed that is forest cover 100m or further from the forest edge

should be greater than 10%; the proportion of forest cover 200m or further from the

forest edge should be greater than five percent;


• Greater than 10% of each major watershed should be in wetland habitat; greater than

six percent of each subwatershed should be in wetland habitat;

• Wetlands of a variety of sizes, types and hydroperiods should be maintained across a

landscape;

• A minimum of 75% of stream length should be naturally vegetated;

• Streams should have a minimum 30m wide naturally vegetated adjacent lands area on

both sides, greater depending on site-specific conditions; and

• Corridors designed to facilitate species movement should be a minimum of 50m to

100m in width.

The extent of existing natural cover in Northumberland County and scientific recommendation

for natural cover together may be used to inform the development of thresholds that can be

used in the development of a Natural Heritage System.

5.0 Developing the County’s Natural Heritage System

The County’s OP provides direction for developing the NHS based on the components listed in

Section D1.3. These components have been described below as well as additional information

for developing criteria to determine significance for some features (e.g. significant woodlands).

5.1 Wetlands

The County’s NHS components list PSWs, Provincially significant coastal wetlands, and non-

Provincially significant coastal wetlands and other wetlands. The County’s OP defines wetlands

as “lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where

the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has

caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic

plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs

and fens. Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer

exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this

definition”. This definition has been adopted verbatim from the 2014 PPS definition of

wetland.

In regard to wetlands, significant has been defined by the County as “an area identified as

provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources using evaluation


procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time.” This definition has

also been adopted verbatim from the 2014 PPS definition of significant wetland.

The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) was developed by OMNR in 1984 and has been

periodically updated since (currently 3rd Edition, Version 3.2 (Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources 2013). OWES is the provincial standard used to delineate and evaluate wetlands in

the Province of Ontario. Identification and delineation of outer wetland boundaries is based,

first and foremost, on the presence and relative abundance of wetland plant species. OWES

evaluates the importance of a wetland based on a scoring system where four components

(biological, social, hydrological and special features) are evaluated. Once evaluated, a wetland

can become either a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) or an evaluated non-provincially

significant wetland (non-PSW). Municipalities can choose to designate non-PSWs as locally

significant wetlands or key natural heritage features in their official plans.

5.2 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

The County’s NHS components list ANSIs as well as maps them as part of Environmental

Protection Areas on Schedule A of the Official Plan. The County’s OP defines Areas of Natural

and Scientific Interest (ANSI) as “areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or

features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to

protection, scientific study or education”. This definition has also been adopted verbatim from

the 2014 PPS definition of ANSI. Significant, in regard to ANSIs, has been defined as “an area

identified as provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources using

evaluation procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time”, according

to County, which has adopted the definition from the 2014 PPS. MNRF is responsible for

identifying and assessing unique or representative physical, biological cultural and historical

features (i.e., ANSIs).

5.3 Habitat of endangered species and threatened species

The County’s NHS components list habitat of endangered species and threatened species. The

County’s OP define habitat of endangered and threatened species as the following:

a) With respect to a species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or

threatened species for which a regulation made under clause 55(1)(a) of the Endangered

Species Act, 2007 is in force, the area prescribed by that regulation as the habitat of the species;

or


b) With respect to any other species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an

endangered or threatened species, an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly,

to carry on its life processes, including life processes such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation,

migration or feeding, as approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

and

c) Places in the areas described in clause (a) or (b), whichever is applicable, that are used by

members of the species as dens, nests, hibernacula or other residences.

Policy D1.6.a) provides an explanation of this NHS component:

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) administers the Endangered Species Act,

2007 (ESA) to protect and conserve species at risk and their habitats. Under the ESA, the MNRF

is responsible for identifying and approving general and regulated habitat, as well as giving

technical advice on species at risk and their habitats. The MNRF is responsible for approving the

delineation of habitat for species identified as endangered and threatened.

The purposes of the ESA are to:

• identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including

information obtained from community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional

knowledge;

• protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and promote the recovery of species

that are at risk; and

• promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that

are at risk.

It is important to note that a species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list as an

extirpated, endangered or threatened species receives protection under section 9 of the ESA.

In addition, for a species listed as an endangered or threatened species, its habitat also receives

protection under section 10 of the ESA. Subsection 10(1) of the ESA states that “No person

shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario

[SARO] list as an endangered or threatened species”.

5.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat

The County’s NHS components list Significant wildlife habitat areas and other wildlife habitat

areas. The County’s OP defines wildlife habitat as “areas where plants, animals and other

organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain

their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species


concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle; and areas which are important to

migratory or non-migratory species”. This definition has been adopted verbatim from the 2014

PPS definition of wildlife habitat.

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is considered “ecologically important in terms of features,

functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an

identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system”, according to the 2014 PPS definition.

Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF, January 2015) provide

further guidance on identifying SWH, building on the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical

Guide (MNRF, 2000).

Mapping of SWH is not currently available for the County. Limited information is available to

map SWH, as such mapping may most appropriately be determined through environmental

studies completed in support of site specific applications.

5.5 Woodlands

The County’s NHS components list Significant woodlands and other woodlands. The County’s

Official Plan defines Woodlands as “treed areas that provide environmental and economic

benefits to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention,

hydrological and nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-term storage of carbon,

provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the sustainable harvest of

a wide range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested

areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels.

Woodlands may be delineated according to the Forestry Act definition or the Province’s

Ecological Land Classification system definition for “forest”.” This definition has been adopted

verbatim from the 2014 PPS definition of woodland.

The Forest Act definition of woodlands means “land with at least, (a) 1,000 trees, of any size,

per hectare, (b) 750 trees, measuring over five centimetres in diameter, per hectare, (c) 500

trees, measuring over 12 centimetres in diameter, per hectare, or (d) 250 trees, measuring over

20 centimetres in diameter, per hectare, but does not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard

or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees.”

The Province’s Ecological Land Classification system definition for “forest” is “A terrestrial

vegetation community with at least 60% tree cover”.


The County defines significant woodlands as “an area which is ecologically important in terms

of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history; functionally important

due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the

amount of forest cover in the planning area; or economically important due to site quality,

species composition, or past management history. These are to be identified using criteria

established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources”. This definition has been adopted

verbatim from the 2014 PPS definition of significant woodland.

The ORMCP definition of significant woodlands is consistent with the County’s definition. The

ORMCP Technical Paper 7 – Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands provides

further guidance and criteria for identifying significant woodlands within the ORMCP area, such

as minimum width, how to deal with gaps, indents, connections and separation. The criteria

related to size varies depending on location (i.e., within the Countryside of Settlement Area vs.

in the Natural Core or Natural Linkage areas) and overlap with other key natural heritage

features or hydrologically sensitive features or their vegetation protection zones. For example,

smaller woodlands within a specified distance of another key natural heritage or key hydrologic

feature are considered significant. This recognizes that smaller woodlands in close proximity to

other significant features have a greater contribution to the NHS and should themselves be

considered significant woodlands. This would apply to woodlands in close proximity to the

Lake Ontario Shoreline (e.g. woodlands ≥ 10 ha in size and within 5 km of Lake Ontario, or

multiple woodland patches within 2 km of Lake Ontario may be more significant due to their

potential role as landbird migratory stopover areas).

The County does not provide criteria for the identification of significant woodlands. Technical

guidance for the identification of significant woodlands is offered in the Natural Heritage

Reference Manual (OMNR 2005, Second Edition) on woodland size criteria, ecological functions

criteria (i.e., woodland interior, proximity to other woodlands or other habitats, linkages, water

protection, woodland diversity), uncommon characteristics criteria, and economic and social

functional values criteria.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2005, Second Edition) criteria for identifying

significant woodlands considers the following:

• Size refers to the areal (spatial) extent of the woodland (irrespective of ownership).

• Woodland areas are considered to be generally continuous even if intersected by

narrow gaps 20 m or less in width between crown edges.


• Size value is related to the scarcity of woodland in the landscape derived on a municipal

basis with consideration of differences in woodland coverage among physical sub-units

(e.g., watersheds, biophysical regions).

• Size criteria should also account for differences in landscape-level physiography (e.g.,

moraines, clay plains) and community vegetation types.

Further to these criteria, minimum sizes have been recommended in the Natural Heritage

Reference Manual based on woodland cover in the municipality. Where woodlands cover:

• is less than about 5% of the land cover, woodlands 2 ha in size or larger should be

considered significant

• is about 5–15% of the land cover, woodlands 4 ha in size or larger should be considered

significant

• is about 15–30% of the land cover, woodlands 20 ha in size or larger should be


• is about 30–60% of the land cover, woodlands 50 ha in size or larger should be


• occupies more than about 60% of the land, a minimum size is not suggested, and other

factors should be considered

When combining the available mapping for woodlands and applying the Forestry Act definition

or the Province’s Ecological Land Classification system definition for “forest” the County

contains 71,337.53 ha of woodland, covering 36.05 % of the County. The criteria for identifying

significant woodlands in the County will take into consideration guidance from the Natural

Heritage Reference Manual and the ORMCP technical paper, and will be determined in

consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee and stakeholders.

5.6 Valleylands

Significant valleylands and other valleylands are listed as components of the County’s NHS.

Consistent with the PPS definition, the County’s OP defines valleylands as “a natural area that

occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for

some period of the year”.

According to the PPS, significant, in regard to valleylands means “ecologically important in

terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and

diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system”.


The ORMCP provides the following guidance for identifying significant valleylands:

• “all streams with well defined valley morphology (i.e. floodplains, meander belts and

valley slopes) having an average width of 25 m or more;

• all spillways* and ravines with the presence of flowing or standing water for a period of

no less than two months in an average year. Such features must be greater than 50

metres in length; 25 metres in average width with a well defined morphology (i.e. two

valley walls of 15% slope or greater with a minimum height of 5 metres, and valley

floor), and having an overall area of 0.5 ha or greater; and

• additional features identified by the approval authority, that are consistent with one or

more of the functions described above.

*Spillways are defined as well defined channels created by the concentrated flow of large volumes of water associated with glacial action.”

These criteria may be considered in developing the County’s criteria for identifying significant

valleylands.

5.7 Fish Habitat

Fish habitat is included as a component of the County’s NHS. The County’s OP defines fish,

consistent with the 2014 PPS as “fish, which as defined in the Fisheries Act, includes fish,

shellfish, crustaceans, and marine animals, at all stages of their life cycles”. Fish habitat, also

defined in the County’s OP consistent with the 2014 PPS, “as defined in the Fisheries Act,

means spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply, and

migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life

processes.”

The ORMCP provides guidance on identifying the location of fish habitat:

• mapping and/or information provided by MNR, or provided/approved by the Federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) or a delegated authority of DFO (including

Conservation Authorities); or

• where no detailed fish habitat mapping has been completed, all permanent or

intermittent streams, kettle lakes, and all ponds other than off stream constructed

ponds shall be deemed to be fish habitat unless it can be demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the approval authority under the Planning Act that the feature does not

constitute fish habitat as defined by the DFO.

5.8 Water


Watercourses are identified as a component of the County’s NHS. Section D1.12.1 describes

the function of watercourses:

Watercourses that flow within the boundaries of the County are an integral part, and

contribute to the health and function of the County’s natural heritage system since they:

a) Contain fish and wildlife habitat areas;

b) Function as corridors for wildlife habitat movement and vegetation dispersal;

c) Serve to maintain the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater resources;

d) Assist in the improvement of air quality;

e) Provide base flow and food supply to downstream areas; and,

f) Provide stormwater conveyance and control.

In addition, surface water features are defined by the County’s OP as “water-related features

on the earth’s surface, including headwaters, rivers, stream channels, inland lakes, seepage

areas, recharge/discharge areas, springs, wetlands, and associated riparian lands that can be

defined by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics. Although

‘surface water features’ are not listed as a component of the County’s NHS, Policy D2.1

recognizes the important contribution of surface water features to the natural heritage system,

as follows (bold added for emphasis):

The County and the local municipalities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and

quantity of water by:

c) Identifying water resource systems consisting of ground water features, hydrologic functions,

natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas,

which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed;

d) Maintaining linkages and related functions among ground water features, hydrologic

functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline

areas;

5.9 Other Components of the County’s NHS

5.9.1 County Forests and Lands Owned by the Conservation Authority The County’s forests have been included as a component of the NHS. These lands are managed

by the County, which is committed to “implementing an environmentally responsible

management plan for the Forest that includes silvicultural management, recreational use and

ecological restoration and conservation.” The County forests account for approximately 3% of


the County’s 36% forest cover. Approximately 60% of the County forest is conifer plantation

while the remainder is naturally regenerated forest, largely consisting of deciduous species.

The County forests have been designated as Natural Core Area in the ORMCP.

Lands owned by Conservation Authorities have also been included as components of the

County’s NHS. These lands represent important areas that aim to conserve wildlife habitat and

contribute to a healthy watershed.

5.9.2 Linkage Areas Linkages, as described in Section D1.4 of the County’s OP are identified as a component of the

NHS. The County’s OP defines linkages as:

Linkage areas may include linear natural features such as streams, floodplains, and steep

slopes, valleys, contiguous narrow woodlands and wetlands that connect two or more natural

heritage features which provide for movement of plants and animals. It is the intent of the

County to identify these corridors when a natural heritage system is developed in accordance

with Section D1.2 of this Plan.

In the context of NHS planning, linkage means an area intended to provide connectivity

supporting a range of community and ecosystem processes enabling plants and animals to

move between natural heritage features over multiple generations. Linkages are preferably

associated with the presence of existing natural areas and functions and they are to be

established where they will provide an important contribution to the long-term sustainability of

the overall NHS. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual reviews considerations for identifying

ecologically functional linkages:

• The ecological function that a linkage is intended to perform

• The length and width (generally, a wider linkage is better than a narrow one and width

should increase relative to length), composition, orientation and configuration

depending on the needs of the target species

• Generally, linkages are identified and designed to meet the known movement

requirements of the more demanding species (e.g., species prone to predation or averse

to openings, or species that move very slowly)

• Where natural cover is not continuous through a linkage, smaller patches of natural

cover that are closely spaces can serve as stepping stones for species movement and

provide the linkage function

• Avoid, where possible, identifying a linkage where a physical barrier may adversely

impact the ecological function of the linkage (e.g. major roads or urban areas).


• Redundancy in linkages would ensure the system retains its overall connectivity and

ecological integrity for the long-term.

“Geographic scale is a strong consideration in the identification of linkages. Linkages that are

designed to function at the landscape scale may be greater in width (several hundred metres or

more) and more generalized relative to connections at the local or site scale. Examples of these

differences in scale are found in the provincial land use plan natural heritage systems

developed for the Oak Ridges Moraine and Central Pickering (see section 15 to access an

electronic copy). The Oak Ridges Moraine natural heritage system is at a larger scale and

generally contains 2-kilometre wide linkages while the Central Pickering Development Plan

corridors are at a smaller scale, a minimum of 100 metres wide” (Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, 2010). Section A.2.3.5 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual recommends local

corridors have a minimum width of 50 to 200 metres while regional corridors have a minimum

width of 300 to 400 metres (OMNR 2010).

There may be substantial flexibility in the location and/or adjustment of linkage boundaries in

some cases. For all linkages, the location must be based on providing ecologically functional

connections that maintain a consistent width (i.e., “bottlenecks” or narrowing of the NHS will

adversely impact the ecological function provided by a linkage and should therefore be

avoided). However, in some cases, particularly where a natural feature is not the linkage, an

entire linkage could be shifted one way or another provided the ecological function is

maintained. In cases where a linkage is centered on a feature, it is important that the feature

continue to be included within the linkage, and this may in turn limit the degree of flexibility in

moving the linkage. Where a linkage is associated with a watercourse, it may be possible to

move the watercourse feature and the associated linkage function, to a new location within the

landscape where permitted by policy and Conservation Authority regulations. Where two or

more linkages have been defined within the NHS, these linkages should not be regarded as

“optional linkages”, while the location of individual connections may be flexible, the number of

connections should remain the same.

It is important to note that “the identification of linkages in agricultural areas would indicate an

intention for both interests to be accommodated in the working landscape, for example,

through good farming practices and stewardship, and not an intention to restrict existing

agricultural uses through land use controls.” (OMNR, 2005)

5.10 Additional NHS Components for Consideration


5.10.1 Successional habitats Successional or historically human modified habitats such as cultural meadows, thickets, and

savannahs also contribute to maintaining watershed biodiversity. They are often productive

habitats, rich in insect diversity and flowering plant species that commonly inhabit adjoining

forest or wetland areas for feeding or movement (CVC 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). Successional

meadow habitats are also important for grassland and prairie bird and mammal species (OMNR

2000), many of which are Species at Risk (SAR). Successional habitat, particularly meadow,

prairie, or shrub habitat, is considered significant for wildlife if it is large enough in size,

approximately 10 hectares or larger (Bay 1996, OMNR 2000, OMNRF 2015). These types of

open habitats provide sufficient area for raptor winter feeding and roosting areas, and for the

sustainable reproduction of some common grassland and thicket species, as well as migratory

bird and butterfly stopover habitat for those successional areas within 5km of lake Ontario

(OMNR 2000, OMNRF 2015). These successional could be considered as a component of the

County’s NHS.

5.10.2 Other Conservation Lands The County contains other lands managed and/or owned by non-governmental organizations

for the purpose of conservation and management for the purpose of maintaining and

enhancing ecological integrity. For example, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the

Northumberland Land Trust work to secure properties to ensure the long-term protection of

natural resources. Although much of these lands contain significant features, there are

portions that do not and would therefore not be identified as a NHS component feature within

the County. Recognizing the important role these lands play in preserving the County’s natural

heritage and their potential to increase in significance with continued management, the County

could consider adding other conservation lands as a component in the NHS.

5.10.3 Enhancement Areas In the context of NHS planning, enhancements means ecologically supporting areas adjacent to

natural heritage features and/or measures internal to the natural heritage features that

increase the ecological resilience and function of an individual natural heritage feature or

groups of natural heritage features. Enhancement areas can include lands that may be without

obvious natural heritage features and include areas such as agricultural land and successional

habitat (e.g. meadows, thickets, etc.). Enhancement areas contribute to the NHS by protecting

and restoring critical ecological functions such as, ecological connectivity among natural area

patches, surface water catchment areas for wetlands, minimum core area thresholds and

improved core area shape that reduce edge effect and enlarge interior habitat.


Often, algorithms are developed through a GIS-based system that help to identify the most

appropriate locations for enhancement areas based on the shape of key natural heritage

features and/or proximity to other features. A similar approach has been applied to develop

the mapping for the Greater Golden Horseshoe NHS.

5.10.4 Buffers In the context of NHS planning, buffer means an area of land located adjacent to a natural

heritage feature and usually bordering lands that are subject to development or site alteration.

The purpose of a buffer is to protect the feature and ecological functions of the NHS by

mitigating impacts of a proposed development, change in adjacent land use, or site alteration.

Where new development is proposed, the extent of the buffer and activities that may be

permitted within it should be based on the sensitivity and significance of the natural heritage

feature and their contribution to the long term ecological functions of the overall NHS as

determined through some sort of ecologically and/or hydrologically-based study (e.g.,

Subwatershed Study, Environmental Impact Study, or other similar study) that examines a

sufficiently large area. Also, other applicable policies included in other plans, such as the

ORMCP and Growth Plan, must also be considered when determining buffers to features within

the NHS identified in the ORMCP and Greater Golden Horseshoe NHS.

The ORMCP and Growth Plan require a minimum 30 m buffer (or vegetation protection zone)

from key features to which there is very little flexibility to modify. The minimum buffer widths

are to be applied from the edge of the feature being protected. It should be noted that in some

cases more detailed studies may recommend a buffer width greater than the minimum 30 m

buffer width defined in order to protect natural heritage features (e.g. Provincially Significant

Wetlands, significant wildlife habitat) and critical function zones.

Other municipalities prescribe minimum buffers from key features that vary in width depending

on the significance and sensitivity of the feature and the location of the feature (e.g., urban vs.

rural areas). For example, in the rural area of the City of Hamilton the following buffers are

prescribed:

• 30 m from each side of watercourses, wetlands, lakes, fish habitat, significant

woodlands (drip line), Life Science ANSIs

• 15 m from other woodlands (drip line) and top of bank of significant valleylands

Whereas in the urban area in the City of Hamilton the following buffers are prescribed:

• 30 m from coldwater watercourse, critical habitat, PSWs


• 15 m from warmwater watercourses, unevaluated and locally significant wetlands,

significant woodlands (dripline), Life Science ANSIs

• 10 m from other woodlands (dripline)

It should be noted that although these buffers are identified as minimums, the policies do

provide flexibility for site specific applications to recommend a greater or lesser buffer where

supported by an approved ecological study.

In another example, Hastings County prescribes a minimum 30 m buffer from watercourses to

protect fish habitat, and from the highwater mark of shorelines wherever possible.

6.0 Greater Golden Horseshoe Natural Heritage System In 2016 the Province led the development and mapping of the NHS for the Growth Plan for the

Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). “The criteria and methods used to develop and map

the NHS were selected to identify a system at a regional landscape scale” (OMNRF 2018). In

general, the methods used were “intended to be transparent, with well-defined criteria and

rationale, and is based on an automated and repeatable process. These key principles will

reduce or eliminate the bias that is sometimes associated, whether intentionally or not, with

individuals determining the mapping boundaries based on their knowledge or expertise.”

The following general principles were used to guide the development of the GGH NHS:

• Well-documented and clearly explained criteria, rationale and methods are to be used.

• Scientific and empirical evidence are to be used to support decisions where possible.

• Consistency with current provincial NHS planning criteria and guidance (e.g., Natural

Heritage Reference Manual3 and Greenbelt Natural Heritage System) is to be

maintained.

• Defendable and repeatable methodology is to be used (i.e., the same map would result

from someone else using the same criteria and methods).

• Scale of the regional system is to focus on identifying larger core areas and broader

linkages within a regional landscape context.

• Connection of the NHS mapping to existing regional mapping in adjacent areas is to be

made as much as reasonably possible (i.e., connect to other natural heritage systems in

adjacent planning areas).

• The criteria and methods are to have potential for application in another similar

geography (i.e., could potentially be applied to other areas of southern Ontario).


6.1 Mapping the GGH NHS The main components of the GGH NHS include Core Areas and Linkages. The following criteria and general methodology were applied to identify Core Areas:

• ≥ 50% natural cover or public lands

• ≥ 500 ha (in areas with less fragmented landscapes, such as Northumberland County)

• Mapping analysis applied buffers to connect and fill in gaps

• Added Life Science ANSI and PSWs greater than 0.5 ha within 120 m

• 30 m buffer applied to all core features

The following criteria and general methodology were applied to identify Linkages:

• Natural features (e.g. water courses, valleylands, woodland/wetland patches) and

rural/agricultural lands without barriers

• Connectivity (i.e. linkages were not identified where bisected by major roads)

• Length (no minimum)

• Width ≥ 500 m (e.g. added 250 m on each side of watercourses that qualify)

The GGH NHS, including the ORMCP Core and Linkage Areas, covers 119,018.58 ha (60%) of the County.

6.2 Municipal Refinement

Policy 4.2.2.5 of the Growth Plan allows municipalities to refine provincial mapping with

“greater precision” in a manner that is consistent with the Plan through a municipal

comprehensive review (MCR):

4.2.2.5. In implementing the Natural Heritage System, upper- and single-tier municipalities

may, through a municipal comprehensive review, refine provincial mapping with greater

precision in a manner that is consistent with this Plan.

The following provides direction for refining the GGH NHS through the MCR process:

Upper- and single-tier municipalities will incorporate the provincially issued NHS mapping into

their official plans through an MCR.

Refinements that are consistent with the policies of the Growth Plan are as follows:


• Minor, technical adjustments (e.g., to account for distortion from map projections,

discrepancies based on map scales);

• Addition of natural features continuous with the boundary of the provincially mapped

NHS. When natural features are added, the boundary of the NHS will be extended to

include a 30 m vegetation protection zone beyond the edge of the feature consistent

with the methods used for provincial mapping (see figure 3);

• Removal of small portions of the provincial NHS where there is built-up impervious

development or infrastructure (that would act as barriers) that was not identified and

stamped out of the provincial mapping;

• Removal of small, isolated portions of the NHS that protrude from the Greenbelt Plan

boundary or settlement areas provided these areas have no natural features and are not

connected to the larger provincial NHS.

Proposed refinements to the NHS shall be accompanied by supporting documentation, including any fine-scale mapping of natural features or infrastructure that was used to adjust the boundaries, and shall be submitted to the Province for review along with the proposed official plan or official plan amendment implementing the results of the MCR process.

7.0 Existing Data and Available Mapping

Existing available data has been reviewed to determine which NHS component features could

be mapped and to illustrate the County’s NHS component features. Table 1 provides a

summary of the data that was used to map each NHS component feature, where data was

available. Appendix 1 includes mapping of the NHS components where GIS data was available.

Table 1: NHS component features, sources of GIS data, and area/length of each component feature within Northumberland County.

NHS Component Area (ha) or length

(km)

Percentage of

Northumberland

County area (%)

Source/date

Wetlands (ALL) 29,380.85 ha 14.8 Land Information Ontario (2017)

Provincially significant wetlands (inland)

7,277.96 ha 3.7 Land Information Ontario (2017)

Provincially significant wetlands (coastal)


ANSIs (only confirmed, not candidate)

7,152.35 ha 3.6 Northumberland County (2014)


NHS Component Area (ha) or length

(km)

Percentage of

Northumberland

County area (%)

Source/date

Significant Wildlife Habitat - Deer Wintering Areas


Significant Wildlife Habitat - Rare Vegetation Communities

126.20 ha 0.1 Northumberland and GRCA

Woodlands (ALL) 71,337.53 ha 36.0 Northumberland and GRCA

Significant Valleylands and other valleylands

N/A N/A N/A

Fish habitat N/A N/A N/A

Open water 8,497.32 ha 4.3 Land Information Ontario (2012)

County Forest 2,359.18 ha 1.2 Northumberland County (date unknown)

Lands owned by Conservation Authority

1,838.58 ha 0.9

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (date unknown), Lower Trent Conservation Authority (date unknown), and Crowe Valley Conservation Authority (date unknown)

Watercourses 2,743.83 km N/A Northumberland Official Plan

Linkages (Oak Ridges Moraine)

5,484.70 ha 2.8 Northumberland Official Plan

Combined NHS Components

85,193.90 ha 2,743.83 km

watercourses 43.1% All sources combined

The total area of the County’s NHS component features combined with the Provincial NHS

(accounting for overlap) is 133,286.66 ha (67.3%). The mapping of the combined County NHS

component features and Provincial NHS is provided in Appendix 1.

8.0 Natural Heritage Protection Targets

NHS targets are aimed at the protection of important ecological functions and interactions

critical to the long-term survival of plants and animals (i.e. native biodiversity) that inhabit


ecological features including woodlands, wetlands, open habitat, and aquatic ecosystems. The

County may decide to develop NHS targets to track the success of protecting, restoring and

enhancing the NHS.

An assessment of the degree to which select NHS targets for woodlands, wetlands and

watercourses to be protected will be completed by applying guidelines from the Canadian

Wildlife Service (CWS) publication “How much habitat is enough? Second Edition” (Environment

Canada 2012). Of the 18 ecological guidelines described in the CWS publication, seven have

been selected for a preliminary analysis that relate to NHS targets based on a systems

approach, such as woodland interior habitat and aquatic-terrestrial habitat mosaics. This will

help to inform the approach to meet NHS targets.

For example, select CWS (2012) guidelines for the following features are provided for

consideration in developing NHS targets for the County, if appropriate:

• Woodlands

o At least 30% forest cover

o At least 10% of forest cover should be interior forest >100 m from edge

o At least one large contiguous forest within each watershed (>200 ha)

• Wetlands

o At least 10% wetland habitat

o Protection of a Critical Function Zone (CFZ) of 100 m from edge of wetland

• Riparian Habitat

o 75 % cover along streams

o 30 m buffer along streams

9.0 Summary

Provincial policy requires natural heritage systems to be identified by municipalities and

protected for the long term. The NHS can be used to inform the planning policies for the County

and at various municipal levels to ensure they are consistent with provincial direction and other

applicable plans.

This report provides a review of existing policies that require consideration when developing

the County’s NHS as well as best practices for identifying a robust NHS that ensures the natural

heritage in the County is preserved for future generations. The ecological integrity of these


natural heritage features can be preserved, enhanced and restored through a connected

system of key features and linkages. The following next steps are recommended to determine

the most appropriate NHS for the County that will achieve the goal of protecting, enhancing

and restoring the County’s natural heritage:

1. Develop the Vision and/or Goals/Objectives or Principles for the County’s NHS to

represent a foundation for the NHS and subsequent policies and provide guidance for

establishing the balance between natural heritage and other policies;

2. Gain an understanding of the significance of various features (i.e. number, distribution

and extent of significant features);

3. Review the geographical distribution of features to determine the degree to which there

is a full representation of features within the 4 physiographic regions;

4. Identify the potential connections to natural heritage systems in adjacent municipalities,

for example through the natural heritage systems in the ORM Conservation Plan and

Greenbelt Plan (although the latter does not extend into Northumberland, it reaches to

the boundary with Durham to the west);

5. Assess the adequacy of the largest features for providing viable long-term protection for

the County’s biodiversity (references such as the province’s Natural Heritage Reference

Manual and Environment Canada’s “How Much Habitat is Enough” will be consulted);

6. Identify major and minor linkages through the County – these may be used to establish

criteria and guidance for linkage widths and composition to ensure ecologically functional

linkage is achieved;

7. Articulate the role of the existing agricultural landscape in providing linkage and

preservation of remnant features;

8. Identify if and where enhancements to features may be benefit attainment of goals and

objectives;

9. Identify priority areas where stewardship initiatives may contribute to NHS goals and

objectives;

10. Document the role of buffers/vegetation protection zones as part of the NHS and

provide different policy options for dealing with them;

11. Develop criteria for identifying significant features where criteria are not defined;

12. Using GIS queries and algorithms based on identification criteria and analysis, features

for inclusion in the NHS will be identified and mapped. The GIS database will be

accompanied by metadata that are fully populated in a format that permits future users

the ability to query data sources, methods (algorithms) used to generate themes, data

authors and data age, etc. to permit an assessment of data quality; and

13. Recommend refinements and updates to the natural heritage policies of the Official Plan

following completion of the Draft NHS.


10.0 References

Bay, M.D. 1996. Breeding Birds in Early Successional Oldfields: the Effect of Area on Community

Structure. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 76:67-73.

Budd, W.W., P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream corridor management in

the Pacific Northwest: determination of stream corridor widths. Environmental Management

11(5): 587-597.

Burke, D.M. and E. Nol. 2000. Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of

forest-breeding birds in Ontario. Ecological Applications 10:1749-1761.

Bonter, D.N., S.A. Gauthreaux, and T.N. Donovan. 2009. Characteristics of important stopover

locations for migrating birds: remote sensing with radar in the Great Lakes Basin. Conservation

Biology 23:440-448.

Broadmeadow, S. and Nisbet, T.R. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the

freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice. Hydrology and Earth

System Sciences, 8(3), 286-305.

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements

– a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878 – 882.

Chase, V., L. Deming, and F. Latawiec. 1995 revised 1997. Buffers for wetlands and surface

waters. A guidebook for New Hampshire municipalities. University of New Hampshire

Cooperative Extension. 82p.

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation). 2002a. Birds of the Credit River Watershed.

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation). 2002b. Mammals of the Credit River Watershed.

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation). 2002c. Reptiles and amphibians of the Credit River

Watershed.

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation). 2011. Towards a Natural Heritage System for the Credit River

Watershed: Summary report on the characterization and Landscape Scale Analysis. Accessed on May 17,

2018. https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/TEEM-Phase-1-2-summary-report-web.pdf

Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,

Washington, DC.

https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/TEEM-Phase-1-2-summary-report-web.pdf


Dunford, W. and K. Freemark. 2004. Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land uses on forest

birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landscape Ecology 20:497-511.

Environment Canada. 2004. How much habitat is enough? A framework for guiding habitat

rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. 2nd edition. Canadian Wildlife Service. 88p.

Environment Canada. 2013. How much habitat is enough? Third Edition. Environment Canada,

Toronto, Ontario.

Environmental Law Institute. 2003. Conservation thresholds for land use planners.

Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC. 64p.

Ewert, D.N., G.J. Soulliere, R.D. Macleod, M.C. Shieldcastle, P.G. Rodewald, E. Fujimura, J.

Shieldcastle, and R.J. Gates. 2006. Migratory bird stopover site attributes in the western Lake

Erie basin. Final report to The George Gund Foundation.

Findlay, C.S. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in

southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000-1009.

Fischer, R.A. and Fischenich, J.C. 2000. Design recommendations for riparian corridors and

vegetated buffer strips. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental

Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS.

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Some general Principles of Landscape and Regional Ecology. Landscape Ecology

10(3): 2-9.

Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York.

Government of Ontario. Places to Grow Act. Available online at

http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05p13_e.htm Accessed 31

January 2009.

Government of Ontario. 2006. Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Government of Ontario. Planning Act. Available online at

http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p13_e.htm Accessed 31

January 2009

Griffiths, R.W. 2001. Mapping the water quality of watercourses in the Region of Halton.

Planning and Public Works, Regional Municipality of Halton.

http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05p13_e.htm%20Accessed%2031%20January%202009

http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05p13_e.htm%20Accessed%2031%20January%202009


Hartley, M.J. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and

artificial nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12:465-469.

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

terrestrial biodiversity. Volume 1. Nature Conservancy of Canada. 156p.

Hilty, J.A., W.Z. Lidicker Jr., and A.M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor ecology. The science and

practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press. 323p.

Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive

multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC. 368p.

MNRF (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry). 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria

Schedules For Ecoregion 6E. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Regional

Operations Division: Southern Region Resources Section

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape

setting. Ecological Economics 35:25-33.

Naiman, R.J. and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 28:621-658.

North-South Environmental Inc. 2009. Natural Heritage System definition and implementation.

Sustainable Halton Report 3.02. Final Draft April 2009. 62p.

OMMAH (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing). 2005b. Greenbelt Plan. Queen’s

Printer for Ontario. 57p. Available online at

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page189.aspx#greenbelt Accessed 28 January 2009

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

Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second edition. Toronto:

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248p.

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

Guide. 151p.

OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual. For

Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – June

1999. Available online at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/249080.pdf

OMNR, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR-001.

78pp.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/249080.pdf


OMNRF (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry). 2018. The Regional Natural

Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe – summary of criteria

and methods. Natural Heritage Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Peterborough, Ontario.

Ries, L., R.J. Fletcher Jr., J. Battin, and T.D. Sisk. 2004. Ecological responses to habitat edges:

mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

35:491-522.

Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario's Settled Landscapes. A

review of Conservation Biology and Restoration Ecology for Land use and Landscape Planning.

Rodewald, A. (2002). Nest Predation in Forested Regions: Landscape and Edge Effects. The

Journal of Wildlife Management, 66(3), 634-640. doi:10.2307/3803130

Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation

Biology 12:1129-1133.

Steedman, R.J. 1987. Comparative analysis of stream degradation and rehabilitation in the

Toronto area. PhD thesis. University of Toronto.

Walker, B.; Holling, C. S.; Carpenter, S. R.; Kinzig, A. (2004). "Resilience, adaptability and

transformability in social–ecological systems". Ecology and Society. 9 (2): 5.

Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and

vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. 59p.


Appendix 1: Figures of Northumberland County NHS

Components

Northumberland County Natural Heritage System Plan · 7/9/2018 · was prior to development, and...

Documents

Transcript of Northumberland County Natural Heritage System Plan · 7/9/2018 · was prior to development, and...