Oxford County Natural Heritage Study Peer Review and ... · Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI)...

Project 878 January 12, 2009

Oxford County Natural Heritage Study Peer Review and Implementation

Prepared by: Natural Resource Solutions Inc.

50 Westmount Road North, Unit 230 Waterloo, ON N2L 2R5

and

B.M. Ross & Associates Ltd.

62 North St. Goderich, ON N7A 2T4

Prepared for: County of Oxford

Community and Strategic Planning 21 Reeve Street

Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3

Oxford Natural Heritage Study Peer Review and Implementation

Project Team:

Staff Role Natural Resource Solutions Inc. Elaine Gosnell, B.Sc., Senior Biologist Project Manager, Terrestrial Review Andrew Schiedel, B.Sc., Aquatic Biologist Aquatic Review David Stephenson, M.Sc., Senior Biologist Advisor BM Ross and Associates Kelly Vader, MCIP, RPP, Environmental Planner Implementation Matthew Pearson, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner Advisor

Report submitted on: January 12, 2009

__________________________________

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................1 2.0 Review of Science and Methodology ....................................................................2

2.1 Terrestrial Methods ...........................................................................................2 2.2 Review of Each Criterion...................................................................................2 2.3 Exclusivity of Criteria .......................................................................................11 2.4 Recommended Criteria for Designating Natural Heritage Patches .................12

1. Patches that contain rare species or rare vegetation communities.........................12 4. Woodland patches > 10ha in size, Wetland patches >4ha in size, Thickets and meadows in combination with designated features.........................................................12 3.0 Review of Aquatic Technical Guidance...............................................................13

3.1 Background .....................................................................................................13 3.2 Review Findings ..............................................................................................13

4.0 Implementation of the ONHS ..............................................................................17 4.1 Review of ONHS Recommendations ..............................................................17 4.2 General............................................................................................................17 4.3 Review of Specific Recommendations ............................................................17

5.0 Implementation Options ......................................................................................19 5.1 Overlay Approach (Middlesex County, Lambton County, Central Cataraqui Region)........................................................................................................................19 5.2 The Designation Approach (Wellington County, Region of Halton, Perth County)........................................................................................................................19

6.0 Preferred Implementation Approach ...................................................................22 6.1 Existing Oxford County Policies ......................................................................22 6.2 Environmental Protection Policies...................................................................22 6.3 Recommended Approach for EP Policies .......................................................22

6.3.1 EP1 – Environmental Protection 1...........................................................23 6.3.2 EP2 – Environmental Protection 2...........................................................23 6.3.3 EC – Environmental Conservation ..........................................................23 6.3.4 Open Space.............................................................................................25 6.3.5 Stewardship Implementation ...................................................................25 6.3.6 Conformity with PPS................................................................................25

6.4 Fish Habitat .....................................................................................................25 6.4.1 Inclusion of Municipal Drains...................................................................25 6.4.2 Implementation of Significant Aquatic Resources ...................................26 6.4.3 Implementation Alternatives ....................................................................26

7.0 Mapping Evaluation.............................................................................................29 8.0 Conclusions.........................................................................................................33 9.0 References ..........................................................................................................34

List of Tables Table 1. Criteria for Significance of Terrestrial Habitats (ONHS 2006)............................3 Table 2. Patches Meeting Each of the Criteria.................................................................4 Table 3. Comparison of Terrestrial Criteria from other Jurisdictions................................5 Table 4. Patches Meeting only One Criteria ..................................................................11 Table 5. Natural Heritage Policy Review........................................................................20

List of Figures Figure 1. Example of Environmental Features Mapping ................................................28 Figure 2. Implementation of Significant Features...........................................................32

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. and BMROSS 1 ONHS Peer Review

1.0 IntroductionNatural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) and B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd. (BMROSS) were retained by the County of Oxford to carry out a peer review of the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (ONHS). The County wishes to implement the findings of the ONHS and identify significant woodlands within the Natural Heritage System in their Official Plan. The Request for Proposal identified three components to be carried out as part of the review, as follows:

� Component 1 consisted of a review of the ONHS Recommendations and provision of a preferred option for implementation in light of the current Official Plan policies and the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement.

� Component 2 of the RFP included a review of the science and methodology of the terrestrial and aquatic guidance of the ONHS, and particularly the terrestrial criteria and their application.

� Component 3 requested an evaluation of the mapping of natural features as part of the study, which would in turn be used in the implementation of the study.

NRSI and BMROSS worked together to carry out the three components, with BMROSS providing planning expertise and NRSI providing ecological advice. Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this report provide a summary of our review of the science and methodology of the terrestrial and aquatic guidance of the ONHS. Section 4.0 reviews the recommendations of the ONHS, while Section 5.0 outlines options for implementation. A preferred approach to implementing the natural heritage system is described, with reference to policies from other jurisdictions in Section 6.0. Section 7.0 provides some assistance with improving mapping consistency and accuracy. Definitions and Policy 2.1 from the PPS are included in Appendix I for reference. Examples of appropriate policy wording are included in an Appendix II.


2.0 Review of Science and Methodology

2.1 Terrestrial Methods The ONHS does a good job of identifying habitat patches which have value in the landscape. All habitat patches provide some ecological value and the criteria were determined to select those habitats which are most valuable based on landscape ecology principles. The landscape approach evaluates patches based on their contribution, or potential to contribute, to a natural heritage system. Factors which are considered include size and shape of each patch, connectivity between patches, especially those which are known to be significant habitats, such as provincially significant wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Environmentally Significant Areas1. The conclusions and recommendations of the ONHS were that any patch which satisfied any one of nine criteria should be considered significant. Through this peer review, the County wishes to identify Significant Woodlands and other components of a Natural Heritage System for protection in their Official Plan, as per the direction of the PPS. However, it is our opinion that the results of the Oxford Natural Heritage Study and Significant Woodlands overlap, but are two different things. All patches which were recommended to be significant in the ONHS, may not necessarily be considered significant in the context of the PPS. The criteria used in the ONHS were selected to capture patches which provide a valuable function in the landscape and all of these patches deserve consideration. The implementation section below describes an approach to provide multi-levels of protection for natural features.

2.2 Review of Each Criterion The nine criteria used in the ONHS were reviewed and their applicability towards identifying Significant Woodlands in the County was evaluated. The original criteria are listed in Table 1 and discussed below. The ONHS also completed mapping of wetlands, thickets and meadows which are desired to be included in the Natural Heritage System for the County. Within each criteria, where appropriate, these other vegetation types are recommended to be included.

1 The ONHS uses the term Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) which does not match the language used in the Oxford County Official Plan. The OP refers to Locally Significant Natural Heritage features.


Table 1. Criteria for Significance of Terrestrial Habitats (ONHS 2006)

Ecological Function

1. Patches that contain rare species. Rare species are based on MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre occurrences of species with federal, provincial, regional and local designations.

2. Patches that contain habitat designated in the Official Plans of Oxford County. These

designated habitats include Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or ANSIs, Environmentally Significant Areas or ESAs, identified wetlands including Provincially Significant Wetlands and Locally Significant Wetlands, other protected areas).

3. Patches within 150m of designated, non-wetland habitats in the Official Plan (e.g. Life

Science ANSIs, ESAs, and other protected areas) or within 750 m of designated wetland habitats in the Official Plan (e.g. PSWs and LSWs).

4. Patches > 10ha in size.

5. Patches with interior habitat. Interior is defined as the amount of habitat left after 100 m

have been removed from the inside perimeter. Thus, a habitat must be over 200 m across to contain interior.

6. Patches that occur within well-head capture zones or intrinsic groundwater

susceptibility areas. These areas are identified in groundwater studies.

7. Patches that contain an open watercourse or are within 50 m of an open watercourse.

Representation

8. Patches with the larges amount of area on each landform and soil type in Oxford County and all patches that occur on valley lands. Valley lands are identified through the Conservation Authority slope stability and erosion lines.

9. Patches that contain large amounts of each natural vegetation community type: wet

conifer>4ha, wet mixed >60ha, shrub >4ha, wet deciduous >45ha, conifer >15ha and mixed >45ha, open wetland >10 ha and deciduous >20ha. The cutoff thresholds were determined by plotting distribution curves of area and vegetation community types.

Definition of a Patch Within the ONHS document and this report, the term “patch” is used to mean a block of natural habitat. It may be referred to as a “terrestrial patch”, “woodland patch” or “wetland patch”, depending on its characteristics. The following definition is from the ONHS, with further clarification, below. Patch – A block of woodland or natural area separate from other blocks of natural area. It can be a mosaic of one to many contiguous vegetation polygon types. A patch can be owned by one or more landowners as in the case of the a ‘back 40’ woodlot that stretches between several properties, but is one continuous habitat. The outside boundary of the patch is the outside boundary of all contiguous vegetation community polygons considered to be part of the patch (ONHS 2006). Terrestrial Patch – Refers to upland wooded patches, without wetlands. Woodland Patch – Patches that are wooded, including upland woods and wetland woods. Wetland Patch – Patches that are wetland, including open or wooded wetlands. Both wetland and woodland criteria will apply to patches which are wooded wetlands.


An analysis was completed using the database accompanying the ONHS mapping to show the number of patches which met each of the criteria, as listed in Table 1, above. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Patches Meeting Each of the Criteria

% of patches Criteria Met

Number of Patches

Area (ha) (3464 total patches)

% of woodland area (33070.8 ha total area)

0 695 2048.6 20.06% 6.19% 1 35 2273.7 1.01% 6.88% 2 546 14667.6 15.76% 44.35% 3 986 7582.2 28.46% 22.93% 4 755 24948.6 21.80% 75.44% 5 557 21054.2 16.08% 63.66% 6 1534 20156.4 44.28% 60.95% 7 1647 24598.07 47.55% 74.38% 8 182 4773.2 5.25% 14.43% 9 165 10549.0 4.76% 31.90%

As part of the peer review, the criteria and thresholds were reviewed against a number of other studies across southern Ontario in similar landscapes. The most comparable studies included Middlesex County (2003), Halton Region (2002), Wellington County (1998) and Norfolk County (2006). Guidance was also taken from Ontario Nature (2004). A comparison of criteria from these studies is shown in Table 3. A number of other studies and policies were also reviewed including City of Guelph (2008), North Oakville (2006), City of London OMB Decision (2008) and City of Hamilton (2005).


Table 3. Comparison of Terrestrial Criteria from other Jurisdictions UPPER TIER Juris’n

OXFORD COUNTY MIDDLESEX COUNTY NORFOLK COUNTY ONTARIO NATURE HALTON REGION WELLINGTON COUNTY

Source STUDY: Oxford Natural Heritage Study (Upper Thames Conservation Authority, 2006)

STUDY: The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study – A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County (Upper Thames Conservation Authority, Final Draft, July 2003)

STUDY: Norfolk County Lakeshore Special Policy Area Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System Strategy (Marshall Macklin Monaghan 2007)

STUDY: Suggested Conservation Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario (Ontario Nature 2004)

Rationale and Methodology for Determining Significant Woodlands in the Regional Municipality of Halton (April 2002) Gartner Lee Ltd.

County of Wellington Official Plan, May 6, 1999

Criteria Based on PATCH units = all forest and wetland, plantation, hedgerows (>50m wide), thickets, and water. Polygons > 0.5 ha and incl. unnatural areas within or adjacent to polygon with max. width of 20 m comprising no more than 25% total area. NOTES: no meadows incl. and no known prairies; also no linkage criterion per se (just proximity). 1. Patches containing rare

species � Based on NHIC

records; provincial, regional and locally rare (Note: NHIC only provincial

2. Patches designated in County OP � Incl. ANSIs, ESAs,

PSWs and LSWs 3. Patches within 150m of

designated wetland

Six landscape criteria used to evaluate woodland patches in Middlesex County. LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY 1. Any woodland patch where

50% of the area is within 750 m of a recognized Natural Heritage Feature*

2a. Any woodland patch greater than 10 ha in area

2b. Any woodland patch less than 10 ha that contains forest interior (defined as treed habitat more than 100 m from the patch edge)

3. Any woodland patch within 100 m of a woodland patch greater than or equal to 10 ha.

4. Any woodland patch in a recognized corridor**

HYDROLOGY 5a. Any woodland patch

containing a watercourse. 5b. Any woodland patch within

50m on either side of a watercourse but not containing a watercourse.

From Norfolk County OP: 1. PSWs & Habitat for THR +

END species 2. ANSIs 3. Significant Woodlands:

a. Size: �10 ha for the eastern side of County; � 25 ha for western side

b. Interior Forest (100 m from edge)

c. Proximity/Connectivity: any woodland within 50 m of a significant natural area (i.e. ESAs, PSWs and Life Science ANSI)

d. Proximity to Water: any woodland within 30 m of any hydrological feature, incl. all streams, headwater areas, wetlands and lakes.

e. Rare Species: any woodland containing threatened or endangered species.

4. Significant Valley lands: to be identified with Conservation Authority regulatory lines, flood plain mapping, unstable slope

Criteria & thresholds for significance: 1. Woodland size based on

forest cover <5%, incl. urban areas - all woodlands 5-10 2ha 10-15 4ha 16 – 20 10ha 21 – 30 15ha 31 – 50 25ha >40 40ha

2. Hydrological linkage within 30m of

i. All streams ii. All headwater sources iii. The catchment of all 1st

order watercourses 3. Forest interior – in

landscape with <10% forest cover being forest interior

4. Landscape Connectivity – any woodland that falls within a core area or corridor as identified within the Big Picture2

5. Slope – any woodland on

1. Terrain: woodlands on slopes >10%

2. Groundwater Quality & Quantity: drainage to 1st order streams

3. Surface Water Quality & Quantity: watercourse within and up to 30m

4. Attributes: a) age > 99 yrs b) size:

urban >2ha agricultural , south of escarpment, >4ha rural, north of escarpment, >10 ha

c) interior >4ha 5. Landscape Connectivity:

within 50 m of major creek or valley or within 150 m of the Niagara Escarpment

Core Greenlands - PSWs - Habitat of endandered or threatened species - Floodways and hazardous lands Greenlands - ANSIs - Streams and valleylands - Woodlands >10ha - ESAs - Ponds, lakes and reservoirs - Natural links

2 The "Big Picture" is an analysis identifying a natural heritage system of large core natural areas, other significant natural areas and corridors and linkages in Carolinian Canada. This mapping project was completed by various government and non-government agencies across southwestern Ontario.


habitats in the OP (see #2) or within 750m of designated wetland habitats in the OP (i.e. PSW and LSW)

4. Patches �10ha (Note: threshold determined by plotting distribution curve).

5. Woodland patches with interior habitat (area 100 m from perimeter).

6. Patches within well-head capture zones or intrinsic groundwater susceptibility areas (>20 ha).

7. Patches containing an open watercourse or within 50 m of an open watercourse.

8. Patches with the largest area on each landform and soil type, AND all patches in valley lands (defined through slope stability and erosion lines).

9. Patches which contain large amounts of each natural vegetation community type � wet conifer >4ha; wet

mixed >60 ha; shrub >4 ha, wet deciduous >45 ha; conifer > 15 ha, mixed > 45 ha; open wetland >10 ha and deciduous > 20 ha (Note: thresholds determined by plotting distribution curves for each veg type).

6. Any woodland patch on porous soils that may have sensitive groundwater recharge/discharge resources.

*Natural Heritage Features recognized (i.e. features listed or mapped) in the County Official Plan or City of London Official Plan. ** Recognized corridor includes Big Picture2 Corridor, Ausable River Corridor and Thames River Valley Corridor.

mapping, where available, or the edge (outer boundary) of any associated natural heritage feature, whichever is the greater.

5. Hazard Lands Additional components recommended: (i) the diversity of natural

landforms; (ii) the diversity of veg.

communities; (iii) all significant species (incl.

Special Concern, S1-S3, “rare” in Norfolk County, as per the NAI);

(iv) indicators of significant wildlife habitat incl;

a) forest patches that provide habitat for forest interior and area-sensitive forest birds but do not contain forest interior; b) identified important bird areas; c)stopover habitat for migratory birds; d) stopover habitat for migratory butterflies; e) habitat for declining species of upland grassland birds f) unevaluated wetlands; and g) ephemeral wetlands that provide breeding habitat for salamanders, frogs and toads.

(v) representation of terrestrial contributors to aquatic ecosystems, including:

a) headwater forests; b) headwater wetlands; c) riparian vegetation; and d) areas of groundwater discharge

>10% slope or soils subject to wind and water erosion.


The ONHS criteria were reviewed against other Natural Heritage Studies, recent literature and discussed with County and UTRCA staff. The following is a brief discussion of each of the criteria.

1. Patches that contain rare species. This criterion is commonly used in NHS and woodland studies to determine habitat significance. Rare species records were compiled from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database and included occurrences of federal and provincial significant species from the 20 years prior to the study. No regional or local significant species lists have been developed. The data was filtered to reject any unreliable records, as part of the ONHS. The data used to fulfill this criterion is quite limited, as shown by the fact that only 35 of 3464 patches met this criterion (Table 2). In addition, all patches which met this criterion, were already captured by other criteria. See Table 4 and discussion of exclusivity of criteria in Section 2.3. It is recommended that this criterion be amended to include provincially rare vegetation types as listed in the NHIC website database (http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/). This database lists vegetation communities found across southern Ontario and their status. NHIC also provides a geographic database where records of significant vegetation communities can be accessed and the information added to this analysis. The criterion should be amended as follows: Patches that contain rare species orrare vegetation communities. 2. Patches that contain habitat designated in the Official Plan of Oxford County. Designated habitats include Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), and Provincially and Locally Significant wetlands. Designated areas are selected based on a number of provincial, regional and local systems, such as the Wetland Evaluation System, and are widely accepted as significant habitats. In Oxford County, the term ESA is not used, but refers to Locally Significant Natural Heritage Features as identified in the Official Plan and shown on Schedule “C-1”. This criterion can be considered somewhat of a duplication for the purposes of designating natural areas, as these patches are already captured by other designations. However, it does capture whole patches which are only partially designated. An example would be a woodland patch with a provincially significant wetland polygon within it. 3. Patches within 150m of designated, non-wetland habitats in the OP, or within

750m of designated wetlands in the OP. The intent of this criterion is to capture patches which are in proximity to one another and to significant habitats. A landscape with a network of patches, close to each other, and close to significant and large habitats provides linkages for wildlife and plants to move through and within the County. This is beneficial for maintaining and improving biodiversity and healthy populations.


The wording of this criterion has made it open to several different interpretations. In order to clarify the criterion, it is recommended that the criterion be taken in two parts; referring to terrestrial (upland) patches and wetland patches separately. Regarding terrestrial patches, various studies use a linear distance between patches to capture the linkage function provided by a network of patches. The distance used varies depending on the feature and the landscape context from 50m (Hamilton, Norfolk) to 100m (Middlesex) and within 150m of the Niagara Escarpment (Halton 2002) with recognition of connectivity between habitats up to 2km (Environment Canada 2004). Ontario Nature recommends any patch within a recognized core area or corridor as identified in the “Big Picture” for Carolinian Canada (2002) or other natural heritage system developed by the planning authority. Using the rationale of adjacent lands (50m from woodlands), which is defined as the area within which development has a reasonable probability of affecting the ecological functions of the woodland (MNR 1999), a 100m distance between a terrestrial patch and a significant feature is recommended for implementation. The ONHS does not provide a rationale for the use of 150m, but recognizes that the science of landscape connectivity is evolving and that an absolute distance is not known. Given that neighbouring jurisdictions are using 100m or significantly less, it is recommended that 100m be used in this case. Regarding connectivity between wetlands, the use of the 750m distance between wetland patches is taken from the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (MNR 1993/4) which provides rules for combining wetland polygons into a wetland “complex”. In order to be considered for complexing, the rules are as follows:

i. Wetlands must not be complexed across watersheds, except in rare circumstances,

ii. The maximum distance between units of a complex must not exceed 0.75 km straight line distance,

iii. Lacustrine wetlands at the mouths of streams entering a lake may be considered units of a complex.

Under this system, a number of wetlands may be mapped together and evaluated as a single complex. These rules should be followed in the application of Criterion 3, in order to be consistent with wetland evaluation methods. Any un-evaluated wetland patches within 750m of a provincially or locally significant wetland should be considered for inclusion within the wetland complex and may ultimately be determined to also be significant. This exercise should be undertaken and reviewed by the Ministry of Natural Resources in order to update wetland mapping. Changes to mapping which are authorized by MNR should then be reflected in the OP. It is recommended that Criterion 3 be re-worded as follows: “All terrestrial patches within 100m of designated habitats in the OP, and any wetland patches within 750m of designated wetlands in the OP according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation system.” 4. Patches >10ha in size. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) provides guidance for determining significant woodlands, including size as a criterion. In this guidance document, MNR recommends that in a landscape with woodland cover between 5


and 15%, woodlands greater than 4 ha should be considered for significance. Given that Oxford County has 12.5% forest cover, 4 ha should be used a starting point for determining significance. The ONHS has completed further analysis and recommends 10ha as a threshold for significance. The use of 10 ha as a threshold, is supported by a number of ecological principles, including the provision of potential interior habitat and habitat for area sensitive species. It is recommended that this criterion be expanded to include other types of vegetation such as wetlands, thickets and meadows for the purpose of identifying the Natural Heritage System. Wetlands: When reviewing the ONHS it became apparent that the system favoured wetlands which have been evaluated, whether they were found to be provincially significant or locally significant. The only difference between a locally significant wetland and an unevaluated wetland is that the first has been through the evaluation process. The trend in southern Ontario is certainly towards protection for all wetland patches, regardless of their status. As an example, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has developed their own wetland policy for the Grand River watershed which provides a stronger level of protection for non-provincially significant and unevaluated wetlands (GRCA 2003). Based on the analysis of proportion of size classes of vegetation types in the ONHS (Section C.5), the data in Table C.4 shows that 51% of conifer wetlands and 65% of open wetlands are less than 4ha in area. Fifty-one percent of deciduous wetlands are less than 10ha while 50% of mixed wetlands are less than 30-50ha. Using this data it is recommended that wetlands >4ha be considered significant. Thickets and Meadows: Thickets and meadows are examples of open country habitats which provide a complementary role to woodland, wetland and aquatic habitats. Thickets, described as upland shrub, and meadows were mapped during the ONHS but were not included in the analysis of significant patches. It was found that meadows occupy 1.77% of Oxford County while thickets occupy <0.5% of the County. Given that the forest cover in the County is only 12.5%, any natural cover is an important part of the Natural Heritage System. It is recommended that thickets and meadows, when found in combination with other natural habitats (woodlands, wetlands and watercourses), be included in the Natural Heritage System. It is recommended that Criterion 4 be re-worded as follows: Woodland patches >10ha in size Wetland patches >4ha in size Meadows and Thickets in combination with designated features 5. Patches with interior habitat. This criterion captures all patches with interior, regardless of size. In Criterion 4, the use of 10ha as a threshold is based partly on the provision of interior habitat, but woodlands smaller than this can provide interior habitat, depending on their shape. Interior habitat is limiting in most landscapes in southern Ontario and so is a valid indicator of patch significance.


6. Patches that occur within well-head capture zones or intrinsic groundwater susceptibility areas.

The intent of this criterion is to provide source water protection. However, since the purpose of the ONHS is to identify patches with ecological value in the landscape, it is felt that the presence of susceptible groundwater does not contribute to the ecological significance of a patch. Well-head capture zones and intrinsic groundwater susceptibility areas should be protected in their own right. It is the presence of any vegetation in these areas, versus impervious surfaces or land uses with a risk of contamination, which promotes clean water. It is recommended that this criterion be dropped from the analysis. The County may want to explore other possibilities for protection of these patches through source water protection legislation outside of the Natural Heritage System. 7. Patches that contain an open watercourse or are within 50m of an open

watercourse. It is understood that this criterion is intended to capture patches which contribute to surface water quality and quantity as well as those with a wildlife linkage to aquatic habitats. It is agreed that patches which contain or are immediately adjacent to an open watercourse can be considered significant, but patches within 50m is difficult to defend. There are many factors which can contribute to or detract from linkage between these two features including intervening land use, presence of permanent structures, Type of watercourse, topography, patch type, etc. In our review of other Natural Heritage Studies, the presence of a watercourse within a certain distance of a patch has been recommended by Ontario Nature (2004) and is used in Norfolk County (2007) and City of Hamilton (2005). In both Hamilton and Norfolk, woodlands within 30m of any hydrological feature, including all streams, headwater areas, wetlands and lakes, are considered significant. This distance is more consistent with a 30m buffer which is a commonly used buffer width for protection of surface water features. When looking at the wildlife linkage function between woodlands and aquatic features, 50m is a large gap for some wildlife to cross. It is well known that wildlife species have different capacities to move across the landscape, with some being unable to travel across unsuitable habitat and others being indifferent to habitat (Environment Canada 2004). White-tailed deer, for example will move throughout the landscape, without requiring cover habitat, while amphibians are highly dependent upon natural cover to move from breeding to non-breeding habitat. The use of 50m as a threshold for linkage between terrestrial and aquatic habitat appears to be high, given that species which will travel this distance are those who are highly mobile and are capable of traversing great distances and any type of habitat. Species which actually are limited in their travel capabilities would be at great risk to cross an open landscape of 50m. It is recommended that Criterion 7 be re-worded as follows: Patches that contain orare within 30m of an open watercourse. 8. Patches with the largest amount of area on each landform and soil type in Oxford

County and all patches that occur on valleylands.


9. Patches that contain large amounts of each natural vegetation community type: wet conifer>4ha, wet mixed>60ha, shrub>4ha, wet deciduous>45ha, conifer>15ha and mixed>45 ha, open wetland>10ha and deciduous>20ha.

Criteria 8 and 9 capture the largest examples of the each of the vegetation community types on the landform and soil types in Oxford County, including valleylands. This type of criteria is not always used in NHS, but is often contributing to other designations such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), which typically focus on the best examples of the landform/vegetation features of a particular ecodistrict (MNR 2008). The purpose is to fully capture the diversity of vegetation in the County. These criteria were found to not capture any patches which were not already captured by other criteria. See Table 4 and discussion in Section 2.3. When reviewing the thresholds for selecting patches by vegetation type, any patch greater than 10ha would be captured by Criterion 4 and/or 5. This leaves wet conifer>4ha and shrub>4ha. This is the basis for amendments to Criterion 4, discussed above. With the recommended changes to the criteria, any patches which were found to be captured by criteria 8 and 9 will still be captured by the revised criteria.

2.3 Exclusivity of Criteria The database accompanying the ONHS was queried to determine the number of patches captured exclusively by each of the criteria. The results in Table 4 show the number of patches which were captured by each criterion, and no other.

Table 4. Patches Meeting only One Criteria

% of patches Criteria Number of Patches

Area (ha) (3464 total patches)

% of woodland area (33070.8 ha total area)

1 0 0 0.00% 0.00%2 40 106.3 1.15% 0.32%3 215 482.7 6.21% 1.46%4 25 286.0 0.72% 0.86%5 21 186.2 0.61% 0.56%6 326 917.0 9.41% 2.77%7 352 1002.9 10.16% 3.03%8 0 0 0.00% 0.00%9 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

This analysis shows that Criteria 1, 8 and 9 do not capture any patches which were not already captured by other criteria. This data reinforces the understanding of ecological


principles, in that patches which meet some of the criteria automatically will meet other criteria. For example, a woodland which is 100 ha, generally will provide interior habitat and support rare species. These criteria (1, 8 and 9) are useful as a “check” to ensure that the full diversity and rarity of habitats and species are captured by the ONHS, but may not be required on their own as a determining factor of Significant Woodlands. These criteria which “double count” have proven to be problematic when used in some jurisdictions where it has been determined that two criteria must be met in order to achieve significance.

Criterion 1, Patches which contain rare species, is recommended to continue to be used to identify significant woodlands. Even though the results of this criterion are captured by others, it is important to maintain this and to expand it to include rare vegetation communities, as they are identified. The rare species and community data available for the County is limited, and new information will continue to be collected, which may lead to the designation of new patches, based on this criterion. Criteria 3, 6 and 7 select the most patches which met no other criteria. Based on the recommendations above, Criterion 6 would be removed from the analysis and Criterion 7 would be modified and capture less patches. Modifications to Criterion 3 would result in possibly less woodland patches being captured, and more wetland patches being identified as significant.

2.4 Recommended Criteria for Designating Natural Heritage Patches The above review of the criteria was intended to determine which criteria were most suitable for determining significant natural heritage features in the context of Oxford County, for the purposes of designation in the Official Plan. Based on our discussions and review it was determined that a multi-level approach to designation was important. The current Official Plan has completed the first step which is the designation of known significant features such as provincially and locally significant wetlands, locally significant natural heritage features and life science ANSI’s. The next step is to sort remaining natural features and designate those appropriately. The refinements to the original criteria are recommended to accomplish this. The recommended criteria for determining significant natural heritage features are:

1. Patches that contain rare species or rare vegetation communities.

2. Patches that contain habitat designated in the Official Plans of Oxford County.

3. All woodland patches within 100m of designated habitats in the OP, and any wetland patches within 750m of designated wetlands in the OP according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation system.”

4. Woodland patches > 10ha in size, Wetland patches >4ha in size, Thickets and meadows in combination with designated features.

5. Patches with interior habitat

6. Patches that contain or are within 30m of an open watercourse.


3.0 Review of Aquatic Technical Guidance

3.1 Background NRSI aquatic biology staff reviewed the Aquatic Technical Guidance provided in the ONHS. The aquatic resources section of the ONHS provides an overview of the state of the aquatic natural features in Oxford County and gives a methodology for categorizing watercourses into System Types based on their sensitivity to drain maintenance activities. The aquatic classification was completed for information purposes and is not meant to be interpreted as levels of protection for watercourses. The end result is that all watercourses are protected under multiple levels of government including the Federal Fisheries Act (which includes authorization of drain cleanout activities), the Provincial Policy Statement, Oxford’s Official Plan, and Conservation Authority regulations. The following is a discussion of our review the Aquatic Technical Guidance and recommendations to be considered by UTRCA and the lower tier municipalities when reviewing drain cleanout applications.

3.2 Review Findings The methodology outlined in ‘Appendix D. Aquatic Resources’ would benefit from additional discussion of the steps taken to arrive at the three ‘System’ classifications of watercourses. Appendix D lists the ‘components’ that were used to create the categories or ‘Systems’ of watercourses for the ONHS. Table D-2 outlines the characteristics of each component for each system. The components include Species at Risk, fisheries, species, habitat, Municipal Drain Classifications (MDC), thermal regime, and permanency of flow. It should be clear how many of each component characteristics are required to be placed in a System. As written, it could be interpreted that a given System has the characteristics of just one of the components, all of the components, or some of the components. Future revision of the ONHS should take this into account. An accompanying document titled “Oxford County Natural Heritage Study Aquatic Mapping System Information” outlines the method of System determination based on the MDC. Class A, B, D, and E drains became System 1 watercourses, Class C drains became System 2 watercourses, and Class F became System 3 watercourses. This suggests that the Systems were determined primarily according to the MDC. Discussions with John Schwindt of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) confirmed that the MDC was the primary tool used for categorizing watercourses into the System types. John Schwindt further clarified the methods as follows:

1. First, drains that were classified under the MDC were assigned system types as the first step in classification.


2. Second, natural watercourses were assigned to System types based on the same criteria used for the MDC. It was this step that required the most field study to fill data gaps.

3. As a final step, additional watercourses were assigned to System 1 based on sensitive species including freshwater mussels, sensitive non-predator fish, and Species at Risk listed on Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act. Additional habitat characteristics (habitat components) were included with this final step.

Describing these steps in the ONHS document would improve the description of the methods. It would also be helpful if the methods provided explicit interpretation how the various references were applied. This additional detail would help with interpreting the meaning of the outcome of the System types. It would also facilitate the anticipated need for continued updates to the System classifications, and the potential for the future addition of new components of the System classification. We recommend that future revisions of the ONHS include a more detailed methodology. Appendix D indicates that the Systems classification offers a general overview of the current aquatic ecosystem conditions. The recommended clarification above, combined with a better description of the resulting Systems types, would improve the ability of the Systems classification to provide an overview of the current aquatic ecosystem conditions. In general, the level of resolution of information provided by the System types is coarse. This is reasonable based on the study area size and level of information available. Also, a classification system with only 3 categories has obvious limitations. With that in mind, the most important task is to make the classification useful for management of the aquatic habitat, and for natural heritage information purposes. The use of the DFO Municipal Drain Classification system is appropriate for providing information about the aquatic natural heritage value. The MDC system was developed to streamline decisions regarding cleanout of municipal agricultural drains. The criteria used are designed to provide information on the sensitivity of the fish habitat to drain cleanout activities. Permanent watercourses are more sensitive than intermittent ones, cold/cool watercourses can become warmer, and top predators are more sensitive than baitfish to perturbations. The translation from the Municipal Drain Classifications to the three Systems selects the most sensitive classifications (A, B, D, and E) for System 1. Systems 2 and 3 receive the remaining 2 classifications, which are progressively less sensitive. In addition to sensitivity, the criteria for the drain classification represent useful information that helps to define the other component characteristics of the Systems classification. In general, the classification results in System 1 streams having larger, more diverse habitat and more complex and diverse species structure. They are also more sensitive to perturbation. They may be in better condition, but these characteristics are likely due to their higher stream orders and larger habitat areas. Systems 2 and 3 are less sensitive and lack specific characteristics that are of value. The treatment of watercourses in the ONHS is consistent with other regulations, i,e, watercourses are already recognized in the Oxford County Official Plan as having uniform importance


when encountered by development proposals, and the federal Fisheries Act protects any fish habitat, including indirect/contributing functions when fish are not present. Maintenance of aquatic habitat must have regard for all watercourses. The ONHS suggests that the Systems categories allow development of general recommendations and management prescriptions according to the Systems types. The recommended actions in Table D-4 of the ONHS suggest that Systems 2 and 3 are in greater need of restoration, and that some (but not all) could be upgraded to a higher System through restoration. While there may be need for restoration of Systems 2 and 3 habitats, there may also be a need to restore System 1 habitats. The need for restoration is not definitively reflected in the System Types because they are based more on natural characteristics than on their current state. Restoration should be directed toward site-specific restoration needs, using the System Types as information only. Recognizing this, the Aquatic Technical Guidance in the ONHS is general and does not distinguish between System Types. This is a discrepancy with Table D-4 in the ONHS document that should be rectified in future revisions. For the current implementation, restoration should consider the System Types as information and restoration should be considered on a case-by-case basis without regard for the direction in Table D-4. In discussions with John Schwindt of the UTRCA, it was agreed that the aquatic technical guidance was developed separately from the terrestrial technical guidance. Regardless, aquatic features contribute to terrestrial Criterion 7, in that any patch containing, or within 30m (recommended), of a watercourse, is considered significant. This criterion does not distinguish between the System Types. The Agricultural Advisory Committee has expressed concern regarding the inclusion of agricultural drains in the ONHS. They contend that the drains are used for agricultural purposes, and were not intended to be natural heritage features. The agricultural use involves active and ongoing maintenance to facilitate continued drainage. The concern is that inclusion of drains as natural heritage features has potential to impinge on the agricultural uses, including maintenance of the drains. While the agricultural use of drains must be recognized, it remains appropriate to also consider drains as part of the natural heritage of Oxford County. Many of the drains have histories as natural watercourses, but have been channelized. According to John Schwindt of the UTRCA, those that do not have natural channel histories have typically been constructed to drain wetlands. As a result, the constructed drains represent a remnant of the natural feature that once existed. In this way, most, if not all, drains represent natural heritage in some way, and almost all drains currently have some aquatic habitat function. It is clear that the agricultural and natural heritage functions of drains are intertwined. Because natural heritage value is present in all drains, it is not possible to segregate drains from the natural heritage of Oxford County. Because of the overlap between natural heritage and agricultural functions of drains, there are management issues that arise. First, how is aquatic natural heritage to be managed in the face of drain maintenance? Second, how will access for drain maintenance impact the management of terrestrial natural heritage? Aquatic natural heritage will continue to receive protection through the DFO Municipal Drain Classification system for authorizations of cleanouts. This is the intent of the


Aquatic Technical Guidance of the ONHS, which provides the aquatic study results for information purposes only. A problem arises wherein drain cleanout activities have potential to impact the adjacent land through heavy equipment traffic alongside the watercourse. While the MDC offers protection for the aquatic habitat within the channels, it does not serve to protect the land adjacent to watercourses, which has important functions in support of aquatic habitat. Therefore, it would be beneficial to provide guidance for use of adjacent lands for drain maintenance. Selection of drains for restriction of cleanout activities could be based on terrestrial natural heritage. Chosen drains could be those that occur within significant patches, and those that are valued for their terrestrial corridor functions. In this way, terrestrial natural heritage features, both existing and future, can avoid impact from the need for access to watercourses for drain cleanout. To this end, we recommend that the Oxford County Official Plan specify drain maintenance restrictions that serve to support its terrestrial natural heritage planning by avoiding the need for maintenance access in significant patches. Options for restrictions can include no heavy equipment, no dredging, no tree cutting, selected tree cutting, etc. Taken further, drains which are present within wetland or lowland woodland patches could be reviewed for restoration possibilities. Manipulation of drains by landowners and conservation groups has been used and is promoted as a tool to restore wetlands, and provide water storage and quality control (MNR, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited). For example, water control structures on drains have been used in Norfolk County to retain water in wetlands and promote water storage and improve water quality (MNR 2003). In the Norfolk County project, landowners, agencies and stewardship groups worked together to identify wetlands which were being impacted by municipal drains which could be restored for the most benefit in the watershed. A “How To Guide” was produced which serves as a template for other jurisdictions wanting to implement wetland restoration in this manner (MNR 2003). Controlling water flow in drains allows water to drain off in the spring, but be retained in the summer months which improves wetland ecological condition and is a benefit to agriculture.


4.0 Implementation of the ONHS

4.1 Review of ONHS Recommendations

Chapter 6.0 of the ONHS was a summary of recommendations developed by the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC). Component 1 of the Terms of Reference for this study required the consultant to

“Review and comment on the study recommendations pertaining to implementation through the land use planning process;”

4.2 General A review of the recommendations was undertaken by BMROSS as part of this assessment. It was determined that the following recommendations included a component related to land use planning: 2b, 3a, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e. These are discussed in more detail below and include comments on applicability as they relate to implementation.

4.3 Review of Specific Recommendations

2b – Hiring of a Permanent Staff Member

Given the complexities presented by the various components of the Natural Heritage System and the range of activities associated with the successful implementation of the ONHS study, a dedicated staff person would be a useful addition to the planning department staff. Ideally, this person would be a planner with a strong background in Natural Heritage. Support this Recommendation.

3a – Development of a Communications Strategy

The communications strategy was envisioned as a key component of implementation of the ONHS within the County OP. Referred to in Recommendation 5b, a communications strategy was to be developed prior to the onset of public meetings planned for Official Plan Amendments. Support this Recommendation.

5a – Proceed to Designate Significant Natural Heritage Areas

With the incorporation of the modifications to Significant Woodlands selection criteria discussed within Section 5.0 of this report, designation of areas meeting one or more criteria within the County OP would bring the plan in conformity with provincial policy (PPS). Proceeding to designation will also support other recommendations of the study which speak to the protection, preservation and enhancement of Natural Heritage Areas identified through the study. Support this Recommendation, providing that modifications to Significant Woodlands Criteria are implemented.


5b – Directly Advise Affected Landowners (Related to Designation) Though this recommendation will be particularly onerous to County Planning Staff, given the number of properties potentially affected by the proposed designation, the contact will provide an opportunity to educate landowners about the Natural Heritage System, landowner incentive programs and unique features associated with their properties. Utilizing a template would make this process more efficient – the inclusion of a map identifying the limits of the affected property and limits of the associated natural heritage feature would also be recommended. Support this Recommendation. 5c – That Natural Heritage policies explicitly permit certain uses

Support this Recommendation.

5d – That designated properties receive first priority for incentives and tax relief

Support this Recommendation.

5e – Effect of urbanization Changes to existing Official Plan policies recommended in conjunction with this peer review will provide an enhanced level of protection for all natural features in the County, as well as those located within or adjacent to urban growth centres. Alternatively, the County could look at incorporating more stringent development guidelines within urban growth centres, such as the idea of ‘no net loss’. Support this Recommendation in principle.


5.0 Implementation Options

There are two general approaches to implementation utilized by adjacent municipalities; The Designation and the Overlay Approach. Table 1 provides a summary of Natural Heritage policies utilized by other Ontario jurisdictions and Upper Tier Municipalities that were reviewed in conjunction with this assessment. Excerpts from these policies are included within Appendix II.

5.1 Overlay Approach (Middlesex County, Lambton County, Central Cataraqui Region)

With this approach, the Natural Heritage System is identified on a separate Schedule of the OP. Motherhood statements are included within the Natural Heritage Section of the Plan encouraging retention and restoration of lands identified as being part of the Natural Heritage system. However the only areas specifically protected by the Plan are generally Provincially Significant Wetlands and the Significant Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species. Additional policies are included within most plans that require the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or Development Assessment Review (DAR) for development within or adjacent to individual components of the Natural Heritage System.

5.2 The Designation Approach (Wellington County, Region of Halton, Perth County)

This approach results in the designation of various components of the Natural Heritage System on Land Use Schedules associated with the O.P. Typically, natural features are separated into categories with various levels of protection associated with each. The first category Greenlands A (Halton) or Core Greenlands (Wellington) generally aligns with Section 2.1.3 of the PPS, protecting PSW’s and the Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species and prohibits development within this designation. A second category, Greenlands B (Halton) or Greenlands (Wellington), generally identifies features described within Section 2.1.4 of the PPS, although offering a lower level of protection. Some forms of development may be permitted within or adjacent to these features subject to the completion of an EIS. A third category is also included in some plans identifying the broader components of the Natural Heritage System such as linkages, corridors and other ancillary natural features (meadows, thickets, etc.). Typically the third category is not designated on land use plans but is illustrated on an attached Appendix or Schedule. Motherhood and other implementation policies are included within the main document supporting protection and enhancement of the natural heritage system.


Table 5. Natural Heritage Policy Review

Upper Tier Natural Heritage Policies Jurisdiction General Description Protected Areas Mapping Component Lambton County Natural Heritage System with

Group A, Group B & Group C Features. Development policies shown in text, not designated on Land Use Schedule.

Group A – PSW, Hab. of Threatened and Endangered Species (No Development Permitted) Group B – Adjacent Lands, Primary Corridors, Fish Hab., Sig. Woodlands, Sig. Valleylands, Sig. ANSI’s, LSW (Development contingent on EIS).

Natural Heritage System identified on Separate Schedule. Primary and Secondary corridors identified in Appendix. Not designated.

Wellington County The Greenland System includes natural heritage or areas in which natural or man-made conditions may pose a threat to public safety. Core Greenlands and Greenlands shown on land use schedule. Designated.

Core Greenlands – PSW, Hab. Of Threatened and Endangered Species, Floodway and Hazardous lands (No Development or Site Alteration Permitted) Greenlands- Wetlands, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Streams and Valley land, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, ANSI’s, woodlots, fish, wildlife, and plant habitat (Permitted uses if conditions met)

Core Greenland and Greenland areas are identified on various schedules. Designated.

Perth County Natural Resources/ Environment Policies. Features included within this designation are included on Land Use Schedule. Specific descriptions included in text. Designated

No development or site alteration permitted on PSW, LSW, Sig, Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species, and Fish Habitat. Development or Site Alteration may be permitted on Adjacent lands, Sig. Wildlife, Sig. ANSI’s, SIG. Woodlands, Sig. Valley lands, Natural Watercourses and Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

Natural Resources/Environment areas shown on Schedule ‘A’ Maps. Designated. Adjacent lands are shown on Lands Use Plan as an overlay.

Central Cataraqui Region

Natural Heritage Study with Natural Heritage ‘A’ and Natural Heritage ‘B’. Both designations would require an EIA prior to development consideration. Still in draft form.

Natural Heritage ‘A’ – all wetlands evaluated by MNR, Sig. ANSI’s, Sig. habitat of endangered and threatened species (No development or Site Alteration Permitted). These areas would be designated. Natural Heritage ‘B’ – Sig. Woodlots, Sig. valleylands, Sig. wildlife habitat, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, unevaluated wetlands, lands within 120m of PSW, Lands within 30m of LSW, Lands within 30m of fish habitat, and lands within 50m of ANSI’s and sig. habitat of endangered and threatened species and groundwater recharge/discharge areas (Development and Site Alteration may be permitted). Implemented using overlay and requiring the completion of an EIS.

Mapping is included which delineates each feature identified through the study.

Middlesex County Natural System organized into Natural Environment Areas – wetlands, floodplains, flood The Natural System is shown on two


Upper Tier Natural Heritage Policies Jurisdiction General Description Protected Areas Mapping Component

Natural Environment Areas, Natural Heritage Features, Groundwater Features, and Natural Hazards. Only PSW’s are designated on land use plan. Overlay approach used for other natural features. Development policies are discussed within Natural System section.

regulated watercourses, Sig. habitats of endangered or threatened species ( No development Permitted) Natural Heritage Features – adjacent lands, Sig. Woodlands, Sig. Wildlife habitat, endangered or threatened Species Habitat, Aquatic Ecosystems including Fish Habitat, rivers, streams, ravine, Upland Corridors, Aggregate Resource areas, Petroleum Resource Pool areas, ANSI’s (DAR required) Groundwater Features – Groundwater Recharge area, Groundwater discharge and headwater areas, well head protection areas. Natural Hazards – Steep slope, unstable soils, fill regulated areas

schedules. Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use Includes Natural Environment Areas (Designated Wetlands, Watercourses, and Floodplains). Schedule ‘C’ includes Natural Heritage Features (not designated)

Halton Region Natural Heritage features included within a Greenland System with designations of Escarpment Natural Area, Greenland A, Greenland B, and Regional Waterfront Parks. Goal to preserve areas of significant ecological value and where appropriate create opportunities for recreation. Objectives and Requirements for designation are described for each natural heritage feature. Development guidelines not mentioned.

Escarpment Natural Areas – Sig. ANSI’s, Sig. stream valley and wetlands associated with Escarpment. Greenland ‘A’- hazard lands, Sig. landforms, streams, rivers, wetlands, Sig. scenic and heritage resources, PSW, Sig. habitat of endangered or threatened species. Greenland ‘B’ – Sig. Woodlands, ESA (not included in Escarpment Natural Area or Greenland A), Public Open Space (The Parkway Belt West Plan), LSW, Sig. ANSI’s, Carolinian Canada Sites, Halton Regional Forests, Environmental Protection Areas (identified by North Aldershot Inter-Agency) Regional Waterfront Parks – Burlington Beach Park, Burloak Park, Bronte Harbour Park.

The Greenland System mapped on MAP 1, The Regional Structure showing the four different designations and ESA’s.


6.0 Preferred Implementation Approach

The preferred implementation approach being recommended in conjunction with this review is similar to the designation approach described in Section 5.2 (above). This type of format is utilized by several jurisdictions researched in conjunction with this review and was selected for the following reasons;

i) Provides policies which are in conformity with the PPS ii) Can be readily implemented through existing County policies iii) Is consistent with other Upper Tier jurisdictions in southwestern Ontario

6.1 Existing Oxford County Policies

At present Oxford County incorporates natural heritage features within the Natural and Cultural Resource Management Policies under a Section titled ‘Natural Heritage System’. The primary designations within this category are Environmental Protection (EP) and Open Space (OS). The EP designation applies to significant environmental features including wetlands, habitat of threatened and endangered species, woodlands, fish habitat, valleylands, wildlife habitat and Life Science ANSI’s. The Open Space designation applies to regulatory floodplains, floodways, Conservation Authority and other public lands, Earth Science ANSI’s, parks, pathways, recreation areas and storm water management facilities.

6.2 Environmental Protection Policies

Existing Environmental Protection policies contain a description of those features included within the EP designation and a set of individual policies related to each feature. There is a distinction made between significant natural heritage features and locally significant features. Individual policies include a description of how the feature has been identified, whether the feature is currently included within the EP designation and a definition of adjacent lands associated with that feature for planning purposes.

6.3 Recommended Approach for EP Policies

The recommended approach is to incorporate three separate categories within the Natural and Cultural Resource Management Section of the Oxford County Plan. The new categories would blend with existing Environmental Protection Policies contained within the plan and would be similarly titled such as EP1, EP2, and Environmental Conservation or Greenlands 1-3, so that users of the plan understand that they are related. Another option would be to mix the two concepts, such as EP1 and EP2 with Greenlands for the third category. The first two categories would continue to be designated on Schedule C-1 Environmental Features Plan, and would include all the features currently included within the broader EP policy section. The third category would be illustrated either on the


existing Environmental Features Schedule (C-1) or on a newly created Schedule (C-2?), but not designated. These would be implemented through policies included within the Natural Environment Section of the Plan. A detailed description of each of these categories is included below and an example of the associated mapping is provided in Figure 1.

6.3.1 EP1 – Environmental Protection 1 The EP1 category would include provincially significant wetlands and significant habitat of threatened and endangered species to bring existing policies into conformity with Section 2.1.3 of the PPS. No development or site alteration would be permitted within areas designated as EP1. Existing OP policies should be modified to strengthen this section. Examples from other jurisdictions are included within Appendix II for reference.

6.3.2 EP2 – Environmental Protection 2

The EP2 category would include all other features described within existing EP policies including:

� significant woodlands (identified using the revised criteria recommended within Section 2.4 of this report),

� significant valleylands, � significant Life Science ANSI’s, � significant wildlife habitat (not yet identified), � fish habitat, and � locally significant wetlands (existing and those identified using the revised criteria

recommended within Section 2.4 of this report). Lands that fall within the EP2 category would also be designated on land use plans and would incorporate existing Environmental Protection Area policies currently contained within the Oxford County OP. Existing policies pertaining to the completion of an EIS would apply, as would the existing permitted and prohibited uses detailed within the plan.

6.3.3 EC – Environmental Conservation The EC category would include natural features not captured within EP1 or EP2, as a way of recognizing the ecological function provided by these features. This category is supported by Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.6 of the PPS and will be an important part of the Natural Heritage System. Features which would be included are (see additional discussion below):

� adjacent lands to significant features, � connecting links and corridors (not yet identified), � non-significant wetlands, � non-significant woodlands, � meadows, and, � thickets.


Thresholds for identifying features to be included in the EC category can include size of woodlands, wetlands and meadows. At this point a distinction between urban and rural landscapes could be provided, as follows:

� all urban wetlands, >0.5ha rural � urban woodlands >2ha, >4ha rural � meadows and thickets associated with EP1 and EP2 features

Regarding meadows and thickets; the intent is to capture those which contribute to the natural heritage system. UTRCA has mapped thickets, meadows and pastures which are located within and outside of floodplains. Hedgerows have also been mapped and may fall into the EC category when they are associated with one of the listed features. Otherwise, they may come into play under the connecting links and corridors. The size thresholds refer to the extent of the woodland and/or wetland in its entirety, and are not to be limited by property ownership or parcel sizes. Lands identified as EC can be illustrated on Schedule C-1 (or a new schedule to be created C-2) and will be supported in policy contained within the document. Development on EC lands would trigger an EIS, scoped to address sustaining the ecological function, but not necessarily the feature. An example of this would be where a 2ha rural unevaluated wetland provides water storage and infiltration. The EIS would be required to show how these functions can be maintained. In the EC category, the possibility of a replacement for loss policy could be considered. A replacement policy would provide an opportunity to restore or enhance lands as compensation for removal of natural cover. Guidelines for replacement should be developed to ensure appropriate replacement of removed habitats. Consideration should be given to location, extent, species used, size of material, etc. Ratios of 1:1, or up to 5:1, have been used in other jurisdictions when requiring restoration for removed habitats. An area equal to, or up to five times the size of the area removed, would be required to be restored . For example, a woodland which does not meet any of the criteria for significance still provides an ecological function, such as forest cover in the watershed. If part, or all, of the woodland were to be removed, the forest cover function could be replaced in another suitable location. Other Natural features which are not included in EP1, EP2 or EC would include habitats outside of the natural heritage system, such as very small wetlands (<0.5ha), small woodlands (<2ha in urban areas and <4ha in rural areas), isolated thickets, meadows and hedgerows. General Natural Heritage policies provide encouragement for the preservation of all natural habitats. The Woodlands Conservation By-Law is a mechanism for protecting wooded areas and trees.


6.3.4 Open Space Lands currently designated as Open Space include regulatory floodplains, floodways, Conservation Authority and other public lands, Earth Science ANSI’s, parks, pathways, recreation areas and storm water management facilities. These lands contribute to the Natural Heritage System as they are generally “green” and lack impervious surfaces. No changes to the Open Space category are recommended in conjunction with this review.

6.3.5 Stewardship Implementation Lands identified as EP1, EP2 or EC would also be utilized in identifying suitable lands for restoration projects, tree planting initiatives and other stewardship projects discussed by the Implementation Advisory Committee in conjunction with the ONHS study. In regards to the County’s Woodlands Conservation By-Law, it is recommended that lands designated as EP1 or EP2 be protected against any tree clearing applications exceeding 1 ha in size. Any illegal tree clearing activities should require at least a 2:1 restoration policy (eg. restore 2 times the area removed). Sites located within or adjacent to lands designated as EP1, EP2 or EC would be targeted first for restoration.

6.3.6 Conformity with PPS The approach described above is consistent with that utilized by several adjacent upper-tier jurisdictions and is strongly supported by policies within the PPS. EP1 would contain features described within Section 2.1.3 of the PPS and would include restrictive policies as prescribed by the province. EP2 would bring County policies in conformance with Section 2.1.4 of the PPS. The inclusion of EC within the Natural Environment policy section of the plan will bring County policies into conformance with Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.6 of the PPS, which identify all natural heritage features for protection and discuss the Natural Heritage System and the importance of maintaining connections and linkages within the system as well as the restoration and enhancement of the system.

6.4 Fish Habitat

6.4.1 Inclusion of Municipal Drains As discussed in Section 3.0, aquatic resources identified through the Oxford Natural Heritage Study were categorized into three primary types. Type 1 watercourses were described as more sensitive and complex systems with permanent flow, Type 2 watercourses included less sensitive systems with permanent flow and Type 3 watercourses had intermittent flow. The assessment included a review of watercourse classifications assigned in conjunction with the Drain Classification Project, aquatic Species At Risk information and watercourse benthic data. The criterion that was utilized was based upon accepted physiological characteristics of watercourses and therefore did not include the status in regards to the Drainage Act. The Federal Fisheries Act, which is enforced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in cooperation with local Conservation Authorities, does not distinguish between watercourses classified as municipal drains and those deemed to be ‘natural’.


In fact, many ‘natural’ watercourses have been classified as municipal drains by being incorporated into drainage reports. Although we can understand concerns expressed by the farming community regarding the inclusion of municipal drains within the aquatic portion of the ONHS, utilizing an assessment methodology based strictly on physiographic features and aquatic biota of the watercourse will ensure that the most significant and sensitive watercourses are protected for the long term.

6.4.2 Implementation of Significant Aquatic Resources

Recommendations pertaining to aquatic habitat that were contained within the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) report are very detailed, covering a range of activities and initiatives including regulatory measures, personal incentives and stewardship programs. These recommendations were reviewed and found to be very comprehensive. The preferred planning implementation approach discussed previously in this report will assist with several of the implementation alternatives supported by the IAC. In particular, targeting all components of the Natural Heritage System (EP1, EP2 and EC) with grant and incentive programs will ensure that the limited resources and funding that is available provides the greatest benefits. Implementation of significant aquatic resources is not required. The Provincial Policy Statement does not distinguish between significant and non-significant fish habitat, merely noting that “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements”. Existing policies contained within the Oxford County Official Plan also do not currently distinguish between significant and non-significant fish habitat. It is recommended that when drains are reviewed for maintenance activities, that drains in EP1 and EP2 areas be screened carefully. Things to consider include whether cleanout is really necessary, ways to avoid or limit impacts to lands adjacent to the watercourse, and is decommissioning of the drain a possibility to aid in restoring wetlands.

6.4.3 Implementation Alternatives

Based on the preferred implementation approach discussed above, aquatic habitat resources will be protected by being identified as a component of the Natural Heritage System within the EP2 designation, but will not be specifically identified on maps, other than as a watercourse segment. Adjacent lands associated with fish habitat (30m) would be identified and mapped within the EC component of the plan, making it easier to target these areas for restoration and enhancement in conjunction with stewardship and other grant programs such as the Clean Water Project. Adjacent lands are identified from the edge of the wetted bank on both sides of the watercourse at the site specific stage.


Another implementation measure which could be explored by the County is the targeting of specific watercourses types for stewardship initiatives based on the category identified through the ONHS. For example, Type 3 watercourses could be targeted for buffer strips, land retirement and tree planting efforts, while Type 1 watercourses could be targeted for enhancement and restoration. However, there was some debate amongst technical staff whether there is rationale for specifying actions for watercourses according to their System Types. It was agreed that all watercourses are important to natural heritage, and that any distinction between System Types, if deemed appropriate, should not be construed as a difference in their importance.


Figure 1. Example of Environmental Features Mapping

EP2 (criteria 3, 5, 6)

EP2

EP2(criteria 2, 4, 5, 6)

EC(meadow) EP1

EP2 (Criteria 3)

EP2 (Criteria 3)

EP2 (criteria 2, 4, 6)

EC(meadow)

EP1EP1

EP2 (criteria 2)EP2

EP2(criteria 2)

Wetland

OtherOther

Other

Other

EP2 (Criteria 6)

AIRPORT RD

PROUSE RD

CU

LLOD

EN

LINE

511500

511500

512000

512000

512500

512500

513000

513000

513500

513500

514000

514000

514500

514500

515000

515000

4749

500

4750

000

4750

000

4750

500

4750

500

4751

000

4751

000

4751

500

4751

500

4752

000

4752

000

NRSI_0878_ONHS_PeerReview_15K_12Jan09_SWM

´0 200 400 600 800Meters

ONHS Peer ReviewExample of Environmental

Features MappingJanuary 12, 2009

Project: 0878NAD83 - UTM Zone 17

Scale: 1:15,000 (8.5x11")

Figure 1

Legend

EP1 - Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW)

EP2 - Significant Terrestrial Patches (Criteria 2,3,6)

EP2 - Fish Habitat

EC - Meadows in conjunction with EP1 and EP2 lands

EC - Adjacent lands

Wetlands (120m)

Woodland (50m)

Watercourse (30m)

Road

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc.This map is proprietary and confidential and must not be duplicatedor distributed by any means without express written permission ofNRSI.Produced using information (including airphotos from Spring 2006)under license with the Oxford County, copyright Oxford County.


7.0 Mapping Evaluation As the County of Oxford attempts to implement the findings of the Oxford Natural Heritage Study, accurate mapping of natural features becomes critical to the process. County staff have reviewed the mapping and found a number of discrepancies. These were discussed at a meeting on September 15, 2008. The root of the problem appears to arise from the fact that woodland mapping does not appear to be consistent with the ecological definition of a woodland. Specific issues with mapping which were identified by County staff included occurrences such as residential treed areas being included in the significance analysis, narrow hedgerows included in patches, and gaps being included or excluded. NRSI and BMROSS discussed these issues with County and UTRCA staff and have reviewed the background information which accompanied the mapping data set, “Summary of Terrestrial Criteria”, “Vegetation Community Polygon Methodology” and “Wetland Review/Verification (September 2005)”. It is advised that patches be identified using an Ecological Land Classification (ELC) approach (Lee et al 1998). While it is not possible to carry out detailed ELC mapping on each polygon, the principles of ELC can and should be applied. For example, the ELC system uses 60% tree cover to indicate a forest community. Polygons less than 0.5ha were not mapped, which is in keeping with the ELC system. Through this peer review, NRSI and BMROSS have attempted to provide advice as to how to filter patches in order to identify significant woodlands. The mapping advice provided below is aimed at achieving this. The following is provided to County staff when reviewing patches for mapping accuracy:

1. Manicured patches be excluded from analysis. Patches which are manicured are those which have been altered from a natural state by mowing or removing the natural herbaceous groundcover, shrubs and woody regeneration. Manicured patches should be excluded from the significant woodlands analysis. These patches have been degraded from a natural state, but are still important in providing tree cover, shade, limited habitat for wildlife and human enjoyment. Typically these patches are found in existing developed areas and may include parks and golf courses.

2. Hedgerows be identified separately from patches. The ONHS Vegetation

Community Polygon Methodology describes that hedgerows were identified as: “linear in shape and 30 to 50m in width. Hedgerows less than 30m in width were removed while those greater than 50m were classified as a different polygon type.” These rules are valid for identifying hedgerows, but the hedgerow polygons were later dissolved into the woodland patch polygons as per Step 2 in the “GIS Methodology for Identifying Polygons – by Type.” Hedgerows should be excluded from the woodland polygon and from the significant woodland analysis, but can be included in the natural heritage system.

3. Gaps be identified. Rules were provided in the Vegetation Community Polygon

Methodology for determining gaps, using 20m as a threshold for identifying a gap


between two patches. The rules were reviewed and were found to be reasonable, but may not have been applied consistently in the mapping work. The following are the parameters given for identifying gaps:

a. The polygons are more than 20m apart b. The polygons are separated by a permanent structure c. For gaps within a vegetation community; the open area must be greater

than 20m in width and greater than 25% of the overall polygon area.

4. Watercourse mapping be improved. The watercourse layer should be compared to the 2006 aerial photography to attempt to identify and remove buried watercourses from the analysis. These portions of streams should be maintained in the data set for other purposes, but just not used in the analysis of significance of patches.

The above advice is expected to improve patch mapping accuracy related to the analysis of patches for significance. Patches and hedgerows which are excluded from the analysis of significance should still be maintained and included in EC, (refer to Section 6.3.3) where appropriate. The County also requested some mapping advice related to implementation. Examples were provided where very small portions of a patch fell onto a particular parcel, with the question as to whether this was reasonable to warrant a designation of Significance on that parcel. Also questioned were cases where only a small portion of the patch overlapped with an area of significance as used in Criteria #3, 6 and 7. Some of these can be resolved through the recommended changes in Science and Methodology as outlined in Section 2.0, but others are discussed here. In the case of a natural feature, or patch, which is dissected by numerous landowner parcels, a reasonable approach is recommended. The County does not want to place a designation of significance on hundreds of residential lots, based on the back lot line containing a few trees associated with an off-site feature. On the other hand, it is valuable for landowners to be aware of adjacent natural features and their functions and values, and appropriate stewardship of these resources. On properties where development or re-development is a reasonable possibility, the designation should be applied and the landowner informed. On properties where there is a low likelihood of development or re-development, the feature should still be designated, but an educational approach be applied. Similarly, a landowner adjacent to a significant feature, where development may occur, should be made aware of their responsibilities. The chart in Figure 2 shows the process to go through when evaluating each property affected by a significant patch. Criteria #3, 6 and 7 all rely on a portion of a patch overlapping, or being within a certain distance of a significant feature, such as #3, patches within 150m, (100m recommended), of a Life Science ANSI, ESA, Hilts site or other protected area in the Official Plan. Implementing these criteria calls for a rule regarding when a patch is meeting the distance criteria, or not. In order to keep the analysis as simple as possible, it is recommended that straight line distance from edge to edge of patches be used to determine whether the criteria are met. The possibility of using a minimum area within the distance criteria was discussed (i.e. at least 5ha, or at least 25% of the patch), but


this was discarded based on the complexity of the calculations and the lack of defensibility. There is no precedent for using a minimum area within the radius to satisfy the criteria.


Figure 2. Implementation of Significant Features

Is property within adjacent lands?

No

Yes

No Nothing

No Education Yes

Is significant patch on property (even a small overlap)?

Is development likely?

Yes Inform landowner of responsibilities, EIS, policies


8.0 Conclusions This report summarizes the results of the peer review of the technical components of the Oxford County Natural Heritage Study (2006) and provides advice on how to best implement the findings of the study. The peer review, which was conducted jointly by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. and B. M. Ross & Associates Ltd., was undertaken to develop an implementation strategy for addressing significant terrestrial and aquatic features within the Oxford County Official Plan. The review included an assessment of scientific methodologies utilized in the study, interviews with key personnel involved in completion of the study and a review of comparable technical studies completed in similar jurisdictions. This report recommends a multi-level approach to implementation consisting of EP1, EP2 and EC, which form components of the Natural Heritage System. The levels of Environmental Protection relate to the specific Natural Heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). The peer review of the science and methodology provides refinements to the criteria to be used to determine significant patches. Suggestions are provided for refinements to the aquatic methodology and analysis, which may be helpful if it becomes necessary to designate aquatic habitats. Thresholds are given for determining habitats to be included in the lowest level of protection (EC), and therefore the Natural Heritage System. All habitats provide some value and contribute to the overall goal of maintaining the County’s natural cover. The Natural Heritage System identifies areas for restoration and enhancement in order to increase cover in the County in the most meaningful way. The possibility of a “replacement for loss” approach would be beneficial theoretically, in providing a mechanism to ensure no net loss of habitat. I trust that this report is satisfactory. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this interesting and challenging project. Thank you to all who participated and provided advice in this review, as well as those who shared their experiences in other jurisdictions: County of Oxford Marg Misek-Evans, Corporate Manager of Community and Strategic Planning Paul Michiels, Senior Policy Planner, Community and Strategic Planning Shelley Delanghe, GIS Analyst Carol Tattersall, County Forestry Officer Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Jeff Brick, Coordinator, Hydrology and Regulatory Services Tara Tchir, Ecologist Cathy Quinlan, Terrestrial Biologist Terry Chapman, GIS Specialist John Schwindt, Aquatic Biologist Cataraqui Conservation Authority Tom Beaubiah, Biologist

Norfolk County Scott Peck, Senior Planner Wellington County Mark Van Patter, Senior Planner


9.0 References City of Hamilton. 2005. City of Hamilton 2005 Official Plan Review. Discussion Paper

#1: Natural Heritage System. City of Hamilton. 2005. Discussion Paper #4a: Review of Significant Woodland Criteria.

Technical Discussion Paper. City of Hamilton Official Plan Review 2004. Planning and Development Department, Long Range Planning and Design Division. January 2005.

County of Lambton. 1997. County of Lambton Official Plan. County of Oxford. 2005. County of Oxford Official Plan. Updated in 2006 and 2008. County of Perth. 2003. County of Perth Official Plan. County of Wellington. 1999. County of Wellington Official Plan. Dougan and Associates with Snell and Cecile Environmental Research. 2008. City of

Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy. Revised Draft Report (July 2008). Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding

Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Second Edition. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1999. Fact Sheet L-2: A Class Authorization

System for Agricultural Municipal Drains in the Southern Ontario Region. November 1999. Website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/CENTRAL/pub/fact-fait-on/l2_e.htm.

Gartner Lee Limited. 2002. Final report: Rationale and Methodology for Determining Significant Woodlands in the Regional Municipality of Halton. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton. April 2002.

Grand River Conservation Authority. 2003. Wetlands Policy. Marshall Macklin Monaghan. 2007. Norfolk County Lakeshore Special Policy Area

Secondary Plan. Natural Heritage System Strategy. Prepared for Norfolk County. March 1, 2007.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. Ministry of Natural Resources. 2008. Identification and Confirmation Procedure for

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. PM 11.08. Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003. Wetland Drain Restoration Project “How To

Guide”. 57pp. Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993/4. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern

Manual. Third Edition. NEST Technical Manual TM-002. March 1993.


Ontario Nature. 2004. Suggested Conservation Guidelines for the Identification of

Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Region of Halton. 2002. Rationale and Methodology for Determining Significant

Woodland in the Regional Municipality of Halton. Technical Background Paper #6. Schwindt, John. 2008. Personal communication via telephone. 3 November, 2008 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2003. The Middlesex Natural Heritage

Study – A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County. Final Draft July 2003.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2006. Oxford Natural Heritage Study.

County of Oxford.


Appendix I Excerpts and Definitions from the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)


2.1 NATURAL HERITAGE

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

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity or natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

2.1.3 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species; b) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, and c) significant coastal wetlands.

2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E

b) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield d) significant wildlife habitat; and e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest

unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 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.


Definitions

Fish Habitat: as defined in the Fisheries Act, c. F-14, means spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

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

Natural Heritage Features and Areas: means features and areas, including significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, fish habitat, significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield, significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area.

Negative impacts: means

a) in regard to policy 2.2, degradation to the quality and quantity of water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities;

b) in regard to fish habitat, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, except where, in conjunction with the appropriate authorities, it has been authorized under the Fisheries Act, using the guiding principle of no net loss of productive capacity; and

c) in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities.

Significant Woodlands: In regard to woodlands, 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;

Woodlands: means 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.


Appendix II Selected Policies and Maps from Other Jurisdictions

HIGHWAY 401

HIGHWAY 401

GORE

CONC 1

CONC 2

CONC 4

LESLIE

CONC7

WELLINGTON RD 34

WATSON

SR10

LAIRD

SR25

SR20

VICTORIA

FORESTELL

ELLIS

HIGHWAY 401

MALTBY

WE

LLING

TON

RD

35

HUME

WE

LLING

TON

RD

32

MCLEAN

WELLINGTON RD 36

LAKE

WELLINGTO

NRD

46

HIG

HW

AY6

SR12

CONC11

CALFASS

WELLINGTON RD 37

CARTER

GILMOUR

NASSAGAWEYA-PUSLINCH

TL

PIO

NEE

R

MA

DD

AU

GH

EAG

LE

DO

WN

EY

WELLINGTO

NRD

41

FOX RUN

CLE

RG

Y

RH

OD

ES

FARNHAM

KERR

HAMMERSLEY

FIEL

DIN

G

COOKS MILL

SR 17

LITTLE

MC

CO

RM

MIC

KS

DEER VIEW

BUTLER

NICHOLAS BEAVER

MAC

PHER

SONS

ELM

CARRIAGE

FLAMBOROUGH-PUSLINCH TL

BRIDLE PATH

OAK

MASON

CONC2A

TRAVELLED

LAKESIDE

SR20

VICTORIA

HIGHWAY 6


TL

WATSON

LESLIE

SR25

CONC11

LAKE

CO

NC

7

SR10


TL

Morriston

Aberfoyle

Arkell

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1817 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

GORE

I

II

III

VI

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

Cityof

Guelph

GUELPH/ERAMOSA

GUELPH/ERAMOSA

PA7-4

PA7-2

PA7-6

PA7-1

PA7-3

PA7-5

See Policy 9.8.2

H

UC

UC

PuslinchLake

Mountsberg Reservoir

(

kj

Schedule A7PUSLINCH

1

(kj Landfill Site

Proposed Interchange

1 - Existing licensed aggregate operations(sand, gravel, bedrock) are shown inAppendix 2 for information purposes.

This is not survey data. All rights reservered. May not be reproducedwithout permission.

Sources:County of Wellington, Planning and Development Department, Ministry ofNatural Resources, Grand River Conservation Authority, Hamilton RegionConservation Authority, and Conservation Halton, Upper Grand DistrictSchool Board.

Produced using natural resource information provided by localConservation Authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources(Copyright Queen's Printer, 1997).

Updated: February 4, 2008

Date Printed: February 7, 2008

²0 1,500 3,000750

Metres

1:25,000

LegendThe Urban System

Hamlet Area

Urban Centre

Other Designations

Mineral Aggregate Area

Policy Areas

Proposed Major Roadways

Provincial Earth Science ANSI

Core Greenlands

Greenlands

Primary Agricultural

Secondary Agricultural

Country Residential

Recreational

Rural Industrial

H

UC

Section 11 Natural Resources/Environment

Office Consolidation April 2008

11-1

SECTION 11 - NATURAL RESOURCES/ENVIRONMENT 11.1 INTRODUCTION

Land use activities and land clearing practices that occurred years ago throughout the County have resulted in a situation where the amount of remaining natural resource/environment areas are quite small. From the time that the County was first settled in the 1800’s, significant amounts of wooded areas were cleared and wet areas were drained in the pursuit of agricultural and farming practices. In more recent years, local planning policy has emphasized the importance of the remaining natural areas and the need to protect, preserve, and enhance them.

The remaining natural resource/environment areas in the County consist of wetland areas, woodlands, some water course and valley land areas, and environmentally sensitive areas. These areas have in the past and should continue to provide benefits at the property owner level and at the general public level. The County recognizes the important role and functions that the remaining natural resource/environment areas have and through this Official Plan is taking steps to ensure their continued existence.

It is the intent of this Plan, through the "Natural Resources/Environment" designation, to provide policy directed towards the preservation and protection of the remaining natural resources/environment areas and to provide a policy framework which encourages the enhancement and improvement of these areas. The County wishes to promote the wise stewardship and management of all natural resource/environment areas and to encourage the re-establishment of natural environment areas in appropriate locations.

11.2 GOALS

The following goals are established for the "Natural Resources/Environment" designation:

(a) To identify natural resources/environment features in the County which are of

provincial and local significance; (b) To ensure the long-term protection, conservation, and enhancement of the

identified "Natural Resources/Environment" areas; (c) To protect, preserve, and enhance the various features comprising the "Natural

Resources/Environment" designation by prohibiting incompatible development and by controlling and regulating compatible development;

(d) To provide a process whereby development proposals can be reviewed and

assessed with respect to their potential impact on "Natural Resources/Environment" areas;

(e) To encourage the re-establishment or naturalization of "Natural

Resources/Environment" areas;



11-2

(f) To promote the wise stewardship and management of "Natural Resources/Environment" areas;

(g) To encourage co-operation among the County, local municipalities, government

agencies, landowners and others involved with natural resources/environment matters; and

(h) To protect the remaining forest cover of the County and encourage rehabilitation

through management and stewardship initiatives; and (i) To protect water resources, the County will encourage rehabilitation through

storm water management and stewardship initiatives.

11.3 LAND USE DESIGNATION AND MAPPING Policies for the "Natural Resources/Environment" designation shall apply to the areas shown as "Natural Resources/Environment" on Schedule "A" (Land Use Plan) to this Official Plan.

The areas shown as "Natural Resources/Environment" on Schedule "A" are based on information from various sources, including studies, reports, and maps prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities, the County, and other agencies.

The lands adjacent to the “Natural Resources/ Environment” have been shown as an overlay rather than a designation in the Plan.

11.4 DEFINITION/PERMITTED USES

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation as established by this Plan includes the following features:

(a) Provincially significant wetland areas and adjacent lands; (b) Locally significant wetland areas; (c) Significant habitat of threatened and endangered species; (d) Significant wildlife habitats; (e) Significant areas of natural and scientific interest (Life Science ANSI's); (f) Significant woodlands; (g) Significant valley lands; (h) Fish habitat; (i) Environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge areas; and other natural

resource areas; and (j) Natural watercourses. It is the intent of this designation that the natural resource and environment features and their attributes be protected, preserved, and enhanced for the benefit of present and future generations of Perth County residents. As a general rule, uses such as conservation, forestry, wildlife areas, and passive recreation are permitted uses. Where additional uses are to be permitted, the specific policy dealing with the various components of the "Natural Resources/Environment" designation shall identify those additional uses.



11-3

ADDED BY Some of the “Natural Resources/Environment” features as shown on Schedule "A" to this OPA # 47 Plan are based on aerial photography taken in the mid-1980's under the Ontario Base

Mapping program (OBM) program. Where watercourse and/or woodlot locations have changed and are not properly shown on the Schedule "A", the policies of this Section shall apply to the proper locations of the watercourse and/or woodlot locations. In situations where, due to the scale of Schedule “A”, the exact location of each feature or the nature of each feature is unclear, the source files at the County of Perth Planning and Development Office should be consulted and are available for review.

11.5 SPECIFIC FEATURE POLICIES 11.5.1 Wetland Areas 11.5.1.1 Provincially Significant Wetlands

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation includes those wetland areas that have been identified as provincially significant wetlands by the Ministry of Natural Resources and their adjacent land areas within 120 metres of the wetland area. Presently there are five provincially significant wetland areas in the County - the Little Lakes Complex, the Ellice Huckleberry Swamp, the Conroy Woods, the Gads Hill Swamp South, and the Ratzburg Complex. Where additional provincially significant wetland areas in the County are identified, this Plan shall be amended as appropriate to recognize such additional area. Specific policies for the provincially significant wetland areas and their adjacent lands are as follows:

(a) Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within the wetland area; (b) Development and site alteration may be permitted within the 120 metre adjacent

land area provided that such development will not result in negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of the wetland. An environmental impact study or other appropriate study shall be required in order to assess the impact of the development and site alteration;

(c) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, agricultural activities

appropriate to woodlots such as maple syrup production and the harvesting of mature trees are permitted in a Provincially Significant Wetland.

Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (b) above, agricultural activities including plowing, seeding, harvesting, grazing, animal husbandry, and existing buildings associated with farming activities are permitted on adjacent lands without the need for an environmental impact study or other appropriate study; and

(d) Local municipal Zoning By-laws shall zone wetland areas so as to preclude

development and site alteration.



11-4

11.5.1.2 Locally Significant Wetlands

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation includes those wetland areas that have been identified as being locally significant wetlands. These consist of the 26 wetland areas identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources which are not provincially significant wetlands. Specific policies for these locally significant wetland areas are as follows:

(a) Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within the wetland area; (b) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, agricultural activities

appropriate to woodlots such as maple syrup production and the harvesting of mature trees, and existing recreational snowmobile trails, shall be permitted without an environmental impact study or other appropriate study. Such activities are to be carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner which preserves the woodland and wetland functions. Extensions to existing snowmobile trails may be permitted subject to an environmental impact study or other appropriate study; and

(c) Local municipal Zoning By-laws shall zone locally significant wetland areas so

as to preclude development and site alteration, excepting that permitted by paragraph (b) above.

11.5.2 Significant Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species ADDED BY The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation recognizes and acknowledges that OPA # 47 there are a number of significant habitats for threatened or endangered species in the

County of Perth.

It is not the intent of this Official Plan to specifically designate these sites, but rather to provide a commitment to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the local municipalities in the County to prepare an acceptable implementation framework and administrative procedure for the protection of the habitats of these species. The implementation framework and administrative procedure should establish a suitable review mechanism whereby development proposals in the vicinity of the sites can be assessed with respect to their impact on the site and species and address any necessary mitigation measures.

(a) Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within the habitat area; (b) Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands provided that

such development will not negatively affect natural features or the ecological function of the habitat area. In order to allow for the assessment of impacts, the adjacent land area should be 50 metres in width and if the development may impact the ecological function of the habitat area, an impact assessment may be required. An environmental impact study or other appropriate study shall be required in order to assess the impact of the development and site alteration; and



11-5

(c) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (b) above, agricultural activities including plowing, seeding, harvesting, grazing, animal husbandry, and existing buildings associated with farming operations are permitted on adjacent lands without a study. In the case of new buildings and structures involving the housing of livestock/poultry, manure storage, or corn dryers or other similar structures, an appropriate study may be required to show that such development will not negatively affect natural features of the ecological function of the habitat area.

11.5.3 Significant Wildlife Habitats

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation is intended to include other significant wildlife habitat. Where the Ministry of Natural Resources has identified lands providing significant wildlife habitat, such areas shall be appropriately recognized on the land use schedules forming part of this Plan. Specific policies for significant wildlife habitats are as follows:

(a) Development and site alteration within the habitat area or on adjacent lands that

are within 30 metres of these areas may be permitted provided that such development will not negatively affect the natural features or ecological function of the habitat area. An environmental impact study or other appropriate study shall be required in order to assess the impact of the development and site alteration;

(b) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, agricultural activities

including plowing, seeding, harvesting, grazing, animal husbandry, and existing buildings associated with farming operations are permitted on adjacent lands without a study. In the case of new buildings and structures involving the housing of livestock/poultry, manure storage, or corn dryers or other similar structures, an appropriate study may be required to show that such development will not negatively affect the natural feature or the ecological function of the habitat area.

11.5.4 Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI's) - Life Science

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation includes one significant area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) as identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources. This particular ANSI is a life science ANSI and it is identified as the Molesworth Woods in Wallace Township.

Specific policies for life science ANSI's are as follows:

(a) Development and site alteration may be permitted within a life science ANSI and

on adjacent lands within 30 metres of a life science ANSI provided that such development will not negatively affect the natural features or ecological function of the life science ANSI. An environmental impact study or other appropriate study shall be required in order to assess the impact of the development and site alteration; and



11-6

(b) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, agricultural activities including plowing, seeding, harvesting, grazing, animal husbandry, and existing buildings associated with farming operations are permitted on adjacent lands without a study. In the case of new buildings and structures involving the housing of livestock/poultry, manure storage, or corn dryers or other similar structures, an appropriate study may be required to show that such development will not negatively affect the natural feature or other ecological feature of the life science ANSI.

11.5.5 Significant Woodlands ADDED BY In determining what constitutes a significant woodland, the County recognizes the OPA # 47 scarcity of this important feature and has moved beyond the 4.0 hectare woodlot size

criterion as recommended by the Ministry of Natural Resources from the implementation guidelines of the Provincial Policy Statements in an effort to protect as much of the woodland area as possible. Accordingly, woodland areas that are 1.0 hectare or larger in size are designated “Natural Resources” in this Plan. This 1.0 hectare criterion shall be applied based on contiguous woodland area and not on the basis of property ownership.

ADDED BY While woodlands that are 1.0 hectare or larger in size have been identified as significant OPA # 47 woodlands and are therefore designated "Natural Resources/ Environment", this Plan

acknowledges that many of these significant woodlands form and function as part of larger farm properties. Approximately one-third of the woodland areas in the County are less than 1.0 hectare in size and therefore are not designated “Natural Resources/Environment”. In order to protect all woodlands, the County has passed a By-law to regulate the destruction of trees by cutting, burning or other means. It is a policy of this Plan that all woodlots be retained and that the clearing of woodlots will not be permitted with the exception of any clearing permitted in accordance with the provisions of the County of Perth's Forest Conservation By-law. For those woodland areas located in the “Agriculture” designation, the policies of Section 5.5.5 of this Plan also apply.

Specific policies for significant woodlands are as follows:

ADDED BY (a) With the exception of the specific activities noted in Clause (b) below, develop- OPA # 47 ment and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant woodland areas;

(b) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, agricultural activities such as

maple syrup production and the harvesting of mature trees, and recreational snowmobile trails are considered as appropriate activities in woodlots and therefore are permitted without an environmental impact study or other appropriate study. Such activities are to be carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner so as to preserve the overall woodlot function;

(c) Generally, mineral aggregate extraction should not occur within significant

woodlands. Where the extraction of aggregate material from a significant woodland area is justified and where a license for such extraction has been obtained under the provisions of the Aggregate Resources Act, the cutting of



11-7

woodland to facilitate the extraction shall be permitted provided that only the minimum amount of woodland cutting occurs and that the extraction area is rehabilitated back to woodland use during and following the aggregate removal. Further, the permitted mineral aggregate extraction must be carried out in a manner which is environmentally sensitive to the remaining woodland area; and

ADDED BY (d) The local municipality's Zoning By-law shall zone significant woodlands in a OPA # 47 manner so as to preclude development and site alteration excepting that permitted

(a) and (b) above. The local municipality may zone other woodlands in a manner consistent with the surrounding lands (e.g. agricultural) but shall be encouraged to zone all woodland areas with appropriate regulations to provide long term protection to the woodland areas.

ADDED BY (e) Development may be permitted within the 30 metre adjacent land/buffer area OPA # 47 provided that such development will not result in negative impacts on the

significant woodland. An environmental impact study or other appropriate study may be required in order to assess the impact of development.

11.5.6 Significant Valley Lands ADDED BY The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation is intended to include significant OPA # 47 valley land areas. While no such areas have yet been identified in Perth County, it is

recognized that further study of valley land areas is required in order to determine whether any of the valley land areas in Perth County are considered to be significant. Where significant valley land areas are identified, such areas shall be appropriately recognized and specific policies for such areas will be developed through the Official Plan Amendment process.

11.5.7 Fish Habitat

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation is intended to include fish habitat areas in the County as identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Specific policies for fish habitat areas are as follows:

(a) Development and site alterations shall not adversely affect any fish habitat.

Generally, development or site alterations are most likely to create adverse impacts within 30 metres of the water body. Development will not be permitted within 15 metres of a watercourse. Where development is proposed within 30 metres of a water body, it must be demonstrated that there is no negative impact;

ADDED BY (b) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, the clean out of municipal OPA # 47 drains shall be permitted in accordance with applicable regulations;

(c) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, extensions or enlargements of

existing buildings and structures in the adjacent land area may be permitted provided that it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources or other appropriate regulatory agency that such extension or enlargement will have no negative impact on the fish habitat;



11-8

(d) It is a policy of this Plan to encourage the re-establishment of naturally vegetated buffer strips along water bodies and headwater areas; and

(e) Although storm water management and drainage measures are often located some

distance from a watercourse these measures impact the water quality and quantity of the watercourse and affect the fish habitat. When evaluating storm water management and drainage activities, consideration shall be given to impacts upon fish habitat.

(f) Notwithstanding clauses (a), (b) and (c), the development proponent/land owner

must ensure that their activities will not harm, alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat as defined in the Federal Fisheries Act. The advice of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or their delegate should be sought where any proposal may potentially impact fish habitat. In instances where a proposal may result in a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat the proponent may be required to submit an environmental impact study or other appropriate study for review by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or their delegate.

(g) Local municipal Zoning By-laws shall zone fish habitats and their adjacent land

areas so as to preclude development and site alteration excepting that permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c) above.

11.5.8 Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Ground Water Recharge and Discharge Areas,

and Other Natural Resource Areas

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation also includes environmentally sensitive areas, ground water recharge and discharge areas, and other natural resource areas that have been designated for environmental protection purposes in previous local Official Plan documents in the County. The environmentally sensitive areas were identified in a 1982 study conducted by the University of Waterloo for Perth County and include 29 identified areas. The ground water recharge areas have been identified through studies such as those conducted by the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority for the Elma and Wallace Township area and which were incorporated into recent local Official documents for these municipalities. Other natural resource areas identified in previous local Official Plan documents and which were deemed worthy of continued preservation/protection are also included. Specific policies for these environmentally sensitive areas, ground water recharge areas, and other natural resource areas are as follows:

(a) Development and site alteration may be permitted on such lands provided that

such development will not have a negative impact on the natural resource feature of the subject area or the ecological and hydrological functions. An environmental impact study or other appropriate study shall be required in order to assess the impact of the development and site alteration. With respect to ground water recharge areas, development shall not result in a loss of ground water quantity or quality. The terms of reference for the environmental impact study should be submitted to the County for review and approval; and



11-9

(b) Notwithstanding the policy of paragraph (a) above, agricultural activities appropriate to woodland areas such as maple syrup production and the harvesting of mature trees shall be permitted without the need for an environmental impact study or other appropriate study; and

(c) Local municipal Zoning By-laws shall zone environmentally sensitive areas,

ground water recharge areas, and other identified natural resource areas so as to preclude development and site alteration, excepting that permitted by paragraph (b) above.

Concerning groundwater recharge areas, this Plan encourages the provincial agencies and the Conservation Authorities in the County to carry out such studies in order to identify ground water recharge areas throughout the County.

11.5.9 Natural Watercourses ADDED BY The “Natural Resources/Environment” designation is intended to include watercourses OPA # 47 identified on Schedule “A”. It is the intention of the County to develop specific policies

for watercourse areas and that these will be added to this Plan by amendment at a future date.

11.6 GENERAL POLICIES 11.6.1 Purpose

The "Natural Resources/Environment" designation contains those lands which perform important ecological functions and/or which protect biological diversity and life supporting systems that would be lost or degraded if such areas were developed or altered. The primary purpose of this designation is to preserve, protect, and enhance important environmental areas and features while protecting them from land use impacts that would reduce their size and physical form, impair their ecological functions, or degrade their quality.

11.6.2 Boundary Identification

The boundaries of the "Natural Resources/Environment" designation area general in nature and are intended to be approximate only. More specific boundary identification will occur when local municipal Zoning By-laws are revised/updated to implement the County Official Plan document. Amendments to this Official Plan shall not be required to incorporate boundary refinements/adjustments into local municipal Zoning By-laws.

11.6.3 Private Ownership

Many of the areas designated "Natural Resources/Environment" are held in private ownership. Nothing in this Plan implies an intention on the part of the County or the local municipalities to acquire such lands nor to make such areas available for public use.



11-10

11.6.4 Overlapping Features Many of the individual "Natural Resources/Environment" areas as shown on Schedule "A" (Land Use Plan) are comprised of two or more specific features listed in Section 11.4 above. Where there is a difference between the policies for each of the specific features, it is a policy of this Plan that the most restrictive of the policies are to be applied.

11.6.5 Natural Connections

In order to protect those lands which perform important ecological functions and/or to protect bio diversity and life supporting systems, and to enhance important environmental areas and features, those areas which form natural connections between these areas should be identified and protected.

11.7 CONSENT/SEVERANCE POLICIES

The following specific policies shall apply to consent applications which involve land within the "Natural Resources/Environment" designation as shown on Schedule "A" (Land Use Plan). They are intended to implement the foregoing goals and policies and are to be applied in addition to the general consent/severance policies set forth in Section 16.3 of this Plan.

11.7.1 New Lot Creation

As a general rule, the severing of lands in the "Natural Resources/ Environment" designation for the purpose of creating new lots shall not be permitted. An exception to this general rule may be applied where a conservation oriented group is proposing to sever an area for the purpose of conserving, preserving, enhancing, and/or improving the natural resource/ environment area. Such applications will be carefully reviewed and conditions, as appropriate, will be imposed to ensure conformity to the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan over the long term.

11.7.2 Agriculture and Land Uses

Where a severance of agricultural land within the "Agriculture" designation is being considered and a part of the land use extends into the "Natural Resources/ Environment" designation, such application may be approved provided it is demonstrated that there will be no significant impact on the "Natural Resources/ Environment" area. Consideration will be given to appropriate zoning by-law regulations or development controls to prohibit or regulate buildings and structures which could have negative impacts on the natural resource/ environment feature.

11.7.3 Lot Boundary Adjustments/Corrections

Consents involving lot boundary adjustments/corrections may be permitted provided that such adjustment/corrections are minor in nature and provided they have no significant impact on the natural resources/environment feature. Consideration will be given to the provisions of Section 50(3) and (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 and the provisions of the local municipality's implementing By-law when dealing with such applications.



11-11

11.7.4 Easements and Rights-of-Way

Consents to create easements and/or rights-of-way may be permitted provided that no new lots are created, that the need is substantiated and acceptable to the consent granting authority, and provided that there is no significant impact on the natural resource/environment feature.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

o

(

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

A5-12

A2-8Poole

Sebringville

Cromarty

StaffaA-20

A-16

Dublin

^̀̀̂ ^̀

^̀̀̂

^̀

^̀

^̀^̀

^̀̂̀^̀

^̀^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀^̀̀̂

^̀^̀^̀

^̀̂̀

^̀

^̀̀̂

^̀ ^̀^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀̂̀

^̀

^̀^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

^̀

Township of Perth East

Township of Perth South

Municipality of West Perth

Municipality of North Perth

A5-11

A2-11

A1-1

A1-8

A1-9

A2-1

A2-2

A2-3

A2-4

A2-5

A1-6

A2-6

A2-7

A2-9

A3-1

A4-2

A4-3

A4-4

A4-5

A4-7

A1-5

A4-9

A5-1

A5-2

A5-3

A1-4

A1-3

A1-2

A5-8

A5-7

A5-21

A1-12

A1-13

A1-14

A2-10

A2-12

A2-13

A2-15

A2-16

A2-17

A2-19

A2-21 A2-22A2-23

A4-10

A4-14

A5-10

A5-13

A5-14

A5-15

A5-16

A5-17

A5-19

A1-10

Tavistock

COUNTY

OF

OXFORD

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX

REG

ION

AL

MUN

ICIP

ALIT

Y O

F W

ATER

LOO

COUNTY OF WELLINGTON

COUN

TY

O

F

H

URO

N

Reg

iona

l Mun

icip

ality

Of W

ater

loo

Cou

nty

Of O

xfor

d

County Of Middlesex

III

III

XIII

XII

IX

XI

X

XVIII

XVII

XIV

XVI

VIII

XV VII

IVVI

V

XIV

XI

XI

III

XIII

X

V

VIII

VII

VIII

V

III

X

IX

XI

XIV

IV

II

IV

VII

III

X

V

V

XI

V

IV

XIV

XI

IV

II

XIII

III

XIII

IX

XII

VIIII

X

XI

VIV

X

VI

X

XIII

XIV

XV

VII

Ellice Ward

Elma Ward

Hibbert Ward

Fullarton Ward

Blanshard Ward

Mornington Ward

North Easthope Ward

South Easthope Ward

St Marys

ABCA

UTRCA

GRCA

MVCA

Whalen Line

Perth Line 37

Oxford Road 119

Perth

Perth Line 24

Perth Line 26

Perth Line 44

Perth Line 55

Perth Line 20

Perth

Roa

d 18

0

Perth Road 178

Perth Road 163

Perth Road 178

11

DB

A

72

61

59 56 53

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

63

10

9

8

765

4

3

21

19

19

7

7

3225

11

19

21

5

35

22

A

18

1

26

29

22

66

21

22

7

35 20

10

34

2

11

36

19 8

15

22

29

28

8

2124

33

14

22

26

11

28

17

3

3

7

26

3 1114

1

31

31

30

7

89

16

9

6

40

25

18

4

6

5

6

17 34

13

6

2

7

16

2

12

8

21

1

32

6

15

28

18

91426

18

2

2

1

5

8

17

2

6

27

13

24

20

5

5

9

9

9

27

21

18

2

6

2

7

26

7

1

26

8

35

6

24

14

13

28

14

5

24

19

2

17

2

8

3

9

24

4

27

1

29

16

12

1

121

3

4

7

13

8

30

2

27

2

29

42

3

24

31

15

15

1

4

25

2

1

3

21

21

3

4

23

3

2

8

9

5

15

6

26

3

4

5

20

19

20

8

26

4

6

1

7

4

21

24

9

24

3

7

5

2

6

637

8

Fish Creek

Maitland River

Nith River

4

Produce d by UTRCA and County of Pe rth Planningand De ve lopment Office unde r lice nc e with the Ontario Ministry of N atural Re sourc es.Copyright Q ue en's Printer 1994. August 2004.

The ink used to generate this ma p are light se nsa tive .Do not expose to direct sunlight. Prolonged exposure to ar tific ial light may ca use some fading.

0 5 102.5Km APRIL 2008

Carlingford

St. Columban

")21")9

")47")14

")47

")84

")41

")

")

32

56

")15

")55 ")63

")75

")6

")51

")6")47

")44

")65")42

")73")23

")66 ")2 ")9

")22")31

")78

")6

")18")67

")83

")71

787878

7070

")54 ")35

")52")48

")70

")39")17

County of Perth Official Plan

Schedule 'A'Land Use Plan

DETAILED MAPS VILLAGESchedule 'A1-1' GowanstownSchedule 'A1-2' TrowbridgeSchedule 'A1-3' AtwoodSchedule 'A1-4' MonktonSchedule 'A1-5' NewtonSchedule 'A1-6' MillbankSchedule 'A1-7' BrunnerSchedule 'A1-8' RostockSchedule 'A1-9' Gads HillSchedule 'A1-10' WartburgSchedule 'A1-11' SebringvilleSchedule 'A1-12' ShakespeareSchedule 'A1-13' NithburgSchedule 'A1-14' KirktonSchedule 'A1-15' DublinSchedule 'A1-16' Staffa

DETAILED MAPS MOBILE HOME PARKSchedule 'A3-1' Crystal Lake

DETAILED MAPS HAMLETSchedule 'A2-1' KurtzvilleSchedule 'A2-2' MilesworthSchedule 'A2-3' BrittonSchedule 'A2-4' NewrySchedule 'A2-5' DonegalSchedule 'A2-6' CarthageSchedule 'A2-7' HessonSchedule 'A2-8' PooleSchedule 'A2-9' KinkoraSchedule 'A2-10' AmulreeSchedule 'A2-11' LisbonSchedule 'A2-12' SebastopolSchedule 'A2-13' AvontonSchedule 'A2-14' St. PaulsSchedule 'A2-15' RannochSchedule 'A2-16' WoodhamSchedule 'A2-17' BrodhagenSchedule 'A2-18' BornholmSchedule 'A2-19' St. ColumbanSchedule 'A2-20' Cromarty Schedule 'A2-21' RusseldaleSchedule 'A2-22' FullartonSchedule 'A2-23' Carlingford

DETAILED MAPS URBAN FRINGESchedule 'A4-1' North of ListowelSchedule 'A4-2' East of ListowelSchedule 'A4-3' West of ListowelSchedule 'A4-4' West of PalmerstonSchedule 'A4-5' South of MilvertonSchedule 'A4-6' West of StratfordSchedule 'A4-7' North of StratfordSchedule 'A4-8' East of StratfordSchedule 'A4-9' East of St. MarysSchedule 'A4-10' West of St. MarysSchedule 'A4-11' South of St. MarysSchedule 'A4-12' North of MitchellSchedule 'A4-13' East of MitchellSchedule 'A4-14' South of Mitchell

DETAILED MAPS INFILLING AREASchedule 'A5-1' BrotherstonSchedule 'A5-2' WallaceSchedule 'A5-3' TrecastleSchedule 'A5-4' West of ListowelSchedule 'A5-5' East of Listowel (Lot 48, Con.1, Elma)Schedule 'A5-6' East of Listowel (Lot 56, Con.1, Elma)Schedule 'A5-7' North of North of AtwoodSchedule 'A5-8' North of AtwoodSchedule 'A5-9' Lot 9, Con.4 ElmaSchedule 'A5-10' DorkingSchedule 'A5-11' North of MilbankSchedule 'A5-12' East of MilbankSchedule 'A5-13' East of MilvertonSchedule 'A5-14' ToppingSchedule 'A5-15' HarmonySchedule 'A5-16' ConroySchedule 'A5-17' Dunn's BridgeSchedule 'A5-18' Science HillSchedule 'A5-19' Prospect HillSchedule 'A5-20' KennicottSchedule 'A5-21' North of Dublin

Legend

Agriculture

Earth Science ANSI (overlay)

Potential Future Dev. Area (overlay)

Serviced Urban Area

Village

Hamlet

Mobile / Modular Home Park

Urban Fringe

Inf illing Area

Lic. Pit or Quarry / Limestone Resource

Primary or Secondary Aggregate Resource

Potential Limestone Resource

Natural Resources / Environment

Adjacent Land

Recreation

Flood Plain

Sewage Lagoon

Airstrip

o

( Municipal Airport

Conservation Authority Boundary

Municipal Boundary

Watercourse

Provinc ial Highway

County Road

Local Road

Railway Line

Former Railway Right of Way

Transmiss ion Line

!. Active Landfill Site

!. Closed Landfill Site

^̀ Official Plan Amendment

Land Use DesignationsNOTE: Schedules should be read in conjuction with applicable policies of the Plan

Settlement Areas

(A2-7 R efer to Dtailed Map)

Mineral Aggregates

Other Features

")4

")10

")47

")26

")47

")12

")68

")47

")

")")

6

7662

")49

")69

")37

")47")82

")47

")79

")47

")

")

1

47

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

33

")724

4360

7425

81

13

60

")

")

24

50

")5

")16

")6")72

h

h

hh

h

402

401

401

401

402

401

!(7

!(4

!(23

!(7

39

27

31

9

6

25

16

81

3

14

2

16

28

77

22

49

15

5

7

18

24

21

47

59

17

20

38

29

80

12

11

10

35

23

30

73

8

32

76

74

56

41

50

42

16

81

20

27

5

2

19

13

1

44

26

81

32

28

14

2

80

2

14

6

22

8

39

12

14

81

9

2

8

9

81

81

8124

!(4

7

7

18

6

7

47

16

29

2

27!(4

!(4

16

23

20

28

402

2

22

17

17

LUCANLUCANBIDDULPHBIDDULPH

MIDDLESEX MIDDLESEX CENTRECENTRE

THAMESTHAMESCENTRECENTRE

NORTHNORTHMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEX

ADELAIDEADELAIDEMETCALFEMETCALFE

STRATHROYSTRATHROYCARADOCCARADOC

SOUTHWESTSOUTHWESTMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEX

ELGIN COUNTY

CITY OF LONDON

CHIPPEWA OF THETHAMES FIRST

NATION MUNCEY DELAWAREFIRST NATION

ONYOTA'AKAFIRST NATION

CHATHAM- KENT

LAMBTONCOUNTY

HURON COUNTY

PERTH COUNTY

OXFORDCOUNTY

TH

AME S RIVER

THAM

ESRI

VER

SY

DENH

AM

RIVE

R

TH

AM

ESRIV

ER

THAMES RIVER

AUSAB L E RIVER

NEWBURYNEWBURY

±

Due to the size and scale of the Schedules, the boundaries of features may not appear to beprecise; therefore, the limits of these features should be determined through consultation with the County, the appropriate Conservation Authority, local municipality and/or the Province.

Copyright 2006 County of Middlesex.

This product has been produced in part using the intellectual property of the Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources, Copyright (2006) Queen's Printer for Ontario.

1:315,000

Date: July 11, 2006

0 8 164 12

Kilometres

Natural Heritage FeaturesSchedule C

h Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)

Notations:

Schedule C should be read in conjunction with Schedules A and B and the text of the Official Plan.

The features shown on Schedule C represent a range of ecosystem elements which have been consolidated from a number of existing sources, theprimary source being the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (2003). Schedule C features do not preclude development; however, there is an interest in protecting them from incompatible development. These features have been shown on Schedule C as a means of reinforcing the policies outlined in the text which encourage their protection. The importance of these features shall be considered when land use changes and development decisions are proposed in, or adjacent to, these features.

Although there appears to be an absence of Aggregate Resource Areas in the Municipalities of Adelaide Metcalfe, Strathroy-Caradoc, Southwest Middlesex and Newbury; this is onlyas a result of incomplete aggregate mapping for the County. The Province should be consulted for more detailed information regarding the location of aggregate resources in these areas.

Significant Woodlands

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEXOFFICIAL PLAN

SCHEDULE CNATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES

Aggregate Resource Areas

Petroleum Resource Pool Areas

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

402

401

401

401

402

401

!(7

!(4

!(23

!(7

39

27

31

9

6

25

16

81

3

14

2

16

28

77

22

49

15

5

7

18

24

21

47

59

17

20

38

29

80

12

11

10

35

23

30

73

8

32

76

74

56

41

50

42

16

81

20

27

5

2

19

13

1

44

26

81

32

28

14

2

80

2

14

6

22

8

39

12

14

81

9

2

8

9

81

81

8124

!(4

7

7

18

6

7

47

16

29

2

27!(4

!(4

16

23

20

28

402

2

22

17

17

ELGIN COUNTY

CITY OF LONDON

CHIPPEWA OF THETHAMES FIRST

NATIONMUNCEY DELAWARE

FIRST NATION

ONYOTA'AKAFIRST NATION

CHATHAM - KENT

LAMBTONCOUNTY

HURON COUNTY

PERTH COUNTY

OXFORDCOUNTY

NORTHNORTHMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEX

LUCANLUCANBIDDULPHBIDDULPH

MIDDLESEX MIDDLESEX CENTRECENTRE

ADELAIDEADELAIDEMETCALFEMETCALFE

STRATHROYSTRATHROYCARADOCCARADOC

SOUTHWESTSOUTHWESTMIDDLESEXMIDDLESEX

THAMESTHAMESCENTRECENTRE

AUSABLE RIV

ER

THAM

ESRI

VER

THAM

ES RIVER

SYDEN HAM

RIVER

THA

ME

SRIVER

THAMES RIVER

NEWBURYNEWBURY

ArvaArva

AppinAppin

NairnNairn

LucanLucan

KomokaKomoka

GrantonGranton

GlencoeGlencoe

ParkhillParkhill

IldertonIlderton

KilworthKilworth

DelawareDelaware

MelbourneMelbourne

ThorndaleThorndale

StrathroyStrathroy

WardsvilleWardsville

DorchesterDorchester

Ailsa CraigAilsa Craig

Mount BrydgesMount Brydges

±

1:315,000

Date: July 11, 2006

Due to the size and scale of the Schedules, the boundaries of features may not appear to beprecise; therefore, the limits of these features should be determined through consultation withthe appropriate Conservation Authority, local municipality and/or the Province.

Copyright 2006 County of Middlesex.

This product has been produced in part using the intellectual property of the Ontario Ministryof Natural Resources, Copyright (2006) Queen's Printer of Ontario.

0 9 184.5 13.5

Kilometres

Notations:

Areas designated as Natural Environment Areas preclude development.

Schedule A should be read in conjunction with Schedules B and C and the text of the Official Plan.

The Flood Regulated Watercourses and Associated Floodplain of the Ausable River, Thames River and Sydenham River are shown conceptually on Schedule A; however, all watercourses in the County have associated hazards and may be subject to land use restrictions as provided for in local Official Plans.

Natural Environment Areas

Schedule ALand Use

Settlement Areas (Urban and Community)

Thedford Marsh Floodplain

Flood Regulated Watercourse and Associated Floodplain

Wetlands

Agricultural Areas

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEXOFFICIAL PLAN

SCHEDULE ALAND USE

Con. IIN.D.S.

Con. IN.D.S.

Con. IIS.D.S.

Con. IS.D.S.

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

4

I II III

IV V VI VII

I II III

IV V VI VII VIII IX X XIWELLINGTON COUNTY

WELL IN

GTO

N C

OU

NTY

CI TY

OF H

AM

ILTON

HAMILTONHARBOUR

LAKEONTARIO

REG

ION

OF PE

EL

30 SIDE RD

BRO

NTE

ST

4 SIDE RDLOWER BASE LINE

LOWER BASE LINE

LAKESHORE RD

1 SIDE RD

2 SIDE RD

15 SIDE RD

OAKVILLE

BURLINGTON

HALTONHILLS

ETR 407

ETR 407

27 SIDE RD

DU

BLIN

LINE

NIN

TH LIN

E

HW

Y 6

3

1

2

24 23 22 21 20 19 18 1716 15 1413 1211 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

11 10 9 8 717 1615 14 13 12

5 4 3 2 1

25 24 23 21 2019 18

35 3433 32 31 30 28 2726

QE

W

5

6

7

8

11

12

13

14

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

32 SIDE RD

28 SIDE RD

HWY 7

17 SIDERD

MILB

UR

OU

GH

LINE

COUNTY

5 SIDE RD

8 SIDE RD

COLLING RD

2 SIDE RD

QEW

PLAINS RD

BRAN

T ST

BRO

NTE

RD

EIGH

TH LIN

E

NIN

TH LIN

E

WIN

STO

N C

HU

RC

HILL B

LVD

THO

MP

SO

N R

D

MAIN ST

STEELES AVE

10 SIDE RD

MO

UN

TAINVIE

W R

D

TEN

TH LIN

E

22 SIDE RD

NIN

TH LIN

E

MAPLE AVE

RIVER DR

22 SIDE RD

5 SIDE RD

CITY OF

WIN

STO

N C

HU

RC

HILL BLV

D

Con. IIIS.D.S.

GU

ELPH

LINE

WALK

ER'S

LINE

APPLEB

Y LINE

TRAFALG

AR

RDSIXTH

LINE

FOU

RTH

LINE

DORVAL

RE

G R

D 25

FOU

RTH

LINE

FIFTH LIN

E

TRAFALG

AR

RD

SIXTH LIN

E

EIGH

TH LIN

E

LAKESHORE RD

32 SIDE RD

GUELPH ST

KER

R

ST

BURNHAMTHORPE RD

8

DUNDAS ST

DR

James Snow Parkway

Proposed

Proposed

James S

now P

arkwayMILTON

HWY 7MAIN

ST

BURLINGTON BEACHWATERFRONT PARK

BURLOAKWATERFRONT PARK

BRONTE HARBOURWATERFRONT PARK

HAMILTON

MoffatBrookville

Stewarttown

Glen Williams

Norval

Kilbride

Campbellville

Lowville

Mount Nemo

WELLINGTON

D21

R15

D11D22

D23

D14

D5

D17

D7

R12

R13

D8

D12

BRITANNIA RD

DERRY RD

HWY 7

UPPER MIDDLE RD

UPPER MIDDLE RD

NEW ST

REBECCA ST

TREM

AINE

RD

SEC

ON

D LIN

E

ACTON

GEORGETOWN

RE

G R

D 25

FIRS

T LINE

GU

ELPH

LINE

FOU

RTH

LINE

FIFTH LIN

E

SIXTH LIN

E

TOW

N LIN

E

20 SIDE RD

DU

BLIN

LINE

17 SIDE RD

TEN

TH LIN

E

EIGH

TH LIN

E

TRAFALG

AR

RD

SIXTH LIN

E

FIFTH LIN

E

FOU

RTH

LINE

THIR

D LIN

E

RE

G R

D 25

HWY 401

10 SIDE RD

HWY 401

3 SIDE RD

STEELES AVE

14 SIDERD

DERRY RD

TWIS

S RD

MC

NIVE

N R

D

WALK

ER'S

LINE

APPLEB

Y LINE

BELL SC

HO

OL LIN

E

ON

TAR

IO S

T

FIRS

T LINE

ETR 407

THIR

D LIN

E

NE

YAG

AW

ABLVD

SPEERS RD

HW

Y 403

BUR

LOA

K DR

DUNDAS ST

MAINWAY

FAIRVIEW ST

CE

DA

R

SPR

ING

S RD

KING

RD

WATE

RD

OW

N R

DHWY 403

25 SIDE RD

AMD25-D3

AMD25-D2

AMD25-D1

AMD25-D3

AMD25-D3

AMD25-D4

AMD25-D7

AMD25-D5

AMD25-D6

- MAP 1THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE

The Urban System

Primary Node

Other Areas

Area Eligible for Urban Services

Niagara Escarpment Plan Area

Parkway Belt West Plan Area *

Milton West Special Study Area

North Aldershot Policy Area

The Greenlands System

Environmental Sensitive Area

Escarpment Natural Area

Greenlands A

Greenlands B

Regional Waterfront Park

The Rural System

Agricultural Rural Area

Hamlet

Escarpment Protection Area

Escarpment Rural Area

Mineral Resource Extraction Area

Halton Waste Management Site

!(

Parkway Belt Area

Urban Area

Ninth Line Corridor Policy Area

Consolidated: August 17, 2006.

* D18

Lake Simcoe Watershed Natural Heritage System

119

9.2 The Authority shall generally identify these areas in the NHS for restoration and stewardship within its Stewardship and Land Acquisition Programs.

9.3 The Authority encourages the planning authority to recognize the ecological importance of these areas and to incorporate these areas into their Official Plans and restoration/stewardship programs.

9.4 In addition to addressing other policies of this Plan, development applications within or overlapping with Big Woods Policy Areas shall strive to ensure no net loss of woodland cover within the Big Woods Policy Areas.

9.5 All other applicable NHS policies of this NHS still apply to Big Woods Policy Areas. The underlying designated NHS Level (i.e., Level 1, 2 or 3) applies.

13.2 Suggested Implementation Policies for Official Plans

1.0 Preamble

The purpose of these policies is to provide guidance to all of those involved in land use planning in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. As the Official Plan is the primary document guiding the growth and management of resources by the municipality, the following policies are provided as a means of implementing the Natural Heritage System. The Natural Heritage System includes of features listed within the Provincial Policy Statement. These features are: Wetlands, Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species, Habitat for Fish, Woodlands, Valleylands, Wildlife Habitat, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, and Linkages.

These natural areas are important in ensuring sustainable ecological health and the quality of life of residents of the Official Plan (OP) area. They also serve to create distinct boundaries separating Urban Areas and Agricultural Lands.

2.0 Objectives

2.1 To identify and protect the natural heritage features by designating a Natural Heritage System (NHS) as an essential structural component of the OP area;

2.2 To support biodiversity and ecological function and to maximize the conservation of native flora and fauna in the OP area;

2.3 To provide opportunities for controlled access and recreational activities where these do not significantly affect negatively natural heritage resources; and

2.4 To ensure that proposed changes in land use have minimal negative impacts on the NHS.


120

3.0 General Policies

3.1 To protect and where possible enhance the Natural Heritage System.

3.2 To coordinate planning and management initiatives with adjacent municipalities, particularly for those features that are ecologically and physically linked.

3.3 The boundaries and limits of the Natural Heritage System shall be confirmed based on application of the criteria that define the elements of the NHS, through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study or by periodic refinements by the planning authority and conservation authorities. Minor changes or adjustments will not require an amendment to this Plan. However, the addition or deletion of an NHS feature may require an amendment to the OP.

3.4 There are four Levels of protection assigned to features within the NHS. These are Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4 - supporting.

3.5 Nothing in these policies is meant to prevent an existing legal use of lands within the NHS.

3.6 To direct major land use changes away from the Natural Heritage System. Where this is not possible, it is the intention to protect the Natural Heritage System by using such techniques as:

� Justifiable increases in density; � Appropriate reductions and/or modifications in public realm elements

(e.g., reduction in road allowance) through revised development standards; � Reconfiguration of public uses; � Shared facilities; � Other financial arrangements, which may include replacement; and/or � Sharing the equity in protecting the Natural Heritage System through

comprehensive developer agreements and comprehensive public/private agreements.

3.7 Designation of lands as NHS does not imply intent of this planning authority or any other agency to purchase those designated lands or to promote their use by the public.

3.8 Removal of all or portions of a NHS feature does not necessarily result in their deletion from the NHS.

3.9 The planning authority will cooperate with the conservation authorities and Ministries of the Province of Ontario in establishing, maintaining and improving a data base on the Natural Heritage System.


121

3.10 The planning authority will pursue and encourage a wide variety of land stewardship options, including: easements, trusts, tax incentives and right-of-way approaches to preserving, enhancing and accessing features.

3.11 The planning authority will explore and develop land securement strategies to implement the Natural Heritage System and support Conservation Authority and land trust organizations where possible with the securement of lands containing NHS features.

3.12 Within the Oak Ridges Moraine Planning Area, outside of Urban Areas, Towns and Villages shown on Schedule X, the Natural Heritage System shall be comprised of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Natural Core Area and Natural Linkage Area designations and subject to the applicable policies of the ORMCP.

3.13 Within Urban Areas and Towns and Villages, the Natural Heritage System shown on Schedule X may be further refined through municipal Official Plans and zoning by-laws without amendment to this plan. The Policy provisions of this Plan or local Official Plans or secondary plans, whichever are the more restrictive, shall prevail.

3.14 Within the Greenbelt Plan area the Greenbelt Plan requirements shall apply. Until the Province releases guidelines for the identification of Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) within the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt, the NHS can be used to identify KNHFs. It can also be used to identify features outside of the Natural Heritage System.

3.15 Within sub-area assessment areas of the Growth Plan, this NHS can be used as a tool to identify natural heritage features.

4.0 Natural Heritage System

4.1 The planning authority will designate and zone the NHS as Environmental Protection once the boundaries have been refined through an official plan or zoning by-law amendment based on an approved EIS and any other time the opportunity arises.

4.2 The boundaries of the features within the NHS will be staked in the field and approved by the planning authority in consultation with the Conservation Authority, and in the case of PSWs and the Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species the MNR, and subsequently surveyed.

4.3 The approved and surveyed boundaries of features and the resulting limits of the Natural Heritage System, as determined through studies, will be shown on a map in EIS reports. NHS Level determinations (i.e., Level 1, 2, 3 or 4 supporting) will be shown on draft plans of subdivision or other application documents.

4.4 For development and site alteration applications, an EIS will generally be required for all applications. When the NHS is further than 120 m from the proposed development and


122

site alteration, the requirement for an EIS can be waived at the discretion of the planning authority, in conjunction with the Conservation Authority.

4.5 An EIS will be required for all such applications which are located inside or within 120 m of any Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 NHS feature. Removal and potential replacement of Level 4 - supporting features should be addressed through an EIS.

4.6 The EIS must be prepared by a qualified professional in the environmental sciences, completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority in conjunction with the Authority.

4.7 Once an EIS is triggered, the study must address all elements of the NHS, functions and features within and adjacent to the subject property (not just the feature that triggered the study) as outlined in the EIS Terms of Reference and will be required to determine appropriate critical functions zones and protection zones (i.e., buffers).

4.8 It is mandatory that the applicant and/or its consultant meet with the Authority in consultation with the planning authority to determine the specific scope and terms of reference of the EIS prior to the commencement of these studies to ensure that the work needed to complete the study is clearly identified at the outset. This will facilitate a more streamlined and timely review process.

4.9 The terms of reference for the EIS must be confirmed in writing with the Conservation Authority in conjunction with the planning authority, and will in most circumstances include addressing Endangered and Threatened species.

4.10 That where an EIS has indicated that the development would have a net negative impact (after replacement has been applied if appropriate) on the NHS or the environmental functions, attributes or linkages for which the lands were identified, the application will not be supported or approved by the planning authority.

4.11 EIS guidelines are to be followed (Appendix 4), subject to policy 4.4.

5.0 Level 1 Features

5.1 Level 1 features are considered to be provincially significant and they represent critical components of the Lake Simcoe Watershed NHS, whose maintenance and longevity are imperative to the health and the function of the watershed and of Lake Simcoe. These features are to be retained on the landscape. Level 1 features consist of the following*:


123

Component Feature Wetlands • Provincially Significant Wetlands Woodlands • Woodland Patches ≥ 25 ha Wildlife Habitat

• Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species

*Plus ORMCP features as determined by the draft ORMCP technical guidelines and Greenbelt features in accordance with Greenbelt guidelines when available

5.2 Development and site alteration is not permitted within Level 1 features.

5.3 Development or site alteration is not permitted adjacent to a Level 1 feature unless it has been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

5.3 The Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened species, as approved by the MNR, is to be considered a Level 1 feature.

5.4 When confirming the limits of Provincially Significant Wetlands, all contiguous wetlands will generally be included within the PSW limits, subject to approval by MNR.


6.1 Level 2 features are considered to be provincially significant components of the Natural Heritage System. These features and their ecological functions should be retained on the landscape. Level 2 features areas are subject to limited flexibility within the planning process where no negative impact can be demonstrated. These features consist of the following*:

Component Feature Wetlands • Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 10 ha

• Unevaluated wetlands contiguous with PSWs Woodlands • Woodland patches ≥ 10 and < 25 ha Valleylands • Significant valleylands as identified in the NHS mapping Wildlife Habitat

• Core winter deer yards • Colonial waterbird nesting sites • Rare vegetation communities (alvars, prairies, fens and

bogs) ANSIs • Confirmed Provincial Life Science ANSIs as determined

by the MNR *Plus ORMCP features as determined by the draft ORMCP technical guidelines


124

6.2 The planning authority shall discourage development or site alteration in Level 2 features.

6.3 Development or site alteration would not be accepted by the planning authority unless it has been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions consistent with the definitions of the PPS.

6.4 Mitigation for impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions that are permitted by the PPS may include replacement approaches, at the discretion of the planning authority (in conjunction with the Conservation Authority). These could include enhancement or restoration on or off site.

6.5 Replacement shall be determined in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the planning authority. To the extent possible, replacement shall occur within the same subwatershed.

6.6 The precise location and configuration of proximity linkage areas is to be determined through an EIS.


7.1 Level 3 features are considered to be significant at the watershed level. It is the overall intent that these features should be retained on the landscape. However, flexibility is contemplated in the way in which these features are addressed when a land use change or other development is considered. Level 3 features consist of the following:

Component Feature Wetlands • Evaluated non-Provincially Significant Wetlands (Non-PSW)

and designated Locally Significant Wetlands (LSW) • Unevaluated wetlands contiguous to evaluated Non-PSWs and

designated LSWs • Unevaluated wetlands ≥ 0.5 ha that overlap with, or fall

within, 30 m of any identified Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 NHS features

Woodlands • Socially Significant Woodlands ≥ 4 ha to < 10ha (only in designated Urban Areas)

• The entirety of any woodland ≥ 0.5 and < 10 ha that overlaps or is located within 30 m of any other identified NHS Level 1 Level 2 and/or Level 3 feature

ANSIs • Confirmed Regional Life Science ANSIs as determined by the MNR


125

Component Feature Habitat for Fish • Watercourses and waterbodies, drains, online ponds, mapped

offline ponds within 30 m of another NHS feature Linkages • Stream linkages between Level 1, Level 2 features and/or

Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

• Proximity linkages between Level 1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 features (or their continuous Level 4 - supporting features)

7.2 An EIS is required to demonstrate that there are no net negative impacts on the Natural Heritage System. Where impacts can not be avoided, further mitigation for the loss of a natural heritage feature, or an identified impact, is recommended through replacement. Approaches to address replacement could include creation, enhancement or restoration on or off site.

7.3 Development or site alteration would not be accepted by the planning authority unless it has been demonstrated through an approved EIS that there will be no net negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

7.4 Mitigation for negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions may include replacement approaches, at the discretion of the planning authority in conjunction with the Conservation Authority. These could include enhancement or restoration on or off site.

7.5 Replacement shall be determined in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the planning authority in conjunction with the Conservation Authority. To the extent possible, replacement shall occur within the same subwatershed.

7.6 The precise location and configuration of proximity linkage areas is to be determined through an EIS.

7.7 Development or site alteration shall not be permitted within Habitat for Fish except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

8.0 Level 4 – Supporting Features

8.1 Level 4 - supporting features are considered to be supporting Level 1, 2 and 3 NHS features. Retention of these features is encouraged, however, they are not necessarily a constraint to land use change. These features consist of:


126

Component Feature Wetlands • Unevaluated wetland units that are ≥ 0.5 and

< 10 ha Woodlands • Cultural thickets continuous with NHS Level

1, Level 2 and/or Level 3 woodlands and/or wetlands

• Woodland patches ≥ 2 and < 10 ha that are not otherwise a NHS woodland feature

Wildlife Habitat • ELC grassland communities as follows (subject to the supporting text):

o CUM and CUT ≥15 ha o CUT and CUM ≥ 10 ha when

surrounded by other NHS components

o Contiguous CUT/CUM communities ≥ 20 ha

8.2 Development or site alteration shall avoid Level 4 - supporting features where reasonable and possible.

8.3 If it is not reasonable or possible to avoid the removal of part or all of a Level 4 - supporting feature, replacement is encouraged, and is at the discretion of the planning authority, in conjunction with the Conservation Authority, through the EIS process.

9.0 Big Woods Policy Areas

9.1 The Big Woods Policy Areas (BWPAs) are those areas in the Lake Simcoe Watershed where there is a high percentage of woodland cover and large woodland patches. These areas are considered most likely at the landscape scale to represent high ecological function, diversity, connectivity and are also priority natural areas within the municipality.

9.2 The planning authority recognizes the importance of the BWPAs and will preferentially direct reforestation opportunities towards these areas whenever possible.

9.3 In addition to addressing other policies of this Plan, development applications within or overlapping with BWPAs shall ensure no net loss of woodland cover within BWPAs.

9.4 The planning authority will seek opportunities to reduce the impact of linear infrastructure, including roads, through BWPAs.

9.5 All other applicable NHS policies of this NHS apply to Big Woods Policy Areas. The underlying designated NHS Levels apply.


132

Oxford County Natural Heritage Study Peer Review and ... · Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI)...

Documents

Transcript of Oxford County Natural Heritage Study Peer Review and ... · Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI)...