TERRESTRIAL NATURALHERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY
APPENDIX E:EVALUATING AND DESIGNING
TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEMS
183
T a b l e o f C o n T e n T s
1.0 IntroductIon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Study Area definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.0 dAtA collectIon And PrePArAtIon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 technology required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Habitat and land use definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.0 evAluAtIng tHe terreStrIAl nAturAl HerItAge SyStem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
3.1 Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
3.2 distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
3.3 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
4.0 tArget SyStem deSIgn model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
4.1 value Surface Approach (raster Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
4.2 mapping the target tnH System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
4.3 tnH target System design Steps (a to m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
5.0 reSultS (of tHe trcA ProceSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
5.1 Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
5.2 distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
5.3 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
6.0 refInementS to tHe tArget tnH SyStem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
6.1 terrestrial refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
6.2 Integration with other ecological, Political and Social criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.3 further Application of models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.0 AcknowledgementS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.0 defInItIonS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.0 referenceS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
184
C H A P T E R
1tAbleS, fIgureS, mAPS, And APPendIceS
table 1: Summary of habitat type and land use definitions used to delineate polygons
table 2: criteria layers in the value surface analysis
table 3: Assumptions built into the value system analysis process
figure 1: criteria overlay and addition to create a total score value surface
map 1: expanding (buffering) existing natural cover by 30 meters
Appendix e-1: landscape analysis methodology
Appendix e-2: target system design model- value surface criteria
Appendix e-3: layers used for each raster criteria
C H A P T E R
1
185
1 . 0 I n T R o D U C T I o n
1 . 1 P U R P o s e
based on the distribution of species and vegetation communities within its jurisdiction, the trcA
determined that the existing biodiversity within its area of jurisdiction would not withstand
the impact of projected urbanization in the region. trcA set targets for quality, distribution
and quantity of natural cover that would contribute to sustainability of the region (see “Setting
terrestrial natural System targets”, trcA 2007a). to achieve these targets would require an
expansion of the system. trcA used predictive modeling to raise the awareness of municipalities,
watershed councils and other stakeholders, of the need to expand the natural system in light of
projected future growth. the concept was generally supported and trcA developed a raster-based
model that would assist in determining the appropriate placement of the expansion of the system to
most efficiently meet the targets.
this report follows “Setting terrestrial natural System targets” (trcA 2006 a) to explain the more
technical side of the initiative; it details the tools and methods used for evaluating and designing
natural system scenarios. It provides enough detail to assist other agencies and groups in using gIS
to replicate the process in their own work.
1 . 2 s T U D y a R e a D e f I n I T I o n
the study area is defined by the boundary of the toronto and region conservation Authority
jurisdiction, which encompasses the etobicoke, miimico, Humber, don, Highland, rouge, Petticoat,
duffins and carruthers river watersheds, and the lake ontario shoreline from mississauga to
Ajax. the statistics and calculations presented in this report are based on data collected within this
study area, including habitat patches that straddle both the trcA watershed and neighbouring
watersheds. However, this methodology has been designed to be transferable to other jurisdictions
and at varying scales such as a municipality, watershed, or subwatershed.
2 . 0 D a T a C o l l e C T I o n a n D P R e P a R a T I o n
2 . 1 T e C h n o l o g y R e q U I R e D
In a region of rapid land use change, analyzing the landscape must be based on the most recent
information possible. the data required for this landscape level approach include remote-sensed
imagery and digitized habitat patches. Polygons can be digitized using Arcview gIS software ‘on
screen’, if digital aerial photography is available, or using
hard copy aerial photos on a digitizing tablet. once more
recent digital aerial photography is made available, updates to
polygon boundaries can be made to reflect and track changes
in land use. other sources of data, such as ecological land
classification data can be used in place of remotely sensed
broad habitat categories, where this exists.
the landscape Analysis (vector-based) model (Appendix e-1) was created using custom scripts and
dialogs written in Avenue using Arcview 3.2 with Spatial Analyst. the System design (raster-based)
model was created using Arcmap (8.2 or greater) with Spatial Analyst and model builder. the
software was run on a Pc platform or winXP oS.
2 . 2 h a b I T a T a n D l a n D U s e D e f I n I T I o n
before a natural system can be evaluated it is necessary to define
the categories of land cover that will be used in the analysis (as
listed in table 1). trcA has mapped four broad categories of
natural cover, namely forest, successional (which is included
with forest when evaluating natural cover), wetland, cultural
meadow, and shoreline habitats such as beach, dune, or bluff.
urban and agricultural cover is also digitized as two broad land
use categories. these broad categories should not be confused with the more detailed, field-collected
vegetation communities also used in tnH Program protocols and reports (see trcA 2006 b and c).
Habitat patch A distinct, separately mapped block (polygon) of one type of natural cover. Thus, a block of forest and an abutting block of wetland are two separate habitat patches.
Urban land coverIn creating this layer, both the digitized urban cover and the extent of urban cover as shown in municipal official plans were combined.
C H A P T E R
2
186
187
trcA most recently mapped habitat patches according to the four categories using 2002 digital
ortho-rectified aerial (spring) photography at a scale of 1:4000. main roads and wide trails were
considered breaks in habitat patches if they were 25 meters wide or more. road surfaces were then
considered an “urban” land use, as per the definition of “urban” in table 1 (refer to Appendix e-2
for a more detailed description of habitat types and land use types used for the landscape level of
analysis). wide rivers were also considered to be separate habitat patches; no width threshold was
used, but where rivers or creeks created an obvious break in the canopy at a scale of 1: 4000, habitat
polygons were divided. thus, discrete habitat patch polygons were digitized and interpreted as
forest, successional, wetland, meadow and beach/bluff.
other layers required for the analysis are a detailed road layer, watercourse layer, and water body
layer (See Appendix e-3 for a list of all layers used in the raster analysis).
Table 1: Summary of the habitat type and land use patch definitions used to delineate polygons.
HAbITAT TYPE oR LAND USE
CoMMUNITY TYPES CoNSIDERED MINIMUM PATCH SIzE
Forest coniferous, mixed, deciduous forest communities,b plantations, treed-swamps * treed swamps were included here because of the challenge in consistent interpretation at a remote sensing level, and that forest and swamps provide many of the same functions for avifauna.
0.5 ha based on ELC guide using 1:10 000 air photos, can be slightly smaller when using 1:4000 scale as a base and when small patch is deemed valuable to system
Successional cultural woodlands and thickets. These are digitized separate from forest, but are included within the forest category for the evaluation of natural cover quality.
0.5 ha based on ELC guide using 1:10 000 air photos, can be slightly smaller when using 1:4000 scale as a base and when small patch is deemed valuable to system
Wetland shallow marsh, meadow marsh, shallow aquatic ponds (where water is known to be less than 2 m deep), thicket swamps and treed-swamps where known to exist; meadow marsh often indistinguishable from drier meadows cannot always be mapped accurately unless known to exist
no limit was set; wetlands often occur naturally as small pockets in the landscape; if discernable at 1:4000, it is mapped
Meadow old field habitat or cultural meadows, natural tallgrass prairie, sand barren and sometimes meadow marsh are included in this category
0.5 ha based on ELC guide using 1:10 000 air photos, can be slightly smaller when using 1:4000 scale as a base and when small patch is deemed valuable to system
beach/bluff natural barren coastal habitats not corresponding to other habitat types, including natural beach, coastal dunes and bluffs
no limit was set; beach/bluff habitats often occur as small features in the landscape; if a beach/bluff type is discernable at a scale of 1:4000 it is mapped
Agricultural croplands, fruit tree plantations, and pastures (may also include golf courses and aggregate extraction pits within a rural matrix)
no minimum sizes are assigned to agricultural and urban land use types
Urban “urban” areas are considered any part of the landscape that has been modified primarily for human use other than agriculture/forestry; includes residential, commercial, industrial land, roads. Also includes manicured areas such as cemeteries, golf courses, and parkland (due to intensity of management and potential negative impacts on natural areas).
no minimum sizes are assigned to agricultural and urban land use types
3 . 0 e v a l U a T I n g T h e T e R R e s T R I a l n a T U R a l h e R I T a g e s y s T e m
A number of parameters were considered to describe the natural system in the TRCA region
(Appendix E-1) but three were selected to evaluate and set objectives or targets for the TNH
System. These measures, the quality, distribution and quantity of natural cover, were chosen
because they summarize the bulk of the changes in the natural cover of the Toronto region
over the last few centuries. The following explains how all three measures are interdependent
and how each is considered in relation to the others.
3 . 1 q U a l I T y
this “quality” measure is defined here by trcA as the natural system quality, as seen from the air
(remote-sensed), and serves as a proxy (or predictor) of the species composition and the condition
of ecosystems, as seen from the ground. based on terrestrial landscape ecology principles, system
quality begins with quality of individual patches, which is calculated from their size, shape, and
matrix (the land cover around them). the natural system quality is determined by considering the
quality of all patches together as a system. the presence or absence, abundance and the diversity
of species and vegetation communities (including Species of concern) tends to be determined by
patch quality.
the evaluation of quality was conducted using a landscape analysis model (lAm) to summarize
the natural system’s potential to support Species of concern by calculating size, shape and matrix
influence of all individual patches. then the patch results are considered across the region together
as a system. for details on the lAm, see Appendix e-1.
C H A P T E R
3
188
189
3 . 2 D I s T R I b U T I o n
this is defined by trcA as the distribution of a certain quality of patches or natural cover across
the landscape. therefore, considering the interdependence of these measures, the distribution is not
just about distributing natural cover but about distributing a given quality of the natural cover. for
example, natural cover may be well distributed but its quality may not necessarily support Species
of concern if the patches are not of an appropriate size, shape and matrix. therefore it is also
important to consider the distribution of different levels of quality of natural cover/habitat patches
across the region.
to evaluate distribution, trcA has overlaid grids of various square sizes on scenarios of natural
cover and both calculated the amount of natural cover per grid square and visually assessed the
distribution of natural cover and habitat quality. A centroid method was also used to represent the
center of mass of natural cover (or of Species of concern data) in the region. given the stratified
character of the natural cover within the trcA jurisdiction distribution needs to be considered at
different scales. distribution will be further assessed at more local scales, for example, through the
watershed and subwatershed planning processes.
3 . 3 q U a n T I T y
Quantity is also the amount of natural cover proportional to the total land surface area of the
region. Also an interdependent factor, quantity is the amount of natural cover required to achieve
the desired quality distribution explained above.
Quantity is calculated as the per cent natural cover for the region, but is also calculated in hectares.
4 . 0 T a R g e T s y s T e m D e s I g n m o D e l
the natural systems evaluation process described above allows for the ability to assess the
“function” of any scenario of natural cover and, in particular, to determine if a scenario meets the
set targets for quality, distribution and quantity. If the targets were not met by the existing natural
system scenario then the next step is to increase or reconfigure the natural cover land base to be
protected in the most effective location to meet the targets.
early on, trcA had used a technique of digitally expanding (buffering) all existing habitat patches
in the region incrementally to demonstrate the utility of predictive modeling and raise awareness of
the need for expanding the natural system. A second benefit from that exercise was that it provided
the first study on what scenario of natural cover increase would represent a more sustainable
distribution of Species of concern. It was not until the 30 meter expansion (buffering) (figure 1)
was applied that improvements in quality were noteworthy from a sustainable system perspective.
this 30 meter buffer around every existing patch cumulatively added up to 91000 hectares, or
thirty-seven per cent, of the region’s surface being in natural cover. It was hoped that a third benefit
would come from the combination of this buffering exercise and the use of the lAm: that the
trcA’s official target system could be designed for the region. However, although the lAm is able
to evaluate different natural cover scenarios, the technology is not suited for strategically selecting
the best suited or most ecologically functional locations where natural cover might be expanded,
and therefore its ability to be used for developing a target system was limited. A different method, a
raster-based model, was then chosen to evaluate the entire surface of the trcA jurisdiction for the
potential to contribute to achieving the targets.
C H A P T E R
4
190
191
Map 1 : Expanding (buffering) existing natural cover by 30 meters
4 . 1 v a l U e s U R f a C e a P P R o a C h ( R a s T e R a n a l y s I s )
Expansion of the System
designing the targeted tnH system involved dividing the entire landscape into a grid of cells, or “
pixels”. In this case, the pixels are 10 x 10 meters. (we could have used 5 x 5 m, but this would take
longer for the model to run (decreasing utility), and some of the data layers used are limited to a 10
x 10 m resolution).this pixel size provides a suitable level of detail, and ensures that small habitat
patches, particularly wetlands, are well represented.
each of the pixels receives a value for eighteen peer reviewed criteria that were developed to closely
match the objectives of the targets and to build on existing protection mechanisms and policies.
therefore both ecological and land use/ownership (feasibility) criteria were selected (table 2). refer
to Appendix e-2 for the scoring system used for each criteria layer.
192
Table 2: Criterion layers in the value surface analysis
ECoLoGICAL LAYERS
Total Score (‘Quality’) *
Distance from Urban Areas
Proximity to Natural Areas
Distance from Roads
Interior Forest
Proximity of a Forest to a Wetland
Proximity of a Wetland to a Forest
Proximity to a Watercourse
Proximity to a Waterbody
PLANNINg AND OWNERShIP LAyERS
Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW)
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA)
Valley and Stream Corridors (Areas regulated by TRCA under Ontario Reg. 158 – Fill/Fill extension lines)
TRCA Property
greenbelt Plan
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
Niagara Escarpment Plan
Rouge Park
Note: i) Existing natural cover included in the analysis includes Forest and Wetland cover only.ii) A description of each layer and why it was selected is available in Appendix E-3.* Landscape analysis polygons converted to pixel, thus giving a score to pixels falling within existing habitat boundaries only.
these criterion layers were ‘overlaid’, and the sum of the scores for each grid cell for each
criterion provides a range of cell values across the landscape that increase in value as values for
protection or restoration increase (figure 2). Several assumptions were built into this process
that limit where restoration and protection can take place based on existing land uses in the
trcA (table 3).
193
Figure 2 : Criteria overlay and addition to create a Total Score Value Surface
Table 3: Assumptions built into the value system analysis process
Assumption #1 Out of the many layers used in the raster analysis, only those existing forest and wetland patches (> 0.5 ha) were used. Old field meadow habitat was assumed to require the same level of effort to restore as agricultural fields. (See Appendix E-2 for a detailed list of layers used under each criteria)
Assumption #2 For existing urban areas: i) Expansion of the existing TNh system cannot occur into an already developed urban area. ii) All existing habitat identified within the urban boundary that abut the target system are included in the final system, regardless of their scores.
4 . 2 m a P P I n g T h e T a R g e T T n h s y s T e m
Prompted by the present state of natural cover distribution in the region, and by observed and
documented trends in biodiversity decline, targets for quality, distribution and quantity of natural
cover were set, (for setting targets see, trcA, 2006 a - Setting terrestrial natural System targets).
the next step was to proceed and develop scenarios in the design and mapping of the target tnH
System that would achieve the targets.
the trcA approach considers the terrestrial needs of the toronto region over a one hundred year
timeframe and considers the function of the region as an ecosystem, not just that of the natural
cover. rather than just selecting high value existing areas to be protected, this approach allows the
trcA to examine a full range of values and select as many areas as are needed to achieve the targets
set for quality, distribution and quantity. this means that on occasion some areas that support
no existing natural cover but are strategically located to contribute to the future achievement of
the targets, may score higher in the raster value surface than some areas with existing cover that
194
are perhaps very small and poorly located. therefore, not all existing natural cover will be included
in the targeted system, and conversely much land will be selected for restoration that currently
does not support natural features. this is an important concept of the system design process as it
is aimed at considering existing land development patterns to obtain the most benefit from land
protection to achieve the long-term targets for quality and distribution. Still, the larger and the
more rounded (compact shape) the existing natural cover, the higher it will score against areas that
do not currently support natural cover.
the raster (value surface) methodology described in Sec 4.1 automatically and uniformly evaluates all pixels in the entire trcA jurisdiction based on their potential to contribute to the achievement of the targets for quality and distribution. the next step was to select the appropriate pixels (lands) that together as a system fulfill the quality, distribution and quantity targets most. the text that follows explains how this was done by selecting from the highest scoring pixels downward until the area selected composed a tnH system that met the targets of quality and distribution.
If urban and agricultural land uses also change in the future, then these changes will impact the
future natural cover and the potential to achieve the targets. therefore, for every scenario designed
it is important to consider and model the extent and distribution of agricultural and urban land
cover projected for the timeframe of the exercise. In the process explained below, every scenario
explored is therefore designed and evaluated with urban and agricultural projections. the trcA
is looking 100 years into the future and considered the Province’s greenbelt and 30 year growth
Plan boundaries for the region as the predicted urban land cover over that timeframe. the design
process follows, including some notes on the trcA results specifically; for example, trcA looked
at existing natural cover and two modeled scenarios.
4 . 3 T n h T a R g e T s y s T e m D e s I g n s T e P s ( a T o m )
Evaluation – Existing Natural Cover
a) Interpret aerial photography and digitize (or map digitally) into the 5 habitat categories
(forest, successional, wetland, meadow, beach/bluff)
b) Prepare or acquire urban land cover and policy layers (urban, urbanizing, greenbelt, rouge
Park etcetera)
c) evaluate current system conditions using the lAm (this layer is later converted from
vector to raster and is then used in the value surface/raster analysis as one of the criteria
used to design the system (See Sec. 4.1).
d) does the existing system scenario meet the targets for quality and distribution? If yes, then
the existing system is the (minimum) target system for the study area. If it does not, from
either the quality or distribution perspective, then continue on to designing a modeled
scenario.
195
(a, b) Habitat categories and land use layers
(a, b) Existing conditions for the region
196
(c) Evaluated terrestrial natural cover (land uses shown)
Design - Modeled Scenario 1
e) raster Analysis using ecological and feasibility criteria and assumptions
f) while the model is driven by targets for quality (size, shape, matrix influence) and
distribution of natural cover; the model requires an initial quantity of natural cover as a
first input. Select the highest scoring pixels that add up to the desired starting percentage.
convert this to shapefile to create ‘raster Selection’
the trcA example: trcA began with thirty per cent of the entire value surface. thirty per
cent was used based, in part, on the literature, including the great lakes remedial Action Plan
Framework (environment canada, ontario ministry of natural resources, and ontario ministry of
environment 1998), and preliminary trcA buffering exercises that indicated that at least thirty
percent would be required to achieve a sustainable system (see Section 4). therefore, the highest
scoring thirty per cent of the pixels were selected for the first scenario.
g) take ‘Existing Forest, Wetland, Beach/Bluff’ layer and intersect this with Raster
Selection. essentially this will select all forests and wetlands that abut the Raster
Selection. Add these polygons to the Raster Selection to create the Scenario 1 System.
this process avoids creating patches that have been only partially selected (bisected)
through the process of converting from raster to vector.
197
(e, f) Raster selection in neon green.
(g) Forest & wetland patches (in red) abutting the raster selection
198
Evaluation – Modeled Scenario 1
h) evaluate the modeled Scenario 1 TNH System for quality using the lAm. evaluate
distribution. Have the quality and distribution targets been met? Again, if yes, then
Scenario 1 is the (minimum) target system for the study area. If not, from either the quality
or distribution perspective, then continue on to designing a modeled Scenario 2 that deals
with the quality or distribution limitations of Scenario 1. this may comprise selecting a
higher percent cover or making adjustments to the model, or adding criteria, and so on; the
exact modifications required depend on the cause of the limitation.
(h) Scenario 1 evaluated.
the trcA example: results showed that in this stage of the process Scenario 1 was not meeting
targets for distribution. existing conditions within the trcA jurisdiction illustrated a distribution
challenge with natural cover poorly represented in the south, compared to the north. the north
supported natural cover of a higher quality, which tended to attract more natural cover in any
modeling scenario. these areas have the highest biodiversity value and the greatest opportunity
to expand; therefore logically they can and should be expanded upon where possible. However,
this would not address the need for distributing more natural cover within the urban area where
patches tend to be smaller, poorly connected and of a generally lower quality. the feasibility of
expanding existing natural cover is limited within this area but because there are opportunities
199
for an expansion to the natural cover that were not captured, Scenario 1 did not qualify as the
target System. we proceeded with developing a Scenario 2 by first adding a further step in the
methodology to address distribution, as explained below.
Design - Modeled Scenario 2
i) Prepare the modification for quality or distribution.
the trcA example: to address the distribution concerns caused by the constraints of the urban
area, trcA then included in the next scenario all meadows in the urban area that were not included
in Scenario 1 but intersected with (abutted) the natural system in Scenario 1. by virtue of being
connected to the larger system, contributing to patch size, the abutting meadows have a higher
ecological value than those that are separated in the earlier scenario.
j) the existing natural cover layer from step (a) was used again but this time the meadows
in the rural area were removed and the urban meadows included to result in an ‘Existing
Forest, Wetland, Beach/Bluff with urban meadows’ layer.
(j) Existing natural cover from step (a)
200
(j) Existing natural cover with urban meadows kept.
k) take Existing Forest, Wetland, Beach/Bluff with urban meadows and intersect this with
Raster Selection. essentially this will take all forests and wetlands, and meadow patches,
within the urban area only, that abut with the Raster Selection. these will then be added
to create the ‘Scenario 2 TNH System’.
(k) Urban meadows intersecting Raster Selection shown in red
201
Evaluation – Modeled Scenario 2
l) the identified Scenario 2 TNH system is then run through the landscape analysis to
determine whether or not targets for quality and distribution are met. If targets for
both quality and distribution are met, then proceed to step (m). If targets for quality or
distribution are not met, then run a new scenario with modifications of the model as
required for quality or distribution, until the targets are met.
(l) Evaluated Scenario 2
202
Selection of Target System
m) the scenario that meets the targets is adopted as the working draft of the tnH target
System. Proceed through the next phases of fine scale revision and integration discussed in
Section 5.
(m) Scenario 2 selected as target system
In summary, the mapping of the target tnH system contains three main components:
1. the procedure begins with the target setting process that sets quality, distribution and
quantity targets (see trcA, 2006 a - target setting),
2. the system design model is then used to automatically select the best locations for
protection and restoration (Section 4),
3. the landscape analysis model is then used to evaluate the resulting system for quality and
distribution (Appendix e-1) and the results are compared to the targets to determine if they
have been achieved.
the results of modeling the best possible quality, distribution and quantity of natural cover to
design a target system are described next using the trcA process as a case study.
5 . 0 R e s U l T s ( o f T h e T R C a P R o C e s s )
the targeted system is described here in terms of quality, distribution and quantity of natural cover.
As was explained in Section 3, none of these three interdependent measures (or results) could be
considered separately from the next two measures.
5 . 1 q U a l I T y
Scenario 2 achieved the desired quality, in the ‘good’ quality range (or 11 to 12 range for the “total
score” of the lAm) so that on average, the resulting patches would be of a high enough quality to
support viable populations of regional Species of concern according to trcA findings (kilgour, 2003).
5 . 2 D I s T R I b U T I o n
the selected scenario achieves the best distribution possible in the trcA jurisdiction, considering
the limitations posed by the extensive (and relatively static) urban cover in the southern portion.
the outcome was to select a scenario that included as much natural cover in the urban area as
possible despite being below an optimal distribution of “good” patch quality. most natural cover
will be concentrated in the northern portions where urbanization has not proceeded to in the past.
true to the trcA’s intention to distribute natural cover and Species of concern across its entire
jurisdiction, including to the south, all opportunities for protection and restoration there should
be pursued even though they do not appear in the targeted system scenario. the l-ranks are broad
categories of the total scores, therefore, although most patches will increase or decrease in total
score, the l-ranks may not reflect these changes unless they are substantial or a patch was near
the threshold. thus the ranks are more geared to evaluating large landscape at a glance and total
scores are relevant for determining local benefits. Although the existing urban cover may prevent
the model from enlarging patches until they reach a higher l-rank but those patches can show
improvements in total scores.
C H A P T E R
5
203
204
5 . 3 q U a n T I T y
the quantity, resulting from striving for a well-distributed, “good” quality natural cover, in the
trcA jurisdiction has required that thirty percent of the region’s surface area be natural. Again, the
targeted system can only be achieved by reaching all three targets together.
6 . 0 R e f I n e m e n T s T o T h e T a R g e T T n h s y s T e m
6 . 1 W a T e R s h e D P l a n n I n g
trcA, as part of its commitment to working with its partners and stakeholders to determine the
ideal target system for the region, has and will continue to refine the mapping of the natural system
at smaller scales through more detailed examination, including the following:
w that the tnH target system adequately conforms with protected areas identified in
municipal official plans and policies – including all land areas within Provincially
and locally Significant wetlands, Areas of natural and Scientific Interest (AnSI),
environmentally Significant Areas (eSA) and lands identified as natural heritage systems,
environmental Protection Areas (ePAs) and any other lands identified for protection in
official plans
w that all known patches that support populations of regional Species of concern and
vegetation communities of concern are included in the targeted tnH system
w that all patches of high quality (ranking l1-l3) are captured as part of the system
w that all known opportunities to achieve the regional targets in existing urban and urbanizing
areas are not lost. this may include exploring naturalization opportunities within urban
parks and golf courses that may have been overlooked at the coarser regional scale.
Note: To date, most of the above were refined using digital overlays, yet where digital layers were not available,
refinements were assessed visually.
for trcA lands with a management plan, we have considered public use areas as not opportunities.
for lands with no plan we clipped out existing infrastructure and public use areas (i.e. picnic areas).
As you said, it would be a good idea to add a caveat that as these areas go through the detailed
public management plan development process these areas can be reexamined to determine if the
uses are appropriate (e.g. if the area is better to be restored than kept as a public area)
C H A P T E R
6
205
206
the regional tnH target system will be refined at the watershed and subwatershed planning
phases, including integrating the terrestrial system with other natural heritage components
(i.e. aquatics, sensitive ground water areas, etc.). the methodology described here may include
hydrological and aquatic habitat criteria to define a complete natural heritage system. the new
generation of integrated watershed and subwatershed plans will benefit from this multi-disciplined
effort and will consider all values both social and ecological. An effort is also being made to
ensure compatibility between the trcA defined system with those being defined by neighboring
conservation Authorities, non-profit organizations, and the Province of ontario.
6 . 2 R e f I n e m e n T s T h R o U g h I m P l e m e n T a T I o n
once the target system is determined through modeling, the target system map becomes the
“master plan”. the implementation mechanisms will allow for some flexibility in how the target
system is achieved at various scales over time.
the trcA uses site-specific information (including
ecological data, land use designations, and ownership) to
inform site decisions and to inform the development of
landscape-scale models. Site specific information was not
available for all natural cover within the region when the
design of the regional target system was undertaken, nor
was it expected to be available as this would be an enormous
task. while the benefits and indispensability of modeling
in assisting land use planning decisions were recognized,
so were the limitations of working at such a large scale. In
particular, as models generally do, the trcA models simplify ecological data and site character. on
one hand, such simplification is necessary in order to communicate complex principles to decision-
makers and stakeholders, and to report on complex ecosystems in a manner that can facilitate
decision-making. but refinements are needed at smaller scales (watershed, subwatershed, secondary
plan, etc.) in order to improve on the applicability of the target system at all scales.
refinements can occur as part of the implementation of the target system, in two ways:
1. through ongoing revisions of detailed land use mapping and restoration activities; and,
2. through ongoing ground-truthing of the model’s results by conducting biological
inventories.
the site-level ground-truthing occurs either in response to a local issue or as part of the regional
monitoring program. the field level work adds the details of species composition, which are
dependent on aspects of the landscape (soils, topography, moisture regime, local matrix influence,
etc.) that could not be determined from aerial photography, especially not for such a large study
area. more local information on ecological function, ownership and land designations will reveal
Future WorkThe LAM (which is used to measure quality) was based primarily on using avifauna as a surrogate for terrestrial biodiversity (which includes other fauna and flora species). Future analysis will ensure that other species are also being adequately considered by the modeling.
207
challenges and opportunities in achieving the target system and may lead to refinements to the
target system line.
Any changes in the target system boundary at all scales need to be considered in light of alternatives
that would assist in achieving the targets for quality, distribution and quantity.
6 . 3 I n T e g R a T I o n W I T h o T h e R e C o l o g I C a l , P o l I T I C a l a n D s o C I a l C R I T e R I a
the resulting target terrestrial natural Heritage System is the centerpiece of the terrestrial natural
Heritage System Strategy (trcA, 2006 d). the implementation section of the Strategy outlines
a detailed process by which this methodology will both be integrated with other values and be
implemented over time. refer to this document for details on future refinement of this model and
tools for implementation.
6 . 4 f U R T h e R a P P l I C a T I o n o f m o D e l s
the technology used in the design and evaluation of natural system scenarios can be used for the
implementation of the target natural system. the raster-based model can be used to compare lands
within the target system for the purpose of planning restoration and land securement increments.
7 . 0 a C K n o W l e D g e m e n T s
Support for the trcA terrestrial natural Heritage Program has been provided by: environment
canada, the richard Ivey foundation, the Salamander foundation, the r. Samuel mclaughlin
foundation, the george cedric metcalf charitable foundation, the Schad foundation, the
Helen mccrea Peacock foundation, the J.P. bickell foundation, unilever canada, greater toronto
Airport Authority, and the following municipal Partners: city of toronto, regional municipality
of durham, regional municipality of Peel, regional municipality of york, township of Adjala-
tosorontio, and town of mono.
C H A P T E R
7
208
8 . 0 D e f I n I T I o n s
Natural Cover
Area of land occupied by naturally and culturally occurring vegetation that is not characterized as
agricultural, cultural or urban land uses, or water bodies. can be dominated by native and non-
native vegetation. does not include manicured areas such as parkland or golfcourses (however,
parkland or golfcourses may support patches of natural cover within their boundaries). existing
natural cover includes lands in the terrestrial natural heritage system that as of 2002 were existing
forest (including thicket), wetland, meadow, and beach/bluff patches. Potential natural cover is
lands in the terrestrial natural heritage system that are not existing natural cover, but that are
needed to achieve the trcA’s targets.
Forest
forest is a term frequently used, but seldom defined. for the trcA’s system, forest is defined
as a “natural habitat dominated by trees”. the first Approximation of the ecological land
classification (elc) System (lee et al. 1998) considers forest habitat to be an area that has greater or
equal to 60% tree cover. the elc System distinguishes between “cultural” plantations, and natural
deciduous, coniferous or mixed forest, and suggests a minimum forest patch or polygon size of 0.5
ha based on 1:10 000 aerial photos. for the landscape analysis minimum forest patch size has been
set at 0.5 ha, although smaller patches may be mapped because digital aerial photography allows for
a 1:4000 base scale. within an urbanizing landscape such small patches can be highly valuable to
some wildlife as an oasis, or as stepping stone or stopover habit (Hale et al. 2001).
A natural forest typically features several layers, including the canopy, understorey, and herbaceous,
as well as standing dead trees and fallen woody debris. by this definition, treed lawns, cemeteries,
backyards, etc., do not have a forest structure and are not considered as a functioning forest,
despite providing a variety of biological and environmental benefits. In contrast, plantations which
usually display basic forest structure (albeit greatly simplified), are not natural forest, although
they still provide many forest functions. depending on how they are managed, their composition
C H A P T E R
8
209
210
and structure can improve over time, especially when native tree or herbaceous species colonize
under the planted canopy and start to form secondary growth. many plantations in the trcA
jurisdiction support species of concern, some of which are not currently found in other habitats.
where they are adjacent to forests, plantations contribute to the increase of the total forest area and
the amount of interior habitat.
for the landscape analysis of forest habitat patches, forest plantations, successional growth, the
three major forest types defined in the elc system (coniferous, deciduous and mixed), and swamp
forests were digitized as uniform forest layers without distinction and were treated as forest
polygons. Including successional growth in the forest category for the evaluation means that
polygons with less than 60% tree cover get incorporated (i.e. savannah, woodland or successional
lands end up being considered forest). tree-dominated swamps are mapped and evaluated as forest
in part because they are difficult to discern in aerial photo interpretation, and because they provide
many wildlife values associated with forest (e.g. forest interior conditions).
theoretically, a study area, such as a subwatershed, could have full coverage of field-collected
vegetation community polygons. In that case the ecological land classification codes might be
used to define the polygons. Suggestions include: fom, fod, foc, Swm, Swd, Swc and cuP
(cuP only if mid-aged or older)
Successional
digitized separately from forest, but included in the landscape analysis of forest habitat, these
polygons have less than 60% forest cover (see above Forest).
theoretically, a study area, such as a subwatershed, could have full coverage of field-collected
vegetation community polygons. In that case the ecological land classification codes might be
used to define the polygons. Suggestions include: cuw, cuH, tPw, cut, cuH, cuS, tPS, cbS,
SbS and Sbt.
Wetland
wetlands include shallow marsh, meadow marsh, shallow aquatic systems, swamps, bogs and fens.
Aquatic and wetland sites where water is known to be 2 m or less in depth are considered to be
marsh or shallow water, according to the mnr wetland and elc definitions. where water depth
is thought to be deeper than 2 m or unknown, only the perimeter marsh vegetation is mapped
as wetland and the remaining area if large enough is classified as open water. meadow marsh
is often indistinguishable from ordinary meadow on aerial photographs and cannot always be
accurately mapped as wetland unless a wet meadow is known to exist there. Swamp communities
are dominated either by shrubs or trees. thicket swamps (shrub-dominated wetlands) are easier to
discern than treed swamps when remotely sensed and are usually mapped as wetland polygons.
no limit was set on the size of wetlands to be mapped, since they often naturally occur as small
pockets in the landscape. If a wetland habitat is discernable at a scale of 1:4000, it is mapped.
211
theoretically, a study area, such as a subwatershed, could have full coverage of field-collected
vegetation community polygons. In that case the ecological land classification codes might be
used to define the polygons. Suggestions include: mAS, mAm, SAS, SAm, SAf, Swt, but not oAo.
Meadow
“meadow” generally refers to old field habitat, fallow field, pasture or open areas that are mowed
occasionally, such as highway and transmission corridors. native tallgrass prairie, open sand
barren, and sometimes meadow marsh are also considered as “meadow” in the landscape analysis
because these are difficult to distinguish from old field in air photo interpretation. old fields are
considered to have high restoration potential for native vegetation communities. However, in order
to ensure that any naturally occurring native open communities are not overlooked, individual sites
should be inventoried in advance of any old field restoration plans. Such natural meadow types will
be covered by more detailed mapping of vegetation communities.
As with forest, the minimum size for meadow to be included and mapped as habitat was set at 0.5
ha., although, again, smaller patches may be mapped due to some of the unique habitat types that
fall under the meadow category.
theoretically, a study area, such as a subwatershed, could have full coverage of field-collected
vegetation community polygons. In that case the ecological land classification codes might be
used to define the polygons. Suggestions include: cum, Sbo, tPo, and Sbo.
Beach/Bluff
this category includes natural barren coastal habitats that do not correspond to any of the other
major habitat type categories. It includes natural beach, coastal dunes, and bluffs.
no limit was set on the size of beach/bluff communities to be mapped, since they often naturally
occur as small features in the landscape. If a beach/bluff patch is discernable at a scale of 1:4000, it
is mapped.
theoretically, a study area, such as a subwatershed, could have full coverage of field-collected
vegetation community polygons. In that case the ecological land classification codes might be
used to define the polygons. Suggestions include: bbo, bbS, bbt, Sdo, SdS, Sdt, blo, blt, blS,
clo, clS and clt.
Rural/Agricultural
rural/Agricultural lands include croplands, fruit tree plantations (orchards), and pastures. they
do not include fallow fields, which are mapped as meadows. like meadows, agricultural lands are
considered to have potential for forest restoration (recognizing that the constraints analysis may
indicate that much of this area is not available). golf courses and aggregate lands embedded in this
area are also mapped as rural/agricultural, but not so when embedded within an urban area.
212
Urban
for the purpose of the landscape evaluation “urban” areas are considered to be any part of
the landscape that has been modified primarily for a human use other than agriculture. this
includes residential, commercial, and industrial land. It also includes manicured areas such as
cemeteries, golf courses, and parkland, because the intensity of management and use of these areas
is considered to have many potential negative impacts on nearby natural areas. In some cases
manicured parks within the urban areas may be analyzed as having restoration/naturalization
potential.
213
9 . 0 R e f e R e n C e s
Andren, H. 1994. effects of Habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with
different Proportions of Suitable Habitat: A review. Oikos 71: 355-366.
environment canada, ontario ministry of natural resources, and ontario ministry of environment.
1998. A framework for guiding Habitat rehabilitation in great lakes Areas of concern. minister of
Public works and government Services canada.
fahrig, l. 1997. relative effects of Habitat loss and fragmentation on Population extinction.
Journal of Wildlife Management 61(3): 603-610.
fahrig, l. 1998. when does fragmentation of breeding habitat Affect Population Survival?
Ecological Modelling 105: 273-292.
fahrig, l. 2001. How much Habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100: 65-74.
fahrig, l. 2002. effect of Habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A Synthesis.
Ecological Applications 12(2): 346-353.
fahrig, l., J. H. Pedlar, S. e. Pope, P. d. taylor, and J. f. wegner. 1995. effect of road traffic on
amphibian density. biological conservation 73: 177-182.
Hale, M.L., P.W.W. Lurz, M.D.F. Shirley, S. Rushton, R.M. Fuller, and K. Wolff. 2001. Impact
of landscape management on the genetic Structure of red Squirrel Populations. Science 293(5538):
2157-2336.
kilgour, b. 2003. Landscape and Patch Character as a Determinant of Occurrence of Eighty Selected Bird
Species in the Toronto area. A report prepared for the trcA. Jacques-whitford ltd., 2003.
lee, J. t., S. J. woddy, and S. thompson. 2001.
targeting sites for conservation: a patch based ranking scheme to assess conservation potential.
Jounral of environmental management 61: 367-380.
lee, J. t., n. bailey, and S. thompson. 2002a.
using geographic Information Systems to identify and target sites for creation and restoration native
woodlands: a case study of the chiltern Hills, uk. Journal of environmental management 64: 25-34.
lee, H. t., w.d. bakowsky, J. riley, J. bowles, m. Puddister, P. uhlig and S. mcmurray. 1998.
ecological land classification for Southern ontario: first Approximation and its Application.
ontario ministry of natural resources, South-central Science Section, Science development and
transfer branch. ScSS field guide fg.
214
lee, m., l. fahrig, k. freemark, and d.J. currie. 2002b. Importance of Patch Scale vs landscape
Scale on Selected forest birds. Oikos 96(1):110-118.
lindenmayer, d.b. and J.f. franklin. 2002. conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive
multi-scaled Approach. Island Press, washington d.c.
mcgarigal k. and w.c. mccomb. 1995. relationships between landscape structure and breeding
birds in the oregon coast range. ecological monographs 65(3): 235-260.
ministry of municipal Affairs and Housing. 1994. niagara escarpment Plan. Queen’s Printer for
ontario, toronto, on.
ministry of municipal Affairs and Housing. 2002. oak ridges moraine conservation Plan.
Queen’s Printer for ontario, toronto, on.
ministry of municipal Affairs and Housing. 2003. Shape the future: central ontario Smart
growth Panel. Queen’s Printer for ontario, toronto, on.
trcA. 2003. centreville creek Subwatershed Plan: characterization report, draft. toronto and
region conservation Authority, toronto, on.
trcA. 2007 a. Setting terrestrial natural System targets. toronto and region conservation
Authority, toronto, on.
trcA. 2007 b. terrestrial natural Heritage Program Scoring and ranking methodology, draft.
toronto and region conservation Authority, toronto, on.
trcA. 2007 c. terrestrial natural Heritage Program data collection Protocol. toronto and
region conservation Authority, toronto, on.
trcA. 2007 d. toronto and region terrestrial natural Heritage System Strategy. toronto and
region conservation Authority, toronto, on. draft, April 2004.
villard, m.A., m.k. trzcinski, and g. merriam. 1999. fragmentation effects on forest birds:
relative Influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation
Biology 13(4): 774-783.
215
Appendix E-1 – Landscape Analysis Methodology
C o n T e n T
w Introduction
w Patch Quality evaluation- Size, Shape, matrix Influence and total Score
w System Quality evaluation
w references
I n T R o D U C T I o n
the following explains the methodology, or landscape Analysis model, used to evaluate the quality
of patches and eventually that of the system. A wide range of measures are now used in landscape
ecology (see mcgarigal and mccomb 1995), and a large number of these were carefully scrutinized
before a choice was made on those thought to be most relevant for the trcA’s regional landscape
context. the trcA has taken this methodology through an extensive peer review process both
internally and seeking the external review of respected individuals within the sphere of ontario’s
conservation biology field. technical workshops and consultation for the terrestrial natural
Heritage System Strategy (trcA, 2007 d), of which this methodology is a centerpiece, also provided
a sounding board for the methods presented here.
once the major habitat and land use types have been digitized figure 1 – Step 1), the analysis is
undertaken using a vector-based approach in Arcview gIS software (figure 1 – Step 2) with the
Spatial Analyst addition. once the model is calibrated, habitat patches in a study area obtain a
score and rank according to their respective qualities (discussed below). because this analysis can
be undertaken through remote-sensing, and because representation of vegetation communities,
flora, and fauna tend to be strongly correlated with these attributes, the landscape analysis is a
fundamental part of the trcA terrestrial natural Heritage Program (trcA 2001; normand &
towle, 2001).
216
Figure 1: Running the Landscape Analysis Model
Landscape Analysis Model
Figure 1: Running the Landscape Analysis Model
Data Collection & Preparation• Field Inventory Programme• Volunteer Monitoring Program
Data Collection & Preparation• Air photo interpretation and digitizing
Research into landscape metrics• Vegetation community and species are scored and ranked according to habitat dependence, local occurrence, etc, from both collected data and literature to determine levels of concern (TRCA, 2006- Scoring & Ranking). This information, including remotely sensed patch data, fed into the development of the measures of Size, Shape, & Matrix In�uence.
Evaluating the Existing conditionsLandscape Analysis Model (LAM)• Total Patch Scores (current conditions) derived from evaluation of patches based solely on the landscape metrics of Size / Shape, & Matrix In�uence. (These measures can be strongly correlated to values for Quality)
Results of the Landscape Analysis Model are converted into raster and used in the System Design Modelling (see Main document)
STEP 1 STEP 2
P a T C h q U a l I T y e v a l U a T I o n
In the landscape analysis model (lAm) each discrete habitat patch in the study area is scored for
three landscape ecology measures: size, shape, and matrix influence. these measures are widely
applied in the field of landscape ecology to evaluate habitat patches in fragmented landscapes. each
measure is discussed below. Scripts were then written in Arcview gIS in order to run the landscape
analysis model across the region.
Patch Size
for biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem integrity, large habitat patches are preferable
because:
1) they can support bigger populations of species, thus promoting their viability;
2) they have the capacity to support area-sensitive and forest interior species;
217
3) they are better buffered from negative external influences;
4) they likely feature a greater diversity of habitat types; and,
5) they have a greater capacity to maintain and promote a variety of natural ecological
processes. (see forman, 1995; bennett, 1999).
Size is the number of hectares occupied by a habitat patch (polygon). even when patches straddle
the boundary of the study area, size is calculated for the entire patch, not just the portions that fall
within the study area. Scores for size were based on numerous literature sources, such as Hounsell
(1989), and trcA raw data of species and patches.
wetlands and beach/bluff are scored higher for size than forests and meadows because they provide
equal level of ecological function at smaller sizes. for example, wetlands and beach habitat patches
are much more capable of supporting habitat-dependent, native plant Species of concern at much
smaller sizes than could forest patches. this scoring based on value for function brings wetlands
and beaches on an equal footing with forests and meadows to acknowledge that healthy natural
systems are made up of a mosaic of communities and the interactions between them. for example,
small marshes provide habitat for breeding frog populations that then disperse as adults to much
more extensive forest patches, but neither habitat on its own would sustain the frog populations.
Hence the decision not to set a minimum size for wetlands while doing so for forests (table 1 in
main Appendix e text).
wetland scores were based on numerous literary sources, such as cadman et al. (1987), and trcA
raw data of species and patches. beach/bluff habitat is treated similarly to wetland habitat. Scores
are assigned to the patch size classes for each habitat type are listed in table 1.
Patch Shape
Patch shape is a measure of its exposure to external influences, especially the negative edge effects
resulting from habitat fragmentation. generally, the more convoluted or linear the habitat
patch, the higher the ratio of edge to area and the higher will be its exposure to these influences
(forman, 1995).
Shape is scored as a patch’s perimeter (edge)-to-area ratio (P/A). to compensate for the increase
in perimeter with increasing patch size, a corrected shape calculation is used: (0.282 x Perimeter)/
(Area) ½ (baker, 1997). the resulting scores for each habitat patch are multiplied by a factor of
ten to provide numbers that are easier to interpret e.g. a perfect circle (the best possible shape for
reduction of edge to area) would be P/A = 100. As in the case for the size measure, patches that
extend outside of the study area boundary are measured in their entirety, not just the portions of
the patch that fall into the study area. the patch shape values were assigned a score as listed in
table 2. the values were broken down over the 5 scores based on the literature on landscape ecology
and on qualitative analysis of maps of trcA raw data of species and patches.
218
Patch Matrix Influence
matrix influence is a measure of the positive or negative influence that a patch receives from its
surroundings. land uses, especially urbanization, adjacent to a patch can exert pressure or impacts
that can have a profound effect on its biodiversity (lindenmayer and franklin, 2002). conversely, a
patch can have a synergistic and beneficial relationship with other natural cover in its surrounding
area, and to a lesser degree with agricultural lands. In other
words, a patch’s score for “matrix influence” reflects the degree
to which the surrounding land cover and land uses threaten or
contribute to its biological integrity and diversity.
the trcA measures the character of the matrix within a 2 km radius out from the outside edge of
each habitat patch. the 2 km radius of influence extends beyond the limit of a study area (region
or watershed, for example) in situations where habitat is adjacent to the boundary delimitation.
the radius length of 2 km was chosen because:
1) it is considered to be a potential distance traveled daily from the matrix in a foraging
circuit by predatory species associated with edge effects, such as raccoons, foxes, feral cats,
cowbirds (negative influence);
2) it is the distance within which most genetic exchange and species dispersal can be expected
from most flora and fauna species (positive influence); and,
3) it is a distance that could be considered reasonable by people to travel from to visit a
natural area for recreational purposes, by walking, cycling or driving (negative influence).
(see Austen et al. 2001; Austen and bradstreet 1996; Hames et al. 2001; norris & Stutchbury 2001;
Haddad 2000; Askins et al. 1987; robbins et al. 1989)
In scoring for matrix influence, land cover types are calculated as a percentage of the total area
within 2 km from the edge of each habitat patch. for the purposes of this calculation three
categories of land cover are used: natural, agricultural and urban, each receiving a base value of
either +1, 0 or -1 on the gradient of influence. natural cover surrounding a patch is considered
to have a positive influence and receive a value of +1. Included in this category are patches of the
major habitat types (forest, wetland, beach/bluff and meadows), as well as open water in the form of
lakes, rivers, and ponds. Agricultural land cover can have negative impacts such as pesticide runoff,
but they also allow for the movement of many species between patches and across the landscape,
in particular for amphibian movements between forests and wetlands. As a result they score 0
points as the mid point on a continuum. urban land cover does not provide a connectivity function
for most species. In fact, due to pollution, refuse, recreational pressures, the presence of dogs and
cats, invasive species, etc., urban areas in general can be considered harmful to natural habitats.
therefore urban areas receive a base point of - 1.
the percent of each of the land cover types is measured within the 2 km matrix, and each is
multiplied by the base point value. from a biodiversity conservation perspective, the perfect patch
surroundings would be 100 percent natural (for example, wetland X would be situated within an
MatrixRefers to the general character of land uses in an area.
219
extensive mosaic of forests and wetlands, measuring at least 2 km out from the edge of wetland X)
and would receive a matrix score of 100, while the lowest possible score is -100 for a natural habitat
patch “immersed” within an expanse of urban land uses. the matrix values were broken evenly into
five scores (e.g. -100 to -60), using even breaks (40 point intervals).
Table 1: Scoring for size, shape, and matrix influence of habitat patches
SCoRESIzE (HA) FoRESTS, MEADoWS
SIzE (HA)WETLANDS, bEACH/bLUFF
SHAPE (P/A) MATRIX
1 <2 <1 ≥500 -100 to - 60
2 ≥2 ≥1 ≥300 < -20
3 ≥10 ≥3 ≥200 -20 to + 20
4 ≥50 ≥10 ≥125 > +20
5* ≥250 ≥20 ≥100 +60 to 100
*A score for patches greater than 250 ha was included to reflect restored conditions where such patches were possible, and to allow for application of the model to other jurisdictions.
Patch Total Score
total score for each patch is then calculated by combining the scores for size, shape, and matrix
influence, and is used as a surrogate for, or summary of, the ‘quality’ of a habitat patch as seen from
the air. but size, shape and matrix influence are assigned different weights in the total score based
on their importance in how much each affects ecological function (in other words, how each helps
or hinders species populations within patches).
of the three criteria, size is the most important patch attribute in an urbanizing landscape, both
because large patches are more likely to provide more options for dealing with crises (resilience),
and because negative edge effects (related to shape and matrix influence) generally penetrate less as
patch size increases. Preliminary studies using extensive data from trcA jurisdiction have shown
that the most important characteristic of a habitat patch for avian biodiversity is its size (kilgour,
2003), probably because size relates to the amount of space required for species to find resources
and remain in viable populations. the second factor is matrix influence; shape is also a factor
in contributing to the quality of a habitat patch, but to a lesser degree. As a result, when adding
size, shape, and matrix influence together for a total landscape score, the size criterion is given an
additional weighting on a sliding scale from small to large patches. thus for a small habitat patch
each landscape criterion (size, shape, matrix influence) may have relatively equal weighting, while
for a larger patch the size score may be weighted more than shape and matrix influence. forest and
meadow patches are weighted differently from wetland and beach/bluff patches (tables 2 and 3).
note: a multiplier of 3 is used in the calculation of total Score. for example, for a forest patch with
the following scores: size = 5; shape = 3; and matrix = 4 (i.e. assume patch is 250 ha, see table 2), the
following equation would be used to calculate total score: 5(50%)*3 + 3(25%)*3 … 4(25%)*3 = 12.75.
220
Table 2: Weighting system for total score in forest, meadow
SIzE (HA) % SIzE % SHAPE % MATRIX
> 0 33% 33% 33%
≥10 40% 30% 30%
≥ 50 45% 27.5% 27.5%
≥250 50% 25% 25%
≥500 55% 22.5% 22.5%
≥1000 65% 17.5% 17.5%
≥2000 75% 12.5% 12.5%
Table 3: Weighting system for total score in wetland and beach/bluff habitats
SIzE (HA) % SIzE % SHAPE % MATRIX
≥0 33.3% 33.3% 33.3%
≥3 40% 30% 30%
≥10 45% 27.5% 27.5%
≥20 50% 25% 25%
Patch Rank Calibration
the patch scores were then grouped into five ranks (l-ranks or local ranks), based on the range
of possible total scores from 0 to 15 points. l1 is the highest rank and l5 the lowest (table 4). the
purpose of ranking is to simplify the evaluation of the natural system and assist decision-making
by breaking down the range of scores into categories of patches with similar function. to avoid the
conventional approach of having two ranks, “good” or “bad”, in which good received the protection
and bad was expendable, trcA took more of a graduated approach with 5 ranks. Initially, the
ranks were calibrated based on even breaks in the scoring but when these breaks were applied to the
region’s natural system, the patch ranks across the region did not correspond to the distribution of
species across the region. then the inventory of field data from across the region became the basis
for calibrating ranks (table 4 and map 1). Patches for which there were data were used to calibrate
the ranks and therefore to rank all other patches of similar character throughout the region that
had not yet been inventoried.
Table 4: Habitat patch total score ranking system (size, shape, and matrix influence)
PATCH CHARACTER SCoRE RANk ‘QUALITY’ CoNDITIoN PATCH CoLoUR
Regional SoC 13-15 L1 Excellent Dark green
Regional SoC 11-12 L2 good Light green
Regional SoC 9-10 L3 Fair Orange
Urban SoC 6-8 L4 Poor Beige
No SoC 0-5 L5 Very Poor Brown
221
Map 1: Species Points (L1 to L3) and Land Use Character
Break between L3 and L4 Patches
field-inventoried patches that were found to support regional Species of concern were ranked l1
to l3 (l = local rank) and all other patches of similar quality, therefore with the same range of total
scores, were also ranked l1 to l3. field-inventoried patches that did not support regional Species of
concern were ranked l4 or l5, and all other patches of similar quality (total score) were also ranked
l4 or l5. thus, the model was calibrated to represent the threshold in species representation, which
increased dramatically from l4 to l3 patches. generally, patches in the urban matrix ranked l4 or
l5 and did not support regional Species of concern. morningside Park is an exception in that it
supports patches whose size compensates for the very negative surrounding matrix influence. the
initial calibration was later supported through a statistical evaluation of a subset of avian Species of
concern (kilgour 2003) and generally through further inventories and assessment at various scales
from site to region.
Break between L4 and L5 Patches
the l4 and l5 ranks were calibrated using the presence and absence of urban Species of concern,
species that are found within the urban envelope but are sparse. field-inventoried patches that were
found to support urban Species of concern were ranked l4 and all other patches of similar quality,
therefore with the same range of total scores, were also ranked l 4. field-inventoried patches that
did not support urban Species of concern were ranked l5, and all other patches of similar quality
(total score) were also ranked l5. Again field inventories since the initial calibration has provided
general support for the calibration.
222
Breaks between L1, L2 and L3 Patches
the rural portion of the trcA jurisdiction supported a full range of patch scores and a
corresponding full range of species. A number of regional Species of concern were distributed
across the rural portion of the trcA jurisdiction, some to the edge of the urban envelope, where
patch total scores were generally average (scoring 9 to 10). And a smaller number of Species of
concern were generally restricted to habitat patches with total scores that were above average for
the trcA jurisdiction (patch total scores were generally higher than 10). the latter were generally
located on the oak ridges moraine and duffins watershed. that mapping of species regionally as
well as literature on species area-sensitivity used in scoring species provided a further break between
l1, l2 and l3 patches.
Systems Quality Evaluation
evaluating the natural system quality is done by depicting the result of all patches as one
functioning unit in the landscape. one method used is a histogram that illustrates, as shown below
in map 2, the number (frequency distribution) of hectares falling into each rank (l1 to l5) and from
which a median natural system quality can be derived. other ways to demonstrate the system quality
is by showing number of patches per rank or by showing total score frequency instead of ranks.
Histograms for existing and modeled scenarios are then evaluated against the objectives to be met
and the set targets (see Appendix d, Setting Terrestrial Natural System Targets).
Map 2: Targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage System (TRCA Jurisdiction)
223
R e f e R e n C e s
Askins, r. A., m. J. Phibrick, and d. S. Sugeno. 1987. relationship between the regional abundance
of forest and the composition of forest bird communities. biological conservation 39: 129-152.
Austen, m. J. w. and m. S. w. bradstreet. 1996. the effects of fragmentation on forest birds and
plants in southern ontario: recommendations for woodland conservation and restoration. long
Point bird observatory. Port rowan, ontario. 43pp.
Austen, m. J. w., c. m. francis, d. m. burke, m. S. bradstreet. 2001. landscape context and
fragmentation effects on forest birds in Southern ontario. the condor 103: 701-714.
baker, w. l. 1997. the r.le Programs: a set of grAA programs for the quantitative analysis of
landscape structure. version 2.2. department of geography and recreation, university of wyoming,
82071.
bennett, A/f. 1999. linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife
conservation. Iucn, gland, Switzerland.
cadman, m.d., P.f.J. eagles and f.m. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of ontario.
unversity of waterloo Press, waterloo, canada.
forman, r.t.t. 1995. land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. cambridge
university Press.
Haddad, n. 2000. corridor length and patch colonization by a butterfly Junonia coenia. conservation
biology 14(3): 738-745.
Hames, r. S., k. v. rosenberg, J. d. lowe, and A. A. dhondt. 2001. Site reoccupation in fragmented
landscapes: testing predictions of metapopulation theory. Journal of Animal ecology 70(2): 182-190.
Hounsell, S. w. 1989. methods for assessing the sensitivity of forest birds and their habitats to
transmission line disturbances. ontario Hydro.
kilgour, b. 2003. landscape and patch character as a determinant of occurrence of eighty selected
bird species in the toronto area. A report prepared for the trcA. Jacques-whitford ltd., 2003.
lindenmayer, d.b. and J.f. franklin. 2002. conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive multi-
scaled Approach. Island Press, washington d.c.
mcgarigal k. and w.c. mccomb. 1995. relationships between landscape structure and breeding
birds in the oregon coast range. ecological monographs 65(3): 235-260.
224
normand, l. and k. towle, 2001. Seeing the forest for the landscape: the toronto and region
conservation Authority’s terrestrial natural Heritage Approach. federation of ontario naturalists
conference Proceedings: woods talk: community Action to conserve ontario’s woodlands.
norris, d. r. and b. J. m. Stutchbury. 2001. extraterritorial movements of a forest songbird in a
fragmented landscape. conservation biology 15(3): 729-736.
robbins, c. S., d. k. dawson, b. A. dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest
birds of the middle Atlantic States. wildlife monographs 103: 1-34.
225
Appendix E-2 – Target System Design Model -Value Surface Criteria
the raw score breakdowns across the raster score scale of 1 to 10 for ecological criteria and 0 to 10
for feasibility criteria varies under each criterion. Some breakdowns are linear (eg. increments of 1.5
under Patch Quality); others are somewhat exponential (eg. distance from urban areas). “distance
from” and “proximity to” criteria tend to have the same breakdowns and, as much as possible, the
breakdowns are similar across feasibility criteria. In all of these, the scoring was conducted with
as much relevance to ecology and planning on the ground as possible. Score ranges began with
1 in ecological criteria because the entire surface available for terrestrial natural cover expansion
held some value while score ranges for feasibility criteria began at 0 because where there was no
supporting designation, there would be no contribution to feasibility. the design approach was
peer reviewed.
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
ECoLoGICAL CRITERIA
Patch Quality – Total Scores
This criterion makes use of the quality or total scores assigned to every patch in the region (the weighted addition of the individual patch scores for size, shape and matrix influence). Total scores are translated from the raw vector score (scored on a scale of 1-15) to a raw raster shape score (on a scale of 1-10). This criterion assumes that the higher the total score is for a particular habitat patch, the more valuable it is for the target system. The maximum value of 10 points is associated with the highest total score values.
NoAddresses existing conditions only. Will value existing patches with higher total (size, shape, matrix influence) scores.
Raw Total ScoreScore
0-1.5 1
1.5-3 2
3-4.5 3
4.5-6 4
6-7.5 5
7.5-9 6
9-10.5 7
10.5-12 8
12-13.5 9
13.5-15 10
226
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
Distance from urban areas
This criterion is related to “matrix influence” in that it assumes that the further away a natural area is from an existing urban area, the better. The maximum value of 10 points is associated with distances of 2 km or more, this number being the distance considered in the landscape measure for matrix influence, which in turn was based on a rough estimate of how far certain negative impacts (i.e. urban faunal predators, human visitors, and their pets) can move in a landscape, the benefit of having additional natural cover within 2 km of an existing patch for biodiversity, and how far most visitors are likely to go in order to use a local natural area on a frequent basis, e.g. daily.
YesShows preference for areas that are far from urbanization targeting the more rural areas for an increase in natural cover; if cover is increased in these areas, matrix influence will be improved in areas where new habitat is added, and the biodiversity will benefit from this as well. Distribution of habitat will be influenced in a negative way, adding more natural cover to the north and away from the urban fringe.
Proximity to natural areas
This measures the proximity of natural habitat patches, up to a distance of 2 km. Like the former layer, this is also essentially a matrix measure, although this one assumes that nearby natural areas are beneficial to a habitat patch. The ways in which they can be beneficial are numerous, including support of a breeding pair or a population because of close access to additional resources, provision of pollination services and seed sources, etc (Austen et al., 2001; Norris & Stutchbury, 2001; Askins et al,. 1987; Robbins et al,. 1989). Natural areas within the study area which are very close to each other (0 to 10 m) score the maximum of 10, while areas more than 2 km away from each other receive a score of 0.
YesShows preference for areas that are in close proximity to or connected to other natural patches; this criterion will mainly serve at improving the matrix influence of a patch, and potentially the size, shape and connectivity of patches may also be improved. This criterion will also affect the distribution of natural cover by encouraging more habitat to be built up in areas where existing natural cover is high, in the northern, more rural portions of the Region.
Distance Score
0-10 1
10-30 2
30-60 3
60-120 4
120-200 5
200-300 6
300-500 7
500-1000 8
1000-2000 9
2000 + 10
Distance Score
0-10 10
10-30 9
30-60 8
60-120 7
120-200 6
200-300 5
300-500 4
500-1000 3
1000-2000 2
2000 + 1
227
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
Distance from roads
Roads pose a negative influence on terrestrial natural heritage as a result of pollutant run-off, noise, etc., as well as acting as barriers to the movement of many species for example, those which refuse to cross open areas due to the threat of exposure to desiccation, predation, etc (Fahrig et al. 1995). Areas that are 1 km or more away from a road receive a score of 10 for this layer. For the TRCA jurisdiction, a layer with all major roads was utilized
YesValues areas far from roads; will improve the distribution of natural cover in TRCA region due to the grid network of roads. The shape of habitat patches will also be improved through rounding out or squaring of patches farther from network of roads.
Interior Forest Core habitats or interior forest habitat (defined as areas greater than 100 m from the forest edge) are important, as many species will find difficulties in areas that are near the edge, due to the effects listed above. For this reason, existing interior forest is highly valued and it is given a maximum score of ten points. Also, all forest 100 m moving back out from the interior forest boundary is given maximum points. The reasoning for this is because interior forest would not exist if the surrounding 100 m ‘buffer’ of forest is not maintained. This will promote better patch shapes (for patches with interior forest) by not valuing linear convolutions or appendages that do not contribute to interior forest on larger patches.
NoAddresses existing interior forest only. Will protect existing cover only.
Distance Score
0-100 1
100-200 2
200-300 3
300-400 4
400-500 5
500-600 6
600-700 7
700-800 8
800-900 9
1000+ 10
Distance from edgeScore
100 + 10
Distance Scoreback out from 100 m forest interior line
100-0 10
228
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
Proximity of a wetland to a forest
This layer takes into consideration the need for species to have close proximity of wetlands to forests to provide summer, spring and winter habitat. Wetland habitat that is in close proximity to forest habitat is given a maximum score of ten points. The value breakdown goes from immediate adjacency (given a maximum score of 10) to a distance of greater than 2 km (score of 0). This distance of 2 km is both the distance used for the matrix influence, and the approximate width of concessions, where roads break connectivity for these species.Species requiring or benefiting from the close proximity of wetlands and forests include: amphibians such as spring peepers, wood frogs, grey treefrogs, eastern newts, spotted and blue-spotted salamanders; reptiles such as garter and ribbon snakes; birds such as wood ducks, hooded mergansers, broad-winged hawks, barred owls, screech owls, Acadian flycatchers, Eastern phoebes, and mourning warblers; mammals such as beavers, raccoons, white-tailed deer, and eastern chipmunks.
NoAddresses existing forest and wetland cover only. Will value existing cover only
Proximity of a forest to a wetland
This layer is the inverse of the previous, valuing forest immediately adjacent to wetlands (and out 10 m) with a maximum score of ten. The value breakdown is the same as the above layer.(gibbs 1998a, 1998b; Pope et al. 2000; Lamoureux et al. 1999; guerry and hunter 2002; Lehtinen et al. 1999).
NoAddresses existing forest and wetland cover only. Will value existing cover only
Distance Score
0-10 10
10-30 9
30-60 8
60-120 7
120-200 6
200-300 5
300-500 4
500-1000 3
1000-2000 2
2000 + 1
Distance Score
0-10 10
10-30 9
30-60 8
60-120 7
120-200 6
200-300 5
300-500 4
500-1000 3
1000-2000 2
2000 + 1
229
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
Proximity to a watercourse (with a fill line)
There is value to being in close proximity to a watercourse or water body. Water bodies include lakes and ponds of all sizes, and any open water or wetland system, not including swamp forests (see below). Some positive influences of riparian or water features on terrestrial are nutrient exchange, source of drinking water, breeding areas, and the connectivity function provided by valleys, and the influence extends beyond the riparian, and on to tablelands. The nature of this influence changes within this area, but at the scale we are working at, it is difficult to be more precise, and to tease out the different positive influences of riparian on terrestrial. Therefore, all areas that were determined to be within or in proximity to water features were given maximum points. Proximity to a watercourse was based on distance to those lands regulated by TRCA under Ontario Regulation 158 (defined by the ‘fill line’).
YesShows preference for areas within fill line and 30 m beyond fill line, but also values areas up to 200 m beyond fill line. Will affect natural cover distribution in a negative way due to the greater abundance of watercourses in the headwater areas to the north in the TRCA region. This criterion will also improve the matrix influence, patch size and connectivity around watercourses.
Proximity to a watercourse or water body (without a fill line)
In those areas where a ‘fill line’ does not exist (not regulated by TRCA under Ontario Regulation 158), areas that were determined to be within or in proximity (up to 120 m) to a watercourse or water body were given maximum points. With regards to the interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, it is assumed that the most ecologically beneficial placement of new natural cover would be within 200 m from a water feature.
YesValues areas 120 m out from a water course or water body where there is no existing fill line Will affect natural cover distribution in a negative way due to the greater abundance of watercourses and water bodies in the headwater areas to the north of the TRCA region. This criterion will also improve the matrix influence, patch size and connectivity around water courses and bodies.
Distance to ScoreFill Line
Within Fill Line 10
0 to 30 10
30 to 200 9,8,7,6, 5,4,3, 2,1 (even breaks)
>=200 0
Distance to ScoreWC?Wb
0 to 120 10
120 to 200 9,8,7,6, 5,4,3, 2,1 (even breaks)
>=200 0
230
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
FEASIBILITY CRITERIA
PSW This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System can and might be possible due to the presence of a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). A PSW provides some means of protection to the landscape due to current policies, and this ‘protection’ currently extends beyond the PSW feature out to 120 m. According to Section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), development or site alterations will not be allowed within a significant wetland. Development applications within 120 m of a PSW must show through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that there will be no negative impact on the feature or its function.
YesAwards value for existing PSWs and shows preference for lands within 120 m of the feature to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to the more northerly location of the majority of PSWs in the TRCA region. Matrix influence in the vicinity of PSWs will be improved.
ANSI This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System might be possible due to the presence of an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). An ANSI provides some means of protection to the landscape due to current policies, and this ‘protection’ currently extends beyond the feature. According to the Nh Reference Manual for Section 2.3 Does reference number change in new PPS? of the PPS, development applications within an ANSI will not be allowed. Development applications within 10 m of an ANSI must show through an EIS that there will be no negative impact on the feature or its function.
YesAwards value for existing ANSIs and shows preference for lands within 10 m of the feature to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to the more northerly location of the majority of ANSI sites in the TRCA region. Size and shape of patches as well as matrix influence in the vicinity of ANSIs will be improved.
Distance Score
Within Feature 10
0 to 120 8
120+ 0
Distance Score
Within Feature 10
0 to 10 8
10+ 0
231
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
ESA This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System can and might be possible due to the presence of an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). An ESA provides some means of protection to the landscape due to current policies, and this ‘protection’ currently extends beyond the feature. According to the Nh Reference Manual for Section 2.3Does reference number change in new PPS? of the PPS, development applications within an ESA will not be allowed. Development applications within 10 m of an ESA must show through an EIS that there will be no negative impact on the feature or its function.
YesAwards value for existing ESAs and shows preference for lands within 10 m of the feature to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to the more northerly location of the majority of ESAs in the TRCA region. Size and shape of patches as well as matrix influence in the vicinity of ESAs will be improved.
Fill/Fill Extension This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System might be possible due to the influence that the TRCA has in this area.
YesShows preference for areas within 10 m of the fill/fill extension line feature to build up on existing cover. This criterion will weakly affect distribution in a negative way due to the greater abundance of watercourses associated with fill/fill extension lines in the headwater areas (along ORM) to the north in the TRCA region. Size of patches as well as matrix influence in the vicinity will be improved. Shape is affected in a negative way because most fill lines form long, linear boundaries around valley systems (unfavourable shape).
Distance Score
Within Feature 10
0 to 10 8
10+ 0
Distance Score
Within Feature 10
Outside Feature 0
232
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
TRCA property This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh might be possible due to the mandate that the TRCA has to manage its own lands according to conservation principles.
YesShows preference for lands within 10 m of TRCA-owned lands to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to the more northerly location of the majority of TRCA properties in the TRCA region. Size of patches and matrix influence in the vicinity of TRCA property will be improved.
Greenbelt Plan This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System might be possible due to the influence of being contained within the Natural heritage System in lands identified in the Ontario greenbelt Plan (MMAh, 2005b
YesShows preference for lands classified as Natural heritage System in the greenbelt Plan to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to geographical location of the greenbelt in the TRCA region. Size and shape of patches as well as matrix influence on and in the vicinity will be improved.
oRM This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System might be possible due to the influence of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Conservation Plan (MMAh, 2002)
YesShows preference for lands classified as Core and Corridor Areas in the ORM CP to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to geographical location of the ORM in the TRCA region. Size and shape of patches as well as matrix influence on and in the vicinity will be improved.
Niagara Escarpment
This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System might be possible due to the influence of the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEC, 2005)
YesShows preference for lands classified as Natural and Protection Areas in the Niagara Escarpment Plan to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a negative way due to geographical location of the Niagara Escarpment in the TRCA region. Size and shape of patches as well as matrix influence on and in the vicinity will be improved.
Distance Score
Within Feature 10
Outside Feature 0
Designation Score
greenbelt NhS 10
Outside Feature 0
Designation Score
Core 10
Corridor 0
Countryside Area 7
Settlement Area 3
Designation Score
Natural Area 10
Protection Area 8
Rural Area 8
233
CRITERIA RATIoNALE VALUE RANGE(DISTANCE IN M)
PoTENTIAL To EXPAND QUANTITY oF NATURAL CoVER
Rouge Park (South of Steeles)
This layer addresses the opportunities where expansion of the existing TNh System might be possible due to the influence of the Rouge Park. *Note: Although ecological criteria have been developed (Schollen, 2003) to define the comprehensive of Rouge Park North, detailed field data is required- beyond the scope of this analysis.
YesShows preference for lands classified as within the Rouge Park boundary to build up on existing cover. This criterion will affect distribution in a more positive way due to geographical location of the Rouge Park in the TRCA region. Size and shape of patches as well as matrix influence on and in the vicinity will be improved.
Designation Score
Within Park Boundary 10
Outside Park 0
234
R e f e R e n C e s
ministry of municipal Affairs and Housing. 2002. oak ridges moraine conservation Plan. Queen’s
Printer for ontario, toronto, on.
ministry of municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. greenbelt Plan. Queen’s Printer for ontario,
toronto, on.
niagara escarpment commission, 2005. niagara escarpment Plan. Queen’s Printer for ontario,
toronto, on.
Schollen and company Inc. 2003. rouge north Implementation manual. trcA, terra
geographical Studies, unterman mcPhail Associates, Aquafor beech ltd.
235
Appendix E-3- Information layers needed to run analysis
CRITERIoN (RASTER) LAYER INPUT LAYERS
1 Distance to Natural Area Natural Cover (2002)
2 Distance from Roads Major Roads Layer
3 Distance from Urban Natural heritage Land Use Areas - “Built up Area”
4 Interior Forest generated from Natural Cover (2002)
5
Proximity of Forest to Wetlands Natural Cover (2002) - Wetlands are used to create a straight line distance grid. Forest & Successional polygons are then merged and multiplied by the distance grid.
6 Proximity of Wetland to Forest Natural Cover (2002) - Forest and successional polygons are merged and used to create a straight line distance grid. Wetland polygons are then merged and multiplied by the distance grid.
7
Watercourses in a fill line
TRCA’s fill line is used to create a straight line distance grid *
8
Watercourses outside a fill line
Watercourses outside of a fill line are clipped and used to generate straight line distance grid *
9 ANSI ANSI shapefile *
10 ESAs Environmentally Sensitive Areas *
11 Valley & Stream Corridor TRCA Fill and fill extenstion mapping *
12 greenbelt Landuse Natural heritage Areas defined by the greenbelt Plan *
13 Niagara Escarpment NEC Landuse (MNR)
14 Oak Ridges Morraine ORM Landuse (MNR)
15 Provincially Significant Wetlands PSWs (MNR) *
16 Rouge Park Rouge Park boundary *
17 TRCA Property TRCA Property Layer *
* The latest versions available in 2002.
Top Related