Mr. David Trotman

Transcription

1 Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ministry of Housing Ministère des Affaires municipales Ministère du Logement Municipal Services Office Bureau des services aux municipalités Western Ontario de l Ouest de l Ontario 659 Exeter Road, 2 nd Floor 659 Exeter Road, 2 e étage London ON N6E 1L3 London ON N6E 1L3 Tel.: Tél. : Toll-Free: Sans frais : Fax: Téléc. : May 18, Only Mr. David Trotman david.trotman@townofmono.com Re: Town of Mono Official Plan Amendment 41 Proposed Local Natural Heritage System Provincial One Window comments Dear Mr. Trotman, Thank you for circulating the proposed Town of Mono Official Plan Amendment 41 (OPA 41) to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) for a One Window technical review. This amendment was further circulated through the One Window Planning Service to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for their review and comments. Partner Ministry staff have considered OPA 41 in terms of the goals and objectives of their Ministries and the criteria and policies contained in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridge Moraine Plan, and the recently issued Natural Heritage System mapping and Agricultural System mapping for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (February 9, 2018). Partner Ministries have completed their review of OPA 41 and offer the following comments for the consideration of the Town of Mono and County of Dufferin. MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FORESTRY (MNRF) MNRF commends the Town for their work in establishing a Natural Heritage System. However, the now in-effect Provincial Natural Heritage System needs to be considered in the review of this official plan amendment, as planning decisions are required to conform with Provincial Natural Heritage System mapping as per section of the Growth Plan and section of the Greenbelt Plan. To achieve this, OPA 41 should include the Provincial Natural Heritage System mapping outside of settlement areas as an overlay. For additional information on the implementation of the Provincial Natural Heritage System, the Town is encouraged to review The Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: Summary of Criteria

2 and Methods, which is attached to these comments for ease of reference. This guideline document provides direction on the designation of natural features within the Natural Heritage System, the management of locally identified natural heritage areas outside of the provincial systems, and the process for future refinements through the County of Dufferin's Municipal Comprehensive Review, among other considerations. Section of the PPS requires progressive and final rehabilitation "to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, and to recognize the interim nature of extraction." Rehabilitation requirements are outlined in the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards. It should be noted that under the ARA, MNRF considers each application on a site-specific basis. Licensees must perform progressive rehabilitation and final rehabilitation on a licensed site in accordance with the ARA, the regulations, the site plan and the conditions of the licence to the satisfaction of the Minister. Proposed sections 12.2.e and 12.2.f of OPA 41 requires that an aggregate licensee comply with specific rehabilitation conditions. It may be advisable, so as not to conflict with the rehabilitation requirements under the ARA, that the policies in OPA 41 be modified to require progressive rehabilitation and final rehabilitation as per the site plan and conditions of the licence issued under the ARA. Similarly, section 12.3.b of OPA 41 refers to approved licences for extractive areas in the Greenbelt area where "no adverse impacts shall occur and providing enhanced replacement of key natural heritage and hydrologic features impacted to the sole satisfaction of the Town." MNRF instead recommends an approach more consistent with the ecological test identified in PPS section 2.1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD, AND RURAL AFFAIRS (OMAFRA) The Growth Plan requires the Province to identify an Agricultural System for the GGH (policy ). This has been achieved with the release of the Agricultural System mapping on February 9, Since its release, this mapping prevails and all land use planning decisions in the GGH must implement the Agricultural System. The proposed OPA 41 contains a number of policy changes (replacements or modifications) to various sections in the Town of Mono Official Plan. OMAFRA recommends that the following provincial policy requirements be incorporated into the relevant sections of the Town of Mono Official Plan. The Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System in Ontario s Greater Golden Horseshoe (February 2018), here: help to explain the relationship between the designation of prime agricultural areas, the identification of an Agricultural System, and the identification of a Natural Heritage System in an official plan. Both the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan contain policies on protecting the Agricultural System and the Natural Heritage System. The Greenbelt Plan aims to protect the agricultural land base, as well as and ecological and hydrological features, areas and functions within the Greenbelt area. It states that the Agricultural System, along with a Natural Heritage System, water resource system 2

3 and settlement areas, is part of the Protected Countryside. The Greenbelt Plan states that the Natural Heritage System is an overlay on top of the prime agricultural area and rural lands designations, not a separate, distinct designation. The Growth Plan states that the Natural Heritage System is an overlay outside of settlement areas. When developing land use planning policies for natural heritage within prime agricultural areas, the Town of Mono should ensure that agricultural uses and activities are permitted in appropriate locations. It is important to differentiate systems (i.e., use different symbology) from features (e.g., Natural Heritage System, key natural heritage features, and key hydrologic features) because provincial policies differ for each. Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan policies allow the full range of existing and new agricultural, agriculture-related, on-farm diversified uses and normal farm practices in Natural Heritage Systems outside of key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features. In key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features, expansions or alterations to existing buildings or structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses may be permitted subject to conditions. A natural heritage or hydrologic evaluation (commonly referred to as an environmental impact study and a hydrological evaluation, respectively) is not required for new or expanded agricultural buildings and structures on lands adjacent to key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features, provided a 30 metre buffer, a vegetation protection zone, is maintained from the feature (e.g., wetland, woodland). For clarity, new agricultural uses that would involve development or site alteration would not be permitted in key natural heritage features within the Natural Heritage System and key hydrologic features (Greenbelt Plan policy and Growth Plan policies and 4.2.4). However, activities not involving approval under the Planning Act may be permitted (e.g., agro-forestry and maple syrup production). Where natural heritage features and key hydrologic features are located outside of the Natural Heritage System, development or site alteration is generally not permitted. However, agricultural uses may continue, in accordance with the PPS Key natural heritage features within the Natural Heritage System and key hydrologic features often overlap with prime agricultural areas. For clarity and consistency across the GGH, it is recommended that the Natural Heritage System be shown as an overlay. As well, permissions for new agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses where features and prime agricultural areas overlap would be restricted by protective policies (i.e., no development or site alteration). The policies imposed by an overlay would be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the permissions or restrictions associated with the underlying designation. If local natural heritage systems are identified outside of the provincial Natural Heritage System, they could likewise be shown as an overlay in official plan maps, consistent with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010). 3

4 The proposed OPA 41 should address the above noted policy issues in the relevant sections of the Town of Mono Official Plan, as well as, the following specific policy concerns: All italicized references should be included in a Definitions section and be consistent with provincial definitions (e.g., in 14A 5. Glossary, Natural heritage features and/or areas definition is not consistent with the provincial definition). Section 12 Extractive Areas The provincial plans have policies dealing with mineral aggregate extraction. In particular, PPS deals with extraction in prime agricultural areas. The rehabilitation policies of the official plan should reflect the policies of the relevant provincial plan (e.g., 12(2) (e) should read, Final rehabilitation in the Natural Heritage System, outside of prime agricultural areas, will meet these additional provisions: ). Section 14A (3) The above noted policy requirements should be incorporated into this section of the official plan. In addition, regarding Policy 14A (3) (k), the word existing should be removed to reflect the wording of PPS policy Section 23 Prime Agricultural Areas and 24 Land Division Policies although only some of these sections form part of OPA 41, they need to be updated as they are not consistent with provincial policy. Section 24 (8) Environmental Policies 9 (a) Natural Heritage System paragraphs 2 and 3 state that NHS lands and areas also includes all lands designated Oak Ridges Moraine Core Area and all lands designated under the Provincial Greenbelt Plan (2004). This section should be revised to reflect current provincial policy and because not all lands in these areas are part of the NHS. The following resources are available at and help to implement the Agricultural System and the Natural Heritage System: 1. Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System in Ontario's Greater Golden Horseshoe; 2. Agricultural System Portal; 3. Agricultural Land Base Map; 4. Summary of the Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System Policies in Ontario's Provincial Plans. MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE (MOECC) Natural heritage resource protection falls primarily within the purview of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and as such, MOECC defers such comments on OPA 41 to MNRF (pages 1-2 of these comments). MOECC does, however, share the mandate of protecting land, air and water resources for all. It is understood that the request by the Town of Mono and County of Dufferin for MOECC to review OPA 41 originated from a concern with site alteration and the potential implications of fill being brought to sites within the Town. The Town should be advised that MOECC has developed the Management of Excess Soil A Guide for Best Management Practices, which can be found here: 4

5 to provide advice and guidance in this regard. This Guide provides advice that is relevant to all lands, and not just those having, or being proximate to natural heritage resources. As such, and given that this is a set of best management practices that MOECC encourages all municipalities to follow, there are no modifications being suggested for this specific amendment. The Town may wish to formalize the use of MOECC s Guide by amending its general development policies unless already in the official plan. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on this amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns. Regards, Tyler Shantz, BES Planner Ministry of Municipal Affairs Municipal Services Office Western 659 Exeter Road, 2 nd floor London, ON N6E 1L3 T: E: Tyler.Shantz@Ontario.ca Cc: Randall Roth, WSP Erick Boyd, MMA Carol Neumann, OMAFRA Ken Mott, MNRF Barb Slattery, MOECC 5

6 THE REGIONAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM FOR THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AND METHODS

7 The mapping of the National Heritage System is Supplementary Direction to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It was issued by the Province on February XX, 2018 and takes effect immediately. ISBN (PDF) Cette publication est également disponible en français. 2018, Queen s Printer for Ontario Printed in Ontario, Canada How to cite this document: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry The Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe summary of criteria and methods. Natural Heritage Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Queen s Printer for Ontario, Peterborough, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 300 Water Street Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5 Cover photos: Brook Trout Jon Clayton, Credit Valley Conservation; Tri-coloured Bumble Bee Larry Watkins, MNRF; Snowshoer Conservation Halton; Grand River Shutterstock

8 Table of contents 1.0 Introduction Purpose Scope What is a natural heritage system? Developing the Natural Heritage System Principles Criteria for developing the Natural Heritage System Core area criteria Linkage criteria Methods for mapping the Natural Heritage System Identification of core areas Identification of linkages Additional natural features Additional modifications Municipal refinement Assessment of the Natural Heritage System...14

9 1.0 Introduction Initiated in 2015, Ontario s Coordinated Land Use Planning Review examined the natural heritage policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. When phase 2 of the public consultation of this review was initiated in May 2016, the government announced that the Province would lead the development and mapping of a Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In the 2016 mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, a summer 2017 timeline was established to complete this mapping. Released in May 2017, the revised Growth Plan 1 also states that the Province will map an NHS for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, beyond the Greenbelt Area. 2.0 Purpose This summary document provides a definition and overview of NHSs in general. It then identifies the principles, criteria and methods used to develop the NHS map for the Growth Plan area of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. A more comprehensive technical document with a detailed description of methods and data sources as well as the digital shapefiles are also available Scope The criteria and methods used to develop and map the NHS were selected to identify a system at a regional landscape scale. While developed for the Growth Plan area, these criteria and methods have a broader application and could be used in other divided or fragmented landscapes of southern Ontario. The criteria and mapping were not intended to identify or connect all natural areas and features that may be important to consider at a local or smaller scale. These smaller features and areas can be incorporated into a local NHS that complements and connects to this Regional NHS. The summary document is not intended to address policies that apply to the NHS; those are described in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Queen s Printer for Ontario. Toronto, ON. 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry The Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Technical Report on Criteria, Rationale and Methods. Available at: 4

10 4.0 What is a natural heritage system? Natural heritage systems are connected networks of natural features and areas identified to help conserve biodiversity including species, ecosystems and ecological functions. Robust NHSs can enhance the resilience of ecosystems to threats such as habitat loss and climate change, and can provide vital ecosystem services that the residents of Ontario depend on (e.g., pollination, flood control, air and water purification). In southern Ontario, where habitat loss and fragmentation have been high, the identification and protection of NHSs in land use plans are essential conservation tools. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 defines an NHS as: A system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. These systems can include key natural heritage features, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other natural heritage features and areas, lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to natural state, associated areas that support hydrologic functions, and working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. The Growth Plan NHS supports a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to planning for the protection of the region s natural heritage and biodiversity. A key concept in the development of an NHS is that everything is connected. The primary components of the system are core areas and linkages (see figure 1). Core areas are the building blocks of an NHS and should be the most enduring natural areas within the landscape. They are usually the least disturbed and largest of remaining natural areas. Linkages are the connections between core areas that provide corridors and functional routes for the movement and survival of populations of plant and animal species. Linkages enable ecological processes to continue across a landscape by reducing habitat fragmentation and isolation. In settings where natural features are limited in size or are widely dispersed, core areas and linkages may include lands without natural features but with the potential to be restored to enhance habitat and connectivity. These lands may also be identified as working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. 5

11 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a natural heritage system on the landscape (Inset shows core areas and linkages). 6

12 5.0 Developing the Natural Heritage System Principles Several key principles were established to guide the development of the Regional NHS for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The methodology is intended to be transparent, with well-defined criteria and rationale, and is based on an automated and repeatable process. These key principles will reduce or eliminate the bias that is sometimes associated, whether intentionally or not, with individuals determining the mapping boundaries based on their knowledge or expertise. During the development of the automated process, the following general principles were used to guide the work: Well-documented and clearly explained criteria, rationale and methods are to be used. Scientific and empirical evidence are to be used to support decisions where possible. Consistency with current provincial NHS planning criteria and guidance (e.g., Natural Heritage Reference Manual 3 and Greenbelt Natural Heritage System) is to be maintained. Defendable and repeatable methodology is to be used (i.e., the same map would result from someone else using the same criteria and methods). Scale of the regional system is to focus on identifying larger core areas and broader linkages within a regional landscape context. Connection of the NHS mapping to existing regional mapping in adjacent areas is to be made as much as reasonably possible (i.e., connect to other natural heritage systems in adjacent planning areas). The criteria and methods are to have potential for application in another similar geography (i.e., could potentially be applied to other areas of southern Ontario). 5.1 Criteria for developing the Natural Heritage System The objectives of the Regional NHS are to maintain and restore the overall biodiversity and ecological functions over the long term, and are not tailored to a particular species or species group. Therefore, core areas and linkages need to be large enough to encompass a wide range of species, habitats and ecological functions. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual provides general guidance for the development of NHSs, but does not recommend specific criteria for the size of core areas and linkages. The reference manual does note that minimum size thresholds should consider the particular landscape context, such as identifying smaller core sizes in areas where the landscape is highly fragmented and there is limited natural cover (e.g., forests, wetlands, grasslands, lakes and streams). There was a need to develop a system that is based on consistently applied criteria and methods across the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Prior to developing criteria for the Regional NHS, literature on effective sizes of core areas and linkages and criteria used in other NHSs were reviewed. Existing NHSs have used different criteria and methods at various scales that were not beneficial to adopt directly for the Regional NHS. To be consistent with regional planning approaches in adjacent Provincial Plans, the criteria used for core areas and linkages in the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan were used as a base. 3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural heritage reference manual for natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, nd edition. Queen s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON. 7

13 5.1.2 Core area criteria Criteria for the composition and size of core areas and accompanying rationales are summarized in table 1. Composition of core areas In the patchwork of southern Ontario s landscape, there are very few large natural areas, so groupings of habitat patches were included in core areas. In such a fragmented landscape, core areas that contain groups of habitat patches can identify areas to target rehabilitation or restoration efforts that would contribute to a more robust and resilient NHS. Public lands 4 are also important, as they are often composed of natural features such as wetlands and forests or offer opportunities for restoration. A minimum amount of 50 per cent natural cover or public lands was used for the composition of core areas. This threshold is consistent with adjacent Provincial Plans and ensures that core areas are dominated by natural features. Size of core areas Core areas for the Growth Plan area were initially mapped with a minimum size of 500 hectares (ha), consistent with approaches in the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. These areas are large enough to include a wide range of habitats and ecological functions. However, this approach left large gaps in the NHS within much of the southern portion of the Growth Plan area. The degree of landscape fragmentation and amount of natural cover was assessed across the Growth Plan area to identify areas where smaller thresholds for minimum core area size should be applied. A minimum core size of 100 ha was used in areas with high levels of fragmentation and low percentages of natural cover (figure 2). The lower minimum size threshold in these highly fragmented areas provides habitat to fill gaps in the system where little natural habitat remains. Table 1. Criteria for identification of core areas. Attribute Criterion Rationale Composition At least 50% natural cover or public lands Ensures that natural features are the predominant type of cover in core areas consistent with Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Greenbelt Plan. Size Size in fragmented landscapes Minimum size of 500 hectares Minimum size of 100 hectares in areas with low natural cover that are severely fragmented Sufficient size to encompass a wide range of species, habitats and ecological functions [equal to minimum size in Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Greenbelt Plan]. Provides habitat and addresses Natural Heritage System gaps in portions of the planning area that have little natural cover remaining [The Natural Heritage Reference Manual recommends adjusting minimum core size based on landscape context]. 4 Public lands include Provincial Parks, Conservation Reserves, Wilderness Areas, National Parks, National Wildlife Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, Crown Lands and Agreement Forests. 8

14 Figure 2. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe core areas have a minimum size of 100 ha in crosshatched area and 500 ha in the rest of the Growth Plan area Linkage criteria Criteria for the identification of linkages and accompanying rationales are summarized in table 2. Composition and connectivity of linkages Wherever possible, linkages that consist of natural features with the ability to facilitate the movement of plants and animals were identified. In many cases, continuous natural cover was not present between core areas, so connections were made through patches of natural features as stepping stones between core areas. The portions of linkages around these patches of natural habitat, particularly in a more fragmented landscape, could identify areas for restoration that would contribute to a stronger and more resilient NHS. A high value was placed on natural cover in riparian areas (i.e., areas bordering rivers and streams) to build linkages, because these habitats serve as important natural corridors for most plants and animals. Linkages avoid barriers such as major highways and developed urban areas that have no natural features. Each core area has multiple linkages to provide options for movement and to serve as a safety net in case one of the linkages becomes weakened. The NHS is connected to core areas and linkages within the Greenbelt Plan as well as to natural features beyond the boundary of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Length and width of linkages There is no predetermined minimum or maximum length for linkages in the NHS. The length of linkages is driven by the shape and arrangement of core areas on the landscape combined with the position of natural features between core areas. There are several considerations associated with the NHS that support having wide linkages: Wide linkages are required where surrounding lands have limited natural habitat and are heavily influenced by human use. Linkages that function at the landscape scale should be several hundred metres or more in width (Natural Heritage Reference Manual). 9

15 Linkages intended to function over decades or centuries need to be wide to facilitate functions such as the dispersal of slowmoving species, gene flow and shifts in the geographical range of species in response to climate change. Linkages designed to facilitate movement of multiple species and entire communities need to be wide. Wide linkages provide increased natural habitat and reduce edge effects 5 that can hinder movements of sensitive species and promote widespread common species as well as invasive species. A minimum linkage width of 500 metres (m) was used for the NHS in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In some cases, linkages are wider where there are adjacent natural features. In other cases, linkages are inevitably narrower where they are bordered by barriers such as highways and urban development. River Valleys The valleys of major stream systems were included in the NHS, recognizing their importance to biodiversity (i.e., the variety of species, ecosystems and ecological functions) and hydrologic (water) functions. Stream systems also provide linkages between core areas and Lake Ontario, similar to the approach used for the NHS in the Greenbelt Plan. Table 2. Criteria for the identification of linkages. Attribute Criterion Rationale Composition Connectivity Length Width Consist of natural features and rural/agricultural lands without barriers to animal and plant movement Multiple connections between core areas Connections to NHSs in adjacent lands No minimum or maximum length 500 m + natural features that extend beyond boundary Natural features provide best dispersal routes for plants and animals. Where continuous natural cover is not available to connect cores, natural features used as stepping stones. Linkages are not created where there are permanent and substantial barriers to movement. Multiple linkages provide options for species movements and provide a safety net in case linkages are lost. Linkage to adjacent regional NHS ensures connectivity beyond the landscape planning area. Length determined by distances between core areas and the distribution of natural cover between core areas. Wide linkages are required for landscape-scale NHSs intended to conserve biodiversity and ecological functions over the long term. Wide linkages also minimize edge effects. 5 Edge effects are changes in population or community structures at the boundary of two habitats. 10

16 6.0 Methods for mapping the Natural Heritage System Data Sources NHS mapping was based on several data sources available through Land Information Ontario: Southern Ontario Land Resources Information System (SOLRIS) version 2.1 land cover for southern Ontario current to 2011 (15-m resolution) Ontario Hydro Network (OHN) version 1.2 line and polygonal data for streams and waterbodies (1:10,000 scale) Ontario Road Network (ORN) Segment with Address version 3 line network data identifying natural heritage barriers such as highways and freeways and passageways such as bridges over streams (+/- 10 m) Where The Trees Are (WTTA) areas that have had successful afforestation from the 50 Million Trees Program, but are not included as natural areas in SOLRIS Current aerial imagery In addition to these sources available through Land Information Ontario, Annual Crop Inventory data from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were used to identify grasslands and shrublands not identified in SOLRIS. Several Conservation Authorities provided fine-scale ecological data that were used to refine the boundaries of the NHS. 6.1 Identification of core areas Core areas were identified using a Geographic Information System (GIS) based on concentrations of natural features. Natural feature mapping for the analysis was extended for 10 kilometres (km) beyond the Growth Plan outer boundary as well as into the Greenbelt Area, so that connections could be made across the Growth Plan boundaries. The amount of natural cover within 1 km of each 15-m pixel was used to create a contour map showing the spatial average natural feature cover by percentage. A contour threshold of 40 per cent was used to identify core areas because it maximized the number and total area of core areas that had 50 per cent or more natural cover with a minimum size of 500 ha. A smaller core area size of 100 ha or larger was used in portions of the Growth Plan area that are heavily fragmented with low natural cover (figure 2). Public lands that intersected core areas were included. Barrier features (e.g., major highways, urban development without natural cover) were removed from identified core areas. Holes smaller than 250 ha and without barriers were included in core areas. With the exception of hedgerows 6, natural features extending beyond identified boundaries of core areas were included. Core area boundaries were also extended to include a 30-m zone around the edge of natural features. Core areas were reviewed against the most recent aerial imagery available through Land Information Ontario. In a few instances, the imagery revealed that there were small areas of land cover that had not been correctly classified in the base data. In some of these cases, there had been changes to the landscape after the latest land cover update in Boundaries of the NHS were adjusted (expanded or reduced) accordingly, based on the imagery. 6 Linear, treed areas between 10 and 30 m wide that can be natural or planted. 11

17 6.2 Identification of linkages Linkages were mapped using the GIS tool Linkage Mapper 7. This automated tool identifies linkages between neighbouring core areas based on the landscape s resistance (i.e., providing barriers) to movement by plants and animals. Natural features were given low resistance values, rural areas had intermediate resistance and developed areas and major highways had the highest resistance. Natural features in riparian areas (areas bordering rivers and streams) were given the lowest resistance value, making these areas the preferred route for linkages where available. For major highways, bridges over streams were eligible to be included in linkages. Linkage Mapper was set to four linkages per core area to ensure that multiple connections were created. After linkages were initially mapped, the Linkage Mapper tool was used to connect the NHS to any portions of the Greenbelt NHS that had been left unconnected. Because the mapping tool limited connections to four linkages per core, larger core areas were subdivided into smaller cores to ensure appropriate connections could be made. Centrelines of identified linkages were buffered by 250 m on each side to produce 500-m-wide linkages. Barrier features (e.g., major highways, urban development without natural cover) were removed from identified linkages, and small holes without barriers were included. Natural features (excluding hedgerows) and public lands extending beyond identified boundaries of linkages were included. Linkage boundaries were also extended to include a 30-m zone around the edge of natural features. All identified linkages were reviewed against the most recent aerial imagery available through Land Information Ontario. In a few cases, review of the imagery identified linkages that needed to be remapped using Linkage Mapper or simply deleted, as they crossed highly developed areas. 6.3 Additional natural features River Valleys The valleys of major stream systems (streams greater than 15 m wide) were included in the NHS. Although most of these stream systems were already included, a few streams and portions of others were not. The adjacent lands of these stream systems were identified in a similar fashion as linkages such that 250 m on either side of the stream plus adjoining natural features were included in the NHS. Stream systems were also used to provide linkages between core areas and Lake Ontario in Northumberland County. In this region, the barrier of Highway 401 created obvious gaps, and the Linkage Mapper tool was unable to identify linkages. Natural Features Adjacent to the Greenbelt Boundary Outside the Greenbelt Plan Boundary, natural features that were continuous with the NHS in the Greenbelt were included in the NHS of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. These areas are small portions of forests or wetlands that straddle the Greenbelt Plan boundary but were not originally identified as part of a core area or linkage in the Growth Plan area. The same approach was taken to include natural features that straddle the boundary of urban river valleys in the Greenbelt Plan that connect core areas to Lake Ontario. Additional refinements of identified areas Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), provincially significant wetlands (PSW) and rare plant communities that overlapped or were adjacent to the NHS were added to the system including a 30-m zone around the edge of natural features. 6.4 Additional modifications As a result of consultation and feedback received the final map shows the NHS across the entire Greater Golden Horseshoe outside the Greenbelt. As per policy of the Growth Plan, the NHS does not apply to lands within settlement area boundaries that were approved and in effect as of July 1, For the precise boundaries and locations of settlement areas, please refer to the Official Plan that was in effect on July 1, Portions of the NHS that fell within strategic settlement employment areas and economic employment districts in the Simcoe Sub-area of the Growth Plan were removed. 7 Linkage Mapper GIS Tool [Accessed 9 March 2017]. 12

18 6.5 Municipal refinement Growth Plan policy identifies that municipalities may refine provincial mapping with greater precision in a manner that is consistent with the Plan through a municipal comprehensive review (MCR): In implementing the Natural Heritage System, upper- and single-tier municipalities may, through a municipal comprehensive review, refine provincial mapping with greater precision in a manner that is consistent with this Plan. Upper- and single-tier municipalities will incorporate the provincially issued NHS mapping into their official plans through an MCR. Refinements that are consistent with the policies of the Growth Plan are as follows: Minor, technical adjustments (e.g., to account for distortion from map projections, discrepancies based on map scales); Addition of natural features 8 continuous with the boundary of the provincially mapped NHS. When natural features are added, the boundary of the NHS will be extended to include a 30 m vegetation protection zone beyond the edge of the feature consistent with the methods used for provincial mapping (see figure 3); Removal of small portions of the provincial NHS where there is built-up impervious development or infrastructure 9 (that would act as barriers) that was not identified and stamped out of the provincial mapping; Removal of small, isolated portions of the NHS that protrude from the Greenbelt Plan boundary or settlement areas provided these areas have no natural features and are not connected to the larger provincial NHS. Proposed refinements to the NHS shall be accompanied by supporting documentation, including any fine-scale mapping of natural features or infrastructure that was used to adjust the boundaries, and shall be submitted to the Province for review along with the proposed official plan or official plan amendment implementing the results of the MCR process. Figure 3. Refinement of the Natural Heritage System to account for a natural feature that is shown to extend beyond the original boundary based on fine-scale data. 8 Natural features include the following classes: beaches, sand dunes, alvars, open bedrock, tallgrass prairie and savannah, all forested (excluding hedgerows) and wetland classes, and open water. 9 The built-up impervious class is defined in SOLRIS (Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System) as buildings, pavement and other impervious anthropogenic structures in urban areas with a threshold of at least 10 buildings/500 m or 4/ha. This class does not include constructed features such as farmsteads (silos, barns, and houses) or extraction sites. 13

19 7.0 Assessment of the Natural Heritage System The total area of the NHS excluding settlement areas is about 1.18 million ha or 45 per cent of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (figure 4). Seventy-two percent of the NHS consists of natural cover (land or water). The NHS captures most of the significant natural features (table 3). The remaining natural features not captured were generally small and isolated, and therefore did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the regional system. Many of these features will be protected by the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 and could also be included in local NHSs. Table 3. Quantities of natural features in the Growth Plan area (excluding settlement areas) and the Natural Heritage System (NHS) Feature Amount in Growth Plan Amount in NHS Percentage of feature in NHS Provincial Parks 69,706 ha 69,618 ha 99.9 Conservation Reserves 1,061 ha 1,061 ha 100 National Wildlife Areas 47 ha 47 ha 100 Life Science ANSI* 66,560 ha 65,916 ha 98 Wetlands 336,418 ha 290,607 ha 86 PSWs* only 145,567 ha 130,402 ha 90 Tracked species records 1,275 EOs* 1,105 EOs 87 E&T species* only 601 EOs 530 EOs 88 Rare communities 1,811 ha 1,721 ha 95 Coldwater streams 5,837 km 4,287 km 73 * ANSI Area of Natural and Scientific Interest PSWs Provincially Significant Wetlands EOs Element Occurrences E&T species Endangered and Threatened Species 14

20 Figure 4. Regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 15

21 Summary of the Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System Policies in Ontario s Provincial Plans* FEBRUARY 2018 This document explains: The relationship between Natural Heritage Systems and the Agricultural System in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (the Growth Plan), the Greenbelt Plan, 2017, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017, and The relationships between agricultural uses, key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features. Context The Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and Growth Plan, 2017 policies recognize the importance of both the Natural Heritage Systems and Agricultural System to the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the people of Ontario. The two overlapping systems are mutually supportive. The protection of these resources is vitally important to the long term vision for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The target audience for this document is landowners who have properties in both the Agricultural System and the Natural Heritage System in either the Growth Plan, 2017 or the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 to provide them with a better understanding of the Agricultural and Natural Heritage Systems. It is not intended to replace information in the Growth Plan, 2017 and Greenbelt Plan, For more detailed policy direction on the information provided here, the Growth Plan, 2017 and the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 should be read in their entirety along with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS), and applied in each circumstance. Except for references to legislation, italicized words are defined terms in the provincial policies and plans, and these documents should be consulted for specific definitions and criteria. Landowners should consult with their local municipality for guidance and interpretation of land use policies. When considering changes to a property (e.g. an expansion or alteration of a building or structure, a new building or structure, lot creation or a change in land use), contact the local municipality for application information and to get required approvals. This document is not intended to provide advice on specific land use planning applications. What is a Natural Heritage System? Natural Heritage Systems are connected systems of natural features and areas and the lands and waters that link them together, including: wetlands fish habitat significant woodlands significant wildlife habitat and habitat of endangered and threatened species. *The document addresses the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017, the Greenbelt Plan, 2017, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, It does not address other provincial plans in the Greater Golden Horseshoe such as the Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2017 or the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009.

22 Natural Heritage Systems enable ecological processes to continue across the landscape by reducing habitat fragmentation and allowing for the movement of plants and animals. Where natural features are limited in size or are widely dispersed, Natural Heritage Systems will include lands without natural features but with the potential to be restored to enhance habitat and connectivity. These lands may also be identified as working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. How do I determine if a property is in the Natural Heritage System? The Natural Heritage System for both the Growth Plan, 2017 and Greenbelt Plan, 2017 can be accessed in one data layer through Land Information Ontario (LIO). The Natural Heritage System mapping can be viewed online using the Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas application. Once the System is included in municipal official plans, check with the municipality to confirm if the Natural Heritage System applies to the property. To download GIS data, visit Land Information Ontario. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017 also has a Natural Heritage System, but in this case it is identified as consisting of the Natural Core Area and Natural Linkage Area designations. What is an Agricultural System? The Agricultural System identifies and protects a continuous, productive land base for agriculture across municipalities and provides support for the agri-food supply chain the sector depends on. The system, mapped and issued by the Province in accordance with the Growth Plan, 2017, is comprised of a group of interconnected elements that create a viable, thriving agricultural sector. The system has two parts: Agricultural land base: includes prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and rural lands that together create a continuous productive land base for agriculture. Agri-food network: includes regional infrastructure and transportation networks, on-farm buildings and infrastructure, agricultural services, farm markets, distributors and primary processing, and vibrant, agriculturesupportive communities that are important to the viability of the agrifood sector. How do I determine if my property is in the Agricultural System? Mapping for the Agricultural System can be accessed through the Agricultural System Portal. To view the total area covered by the Agricultural System select layers 6.1, and 6.2. As these areas are further refined, check with the municipality to confirm if the Agricultural System applies to a property. Can the Agricultural System and the Natural Heritage System overlap on my property? Parts of the Natural Heritage Systems of the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and the Growth Plan, 2017 do overlap with areas of the Agricultural System within the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The policies of both the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and Growth Plan, 2017 recognize the importance of both the Natural Heritage Systems and Agricultural System to the people of Ontario. Where the systems overlap, a property is subject to the policies of both systems. The Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and Growth Plan, 2017 policies provide flexibility for agricultural uses within the 2

23 Natural Heritage System, as outlined below. Do the policies of the provincial plans allow me to continue to farm in and adjacent to key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features? Lands that are being used for agriculture can continue to be used for agricultural purposes and changes in agricultural activities are allowed without a land use planning application. For example, lands in row crop production could be converted to pasture, or planted as an orchard. Improvements to farmland, such as stone removal, tile draining a field or fencing a pasture could also occur. Some agricultural activities that would not be considered development or site alteration can also occur within key natural heritage features. For example, maple tree taps and sap collection lines within a woodlot can continue to be used. While not subject to an application under the Planning Act, some of these agricultural activities may be subject to municipal by-laws (e.g. treecutting) or regulatory controls under the Conservation Authorities Act. The construction or expansion of agricultural buildings or structures if located in proximity to a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature might be subject to further conditions and is discussed in more detail below. Can I establish an agricultural use or build a new agricultural building in the Natural Heritage System? A full range of existing and new agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, on-farm diversified uses, and normal farm practices are permitted in the Natural Heritage System of both the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and the Growth Plan, Although new agricultural buildings are allowed within the Natural Heritage System, other policies such as those regarding key natural heritage features continue to apply (Greenbelt Plan ; Growth Plan , and 4.2.4). Further information and examples of agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses can be found in OMAFRA s Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario s Prime Agricultural Areas. Can I build new agricultural buildings or structures in or adjacent to a key natural heritage feature or a key hydrologic feature? New buildings and structures for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses or on-farm diversified uses are not permitted in key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features. A new building or structure within 120 metres of key natural heritage features in the Natural Heritage System and any key hydrologic features, is permitted without the need for a natural heritage or hydrologic evaluation subject to the following requirements: A minimum 30 metre vegetation protection zone is provided from key features. The land is, and will continue to be used for agricultural purposes. If the land is not being used for agricultural purposes, a condition of natural selfsustaining vegetation is required for the vegetation protection zone. Best management practices will be pursued by the agricultural operator to protect and restore key features and their functions (Greenbelt Plan , Growth Plan ). If a new building or structure is proposed closer than the minimum 30 metre vegetation protection zone, a natural heritage or hydrologic evaluation is 3