PEEL-CALEDON Significant Woodlands. Significant Wildlife Habitat. and STUDY

Transcription

1 PEEL-CALEDON Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat STUDY FINAL REPORT JUNE 2009

2 PEEL - CALEDON SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS AND SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT STUDY FINAL REPORT June 2009

3

4 Cover Page Photo Credits: (1) Monarch butterfly (Margot Ursic) (2) Buttonbush in a bog (Karl Konze) (3) Red fox - wildlife habitat/corridor (Karl Konze) (4) Wood Thrush nest (Karl Konze) (5) Green frog (Karl Konze) (5) Background photo of wetland and woodland on the Niagara Escarpment in Caledon (Marsha Paley). This report should be cited as follows: North-South Environmental Inc., and Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study. Report prepared for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, Ontario. xi pp + app. North-South Environmental Inc. page i

5 North-South Environmental Inc. Mirek Sharp Brent Tegler Sarah Mainguy Sarah Piett Margot Ursic Karl Konze Ian Richards Heather Pankhurst Paul Lowes Consultant Team Region of Peel and Town of Caledon Study Team Core Management Team (CMT) Leilani Lee-Yates (Region of Peel) Marsha Paley (Town of Caledon) Mark Head (Region of Peel) Municipal Stakeholder Working Group (MSWG) Christina Lo (City of Brampton) Susan Jorgenson (City of Brampton) Eva Kliwer (City of Mississauga) Technical Advisory Team (TAT) Josh Campbell (Credit Valley Conservation) Scott Sampson (Credit Valley Conservation) Aviva Patel (Credit Valley Conservation) Bob Morris (Credit Valley Conservation) Dave Burnett (Toronto and Region Conservation) Dena Lewis (Toronto and Region Conservation) Theresa Fancy (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Anne Marie Laurence (Niagara Escarpment Commission) David Sit (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) Mike Kim (Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure) Alex Blasko (Ministry of the Environment) North-South Environmental Inc. page ii

6 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION Study Purpose and Objectives Project Management and Consultations Scope of Study Legislative and Policy Context Provincial Planning Initiatives Region of Peel Official Plan Town of Caledon Official Plan Rare Species Legislation and Rankings STUDY PROCESS Review of Background Information Reports and Interviews Digital Data and Mapping Consultation Process Key Principles for Criteria Evaluation Criteria Selection for Significant Woodlands Criteria Selection for Significant Wildlife Habitat STUDY AREA SETTING Region of Peel Town of Caledon Overview of Natural Heritage Features and Designated Areas OTHER MUNICIPAL STUDIES Significant Woodlands: Summary of Interviews with Other Municipalities Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH): Other Municipal Studies and Interviews with Selected Experts SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS Considerations for the Development of Criteria for Significant Woodlands Defining Woodlands Development of Significant Woodlands Recommended Criteria Woodland Patch Size Interior Forest Age and Late Successional Woodlands Slope Quality Linkage Proximity Representation (Community) Representation (Age) Ecological Functions Surface Water Quality and Quantity Groundwater Quality Diversity of Communities and Species Existing Designations North-South Environmental Inc. page iii

7 Significant Species and Communities Economic/Social Value Floristic Quality Index Significant Landforms Summary of Criteria Recommended for Identifying Significant Woodlands SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) Approach for Identifying Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Key Exemptions Related to Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Challenges and Limitations in Developing Criteria for Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Defining Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Overview of Candidate Criteria and Draft Recommendations Criterion A1: Deer Wintering Area Criterion A2: Colonial Bird Nesting Sites Criterion A3: Waterfowl Nesting Habitat Criterion A4i: Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas Criterion A4ii: Migratory Bat Stopover Areas Criterion A4iii: Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas Criterion A4iv: Waterfowl Stopover (or Staging) Areas (Terrestrial) Criterion A4v: Waterfowl Stopover (or Staging) Areas (Aquatic) Criterion A4vi: Migratory Shorebird Stopover Areas Criterion A5: Raptor Wintering Areas Criterion A6: Snake Hibernacula Criterion A7: Bat Maternal Roosts and Hibernacula Criterion A8: Bullfrog Concentration Areas Criterion A9: Wild Turkey Winter Range Criterion A10: Turkey Vulture Summer Roosting Areas Criterion B1: Rare Vegetation Communities Criterion B2: Forests Providing a High Diversity of Habitats Criterion B3: Old-growth or Mature Forest Stands Criterion B4: Foraging Areas with Abundant Mast Criterion B5: Highly Diverse Areas Criterion B6: Cliffs and Caves Criterion B7: Seeps and Springs Criterion B8i: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Forested Sites) Criterion B8ii: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Non-forested Sites) Criterion B9: Turtle Nesting Habitat and Turtle Overwintering Areas Criterion B10: Habitat for Area-sensitive Species Forest Interior Breeding Bird Species Criterion B11: Habitat for Open Country and Early Successional Breeding Bird Species Criterion B12: Habitat for Wetland Breeding Bird Species Criterion B13i: Raptor Nesting Habitat (Raptors Associated with Wetlands, Ponds, and Rivers) Criterion B13ii: Raptor Nesting Habitat (Raptors Associated with Woodland Habitats) 168 North-South Environmental Inc. page iv

8 Criterion B14: Mink, River Otter, Marten, and Fisher Denning Sites Criterion B15: Mineral Licks Category C: Habitats for Species of Conservation Concern Criterion C1: Species Identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC which are not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario s Endangered Species Act Criterion C2: Species Identified as Special Concern Based on Species at Risk in Ontario List that is Periodically Updated by OMNR Criterion C3: Species that are Listed as Rare (S1 S3) or Historical in Ontario Based on Records Kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough Criterion C4: Species whose Populations Appear to be Experiencing Substantial Declines in Ontario Criterion C5: Species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are rare or uncommon in the Region of Peel/Town of Caledon Criterion C6: Species that are rare within the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon, even though they may not be provincially rare Criterion C7: Species that are Subjects of Recovery Programs Criterion C8: Species Considered Important to The Region of Peel/Town of Caledon, Based on Recommendations from the Conservation Advisory Committee Criterion D: Animal Movement Corridors Concluding Remarks CONCLUSIONS DEFINITIONS LITERATURE CITED North-South Environmental Inc. page v

9 List of Tables Table 1: Forest cover for municipalities in the Region of Peel (all woodlands > 0.5 ha) Table 2: Approximate area and number of forests patches smaller than 0.5 ha for municipalities in the Region of Peel Table 3: Number and area of forest in different size classes (all woodlands > 0.5 ha) Table 4: Number and area of forest interior* in different size classes Table 5: Forest cover within different physiographic units 4 and plan areas (woodlands >0.5ha) within the Town of Caledon Table 6: Summary of natural heritage features, areas, regions and policy designations in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Table 7: Complete list of candidate criteria considered for significant wildlife habitat Table 8: Summary of recommendations related to the candidate criteria for SWH. Recommendations apply equally to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon and unless specified otherwise Table 9: Overview of consultant recommendations related to the proposed thresholds for significant wildlife habitat Table 10. Peak shorebird numbers and cutoff numbers in the GTA as of the year 2000 (from Coady and Smith 2000) Table 11. Vegetation community targets for Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E-4 from the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity (Henson and Brodribb 2005) and their closest ELC community descriptions and codes Table 12: Population density and forest requirement information for area-sensitive forest-interior breeding bird species occurring in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon List of Figures Figure 1: Region of Peel and Town of Caledon study area... 3 Figure 2: Policy and planning areas in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon Figure 3: The Physiography of the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Figure 4: Conservation authority (watershed) boundaries Figure 5: The urban and rural systems in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Figure 6: Woodlands in Peel Region and the Town of Caledon List of Appendices APPENDIX 1: Definition of Woodlands APPENDIX 2: Summary of Data Sources Reviewed APPENDIX 3: Summary of Significant Woodlands Criteria Used by Other Municipalities & Recommended in Technical Documents in Southern Ontario APPENDIX 4: Summary of Interviews with Technical Experts on Significant Wildlife Habitat APPENDIX 5: Old-growth Forest Associations and Age-of-Onset APPENDIX 6: Corridor Sizes Required By Different Groups Of Wildlife: Examples From The Literature

10 Executive Summary The Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study report provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. Initially, a long list of candidate draft criteria was assembled for significant woodlands through a review of work undertaken by other municipalities in southern Ontario, government and nongovernment agencies, along with a review of the scientific literature. The advantages and disadvantages of each candidate draft criterion for significant woodlands are discussed along with the input received from the Municipal Staff Working Group/Technical Advisory Team, consultations with stakeholders, the public and the Town of Caledon Council. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) served as the foundation from which to select candidate draft criteria for identifying significant wildlife habitat. This document was selected because it was prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), the primary agency responsible for protecting natural heritage features in the province, and because it is province-wide in scope. As a result, the list of draft criteria for significant wildlife habitat is very broad and encompasses a wide range of features and functions. All of the recommended criteria and thresholds have been presented to stakeholders, the public and the Town of Caledon Council for review and comment. Based on the consultations and analyses, the study recommends criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. The study report characterizes the existing woodland cover in the Region and the Town. Table 1 (below) clearly shows that the Town of Caledon supports the highest woodland cover in the Region (31.5% woodland cover), and that the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga have a similar forest cover of approximately 7%. The report also provides an analysis of the size distribution of woodlands in the Region and by each local municipality (see Table 3 in the report) and the extent of interior forest (see table 4 in the report). All these analyses were undertaken using data provided by the Region, the Town, the Conservation Authorities and the OMNR. There was no field work component to this study, all the information used being from existing data sources. Table 1 (same as Table 1 in main text): Forest cover for municipalities in the Region of Peel (all woodlands > 0.5 ha) Municipality Forest Cover in Contribution to No. of Forest each Municipality Regional Forest Patches ha (%) Cover (%) Mean Patch Size Peel 25,867; (20.6%) 100% 1,127* 23.0 Caledon 21,954, (31.5%) 84.9% Brampton 1,972, (7.3%) 7.6% Mississauga 1,940, (6.7%) 7.5% * Note that for woodlands that straddle municipal boundaries, portions of the same woodland will be counted in each municipality. Thus the sum of the number of patches for the three municipalities will not add up to the number of patches for the entire Region.

11 Section 5 of the report, addressing significant woodlands, discusses a total of 18 draft criteria and thresholds, and recommends a final suite of six for identifying significant woodlands, as identified below. Woodlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) are subject to the policies of the ORM Conservation Plan. The ORM Conservation Plan gives municipalities the ability to identify significant woodlands that are in addition to those identified through the Plan, however, whether this is desirable needs to be established in the review of natural heritage policies being undertaken through the Peel Region Official Plan Review (PROPR) and Town of Caledon Planning Policy Conformity (PPC) exercises. As such, the Region and/or Town may wish to apply these criteria to the Oak Ridges Moraine. Criteria for Identifying Significant Woodlands (terms with underscores are defined in Section 8) Woodlands outside of the ORM planning boundaries satisfying any one of the following criteria should be considered significant: 1. With respect to woodland size (application of recommended thresholds to the Regional and Town scales may be determined through the policy development phase for the Region s and Town s Official Plan review exercises): Option 1: Recommendation based on Urban-Rural System Distinction Woodlands satisfying the following size criteria should be considered significant: i. Urban System (i.e., within the 2031 urban boundaries for the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga): all woodlands equal to and larger than 4 ha in size; ii. Rural System (i.e., the Rural System that comprises all of the Town of Caledon): all woodlands equal to and larger than 16 ha. Option 2: Recommendation based on Physiography/Historical Land Use Woodlands satisfying the following size criteria should be considered significant: i. areas on and above (west of) the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlands equal to and greater than 16 ha in size; ii. Rural and Urban System below the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlands equal to and greater than 4 ha. 2. woodlands, or inclusions in woodlands, (>0.5 ha) that are older than 90 years (Regional and Town threshold). 3. any woodland (>0.5 ha) identified as supporting a linkage function, as determined through a natural heritage study approved by the Region or Town (Regional and Town threshold). 4. woodlands (>0.5 ha) within 100 m of another significant feature (Regional and Town threshold). 5. woodlands within 30 m of a watercourse, surface water feature or evaluated wetland (Regional and Town threshold).

12 6. woodlands that supports any of the following (Regional and Town threshold): i. any G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, or S3 plant or animal species, or community as designated by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC); or ii. any species designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as Threatened, Endangered, or of Special Concern. iii. The following forest communities: Dry Fresh White Pine Red Pine Coniferous Forest Type (FOC1-2) Dry Fresh White Pine Sugar Maple Forest Ecosite (FOM 2-2) Dry Fresh White Pine Oak Mixed Forest Type (FOM2-1) Moist Fresh Hemlock Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM 6-1) Dry Fresh Red Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-1) Dry Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-2) Dry-Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 1-4) Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-2) Dry-Fresh Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-3) Fresh Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD 6-2) Guidance to assist in the interpretation and application of these criteria is provided in Section 5.3 of the report. Section 6 of the report recommends 39 criteria for identifying significant wildlife habitat in the Region of Peel and 37 in the Town of Caledon. Of the 39 Regional criteria, 28 have suggested thresholds and of the 37 Town criteria, 26 have thresholds recommended. The remaining criteria do not have any thresholds recommended for them at this time due to data and technical guidance limitations at the time of this study. A summary of the recommended draft criteria for significant wildlife habitat is provided below in Table 8. Table 8 (same as Table 8 in main text): Summary of recommendations related to the criteria for significant wildlife habitat. Recommendations apply equally to the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel unless specified otherwise. SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended with a threshold Recommended without a threshold Not recommended A1. Deer wintering area A2. Colonial bird nesting sites (e.g., heronry, gull colony) A3. Waterfowl nesting habitat A4i. Migratory Landbird Stopover Areas REGION OF PEEL ONLY

13 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended with a threshold Recommended without a threshold Not recommended A4i. Migratory Landbird Stopover Areas TOWN OF CALEDON ONLY A4ii. Migratory Bat Stopover Areas A4iii. Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas REGION OF PEEL ONLY A4iii. Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas TOWN OF CALEDON ONLY A4iv. Migratory Waterfowl Stopover and/or Staging (Terrestrial) A4v. Migratory Waterfowl Stopover and/or Staging (Aquatic) A4vi. Migratory Shorebird Stopover Areas A5. Raptor wintering areas (i.e., used for feeding and/or roosting) A6. Snake hibernacula A7. Bat maternal roosts and hibernacula A8. Bullfrog concentration areas (see details under B8ii) A9. Wild Turkey winter range A10. Turkey Vulture summer roosting areas B1. Rare vegetation communities B2. Forests providing a high diversity of habitats (captured by significant woodlands) B3. Old-growth or mature forest stands (captured by significant woodlands) B4. Foraging areas with abundant mast (i.e., nut bearing trees) B5. Highly diverse areas B6. Cliffs and caves B7. Seeps and springs B8i. Amphibian breeding habitat - Forested sites (e.g., vernal pools) B8ii. Amphibian breeding habitat - Non-forested sites (e.g., marshes)

14 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended with a threshold Recommended without a threshold Not recommended B9. Turtle nesting habitat and turtle overwintering areas B10. Habitat for area-sensitive forest interior breeding bird species B11. Habitat for open country and early successional breeding bird species B12. Habitat for wetland breeding bird species B13i. Raptor nesting habitat - wetlands, ponds, and rivers B13ii. Raptor nesting habitat - woodland habitats B14. Mink, River Otter, Marten, and Fisher denning sites B15. Mineral licks C1. Species identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC which are not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario s Endangered Species Act. C2. Species identified as Special Concern based on Species at Risk in Ontario List that is periodically updated by OMNR. C3. Species that are listed as rare (S1 S3) or historical in Ontario based on records kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough. C4. Species whose populations appear to be experiencing substantial declines in Ontario. C5. Species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are rare or uncommon in the Regional Municipality of Peel / Town of Caledon. C6. Species that are rare within the Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, even though they may not be provincially rare. C7. Species that are subjects of recovery programs. C8. Species considered important to the Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, based on recommendations from a local Conservation Advisory Committee. D. Animal movement corridors

15

16 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Region, through its Natural Heritage Policy Review component of the Peel Region Official Plan Review (PROPR), and the Town of Caledon, through its Provincial Policy Conformity (PPC) exercise, have identified the need to undertake the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study. The study area is shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to formulate criteria and thresholds for the identification of these features, and provide direction for the development of appropriate policies that will conform with provincial planning directions. While both the Region of Peel s and the Town of Caledon s Official Plans currently contain policies regarding woodlands, these policies require review given recent provincial directions and new technical guidance. As well, neither plan contains specific policies addressing significant wildlife habitat. Notably, the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon are the first municipalities in Ontario to explore criteria and threshold development for significant wildlife habitat at the jurisdictional-wide level, even though other municipalities may eventually undertake a similar exercise to conform to the PPS. In doing so, the Region and Town are demonstrating leadership to ensure the development of well-informed significant wildlife habitat Official Plan policies. The Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study can serve as a case study for future significant wildlife habitat studies conducted by other municipalities. It is anticipated that this study will assist the Region and Town in refining the application of the provincial significant wildlife habitat guidelines to make them specific to Peel and Caledon to the greatest extent possible, thereby creating more certainty for landowners in Peel. This Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study is a technical study that recommends criteria and thresholds for significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat to inform the development of policies that will be considered through the Region s PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review and the Town of Caledon s PPC exercise. While the approach taken for this study necessarily focuses on the significance of specific natural heritage features and areas, and in some cases the presence or absence of specific indicators of habitat, it is important to remember that this study assumes that these components will ultimately be protected within the context of the Region s broader natural heritage system, known as the Greenlands System. While the protection of significant woodlands and significant wildlife will contribute to the resilience of a natural heritage system, the protection of these features alone would likely be inadequate for their long-term conservation. Protection of other natural heritage components (e.g., significant wetlands, significant valleylands), as well as ecological corridors and linkages, together form a resilient and sustainable system that comprehensively protects natural heritage features. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of this study is to determine what is significant in terms of both woodlands and wildlife habitat in both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, rather than identify all the potential components of a natural heritage system. Guidance from the Province states that for significant wildlife habitat this means capturing what is ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system (OMNR 2000). North-South Environmental Inc. page 1

17

18

19

20 Given that a large proportion of the Region s natural heritage features are located in Caledon, the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon decided to undertake this study as a joint technical study in order to (a) share resources and improve efficiencies, and (b) develop a consistent methodology for identifying and evaluating significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat at both the Regional and Town scales. In January of 2008, a consultant team led by North-South Environmental Inc. (ecologists), with assistance from (ecological consulting and design), and Sorensen Gravely Lowes (planners) were retained to undertake this study. The same team was retained to assist with the Region s PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review, under the leadership of Sorensen Gravely Lowes, which facilitated the integration of input and recommendations from this study into policy. Stakeholder and public consultations have also been undertaken as part of this technical study and a summary of comments received and responses are available under separate cover. This includes a summary of comments received from stakeholders, the public and Caledon Council. Further consultation is planned during the policy development phase for both the Region s and Town s Official Plan Reviews. It is recognized that science is only one component of good planning, albeit an important one that deserves substantial weighting. This study focuses on the technical aspects of the identification of significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat, and does not attempt to integrate other planning issues into the development of the criteria and thresholds. It is anticipated that any other planning requirements will be addressed through the policy development phase for both the Region and the Town. Throughout this study, the terms woodland and forest are used synonymously in a general sense to refer to features that contain trees. These terms, as well as savannah, also have more limited technical meanings and this is discussed in Section Study Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study is to provide a technical basis for evaluating the scope of policy revisions to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon Official Plans required to conform to recent provincial policy. Policy requirements for significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat have been set out in policy statements issued under the Planning Act since 1997, the most recent being the Provincial Policy Statement which came into effect on March 1, Provincial guidance (through reference manuals, guidelines and on-line resources) is provided to assist municipalities when interpreting the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and developing policy. Technical studies, like this, are a mechanism for developing municipal approaches for the identification of significant natural heritage features and areas that incorporate provincial guidance and input from local municipal staff, relevant experts, stakeholders, and the public. The Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study, together with the Region s and Town s policy reviews, have the purpose of bringing the Regional and Town North-South Environmental Inc. page 5

21 Official Plans into conformity with provincial policy requirements. In other words, the study aims to provide a made in Peel and a made in Caledon response to the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) in regard to significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. Some of the comments from stakeholders and Caledon councillors received during this study process have expressed a concern that this study presents yet another new potential policy layer for landowners to contend with (a summary of all stakeholder comments is available under separate cover). However, it is important to understand that the need to identify both significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat is already established by the Province in existing policy applicable to both the Town and Region. What this study provides is a defensible criteriabased approach for the identification of significance on a Region and Town-wide basis that will hopefully clarify the rules and process for all stakeholders, and ensure fairness by allowing for consistent application throughout the respective jurisdictions. The specific tasks and deliverables of the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study (abbreviated from the study Terms of Reference) are: 1. To review and assess relevant background documents regarding significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in the southern Ontario context; 2. To compile and assess existing data and mapping sources with respect to woodlands and wildlife habitat in Peel/Caledon, develop an integrated information database and (where feasible) digital mapping, and identify significant data gaps; 3. To prepare a background summary of science-based approaches for defining and mapping significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in Peel/Caledon, including draft mapping for significant woodlands; and, 4. To prepare a final study report summarizing the results of steps 1-3 and the results of the public consultations, recommending criteria for defining significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon Official Plans, and providing an integrated information database and mapping platform to support the technical recommendations of the study and subsequent development of policy recommendations. It was recognized from the outset that there are very different data requirements for determining significant woodlands than identifying significant wildlife habitat. The information to enable mapping of most woodlands and identify most of those that may be significant is available and it should be possible to map the majority of their locations. However, there is insufficient information at this time to facilitate mapping of significant wildlife habitat on a Region-wide or Town-wide basis. Significant woodland analyses can be undertaken at a landscape scale and include mapping, because of better data availability and the subsequent fuller understanding of woodlands in general at the Regional and Town scales. However, significant wildlife habitat will need to be determined at the site level through natural heritage studies such as environmental impact studies, subwatershed studies, secondary plans, etc. Lastly, the criteria and thresholds recommended in this report are based on the current policy framework and state of the science. Decisions on criteria and thresholds, particularly for the significant wildlife habitat, are based in part on the available data regarding the woodlands and North-South Environmental Inc. page 6

22 wildlife of the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. The criteria and thresholds will need to be periodically re-examined and possibly refined as these things change in the future. 1.2 Project Management and Consultations The study was managed by a Core Management Team consisting of a lead staff member from the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, as well as the Regional lead for the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review. The Core Management Team has been responsible for providing direction to the study consultant and managing the overall study process. In addition to ongoing consultation with the Core Management Team, the study process included meetings with a Municipal Staff Working Group, consisting of members of the Core Management Team (as noted above) and staff from the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga, and a Technical Advisory Team, consisting of representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI) (formerly Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal). Stakeholder and public consultations have also been undertaken to provide opportunities for input early in the process (i.e., to the selection and development of criteria for significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat prior to policy development) (see comment summaries available under separate cover). Representatives from key stakeholder groups were invited to provide their input on preliminary criteria on April 7, 2008 and draft criteria and mapping on June 17, Caledon Council was presented with the preliminary criteria on April 15, 2008, and given the opportunity to comment on draft recommended criteria and draft mapping on May 13, Regional and area municipal staff also held public open houses on June 24 (Caledon), June 25 (Brampton) and June 26 (Mississauga) to gain broader public input on the draft recommended criteria and draft mapping, prior to study finalization. An initial draft report was provided to stakeholders to obtain preliminary comments prior to releasing a draft for public input in October The main findings of the October 2008 draft report were also presented to Region of Peel Council through the Inter-Municipal Planning Sub-Committee on October 16, Scope of Study The Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study, along with the Region s PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review and the Town of Caledon s PPC exercise provides criteria, thresholds and policy for Regionally and Town-specific significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat within the Region and Town respectively, in accordance with policy requirements in the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). Significant woodland and significant wildlife habitat criteria in areas covered by provincial plans, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (OMMAH 2002), already provide sufficient guidance and criteria, and further revision is beyond the scope of the study. North-South Environmental Inc. page 7

23 Although there is protection for significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat within Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHFs) within the Greenbelt Plan (OMMAH 2005), final guidelines providing definitions and thresholds are not yet available. A draft Technical Paper (OMNR 2008) was provided for significant woodlands after the final draft study report was finished. The Technical Paper providing guidelines for significant wildlife habitat is yet to be released. Until such guidelines are made available in final form for the Greenbelt Plan, it is recommended that the policies and definitions of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) PPS should be used. Policy of the Greenbelt Plan states that KNHFs beyond the Natural Heritage System within the Protected Countryside are to be defined pursuant to, and subject to the policies of, the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). The Provincial Policy Statement (2005), in Section 8, Definitions, allows municipal approaches for the determination of significance. Once implementing guidelines for the Greenbelt Plan are finalized, Regional and Town staff will need to consider whether the recommendations of this current study are consistent with the guidance from the Province through the Greenbelt Plan technical guidelines. Finally, the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study does not recommend criteria for defining locally significant woodlands and locally significant wildlife habitat within the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga as these municipalities are not part of this joint study with the Region and Town. Policies, criteria and thresholds within the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga will continue to be governed by their respective Official Plan policies, although they will need to adopt policies consistent with, or if they choose, more restrictive than, the Regional policies that will be developed through the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review. Consideration of the differences in scale between the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon was considered in the development of criteria and thresholds, acknowledging the possibility that they may be different for the two jurisdictions. This issue is further discussed in Section Legislative and Policy Context Section 26(1) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Ch. p.13, which was amended by the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act (2006), requires a municipality to revise its Official Plan to ensure it conforms to Provincial plans, policies and legislation at least every five years. This study is one of several technical updates that will assist the Region and Town in developing policy to achieve conformity with new provincial planning directions that have been enacted in recent years. Specifically, these new provincial planning directions flow from: 1. The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) (MMAH 2005), which came into effect on March 1, 2005; 2. Bill 135, The Greenbelt Act, which received Royal Assent on February 24, 2005 and the Greenbelt Plan, which took effect December 14, 2004; 3. Bill 51, The Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, which received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006; and, North-South Environmental Inc. page 8

24 4. Bill 136, The Places To Grow Act, which received Royal Assent on June 13, 2005, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (referred to as the Places to Grow Plan in this report), which took effect June 16, The Region through PROPR and the Town through their PPC exercise have initiated their respective five-year reviews of their Official Plans. As part of this five-year review, the Region and Town are bringing their Official Plans into conformity with the above legislation and plans. Under the Places to Grow Act (2005), municipalities must achieve Official Plan conformity with the Places to Grow Plan by June 16, The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and the Greenbelt Act (2005) are discussed below specifically in terms of how they deal with significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001) and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (1973) also cover a significant area in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. Consequently they are also discussed below in terms of their relevance to identifying significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in both these jurisdictions. The planning areas for the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan are shown on Figure Provincial Planning Initiatives Provincial Policy Statement (2005) Section 2.1 (Natural Heritage) of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) states that: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species; b) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and c) significant coastal wetlands Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E, & 7E; b) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield; c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield; d) significant wildlife habitat; and e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The intent of this study is to provide technical direction specifically in relation to (b) and (d), while still being cognizant of the Region and the Town s intention that these discrete features form part of the natural heritage system in Peel, known as the Greenlands System. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) provides some technical guidance for municipalities with respect to each of these natural heritage features. Although this manual was North-South Environmental Inc. page 9

25 developed in support of the 1997 Provincial Policy Statement (which has now been superseded), it continues to be the most current guidance until a revised manual is approved 1. The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) defines significant woodlands as follows: an area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history; functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in the planning area; or economically important due to site quality, species composition, or past management history;. While it is a planning authority s responsibility to determine which woodlands are significant, key considerations (or criteria) identified are: woodland size, ecological functions (e.g., shape, proximity to other woodlands / habitats, linkages, diversity), uncommon woodlands, and woodland economic and social values. The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) defines wildlife habitat as follows: areas where plants, animals, and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter, and space needed to sustain their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species. It also defines significance in general for other features and areas referred to in policy 2.1, as ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system. As with significant woodlands, it is a planning authority s responsibility to determine which wildlife habitats are significant, although further guidance is provided in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the related on-line Decision Support System (available at Several important points made in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) include: what constitutes significant wildlife habitat across the Province will vary because of differences in distribution of wildlife species as well as the amount and quality of remaining habitat; the identification of significant wildlife habitat is typically best undertaken after other natural heritage features have been identified; and where possible, significance should be based on documented evidence of use of a particular habitat. 1 A draft of the revised Manual has recently been released for public comment. North-South Environmental Inc. page 10

26

27

28 The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) use the same definition of significance for wildlife habitat as the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) as noted above, and further states (as does the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)) that: Criteria for determining significance may be recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same objective may also be used. The provincial guidelines outline four major categories of significant wildlife habitat to be considered and provide a brief rationale for each. These are summarized below. A. Seasonal Concentration Areas: Places where animals occur in relatively high densities at specific periods in their life cycle and/or particular seasons when they are considered most vulnerable to disturbance. B. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats for Wildlife: Important for maintaining biodiversity across the landscape. C. Habitats for Species of Conservation Concern: Important because they often live in declining or uncommon habitats and are very sensitive to additional habitat loss. D. Animal Movement Corridors: To enable wildlife to move to, and between, areas for significant wildlife habitat or core natural areas; provide critical links between shelter, feeding, watering, growing or nesting locations; facilitate dispersal of young or seed. Greenbelt Plan The Greenbelt Plan is the document that provides the policy direction and mapping in support of the Greenbelt Act (2005). The Greenbelt occupies a significant portion of the Town of Caledon. A small portion of the Greenbelt extends into the City of Brampton and both the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga are subject to the External Connections policies of the Greenbelt Plan. The Greenbelt Plan identifies a Protected Countryside designation and further divides the Protected Countryside into three geographic specific policy areas for the Natural System, Agricultural System and Settlement Areas. For the purposes of this study, the Natural System policies are of most relevance since these policies protect areas of natural heritage, hydrologic and/or landform features, which are often functionally interrelated and which collectively support biodiversity and overall ecological integrity. The Greenbelt s Natural System builds upon and is connected to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. It is connected to and/or supports broader natural systems such as the Carolinian Zone and the Kawartha Highlands. The Natural System within the Greenbelt Plan is made up of a Natural Heritage System and a Water Resources System comprised of key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features. These include (as cited from Section of the Greenbelt Plan (2005)): significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat as well as a number of other features (e.g., significant habitat of endangered, threatened and special concern species; fish habitat; wetlands; life science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs); significant valleylands; sand barrens, savannahs and tallgrass prairies; alvars; permanent and intermittent streams; lakes and their littoral zones; and seepage areas and springs). The Greenbelt Plan states that criteria will be established by the Province for Key Natural Heritage Features within the Natural Heritage System portion of the Protected Countryside. North-South Environmental Inc. page 13

29 Outside of the Natural Heritage System (NHS) the Key Natural Heritage Features are subject to the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). The Province is currently working on Technical Papers that outline the criteria that are to be used to determine Key Natural Heritage Features within the NHS portion of Greenbelt. Three draft Greenbelt Plan Technical Papers were posted on the Environmental Registry in September These papers dealt with all the Key Natural Heritage Features identified within the Plan except for significant wildlife habitat for which technical guidance is expected to be made public in Staff from the OMNR has been consulted by the consultant team extensively to ensure that the study approach is in accordance with the intent of the Greenbelt Plan and associated Technical Papers. However, there are some differences between the approach proposed in the draft technical paper for significant woodlands and that proposed in this study report. Through the Region s PROPR process and the Town s PPC exercise, OMNR staff will continue to be consulted. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), developed in support of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001), is an ecologically-based plan established by the Ontario government to provide land use and resource management direction for the 190,000 hectares of land and surface water features on the Moraine. With respect to this current study, the policies and definitions relating to significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat will continue to apply to those lands subject to Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001) and Conservation Plan. The ORMCP gives municipalities the ability to identify additional significant woodlands, however, whether this is desirable needs to be established in the review of natural heritage policies being undertaken through the Region and Town s Official Plan review exercises. As such, the Region and/or Town may wish to apply these criteria to the Oak Ridges Moraine. A series of Technical Papers was developed by the provincial government to facilitate implementation of the ORMCP. These papers were last revised in 2007, and were developed using the best available science and data, and integrate feedback received from other provincial ministries, conservation authorities, municipalities, environmental and community groups, the development community and the aggregate industry. Although these Technical Papers were developed specifically for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan area, they contain very useful information, particularly with respect to significant wildlife habitat (e.g., Technical Paper #2) that has been used in this study to help develop thresholds and criteria for the areas in Peel and Caledon outside the ORMCP lands. Given that approximately 80% of Caledon falls within the Greenbelt policy area, and that the forthcoming Greenbelt Technical Paper with respect to significant wildlife habitat is expected to use the criteria and process on which the ORMCP Technical Paper #2 was based (J. Boos, OMNR, pers. comm. 2008), this approach makes sense for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon (see Section 6.1). The ORMCP Technical Paper #7 for Significant Woodlands provides detailed guidance on how these policies are to be applied and also gives a detailed definition for woodlands to enable the application of the policies. This definition, with refinements, is recommended for use throughout the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon and is discussed in Section 5.2. The full definition is provided in Appendix 1. North-South Environmental Inc. page 14

30 The ORMCP Technical Paper #2 for Significant Wildlife Habitat has been used as a core guiding document for this study, and is described in more detail in Section 6. Niagara Escarpment Plan The Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) was approved in 1985, and is intended to protect the Escarpment as well as lands in its vicinity as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only development compatible with the natural environment is permitted within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area (NEPA). The objectives of the NEP include protection of unique ecological areas. The Niagara Escarpment Plan, which pre-dates the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, does not define nor describe significant woodlands or significant wildlife habitat per se. Significant natural heritage features are protected to varying extents by the policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan through the identification of Escarpment Natural Areas, Escarpment Protection Areas and Escarpment Rural Areas. The Niagara Escarpment Commission was represented by staff on the Technical Advisory Team and were consulted on the development of the recommended criteria and thresholds. In February 2009, after the final comments for this current study were addressed, the Niagara Escarpment Commission released a draft Significant Woodlands Policy that includes criteria and thresholds for the identification of significant woodlands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area. Regional and Town staff will continue to consult with the Niagara Escarpment to clarify the application of the significant woodlands criteria and thresholds recommended in this report to the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area Region of Peel Official Plan The Region of Peel Official Plan (ROP) was adopted in 1996, and came into effect in 1997/98. Policies pertaining to the natural heritage, including woodlands, are generally contained in Section 2 (Natural Environment) and specifically Section 2.3 (Greenlands System) of the Plan. No specific policies have been developed for significant wildlife habitat. General policies that support this study are contained in Section 2.2. and include the following (underscore indicates terms that are defined in the ROP): It is the policy of Regional Council to: Study and protect the overall integrity of Peel's ecosystems which are part of larger biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) systems Study and create databases for the larger environmental systems Participate in, and support, broader scale environmental studies in order to assess the carrying capacity of ecosystems and the potential cumulative effects of development in areas where development is likely to have a major impact on the integrity of broader ecosystems and the Greenlands System in Peel The Greater Toronto Bioregion, has been defined as the area of land bounded by Lake Ontario, the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Most of Peel's land area North-South Environmental Inc. page 15

31 is within the Greater Toronto Bioregion. However, large areas in the north of Caledon are part of other bioregions, some of which are functionally related to the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Niagara Escarpment and other systems to the north, east and west. Thus, the Region must address many different inter-regional ecosystem linkages and functions. In the ROP, woodlands are defined as follows: Woodlands are complex ecosystems comprised of communities of trees, shrubs, ground vegetation and immediate environmental conditions on which they depend. Woodlands provide a range of ecosystem functions including: attenuating flood flows; trapping air and water borne sediment; preventing erosion and stabilizing steep slopes; providing shade for cold water fisheries; enhancing groundwater recharge areas; providing habitat; and promoting species diversity. Woodlands may also contain remnants of old growth forests. Woodlands are important because of their scarcity in Peel and the rest of the Greater Toronto Area. Forest management using good forestry practices is an acceptable activity within woodlands. Although significant wildlife habitat is not defined per se, Section 2.3 does define Fish and Wildlife Habitats intended to contribute to the overall Greenlands System as follows: Fish and wildlife habitats are areas of the natural environment where plants, animals, fish and other organisms derive life support functions such as cover, protection, reproductive support, food and water. These habitats may be important on a year-round or seasonal basis. Fish and wildlife habitats that are afforded protection include wetlands, woodlands, Environmentally Sensitive or Significant Areas, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, portions of the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and valley and stream corridors. The Greenlands System in Peel is divided into three categories of natural heritage areas, as follows: 1. Core Areas: currently includes woodlands 30 ha, habitats of vulnerable, threatened or endangered species and other designated natural heritage features and areas (e.g., Provincially Significant Wetlands, valley and stream corridors, Environmentally Sensitive or Significant Areas). Development within these Core Areas is prohibited, with some minor exceptions for essential servicing and passive recreation (see policy of the ROP). 2. Natural Areas and Corridors (NACs): currently includes woodlands between 3 ha and 30 ha and other features such as the Lake Ontario natural shoreline and class 4 to 7 wetlands (see policy of the ROP). 3. Potential Natural Areas and Corridors (PNACs): currently includes all other woodlands and other features / areas such as unevaluated wetlands, sensitive groundwater recharge areas, and portions of historic shorelines (see policy of the ROP). The Core Areas contain ecological features, forms and/or functions that provide favourable conditions for uninterrupted natural systems and maximum biodiversity. The NACs also contain important ecological features, forms and/or functions, and can play a crucial role in supporting the integrity of the Core Areas. The protection and/or stewardship of these areas will be achieved through the area municipal official plans and related planning documents. The PNACs North-South Environmental Inc. page 16

32 may also contain important ecological features, forms and/or functions and may support the integrity of Greenlands System in Peel. The evaluation and, where appropriate, protection of these elements is achieved through the area municipal official plans and related planning documents. Notably, current policy directs area municipalities to include plantations within woodlands, except where a site-specific study demonstrates that the plantation does not exhibit the characteristics necessary to satisfy the definition of woodlands (policy of the ROP). Core Areas of the Greenlands System are identified within the ROP whereas, the NACs and PNACs are identified within the area municipal Official Plans (OPs). Together, ROP policies and area municipal Official Plan policies protect the Greenlands System in Peel. Notwithstanding the Natural Environment policies in Section 2 of the Region s Official Plan, Section 3 points out the significance of agriculture in the Region and the fact that the majority of lands in the southern part of the Town of Caledon and on the east and west side of the City of Brampton outside the urban area have soils which are rated as Class 1 to 3 (i.e., Prime Agricultural Area). Natural heritage policies within Prime Agricultural land, as identified within the Region s Official Plan, are not intended to restrict or limit existing agricultural practices Town of Caledon Official Plan The Town of Caledon s current Ecosystem Planning and Management Policies, including woodlands, were adopted in 1994, but did not come into full force at a Town-wide level until 2003, due to the referral of OPA 124 (Environmental Policy Area policies) to the OMB, along with OPA 161 (Mineral Resources). No specific policies have been developed for significant wildlife habitat. The Ecosystem and Management Policies (Section 3.1) speak to the need for an ecosystembased planning and management approach to guide the land use decision making process. It consists of three Ecosystem Integrity Objectives ( ) and eight Ecosystem Planning Objectives ( ) as follows: Ecosystem Integrity Objectives To protect, maintain and, as appropriate, enhance and restore ecosystem functions and processes vital to the integrity of communities (both natural and cultural) To protect, maintain and, as appropriate, enhance and restore ecosystem attributes and values, including: connectivity, viability / self-sustainability, biological diversity, dynamics, and aesthetics (natural scenery) To protect, maintain and, as appropriate, enhance and restore physical and biological systems and features that support ecosystem integrity and associated functions, processes, attributes and values, including fisheries and wildlife; wetlands and woodlands, and ANSIs and ESAs. Ecosystem Planning Objectives North-South Environmental Inc. page 17

33 To ensure that the Town s ecosystem principle, goal and objectives form a primary basis for all land use planning decisions To identify, protect, maintain, and, as appropriate, enhance and restore ecosystem form functions and integrity within Caledon through the implementation of appropriate designations, policies and programs To establish policies, strategies, procedures and programs which implement and assist in clearly interpreting the Town s ecosystem principle, goal and objectives To foster public awareness and education regarding Caledon s environment including this Plan s ecosystem principle, goal and objectives To recognize that humans are an integral consideration in ecosystem planning, and to develop policies and programs with respect to the on-going human interactions with the natural environment To develop partnerships between various agencies and organizations to coordinate environmental programs, policies and information To promote an holistic, ecosystem based philosophy at all levels of government To ensure that natural hazards are addressed through the planning process. The Ecosystem Planning Strategy (Section 3.1.3) provides an Ecosystem Framework that organizes and describes ecosystem components in four categories, from highest to lowest conservation priority: 1. Natural Core Areas; 2. Natural Corridors; 3. Supportive Natural Systems; and 4. Natural Linkages. Table 3.1 in the Caledon Official Plan identifies each of the different ecosystem components and identifies how they fit into the Ecosystem Framework. Currently, Core Woodlands ( 30 ha as defined by the Region) are included in the first category, while all other woodlands are included in the third and fourth categories. Other than habitat for Vulnerable, Threatened and Endangered species (in the 1 st category), no specific wildlife habitats are identified. Notably, under Section , management and/or restoration of woodlands can be implemented through approved Forest Management Plans, or comparable documents guided by the principles of Good Forestry Practices. Mapping for Environmental Policy Areas is included in the current Official Plan (last updated Dec. 31, 2004). 1.5 Rare Species Legislation and Rankings Designations and rankings applied to species (and sometimes vegetation communities) to help assess their significance can be confusing, because of the different approaches to the listing of species for different purposes and at different jurisdictional levels. However, these designations have immediate relevance to significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat, since a number of criteria used for identifying these features refer to these designations and rankings. North-South Environmental Inc. page 18

34 Species designated as Endangered or Threatened in Canada (nationally) or Ontario (provincially) are protected by separate legislation (described below) specific to species that are close to or at risk of becoming extinct or extirpated. Both the Federal and Provincial governments are developing procedures and guidelines for the identification of the habitat of endangered and threatened species which will assist municipalities in addressing policy requirements under the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Ch. p.13. Other species (and their habitats) considered significant at the provincial (e.g., Special Concern), regional or local scale are, however, to be covered by Significant Wildlife Habitat policies within Official Plans. Explanation of applicable designations and rankings are provided below. Canada s Species at Risk Act (SARA) was passed in December of 2002, and represents the Federal government s commitment to preventing the most vulnerable wildlife species from becoming extinct and securing the necessary actions for their recovery by providing for the legal protection of certain designated wildlife species and the conservation of biological diversity. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is an independent body of experts responsible for assessing and identifying species at risk at the national level. This committee works on an ongoing basis to maintain and update a list of vulnerable species categorized in one of seven ways; Threatened, Endangered, Special Concern, Extirpated, Extinct, Data Deficient or Not at Risk. These are defined in Section 8. Wildlife species considered for these categories include mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, fishes, vascular plants and lichens. COSEWIC undertakes assessments of Canadian wildlife and identifies those species that are at risk of extinction and assigns one of the above designations. Species that are designated Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern may be added to the list of species at risk at the discretion of the Minister of the Environment. Once listed, these species are subject to the protection accorded under SARA. It is important to note that the full provisions of SARA only apply to federal lands, although some provisions, including the protection of the residence of a species, are subject to private lands as well. Further details about SARA are available on-line ( Under the Ontario Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Ch. p.13, the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) provides protection for Threatened and Endangered species on all lands in Ontario. This policy would apply to all species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007). At the provincial level, Ontario s original Endangered Species Act was first proclaimed in 1971, and has been periodically amended. However, it was recently repealed by Bill 184, the Endangered Species Act (2007). The bill passed third and final reading on May 16, 2007, received Royal Assent on May 17, 2007 (becoming law) and came into force on June 30, The new Endangered Species Act (2007) is intended to protect species identified on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list, which is a regulation under the new Act. The SARO list must correspond with the list of species classified by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), which is an independent scientific body. The categories used by COSSARO are: Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species. In addition, when new information is reported to the Minister by COSSARO, SARO must be amended to North-South Environmental Inc. page 19

35 reflect the new information. COSSARO categories are identical to those used by COSEWIC (discussed above), although in some cases the status assigned to particular species may vary. Habitats that support species designated Special Concern by COSSARO could be considered as significant wildlife habitat under the PPS (2005). Another provincial ranking system for both species and vegetation communities typically utilized by municipalities and planning agencies across Ontario is the Natural Heritage Information Center s (NHIC) S-rank system. The NHIC (nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca) is funded through the OMNR and is responsible for compiling, maintaining and distributing information on natural species, plant communities and species of conservation concern in Ontario. Species are classified according to the several categories as defined in Section 8. Vegetation communities (classified using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for Southern Ontario per Lee et al. 1998) are also ranked by the NHIC using these same categories. The guidance provided by the Province related to significant wildlife habitat (OMNR 2000) suggests that, at minimum, both species and vegetation communities with ranks of S1, S2 or S3 should be protected under a significant wildlife habitat designation within municipal Official Plans. At the Regional or area municipal level, many Regional (and some area) municipalities have developed lists of significant plant and/or wildlife species based on occurrences in those specific areas. Within the Region of Peel, there are a number of lists that could be used. Kaiser (2000) has tabulated the plant species that occur in the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) watershed and determined those that could be considered regionally significant. Varga et al. (2005) have produced a list of plant species for the Greater Toronto Area that incorporated the work of Kaiser, and which also provides rarity status. As the Varga et al. (2005) study is more recent, it is suggested that it be used to determine the Regional status of plants, if necessary. There are no comparable lists of Regionally rare wildlife available at present. The consultant team also recognizes that the Natural Areas Inventory currently being undertaken by CVC may provide additional understanding of Regional biodiversity and the status of particular plants. Lastly, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has developed a ranking system for flora and fauna based on rarity within the TRCA watershed. It is complete and is periodically refined, but only applies to that part of Peel within the TRCA watershed. Additionally, the status of species is based on the entire TRCA watershed, most of which is outside the Region of Peel. The use of Regionally rare species to determine significance may need to be re-visited at a later time. North-South Environmental Inc. page 20

36 2.0 STUDY PROCESS 2.1 Review of Background Information Reports and Interviews A number of reports and policy documents specifically addressing the identification of significant woodlands have been prepared over the last few years, however, relatively little has been published that addresses significant wildlife habitat. The woodland studies were mainly undertaken by various municipalities but also include some provincial and non-government organization (NGOs) documents such as the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) (OMNR 1999), the Technical Papers for the Oak Ridges Moraine (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007) and a study on the protection of significant woodlands by Ontario Nature (2004). For significant wildlife habitat, the NHRM and ORM Technical Papers are also relevant, as is the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), however no municipalities have as of yet undertaken technical studies to determine significant wildlife habitat. These studies and policy documents were all reviewed to identify approaches, criteria and thresholds used to identify significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. Full references are provided in Section 9. In addition to reviewing written material, staff from 22 southern Ontario municipalities were interviewed by telephone to ascertain what approaches had been taken to identifying and protecting significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. The survey was limited to southern Ontario so that all the information received would be in response to conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005), which is the principal reason for the current study. A number of experts on wildlife habitat were also contacted to solicit information and guidance. A summary of these interviews is presented in Section Digital Data and Mapping Digital data sets were obtained from the Region of Peel, Town of Caledon, CVC, TRCA and OMNR (NHIC and Aurora District Office) for background information and to support mapping and analysis for this study. In addition, data on wildlife were obtained from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas and the Ontario Mammal Atlas. A full list of data sources and a brief description of the data is provided in Appendix 2. These data have been used to: (1) develop general background mapping to describe the study areas (Region of Peel and Town of Caledon) and generate descriptive statistics on current natural (and specifically forest) cover; (2) help inform development of some significant wildlife habitat criteria thresholds; (3) apply the draft criteria and thresholds to identify candidate significant woodlands; (4) conduct analyses and develop draft mapping for any significant wildlife habitat criteria where thresholds are recommended and sufficient data are available. North-South Environmental Inc. page 21

37 Comprehensive mapping of candidate significant wildlife habitat is not feasible due to the number of data gaps (i.e., lack of Region or Town-wide data sets for many species and specific habitat types), data use sensitivity and the nature of some of the criteria (e.g., requiring sitespecific verification). Furthermore, there are a number of limitations to the databases/digital mapping developed for the purpose of this study that are typical of these types of natural heritage studies. Most importantly, the landscape is constantly changing as new development results in the loss or reduction of woodland patches and wildlife habitat, and abandoned areas undergo succession and become more wooded. Partially for this reason, it is impossible to maintain a completely current database of natural heritage features in areas as large as the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Also, databases that have been derived from the interpretation of aerial photographs of various ages and with different levels of resolution, inevitably result in different levels of accuracy depending on the aerial photographs that were available. Databases have also been assembled by various agencies using different criteria for the identification of woodlands and other natural features. For example, one database may include slightly wider hedgerows as woodlands than another, or one technician may interpret successional woodlands or exact limits of mature woodlands slightly differently than another technician. As a result there are limitations to the accuracy of the woodlands identified in Figure 6, and there may be woodland patches shown in the mapping that are not in fact woodland, and conversely, some woodlands that may not be captured in the mapping. Woodland mapping for the Region will be further refined through the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review for the purpose of illustrating Core Woodlands within the Region Official Plan. The definition of woodlands used in this study (see Section 5.2) includes very young woodlands that may not be easily recognized, especially when using spring-flown aerial photographs (when most aerial photographs are taken). Thus it is important to note that the transition of meadow to woodland, and therefore the first onset of a woodland community type, is sometimes difficult to map especially using large scale remote sensing and air photo interpretation techniques. The Region and Town may wish to consider alternative mapping approaches when considering policies for young cultural woodlands. Every effort has been made to utilize the most current data to generate information for this study, but inevitably it can only be a best approximation of what actually exists on the ground. For this reason, it will be important to integrate the ability to field-check features and undertake studies to confirm the status of woodlands and the presence of significant wildlife habitat as part of any future policy approach. A fundamental data layer used for this project is vegetation cover based on the provincial Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al. 1998). The CVC assembled an ELC data layer for the entire Region, which provided vegetation cover to the Community Series Level. At present, TRCA s more detailed ELC data, identifying vegetation type, had not been incorporated into the data provided for this project, but will be done so in the near future as part of the Natural Areas Inventory being led by CVC. The CVC ELC data layer was used to help identify habitat patches of high habitat diversity (i.e., where wetlands, woodlands and meadows co-exist). North-South Environmental Inc. page 22

38 For the woodland patch analysis, the ELC community series data layer from the conservation authorities was combined with a comparable data layer provided by the Region. For the ELC layer, all the Communities Series units that represent woodlands (i.e., Deciduous, Mixed and Conifer Forests (FOD, FOM and FOC), Deciduous, Mixed and Conifer Swamps (SWD, SWM and SWC), Cultural Woodlands, Savannahs and Plantations (CUW, CUS and CUP)) were included. The Region s woodlands layer, developed using a provincial database and aerial photography 2, was then cross-referenced with the ELC woodlands layer. The woodlands data layer was also reviewed by the Municipal Staff Working Group. Both the conservation authority and Regional datasets substantially agree on the identification of woodlands, however, there are minor differences between them related to landscape changes as previously mentioned. For the purpose of this study, the two databases were combined to create a layer that best represents the Region s woodland coverage, and refinements were made by Regional staff to reflect recent changes in land use (e.g., woodlands 0.5 ha or greater that have been removed due to development were deleted from the woodland coverage). Woodland patches 0.5 ha or greater, that straddled the Regional boundary but which had less than 0.5 ha in the Region, were still counted as woodland patches for the purpose of this study (i.e., large woodland patches which had less than 0.5 ha in Peel Region were evaluated based on the whole patch). For these woodland patches that straddled the Regional boundary, only the portion within the Region of Peel was included in the statistics. The woodland statistics provided in Section 4 for individual municipalities may not always add up to the totals for the Region up for several reasons. First, data have been rounded up to no more than one decimal place and this rounding may accumulate to produce minor errors. Second, when organizing woodlands by municipality, physiographic area or plan area, some woodlands inevitably straddle boundaries. Such patches will count as one patch on either side of the boundary, even though they are a single patch in the Region. Limitations of Mapping The mapping developed for this study is based on the best information available during the study period. However, much of the mapping has been derived from remote sensing (e.g., air photo interpretation) and not field verified, and so boundaries are approximate and subject to review and refinement as more detailed information becomes available. As part of the significant woodlands policy development through the Region s PROPR and Town s PPC exercises, the woodlands coverage for the Region will be refined based on additional stakeholder and public consultation. 2.2 Consultation Process This study included consultation with a number of different groups. Throughout the study, there has been ongoing consultation with the Core Management Team. In addition, there have been 2 The Region utilized the woodland layer in the provincial database Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) for the Town of Caledon which was refined using 2003 aerial photography. Woodlands in the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga were combined with the SOLRIS layer, based solely on aerial photography interpretation. North-South Environmental Inc. page 23

39 joint meetings with the Municipal Staff Working Group comprised of staff from the Town of Caledon and the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga and the Technical Advisory Team including representatives from relevant government agencies and conservation authorities (specific membership of these groups is provided in the Study Team at the outset of the report). The purpose of these meetings was to inform the Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team about the project approach and status, and seek comment and input on preliminary and draft products. There have also been two formal consultation meetings with interested stakeholders, invited municipal staff and other experts to receive input to assist development of criteria and thresholds. The first meeting was held to discuss the preliminary criteria (April 7 th 2008) while the second reviewed the draft recommended criteria and thresholds, and the draft significant woodlands mapping (June 17 th, 2008). The Peel Region Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which is composed of senior management staff from the Region and area municipal planning divisions, also reviewed the draft report. In addition to the area municipalities, representatives were invited from the following organizations to both stakeholder meetings: Conservation Authorities (Toronto Region, Credit Valley, Conservation Halton, Nottawasaga Valley, Lake Simcoe Region) Watershed Groups (Credit River Alliance, Humber Watershed Alliance, Etobicoke- Mimico Coalition) Peel Agricultural and Rural Water Quality Advisory Committee (PARWQAC) Caledon Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) Caledon Agricultural Advisory Committee (CAAC) Brampton Environmental Community Advisory Panel Mississauga Environmental Committee Development Industry (BILD - GTAH & Peel, Delta Urban, Gartner Lee Ltd., Goodban Ecological Consulting, Solmar, KLM Planning Partnership) Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association Canadian Urban Institute Environmental / Conservation Organizations (Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF), Evergreen, Ontario Nature, Sierra Club of Canada - Ontario Chapter Region of Peel Group, Trees Ontario, Carolinian Canada, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Cold Creek Stewardship, Ontario Forestry Association, Pollution Probe, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Clean Air Partnership) Community Groups (Caledon Countryside Alliance, Citizens for a Clean Caledon, Community Environmental Alliance of Peel, Peel-Halton Landowners Association, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM), Alton-Grange Association, Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE), Halton-North Peel Naturalists Club, South-Peel Naturalists Club) Agricultural Groups (Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee, Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), Peel Federation of Agriculture (PFA), Peel Soil and Crop Improvement Association) Provincial Government (Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, Niagara Escarpment Commission) North-South Environmental Inc. page 24

40 A summary of comments from the stakeholder meetings is available under separate cover. The general public and interested stakeholders also had the opportunity review and comment on a draft of the report prior to the final report being presented to Region of Peel and Town of Caledon Council. All comments received, and where necessary the responses made, are included in a separate document. 2.3 Key Principles for Criteria Evaluation Although the process used for selection of candidate criteria for significant woodlands was somewhat different from the approach used for significant wildlife habitat, the evaluation of each of the criteria was based on the same principles of defensibility and practicality (i.e., the ability to apply the criterion). The key principles applied for criteria selection are summarized below. Separate Identification of Significance from Policies To the extent possible, the process for identifying significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat should be kept separate from the means used to protect them, i.e., the policies. Criteria selection should be based on ecological and conservation considerations, and not on particular values on whether and how they should be protected. This approach should focus the discussion for this study on the science and conservation issues so that the debate on policy (i.e., on the degree of protection afforded to specific natural heritage features) is undertaken as part of the next phase, the policy development. Base Criteria Selection on Ecology and Conservation Principles Criteria selection should be based mainly on a review of ecological and conservation principles, and experience that might have been gained by other municipalities. It is recognized that economic and social values should also be considered in the development of criteria and thresholds. An alternative would be to develop a preferred suite of criteria and then map them in order to review the repercussions (i.e., which woodlands are identified as significant using a particular suite of criteria). However, if mapping is included as a formal step in criteria selection it opens the door to critics arguing the criteria from the perspective of individual features. For example, if a stakeholder did not want a particular feature included, they could use the mapping to justify altering criteria to exclude it. In an extreme case, you would end up with a bottom up exercise where the significant woodlands/wildlife habitat are selected a priori, and the criteria adjusted to justify them. The approach adopted in this study is science-driven and top down to the greatest extent possible, and the intent is to ensure that criteria can be applied uniformly across the study area. Keep the Process of Identification as Simple and Objective as Possible There are several approaches to developing criteria-based systems such as: weighting particular criteria more than others; ranking criteria as being of high, medium or low importance; or requiring that two or three criteria need to be satisfied before a woodland is considered significant. North-South Environmental Inc. page 25

41 These approaches are complex and often require making value judgments on the relative merits of particular criteria. To keep the study process simple and objective, the current study puts forward an approach whereby each criterion is evaluated on its own merit. This means that each recommended criterion is applied individually, and that areas meeting any one of the recommended criteria would qualify as either candidate significant woodlands and/or significant wildlife habitat. In some cases, areas may meet more than one criterion, this only further confirms a given area s significance, in the same way that a given area can have multiple environmental designations (e.g., ESA, ANSI, Provincially Significant Wetland). These principles were specifically applied to the candidate criteria by asking the five questions below for each. 1. Is the criterion defensible? Determine and document the scientific rationale for the criterion. For significant wildlife habitat there is such a broad spectrum of topics and sources that would need to be covered. Therefore, research already conducted by the OMNR in development of their Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) is heavily relied upon. 2. Can the criterion be quantified? Criteria that can be quantified are preferable to those that require judgment and professional opinion for their application. To this end, thresholds that are considered defensible will be developed (with input from experts where possible) and recommended for as many criteria as possible. 3. Are there data available to enable application of the criterion? Since it is the intent of this study to apply the criteria and determine the extent of significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat, it is deemed preferable, that data be available to enable application of the criteria. However, it is recognized that the evaluation of a particular woodland or habitat could be done at a future date. For most of the significant wildlife habitat criteria, Region-wide/Town-wide data are not available and so thresholds should be applicable at the site level. Therefore, a sound criterion should not be excluded simply because data are not currently available, as long as data can be relatively easily collected at the site or landscape level. 4. Are there known thresholds for the criterion? Although some potential criteria reflect important ecological characteristics of woodlands and/or habitat, it is not always possible to determine at what point each criterion reflects significant values. For example, species richness may be a good descriptor of woodlands, but there are no clear standards that indicate when species richness becomes significant. This will be the most challenging assessment to make for significant wildlife habitat. Ongoing communication with OMNR staff involved in the revisions to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) assisted in addressing this question. North-South Environmental Inc. page 26

42 5. Are field data required to apply the criterion? This is similar to question 3, but relates specifically to the need to undertake field studies to collect data, as opposed to assembling information from remotely sensed data. Owing to the size of the study areas (the Region and the Town) and the cost of undertaking detailed field studies, significant woodlands criteria that could be applied using data from remotely sensed sources are preferable because these criteria are more cost effective than those requiring field studies. With respect to addressing significant wildlife habitat, in most cases it will be necessary to collect field data to properly apply the criteria. In addition to the five questions, the extent to which each candidate draft criterion had been used by other municipalities was also considered for significant woodlands. 2.4 Criteria Selection for Significant Woodlands A long list of candidate draft criteria for identifying significant woodlands was assembled from the review of background information, interviews and consultations. These criteria were then evaluated to determine their suitability for further recommendation using the principles described above in Section 2.3, and further considered given comments from the study Municipal Staff Working Group, Technical Advisory Team and stakeholders, between March and April The merits and disadvantages of each criterion are discussed in Section 5.3 of the report, along with the input from the Municipal Staff Working Group/Technical Advisory Team, stakeholder and Town Council consultations on the recommended draft criteria for identifying significant woodlands. The consultant team determined appropriate thresholds for each criterion in the context of both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, and assembled the recommended criteria into an efficient suite. The recommended criteria have been applied using available data to produce a map showing the extent and location of significant woodlands in the Region and the Town. Notably, this map (and any mapping developed for this study) is an approximation based on the best available digital mapping layers that will identify candidate sites needing to be confirmed and verified with field studies. 2.5 Criteria Selection for Significant Wildlife Habitat The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) served as the foundation from which to select criteria. This document was selected because it was prepared by the OMNR, the primary agency responsible for protecting natural heritage features in the Province, and because it is Province-wide in scope. As a result, the list of criteria included is very broad, encompassing a wide range of features or functions. This breadth was necessary to reflect the wide variation of landscape conditions present within the Region of Peel and especially within the Town of Caledon. A close examination of the criteria confirmed that few, if any, criteria were inappropriate for either the Region or Town. North-South Environmental Inc. page 27

43 Due to the breadth of the criteria listed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG), the next task then was to consider each of the criteria and decide if they applied to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. This step included: 1. utilizing the consultant team s experience and expertise; 2. reviewing current data if available; 3. consulting with agency staff and selected individuals with specialized and/or local expertise related to wildlife habitat to obtain their expert opinion; and 4. consulting with various stakeholders and the public. More information, including a summary of the recommended criteria, the approach taken to the identification of thresholds for each of the criteria, and recommended thresholds where they have been developed, is provided in Section 6. North-South Environmental Inc. page 28

44 3.0 STUDY AREA SETTING 3.1 Region of Peel Physical Characteristics The Region is divided into six physiographic regions by Chapman and Putnam (1984) that reflect major divisions in surficial landform, glacial history, soils, drainage and climate (Figure 3). These can have a bearing on woodland composition as well as the types and distribution of wildlife habitat. All of the Iroquois Plain and the majority of the Peel Plain, and a portion of the South Slope physiographic regions are within the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton. The Town of Caledon contains the north section of the South Slope as well as portions of the Niagara Escarpment, Oak Ridges Moraine, a narrow strip of Peel Plain and in the extreme northwest, the Guelph Drumlin Field and a small portion of the Hillsburgh Sandhills. The Region of Peel is unusual in that it contains portions of five major watersheds. These are administered by the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Conservation Halton (CH), Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). The approximate watershed boundaries are shown in Figure 4. For this study, CVC and TRCA have been the most involved of the various conservation authorities, in terms of provision of data and comments, because their jurisdictions together cover most of the Region. Woodlands The Region of Peel was primarily a forested landscape prior to European settlement, consisting of both upland and wetland (swamp) treed areas. The present day vegetation suggest there may have been scattered prairie and savannah remnants in the south, mainly in the Clarkson and Lorne Park areas, and there would have been some open marsh areas along Lake Ontario and elsewhere, but outside of this, the natural vegetation was likely forest or swamp. Rowe (1972) identifies two forest sections within two forest regions in the Region of Peel: 1) the Niagara Section of the Deciduous Forest Region, and 2) the Huron-Ontario Section of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region. The boundary between these approximates the southern edges of the ORM and the Niagara Escarpment. The Deciduous Forest Region is a northerly extension of the broad-leaved forests that dominate the northeastern United States. The Niagara Section approximates the area known as the Carolinian Zone (sensu Fox and Soper ) in southern Ontario, although the northern limits of this are generally slightly south of the northern limits of the Niagara Section as mapped by Rowe (1972). For the purpose of this report, the main distinction between these regions/sections is that there are a few tree species with generally southern distributions, such as black walnut, sycamore, swamp white oak, white oak and shagbark hickory, which are less common or absent in the more northerly Huron- Ontario forest section. North-South Environmental Inc. page 29

45

46

47

48

49

50 However, Rowe s classification describes broad differences across Canada and the distinction between these two forest regions and sections within Peel Region is not very pronounced. The ecological characteristics of the Niagara Escarpment, notably the thin soils and imperfect drainage, and the Oak Ridges Moraine, principally the better drained morainal deposits, likely override the broader differences used by Rowe to delineate his forest regions and sections. The majority of woodlands in the Region south of the Niagara Escarpment were cleared for agriculture and the many settlements that were founded during the early to mid-1800s. Agriculture continued as the principal land use until the more rapid urbanization of the southern half of the Region, which commenced in the 1940s and has resulted in a further loss and fragmentation of woodlands and other natural areas. The Region Official Plan (ROP) identifies an Urban System and a Rural System within Peel (Figure 5). The Urban System is composed of lands within the 2031 Regional Urban Boundary, which include lands in the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga, as shown on Schedule D of the ROP. For the purpose of this study, the consideration of criteria and thresholds specific to the Urban System will include lands within the 2031 Urban Boundary. The Rural System within Peel includes lands outside of the 2031 Urban Boundary, which entirely encompasses the Town of Caledon. For the purpose of this current study, criteria and thresholds specific to the Rural System will only be applied to the Town of Caledon. Within the Rural System are the Rural Service Centres of Bolton, Caledon East and Mayfield West, which serve as the primary foci for growth within the Rural System, and the Rural Settlements including the villages and hamlets. At present, the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton are essentially completely urban, and the Town of Caledon is mainly rural, and also contains the majority of the remaining natural cover in the Region. This has been an important consideration in the development of appropriate thresholds for a number of criteria for both significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. For example, the higher forest cover in rural Caledon and the occurrence of more large patches of woodland (especially above the Niagara Escarpment) means that the threshold for the size of a significant woodland in this area will be higher than in the urban areas to the south. It is worth noting that in some rural areas where agricultural practice has declined, the area of forest cover has increased since the early 1900s. The approximate present day distribution of forest patches in the Region of Peel is shown on Figure 6. It should be noted that Figure 6 is based on the best available mapping sources (see Section 2.1.2) but owing to the limitations of aerial photography and ongoing changes in the landscape (succession and development), there may be some small woodlands that are incorrectly shown. The Figure is provided only to illustrate the general extent of woodlands in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. The forest cover statistics (Table 1) strongly reflect the current development patterns, with the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga having forest cover of 7.3% and 6.7% respectively, and the Town of Caledon with 31.5%. As a result, the two Cities have a relatively small proportion of the Regional forest cover, contributing 7.5% and 7.6% each while Caledon accounts for 84.9% of the Regional forest cover. The overall number of patches is substantially higher in Caledon (624) as is the mean patch size (35.2 ha) when compared to either Brampton or Mississauga. North-South Environmental Inc. page 35

51 North-South Environmental Inc. page 36

52

53

54

55

56 With a population projected to grow to 1,640,000 by 2031, per the Places to Grow (OMPIR 2006), it is important to protect and enhance the urban forest within Peel Region before it is incrementally lost. Protecting and enhancing the urban forest has been identified in cities worldwide as one method of addressing sustainability objectives related to stormwater, air quality and climate change mitigation. The urban tree canopy reduces the heat island effect in urban areas, improves air quality and intercepts rainfall before it becomes stormwater runoff. It also provides habitat for resident and migratory flora and fauna. These functions contribute to a healthy natural heritage system in Peel. Table 1: Forest cover for municipalities in the Region of Peel (all woodlands > 0.5 ha) Municipality Forest Cover in each Municipality ha (%) Contribution to Regional Forest Cover (%) No. of Forest Patches Mean Patch Size Peel 25,867 (20.6%) 100% 1,127* 23.0 Caledon 21,954 (31.5%) 84.9% Brampton 1,972 (7.3%) 7.6% Mississauga 1,940 (6.7%) 7.5% * Note that for woodlands that straddle municipal boundaries, portions of the same woodland will be counted in each municipality. Thus the sum of the number of patches for the three municipalities will not add up to the number of patches for the entire Region. The definition of woodlands recommended by this study (Appendix 1) excludes woodlands smaller than 0.5 ha. The number of woodlands smaller than 0.5 ha can only be approximated since recent updates on the woodland data layer only included woodlands > 0.5 ha. However, as can be seen in Table 2, such patches constitute a very small proportion of the overall forest area. For example, in all of Peel Region, approximately 7.6% of the forest patches are smaller than 0.5 ha, but this constitutes only 0.21% of the total forest cover. The municipality in which these small woodlands constitute the largest proportion of the forest patches is the Town of Caledon (8.9%), however, this represents far less than a quarter of one percent of the total forest cover in the Town (0.19%). Thus, exclusion of woodlands smaller than 0.5 ha has little affect on forest cover statistics (this does not necessarily mean their protection on a site specific basis is unimportant). Table 2: Approximate area and number of forests patches smaller than 0.5 ha for municipalities in the Region of Peel Municipality No. of patches % of No. of forest Area of patches < Proportion of area of < 0.5 ha patches < 0.5 ha 0.5 ha forest patches <0.5ha Peel % % Caledon % % Brampton % % Mississauga 8 2.0% % Table 3 provides a breakdown of forest patches in different size classes. Not surprisingly, a large number of forest patches in the Region and each of the municipalities are relatively small (<10 North-South Environmental Inc. page 41

57 Size (ha) Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study ha). The proportion of total forest cover for Brampton and Mississauga that is composed of woodlands under 10 ha is substantially greater (22.4% and 26.6% respectively), than for Caledon (5.9%) or the Region (9.5%). This suggests that smaller (<10ha) forests in Brampton and Mississauga may be more important than small woodlands in Caledon, since they represent a substantially greater proportion of the total forest cover in the urban municipalities. Even woodlands as small as 2 ha represent a larger proportion of the forests in Brampton (4.8%) and Mississauga (6.0%), as compared with Caledon where they constitute only 1.4% of all forest cover. Table 3 also illustrates the scarcity of large woodlands (>30 ha) in the two southern municipalities. Brampton and Mississauga respectively have 13 and 12 forest patches greater than 30 ha in size, whereas there are 48 in the Town of Caledon. Table 3: Number and area of forest in different size classes (all woodlands > 0.5 ha) Peel Region Caledon Brampton Mississauga No. patches Forest area (ha) % of total forest area No. patches Forest area (ha) % of total forest area No. patches Forest area (ha) % of total forest area No. patches Forest area (ha) % % % % % of total forest area % % % % , % % % % subtotal 903 2, % 461 1, % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % > , % 48 20, % 13 1, % % totals 1,126 25, % , % 251 2, % 263 2, % Note : The entire area of forest patches that straddled municipal boundaries was included in each municipality, therefore the totals for each municipality do not match with Table 1. For the true forest cover in each municipality, use data from Table 1. Wildlife As noted above, Peel Region was primarily a forested landscape prior to European settlement. Consequently, the assemblage of wildlife species present at the time was a reflection of a forested environment. Although differences in the types of tree species present in the two Forest Regions almost certainly influenced the types of wildlife species present, there was probably considerable overlap in terms of species occurrence. Some wildlife species that inhabited the pre-settlement landscape are no longer present or occur very rarely. Large mammals such as black bear, cougar, occasionally moose, bobcat and lynx were likely inhabitants of these areas. Most of these larger mammals no longer occur in the Region owing to their intolerance of humans and changes in land cover, although there have North-South Environmental Inc. page 42

58 been sightings of black bear in the Caledon area in recent years as well as the possible sightings of cougar ( As for breeding birds, forest species, especially forest interior species (i.e., those found 100 m or more away from the forest edge) were likely quite common. Representative examples of forest species that would have been encountered include Wild Turkey, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Wood Thrush, Cerulean Warbler and Ovenbird in the southern parts of Peel, and Black-throated Blue Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Blackthroated Green Warbler, Black-and-White Warbler and Northern Waterthrush in the northern parts. The significant forest clearing that has taken place across the Region of Peel since that time has resulted in a dramatic shift in species composition. Forest dependent species have become far less common, especially in the urbanized southern half of the Region. Open-country species have correspondingly increased in abundance during this time. Examples of open-country breeding bird species include American Kestrel, Horned Lark, Barn Swallow, Eastern Kingbird, Savannah Sparrow, Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark. The reduced forest (and reduced forest interior), wetland and riparian cover that currently exists favours common wildlife species such as raccoons, skunks and deer, and significantly limits the opportunities for more sensitive habitat specialists such as amphibians and forest interior or other area-sensitive songbirds. However, a number of wildlife species of conservation concern and with somewhat specialized habitat requirements still persist in the Region s fragmented landscape. Examples include Black-crowned Night-Heron, Bank Swallow, Ring-necked Snake, Blue-spotted Salamander, Northern Saw-whet Owl and River Otter. On the whole, wildlife species of conservation concern occur throughout the Region, although there are few in urbanized areas. Some of the open-country species listed above also utilize the active and abandoned agricultural fields in the landscape. There are also still sizeable patches of forest with forest interior in the Town of Caledon (see Table 4) that continue to provide habitat for a variety of provincially, regionally and locally significant wildlife species. Table 4: Number and area of forest interior* in different size classes Peel Caledon Brampton Mississauga Area of Area of Area of Area of No. No. No. interior interior interior interior patches patches patches (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) 4 ha or more of interior forest 10 ha or more of interior forest No. patches 5, , , , * Forest interior is defined as the area within each forest patch that is greater than 100 m from an edge. North-South Environmental Inc. page 43

59 3.2 Town of Caledon Physical Characteristics The Town of Caledon contains four of the six physiographic regions in the Region of Peel. The South Slope occupies the southern portion of the Town, extending from the boundary with the City of Brampton along Mayfield Road, to the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine is a provincially significant landform that extends from the Town of Caledon approximately 300 km east to the Ganaraska forest in Northhumberland County. Likewise the Niagara Escarpment is another provincially significant landform that extends from the Canadian border with the United States at the Niagara River, north to Tobermory. The Guelph Drumlin Field extends into the Town from the west, and a very small portion of the Hillsburgh Sandhills occurs in the extreme northwest corner of the Town. A very narrow sliver of the Peel Plain occurs along the north side of Mayfield Road in the vicinity of Bolton. Unlike the rest of Peel Region where urban development has masked much of the influence of physiography, the characteristics of the predominantly rural landscape in Caledon reflect the physiographic regions. Agriculture is still a dominant land use on the South Slope, whereas the conditions above the Niagara Escarpment, and to some extent on the Oak Ridge Moraine, are less conducive to farming, primarily due to soil type. Four of the five watersheds in the Region occur in the Town of Caledon; the areas under the jurisdiction of the TRCA and CVC cover the majority of the Town and the watershed of the NVCA and LSRCA occupy very small areas in the extreme northeastern corner of the Town. Woodlands The current forest cover in the Town reflects the physiographic regions 3. The South Slope has a relatively low proportion of forest cover (10.6%) compared with the areas above the Escarpment and on the Oak Ridges Moraine (42.0% and 42.3 %) (Table 5). Also, the mean size of patches is much smaller on the South Slope (10.0 ha) compared to the area above the Escarpment (55.1 ha) or on the Oak Ridges Moraine (40.0 ha), reflecting the increased fragmentation typical of areas dominated by agricultural land use. It is interesting to note that 97.4% of the forest cover in Caledon is within the Greenbelt (including the NEC and ORM). Wildlife Natural cover in the Town of Caledon is significantly higher than in the Cities of Brampton, Mississauga or the Region overall. As a result, the wildlife community present also tends to be more diverse and abundant. Larger forested blocks provides habitat for greater numbers of forest species, particularly those known to be area-sensitive. For example, only 74 forest patches still remain in Brampton and Mississauga combined, which contain forest interior and are potentially large enough to support area-sensitive forest breeding bird species (i.e., measured at 100 m from the forest edge). If they do exist, such species are usually present in very low numbers and are at threat of displacement as a result of changing surrounding land uses. In contrast, the Town of Caledon has 283 forest patches large enough to support area-sensitive forest breeding bird 3 The boundaries used to determine statistics are based on the plan boundaries for the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine, which differ from the true physiographic regions as mapped in Chapman and Putnam (1984). The Hillsburgh Sandhills are combined with the Niagara Escarpment owing to the extremely small area it occupies. North-South Environmental Inc. page 44

60 species. Also, while only 2 patches of forest interior (i.e., defined by forest greater than 100 m for the forest edge) exceeded 25 ha in Brampton and Mississauga, 71 patches exceeded this threshold in the Town of Caledon. The local amount and distribution of forest patches in the Town of Caledon are also such that even the smaller forest patches, by virtue of their association with larger forest patches, tend to support a richer assemblage of breeding bird species. Connectivity of natural features is also enhanced compared to Brampton and Mississauga as a result of the rural as opposed to urban land use that prevails, making the landscape easier to move across for a variety of wildlife species. Table 5: Forest cover within different physiographic units 4 and plan areas (woodlands >0.5ha) within the Town of Caledon Physiographic Unit or Plan Area Total area (ha) of physiographic unit or plan area Forest cover (ha and %) within physiographic unit or plan area % of total forest cover No. of patches Mean patch size (ha) Town of Caledon 69,599 21,954 (31.5%) 100% Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) 15,866 6,713 (42.3%) Niagara Escarpment Plan 13,743 7,060 (51.4%) (NEP) Area Area including and above NEP Area 30,419 12,779 (42.0%) South Slope 23,314 2,462 (10.6%) Greenbelt (including ORM 55,824 21,383 (38.3%) and NEP Area) Area outside of Provincial Plans 13, (4.2%) Overview of Natural Heritage Features and Designated Areas Table 6 summarizes some of the natural heritage features and designations in Peel Region and the Town of Caledon, which are discussed briefly below. Both the Region and Town fall within OMNR s Ecological Site Regions 6E and 7E. An Ecological Site Region is not a policy designation, rather, it refers to an ecological subdivision of the land based upon a combination of climate, physiography and biological productivity. The original Site Regions of Ontario were developed and mapped by Angus Hills (Hills 1961), and were later modified based on more detailed mapping and interpolation of physiographic features (Jalava et al. 1996). These have been further subdivided into Ecodistricts by the OMNR, as described in the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity (Henson and Brodribb 2005). The OMNR is in the process of refining technical papers for significant wildlife North-South Environmental Inc. page 45

61 Table 6: Summary of natural heritage features, areas, regions and policy designations in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon 4. REGION OF PEEL TOWN OF CALEDON Ecological Site Regions (OMNR) 6E & 7E 6E & 7E Significant Vegetation Communities - PROVINCIAL: 8 - PROVINCIAL: 8 Significant Plant Species on Record Significant Wildlife Species on Record (excluding fish) - NATIONAL (COSEWIC): 2 - PROVINCIAL (COSSARO): 2 - PROVINCIAL (OMNR-NHIC): 20 - NATIONAL (COSEWIC): 11 - PROVINCIAL (COSSARO): 11 - PROVINCIAL (OMNR-NHIC): 27 - NATIONAL (COSEWIC): 2 - PROVINCIAL (COSSARO): 2 - PROVINCIAL (OMNR-NHIC): 4 - NATIONAL (COSEWIC): 4 - PROVINCIAL (COSSARO): 4 - PROVINCIAL (OMNR-NHIC): 6 Total Species at Risk on Record (including fish) 304 records 104 records Size (hectares) 125,400 ha 69,599 ha Region of Peel Greenlands System 24,423 ha (19.47% of Peel) 21,679 ha (31% of Caledon) Policy Areas 1. Niagara Escarpment Plan 2. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Pan 3. Greenbelt Plan 5 Designated Areas 1. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) (OMNR) 2. Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) 3. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs - Peel) Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands 1. Locally Significant Wetlands 2. Unevaluated Wetlands 1. 13,743 ha (11% of Peel) 2. 15,866 ha (13% of Peel) 3. 55,824 ha (45% of Peel) 5 1. Life Science: 6419 ha Earth Science: 3517 ha ha (2.2% of Peel) ha (7.5% of Peel) 2471 ha (2% of Peel) ha (0.4% of Peel) ha (1.6% of Peel) 1. 13,743 ha (20% of Caledon) 2. 15,866 ha (23% of Caledon) 3. 55,824 ha (80% of Caledon) 5 1. Life Science: 5809 ha Earth Science: 3678 ha ha (0.4% of Caledon) ha (12% of Caledon) 2376 ha (3.4% of Caledon) ha (0.7% of Caledon) ha (2.7% of Caledon) 4 DATA SOURCES: All significant species and vegetation community data were provided by the NHIC, March All area calculations were derived from GIS layers and data provided by the Region of Peel Planning Department, March 2008, and have been rounded up the nearest hectare. 5 Note that the NEP and ORM are part of the Greenbelt, thus the areas provided for the first two are included within the areas provided for the Greenbelt. North-South Environmental Inc. page 46

62 habitat that pertain specifically to Site Regions 6E and 7E, and the two Ecodistricts which cover the majority of the Region of Peel (i.e., 6E-7 and 7E-4) have both target ecological communities and species of conservation concern identified (see Henson and Brodribb 2005). Provincially significant vegetation communities refer to those currently on record with the NHIC that rank S1, S2 or S3 (see Section 8 for definitions) or are considered significant because of their very low representation in the Region. Current records indicate that there are eight such communities in Peel and Caledon, although discussions with both TRCA and CVC and review of the available ELC mapping for the study area indicate that there are most likely additional significant vegetation communities in the Region that have yet to be properly documented or mapped. The deadline for updating the ELC is not established but will be completed through CVC s Natural Areas Inventory Study to be finalized sometime after the Region s PROPR exercise. Once the ELC mapping is updated, the Region and Town should consider the application of these data for identifying significant wildlife habitat. The current eight communities listed as provincially significant by the NHIC are all contained within the Caledon Slope Forest ANSI in the Town of Caledon and consist of three cliff type communities, three talus (i.e., slopes beneath the cliff face) type communities, and two Sugar Maple forest types (Natural Heritage Information Centre data accessed on-line March 11, 2008). Provincially significant species summarized in Table 6 refer to those that are Species at Risk (SAR) and/or ranked as S1, S2 or S3 (see Section 8 for definitions). Examples of significant non-sar plant species in the Region of Peel/Town of Caledon are Bushy Cinquefoil, Evening Primrose, Wild Lupine and Schreber s Wood Aster. Examples of significant non-sar wildlife species in the Region of Peel/Town of Caledon are Black-crowned Night-heron and Northern Long-eared Bat. In terms of the designated areas and natural heritage features within Peel Region, the following are notable points: The Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan areas occur only within the Town of Caledon. The majority of the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan is located within the Town of Caledon, with a small area located in the north end of the City of Brampton. The majority of the Region s designated natural heritage features and areas are also contained within the Town of Caledon (e.g., 78.6% of the Region s Core Greenlands are located within the Town). Relative to the rest of the Region, the Town of Caledon contains a large proportion of unevaluated wetlands. North-South Environmental Inc. page 47

63

64 4.0 OTHER MUNICIPAL STUDIES 4.1 Significant Woodlands: Summary of Interviews with Other Municipalities A complete summary of the criteria used by various municipalities in southern Ontario for identifying significant woodlands is provided in Appendix 3. The following provides a brief summary of the main findings of the consultations: 22 municipalities were contacted 6 or their policies were reviewed (14 towns or cities, and 8 regions or counties); 6 have completed a significant woodland study; 11 7 have developed significant woodland criteria; 6 cities or towns rely on the relevant Region to provide criteria; 1 municipality relies on a Conservation Authority to identify significant woodlands; 15 municipalities have significant woodland policies in their Official Plans: o 6 of these do not define significant woodlands (and thus default to the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and supporting Natural Heritage Reference Manual); o 9 8 of these developed their own criteria for defining significant woodlands; 3 municipalities show the location of significant woodlands within an Official Plan schedule; and 5 municipalities indicated that significant woodlands are included in a schedule or appendix to the Official Plan showing a Natural Heritage System or Core Greenlands. Criteria used to identify significant woodlands vary substantially and there is little agreement on which criteria should be used. The most consistently used criterion was size, with 89% of the municipalities and agencies using it. The eight most used criteria and number of municipalities using each is provided below. size (16) surface water quality and quantity (13) forest interior (11) age/old growth (11) linkage (7) significant species (6) proximity to other natural features (5) diversity of communities (5) Of the eight Regions or Counties contacted during the consultation process, it was found that the majority (6 or 75%) have their own significant woodland criteria, or are in the process of creating criteria. The two other municipalities, Durham and Lambton, rely on the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) definition to identify significant woodlands, although Lambton has some informal guidelines which they use on a case by case basis. Durham Region had, in the 6 One municipality did not respond 7 Includes two municipalities that are in the process of creating significant woodland criteria. 8 Four of these municipalities are in the process of implementing significant woodland policy. North-South Environmental Inc. page 49

65 past, initiated the process of creating criteria based on the recommendations of Ontario Nature (2004), however, this approach was changed as a result of stakeholder input. Most cities and towns did not have their own significant woodland criteria; relying on the relevant upper-tier municipality to set criteria. Of the 14 cities and towns that responded, only five cities (36%) had developed (or are developing) their own criteria (London, Guelph, Hamilton, Ottawa and Caledon). One municipality (City of Pickering) relied on the TRCA to identify their significant woodlands. There was a greater range of criteria used by the lower-tier municipalities (18) compared to upper and single-tier municipalities (12). However, the same criteria (size, interior woodlands, age/old growth and surface water) were used most frequently by the lower-tier municipalities. Overall, there was no discernable difference between the approaches taken by the two levels of government. Three municipalities have incorporated their significant woodland work into a natural heritage study. The majority of the municipalities contacted used the same criteria for their entire area of jurisdiction. However, four municipalities recognized geographic or demographic variation within their jurisdictions and treated each differently. The City of Hamilton (Plosz pers. comm. Feb. 28, 2008) and Region of Halton recognized that urban woodlands may not be as large or as densely vegetated as rural woodlands due to the intensity of development, and thus used different size criteria to identify significant woodlots in urban and rural areas. Niagara Region also adopted different size criteria for urban and rural areas, with urban woodlands having lower thresholds for identifying significance than rural woodlands. This mainly relates to less tree cover between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Ontario and greater tree cover above the Escarpment; therefore justifying different size criteria to capture significant woodlands in each area (Campbell pers. comm. Feb. 29, 2008). Norfolk County uses different size criteria for the eastern and western portions of the County due to different soil characteristics, associated land use resulting in different levels of tree cover. Eastern Norfolk County is located on the Haldimand Clay Plain, and with these clay soils the area was more intensely farmed, thus creating smaller woodlots. In addition, there is a greater area of publicly held land in the western end of the County, therefore western woodlots are much larger than those in the east (Peck pers. comm. Feb. 28, 2008). Other municipalities may not have used different criteria for different areas because: the municipality is mainly agricultural with few or no large urban centres, therefore there is no great difference in woodland cover across the county (Lambton); the criteria are currently being developed (Waterloo and Ottawa); varying size criterion was opposed (appealed) so a more general approach was taken (Durham); or use of varying thresholds to reflect local differences have yet to be considered (Middlesex). North-South Environmental Inc. page 50

66 4.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH): Other Municipal Studies and Interviews with Selected Experts Municipalities contacted about significant woodlands, as described above, were also asked if and how they had addressed Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) in their municipal policies. None of the municipalities contacted had completed SWH studies but may eventually choose to undertake an exercise similar to the Region and Town s approach. Although some of them have SWH policies within their Official Plans, they all default to the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) for specific guidance on a case by case basis. The Region and Town have chosen to undertake a SWH study to ensure the development of well-informed Official Plan policies to achieve conformity with provincial policies. This study may serve as a case study for other municipalities who chose to undertake a SWH study in the future. A long list of SWH criteria is provided by the Province, along with some guidance on how to apply them, through the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the related on-line Decision Support System. These sources are currently under review as part of ongoing updates to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999). Consequently, further direction regarding the SWH criteria, particularly with respect to pending revisions to the criteria and specific application to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, was sought from various agency sources and experts. A summary of the people contacted to date and the results of these discussions is provided in Appendix 4. Notably, the approach taken for this study and the criteria selected have been supported by the OMNR staff (as well as the CVC and TRCA staff). Although not specifically municipal in scope, two recently published precedents of applying specific SWH criteria to a given area in southern Ontario were uncovered through additional research. These are found in the two following studies: Norfolk County Lakeshore Special Policy Area Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System Strategy (Marshall Macklin Monaghan 2007); and Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed, Phase 1: Components and Policy Templates (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental 2007). Although neither of these studies attempted to develop thresholds for the full range of applicable SWH criteria, they did identify the specific SWH criteria from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) they felt should or could be applied to their respective jurisdictions based on the available information. Notably, both of these studies identified criteria in the context of either existing (in the case of Norfolk) or proposed (in the case of Lake Simcoe Watershed) natural heritage systems, with criteria addressing other features and functions. Consequently, the SWH criteria were pared down to capture those habitats that might not be captured by some of the other natural heritage system components (e.g., Provincially Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest). The Norfolk County Lakeshore Study includes the following SWH criteria as additional components recommended for confirmation as part of a natural heritage system: North-South Environmental Inc. page 51

67 forest patches that provide habitat for forest interior and area-sensitive forest birds but do not contain forest interior; identified important bird areas; stopover habitat for migratory birds; stopover habitat for migratory butterflies; habitat for declining species of upland grassland birds; unevaluated wetlands; and ephemeral wetlands that provide breeding habitat for salamanders, frogs and toads, and representation of all significant species ( including Special Concern, S1-S3 and locally rare). However, no thresholds have been developed for any of these criteria to define what would make something significant or representative. The Lake Simcoe Watershed study took a different approach and elected to develop thresholds and map specific criteria only where sufficient data were available to designate SWH on a watershed-wide basis (i.e., Winter Deer Yards, Colonial Waterbird Nesting Sites, Rare Ecological Land Classification communities and Grassland Communities). For all other OMNRsuggested criteria, it was determined that extensive and intensive fieldwork would be required throughout the watershed, which would take years, and so it was decided that criteria would be added if and when data for analysis becomes available at the landscape scale. North-South Environmental Inc. page 52

68 5.0 SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS 5.1 Considerations for the Development of Criteria for Significant Woodlands The general setting of the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon with respect to physical features, development patterns and resulting existing forest cover has repercussions for the selection of criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands. As noted in Section 3.1, and shown on Figure 5, the Region comprises an Urban System and a Rural System that includes the Rural Service Centres of Bolton, Caledon East and Mayfield West. For the purpose of developing criteria and thresholds, the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga are considered to be entirely within the Urban System of Peel Region as these areas are identified for future urban growth to 2031, although there are obviously valued green spaces such as the Credit River, Humber River, Etobicoke Creek, Cawthra Woods, etc. Any physiographic differences within Brampton and Mississuaga, that might have resulted in different criteria and thresholds, are overshadowed by the influence of the urban context of the two cities. However, physiography is more important in The Town of Caledon. The difference in land use on the South Slope and the areas north of the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine can be seen in Figure 1 and is reflected in the statistics on forest cover discussed on Section Defining Woodlands It is critical that a definition for woodlands be developed in order to apply criteria for determining significance. Definitions are provided in the PPS and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, however, these are general definitions that although complete and accurate, lack quantification. The Province developed a more rigorous definition to enable application of the criteria and thresholds in the ORM Conservation Plan (Technical Paper #7: Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands, Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007c). There is also a definition provided in the Forestry Act (1998), which is the basis for the definition in the ORM Conservation Plan. The ORM definition of woodland must be used in the area subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001). The provincial Ecological Land Classification (ELC) (Lee et al. 1989) also defines wooded areas and distinguishes between forest, woodland and savannah, these representing a progression from closed to open-canopied woods. The ELC defines these as: forest, A terrestrial vegetation community with at least 60% tree cover ; woodland of A treed community with 35% to 60% forest cover and savannah, A treed community with 11% to 35% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees. However, there is an anomaly in the ELC manual. When field protocols are applied, savannahs are identified as having greater than 25% tree cover. Thus, ELC protocols result in all treed areas (savannahs, woodlands and forests) having greater than 25% forest cover. For the purpose North-South Environmental Inc. page 53

69 of this study, 25% is considered a more reasonable threshold for defining wooded communities than 11%. There is merit in using the ORM definition of woodland in the Region as this would provide consistency throughout the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. In addition to the advantages of consistency, this definition has been refined through its application and has associated guidelines to assist in interpretation and application. However, the ORM definition results in the inclusion of some very open-canopied woodlands that would not be considered wooded areas using the provincial ELC standard 9. Based on these considerations, this study recommends a definition that is based on the ORM definition but limits it to wooded areas with greater than 25% canopy cover, consistent with the ELC manual. This definition would include many of the young woodlands that are captured in the ORM definition, excludes very open canopied woodlands, and is consistent with the identification of forest, woodland and savannah in the ELC manual. The proposed definition is provided in Appendix 1. It is suggested that the guidance provided in the ORMCP Technical Paper #7 for applying the definition should also be used in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. This consists of: how to address two or more wooded patches that are connected; interpreting gaps in wooded areas; how to treat indents in woodlands; when two wooded patches are so close they are to be considered one patch; the exclusion of certain plantations; and the exclusion of communities dominated by non-native buckthorn or Norway maple. With respect to plantations, the following would be excluded from being significant (per ORMCP Technical Paper # 7): a plantation managed for production of fruits, nuts, Christmas trees or nursery stock; or a plantation managed for tree products with an average rotation of less than 20 years (e.g., hybrid willow or poplar); or a plantation established and continuously managed for the sole purpose of complete removal at rotation, as demonstrated with documentation acceptable to the planning authority or the OMNR, without a forest restoration objective. The formal definition of woodland recommended in this section is for the application of criteria and thresholds. As noted in the introduction, the terms forest and woodland are used synonymously in a general sense in this report unless otherwise noted. 9 The ORM definition uses tree density (various numbers of trees per hectare) as part of the definition. To enable a comparison with ELC definitions which use % canopy cover, an approximation of the canopy cover of a single 2 m high tree was used along with the densities to estimate canopy cover of wooded areas that would be included in the ORM definition. It was concluded that the ORM definition could capture some wooded areas with canopy covers in the 10% to 15% range. North-South Environmental Inc. page 54

70 Cultural Woodlands All woodlands in the Region of Peel have been subjected to some level of human management in the past. This extends back to before European settlement, when First Nations managed woodlands for game and other forest resources, as well as using openings for agriculture. Currently most of the existing woodlands represent remnant patches that have recovered through natural succession processes after having been logged, grazed, or otherwise used for economic benefit. Some are second or third growth woodlands that occur on land where the forest was completely removed at various points in time. These forests vary in composition and quality depending on the length of time that the forest has been re-establishing, the nature and duration of the land use while it was cleared, and the underlying environmental characteristics such as soil type, moisture, exposure, seed bank, etc., all of which influence natural succession processes and species composition. Some of these woodlands could have been re-established over 100 years ago and may be virtually indistinguishable from those that have never been completely cleared. Some woodlands have been recently planted or have naturally established on sites that have been highly disturbed. The provincial Ecological Land Classification (ELC) recognizes these as cultural woodlands or cultural savannahs, depending on the degree of canopy closure. Such woodlands may provide shading of watercourses, or occur adjacent to an existing mature woodland thus facilitating the development of additional interior conditions in the mature woodland, or be characterized by features and functions that would merit consideration of significant status. Additionally, cultural woodlands and savannahs can contribute to the urban landscape by providing greenspace for aesthetic, recreational, cultural heritage and "green infrastructure" functions. Notwithstanding this, some cultural woodlands in designated urban areas that have established through natural succession processes on abandoned lands may be located in areas that are better suited to urban uses. Cultural woodlands and savannahs in designated urban areas should be assessed with consideration for the local context and sound natural heritage and planning principles to determine their significance as part of healthy and sustainable communities. Significant cultural woodlands and savannahs (i.e., those meeting significance criteria) that have been included within a natural heritage system (and have thus been recognized as having ecological values and contribute to an ecological system as a landscape scale) should be protected. Cultural savannahs and cultural woodlands (as defined through ELC) that are outside of approved Natural Heritage Systems will need to be evaluated on a site-by-site basis to evaluate their significance. 5.3 Development of Significant Woodlands Recommended Criteria This section of the report describes and assesses the candidate criteria that were derived from the review of existing documents, interviews with other municipalities and the consultations with the Municipal Staff Working Group, Technical Advisory Team and stakeholders. During the consultations, some concerns and suggestions were provided that relate more to the development of policy for the protection of significant woodlands than to their actual identification. Such comments will be considered through the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review and the Town s PPC exercise. Examples of such comments include: North-South Environmental Inc. page 55

71 policies should not limit existing farming practices; need to acknowledge existing woodland use including fibre production; the need to compensate landowners for protecting or enhancing woodlands; ensuring that there is an opportunity provided in policy to assess site-specific significance on the basis of field studies, not just using the data sets provided for this study; and policies should not provide disincentives to restoration and stewardship; for example if a landowner was to plant trees that subsequently became a significant woodland and constrained the site, the incentive to plant in the first place is diminished. It is noted that there are criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands on the ORM, and that these will continue to apply. It is possible that application of the criteria and thresholds recommended in this report would result in some woodlands on the ORM being identified as significant that are in addition to those that would be identified using the criteria in the ORMCP (and Technical Guidelines). At present, however, it is suggested that the criteria and thresholds in this report not be applied on the ORM. It is recognized that the ORMCP allows municipalities to apply additional criteria, and the desirability of this should be addressed as part of the review of the Region and Town s Official Plan natural heritage policies. Many of the criteria discussed below are inter-related and even dependent on one another. For example, woodlands must be of a certain size before they can contain interior forest conditions or old growth characteristics. Thus, the forest interior and old growth criterion are to some extent dependent on size. Notwithstanding this, each criterion is discussed below independently, to the extent that is possible. Importance of Woodland Functions The following analysis describes various attributes of woodlands and assesses them with respect to their suitability as criteria for identifying significance. It is stressed that all ecological functions and attributes of woodlands are important and that some attributes are not recommended as criteria due to the lack of data, or difficulty of establishing thresholds, but not because they are ecologically unimportant. In other studies that evaluate woodlands or other natural features (e.g., environmental impact studies), all these ecological attributes should be considered Woodland Patch Size The size criterion is based on the well accepted principle that large woodlands are more valuable than smaller woodlands from a conservation perspective. Size is the criterion most frequently used by the municipalities and agencies that were interviewed. Southern Ontario was originally dominated by a woodland landscape, however, removal of woodland for agricultural and urban development has fragmented the once extensive woodland tracts. This has resulted in a patchwork of woodland fragments that vary in size from less than a hectare, to several hundred hectares. Fragmentation of woodland is one of the most serious threats to biological diversity (Burgess and Sharpe 1981, Harris 1984, Marzluff and Ewing 2001, Meffe and Carrol 1994, Noss and Cooperrider 1994). It reduces the overall amount of habitat, North-South Environmental Inc. page 56

72 and also creates small patches out of larger remnant woodlands. Smaller woodlands lack the ability to support species that require woodland interior conditions and species that are areasensitive. Larger woodland patches are more resilient to natural disturbances. For example, a 1 ha blowdown in a 100 ha woodland becomes part of the natural mosaic, however, in a 4 ha or smaller woodland it would remove 25% or more of the habitat and will likely result in a serious reduction in woodland diversity. Woodlands need to be of a certain size before interior forest conditions can develop. Interior forest is a desirable woodland attribute and is discussed as a separate criterion below (Section 5.3.2). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) provides guidance on size standards for woodlands to be protected on the basis of general woodland cover. It recommends woodlands of 4 ha in size be protected where the woodland cover is between 5% and 15%, and 40 ha where the cover is between 15% and 30%. Ontario Nature (2004) suggested more stringent guidelines for identifying woodland significance with respect to size as follows: Woodland Cover Minimum Patch Size for Significance < 5% all woodlands 5-10% 2 ha 11-15% 4 ha 16-20% 10 ha 20-30% 15 ha 31-50% 25 ha >50% 40 ha Other municipalities have used minimum size criteria ranging from 2 ha (Norfolk and Halton) to 10 ha (Middlesex). London considers woodlands smaller than 2 ha to be of low value, those between 2 and 9 ha to be of medium value and those greater than 9 ha to be of high value. Some municipalities also recognize physiography and extent of development in determining appropriate size thresholds. For example, the Region of Halton uses 10 ha for areas above the Niagara Escarpment, 4 ha for rural areas below the escarpment and 2 ha for urban areas below the Escarpment. The range of thresholds used by other municipalities is provided in Appendix 3. The Technical Advisory Team for this study noted that smaller woodlands (<4 ha), although generally less valuable ecologically (assuming they have no special features such as rare plants, or special functions such as connection or thermoregulation of a watercourse), may have important social values (e.g., in urban landscapes where there is little woodland cover) and may serve as a nucleus for restoration and rehabilitation efforts. Small woodlands along the lakeshore may also be important as stopover points for migrating birds, and may serve other ecological functions such as groundwater recharge, microclimate modification, etc. Thus a woodland of 1 or 2 ha in an urbanized area may be more significant than the same area of woodland in a rural landscape with greater overall woodland cover. In areas where forest cover is very low, all remaining woodlands may be significant to preserve some ecological function and examples of North-South Environmental Inc. page 57

73 indigenous forest over. Some participants at the focused stakeholder workshop indicated that in urbanized areas, where woodland cover is low, social values are important and smaller woodlands should be considered significant. Other stakeholder participants indicated that it is important not to lose sight of the purpose of the study to identify significant (i.e., not all) woodlands, and if very small woodlands are included, then the meaning of significant from an ecological perspective is diminished. Evaluation This criterion is considered to be very defensible and is widely used. Data are available to apply it and, although thresholds are not entirely agreed on, much is understood about the relative benefits of woodlands of varying sizes. Based on this, size is recommended as a criterion for determining significance in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. The Municipal staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team agreed with this recommendation. Threshold Recommendations At present, two options are recommended that aim to examine size thresholds based primarily on forest cover and landscape characteristics within Peel. These two options were considered during the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review. These recommended thresholds meet or exceed the recommendations in the current Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 1999) with respect to size. Note that these only apply to woodlands not subject to the policies of the ORM Conservation Plan. Option 1: Recommendation based on Urban-Rural System Distinction Woodlands outside of the ORM planning boundaries satisfying the following size criteria should be considered significant: i. Urban System (i.e., within the 2031 urban boundaries for the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga): all woodlands equal to and larger than 4 ha in size; ii. Rural System (i.e., the Rural System that comprises all of the Town of Caledon): all woodlands equal to and larger than 16 ha. The rationale for the using the rural/urban system as a basis for two different thresholds is that there is a substantial difference in the forest cover of 7.0% in the Urban System (which is comprised of the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga) and 31.5% in the Rural System (which comprises the Town of Caledon). It is recognized that woodlands of all sizes, even a single tree, provide some ecological function. The question that needs to be addressed is, When are those functions sufficient in quality and/or quantity to warrant significant status? Based on the current Regional forest cover, the guidelines in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 1999) suggest a threshold of 40 ha based on size alone, and the revised size guidelines developed by Ontario Nature suggest 15 ha. It was the professional opinion of the consultant team that the threshold for size should fall in the range of 10 to 20 ha. However, it was recognized that there is a huge disparity between the forest cover in the Rural System of the Region (31.5%) and the Urban System (approximately 7%), thus a threshold in this range should only apply to the Rural System. Based on these considerations, the consultant team recommends a threshold of 16 ha in the Rural System. This North-South Environmental Inc. page 58

74 size will also provide the potential for including woodlands with 4 ha of interior forest. Although the forest cover is relatively high in the Rural System (31.5%), there is still limited interior habitat (only 7.8% of forests have greater than 4 ha of interior in Caledon) and owing to their importance for providing ecological functions and contributing to biodiversity conservation, all woodlands with the potential to provide 4 ha of interior woodland are deemed to be significant (see Section related to Interior Forest criterion). In the Urban System, where forest cover is lower, the ecological functions associated with woodlands smaller than 16 ha are deemed more valuable and 4 ha was selected as a threshold. This is the lower limit at which some interior forest might be present. Generally, woodlands smaller than 4 ha are not likely to provide the conditions to warrant ecological significance due to the fact that, ecologically, these woodlands are dominated by edge habitat (i.e., they are unlikely to support interior forest conditions), although there are exceptions, for example where they support significant species, shade watercourses, etc. Also, as there is little connection among woodlands in the urban landscape, their ecological functions are more limited they are susceptible to ongoing, cumulative degradation over time and they have less resilience to withstand adjacent land uses typical of urban environments. In recommending a 16 ha threshold for all of the Rural System (i.e., the Town of Caledon), the differences in forest cover on and above the Escarpment versus within the South Slope, which are a result of historical land uses (e.g., agricultural), are not taken into account. It is debatable as to whether this difference should be addressed as part of a Regional scale analysis or if it is a local characteristic and best addressed through local policies and programs. The second threshold recommendation presents an option for addressing the woodland cover distinction within the Town of Caledon. Option 2: Recommendation based on Physiography/Historical Land Use Woodlands outside of the ORM planning boundaries satisfying the following size criteria should be considered significant: i. areas on and above (west of) the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlands equal to and greater than 16 ha in size; ii. Rural and Urban System below the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlands equal to and greater than 4 ha. In the Town of Caledon, there is a marked difference in forest cover between the area above the Escarpment (42.0%) and the area on the South Slope, below the Niagara Escarpment (10.0%). For the purpose of this study, the Niagara Escarpment is interpreted as the limits of the Niagara Escarpment Plan area. This difference in forest cover justifies a lower size threshold for the South Slope area, for the same reasons as discussed above. Local Level Thresholds The consultant team recognizes that smaller woodlands in urbanized landscapes may have a substantial social value that would warrant a threshold less than 4 ha for determining North-South Environmental Inc. page 59

75 significance. The consideration of social values was deemed to be more appropriately addressed in a local context. In the Town of Caledon, which is entirely contained within the Rural System of Peel, the level of development that has occurred in the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga does not exist at present. Thus, the consideration of social value of woodlands driven by urban development is not currently relevant. However, given that a portion of the South Slope in Caledon is not within the Greenbelt Plan area and may be considered as developable area within the Places to Grow plan area, a threshold as small as 2 ha may become appropriate in the future. This threshold would need to be based on considerations related to the social values placed on woodlands in urban landscapes and should be determined during the community planning process for the area. Since this report is not addressing the local context in the City of Brampton or the City of Mississauga, which constitute the urban area of the Region, no recommendations as to size thresholds are provided, however a size threshold of 2 ha or less may also be relevant in these urban areas. It is noted that smaller woodlands in urban areas still do provide some ecological functions and benefits, (e.g., carbon sequestration, urban wildlife habitat, stop-over habitat for migrating birds [at least in southern woodlands], mitigation of heat-island effects and air cleansing, etc.) which may be important owing to the overall low level of forest cover Interior Forest The edges of woodlands are known to have different ecological characteristics than the interior of woodlands. For example, temperature, wind, humidity, proportion of non-native species, numbers of nest predators, human impacts, etc. are all characteristics that change near woodland edges (Matlack 1993, Riley and Mohr 1994, Burke and Nol 1998). The distribution of fauna (and to a lesser extent some flora) is affected by the edge and in particular some species of fauna favour woodland interior conditions (Riley and Mohr 1994, Hounsell 1999, McCracken 1999). Edge effects have been shown to extend hundreds of metres into woodlands (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Meffe and Carroll 1994, Larson et al. 1999). However, these effects diminish with distance from the edge and 100 metres has been used by a number of authors (Riley and Mohr 1994, Hounsell 1999, Gartner-Lee 2002) as a distance beyond which there is the potential for interior woodland conditions to exist. The concept of interior forest applies mainly to fauna, however, some plant species may also be restricted to the interior of woodlands owing to competition from edge plant species and different environmental conditions. The term interior woodland is used quite generally but the habitat requirements for different interior species vary. The quality, extent of disturbance, type of habitat and other ecological factors will influence whether a woodland provides habitat for species that require interior conditions. This report uses the generally accepted principle that interior woodland conditions can begin to occur in areas greater than 100 m from an edge (see illustration below). It is also noted that the age of the woodland will influence the presence of interior conditions, with young woodlands being less likely to provide these conditions than older woodlands. Given that the protection of woodlands (and other natural features) is for the long term, and that large young North-South Environmental Inc. page 60

76 woodlands will eventually provide interior forest conditions, young forests were not excluded in consideration of this criterion. The maintenance of woodlands with interior conditions is especially important when viewed in the context of the historical extent of woodland and the fauna that it supported, and the present day fragmented distribution of woodland in the landscape. As noted previously, the development of southern Ontario has resulted in highly fragmented woodlands. There is an abundance of small woodlands and subsequently edge-type woodland habitat is common. What is uncommon are large patches of woodland that have substantial areas of interior woodland that support populations of interior and area demanding species. It is important to note the relationship between interior woodland, size and shape. The configuration of a woodland may play a large part in the presence of woodland interior. Basically, woodland patches with a low ratio of edge to area, such as circles, will have greater potential for providing interior forest conditions than patches with a high edge/area ratio (e.g., long, thin woodlands could be very large and not contain interior conditions). Using the definition that interior woodland must be at least 100 metres from an edge, interior woodland will start to be defined in a patch greater than 3.14 ha, if it is a perfect circle, or greater than 4 ha if it is square. However, while these areas provide the mathematical point at which appropriate habitat may start to develop (based on the general rule that edges effects extend 100 m into woodlands), this provides virtually no area of interior. Riley and Mohr (1994) note that woodland patches greater than 4 ha can begin to develop interior woodland conditions assuming the patch shape is appropriate and disturbance minimal. A square woodland of 16 ha will North-South Environmental Inc. page 61

77 support 4 ha of interior woodland, which is suggested as a minimum area of interior that is useful for supporting edge-intolerant species (OMNR 2000, page 103). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) suggests that interior conditions begin to develop in woodlands of about 10 ha in size. Environment Canada (2004, Table 12) conclude that woodlands of <20 ha will be dominated by edge-tolerant species. However, TRCA staff have found that some area-sensitive species will inhabit smaller woodlands when there is no optimal habitat, providing the surrounding land uses are not too incompatible (Lewis, pers. comm.). If an interior woodland criterion determined significance based on the presence of 4 ha of interior woodland, it would only discriminate new woodland patches larger than 16 ha. If the final suite of criteria included a size criterion that protected all woodlands greater than 16 ha, the interior woodland criterion would be redundant, as all woodlands with 4 ha of interior will already be protected by the size criterion. Based on the above we conclude that although some small, high quality woodlands with minimal human disturbance may support some interior species, 16 ha is considered to be a good guideline for the minimal size required to develop interior forest habitat, assuming a more or less square or circular shape, and minimal human disturbance. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team for this study noted that interior forest is rare in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon and any forest with interior habitat should be considered significant. Eleven of 22 agencies or municipalities that had criteria for identifying significant woodlands used interior woodland as a criterion. Participants at the stakeholder workshop noted that the interior criterion was valid, but when using the woodland definition based on the Forestry Act or ORM, very young woodlands could inadvertently be identified as having interior conditions, if they were large enough. Evaluation This criterion is well documented and is ecologically defensible. Data are available to determine woodlands that may have interior woodlands and there is enough information to determine thresholds. It is recognized that interior woodland is very important for protecting biological diversity. It is recommended that a minimum of 4 ha of interior woodland should be required to confer significance, which requires an approximate minimum of 16 ha of woodland. Based on ecological factors alone, interior woodland habitat would be recommended as a criterion for determining significance. However, given the recommendations for the size thresholds provided above, all woodlands with at least 4 ha of interior will be captured by the size criterion, thus the interior woodland criterion will not discriminate any additional woodland patches, and is thus not recommended at this time Age and Late Successional Woodlands These two potential criteria are discussed together since they are inter-related. In this report woodlands in a late stage of maturity and old growth woodlands are collectively referred to as late successional woodlands (sensu Whitman and Hagan 2004). Such woodlands are considered to be very significant. It is important to note that in this study, the intent of using age North-South Environmental Inc. page 62

78 is not simply to protect old trees, but to use age as a surrogate to identify woodlands with late successional characteristics such as: an uneven-aged canopy; a range of size classes, with a large proportion of trees in larger size classes; woodlands where gap succession is the principal form of woodland renewal; the presence of undisturbed soils; the presence of habitat that supports interior woodland wildlife; and the presence of substantial standing and fallen deadwood, with the fallen deadwood present in a range of decay classes. The protection of individual old trees may also be important but is not considered as a criterion to identify significant woodlands, and should be addressed through other mechanisms. The ultimate expression of late successional woodland is called old growth and the characteristics described above are best expressed in old growth woodlands. For example, Ontario Nature (2004), in recommending significance criteria for their Level 3 evaluation (which requires field work), include woodlands exhibiting older-growth characteristics such as: old trees, pit and mount topography, significant woody debris, little evidence of human disturbance, significant numbers of snags and den trees, etc. Late successional woodlands (including old growth) produce very different environments than younger ones, and support species and communities of flora and fauna that are unique. They are considered to be more valuable than young woodlands because there are fewer of them and it takes a substantial length of time to replace them. Late successional woodlands also serve as scientific benchmarks and reference sites. To maximize biodiversity and to maximize representation of woodland types and species composition, examples of old, mature woodlands should be protected. The mean age of woodlands in southern Ontario has been decreasing over time (Larson et al. 1999) so overall, Ontario woodlands are getting younger. This is mainly owing to forestry practices that strive to maximize timber yield by promoting short-rotation harvesting (Forbes 1997) and possibly the regeneration of abandoned farms. Larson et al. (1999) estimate that there is about 1% of the original late successional woodland (they use the term older growth ) left in Ontario, and only trace amounts of true old growth. Uhlig et al. (2003) note that the lack of old growth woodlands in the Deciduous Forest Region of southern Ontario (which includes the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon) made it impractical to undertake a quantitative analysis, and characteristics such as age of onset, life expectance and duration were estimated using a number of sources of information. Although conservation of any remaining old growth is a desirable goal, it is also important to protect mature woodlands that have the capacity of achieving old growth conditions if protected and managed appropriately. Hagan and Whitman (2004) refer to these mature woodlands as late successional forest and the term older growth (Larson et al. 1999) has also been used. Conservation of late successional or mature woodland is important since they may develop old growth characteristics in the relatively near future, and old growth woodland cannot be easily created from open habitats or very young woodlands. There is a difference of opinion on the North-South Environmental Inc. page 63

79 extent to which current silvicultural practices can be used to hasten the development of old growth attributes. The Society of American Foresters (1984, as cited in Riley and Mohr 1994, p. 28) note: With present knowledge it is not possible to create old-growth stands or markedly hasten the process by which nature creates them. However, Jenkins et al. (2004, pg 35) note, The application of these same [silvicultural] practices to restore old-growth characteristics in eastern coniferous and mixed hardwood forests remains largely theoretical. Nevertheless, it seems warranted that some of these practices, judiciously applied under closely monitored conditions, could be employed to reset the successional trajectories of stands toward oldgrowth. The difficulty in reproducing the conditions that characterize old growth and the exceptionally long time for replacement (>100 years), infers value on older, mature woodlands, which have the capacity to develop old growth characteristics. One of the issues with using age as a surrogate for identifying old or older growth woodlands is selecting an appropriate threshold. Hagan and Whitman (2004), reporting on hardwood and softwood woodlands in Maine, define the beginning of their late successional woodland at approximately 95 years; Forbes (1997), notes the onset of maturity within tolerant hardwood mixed woodland in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem in New Brunswick at 120 years. In Ontario, mid to late successional woodlands were identified as occurring at 60 to 100 years of age, and old-growth at over 100 (Riley and Mohr 1994). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) recommends that any woodland with an uncommon characteristic, such as age, that is represented by less than 5% of the woodland in a planning area should be considered significant, as should woodlands over 100 years of age. Uhlig et al. (2003) report different old growth age-of-onset for a number of woodland associations, all of which are greater than 110 years in age for the Ecoregions in which the Region of Peel is situated. Overall, identifying woodlands that are over 100 years in age would capture older, mature woodlands, and likely some that display old growth characteristics. The development of habitat associated with late successional woodlands is not a function of age alone. Late successional woodland conditions are generally not expected to occur in small, narrow or isolated woodlands where edge habitat prevails. Late successional conditions generally only develop in larger woodlands, particularly where interior woodland conditions are present, although they will also occur as relatively small remnants within wooded valleylands. One alternative for identifying where late successional woodlands may be significant is to specify that a minimum of 4 ha of interior woodland be present (i.e., greater than 100 from an edge). Thus, since the intent of the age criterion is to capture an area representative of mature woodland conditions (i.e., not just a point), 16 ha could be considered the minimum size of woodland patch that is worthy of consideration when applying the age/late successional woodland criterion (based on the discussion under interior woodland that 16 ha woodlands have the potential to provide 4 ha of interior woodland). However, it is also recognized that there are some instances where patches of late successional woodland (often displaying interior forest conditions) can occur within smaller woodland patches with low disturbance, often within valley systems. Given the rarity of late successional woodlands in the study area, such areas should be considered significant, even if they contain only small patches with representative conditions of late successional woodlands. North-South Environmental Inc. page 64

80 Regardless of the nomenclature used (mature, late successional, older growth or old growth), the rationale for preserving older woodland is the same: woodlands in Ontario are getting younger and thus older woodland should be protected to preserve the biodiversity associated with it; older woodlands are of an age where they are beginning to develop old growth conditions, and thus warrant protection; and older woodland is not easily replaced given the length of time required for its development. Using the late successional woodland criterion presents problems in application as it is timeintensive to measure directly, thresholds for determining old growth characteristics are not well documented, and the thresholds and characteristics of old growth are different for different woodland communities. Thus, a cedar woodland will have different old growth characteristics than one dominated by maple and beech. In a York Region study (North-South Environmental 2005), the Technical Advisory Team was divided on the merits of using age as a criterion for establishing significance. The Technical Advisory Team agreed that the biodiversity values associated with older, mature woodlands were appropriate for identifying significance, but were not convinced that age was a good surrogate for directly measuring the conditions which accompany maturity. It was suggested by the Technical Advisory Team for the York study that another measure of biodiversity be used to identify mature woodlands, but no such criterion was agreed to as being appropriate. The main concerns of the Technical Advisory Team with respect to age were: 1) difficulty of establishing an appropriate threshold, and 2) lack of an appropriate method for establishing the age of the community. There are no data currently available that provide woodland age. Methods for determining woodland age directly are difficult (in the context of the project) but not impossible if sufficient field investigation is carried out. For example, using the presence of large tree size classes is problematic because although they are relatively easy to measure in the field, it would be difficult to define thresholds (e.g., what size classes should be used to define mature woodland, what age is represented by each size class for each tree species and each site condition, and what proportion of the total basal area should be in each size class?). Eleven studies on significant woodlands recommended using age in some form as a criterion, as does the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) and Ontario Nature (2004) as part of their Level 3 evaluation. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team for this study generally thought that age was hard to measure and it was suggested that age may be captured by other criteria. It was also noted that most old growth in the Region of Peel occurred within narrow stands in valley systems. Participants at the stakeholder workshop noted that the Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) could provide age data, but others indicated that it was out of date and unreliable. It was also noted that younger woodlands on lands that have never been farmed may have ancient soil profiles that are significant and that these areas are more capable of supporting old growth forest. North-South Environmental Inc. page 65

81 Evaluation The importance of late successional woodlands from a conservation perspective warrants serious consideration of inclusion as a criterion for identifying significant woodlands. There are agebased thresholds for measuring old growth, however, there are no well established standards for measuring old growth characteristics directly. Although there are some problems with using age, it is the opinion of the consultant team that it remains the best approach to identifying late successional woodlands. The necessary data cannot be gained through remote sensing and field data collection and assessment as part of a development application or similar study would be required. It is suggested that the methods and approach for measuring woodland age at any particular site be discussed with commenting agencies (e.g., the Region, conservation authorities and/or the MNR). Most areas of late successional woodland will be captured through the size criterion, however, the smaller areas of late successional woodland that may occur in relatively small woodland patches need to be addressed. Based on the ecological discussion, it is recommended that age/late successional woodland should be included in a suite of criteria for determining significance. Thresholds for Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Woodlands, or inclusions in woodlands, that are 0.5 ha or greater in size, and older than 90 years should be considered significant. It is noted that the substantial areas of mature woodland will be captured through the size criterion, where all woodlands greater than 16 ha are recommended as being significant. The work of Uhlig et al. (2001) was used as a basis for developing the age threshold. Their work indicates that old growth commences at a minimum of 110 years for communities that occur in the Region of Peel (see Appendix 5). Since late successional woodlands represent the stage of development that precedes this, we recommend that woodlands older than 90 years of age be considered significant. Such woodlands should be native communities and to this end, it is suggested that the species associations identified in Uhlig et al. (2001, see table 4 as provided in Appendix 5) for the ecoregion in which the Region of Peel is situated be used to identify candidate forest stands for this criterion. As noted above, it is recognized that owing to the scarcity of older woodlands in the Region and the Town of Caledon, small treed areas within woodland patches that meet the late successional criterion should also be recognized as significant (i.e., the entire woodland patch does not need to qualify as late successional). These small inclusions must be of at least 0.5 ha in size. The impacts and changes in microclimate associated with edge habitat will affect the quality of at least some characteristics of late-successional woodlands. Thus, any inclusions of late successional woodland will be reliant on having a woodland buffer around them to exclude edge effects and help ensure their long term persistence. It is recommended that this buffer be 100 m in width. In such cases, and in the absence of other criteria that would confer significance, only the inclusion and the 100 m woodland buffer should be considered significant, not necessarily the entire woodland in which the inclusion occurs. Where the inclusion is closer than 100 m to a woodland edge, the buffer should only extend to the woodland edge and not include open habitat beyond the buffer/woodland edge. North-South Environmental Inc. page 66

82 Methods for determining the age of a woodland are not prescribed in this report. It is recommended that when this criterion may apply, the suggested approach for determining woodland age be approved by the commenting agencies (e.g., the Region and/ or area municipalities in consultation with the relevant conservation authority and/or OMNR), possibly as part of the approval of a Terms of Reference for undertaking an environmental impact study or environmental studies supporting a secondary plan, block plan or watershed plan. The same threshold is deemed appropriate for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Slope It has been suggested that woodlands on slopes assist in erosion control and thus such woodlands should be considered significant. Three of the significant woodland studies reviewed suggested using slope as a criterion, although it is really two, since the Eastern Ontario Woodland Evaluation simply duplicated the criteria from the Ontario Nature (2004) study. It was included by Ontario Nature in part because it was a criterion that could be applied using available digital data (Peppard pers. comm.). The plant cover on any slope is important for preventing or limiting erosion on the slope, and may perform other important functions also. The extent to which woodlands on slopes contribute to preventing surface erosion will depend on many factors including the slope, soil type and density/extent of plant cover in the understory, etc. Ground vegetation beneath woodland canopies is sometimes sparser than open fields or grasslands, and does not necessarily function as well for erosion protection. The deep root systems of woodlands may play a role in preventing massive slope failure. However, Gartner-Lee (2002, page 15) point out that, the erosion of a soil mass is a complex process to be able to simplify this process by relating just two factors, such as vegetative cover and slope, can be scientifically criticized. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team did not think it was suitable criterion to use for identifying significant woodlands, however, some participants at the stakeholder workshop thought the opposite and that woodlands on slopes greater than 10% could be considered significant. Evaluation The use of slope is not considered defensible as a criterion for assigning woodland significance. Although there are data available to measure major slopes, the thresholds for cover and slope angle will be highly variable and contestable. It is recommended that slope not be used as a criterion for identifying significant woodlands. However, it is stressed that while woodlands on slopes may not be significant, they are still be important for reducing erosion and for stabilizing the slope, and these functions should be recognized and protected Quality The quality criterion generally refers to the degree of human disturbance within a woodland, the idea being that woodland with little disturbance is more significant than woodland with extensive North-South Environmental Inc. page 67

83 disturbance. Quality could also include other ecological attributes, such as community representation and diversity, which are addressed under other potential criteria, as well as composition and structure. The City of London study uses separate criteria for Quality and Human Disturbance, however, they are closely related and have consequently been combined in this study. Only two municipalities used this criterion (Appendix 3). The types of human disturbance encompass a wide range of activities including: management practices such as timber harvesting and maple sugar production, cattle grazing, and recreation activities such as hiking (especially the development of ad hoc trails), mountain biking, BMX circuits (Bicycle Moto-cross), horse riding, fort building, dumping of garbage and garden refuse, removal of plant material, etc. The use of motorized recreational vehicles such as all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorcycles also appear to be coming more prevalent in woodlands. Some of these activities are acts of vandalism and may not be legal, while others may be appropriate management activities. The extent and type of human disturbance has been studied (e.g., Matlack 1993) and generally is most severe near edges, and declines in severity away from the edge. TRCA (2004) also takes into account the land uses that occur around the edge of a woodland patch to infer its quality. It is recognized that some woodland communities would have been sustained by natural disturbance (e.g., fire or large scale wind-throw), and in a culturally-dominated landscape, these disturbances may have to be artificially introduced for some forest types. A second component of this criterion is related to biological quality. This is often expressed in terms of the number of non-native species that have invaded woodlands. The invasion of nonnative species is considered to be a result of human disturbance. The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) was developed to measure such changes and is discussed later as a separate candidate criterion. Biological quality could also be expressed in the quality of the vegetation such as uneven age-structure, and composition and structure representative of natural conditions. These are addressed in part by other potential criteria such as diversity and representation. The quality of a woodland is often correlated with its size and historic use. Proximity to human habitation may have a substantial influence on fauna species composition, especially on bird species composition and breeding success (Friesen 1998, Friesen et al. 1995). The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team thought that woodland quality was hard to define and measure without field data. One participant at the stakeholder workshop thought that quality was a key parameter since significant woodlands should not include low quality woodlands. An example of a large area of scrubby non-native trees that was identified as significant is an example where low quality woodlands should be excluded, however, another participant pointed out that such woodlands may provide important linkage function. Stakeholders also thought that quality was difficult to define. Evaluation Although defensible in a broad way, thresholds for some parameters related to the degree of human disturbance are difficult to determine. Also, evaluation of disturbance requires sitespecific information, there are no available data, and the criterion does not account for the regenerative capacity of woodlands (i.e., a woodland with considerable human disturbance North-South Environmental Inc. page 68

84 could, with appropriate management, recover over time). Owing to these difficulties, this criterion is not recommended for use in determining significance Linkage This criterion recognizes the importance of woodlands that are part of a system of natural features, especially where the woodland serves to link two or more other natural features within the system. This includes Natural Heritage Systems, where the long term vision is one of a connected natural landscape. Woodlands that provide linkage between other natural features are more significant than those that are isolated, all other factors (size, age, rare species, etc.) being equal. Seven of the studies on woodland significance that were reviewed included linkage, or contribution to connectivity, as a criterion. As was discussed with the size criterion, fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to woodlands. Although keeping woodlands intact is the best approach to preventing fragmentation, the impacts of fragmentation can be mitigated to some extent by establishing linkages among them. Such linkages among woodlands should be composed of similar habitat to the areas being linked, to provide opportunities for the movement and dispersal of obligate woodland animals and plants. Thus, woodlands that serve a linkage function in the landscape by connecting two or more other patches are particularly valuable from an ecological perspective. Seven of the 22 municipalities contacted used the linkage criterion to confer significance. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team thought there was value in the criterion but lacked consensus on how to measure it. It was noted that different species have different linkage requirements. The group also thought that if used, thresholds should consider local patch-matrix relationships and look at other precedents for how close woodlands need to be to other features to function as linkages. It was noted that the role of smaller woodlands in providing stepping stones between larger woodland patches should be considered. This criterion is strongly related to the proximity criterion, because if a woodland is providing a linkage function it is generally going to be proximate to another natural feature. Participants at the stakeholder workshop indicated that to qualify as a linkage, the woodland must connect to two or more natural heritage features (i.e., not just one), that the features being linked could be any natural heritage feature, not just woodlands, and that there should be a clear and practical test to demonstrate that a linkage function is being provided. Evaluation This criterion is considered defensible because of the important role ecological linkage performs. In this report, the linkage function of woodlands refers to the role woodlands can perform when acting as stepping stones to facilitate the movement of species of plants or wildlife for foraging, dispersing, migrating or otherwise moving through the landscape. Such movement may be daily, seasonal or to meet other long term ecological needs. It is noted that woodlands identified with the proximity criterion may also provide some linkage function and the two criteria should be considered together. North-South Environmental Inc. page 69

85 This measure is recommended as it is recognized that a systems-based approach that looks at all types of natural features, the species that they support and the nature of the intervening landscape is the appropriate approach for identifying woodlands that contribute to a linkage function. Such an evaluation is beyond the scope of this study. It is also recognized that a Natural Heritage System (NHS) is a long term conservation approach that envisions the protection of features within a connected landscape, and thus it is appropriate to identify woodlands within such a system as being significant. At the time of writing, a natural heritage system approach for the Credit River watershed is being developed by the CVC, and the TRCA has developed a Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) for identifying areas that should be protected and enhanced within a natural heritage system for TRCA s jurisdiction. Although the Region of Peel has identified a Greenlands System within its ROP that consists of Core Areas, Natural Areas and Corridors (NACs) and Potential Natural Areas and Corridors (PNACs), Regional staff have identified the need to comprehensively review the Region s natural heritage system policies with consideration for the recommendations of CVC and TRCA s natural heritage system studies, once CVC s study have been completed. This work is beyond both the scope of work for this technical study and the Region s PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review, which is to be completed by later in Any review resulting from the work of the conservation authorities natural heritage system work will commence after the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review is completed. Within the ROP, Natural Corridors are defined as, naturally vegetated or potentially revegetated lands that connect, link or border critical ecological attributes and functions and also provide ecological functions such as habitat, migration routes, hydrological flow, connections or buffering from adjacent impacts. Natural Areas and Corridors within the Greenlands System of Peel are to be interpreted, protected and shown, as appropriate, in the area municipal Official Plans. Because linkage provides important mitigation for the fragmentation, which is so prevalent in southern Ontario, it is recommended that linkage be used as a criterion to determine significance. Thresholds for Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon It is recommended that any woodland that serves a linkage function between two or more natural features should be considered significant. To apply this criterion, the linkage function must have been determined through a natural heritage study that has been recognized or approved by the Region and/or a local municipality (this could include an approved natural heritage system). It is not the intent that this criterion triggers a Natural Heritage System study. This threshold is deemed appropriate for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. It is recommended that any woodland (>0.5 ha) identified as supporting a linkage function, as determined through a natural heritage study approved by the Region or Town, be considered significant. North-South Environmental Inc. page 70

86 5.3.7 Proximity The general rationale for this criterion is that woodlands that are near to other valued natural features, including other woodlands, may be significant for maintaining species diversity and abundance (Pearce 1993). Proximity of woodlands to each other and to other natural features may increase the habitat available to mobile species. Thus, a woodland that is part of a cluster of woodland patches would have greater value than if it were isolated. Woodlands in such clusters, even if they are small, provide for more robust populations by reducing the likelihood of local extinctions through facilitating the re-colonization of woodland patches where species have been eliminated through random events (weather, predation, disease, etc.). Proximity may also provide opportunities for the dispersal of young wildlife species, as well as plants. Wildlife populations in two or more woodland patches that are proximate to each other and which interact and behave like one large population are referred to as metapopulations by ecologists (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). In the Middlesex Natural Heritage System study (UTRCA 2003), a significant negative correlation was found between native plant species richness and increased distance between natural features and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs). Thus the shorter the distance between a woodland and an ANSI, the greater the species richness. Woodland patches closer to ANSIs were also found to have fewer non-native species overall and fewer aggressive non-native species. The wetland evaluation system (OMNR 1993) recognizes the ecological value of proximity, as it permits the complexing of small wetland patches that are as much as 750 m distant from each other. TRCA (2004) also uses a proximity criterion in the evaluation of matrix influence for defining natural heritage systems. There are several issues to consider in evaluating this criterion: the distance between features and the nature of the intervening land influences the functional relationship between and among features that are close to each other; and the availability and suitability of nearby habitat will vary among species (depending on their vagility and habitat needs), and the greater the distance between features, the fewer species that will benefit. The City of London used this criterion in a landscape perspective by assigning significance based on the characteristics of the landscape matrix in which a woodland is situated. For example, woodlands that are within 250 m of each other, which total over 40 ha, and which are not separated by major roads or highways (e.g., 4 lane roads) or urban development are considered significant. Both Norfolk County and Middlesex County recommended the use of proximity to other features for identifying significance based on simple distance to another known significant area, suggesting distances of 50 metres and 750 metres respectively. Two other studies also recommended using proximity as a criterion. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team for this study noted the similarity of the linkage and proximity criteria. In discussing thresholds, they felt that 100 m between features may be too far to confer significance, but that at least 30 m should be considered. It was pointed out that the ORM definition for woodland considered woodlands North-South Environmental Inc. page 71

87 closer than 20 m to be one patch. Stakeholders at the workshop thought that the science behind using proximity was sound but that thresholds may be difficult to determine. Evaluation In a landscape where woodlands are fragmented, the ability for organisms to move and disperse amongst natural areas is important for maintaining biological diversity. Woodland patches that are proximate to each other and facilitate such movement are therefore important. This criterion is considered ecologically defensible. It can be quantified and data are available. However, exact threshold distances may be mainly a matter of expert opinion and will have to be a general measure as travel distances and the degree to which the intervening landscapes acts as a barrier varies among species. The woodland density approach used by the City of London is ecologically defensible, but the thresholds are difficult to establish. Notwithstanding the threshold issues, proximity is recommended as a criterion for determining woodland significance. Thresholds for Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon It is recommended any woodland (>0.5 ha) within 100 m of another significant feature be evaluated to determine if should be considered significant. A linear distance approach is recommended as it is simple to understand and to apply (see illustration below). The inclusion of this criterion is predicated on the well established principle that woodlands that are proximate to other natural features tend to have higher quality than similar woodlands that are isolated. However, it is recognized that not all such woodlands will exhibit these qualities and thus this criterion allows for the evaluation of these woodlands based on detailed studies. The onus should be on the evaluation to demonstrate a particular woodland has not benefited from its proximity to significant features and would not therefore be considered significant (i.e., the default position is that such woodlands are significant). The test of whether a small woodland is benefiting from its proximity to a significant feature could include, but is not limited to: presence of particular species that would not normally be found in a small woodland (e.g., area-sensitive birds, flora typical of woodland interior); relatively high plant species richness; low proportion of non-native plant species; and functional relationship such as use by tree frogs for over-wintering.. In addition to Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), and wetlands (as provided in the definitions), significant features will include only those significant woodlands that satisfy the size criteria and thresholds. This is deemed appropriate in the context of this criterion as larger woodlands will meet the intent of the criterion as discussed above. However, smaller significant woodlands are excluded, as they are not as likely to provide the ecological characteristics that would benefit smaller woodlands that are nearby. The term significant feature is defined in Section 8. An alternate approach would be to identify woodlands that benefit from proximity to another significant feature be confirmed through specific studies such as an EIS or technical study North-South Environmental Inc. page 72

88 North-South Environmental Inc. page 73

89 supporting a Secondary Plan, sub-watershed study or block plan. This would provide some flexibility and prevent the identification of inappropriate woodlands as being significant. If this approach is taken, guidelines or tests would have to be developed to ensure that adequate guidance is provided, and so that review agencies have a clear understanding of the application of the criterion. This option will be considered by the Region and Town during the development of natural heritage policy as part of their Official Plan reviews. The same threshold is deemed appropriate for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Representation (Community) The intent of this criterion is to protect the full range of woodland types that are native to Peel Region and the Town of Caledon. This is related to the biodiversity criterion, as the protection of a greater range of native woodland types would be expected to provide greater biological diversity. The concept of using representation as a basis for designating natural features is well established and is a fundamental component of protected area programs such as the National Parks System (Parks Canada 1972) and the provincial protected areas programs (Provincial Parks, Conservation Reserves, ANSIs, etc.) (Crins and Kor 2000). In addition to maintaining biodiversity values, capturing full representation of the biotic and abiotic features of the Region provides examples of the pre-settlement landscape and thus has a cultural heritage value as well. Notwithstanding the merits of a representation criterion, its application requires knowledge of the full range of woodland communities in order to evaluate the extent to which they should be included in a system of woodlands. In the absence of this, best judgment could be used to approximate the forest types that may have been most affected by land use change, however, determining the amount of each forest type that should be represented would still be difficult with this approach. Representation is generally based on pre-settlement characteristics. Work is currently being undertaken to describe the pre-settlement vegetation and potential natural vegetation of Peel Region (Puric-Mladenovic, pers. comm.) based on modeling exercises. Although providing a good approximation of the potential pre-settlement vegetation, this work may not be sufficient to designate significance, but will be a major help determining historical woodland types that exist within Peel. In addition, there is no clear guidance on how to determine when a particular community type is under-represented and thus warrants designation as significant, i.e., how much of each community is needed? Further research and evaluation may provide answers to these questions. Possibly owing to the difficulty of implementation, only one of the municipal studies on woodland significance reviewed used community representation as a criterion. Ontario Nature (2004) also recommended it for their Level 3 evaluation, but did not provide any specific measures. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team noted that rare woodland types should be captured by this or another criterion. North-South Environmental Inc. page 74

90 Evaluation Although this criterion is ecologically defensible and is quantifiable, there are no clear thresholds that can be applied and field data would be required to apply it. In view of the difficulty with implementation, representation of communities is not recommended for identifying significant woodlands. It is noted that some under-represented communities may be captured through the significant wildlife habitat criterion for rare vegetation types and that rare communities could (and should) be captured through other criteria. Knowledge of pre-settlement woodland communities will be valuable in developing restoration prescriptions and stewardship recommendations Representation (Age) The intent of this criterion would be to ensure that woodlands encompassing a range of ages are identified as significant. It is recognized that woodlands at various stages of development will support different assemblages of flora and fauna. To maximize biodiversity, it is important to capture all ages of woodlands. It was noted at the Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team workshop that the woodland definition for the ORM includes woodlands that are composed of trees in specified densities, regardless of age, providing that there are at least 100 trees/ha that are greater than 2 m in height (Appendix 1). The definition does not eliminate young woodlands. For example, a regenerating abandoned field with a high density of white ash saplings only 2 m high would be considered woodland. Thus, any woodland that meets any of the selected criteria will be considered significant regardless of age. This should ensure that a full range of woodlands with respect to age will be considered significant. It was also noted at the Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team workshop that there is no way to map or quantify the very young woodlands that are captured by the definition. Thus young woodlands will need to be captured through site specific field work, either as part of inventory programs, or when detailed field studies are undertaken in support of planning or development initiatives. None of the municipal or other studies on significant woodlands used a criterion to ensure a full range of woodland ages were defined as being significant. Evaluation It was determined that this criterion is addressed through the definition of woodlands proposed for this study, thus there is no need for a separate criterion to ensure a range of woodland ages is captured Ecological Functions This criterion was intended to generally recognize that woodlands that provide specific ecological functions such as: surface water storage, shading of surface water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, improvement of air quality, etc., should be considered significant. There is little disagreement with this intent, however the approach taken in this study is to consider these North-South Environmental Inc. page 75

91 ecological functions individually where possible, combining some when they are closely related. Issues with this criterion include: generally all woodlands, even a single tree, will provide some ecological function and in some cases there are no known thresholds available to evaluate when those functions are significant (e.g., how much carbon has to be fixed, etc.); the criterion is wide ranging and very inclusive with a number of woodland functions being captured by other criteria (e.g., linkage, interior forest, surface water quality and quantity, etc.). The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team felt that this criterion was too broad to apply and that key ecological functions are captured by other criteria. It was noted that the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) included Ecological Functions as a consideration for identification and evaluation of significant woodlands. The specific ecological functions discussed in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) are included as separate criteria in this analysis. Evaluation It is recommended that ecological functions as a general category not be used as a separate criterion for determining significance, since specific ecological functions have been evaluated on their own merits for identifying significance in this report Surface Water Quality and Quantity The intent of this criterion is to recognize that woodlands associated with surface water features perform a significant role in enhancing their quality, quantity and function. These functions include: thermoregulation, filtering of surface water run-off, soil stabilization, attenuation of surface flows, contribution of organic matter, addition of structural diversity (in-stream snags, etc.), nutrient flows and provision of wildlife habitat. These functions are well documented in the literature (e.g., Welsch 1991, Osbourne and Kovacic 1993, Vought et al. 1995). Also, the proximity of a watercourse may enhance the biodiversity of a woodland by providing habitat for species that require the presence of surface water and thus contributing to more complex food webs. Gartner-Lee (2002) provides a good discussion of the relationship between surface water and woodlands. Their findings include: thresholds for the distance at which woodlands influence water quality range from 4 m to almost 1000 m; predation of fish and other aquatic organisms by terrestrial species results in a nutrient transfer from the surface water feature to adjacent woodlands; and recommended distances for woodlands influencing thermoregulation, filtering of sediments and pollutants and erosion control ranged from 4 m to 300 m. Thirteen of the studies or municipalities that were contacted included a criterion that recognizes the role of woodlands in protecting surface water quality and quantity. The measures ranged North-South Environmental Inc. page 76

92 from simple distances (e.g., Halton and Hamilton use 30 m, Middlesex recommended 50 m) to broader measures such as hydrological features/functions present (London). The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team thought that it was a criterion worth considering and suggested that it could be included under the proximity criterion. They also suggested 30 m as a threshold for the maximum distance between a woodland and a surface water feature. Evaluation This criterion is ecologically defensible and is quantifiable. A range of thresholds has been suggested based on the ecological function(s) performed by woodlands. Field work is not required to apply this criterion. Based on this, proximity to a surface water feature is recommended as a criterion for determining woodland significance (see illustration below). Thresholds for Region of Peel and Town of Caledon It is recommended any woodland (>0.5 ha) within 30 m of a watercourse, surface water feature or wetland be considered significant. Terms with an underscore are defined in Section 8. The same threshold is deemed appropriate for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. North-South Environmental Inc. page 77

93 Groundwater Quality The role of woodlands in protecting groundwater resources is controversial. During a significant woodlands study for the Region of York, this criterion received substantial debate among members of the Technical Advisory Team. It is clear that woodlands can serve to protect areas important for groundwater by precluding any activities or land uses (e.g., urban development or agriculture) that may be harmful to groundwater recharge. However, the actual role of woodlands in the protection of groundwater is not clear, and the evidence on the importance of woodlands in groundwater protection is conflicting. Trees reduce the amount of precipitation that reaches the ground, especially in very light precipitation events, as leaves and trunks intercept raindrops. This may reduce ground water infiltration. Also, evapotranspiration from woodlands may reduce the volume of water that is infiltrated to groundwater aquifers. Conversely, shading provided by the canopy may slow evaporation from the forest floor, potentially allowing more infiltration of surface water. Gartner-Lee (2002) reviewed the literature on the relationship of woodlands to groundwater protection and concluded that the data are conflicting and that, there was no rationale for designating woodland function on hydrogeologically sensitive areas as being more significant than on areas not sensitive There is also discussion in the literature of the role of woodlands in protecting stream baseflow and channel stability via subsurface flow regimes (i.e., shallow lateral groundwater movement). The suggestion has been made that streams in wooded watersheds have less peaky hydrographs, such that following storm events, flows elevate more gradually and do not dissipate as rapidly as in non-wooded watersheds. Buttle (1996) suggests that reforestation in the Ganaraska River watershed may have ameliorated maximum and minimum daily run-off. However, he also points out that the effect of woodland cover changes on peak and low flows are inconclusive (citing Hewlett 1982). Booth (2000) discusses at length the relationship of watershed imperviousness to stream impacts, but the imperviousness is generally a result of land development without... much, if any, effective stormwater protection., which suggests effective stormwater management may reduce impacts of development on groundwater recharge. Booth also discusses the relationship between the percent of a watershed that is wooded and stream degradation. He notes that there are few empirical data that show a direct correlation in this regard, but reports that modeling studies suggest the retention of 65% woodland cover may be needed to achieve stream channel stability in rural areas. No information was found which directly compares non-wooded land uses and woodlands with respect to recharge, thus the actual role of woodland is still uncertain from such studies. Patchett and Wilhelm (1999), report on the tremendous capacity of native grasslands in the midwest United States to absorb and recharge precipitation, suggesting that it is not woodlands per se which are required to protect groundwater recharge functions, but the type and extent of ground cover, treed or otherwise. No evidence was found that specifically shows that woodlands protect groundwater resources or that sensitive groundwater resources confer significance on woodlands. The only caveat to this assertion may be where there is groundwater discharge (springs and seeps), or where shallow water tables produce swamps. However, these situations are addressed by the surface water criterion. Seeps and springs are also utilized to identify significant wildlife habitat and are North-South Environmental Inc. page 78

94 discussed in Section under criterion B-7. It is recognized that leaving woodlands in place protects groundwater resources by precluding development, and that if woodland protection is warranted for this reason it be implemented as part of groundwater protection planning. Groundwater was recommended as a criterion for identifying woodland significance in four studies or municipalities that were contacted. The ORM guidelines for identifying significant woodlands (OMNR undated) also use the presence of hydrogeological sensitive features as a criterion. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team thought it was important that groundwater discharge areas be captured in significant woodlands, but that this could be captured under another criterion such as proximity to surface water. They had no suggestions with respect to appropriate thresholds. Evaluation This criterion may be difficult to defend as there is conflicting evidence regarding the role of woodlands in contributing to groundwater protection. Quantifying the criterion and developing thresholds may also be problematic and data regarding the location of infiltration areas may not be available. For the purposes of this study it is recommended that the presence of significant groundwater resources should not be used as a criterion to identify significant woodlands Diversity of Communities and Species This criterion refers to the widely accepted commitment to protecting, and where possible increasing biodiversity values. The loss of biodiversity is a major conservation concern (Soule and Wilcox 1980, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Meffe and Carroll 1994) and maintenance and improvement of biodiversity is one of the main principles behind most environmental protection initiatives. The native flora and fauna of southern Ontario has been greatly impacted by the loss of native woodlands (Riley and Mohr 1994, Larson et al. 1999, Cadman 1999) and the protection of significant woodlands is needed to prevent further biodiversity losses. It is recognized that woodlands with many species or communities are more significant than those with fewer (all other concerns like rarity being equal). Several of the other criteria (e.g., protection of larger woodlands, protection of interior woodland, protection of woodlands with rare species) contribute to biodiversity protection. However, biodiversity is more than just protection of species. Biodiversity can be defined as, The variety of life and its processes; it includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the communities and ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting. (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). This definition includes the nutrient and water cycles, soil ecosystems, mycorrhizal fungal associations and other poorly understood and hard to measure ecosystem components that operate in woodlands. Although their importance is understood, it is not easy to measure these parameters. Even for many measures that can be quantified (e.g., species richness of vascular plants, birds, herptiles, mammals) there is not always good baseline data. Also, the collection of these data requires detailed field investigations. Lastly, there are no generally accepted thresholds for this criterion. For example, how many plant or animal species, or communities are North-South Environmental Inc. page 79

95 needed to confer significance on a woodland? This could be determined using species area curves, but the data to undertake this analysis are not available for the Region or the Town. Five of the significant woodland studies examined or municipalities contacted recommended using a diversity measure to establish significance. The City of London, owing to the size of the jurisdiction, has been able to conduct extensive field studies and has established thresholds for determining woodland significance. Norfolk also suggested using biodiversity but did not provide specific measures and noted additional field work was necessary. Like the Representation (Community) criterion, it may be possible to approximate reasonable thresholds for this criterion using expert judgment, but these will always be open to dispute when contested. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team felt that it required too much fieldwork to be useful as a criterion to identify significant woodlands and that diversity itself is not always an indicator of a high quality woodland. Evaluation This criterion is ecologically defensible and it is quantifiable, but data are not available and there are no well established thresholds for determining significance. Although it is recognized that biodiversity protection is an important ecological and conservation consideration, it is not recommended for use as a criterion per se for identifying significant woodlands based on the difficulty of implementation. It is stressed that the protection of biodiversity is extremely important, and that this criterion is not recommended only because of the difficulty in implementing it. It is also noted that other recommended criteria for identifying significant woodlands are expected to capture highly diverse ecosystems, for example, large woodlands, mature woodlands, those with interior conditions and woodlands with rare species. Thus the diversity criterion is met indirectly through other criteria Existing Designations Existing natural heritage designations has been suggested as a criterion on the basis that if a woodland had been designated as part of another program (e.g., an Environmentally Sensitive Area Study, wetland evaluations, ANSI studies, Greenlands Study, ORM Conservation Plan, etc.) it should be considered significant. Natural heritage designations are also recommended for use to apply the proximity criterion (discussed earlier in this section). Most of these programs are well researched and have been used as the basis for many planning decisions, and they can be used for identifying woodlands that are proximate to other natural features. However, the criteria and evaluation methods used in the various programs that identify other natural features (e.g., ESA programs, ANSI program, etc.) all have different objectives and may not necessarily ensure that all the woodlands captured are significant. It is the opinion of the consultant team that it is more defensible to rely as much as possible on a set of criteria evaluated and approved specifically for this project, rather than rely on the criteria of other projects. The studies for four municipalities recommended using this criterion in one form or another. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team pointed out that features North-South Environmental Inc. page 80

96 with designations from other programs will be covered though Official Plan and/or provincial mechanisms, and did not feel it was practical for application in this study. Evaluation The defensibility of this criterion is questionable and so, it is recommended that existing designated woodlands not be automatically considered significant. However, it is appropriate to use designated features for the purpose of applying the proximity criterion (i.e., if a woodland is proximate to a designated feature, that woodland could be considered significant for the reasons discussed under the proximity criterion). Also, it is recognized that approaches for identifying protected natural features within the ORM and Greenbelt Plan areas set a minimum standard, which must be met unless municipalities choose to adopt policies that are more restrictive Significant Species and Communities This proposed criterion would confer significant status on woodlands that support rare or otherwise significant vegetation communities, or species of flora or fauna. The presence of valued species that are designated as rare, threatened, endangered or of special concern are often used to evaluate the significance of natural features. A similar criterion is used in the Ontario wetland evaluation and is a key component of OMNR life science inventories, which are used to identify provincially significant features such as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs). There are a number of well established programs for establishing the status of Ontario's communities and species. These include the program administered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the evaluations used by OMNR's Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), the Species At Risk in Ontario (SARO) list and the Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007), which includes 4 schedules listing all of the species that are at risk in Ontario. At a regional level, the work that was undertaken by Kaiser (2000) was subsequently incorporated into Varga et al. (2005). There is also Species at Risk Act (2002) (SARA) legislation that requires the protection of Species at Risk on federally owned lands. Plant and animal species, as well as communities, occur in particular places because the conditions (soil, moisture, climate, aspect, elevation, vegetation structure and composition, etc.) are suitable for their growth and survival. In order to protect and maintain these species and communities, it is necessary to maintain the habitat conditions in which they occur. Thus, where rare or otherwise significant species and communities are found in woodlands, it can be assumed that the woodlands provide sufficient (but not necessarily ideal) conditions for their continued persistence, at least in the short term. Such woodlands should be considered significant. This does not preclude the possible need to initiate some management to ensure the right conditions continue to occur, especially in smaller woodlands subject to external stresses. Six municipalities contacted or studies reviewed recommended using significant species and/or communities as a criterion. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team felt this criterion should be used for conferring significance on woodlands. North-South Environmental Inc. page 81

97 Evaluation This criterion is defensible, can be quantified and there are recognized programs that identify suitable species to use as thresholds. Based on this, use of significant communities and/or species is recommended for use in identifying significant woodlands. In applying this criterion with respect to fauna, the woodland must provide habitat for breeding or foraging, be important as a stop-over for migrating individuals, or contribute to the conditions necessary for the ongoing persistence of a population. It is not meant to infer significance on a woodland patch where there has been an incidental sighting of a particular species for which there is no suitable habitat. There are some existing data that will enable the application of this criterion, however there may often be a need for site specific field investigations. At the present time, it is recommended that regionally significant plant species not be used as a basis for identifying significant woodlands. The consultant team is of the opinion that preservation of regional diversity is important and that the presence of regionally rare species should be taken into account in the preparation of impact statements and other studies that determine where development should occur. Notwithstanding this, it was felt that the presence of a single regionally rare species was insufficient to confer woodland significance. Although a woodland with several regionally rare species may imply significance, no reasonable threshold (i.e., the number of species required in any one woodland) could be determined. Additionally, the consultant team did not feel that currently there is a sufficiently rigorous database to justify the inclusion of regionally significant species of flora, fauna or communities, although this may change in the future with the completion of Natural Areas Inventory for Peel. Thresholds for Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Terms with an underscore are defined in Section 8. Any woodland that supports any of the following should be considered significant: i) any G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, or S3 plant or animal species, or community as designated by NHIC; or ii) any species designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as Threatened, Endangered, or of Special Concern. iii) The following forest communities: Dry-Fresh White Pine-Red Pine Coniferous Forest Type (FOC1-2) 1 Dry-Fresh White Pine-Oak Mixed Forest Type (FOM2-1) 1 Dry-Fresh White Pine-Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM 2-2) 1 Moist-Fresh Hemlock-Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM6-1) 1 Dry-Fresh Red Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-1) 1 Dry-Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-2) 1 Dry-Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 1-4) 2 Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-2) 2 Dry-Fresh Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-3) 2 Fresh Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD 6-2) 2 1 communities from Henson and Brodribb (2005) 2 communities from Queen s Printer for Ontario (2007c) North-South Environmental Inc. page 82

98 The S4 and S5 forest communities listed under iii) above were selected because they are either identified as target communities for Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E-4 in the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity (Henson and Brodribb 2005), or are woodland habitats considered rare on the ORM Technical Paper #7 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007c). In a few cases, communities listed in Henson and Brodribb (2005) do not correspond precisely to ELC communities as listed in Lee et al. (1998), and so the closest approximation to the ELC standard was selected. While all of the rare woodlands types listed for ORM have been included, all Sugar Maple dominated types listed as target communities for Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E-4 were excluded because the consultant team did not consider these to be rare in the context of Peel-Caledon. These communities are specifically: Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-1) Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Beech Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-2) Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-3) Dry Fresh Sugar Maple White Ash Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-8) If ELC mapping at a finer level (i.e., to Ecosite and Vegetation Type) becomes available on a Region-wide basis, it will be possible to verify which communities are rare using empirical data and analyses, and revisit this list. In the interim, other communities may need to be added to (or removed) from this list as new information becomes available. The ten communities listed above (under iii) are also cited under criterion B1 (Rare Vegetation Types) for significant wildlife habitat. It is assumed that any of these ELC types would be identified as both significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in their entirety. The same thresholds are deemed appropriate for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon Economic/Social Value This criterion recognizes that woodlands have social and economic values for a variety of uses such as recreation, passive enjoyment, research, education, timber extraction, and non-timber woodland products. For example, woodlands that are important for an existing recreational use such as horse riding, nature appreciation or hiking may be considered significant. It is important to note that in some cases the social values of woodlands may conflict with ecological values. For example, there could be a conflict between the high value ascribed to a woodland with minimal disturbance and the social value ascribed to the recreational use of such a woodland, when that recreational use includes more intense activities such as mountain bike riding and horse riding. Also, social values associated with woodland use for outdoor education could result in environmental impacts owing to the amount of human intrusion with a resultant conflict with the intent of protection of natural values. The social values of woodlands can be difficult to measure due to the fact they have a wide range of perceived values and thresholds. For example, it is difficult to measure and develop a threshold for passive recreation use of woodlands that determines the benefit of a woodland to a North-South Environmental Inc. page 83

99 local community as significant. Evidence of use alone is not considered appropriate since all woodlands are used to some extent, and thus all woodlands would become significant. Developing a threshold based on the degree of use is problematic, for example how many trails or trail users constitute significant use? With respect to economic value, identifying a woodland as significant based on its value for generating revenue (timber extraction, maple syrup production, etc.) could conflict with other social and ecological criteria that value woodlands for natural heritage. However, in some cases they are compatible or even beneficial, for example, commercial thinning of a plantation can promote natural native regeneration and entrance fees to natural areas can be important enablers for their maintenance. Consideration was given to the identification of productive woodlands that have recognized economic value if sustainable forest management practices are followed in the production of timber resources. For example, if productive woodlands are certified under a recognized sustainable woodland management certification program (e.g., Forest Stewardship Council) they could be considered significant. Certified sustainable woodland management is intended to protect the ecological and social values of a woodland, while also achieving a primary economic goal of timber production, and this could be seen as a rationale for assigning significance from an economic perspective. While certification refers to the management regime, it is intended to be a measure of the valued economic, social and ecological characteristics of woodlands themselves. Despite its merits, use of this criterion is not considered practical in Peel Region or the Town of Caledon since there are few (if any) forest blocks in single ownership that are large enough for on-going or annual commercial forest operations. Three municipalities examined recommended the use of social or economic factors to confer significance. The use of certification programs to assign significance was recommended in one municipality, Norfolk County. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) recommends that managed woodlands may provide economic and social value and could be considered as a criterion for assessing significance. The Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team thought that a social/economic criterion alone was not sufficient to confer significance, although it was pointed out that economic considerations are included in the PPS definition of significance with respect to woodlands. They also suggested that perhaps a scoring system could be developed much like the one used for the Wetland Evaluation, however there is no precedent. Some participants at the focused stakeholder workshop thought that social values were very important and should be used to confer significance, especially in urbanized areas where there is a very small proportion of woodlands remaining. They noted that there is a strong relationship between woodlands and physical and mental health, as well as providing aesthetic values. North-South Environmental Inc. page 84

100 Evaluation Defending the social value of woodlands may be difficult owing to the subjectivity of the criterion. In addition, the social criterion cannot be easily quantified, although measures of importance could be developed. At present there are no established databases that we know of that are suitable for measuring social or economic benefits of woodlands in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. However, in recognition of the increased social value placed on smaller woodlands in urban settings, social value has been recommended as a factor to determine appropriate size thresholds in urban areas (Section 5.3.1). Owing to the difficulties in application, the social/economic criterion is not recommended for determining significance by itself. However, it is recognized that social values become important in areas with low forest cover, and that they should contribute to the determination of threshold sizes in urban areas. It is important to acknowledge that the identification of significance as a result of this study will not necessarily preclude economic or social uses Floristic Quality Index The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) is a method for assessing the quality of vegetation based on the intrinsic characteristics of the species that compose the vegetation being evaluated. It places a high value on species that are conservative, i.e., their habitat requirements are quite specific and they occupy only a narrow range of conditions. Species that only occur in woodlands, and especially those that require interior woodland, generally rank high. Woodlands containing these species would thus score high FQI values and would be considered significant. The methodology was primarily developed for undertaking monitoring. The FQI is a robust method that has been calibrated for use in southern Ontario; however, it has not yet been widely applied. Establishing sound thresholds for this criterion is problematic and would at least require knowledge of the range of values for the entire Region. Ontario Nature (2004) recommends this as a criterion for their Level 3 evaluation (which requires field work). The City of London was the only municipality reviewed that uses the FQI. It was suggested by one participant at the Municipal Staff Working Group and Technical Advisory Team workshop that plant species with a Coefficient of Conservatism from 8 to 10 could be used as a criterion. Evaluation This criterion is appealing in that it is highly quantifiable. However, it was never intended for the purpose of evaluating significance for woodlands, and thus may be difficult to defend. Establishing thresholds is problematic and it requires field work to apply, due to there being no suitable existing data. Owing to the difficulty in implementation requiring detailed data from across the Region and the lack of accepted thresholds, the FQI is not recommended as a criterion for use in identifying significance. North-South Environmental Inc. page 85

101 Significant Landforms This criterion would serve to protect woodlands associated with significant landforms thereby precluding land uses that would involve surface grading or other activities that would impact the landform. This criterion does not rely on intrinsic characteristics of the woodland to ascribe significance. However, it was noted that the presence of a landform feature could result in a rare woodland type, or provide the conditions that support rare or significant species. In such a situation, the woodland could be considered significant by virtue of fulfilling other criteria. Evaluation This criterion is not defensible for identifying significant woodlands. Since the focus of this study was to determine criteria for woodland, not landform significance, this criterion is not recommended for use in determining woodland significance. 5.4 Summary of Criteria Recommended for Identifying Significant Woodlands The following are recommended as the draft criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands. It is noted that there are criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands on the ORM, and that these will continue to apply. It is possible that application of the criteria and thresholds recommended in this report would result in some additional woodlands on the ORM being identified as significant that are in addition to those that would be identified using the criteria in the ORMCP (and Technical Guidelines). At present, however, it is suggested that the criteria and thresholds in this report not be applied on the ORM. It is recognized that the ORMCP allows municipalities to apply additional criteria, and the desirability of this should be addressed as part of the Region and Town s review of their natural heritage Official Plan policies. In developing the criteria and thresholds, the consultant team concluded that the difference in scale between the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel was not sufficient to suggest different criteria or thresholds; the ecological rationale behind each criterion and threshold applied equally to both jurisdictions. Guidance on the application of some criteria and thresholds is provided in the relevant subsections of Section 5.3. Terms with underscores are defined in Section 8. Woodlands outside of the ORM planning boundaries satisfying any one of the following criteria should be considered significant: 1. With respect to woodland size (application of recommended thresholds to the Regional and Town scales may be determined through the policy development phase for the Region s and Town s Official Plan review exercises): Option 1: Recommendation based on Urban-Rural System Distinction Woodlands satisfying the following size criteria should be considered significant: North-South Environmental Inc. page 86

102 i. Urban System (i.e., within the 2031 urban boundaries for the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga): all woodlands equal to and larger than 4 ha in size; ii. Rural System (i.e., the Rural System that comprises all of the Town of Caledon): all woodlands equal to and larger than 16 ha. Option 2: Recommendation based on Physiography/Historical Land Use Woodlands satisfying the following size criteria should be considered significant: iii. areas on and above (west of) the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlands equal to and greater than 16 ha in size; iv. Rural and Urban System below the Niagara Escarpment: all woodlands equal to and greater than 4 ha. 2. Woodlands, or inclusions in woodlands, that are 0.5 ha or greater in size, and older than 90 years should be considered significant. 3. It is recommended that any woodland (>0.5 ha) identified as supporting a linkage function, as determined through a natural heritage study approved by the Region or Town, be considered significant (Regional and Town threshold). 4. Woodlands (>0.5 ha) within 100 m of another significant feature (Regional and Town threshold). 5. Woodlands within 30 m of a watercourse, surface water feature or evaluated wetland (Regional and Town threshold). 6. Woodlands that supports any of the following (Regional and Town threshold): i. any G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, or S3 plant or animal species, or community as designated by NHIC; or ii. any species designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as Threatened, Endangered, or of Special Concern. iii. The following forest communities: Dry-Fresh White Pine-Red Pine Coniferous Forest Type (FOC1-2) Dry-Fresh White Pine-Oak Mixed Forest Type (FOM2-1) Dry-Fresh White Pine-Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM 2-2) Moist-Fresh Hemlock-Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM6-1) Dry-Fresh Red Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-1) Dry-Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-2) Dry-Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 1-4) Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-2) Dry-Fresh Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-3) Fresh Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD 6-2) North-South Environmental Inc. page 87

103

104 6.0 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) 6.1 Approach for Identifying Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria The approach adopted for identifying candidate criteria for significant wildlife habitat (SWH) 10 is different from the approach taken for identifying candidate criteria for significant woodlands because: (a) SWH is more complex in so far as it encompasses a wide variety of habitats for a wide variety of species which each need to be addressed on their own merit; (b) Region-wide datasets for many of these species are incomplete; and (c) no municipality has attempted to develop jurisdictional-wide criteria and thresholds for SWH before, so there are no precedents to draw on in terms of approaches for criteria selection or threshold development. The primary source of guidance and information for this study has been the Province s Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the related on-line Decision Support System 11. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper 2 Significant Wildlife Habitat (ORMCP TP2) 12 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) 13 has also been a key guiding document. Although the ORMCP TP2 was developed specifically for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002) area, this technical paper provides a logical starting point for identification of criteria and thresholds for both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon since: (a) the approach taken for the Oak Ridges Moraine with respect to SWH is being adopted, in large part, for the Greenbelt Plan (2005) Technical Papers (J. Boos, OMNR, pers. comm. 2008); and (b) the Greenbelt Plan Area, including the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area, occupies 80% of the Town of Caledon and 45% of the Region of Peel. The Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan Area occupies 38% of the Town of Caledon, 0.9% of the City of Brampton and 21% of the Region of Peel. Currently, a technical paper is being developed by the OMNR that will provide a recommended process for identifying SWH and eco-regionally based criteria schedules for determining SWH. 10 For brevity and because the term is used to frequently in this section, SWH will be used as the acronym to refer to significant wildlife habitat. 11 The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, its appendices, and Decision Support System can be downloaded from: 12 For brevity, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper 2 Significant Wildlife Habitat (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) will be referred to as ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). 13 The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper 2 Significant Wildlife Habitat can be downloaded from: North-South Environmental Inc. page 89

105 Unfortunately, the OMNR was unable to release draft versions of these documents during the time of this study, however they have been able to provide information and guidance over the telephone and via , as well as comments on the draft criteria and thresholds, which have been incorporated into this report. In recognition of the need to tailor criteria and, where available, thresholds, for both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, the approach taken can be summarized as follows: 1. Use of existing provincial policy documents (i.e., Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a)) to develop a long list of candidate criteria. 2. Use of existing and readily available data sources (e.g., Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Conservation Authorities, Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary (Atlas), Ontario Mammal Atlas, Ontario Odonate Atlas) to help determine (a) if criteria are appropriate for Peel and/or Caledon, and (b) if defensible thresholds can be developed and recommended. 3. Consultation with agency staff and selected individuals with specialized and/or local expertise related to wildlife habitat to obtain both data and/or expert opinion in areas where data is lacking. 4. Consultation with various stakeholders, including technical experts, the public and Town of Caledon Council to obtain input related to (a) the approach taken to criteria identification, and (b) preliminary criteria and, where applicable, thresholds. From the outset, the consultant team recognized that given the challenges and known data gaps related to SWH, it would be impossible to produce a comprehensive SWH mapping product for this study, although some candidate SWH areas could potentially be mapped individually. Therefore, the focus of this component of the study has been on: (a) developing a list of recommended SWH criteria that need to be considered for the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon; and (b) determining which of these criteria could be recommended with defensible thresholds and which could not. As a result, candidate SWH criteria have been divided into one of three categories (see Table 8 below), as follows: 1. Recommended with a threshold; 2. Recommended without a threshold; or 3. Not recommended (i.e., inappropriate or inapplicable for the jurisdiction). Draft thresholds have been recommended for criteria where they could be based on sufficient data, available research and/or expert opinion to be considered defensible. Where this level of confidence did not exist, an approach for determining significance has been suggested, including collection of Region-wide data where it was felt this would be a beneficial undertaking. Even in some cases where thresholds are put forward, where additional Region-wide data collection could be beneficial, it has been suggested. For ease of discussion and review, the recommended criteria are summarized in Table 8, and the recommended thresholds for the various criteria (where applicable) are summarized in Table 9 North-South Environmental Inc. page 90

106 below. The rationale and process for each determination is described in more detail following the tables in Section 6.4 of this report. Input received from the various study team members, stakeholders, the public and Town Council has been considered carefully and will continue to be addressed to the greatest extent possible within this report. However, where there are conflicts between input received and the need for measures that are both consistent with provincial guidance and defensible, the approach has been to typically support the latter. 6.2 Key Exemptions Related to Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) As can be seen in a review of the candidate and recommended criteria (and related thresholds), SWH has the potential to occur in a wide variety of locations, including on lands and structures that would not typically be considered natural. It is recognized that it is neither practical nor feasible to designate managed lands such as cultivated agricultural fields or licensed pits and quarries, or structures such as bridges, piers or sewage lagoons as SWH. It is the intent of this study to identify areas of SWH that would contribute to a Region and Town-wide natural heritage system, and primarily be associated with the remaining natural areas in the Region and Town. It is not the intent of this study to limit or restrict existing and approved activities related to agriculture or mineral extraction. However, given the fragmented and altered state of the remaining natural areas in Peel and Caledon, areas that were once impacted by human activities (e.g., clearing and/or farming) but have naturalized are recognized as potential SWH. This means that in addition to remnant forest/woodland patches and wetlands, plantations and old agricultural fields that have become open meadows, thickets and woodlands have also been considered, where appropriate. Key exemptions associated with a number of the criteria are: lands permanently transformed for human services or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, piers, active pits and quarries); existing normal farm practices; actively used portions of recreational areas (e.g., sports fields, golf courses) and parks; or built infrastructure required for water treatment (e.g., sewage lagoons, storm water management ponds) and in need of maintenance. Notably, analyses for capturing highly diverse natural areas (criterion B-5) excluded any mapped cultural meadows because of the recognized difficulty in distinguishing them from active agricultural areas through air photo interpretation. In cases where locations are found to meet the criteria/thresholds for SWH recommended in this study, but where an exemption applies, mechanisms for stewardship and/or mitigation should still be explored. North-South Environmental Inc. page 91

107 6.3 Challenges and Limitations in Developing Criteria for Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) The fundamental challenge of this study has been to develop criteria and thresholds for both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon that are: (a) consistent with current provincial policy and supporting guidelines; (b) likely to be consistent with eco-regional provincial policy guidelines specific to Site Regions 6E and 7E currently under development but not yet released; (c) defensible in their own right based on the best available science and/or data and/or expert opinion; (d) practical to implement in so far as the recommended approach or threshold for the criterion can be applied either with existing data or data that can reasonably be collected at the site-specific level within one, or at the most, two years. This challenge is compounded by the fact that although a few studies have integrated identification of candidate SWH into their natural heritage planning approach (e.g., Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental 2007; Marshall Macklin Monaghan 2007), this type of exercise is unprecedented in the province. Also, SWH is an umbrella category for a wide diversity of ecological features and functions that may be overlooked by the other feature categories in the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) (e.g., significant wetlands, significant woodlands and significant valleylands) but still contribute to the overall sustainability to natural heritage systems and biodiversity conservation on a local, regional, provincial and even global scale. In order to ensure consistency with the PPS (2005), the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon are undertaking a SWH study to inform policy decisions. The most current published guideline documents (e.g., Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a)) were used to develop a long list of candidate criteria, and staff at the OMNR involved in expanding the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) were consulted to the greatest extent possible (a summary of stakeholder and public comments are included under a separate cover). However, the complexity of dealing with SWH as a whole is illustrated by the list of candidate criteria (see below), which includes 33 criteria, with four of these criteria having an additional 12 sub-categories, combined, for a possible total of 41 criteria. Although part of this process involved (a) identifying criteria not applicable to Peel and/or Caledon, and (b) identifying criteria that would be captured by either another SWH criterion, or potentially by significant woodlands, each of the criteria has been addressed to ensure policy consistency with policy guidance. Notably, on the ORM and in the few other jurisdictions where SWH has been specifically identified at the planning level (i.e., Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental 2007; Marshall Macklin Monaghan 2007), other natural heritage features were identified first and only SWH criteria that might capture habitats falling outside these features were identified, effectively reducing the number of habitats being considered as SWH. Although a natural heritage system is identified for Peel within the ROP (i.e., the Greenlands System), the Region will be reviewing the ROP Greenlands System policies following the PROPR process to North-South Environmental Inc. page 92

108 examine the inclusion of recommendations from the CVC and TRCA s natural heritage system studies. Consequently, a more precautionary approach has been taken of trying to define as many of the applicable criteria as possible and only deferring to coverage by other identified features for criteria known to be captured by significant woodlands, as defined by this study. Once the criteria to be included were identified, the next challenge was to develop appropriate and defensible thresholds, or approaches, for applying each criterion. The general approach for identifying SWH is capturing what is provincially, regionally or locally rare (and not protected under other existing legislation). However, in practice this often requires comprehensive (and sometimes multi-year) data for each criterion covering the entirety of the area in question. Furthermore, for some of the criteria, data would need to be updated frequently (e.g., every 1 to 2 years) which would make data collection on a Region or Town-wide basis costly and impractical. As was already suspected based on previous experience, and was confirmed during the course of this study, this type of data is not available for most of the SWH criteria in question for the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. In other jurisdictions in Ontario (as well as in Peel and Caledon), issues related to SWH have to date been dealt with on a bottom-up site-specific basis when triggered by a development application where specific SWH issues are known or uncovered through the study process. Although many of the SWH criteria require site-specific data, that data needs to be evaluated in some type of regional or local context in order to determine significance. In lieu of comprehensive data collection, in some cases data have been collected from the study site as well as several nearby reference sites (e.g., Barrett 2005). While this approach can be adequate to resolve issues on a case by case basis, it places the onus on the proponent to fund off-site studies, can result in costly and time-consuming Ontario Municipal Board hearings and does little to resolve issues for future cases which must then be studied and defended on their own merit. It is understood by the Province that typically there is insufficient desktop data to identify all candidate SWH at the jurisdictional planning level, and that in most cases SWH cannot be confirmed until site-specific evaluation occurs. However, the approach put forward by the Province through the ORM Technical Papers (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) is somewhat more top-down in so far as applicable SWH criteria and thresholds are identified on an ORMwide basis for as many of the criteria as possible making screening for these features a more transparent process. Major development proposals then trigger an assessment for candidate SWH (whereby other key natural heritage features are identified first) while minor development proposals only require confirmation of previously identified SWH (J. Boos, pers. comm. 2008). The paper specifically dealing with SWH (ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a)) outlines a mechanism whereby candidate SWH is identified through a pre-screening process and then confirmed through field studies using established protocols. This study builds on the threshold-based ORMCP approach by developing thresholds appropriate for Peel and/or Caledon, where possible, using a synthesis of data and information available through various agency, conservation authority and other sources (e.g., provincial atlases, local natural area inventories), as well as consideration of the current scientific literature and knowledge / opinion of individuals with expertise in these areas. Notably, some of the recommended thresholds have been based on limited amounts of data and may need to be re- North-South Environmental Inc. page 93

109 considered as new information becomes available. In all cases, assessment of SWH requires skilled field assessment, professional judgment and consultation with the appropriate agency staff. The approach adopted for this study is very similar to that put forward by the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) in that the consultant team has tried to identify all the SWH criteria that apply to both Peel and Caledon, and develop thresholds for these criteria that are applicable at both jurisdictional levels. In this way, both the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon can have a mechanism for screening candidate SWH (comparable to the two-tiered ORMCP approach) whereby studies will conduct an initial screening for SWH based on the established criteria and thresholds utilizing background and desktop resources, followed by sitespecific field confirmation through the development review process. In cases where thresholds could not be developed due to data gaps, the SWH criteria will still need to be considered and refined as new information is collected. The ongoing Natural Areas Inventory being undertaken by CVC will be an excellent resource in this regard and filling data gaps specific to SWH needs to be an ongoing collaborative process with the conservation authorities and others. A more specific process approach that outlines when and how the SWH criteria will be utilized during a development proposal will need to be developed by the Region and Town as part of their policy development phase of their respective Official Plan reviews. Implementation can only be addressed after the policy approach is developed based on the recommendations of this study. It is also recognized that in some cases thresholds are a less than perfect solution. For example, defining a minimum multi-species wildlife corridor width based on data from only a few groups of species (e.g., birds and mammals) may overlook the needs of other species (Mönkkönen and Reunanen 1999). Nonetheless, it is the best approach for moving forward and one that is supported by the Province as a valid approach (OMNR 2000). As highlighted by the Environmental Law Institute s publication Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners (2003), conservative threshold ranges provide the best alternative for moving forward with ecologically sound land use planning in the absence of comprehensive data, and because there is such a wide range of data that need to be collected with SWH, there will always be data gaps. 6.4 Defining Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) This study recommends adoption of the Province s general definition of SWH. According to the Province s Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), wildlife habitat is identified as: areas where plants, animals, and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter, and space needed to sustain their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species. Wildlife habitat is considered significant where it is: ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or Natural Heritage System. North-South Environmental Inc. page 94

110 Furthermore, the PPS (2005) says: Criteria for determining significance may be recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same objective may also be used, which supports the approach adopted in this study. The PPS (2005) also states that: While significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined by evaluation. This is especially true in the case of SWH identification, which typically cannot be fully assessed until site-specific evaluation occurs. Both the Province s Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) and Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) identify four major categories of significant wildlife habitat, as follows 14 : A. Seasonal Concentration Areas: Areas where, at certain times of the year, some species of wildlife are highly concentrated within relatively small areas. These areas provide important cover and protection from inclement weather conditions and predators. They may also provide access to abundant food sources or nesting and breeding sites. B. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats for Wildlife: Areas that contain a provincially or regionally/locally rare vegetation community and areas that support wildlife species that have highly specific habitat requirements, with exceptionally high species diversity or community diversity, or that provide habitat that greatly enhances a species' survival. C. Habitats for Species of Conservation Concern: Includes species identified as nationally endangered or threatened by COSEWIC (but not regulated under Ontario s Endangered Species Act), listed as a species of Special Concern on SARO list, provincially rare or historical in Ontario, in substantial decline in Ontario, having a high percentage of their global population in Ontario (and rare or uncommon in the planning area), subjects of recovery programs, or important to the municipality. D. Animal Movement Corridors: Elongated, naturally vegetated parts of the landscape used by animals to move from one habitat to another that exist at different scales and frequently link or border natural areas. A list of candidate criteria for SWH was developed by synthesizing information from both the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), as provided below (Table 7). This list is not a reflection of available information, ease of interpretation/application, or anticipated mapping products but was intended to present the full range of possible criteria for consideration by the study team, clients, various stakeholders and the public. 14 The descriptions for each of these categories have been adapted from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guideline (OMNR 2000). North-South Environmental Inc. page 95

111 Table 7: Complete list of candidate criteria considered for significant wildlife habitat A. Seasonal Concentrations Areas A-1. Deer wintering area A-2. Colonial bird nesting sites A-3. Waterfowl nesting habitat A-4. Migratory stopover / staging areas i. Landbirds ii. Bats iii. Butterflies iv. Waterfowl (Terrestrial) v. Waterfowl (Aquatic) vi. Shorebirds A-5. Raptor wintering areas (i.e., feeding and roosting) A-6. Snake hibernacula A-7. Bat maternal roosts and hibernacula A-8. Bullfrog concentration areas A-9. Wild Turkey winter range 15 A-10. Turkey Vulture summer roosting areas 16 B. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats for Wildlife B-1. Rare vegetation communities B-2. Forests providing a high diversity of habitats B-3. Old-growth or mature forest stands B-4. Foraging areas with abundant mast (i.e., mature nut or fruit bearing trees or shrubs) B-5. Highly diverse areas B-6. Cliffs and Caves B-7. Seeps and springs B-8. Amphibian breeding habitat i. Forested sites (e.g., vernal pools) ii. Non-forested sites (e.g., marshes) B-9. Turtle nesting habitat and turtle overwintering areas B-10. Habitat for area-sensitive forest interior breeding bird species B-11. Habitat for open country and early successional breeding bird species B-12. Habitat for wetland breeding bird species B-13. Raptor nesting habitat i. wetlands ponds, and rivers ii. woodland habitats B-14. Mink, River Otter, Marten, and Fisher denning sites B-15. Mineral licks C. Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern C-1. Species identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC which are not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario s Endangered Species Act. C-2. Species identified as Special Concern based on Species at Risk in Ontario List that is periodically updated by OMNR. C-3. Species that are listed as rare (S1 S3) or historical in Ontario based on records kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough. C-4. Species whose populations appear to be experiencing substantial declines in Ontario. C-5. Species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are rare or uncommon in The Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon C-6. Species that are rare within The Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, even though they may not be provincially rare C-7. Species that are subjects of recovery programs C-8. Species considered important to The Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, based on recommendations from the Conservation Advisory Committee D. Animal Movement Corridors Includes amphibian and White-tailed Deer movement corridors amongst more general animal and plant movement corridors. 15 A. Jobes (Planning Biologist, OMNR, pers. comm. Feb. 2008) indicated that no thresholds would be developed for criterion A-9 in the expanded Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines under development since Wild Turkey is no longer of conservation concern in Ontario. 16 A. Jobes (Planning Biologist, OMNR, pers. comm. Feb. 2008) indicated that no thresholds would be developed for criterion A-10 in the expanded Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines under development. North-South Environmental Inc. page 96

112 6.5 Overview of Candidate Criteria and Draft Recommendations Recommendations for each criterion are presented below. Input and comments from the Town of Caledon Council, members of the public, Region of Peel and Town of Caledon staff, technical experts, and stakeholders received to date has been incorporated or addressed as deemed appropriate. These recommendations have also incorporated some additional research completed or data received over the course of this study. The overall recommendations for each criterion are presented in Table 8 below. More detail related to each of the criteria s recommendations is provided in Table 9. Where recommended thresholds differ between the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon this in indicated; in all other cases it can be assumed that the thresholds apply equally to both jurisdictions. Rationale and discussion related to each criterion (or group of criteria) is provided in Sections and Although comprehensive literature reviews for each criterion was outside the scope of this study, well-researched technical documents and known scientific sources have been reviewed and cited to the greatest extent possible along with the available data. Table 8: Summary of recommendations related to the candidate criteria for SWH. Recommendations apply equally to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon and unless specified otherwise SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended with a threshold Recommended without a threshold Not recommended A1. Deer wintering area A2. Colonial bird nesting sites (e.g., heronry, gull colony) A3. Waterfowl nesting habitat A4i. Migratory Landbird Stopover Areas REGION OF PEEL ONLY A4i. Migratory Landbird Stopover Areas TOWN OF CALEDON ONLY A4ii. Migratory Bat Stopover Areas A4iii. Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas REGION OF PEEL ONLY A4iii. Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas TOWN OF CALEDON ONLY A4iv. Migratory Waterfowl Stopover and/or Staging (Terrestrial) A4v. Migratory Waterfowl Stopover and/or Staging (Aquatic) North-South Environmental Inc. page 97

113 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended with a threshold Recommended without a threshold Not recommended A4vi. Migratory Shorebird Stopover Areas A5. Raptor wintering areas (i.e., used for feeding and/or roosting) A6. Snake hibernacula A7. Bat maternal roosts and hibernacula A8. Bullfrog concentration areas (see details under B8ii) A9. Wild Turkey winter range A10. Turkey Vulture summer roosting areas B1. Rare vegetation communities B2. Forests providing a high diversity of habitats (captured by significant woodlands) B3. Old-growth or mature forest stands (captured by significant woodlands) B4. Foraging areas with abundant mast (i.e., nut bearing trees) B5. Highly diverse areas B6. Cliffs and caves B7. Seeps and springs B8i. Amphibian breeding habitat - Forested sites (e.g., vernal pools) B8ii. Amphibian breeding habitat - Non-forested sites (e.g., marshes) B9. Turtle nesting habitat and turtle overwintering areas B10. Habitat for area-sensitive forest interior breeding bird species B11. Habitat for open country and early successional breeding bird species B12. Habitat for wetland breeding bird species B13i. Raptor nesting habitat - wetlands, ponds, and rivers B13ii. Raptor nesting habitat - woodland habitats North-South Environmental Inc. page 98

114 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended with a threshold Recommended without a threshold Not recommended B14. Mink, River Otter, Marten, and Fisher denning sites B15. Mineral licks C1. Species identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC which are not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario s Endangered Species Act. C2. Species identified as Special Concern based on Species at Risk in Ontario List that is periodically updated by OMNR. C3. Species that are listed as rare (S1 S3) or historical in Ontario based on records kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough. C4. Species whose populations appear to be experiencing substantial declines in Ontario. C5. Species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are rare or uncommon in the Regional Municipality of Peel / Town of Caledon. C6. Species that are rare within the Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, even though they may not be provincially rare. C7. Species that are subjects of recovery programs. C8. Species considered important to the Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, based on recommendations from a local Conservation Advisory Committee. D. Animal movement corridors North-South Environmental Inc. page 99

115 Table 9: Overview of consultant recommendations related to the proposed thresholds for significant wildlife habitat SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? A. SEASONAL CONCENTRATION AREAS A1. Deer Wintering Area Yes, with threshold Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Deer wintering areas in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon will be assessed and mapped by OMNR staff. According to OMNR, mapping will not be based on the traditional assessment methodology. Instead, it will be based on a detailed assessment of historic and recent motor vehicle accident data for Caledon in association with local expert knowledge. It is recommended that thresholds be based on the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) supplemented by information from: Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 2007) Breeding Birds of Ontario Vols. 1 & 2 (Peck and James 1983, 1987) Communications with OMNR and Conservation Authority staff Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? Yes (to be provided by OMNR) A2. Colonial Bird Nesting Sites (e.g., heronry, gull colony) Yes, with threshold Therefore, it is recommended that any nesting colonies of the following species be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Black-crowned Night-Heron, and Black Tern. In addition, it is recommended that habitats that support the following number of nests/pairs be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: Green Heron, 2; Common Tern, 5; Northern Rough-winged Swallow, 5; Bank Swallow 30; Cliff Swallow, 8; Barn Swallow 3; Sedge Wren, 3; and Marsh Wren, 3. No Note 1: Excluded areas include (a) actively used portions of recreational areas (e.g., sports fields, golf courses) and parks, and (b) lands permanently transformed for human services or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, piers, active pits and quarries). Note 2: If fewer than 5 naturally occurring Bank Swallow colonies exist in any of the jurisdictions within the Region of Peel (e.g., Town of Caledon), all colonies should be considered significant A3. Waterfowl Nesting Habitat Yes, with threshold The recommended thresholds for Region of Peel and Town of Caledon are based on ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) but incorporate additions to the species list. Therefore, it is recommended that SWH be defined as waterfowl nesting areas that support: No North-South Environmental Inc. page 100

116 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? a) Any combination of 3 or more nesting pairs of: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Redhead, Hooded Merganser, Common Merganser, and Ruddy Duck b) Any combination of 10 or more nesting pairs of listed species above, including Mallard Note: Waterfowl nesting areas generally correspond with upland habitats adjacent to marsh, swamp and shallow water ELC community classes, and generally extend out as far as 120 from the wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a cluster of 3 or more smaller wetlands(< 0.5 ha) within 150 m of each other. It is recommended that all natural areas be identified as SWH within: a. 2 km of Lake Ontario b. River and creek valleys within 5 km of Lake Ontario, and c. 500 m of a river valley, but within 5 km of Lake Ontario. A4i. Migratory Landbird Stopover Areas Region of Peel Yes, with threshold Town of Caledon No, not applicable Successional communities are also to be identified as SWH if they are: 5 ha in size and immediately on the lakeshore, or 10 ha in size and within any of the zones (a, b, c) identified above. Natural areas = all terrestrial and wetland communities as defined under the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al. 1998), as well as cultural woodlands and plantations. Successional areas = cultural savannahs, cultural thickets and cultural meadows. Excluded areas include (a) actively used portions of recreational areas (e.g., sports fields, golf courses) and parks, and (b) lands permanently transformed for human services or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, piers, active pits and quarries). Yes (sample mapping to be provided to the Region) A4ii. Migratory Bat Yes, without threshold Note 1: SWH designation is not intended to limit existing agricultural activities from continuing. Note 2: It is suggested that the City of Mississauga consider reviewing their Tree Permit By-law Number to regulate the cutting of trees within 2 km of the lakeshore more rigorously. There is insufficient information currently available to suggest a threshold. However, in the not too distant future the OMNR Wind Resource Atlas North-South Environmental Inc. page 101 No

117 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Stopover Areas A4iii.Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas A4iv.Migratory Waterfowl Stopover and/or Staging (Terrestrial) A4v. Migratory Waterfowl Stopover and/or Staging (Aquatic) Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Region of Peel Yes, without threshold Town of Caledon No, not applicable Yes, with threshold Yes, with threshold Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) ( will indicate areas considered important to bat migration. These areas should be considered candidate SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Further field studies will be required to confirm their significance. In the meantime, the protection of significant migratory bat stopover areas is probably accomplished by criterion A4i, at least along Lake Ontario. There is insufficient information currently available to suggest a threshold. It is therefore recommended that the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon defer to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) approach, or guidelines for Eco-region 7E (in preparation by OMNR), until more data is gathered/analyzed. These areas are likely covered by criterion A4i along Lake Ontario. Note: According to CVC, migratory butterfly congregations have been observed along the Lake Ontario shoreline (e.g., Lakeside Park and Rattray Marsh) during the fall. ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds (but incorporating 4 additional species) are recommended for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: annual aggregations (observed on a single day) of 100 individuals or more in any combination of the listed species. Listed species include: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, or Ringnecked Duck. Note1: Annual habitat use can be based on background information or field studies conducted over at least a two-year period. Note 2: SWH designation is not intended to limit existing agricultural activities from continuing, or preventing built infrastructure (e.g., sewage lagoons) from functioning as required. ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds are recommended for mainland portions of the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon (i.e., annual aggregations of 100 or more individuals (observed during a single day), in any combination, included on the Mainland species list). Nearshore waters of Lake Ontario within the globally significant The West End of Lake Ontario Important Bird Area (IBA) should automatically be designated as SWH. However, for nearshore waters of Lake Ontario east Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? No No No North-South Environmental Inc. page 102

118 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? of the IBA, it is recommended that areas that support annual aggregations of 250 or more individuals (observed during a single day), in any combination, included on the Nearshore species list be considered SWH. Mainland species list: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Green-winged Teal, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Hooded Merganser, Common Merganser. Nearshore species list: Brant, Canvasback, Redhead, Greater Scaup, Lesser Scaup, King Eider, Common Eider, Harlequin Duck, Surf Scoter, White-winged Scoter, Black Scoter, Long-tailed Duck, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Common Merganser, Red-breasted Merganser, Ruddy Duck, Horned Grebe, Red-necked Grebe. Note 1: Annual habitat use can be based on background information or field studies conducted over at least a two-year period. Note 2: SWH designation is not intended to limit existing agricultural activities from continuing or preventing built infrastructure (e.g., sewage lagoons) from functioning as required. Note 3: The nearshore waters of Lake Ontario are part of conservation authority jurisdiction under the Conservation Authorities Act and in an agreement with DFO for development planning review including municipal activities and approvals. It is recommended that sites that support annual aggregations of 75 individuals (observed on a single day during migration), of any combination of species, be considered SWH: A4vi Migratory Shorebird Stopover Areas Yes, with threshold Note 1: A site is defined as (a) a 100 m reach of shoreline (centered at any location), or (b) a habitat patch 0.2 ha in size (centered at any location). This is roughly equivalent to a circle with a 25 m radius or square with 45 m sides. Note 2: The determination of annual habitat use can be based on background information or field studies conducted over at least a two-year period. Note 3: These thresholds should be examined in the future and revised if necessary by consulting with local naturalist clubs and/or the Ontario Field Ornithologists. Note 4: The designation of SWH is not intended to limit the ability of existing, normal agricultural uses from continuing, or preventing existing municipal infrastructure (e.g., sewage lagoons, piers No North-South Environmental Inc. page 103

119 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? etc.) from functioning as required. Until information specific to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon becomes available, it is recommended that the provincial guidelines presented in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) be used in both jurisdictions. A5. Raptor Wintering Areas (i.e., used for feeding and/or roosting) Yes, with threshold Accordingly, it is recommended that open fields >20 ha in size adjacent to woodlands be considered candidate SWH. Open fields generally correspond with cultural meadows or abandoned agricultural lands. Smaller sites should also be considered if there is any evidence or reasonable possibility of regular winter raptor activity. Confirmed sites should be occupied at least 60% of winters (almost 2 out of every 3 years), and based on suggestions made by OMNR staff, include 2 or more species and at least 10 individuals of the following species: Northern Harrier, Red-tailed Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, or American Kestrel. Refer to Section to see how occurrence data can be collected. No Note 1: Any wintering sites used by Short-eared Owl (designated Special Concern in Ontario and Canada) should also be designated SWH. Note 2: SWH designation is not intended to limit the ability of existing, normal agricultural uses from continuing. A6. Snake Hibernacula Yes, with threshold It is recommended that sites that support the following conditions should be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Thresholds are based on ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) and supplemented by Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas data. 10 or more Eastern Gartersnakes, or 5 or more or DeKay s Brownsnakes, or 2 or more of the following species: Ring-necked Snake, Smooth Greensnake, Northern Watersnake, and Red-bellied Snake, or 2 or more of the above species. No Note 1: Foundations of buildings in active use should be exempt. Any significant hibernacula associated with buildings/structures should however be considered for protection through some type of stewardship or mitigation measures. Note 2: Significant snake hibernacula associated with existing municipal infrastructure should be North-South Environmental Inc. page 104

120 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA A7. Bat Maternal Roosts and Hibernacula A8. Bullfrog Concentration Areas Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Yes, with threshold Yes, but will be covered by criterion B8ii Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) managed in such a way that maintains the function of the facility, but reduces its potential impact. Until information specific to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon becomes available, it is recommended that the provincial guidelines presented in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) be used in both jurisdictions. Therefore, the following numbers of bats should be considered significant at maternity colonies and winter roosts, respectively: Big Brown Bat, 30, 30; Little Brown Bat, 100, 50; Eastern Pipistrelle, 10, 20; Silver-haired Bat, 10, N/A; Long-eared Bat, 10, 20; Small-footed Bat, 10, all sites. However, with the discovery of White Nose Syndrome in neighbouring New York State in 2007, OMNR staff must be contacted to see if more restrictive thresholds are warranted. If so, these should supersede those in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Note: The Natural Heritage Information Centre (OMNR) will be providing hibernacula habitat mapping in the future. However, due to its sensitive nature, specific location information will not be available. It is possible that larger patches will be shown on the MNR Wind Resource Atlas representing candidate SWH. It must also be understood that many hibernacula have not been found, therefore any known cave or crevice ecosites or old mine shafts should be considered candidate SWH and evaluated as such. The thresholds recommended for the ORM (OMNR, 2007) will be incorporated in criterion B8ii (Amphibian breeding habitat non-forested sites). That is, any sites supporting breeding Bullfrogs in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon should be considered SWH. Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? No Yes, but will be part of criterion B8ii. A9. Wild Turkey Winter Range No, see text in Section No threshold will be recommended. Wild Turkey is no longer of conservation concern in Ontario, the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Not required A10.Turkey Vulture Summer Roosting Areas Yes, without threshold None. Insufficient information currently available to suggest a threshold. No North-South Environmental Inc. page 105

121 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) B. RARE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES or SPECIALIZED HABITATS FOR WILDLIFE B1. Rare Vegetation Communities Yes, with threshold All communities ranked as S1, S2 or S3 by NHIC (as per Bakowsky 1996) Targeted vegetation communities ranked S3S4, S4 or S5 in Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E- 4 in the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint (Henson and Brodribb 2005), or identified as rare on the ORM in the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a): Dry Fresh White Pine Red Pine Coniferous Forest Type (FOC1-2) Dry Fresh White Pine Sugar Maple Forest Ecosite (FOM 2-2) Dry Fresh White Pine Oak Mixed Forest Type (FOM2-1) Moist Fresh Hemlock Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM 6-1) Dry Fresh Red Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-1) Dry Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-2) Dry-Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 1-4) Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-2) Dry-Fresh Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-3) Fresh Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD 6-2) Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh Type (MAM3-6) White Cedar Conifer Organic Swamp Type (SWC3-2) Willow Organic Thicket Swamp Type (SWT3-2) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? No (available mapping from NHIC and conservation authorities incomplete) All bog and fen wetland communities (considered rare in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon) Note 1: The S3S4, S4 and S5 ranked woodland ELC Vegetation communities listed above are also captured by the significant woodlands criteria for significant communities (see Section ). Note 2: The minimum size for rare vegetation communities is 0.5 ha. B2. Forests Providing a High Diversity of Habitats Yes, but will be covered by significant woodlands It is assumed that all forests providing a high diversity of habitats (as described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) will be captured by the suite of significant woodlands criteria (e.g., size/interior, proximity to a watercourse, and presence of significant habitats and/or species) even though the diversity criterion itself has not been recommended. Possible at coarse ELC Community series level. Note: See Sections 5.3 and of this report for more details. North-South Environmental Inc. page 106

122 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? B3. Old-Growth or Mature Forest Stands Yes, but will be covered by significant woodlands It is assumed that all old-growth and mature forests will be captured by the significant woodlands criteria for old-growth and size. Note: See Sections and of this report for more details. No It has been assumed that most forests providing foraging areas with abundant mast (i.e., nuts like acorns and fruit bearing shrubs) will be captured by the significant woodlands criterion for size/interior, as well as the criterion for old growth (see Section ). B4. Foraging Areas with Abundant Mast Yes, with threshold To capture some areas that may not be captured as significant woodlands, we are also recommending any ELC community that is: FOD 1 (Dry-Fresh Oak Deciduous Forest Ecosite), FOD 2 (Dry-Fresh Oak-Maple-Hickory Deciduous Forest Ecosite) or FOD 9 (Fresh-Moist Oak-Maple-Hickory Deciduous Forest Ecosite) also be considered SWH under this criterion. Potentially once ELC Ecosite mapping is completed for the Region of Peel B5. Highly Diverse Areas Yes, with threshold Note: See Sections 5.3 and of this report for a more comprehensive rationale. The top 5% most diverse habitat patches in the Region of Peel (a) in the Rural System (i.e., the Town of Caledon) and (b) in the Urban System (i.e., the Cities of Brampton and Mississauga). Diversity was determined by the number of ELC community types (at the Community Series level) per habitat patch. Habitat patches were defined as continuous natural areas (i.e., all woodland FOD, FOC, FOM; wetland MA, SW, FE; and successional community polygon types CUT, CUS, CUP, CUW) not separated by arterial or collector roads or built-up areas by more than 20 m gaps. Yes (sample mapping provided to the Region of Peel) Note: Cultural meadows (CUM) were excluded because of the difficulty in distinguishing them from active agricultural areas in air photo interpretation. All agricultural areas (AGR) were excluded as well. B6. Cliffs and Caves Yes, with threshold Any cliff, talus, crevice or cave community (per ELC, Lee et al. 1998) ranked as S1, S2 or S3 by the NHIC. Note 1: No minimum size threshold is recommended. Note 2: Areas where quarry licenses are active are excluded. No (existing mapping from NHIC is incomplete) North-South Environmental Inc. page 107

123 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA B7. Seeps and Springs Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Yes, with threshold Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Site specific confirmation of presence through any of the following: Visual confirmation of surface discharge or springs Groundwater investigations or detailed vegetation assessments (e.g., confirmed presence of plant species known to be associated with seepage areas in southern Ontario such as Carex scabrata). Areas with red or rust coloured stains on the soil surface (these are usually precipitates of iron hydroxides indicating areas of groundwater discharge). Locating patches of ground that are free of ice and snow in winter and where there is evidence of seepage or springs, or where there are previously confirmed records for seeps or springs. Presence of marl (i.e., precipitates of carbonates in solution where groundwater pathways go through areas of concentrated dissolved solids and come to the surface) The above site analysis needs to be completed in conjunction with evidence collected through background or current site-specific studies that concludes the seep or spring provides habitat for or otherwise supports other SWH criteria (as identified in this study). e.g., Deer Wintering Areas, Wild Turkey Winter Range, Rare Vegetation Communities (mostly indirectly), Highly Diverse Areas, Amphibian Breeding Habitat (indirectly), and Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern. Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? No Note: In addition to protection of the specific seep or spring zone, there needs to be consideration for protection of the hydrologic dynamics within the groundwater catchment area in the Official Plan policies and/or supporting guidelines. B8i. Amphibian Breeding Habitat Forested Sites (e.g., vernal pools) Yes, with threshold Based mostly on standards developed for the ORM (OMNR, 2007), it is recommended that sites that support the following conditions be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Breeding populations of 2 or more listed species in Group A with a combined total of at least 40 individuals present. A combined total of at least 30 individuals from any species listed in Group B (i.e., species that tend to behave more like vernal pool obligates, at least in Peel Region). All breeding populations of Four-toed Salamander regardless of number of individuals No North-South Environmental Inc. page 108

124 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? Group A: Red-spotted Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Jefferson Salamander complex hybrids (where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates), Spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Ambystoma salamander genus, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, and Wood Frog. Group B: Blue-spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Jefferson Salamander complex or hybrids where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates, and Wood Frog. In addition, management recommendations in Conserving Pool-breeding Amphibians (Calhoun and Klemens 2002) should be followed (e.g., protect and maintain pool hydrology and water quality). Note 1: It is assumed that for every male frog heard calling a female frog is also present. That is, if 5 male frogs are heard calling, it is assumed 10 individuals are present. Note 2: In order to be sure how many individuals are present, field surveys must be conducted in a seasonally appropriate manner. Timing is critical. Refer to Section for more information. Note 3: Larvae/egg masses numbers cannot reliably reveal how many individuals are present at a site. Documenting adults at the right time of year, under the right weather conditions, and using the right methodology should be the priority. Refer to Section for more information. Note 4: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence / Canadian Shield population of the Western Chorus Frog, whose geographic range includes the Region of Peel, was designated Threatened by COSEWIC in April It is addressed under Criterion C1. B8ii. Amphibian Breeding Habitat Non-Forested Sites (e.g., marshes) Yes, with threshold Based mostly on standards developed for the ORM (OMNR, 2007), it is recommended that sites that support the following conditions be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Breeding populations of 2 or more listed species in Group A with a combined total of at least 40 individuals present. A combined total of at least 30 individuals from any species listed in Group B (i.e., species that tends to behave more like vernal pool obligates, at least in Peel Region). All breeding populations of Bullfrog regardless of number of individuals All breeding populations of Mudpuppy regardless of number of individuals No North-South Environmental Inc. page 109

125 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? In addition, wetland hydrology and water quality must be maintained. Protection must also be extended to adjacent upland habitats to appropriately accommodate the terrestrial portion of their life cycles. The size of the area protected must reflect the habitat requirements of the listed species present. Group A: Red-spotted Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Jefferson Salamander complex hybrids (where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates), Spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Ambystoma salamander genus, American Toad, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, Green Frog, Pickerel Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Mink Frog, and Wood Frog. Group B: Blue-spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Jefferson Salamander complex or hybrids where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates, and Wood Frog. Note 1: It is assumed that for every male frog or toad heard calling a female frog is also present. That is, if 5 male frogs or toads are heard calling, it is assumed 10 individuals are present. Note 2: In order to be sure how many individuals are present, field surveys must be conducted in a seasonally appropriate manner. Timing is critical. Refer to Section for more information. Note 3: Larvae/egg masses numbers cannot reliably reveal how many individuals are present at a site. Documenting adults at the right time of year, under the right weather conditions, and using the right methodology should be the priority. Refer to Section for more information. Note 4: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence / Canadian Shield population of the Western Chorus Frog, whose geographic range includes the Region of Peel, was designated Threatened by COSEWIC in April It is addressed under Criterion C1. B9. Turtle Nesting Habitat and Turtle Overwintering Areas Yes, with threshold It is recommended that the thresholds developed for the ORM (OMNR, 2007), i.e., breeding or overwintering presence of 5 or more pairs/individuals of Snapping Turtle or Midland Painted Turtle, apply to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. It is also recommended that the documentation required be expanded to include turtle nests, not just pairs. No Note: Snapping Turtle was designated Special Concern nationally in Dec It s may receive North-South Environmental Inc. page 110

126 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA B10. Habitat for Area- Sensitive Forest Interior Breeding Bird Species B11. Habitat for Open Country and Early Successional Breeding Bird Species Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Yes, with threshold Yes, with threshold Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) similar Species at Risk status in Ontario in Northern Map Turtle was removed from the list since it is designated Special Concern in Ontario and is therefore included under criterion C2. The recommended threshold is based on: 1. an analysis of the habitat requirements of area-sensitive forest interior species occurring in Peel, as well as forest interior patch size, and 2. the presence of species listed in the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). Therefore, it is recommended that mature forests (i.e. greater than 60 years of age) with interior patch size 4 ha be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. In addition, habitats in either jurisdiction (including plantations) that support 3 or more listed species with probable or confirmed breeding evidence should be considered significant. Listed Species include: Hairy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Brown Creeper, Winter Wren, Veery, Northern Parula, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, Ovenbird, and Scarlet Tanager. Note 1: Whip-poor-will, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, and Blue-headed Vireo were removed from the list since they also occur along forest edges and openings. Hairy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Brown Creeper, Winter Wren, and Black-throated Blue Warbler were added to the list. Note 2: Small inclusions of younger forest should not be excluded when analyzing forest interior patch size. Open country habitats 10 ha, not actively farmed for 5 years and with confirmed habitat utilization by: at least 4 area-sensitive species from Group A, or 3 area-sensitive species from Group A and 4 or more species from Group B. Group A: Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, Grasshopper Sparrow, Northern Harrier, Savannah Sparrow, Upland Sandpiper, Western Meadowlark, Group B: American Kestrel, Brown Thrasher, Clay-colored Sparrow, Eastern Bluebird, Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? Yes, forest interior patch size information is available, but age may need confirmation. Also, site-specific survey work required to confirm whether smaller forest fragments exceed species thresholds. No North-South Environmental Inc. page 111

127 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? Eastern Kingbird, Field Sparrow, Horned Lark, Sedge Wren, Vesper Sparrow, Willow Flycatcher. B12. Habitat for Wetland Breeding Bird Species Yes, with threshold ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds are recommended for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: 5 nesting pairs of any combination of species from Group A, or 4 nesting pairs of any combination of species from Group B. Group A: Common Loon, Pied-billed Grebe, American Bittern, Virginia Rail, Common Moorhen, Sora, American Coot, Sandhill Crane, Wilson s Snipe, Wilson s Phalarope, Black Tern, Marsh Wren, & Sedge Wren. No Group B: Black Tern, Marsh Wren, and Sedge Wren. B13i. Raptor Nesting Habitat (Raptors associated with wetlands, ponds, and rivers) Yes, with threshold ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds are recommended for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: the presence of one or more active nests of Northern Harrier or Osprey. Note: Short-eared Owl was removed from the list of species considered since it is designated Special Concern in Ontario and Canada. It is included under criterion C2 & C3. No B13ii. Raptor Nesting Habitat (Raptors associated with woodland habitats) Yes, with threshold ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds are recommended for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, (i.e., the presence of one or more active nests from listed species). Listed species include: Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper s Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Northern Saw-whet Owl, Barred Owl, and Long-eared Owl. Note: Eastern Screech-Owl was left off the list because of its common status. No B14. Mink, River Otter, Marten, and Fisher Denning Sites Yes, with threshold Based on available distribution and occurrence data, it is recommended that the following supporting habitats be considered SWH: All River Otter, Marten and Fisher den sites (i.e., a min.10 x 10 m area around the den site); Mink den sites in natural areas with low levels of disturbance (i.e., a min.10 x 10 m area around the den site) No North-South Environmental Inc. page 112

128 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? With respect to Mink and River Otter, it is also recommended that as much wetland and undeveloped, undisturbed shoreline is protected as possible by establishing a 30 m nodevelopment buffer from the shoreline for a distance of up to 500 m in either direction upstream and downstream for Mink and 2 km in either direction upstream and downstream for River Otter. For Fisher, it is recommended that as many large blocks of contiguous mid-aged to mature forest as possible surrounding the den site is protected. Note: Marten is not found in the planning area. B15. Mineral Licks No, not applicable No thresholds are suggested as this criterion is primarily meant for Moose and not considered applicable to the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. No C. HABITAT FOR SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN CRITERIA C1. Species Identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC which are not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario s Endangered Species Act. Yes, with threshold The habitat for any species identified to be nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC that is not identified as an Endangered or Threatened species on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List under Ontario s Endangered Species Act should be designated as SWH. As of April 2009, species in this category that occur or have occurred within the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon include: Rapids Clubtail, Western Chorus Frog, Common Nighthawk, Chimney Swift, Red-headed Woodpecker, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Golden-winged Warbler, Canada Warbler, and Lake Sturgeon. Requirements for habitat protection to be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with OMNR. Note: Does not include species that have been designated Threatened or Endangered by OMNR. These species are protected under Ontario s Endangered Species Act and Section (significant habitat of endangered and threatened species) of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). Specific point locations cannot be mapped due to data sensitivity; generalized 1 km squares can be mapped. North-South Environmental Inc. page 113

129 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA C2. Species Identified as Special Concern based on Species at Risk in Ontario list that is Periodically updated by OMNR. C3. Species that are listed as Rare (S1 S3) or Historical in Ontario based on records kept by the NHIC Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Yes, with threshold Yes, with threshold Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) Per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), the habitat for any species designated Special Concern according to the Species at Risk in Ontario List should be identified and protected as SWH. Habitat requirements would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Note: Species of conservation concern do not include species that have been designated Threatened or Endangered by OMNR. These species are protected under Ontario s Endangered Species Act and Section (significant habitat of endangered and threatened species) of the Provincial Policy Statement( 2005). Per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), habitat for any species listed as S1, S2 and S3 (based on the records kept by the NHIC), should be identified and protected as SWH. Habitat requirements would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It is recommended that substantial declines be defined as significant declines at the p <0.10 (90%) confidence level. Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? Specific point locations cannot be mapped due to data sensitivity; generalized 1 km squares can. In addition, some species (e.g., snakes) cannot be named to protect the location of their habitat. Specific point locations cannot be mapped due to data sensitivity; generalized 1 km squares can be mapped. C4. Species whose populations appear to be experiencing substantial declines in Ontario. Yes, without threshold Breeding Birds Upon careful review of existing information sources such as the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Forest Bird Monitoring Program (FBMP), Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP), and the recently completed Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, the consultant team did not feel comfortable putting forward a threshold. Each had deficiencies or biases. Other Wildlife Groups Calling frog and toad population trend data gathered as part of the Marsh Monitoring Program, Frogwatch Ontario, Amphibian Road Call Count, and Backyard Frog Survey, could be utilized if deemed suitable. There is no Ontario-wide population trend data available for other wildlife groups in Ontario. No North-South Environmental Inc. page 114

130 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA C5. Species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are Rare or Uncommon in the Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon. C6. Species that are Rare within the Regional Municipality of Peel/Town of Caledon, even though they may not be Provincially Rare. Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Yes, without threshold Plants - Yes, with threshold Wildlife - Yes, without threshold Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) An adequate analysis of what species should be considered needs to been undertaken before a threshold can be recommended for the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Plants: It is recommended that Varga et al., 2005 be used to determine what species are rare in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Wildlife: It is recommended that a composite TRCA/CVC list be prepared. However, CVC only has a list of species of conservation concern for birds, and that list is dated. Note: In addition, the significant species lists in Appendix A of the ORMCP TP6 should apply to areas on the ORM and should be considered during development of a wildlife list. Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? No No This criterion applies to species that are designated as Threatened, Endangered or Extirpated by COSEWIC but not Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered in Ontario. In the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon as of April 2009, this applies to: C7. Species that are subjects of Recovery Programs Yes Rapids Clubtail, the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence - Canadian Shield population of Western Chorus Frog, Common Nighthawk, Whip-poor-will, Chimney Swift, Olive-sided Flycatcher, and Canada Warbler. Habitats that support any of these species in the Region or Town should be considered SWH. In addition, if any other species are subject to other recovery programs (such as Black Duck), habitats for these species should also be considered SWH. No Note: COSEWIC and OMNR web sites should be checked regularly to ensure that the list of species that qualify for protection under criterion C7 is up-to-date. North-South Environmental Inc. page 115

131 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) CRITERIA C8. Species considered important to the Region of Peel/Town of Caledon, based on recommendations from a Local Conservation Advisory Committee Recommended for Peel and/or Caledon? Yes Recommended Thresholds (where applicable) No list of species is being recommended since no Conservation Advisory Committee currently exists in Peel or Caledon. However, this criterion is recommended should a list of species ever be developed for the Region or Town. Note: The term Conservation Advisory Committee was taken verbatim from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). It generically describes a committee with membership of knowledgeable naturalists familiar with conditions and biota in the jurisdiction. Some Environmental Advisory Committees possibly fall into this category although typically their role is to review planning submissions and they may not have the necessary field knowledge, or mandate to develop such specific lists. It is expected that a Conservation Advisory Committee would be aware of and consult status lists prepared by local conservation authorities, but would have the knowledge base to refine the use of such lists. Can it be mapped on a jurisdictional-wide level with existing information? No D. ANIMAL MOVEMENT CORRIDORS Includes amphibian and White-tailed Deer movement corridors as well as more general animal and plant movement corridors. Yes Thresholds for this criterion need to be developed in accordance with the Region s Greenlands System framework for both the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon and should incorporate three scales of corridors, as follows: Primary (e.g., Niagara Escarpment) Secondary (e.g., major river valleys) Tertiary corridors (e.g., hedgerows) Note: While primary and secondary corridors can likely be identified and mapped at the municipalwide scale, tertiary corridors will likely need to be identified through site-specific studies, although guidelines for their identification could be addressed in policy. Yes, but without thresholds. ACRONYMS USED IN TABLE: COSEWIC = Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada; COSSARO = Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario; CVC = Credit Valley Conservation; NHIC = Natural Heritage Information Centre; ORM = Oak Ridges Moraine; OMNR = Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; ORMCP TP2 = Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper 2 Significant Wildlife Habitat (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a); ORMCP TP6 = Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper 6 Identification of Significant Portions of Habitat for Endangered, Rare and Threatened Species (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007b) North-South Environmental Inc. page 116

132 6.5.1 Criterion A1: Deer Wintering Area Deer wintering areas are sheltered places that White-tailed Deer seek out during the winter months to avoid deep snow conditions. This allows them to move more easily, avoid predators and provides them with easier access to food sources under the snow. However, snow depths in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon are not generally deep enough to force them to yard in the traditional sense, as occurs along the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. It is in these areas of greater snow depths and more severe winters that deer wintering areas are most significant. Nonetheless, deer are considered an important wild species that are part of the southern Ontario landscape that require both protection and management in an increasingly urbanized landscape. In terms of their habitat preferences, deer are fairly flexible and have adapted well to the fragmented landscape of southern Ontario. The agricultural lands provide easily accessible sources of food for deer all year-round (e.g., leftover corn and grains), which, combined with the absence of natural predators in southern Ontario, has resulted in a robust deer population. However deer are not completely safe in areas like Peel and Caledon, where one of the main threats to deer is the vast network of busy roads, which present potential hazards to both deer and drivers. In terms of evaluating deer winter yards for SWH, as with so many of the criteria presented, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) provides no definitive thresholds since it is understood that these will vary within each jurisdiction depending on the landscape and the local status of the deer population. Instead, it suggests considering factors such as: relative importance of the yard to the local deer population, population size supported by the site, and size of the site. The emphasis of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) appears to be on the need for protected wintering areas in central and northern Ontario, while the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) does not address this criterion specifically. Deer wintering areas have been traditionally identified using deer stratum categories (per Buss et al. 1997). Alternately, thresholds such as areas where at least 25 deer / sq. km are observed congregating over winter as suggested in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) could be used. Deer wintering areas are typically identified and mapped by the OMNR but current mapping does not exist for the Region of Peel (M. Heaton, Biologist, Aurora District OMNR, pers. comm. Mar. 2008). However, at least four deer wintering areas are known in the Region. The approximate location of the deer wintering areas are as follows (M. Heaton, Biologist, Aurora District OMNR, pers. comm. Mar. 2008). Airport Road to Centreville Creek Road south of Hwy 9 to Patterson Road Bolton Resource Management Tract (Humber Station Road north of King to Castlederg Side Road) Mississauga Road around Olde Baseline Road Credit River valley between Hwy 7 and River Drive in Georgetown (only a small portion is in Peel Region) North-South Environmental Inc. page 117

133 Recently, OMNR staff has indicated that deer wintering areas will be mapped, but that they will not be based on the traditional methodology mentioned above, but rather on an assessment of historic and recent motor vehicle accident data supplemented by local expert knowledge (M. Heaton, Biologist, Aurora District OMNR, pers. comm. May 2008). However, the larger question is whether deer wintering areas warrant protection at all as SWH in the Region of Peel and/or Town of Caledon. There was significant discussion of this issue at both the Municipal Staff Working Group/Technical Advisory Team workshop on March 27, 2008, and the Stakeholder s Workshop on April 7, 2008, some arguing that deer are part of this landscape and should have protection, while others consider them overly abundant and in need of management rather than protection. Representatives of the agricultural community did not express a dislike for deer, but mentioned the substantial costs they incur in trying to keep them from causing serious damage to some of their crops. Given the fact that OMNR is committed to mapping deer wintering areas in the Town of Caledon and the remainder of Peel, it is recommended that the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon allow OMNR to fulfill its own obligation with respect to identification of SWH for deer wintering areas, and apply whatever standards are produced. OMNR staff is also well aware of local public opinion as it relates to the protection/management of White-tailed Deer and will likely factor in these concerns. Therefore, it is suggested that the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon will work cooperatively with OMNR towards improving road safety in areas where deer abundance and corridor movement is prominent. For example, increased harvest opportunities could be encouraged to address population management issues when local deer populations are known to be high and causing motor vehicle accidents Criterion A2: Colonial Bird Nesting Sites Colonial bird nesting sites are places where some bird species congregate to nest. Examples include heronries, gull and tern colonies, etc. Colonial bird nesting sites should be considered SWH because colonial bird nesting sites occur infrequently in the landscape and potential impacts to these sites would therefore have a proportionately larger impact on the local population. The suggested thresholds in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and Confirmed SWH in the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) were used as the foundation from which to consider thresholds for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. In fact, the ORM thresholds were especially relevant since approximately 28% of the Town of Caledon is occupied by the ORM. Guidelines, currently being prepared by OMNR for Ecoregions 6E and 7E were unavailable for review. This information was supplemented by distribution/occurrence/species account information presented in the new Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 2007) as well as nidiology (i.e., nesting biology) information contained in Breeding Birds of Ontario Nidiology and Distribution Volume 1 and Volume 2 by Peck and James (1983, 1987). Additional personal communications from OMNR helped finalize the thresholds. North-South Environmental Inc. page 118

134 One of the main points of consideration when developing the thresholds was the recognition of the differing amounts of natural cover present in the Town of Caledon vs. the City of Brampton or City of Mississauga. Where warranted, lower thresholds were considered in areas of low natural cover. It is also worth mentioning that it is not clear how the provincial and ORM thresholds were developed. Although it seems certain that the thresholds were closely scrutinized by recognized experts in the field, there is no rationale presented supporting the thresholds. It is possible that some of the thresholds were based on the best available information and personal experience. One potential source of information was not used in this exercise. Due to time restrictions, OMNR wetland evaluation data was not accessed to see if it might provide insights into the appropriateness of the thresholds selected. However, it is very possible that little information would have been gleaned. The following thresholds are recommended for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. More detailed explanations of the thresholds are presented following these thresholds. It is recommended that thresholds be based on the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), supplemented by information from: Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 2007) Breeding Birds of Ontario Vols. 1 & 2 (Peck and James 1983, 1987) Communications with OMNR staff Therefore, it is recommended that any nesting colonies of the following species be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Black-crowned Night-Heron, and Black Tern. In addition, it is recommended that habitats that support the following number of nests/pairs be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: Green Heron, 2; Common Tern, 5; Northern Rough-winged Swallow, 5; Bank Swallow 30; Cliff Swallow, 8; Barn Swallow 3; Sedge Wren, 3; and Marsh Wren, 3. Note 1: Excluded areas include (a) actively used portions of recreational areas (e.g., sports fields, golf courses) and parks, (b) lands permanently transformed for human services or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, piers, active pits and quarries). Note 2: If fewer than 5 naturally occurring Bank Swallow colonies exist in any of the jurisdictions within the Region of Peel (e.g., Town of Caledon), all colonies should be considered significant. The following text presents the rationale for the thresholds selected. Despite being a colonial nester, no threshold was recommended for Double-crested Cormorant for the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Based on the lack of suitable breeding habitat North-South Environmental Inc. page 119

135 present and the fact that other large traditionally used colonies are located nearby (e.g., Hamilton Harbour, Leslie Street Spit in Toronto) this species is not a likely breeder. In fact, it does not appear that this species has ever been documented nesting with the Region of Peel (Peck and James 1983; Cadman et al. 2007). If this species were to increase in population, there is some chance that less preferred habitats will be considered for nesting by this species. If this were to take place, colonial nesting sites could be considered for significance. The provincial threshold for Great Blue Heron is 25 nests (OMNR 2000). The threshold established for the ORM is five nests (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). According to the second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas there were only 14 records for Peel Region. Of these, six were from the Town of Caledon, eight were from the City of Brampton, and none were from the City of Mississauga. In addition only 11 of the 14 contained information on the number of active nests. In Caledon, the average number of nests within each heronry was 7.6 (2, 3, 6, 10, and 17). In the City of Brampton, the average was 35 (12, 15, 22, 48, 55, and 55). Based on the fact that so few nesting locations have been documented in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, all nesting locations of this species, regardless of size (i.e., number of nests), should be considered significant. OMNR is conducting fieldwork in 2008 to update information on heronries. Results of the fieldwork to date yielded no heronries in the City of Mississauga and only 1 in the City of Brampton. Survey work in Caledon should be available by late summer/early fall 2008, and could be used to supplement existing information (M. Heaton pers. comm. 2008). These preliminary results support the recommendation that all heronries be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Although the Great Egret is not likely to occur in the Region of Peel or the Town of Caledon, at least when considering the results of the most recent Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Peck 2007a), any nesting should be considered significant. Although almost certainly under documented, only three multiple nestings of Green Heron were recorded during second breeding bird atlas (14, 2, 2 respectively) (Sandilands 2007a). Two nests was set as the threshold for Peel Region and Town of Caledon due to the apparent rarity of multiple nestings. Despite the fact that the Black-crowned Night-Heron does not appear to have ever been documented nesting in Peel Region or Town of Caledon (Weseloh 2007a; Peck and James 1983), it nests nearby in Hamilton and Toronto, and it is considered to be provincially significant (NHIC 2007). As such any confirmed nesting by this species, especially away from Lake Ontario where it occurs even less frequently, should be considered significant. The Ring-billed Gull is a very abundant breeding bird along the Great Lakes shorelines. During , 155,000 pairs were recorded along Lake Ontario (Weseloh 2007b). Despite being so abundant, its nesting locations in the Golden Horseshoe are relatively restricted. The largest nearby colonies were at the Leslie Street Spit, Toronto (59,000) and Hamilton Harbour (24,000). There was only one breeding record for this species in the Region of Peel during the second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas and breeding evidence was considered only possible. Apparently no confirmed breeding has ever been documented from the Region of Peel (Peck and James, North-South Environmental Inc. page 120

136 1983; Weseloh, 2007b). For these reasons and the fact virtually no suitable natural breeding habitat exists within the boundaries of Peel or Caledon, no threshold was put forward for the species. Although not as populous as the Ring-billed Gull in southern Ontario, the Herring Gull is a relatively common breeding species. In 2003, the total for Lake Ontario was 1,300 pairs at 47 sites (Weseloh, 2007c). It is typically a colonial species but often nests individually as well (Peck and James 1983). According to the second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas conducted between 2001 and 2005 (Cadman et al. 2007), there were no documented nestings by this species in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. There also does not seem to be any documented nests for the Region of Peel according to the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Peck and James 1983). Given its past nesting history in the Region of Peel, or lack thereof, and general lack of suitable nesting habitat, no threshold was put forward for this species. If any colonies are initiated in the future, consideration should be given to establishing thresholds for this species, especially if the site is used on a regular basis and is natural in origin. The Great Black-backed Gull is a rare nesting species in Ontario. In fact, the first breeding record was in 1954, and the first multiple nests at any Great Lakes site was in The Great Black-backed Gull showed possible breeding evidence along the Lake Ontario shoreline in the City of Mississauga during the first breeding bird atlas ( ) but not during the second ( ) (Weseloh 2007d). Based on its general rarity as a nester in the Great Lakes and Peel Region in particular, no threshold is recommended for the species for the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Should it begin nesting on a regular basis in the future (i.e. twice every 10 years), any nesting sites, assuming they are in a natural setting, could be identified and protected as SWH under the rare species (i.e., S1 to S3) category. In southern Ontario, Caspian Tern colonies are almost entirely restricted to shoreline areas of the Great Lakes, or large inland bodies of water like Lake Simcoe (Weseloh 2007e). It almost always nests with Ring-billed Gulls. The Caspian Tern showed possible breeding evidence along the Lake Ontario shoreline in the City of Mississauga during the first breeding bird atlas ( ) but not during the second ( ) (Weseloh 2007d). Prior to the first breeding bird atlas, it had not been recorded nesting the Region of Peel. Based on the fact that little suitable breeding habitat exists within the Region of Peel, including the Lake Ontario lakefront, and that it usually nests with other colonial bird species such as Ring-billed Gull, Herring Gull and Common Tern (Peck and James, 1983), no threshold was recommended for this species for the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Should it begin nesting on a regular basis in the future, any nesting sites, assuming they are in a natural setting, could be identified and protected as SWH under the rare species (i.e., S1 to S3) category. In Ontario, Black Tern colonies usually number less that 20 pairs (Weseloh 2007f). According to Peck and James (1983), the average size of 102 estimated colonies was nine nests, but the figure was thought to be too low, given the loose nature of their aggregations and difficulty finding nests. Given the fact that this species has a provincial conservation status of S3B, any nesting habitat, regardless of the size of the colony (i.e., number of nesting pairs), would merit designation as SWH under the category that includes provincially rare species. If however, its status was raised to S3S4B or S4B in the future, a number lower than the provincial threshold (10 nests) would seem reasonable since it appears to occur very rarely in the Region of Peel. North-South Environmental Inc. page 121

137 There was no documented breeding evidence during the second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas and only possible breeding in the first breeding bird atlas. Similar to the Caspian Tern, Common Tern colonies are typically found along the Great Lakes Shorelines, although they may also occur inland, but usually in association with larger water bodies like Lake Simcoe, the Kawartha Lakes and Ottawa River as examples (Moore and Weseloh 2007). Although usually colonial, they occasionally nest solitarily. The suggested provincial threshold for the species is 100 nests. This seems high since according to Peck and James (1983), of the 86 colonies on record at the time, the average number of nests was approximately 46. It is not clear if this species has ever nested in the Town of Caledon but possible nesting occurred in the Region of Peel (along Lake Ontario) during the first atlas but not the second. Given the limited amount of suitable breeding habitat in Peel, this species will likely always remain a rare and irregular breeder. As a result, a relatively low threshold of five nests was considered appropriate for the Region of Peel. However for it to be considered significant, it should be demonstrated that the site is used on a regular basis, at least twice every 10 years. Similar to other aerial insectivores, the Northern Rough-winged Swallow has experienced a statistically significant population decline since the first breeding bird atlas was conducted in Ontario between 1980 and Although not as severe a decline as other swallow species such as the Bank Swallow, the probability of detecting this species declined 28.4% across Ontario, and 20.7% and 10.7% in the Lake Simcoe-Rideau and Carolinian atlas regions respectively (which includes the Region of Peel). The Northern Rough-winged Swallow does not normally excavate its own burrow. According to Sandilands (2007b), the greatest limiting factor for this species in southern Ontario is the availability of nest sites. To help reduce declines, disturbance at existing sites should be minimized. The provincial threshold for designation is 10 nests (OMNR 2000). Therefore, to facilitate appropriate protection, it is recommended that colonies containing five or more nests should be considered significant, especially since relative abundance in Peel Region is relatively low compared with the rest of southern Ontario, south of the Canadian Shield. A similar management approach as that described for Bank Swallow should be considered. According to the second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Cadman et al. 2007), conducted between 2001 and 2005, the Bank Swallow has witnessed significant declines since the first breeding bird atlas period ( ) (Sandilands 2007c). Across Ontario as a whole, the probability of observation declined 45%. South of the Canadian Shield (including the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon) the decline was approximately 30%. It is not clear why this species and many other aerial insectivores are declining so significantly, but reducing disturbance at remaining nesting areas may be one of the few things that can be done on their nesting grounds to help slow declines. The provincial (OMNR 2000) and ORM (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) threshold for significance was set at 100 active nests. During the second atlas, atlassers were asked to report colonies of 100 nests or more. Seventy-two colonies exceeded this threshold in Ontario (Sandilands 2007c). This was considered surprisingly low (D. Sutherland pers. comm. 2008). Of these 72 colonies, only eight were at natural sites (e.g., bluffs). In the Region of Peel, only five colonies were reported. Of those, three colonies were in Caledon (active nests = 100, 23, 82), one was in the City of Brampton (300 active nests) and one in the City of Mississauga (325 active nests). Unfortunately, this picture may be incomplete since only colonies of 100 or more nests were supposed to be reported. It is therefore not clear how many colonies with less than North-South Environmental Inc. page 122

138 100 nests went unreported. If reducing disturbance at their nest sites might help slow declines, assigning protection to colonies with fewer nesting pairs could help. Considering the significance of the decline and the possibility that few colonies exist with the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, the threshold should be significantly smaller than the provincial threshold of 100 nests. As a conservative estimate, it is therefore recommended that naturally occurring colonies with 30 or more nests should be considered significant in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. In addition, if fewer than five naturally occurring colonies exist in any of the jurisdictions within the Region of Peel (e.g., Town of Caledon), all colonies should be considered significant. However, since the vast majority of large colonies were in non-natural nesting sites such as sand and gravel pits, stockpiles of soil etc., the significant role they play in overall nesting success should be recognized and whenever possible attempts should be made to engage the owners of these sites to help protect them. For example, perhaps a simple management/education plan could be developed to reduce unnecessary disturbance or displacement. The probability of detecting Cliff Swallow declined by 50% in Ontario between the first atlas period ( ) and second atlas period ( )(Cadman et al. 2007). The Region of Peel falls within the Lake Simcoe-Rideau and Carolinian atlas regions. The northern half of Peel (i.e., the Town of Caledon) is roughly contained within the Lake Simcoe-Rideau atlas region whereas the southern half (i.e., Brampton and Mississauga) is roughly contained within the Carolinian atlas region. While the decline across the Lake Simcoe-Rideau atlas region was 13%, the species actually increased by 58% in the Carolinian atlas region. Colonial nesting sites are typically associated with human built structures such as bridges and barns and more rarely cliffs, its natural nesting habitat. Given this fact, identifying and protecting colonial sites containing fewer than eight nests, the provincial threshold, may prove to be of little benefit. For this reason, it seems reasonable to adopt the provincial standard for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. The threshold for significance established for Sedge Wren on the ORM, three breeding pairs (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), was considered appropriate for the Town of Caledon since part of the ORM falls within its boundaries and a significant percentage of the remaining lands appear similarly vegetated. Theoretically, given the high level of development in the south, a lower threshold could have been chosen for the remainder of Peel Region. However, this species shows low site fidelity (Brewer 2007) and doing so could have a compromised notion of it being a colonial species. The threshold for significance established for Marsh Wren on the ORM was three breeding pairs (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). According to the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Cadman et al. 2007), this species appears to be similarly distributed across the Region of Peel (including the Town of Caledon) as on the ORM (Tozer 2007). Therefore, the three breeding pair threshold also seemed reasonable for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Little Gull, Bonaparte s Gull, Forster s Tern and Brewer s Blackbird are listed on the provincial list of colonial species. However, these species were removed from the Region of Peel and Town Caledon list since there is very little chance (based on a variety of reasons) of them breeding within its borders. North-South Environmental Inc. page 123

139 6.5.3 Criterion A3: Waterfowl Nesting Habitat Waterfowl nesting habitat generally refers to nesting habitat of ducks and geese. Waterfowl nesting habitat is considered significant in southern Ontario since wetland loss ranges from 78% to 87% (OMNR, 2000). Although it is adjacent upland habitats where most waterfowl species nest, the loss of wetland habitat effectively renders most of these areas unsuitable. Therefore, nesting opportunities are relatively restricted when compared with the past, prior to the wetland loss. As a consequence, remaining waterfowl nesting habitat takes on greater significance. Canada is also a signatory to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). According to the NAWMP website ( NAWMP is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The Plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the Plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994 making it a truly continental effort. The Plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. There is currently little data available from which to define thresholds specific to the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Wetland evaluations conducted by and/or for the OMNR typically do not contain waterfowl nesting information. Even if this information was purposely and consistently gathered, accessing this information is beyond the scope of this exercise and may not be comprehensive in nature. It is also unlikely that local naturalists clubs possess this type of information. Even if they did, it would probably be specific to a particular area and could not be appropriately applied to the entire Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Kevin Rich of Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) was contacted to see what information they possessed for the Region of Peel. Although he was not familiar with what the waterfowl nesting opportunities were like in the Region, he did indicate that based on a very brief review of aerial photography using Google Earth, the habitat in the Town of Caledon appeared promising for waterfowl nesting (Rich, pers. comm.). He also indicated that the Canadian Wildlife Service had four survey plots in Peel and that they could access that information if it would be of assistance. In fact, he suggested that DUC could be interested in helping develop a methodology to identify significant waterfowl nesting areas. Despite the lack of specific waterfowl nesting area information for the Region of Peel, both the Provincial Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) provide information on the criterion. In addition to other more relative guidelines for evaluation, Appendix Q of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) states that: Sites with nesting and brood habitat for American Black Ducks should be considered North-South Environmental Inc. page 124

140 significant; All nesting areas for Gadwall, Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, and American Wigeon should be considered significant. The ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) recognizes the following to be SWH: three or more nesting pairs of listed species below except Mallard, or; 10 or more nesting pairs of listed species below including Mallard. Listed species included: American Black Duck, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Gadwall, Blue-winged Teal, Green-winged Teal, Wood Duck, Hooded Merganser, and Mallard. Since no specific waterfowl nesting habitat information is readily available for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, and available resources did not permit consideration of an alternative methodology, the thresholds put forward in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) were considered for both jurisdictions. However, due to the fact that approximately 28% of the Town of Caledon is occupied by the ORM and the remainder of the Town of Caledon appears similarly vegetated as the ORM, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds were selected with a few modifications to the species list. Upon review of the wetland cover information, it was discovered that despite supporting significantly less forest cover in Brampton and Mississauga, this area boasts a fraction more wetland habitat than does the Town of Caledon. For this reason the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds, along with the same modifications to the species list, were also selected for the remainder of the Region of Peel. Therefore, it is recommended that SWH be defined as waterfowl nesting areas that support: a) Any combination of three (3) or more nesting pairs of: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Redhead, Hooded Merganser, Common Merganser, or Ruddy Duck b) Any combination of 10 or more nesting pairs of listed species in a above, including Mallard Waterfowl nesting areas generally correspond with upland habitats adjacent to marsh, swamp and shallow water ELC community classes, and generally extend out as far as 120 m from the wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a cluster of three or more smaller (< 0.5 ha) wetlands within 150 m of each other. American Wigeon, Redhead, Common Merganser and Ruddy Duck were added to the list since they were all recorded breeding within or directly adjacent to the Region of Peel during the second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Cadman et al., 2007). While these thresholds are recommended as the initial standard by which to measure significance, it is also recommended that additional measures be taken to confirm and where necessary refine these standards. To this end, the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon may want to discuss the offer from DUC to help develop a methodology specific to the Region and the Town of Caledon. North-South Environmental Inc. page 125

141 6.5.4 Criterion A4i: Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas Landbird is a term used to describe a general grouping (not a classification) of North American birds that live largely or entirely on land (Terres 1980). The grouping includes all of the families of songbirds in North America in the order Passeriformes. This includes flycatchers, jays and crows, wrens, thrushes, warblers, sparrows and blackbirds, as well as groups such as hawks, owls, grouse, pigeons, cuckoos, swifts and woodpeckers. The following sections of text, copied from and North-South Environmental Inc. (2008), summarize key facts known about stopover ecology to date. Stopover Ecology Stopover ecology is the study of sites located between breeding and wintering grounds where migrating birds rest, forage, and wait for favourable migration conditions (Morris 1996). Moore et al. (1995) defines stopover habitat as an area with a combination of resources (food, cover, water) and environmental conditions (temperature, precipitation, presence/absence of predators, and competition) that promotes occupancy by an individual of a given species (or population) and allows those individuals to survive. Understanding this science can help in the development of policies and actions that are more likely to positively impact the survival of migratory bird populations. It has been shown that the migration period (and the quality and location of stopover locations) is as critical to the survival of bird populations as the breeding and overwintering phases of their life cycle (Hutto 1998; Moore et al. 1995). The events that happen to birds during their migration stopovers can have significant consequences in determining their population status (Hutto 1998, 2000; Yong et al. 1998) and the migration period has been described as a chain whose strength is that of its weakest link (Smithsonian 1999). These links are the stopover areas. In the fragmented landscape of eastern North America, as migratory birds move from one stopover site to another (referred to as migration stepping stones, according to Conservation Halton 2006), the ability of these places to provide adequate rest and food becomes critical. Without suitable habitat available during migration, any conservation measures aimed at migrant birds on their breeding and wintering grounds become severely compromised (Moore and Simons 1989). Despite the importance of this phase of a bird s life, there is a poor understanding of the abundance, distribution and ecology of migrant birds (Hutto 1998; Mabey and Watts 2000; Moore and Aborn 2000; Rappole 1995). Nonetheless, as long as migratory birds pass through the Toronto area, it is incumbent upon the city (and others like it) to try and provide safe passage, because not doing so could affect the populations of such a wide diversity of species. The main reason birds land to feed and rest during migration is that they do not have sufficient fat reserves to migrate large distance without stopping. In addition, they often encounter poor weather and are forced to stop migrating and take shelter (Moore North-South Environmental Inc. page 126

142 et al. 1995; Line 1997, Hutto 1998). Migration pushes birds close to their physiological limits (Alerstam 1990, Kerlinger 1995), so a lack of suitable habitat in which to rest and feed after an extended period of travel can be lethal for them (Moore et al. 1995). The availability of habitat en route where a bird can safely and rapidly replenish energy reserves is especially critical to successful migration when crossing geographic barriers such as large lakes which can require large amounts of energy, especially if they encounter unexpectedly bad weather (Moore and Simons 1989). Stopover times vary, but can last from as little as a few hours to as long as a week or more (Moore et al. 1995, Morris 1996). Before they embark on their journey, migrant songbirds can have as much as 30 to 50% of their body weight in fat (versus only 3 to 5% during non-migratory times) (Line 1997). These fat deposits are severely depleted during their flights, forcing migrants to stop, rest and feed. At a suitable stopover site, migrants can put on as much as 10% of their body weight in fat per day (Line 1997, Chernetsov 2006, Gauthreaux 1982, Kerlinger 1995). Migrants unable to find good habitat in which to stop over will be forced to leave earlier and have less fat for the next part of their journey, or have to stay longer to replenish their fat reserves and therefore arrive later on their breeding or wintering grounds and be at a competitive disadvantage (Moore et al. 1995, Rappole and Warner 1976). An overall scarcity of good stopover habitat in the landscape further compounds the problem by increasing competition within the remaining good habitat, which forces the less competitive younger birds into poorer habitat and decreases their survivorship (Moore et al. 1995, Morris 1996, Rappole 1995, Yong et al. 1998). Habitat requirements of migrant birds at their stopover locations varies to a certain extent by species, and the choice of habitat can be very specific or more general (Chernetsov 2006, Petit 2000, Moore and Simons 1989). In addition, habitat selected during a stopover varies within a species depending on the age, sex and physical condition of the individual bird, as well as the weather conditions encountered (Chernetsov 2006, Petit 2000, Moore and Simons 1989). Stopover migrants can be quite faithful to previously utilized stopover sites, although songbird migrants tend to be less faithful than waterfowl or shorebirds (Chernetsov 2006, Catry et al. 2004, Yong et al. 1998). Many groups of species have genetically programmed their migration routes over thousands of years in order to utilize certain areas that have traditionally provided good habitat (Kerlinger 1995, Moore et al. 1995). However, there is significant variation among these groups in terms of their precise migration routes and stopover sequences used each year (Moore and Aborn 2000, Moore et al. 1995). The reasons are numerous and not well understood, but important factors appear to include the following: 1. Many species are not as particular during migration as when breeding, and can land almost anywhere there is natural habitat with a bit of cover to rest and refuel; North-South Environmental Inc. page 127

143 2. Songbirds migrate individually or in loose groups, as opposed to flocks, with juveniles generally migrating later than adults, so birds in a group do not all migrate along the same route and stop in the same place, and young birds do not necessarily learn from the adults what the previously utilized routes are; 3. The route can change each year depending on the weather and the winds; 4. Songbirds are smaller and therefore more affected by the direction of the winds; and 5. Songbirds do not spend the entire year as a family group, therefore there is no need to stop at the same sites in case they are accidentally broken up and need to reunite (Catry et al. 2004). For species and groups of birds that tend to return to previously utilized stopover locations, the long-term protection of these areas would evidently contribute to a successful migration. Habitat close to large lakes, such as Lake Ontario, is more important to stopover migrants since they are more likely to be making landfall after a potentially exhausting flight over water (Conservation Halton 2006, Moore et al. 1995), especially if they have already traveled a large distance. In areas where the habitat is fragmented or there is little habitat overall, the remaining near shore habitat becomes even more important (Hennings and Edge 2003, Rodewald and Matthews 2005, Conservation Halton 2006, Moore et al. 1995). Other factors, such as an abundance of insects (i.e., midges) that hatch in lakes at certain times of the year, can result in a greater abundance and species richness of migrant birds at lakeshore sites as compared to sites only three or four kilometers inland (Conservation Halton 2006). The specific type of habitat selected by a migrant bird seems to be determined by several factors including: an innate preference, the bird s foraging strategy, the distribution of food, the carrying capacity of the habitat, and the exposure level to predators (Chernetsov 2006, Moore and Aborn 2000). The physical condition of migrants upon arrival also affects the habitat they will select during stopover. For example, if an individual is lean then it will choose whatever habitat is immediately available, in an attempt to rest and feed quickly (Moore and Aborn 2000). If the weather is poor, then migrants are likely to be very indiscriminate and land on any solid ground (Moore and Simons 1989, Moore et al. 1995, Petit 2000). There have been few studies exploring specific habitat preferences of different groups and species of birds during migration. However, recent research indicates that mature upland forests are generally preferred by more migrant birds during stopover than riparian forests, especially in an urban setting (Rodewald and Matthews 2005). Preferred sites are generally characterized by a dominance of native trees and shrubs, as well as a more mixed layered canopy (i.e., tall trees, mid-level trees and shrubs, and a thick understory). Greater concentrations and more species of migrants are typically recorded in these habitats and also tend to spend more time in them (Hennings and Daniel 2003, Moore and Simons 1989, Friesen et al. 1995). However, migrants are North-South Environmental Inc. page 128

144 able to use alternative habitats when their preference is not available, and tend to be less selective than those birds in search of more permanent breeding habitat (Chernetsov 2006, Catry et al. 2004, Moore and Aborn 2000). In the 1990s it was estimated that during a bird s migration from the Gulf of Mexico to areas north of Toronto, it had a 70% chance of encountering an urban environment (Evans Ogden 1996). Today, this chance is even greater and it is only likely to increase over the next few decades. There are 33.5 million people residing in the Great Lakes basin at present, with 25 million in the United States and 8.5 million in Canada (EPA 2007). From 1996 to 2001, 90% of the population growth in Ontario took place in the Golden Horseshoe area of western Lake Ontario, with an estimated 3 million more moving to the area by (EPA 2004, EPA 2007). Much of this increase will occur in the Greater Toronto Area and in the zone from Hamilton to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and is estimated to result in an increase in urbanization of 1,000 km 2, an area twice the size of the City of Toronto (EPA 2004). As a result, the odds of a migrant bird entering the Golden Horseshoe area and not encountering an urban environment during a stopover are decreasing rapidly. With the urbanization in eastern North American and southern Ontario on the rise, the cumulative impacts of the urban on many species of migratory birds are likely to increase and potentially impact species at a population level (Sibley 2007, FLAP 2007; Klem 1989). In this context, urban systems on the lakeshore have an even greater responsibility to ensure that well-used migratory bird habitat is protected, that measures are undertaken to reduce threats to migratory birds, and that opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement are pursued to the greatest extent possible. The identification and protection of landbird migratory stopover areas as SWH in the Region of Peel should be based on and consistent with the science of stopover ecology described above. As a result, a distance-based approach is recommended. More specifically, it is recommended that all natural areas be identified as SWH within: a. 2 km of Lake Ontario, b. river and creek valleys within 5 km of Lake Ontario, and c. 500 m of river valleys within 5 km of Lake Ontario. Natural areas include all terrestrial and wetland communities as defined under the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al. 1998), as well as cultural woodlands. Successional communities (i.e., cultural savannahs, cultural thickets and cultural meadows) should also be identified as SWH if they are: at least 5 ha in size (e.g., 224 x 224 m) and immediately on the lakeshore, or at least 10 ha in size (e.g., 316 x 316 m) and within any of the zones (a, b, c) identified above. 17 More recent information has shown that by 2031, the population for this area is forecast to grow by an additional 3.7 million (from 2001 numbers) to 11.5 million (OMPIR 2006). North-South Environmental Inc. page 129

145 Therefore, the actively used portions of sports fields, golf courses and parks should be excluded, but the cultural habitats bordering them should be considered. Also excluded from consideration are lands permanently transformed for human services or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buildings, piers, active pits and quarries). In addition, the identification of SWH is not intended to limit existing normal farm practices from continuing. Most significantly, this distance-based approach is predicated on the belief that over the course of time (e.g., either during the course of a migration season or sometimes longer) all areas near the shore of Lake Ontario can provide critically important refuge to migrating landbirds. Sometimes these natural areas support migrating birds for consecutive days, other times for mere hours or even minutes. Nevertheless, they all provide critical resources in areas known to concentrate migrating birds. Moving forward with a distance-based approach also eliminates the need to conduct comprehensive and potentially multi-year migratory bird surveys near Lake Ontario in an attempt to rank the significance of each habitat patch. Although the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) describes areas located within 5 km of the Great Lakes shoreline as potential SWH for migratory landbirds, it was recognized that the areas closest to Lake Ontario would, on average, have the highest concentrations, and a more conservative distance (2 km) was selected to define such significant stopover areas. River and creek valleys, especially leading to and from the Lake Ontario waterfront, serve as logical conduits for migratory passage and almost certainly help funnel greater concentrations of landbird migrants. It is for this reason that they were recommended as SWH. The 5 km threshold distance away from Lake Ontario was recommended in order to be consistent with what is recognized in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. River valleys are defined by the top-of-slope, unless of course natural cover associated with the river valley extends in a continuous manner beyond on to the tablelands. When or if this occurs, the limit of SWH should be defined by the outer edge of the natural area. Since it appears that some birds are able to make early morning adjustments in navigation to move towards these ribbons of green, it was recognized that concentrations of migrants will likely be higher in their vicinity. This is why an additional zone adjacent to these river valleys was recommended for identification as SWH. Cultural woodlands were included because it was generally accepted that wooded habitats, be they natural or cultural in origin, play an enhanced role when it comes to supporting landbird migrants. Wooded habitats probably support greater numbers and diversity of landbird species than do other broad habitat groups. The OMNR also places an emphasis on protecting wooded habitats (J. Boos, OMNR, pers. comm. 2008). In addition, large patches containing cultural savannah, cultural thicket and/or cultural meadow were also included because of the significant value they provide to migrating landbirds that do not prefer woodlands during migration (e.g., certain species of flycatcher, warbler, sparrow etc.). In fact, Appendix Q (p. 346) of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide specifically states that, Sites with a variety of habitat types (e.g., forest, grassland) are often more significant than sites with homogenous North-South Environmental Inc. page 130

146 habitat. This statement acknowledges the fact that other non-forested habitats are also important to migratory landbirds and should be considered as potential SWH. Size thresholds for these cultural habitats were based on their likelihood to provide significant stopover habitat. The 10 ha threshold for inland sites (i.e., sites not directly on lake but within areas of concentration defined above) is consistent with the thresholds used to designate areasensitive open-country breeding bird habitat as SWH. It seemed reasonable to assume that if open-country breeding bird species were able to nest in areas 10 ha in size, they should also be able to utilize them during migration. This threshold was reduced to 5 ha for areas directly on the lakeshore to reflect the greater significance these areas play. That is, greatest concentrations of migrant landbirds are expected next to large physical barriers such as the Lake Ontario shoreline. Although potentially justified, a threshold smaller than 5 ha for shoreline sites is not recommended to ensure only the largest most significant habitats are recognized and designated. Finally, since all types of vegetative cover within the near shore areas of Lake Ontario can be important to landbird migrants, alternative policy approaches could also be considered to supplement proposed SWH designations. For example, private landowners within the areas defined above, should be encouraged to enhance or increase existing natural cover wherever possible to support migratory landbirds. Also, the tree-cutting by-law in the City of Mississauga should be reviewed, and potentially revised to appropriately reflect the importance of lakeshore areas, and their trees, to migratory landbirds Criterion A4ii: Migratory Bat Stopover Areas Of the eight species of bats that occur regularly in Ontario, three of them are long-distance migrants, flying north from the United States each spring to breed and south again prior to the onset of winter. This includes Silver-haired Bat, Red Bat, and Hoary Bat. Due to their migratory habits, they, like most species of birds, are subject to many of the same obstacles along their journey. Large physical barriers such as the Great Lakes likely tend to concentrate migrating bats along their shores since they are regularly observed at these locations during the migration period (OMNR 2006). Migrating bats are even occasionally seen from shore during the early morning hours out over the lake. While the specific routes used by bats have not been studied much in Ontario, it is widely believed that they follow the same pathways as migrating birds. That is, they utilize shoreline areas to either circumvent the Great Lakes or concentrate there before moving out across the Lake. To what extent either behaviour is utilized is unclear although the first option seems more likely than the second. Nevertheless, the shoreline areas are recognized to be especially important to these migratory bat species. Because they congregate in higher concentrations in these areas, they are also more vulnerable to threats. For this reason, it is recommended that migratory bat stopover areas merit designation as SWH. In addition to shoreline areas, migratory bats are also known to use forested ridges during migration. In fact, significant bat mortality has been documented at wind farms along certain mountain ridges in the United States. To what extent this migratory behaviour takes place in Ontario and more specifically, the Town of Caledon and Region of Peel is unclear. However, North-South Environmental Inc. page 131

147 certain topographic features such as the Niagara Escarpment and major river valleys may also attract migrating bats to a lesser degree. Currently, there is insufficient information available to suggest a threshold. However, in the not too distant future the OMNR Wind Resource Atlas ( will indicate areas considered important to bat migration. These areas should be considered candidate SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Further field studies will be required to confirm their significance. In the meantime, the protection of significant migratory bat stopover areas should be covered by criterion A4i, landbird migratory stopover areas, at least along Lake Ontario Criterion A4iii: Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas Out of the 175 or so species of butterfly recorded in Ontario, the vast majority are permanent residents. That means they over-winter and long-term populations are present. However, of these 175 approximately 11 of them are seasonal colonists to the Region (i.e.,. they immigrate into the Region to reproduce). Depending on the species, this can occur each spring or only occasionally when suitable weather conditions exist. Most breeding populations are killed off the following winter. Of the 11 seasonal colonists, six are considered common: Orange Sulphur, Question Mark, American Lady, Painted Lady, Red Admiral and Monarch. However, the Monarch butterfly is also a Species at Risk, designated as Special Concern in both Ontario and Canada. All of the seasonal colonists originate in the United States and must therefore navigate their way past natural and man-made obstacles into Ontario in spring. Similar to migratory landbirds and migratory bats, Lake Ontario is likely the most significant obstacle in the area. As a result, all of these species are known to concentrate along the shoreline during their seasonal journey. This makes them very dependent on the vegetation resources present for food and shelter from predators and/or severe weather. For these reasons, it is recommended that migratory butterfly stopover areas be recognized as SWH. Also since the Monarch is a Species at Risk, it would receive added protection during the migratory phase of its life cycle, especially during the fall when they are regularly observed huddled together in clusters on trees and shrubs along the Lake Ontario shoreline. There is insufficient information currently available to suggest a specific threshold. It is therefore recommended that the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon defer to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) approach (described below), or guidelines for Eco-region 7E (in preparation by OMNR), until more data is gathered/analyzed. In the mean time, this protection of significant migratory butterfly stopover areas is likely covered by criterion A4i along Lake Ontario. According to CVC, migratory butterfly congregations have been observed along the Lake Ontario shoreline (e.g., Lakeside Park and Rattray Marsh) during the fall. The evaluation guidelines in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) rely on a relative comparison, depending on the number of butterflies/species (including species of concern) that use the area, size of site and number of habitat types, distance from the Great North-South Environmental Inc. page 132

148 Lakes shoreline, disturbance and historical use of the area (most significant areas have been used for 10 years or more) Criterion A4iv: Waterfowl Stopover (or Staging) Areas (Terrestrial) With the exception of some urban-sponsored populations, almost all species of waterfowl are migratory in nature. As a result they are forced to seek out suitable migratory habitats along their journey. These are usually restricted in nature (i.e., are only found scattered irregularly on the landscape). In the case of terrestrial habitats, these usually consist of flooded fields. The reason these features should be considered candidate SWH is because so few natural wetlands remain in southern Ontario. Essentially, these flooded fields act as surrogate wetlands. Therefore any impacts on these features would have disproportionately significant impacts on the species utilizing them. Most naturally occurring wetlands have been converted for agricultural purposes or urban growth. In fact, in the Region of Peel, only 5,232 ha of wetland habitat exists. This includes wooded and thicket swamps and represents little over 4% of the total land area. There is no published provincial threshold by which to designate significance for terrestrial waterfowl stopover and staging areas (OMNR 2000). In fact, terrestrial and aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging areas were not treated separately in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Instead, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) recommends that all sites be evaluated according to the following criteria: number of birds/species in planning area, number/size/distribution of staging areas in planning area, wetlands (presence, diversity and permanency), and habitat requirement of waterfowl. In contrast, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) provides specific thresholds for terrestrial stopover & staging locations. Annual aggregations of 100 or more of the listed species are required to be designated significant. Listed species include: American Black Duck, Northern Pintail, Gadwall, Blue-winged Teal and Green-winged Teal. Since almost one-third of the Town of Caledon is covered by the ORM and close to another third of its territory is similarly vegetated, the threshold approach used on the ORM is recommended. More specifically, the list of species (including four additional species) and minimum aggregation number seem reasonable and can be applied to the Town of Caledon. The modified thresholds are also recommended for the remainder of the Region of Peel since the amounts of wetland habitat are near equal between the two areas. Therefore it is recommended that sites that support annual aggregations (observed on a single day) of 100 individuals or more of the listed species in any combination qualify for identification as SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Listed species include: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, or Ringnecked Duck. North-South Environmental Inc. page 133

149 Annual use can be based on background information or field studies conducted over at least a two-year period. In addition, SWH identification is not intended to limit existing normal farm practices from continuing, or preventing built infrastructure (e.g., sewage lagoons) from functioning as required Criterion A4v: Waterfowl Stopover (or Staging) Areas (Aquatic) With the exception of some urban-sponsored populations, almost all species of waterfowl are migratory in nature. As a result they are forced to seek out suitable migratory habitats along their journey. These are usually restricted in nature (i.e., are only found scattered irregularly on the landscape). In the case of aquatic habitats, ponds, marshes, lakes and watercourses are utilized during migration. The reason these features should be considered candidate SWH is because so few natural wetlands remain in southern Ontario. Therefore any impacts on these features would have disproportionately significant impacts on the species utilizing them. Most wetlands have been converted for agricultural purposes or urban growth. In fact, in the Region of Peel, only 5232 ha of wetland habitat exist, including wooded and thicket swamps, not used as regularly by most waterfowl species. This represents little over 4% of the total land area. In addition to the wetland habitats described above, Lake Ontario also functions as stopover and staging habitat and should also be considered. With the exception of staging areas regularly used by Trumpeter Swans, Canvasbacks, Redheads and Ruddy Ducks, there is no provincial threshold by which to identify aquatic waterfowl stopover or staging as significant (OMNR 2000). Instead, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) recommends that all sites be evaluated according to the following criteria: number of birds/species in planning area, number/size/distribution of staging areas in planning area, wetlands (presence, diversity and permanency), and the habitat requirements of waterfowl species. In contrast, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) does provide specific thresholds for aquatic stopover & staging locations. Annual aggregations of 100 or more of the listed species are required to be identified as significant. Fourteen species are listed including: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Hooded Merganser and Common Merganser. It should be noted that the list of species for the ORM generally excludes species considered to be diving ducks, ducks that frequent larger, deeper lakes, rivers, coastal bays and inlets (OMNR 1978). This makes sense since the ORM does not adjoin Lake Ontario, but the Region of Peel includes part of the Lake Ontario waterfront. In fact, the nearshore waters of Lake Ontario are part of conservation authority jurisdiction under the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.c27 and in an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (formerly Department of Fisheries and Oceans or DFO) for plan review including municipal activities and approvals. Since almost one-third of the Town of Caledon is covered by the ORM and close to another third of its territory is similarly vegetated, the consultant team generally supports the threshold North-South Environmental Inc. page 134

150 approach used on the ORM for the Town of Caledon. The thresholds also seemed reasonable for the remainder of the Region since wetland cover is evenly distributed for the areas within and outside the ORM. However, to accommodate waterfowl species utilizing the nearshore waters of Lake Ontario (most often diving ducks not included in the ORM list), an alternative approach that specifically includes these diving ducks is recommended for this area. This approach should also incorporate the fact that the nearshore waters of Lake Ontario from Port Credit west have been designated a globally significant Important Bird Area (IBA) as a result of its waterfowl congregations. This area is known as The West End of Lake Ontario IBA. Therefore, ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds are recommended for mainland portions of the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon (i.e., annual minimum aggregations of 100 individuals, in any combination, included on the Mainland species list). However, for nearshore waters of Lake Ontario, all areas included within The West End of Lake Ontario IBA should automatically be identified as SWH. For nearshore waters of Lake Ontario east of the IBA, it is recommended that areas that support annual minimum aggregations of 250 individuals, in any combination, be considered SWH. This figure was chosen to reflect the increased numbers of waterfowl utilizing the Lake Ontario waterfront in general. However, it is recommended that field surveys be conducted to confirm whether the threshold number should be raised. Mainland species list: Wood Duck, Gadwall, American Wigeon, American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Hooded Merganser, Common Merganser. Nearshore species list: Brant, Canvasback, Redhead, Greater Scaup, Lesser Scaup, King Eider, Common Eider, Harlequin Duck, Surf Scoter, White-winged Scoter, Black Scoter, Long-tailed Duck, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Common Merganser, Red-breasted Merganser, Ruddy Duck, Horned Grebe, Red-necked Grebe. Annual use can be based on background information or field studies conducted over at least a two-year period. Also the identification of SWH is not intended to limit existing normal farm practices from continuing or preventing built infrastructure (e.g., sewage lagoons) from functioning as required Criterion A4vi: Migratory Shorebird Stopover Areas In Ontario almost all species of shorebirds (e.g., plovers, sandpipers etc.) are migratory. Of the over 30 regularly occurring species, five are known to breed in Peel Region (i.e., Killdeer, Spotted Sandpiper, Upland Sandpiper, Wilson s Snipe, and American Woodcock) while the remaining species use locations in the Region as stopover habitat on their way to breeding grounds further north or wintering grounds south of the border. Shorebirds are generally strong fliers, some flying as far as South America each winter. As such, they are not as affected by prevailing weather systems during migration as are most songbirds. North-South Environmental Inc. page 135

151 This means their migration routes tend to be more regular or geographically defined. For example, the vast agricultural landscape in southwestern Ontario (e.g., between Point Pelee National Park and Rondeau Provincial Park) regularly supports large flocks of migrating plovers. They pass through in mid to late spring each year in the thousands. Nevertheless, large physical barriers such as the Great Lakes act as natural obstacles along their annual journeys and help determine which areas get utilized by this group of birds. As a result, shoreline areas help concentrate birds before and after crossings. The intent of this criterion is to protect areas where shorebirds stop over during migration with some regularity and in significant numbers. Most shorebirds are attracted to sites with water, such as lakeshores, sewage lagoons, flooded fields, wetland margins, and occasionally margins of streams. A number of others regularly forage in agricultural fields away from water. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) does not provide specific thresholds for this criterion and the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) does not include it as a criterion. Although there is no readily available shorebird stopover data specific to the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon, there is information from the Greater Toronto Area (including the Region of Peel), which the consulting team felt was sufficient to recommend a threshold for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. The Toronto Ornithological Club s Greater Toronto Area Bird Checklist and Reporting Guidelines 2000 (Coady and Smith 2000) lists peak numbers of individuals of each species observed (including shorebirds, as well as other types of birds), as well as cutoff numbers above which they request observations to be reported (see Table 10 below). Observations exceeding cutoff numbers are considered most significant in terms of rarity, date, location, or number of birds. Unfortunately, a general rationale explaining how the cutoff numbers were selected was not included. Although almost all of the peak numbers listed occurred outside the Region of Peel, combined with the cutoff numbers they provide guidance as to what a reasonable threshold might be for the Region of Peel. If it were possible to record all of the shorebird species at their respective cutoff thresholds on a single day at a single site, the total number of shorebirds observed would be 238. However, not all shorebirds pass through at the same time during migration, not all sites are similarly suitable for all species, and some of the listed species are naturally uncommon or rare. As a result, the chances that all of the species would occur together is highly unlikely. Table 10. Peak shorebird numbers and cutoff numbers in the GTA as of the year 2000 (from Coady and Smith 2000). Common Name Scientific Name Peak # Cut-off # Region* 1 Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola DU 2 American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica PL 3 Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus DU 4 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 6 1 MT 5 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus HL 6 American Avocet Recurvirostra americana 5 1 HL 7 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius DU North-South Environmental Inc. page 136

152 Common Name Scientific Name Peak # Cut-off # Region* 8 Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 34 3 YO 9 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca DU Catoptrophorus 10 Willet semipalmatus 8 1 HL 11 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes DU 12 Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 35 1 DU 13 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus MT 14 Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica 34 1 DU 15 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 3 1 DU 16 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres DU 17 Red Knot Calidris canutus DU 18 Sanderling Calidris alba DU 19 Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla DU 20 Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 12 1 YO 21 Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla DU 22 White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 35 1 DU 23 Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 13 1 MT 24 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos DU 25 Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima MT 26 Dunlin Calidris alpina DU 27 Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus 62 1 DU 28 Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis 9 1 MT 29 Ruff Philomachus pugnax 2 1 DU 30 Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus DU 31 Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 10 1 DU 32 Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata HL 33 American Woodcock Scolopax minor 42 3 HL 34 Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 12 1 DU 35 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 9 1 PL 36 Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria 9 1 YO * DU = Durham Region, PL = Peel Region; MT = Metropolitan Toronto; HL = Halton Region; and YO = York Region. Based on this information presented above, and the personal experience of the consulting team, a smaller combined total of 75 (approximately one-third of 238) birds was considered a reasonable threshold for significance. Therefore, it is recommended that sites supporting annual daily aggregations of 75 or more shorebirds (of any combination) be considered SWH. The threshold number of 75 must be observed on a single day. Determination of annual use can be based on background information or field studies conducted over at least a two-year period. North-South Environmental Inc. page 137

153 A site is defined as (a) a100 m reach of shoreline (centered at any location), or (b) habitat patches 0.2 ha in size (centered at any location). This is roughly equivalent to a circle with a 25 m radius or square with 45 m sides. The identification of SWH is not intended to limit the ability of existing normal farm practices from continuing, or preventing existing municipal infrastructure (e.g., sewage lagoons, piers etc.) from functioning as required. Notably, this threshold should be considered a preliminary recommendation and subject to review based on a comprehensive review of the Toronto Ornithological Club s database for Peel Region. Although it was outside the scope of this study, it is recommended that the Toronto Ornithological Club be contacted to gain access to their extensive database of bird observations for Peel Region so that their shorebird records can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. In addition, local naturalist clubs and/or the Ontario Field Ornithologists should be solicited for information. These data should provide specific information on the size of flocks being observed in Peel Region and the Town of Caledon Criterion A5: Raptor Wintering Areas The term raptor typically refers birds of prey such as hawks, eagles, falcons and owls. Consistent with basic concepts of population ecology, under "normal" conditions predator populations are much lower than that of their prey. It is this scarcity that makes this group more vulnerable to negative impacts, impacts that can be accentuated during the winter months when access to food sources tends to be more restricted. It is likely for these reasons that raptor wintering areas are regarded as SWH by the Province (OMNR 2000). No specific thresholds are provided in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), however, the guidelines suggest a relative comparison between the subject site and other comparable sites in the given jurisdiction. Key factors to consider in the determination of significance include the number of birds that use the site, size of site, abundance of prey, land use, disturbance, location in planning area, and historical use of sites. It is not clear why, but raptor wintering areas was not selected as a criterion on the ORM (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). Although there are no data specific to the study area, preliminary thresholds have been developed for identification of candidate and confirmed SWH based on input from OMNR. Open fields >20 ha in size adjacent to woodlands should be considered candidate SWH. Open fields generally correspond with cultural meadows or inactive agricultural lands. Smaller sites should also be considered if there is any evidence or reasonable possibility of regular winter raptor activity. Confirmed sites should be occupied at least 60% of winters (almost 2 out of every 3 years), and based on suggestions made by OMNR staff, include 2 or more species and at least 10 individuals of the following species: Northern Harrier, Red-tailed Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, or American Kestrel. It is further recommended that the provincial guidelines in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) (and partially presented above) be referenced. North-South Environmental Inc. page 138

154 In addition, any wintering sites used by Short-eared Owl (designated Special Concern in Ontario and Canada) should also be identified SWH under this criterion. Although no Bald Eagle wintering areas are currently known in the Region of Peel, if Bald Eagle (designated Endangered in Ontario south of the French and Mattawa Rivers) numbers continue to rise, it is possible that winter feeding areas may be re-established in the Region of Peel in the future. In that case, all wintering sites used by Bald Eagles should also be automatically identified as SWH. The most likely candidates include ice-free sections of the Credit River. Although insufficient information is currently available to map raptor wintering areas in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, naturalists clubs and/or local birders may be able to provide assistance in identifying candidate sites and the CVC's Natural Areas Inventory, which is currently being developed, may also provide some additional data. It is generally acknowledged that raptor wintering areas occur very rarely in southern Ontario. These sites are also typically traditional in nature (i.e., occur regularly from year to year) and well known to the naturalist community. If existing information (e.g., CVC results, communication with local naturalists, government agency staff or adjacent landowners) can demonstrate with confidence that the area under investigation is not a raptor wintering area, field studies should not be necessary. It may also be possible to demonstrate, based on a vegetation description of existing and adjacent conditions that the area under study is not likely to be a raptor wintering area. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide should be referenced to help identify what features make certain sites higher candidates than others. If there is any doubt as to the potential of the area to support wintering raptors but existing information for the site is unavailable, it should be the proponent s responsibility to demonstrate that the site is not significant. To do this winter field surveys are required. However, depending on the site, a single season survey may suffice to make a determination. For example, if the results from the first winter of field surveys demonstrate raptor numbers significantly below threshold levels, it is very unlikely that surveys in subsequent winters would produce different results because the characteristics of the site cannot change in such short order. Many years of successional change would likely be required for a site to provide the type of resources to support elevated small mammal populations. If however, the first year of field surveys shows raptor numbers to be at or close to the recommended thresholds, multi-year field surveys should be conducted. Multi-year surveys are necessary to conclude that any significant occurrence of raptors is not simply a response to shifting prey populations but a more permanent expression of the quality of the site. Therefore, confirmed sites should be occupied at least 60% of winters (almost 2 out of every 3 years). Occupation should also occur on a near daily basis, taking into account normal fluctuations in weather conditions. Existing agricultural uses are permitted to continue in accordance with the PPS (2005) policies Criterion A6: Snake Hibernacula Snake hibernacula are places where snakes take shelter in winter. During hibernation, snakes go into a greatly reduced state of metabolic activity and reduced body temperature as a way of North-South Environmental Inc. page 139

155 coping with the adverse winter conditions. Snakes can hibernate alone or with other snakes and snakes of different species. All regularly occurring snakes in Ontario, with the exception of Northern Watersnake, hibernate on land. Winter den sites are located below the frost line (i.e., they need to remain above freezing) and since they are susceptible to dehydration, they are typically close to the water table (but not flooded). Winter den sites can include mammal burrows, rock outcrops, talus slopes, gabion baskets (used to help prevent erosion along stream banks), fissures or crevices leading underground, old wells, hedgerows made of rocks, and building foundations (Lamond 1994). Most Northern Watersnakes overwinter underwater along pond and stream bottoms (Lamond 1994). The specialized environmental conditions present in hibernacula are not present everywhere and as a result their presence, or lack thereof, may be a limiting factor in the success of snake populations. This, coupled with the fact that some hibernacula can support many individuals, is what makes them so significant to local populations. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) states that sites that support locally rare or uncommon species should be considered significant. If the status designations assigned to the OMNR former Central Region (Plourde et al. 1989) are used, which includes the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon, then all snake species except for DeKay s Brownsnake and Eastern Gartersnake would be considered significant. In contrast, the ORMTP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) provides a different set of thresholds. Several of the snakes listed as uncommon or rare in the OMNR former Central Region would not automatically trigger confirmation as SWH on the ORM. For some of these, as many as five individuals would need to be present at the same site for it to be confirmed as SWH. Thresholds for any particular site on the ORM are: 10 or more Eastern Gartersnakes, or five or more or DeKay s Brownsnakes, Ring-necked Snakes, Northern Watersnakes, and Red-bellied Snakes), two or more Milksnakes and Eastern Ribbonsnakes, or two or more of the above species. The consultant team supports a graduated threshold approach, consistent with that established for the ORM, but feels inclusion of all snake species (excluding those already designated as Species at Risk) is warranted. This approach resonates for two reasons: (1) the Plourde (1989) document is more dated than the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) document, and (2) snakes are generally under-represented due to their retiring and inconspicuous habits, making them seem rarer than in reality. The Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary (Atlas) database was also queried prior to threshold determination. In total, it contained 222 snake observations for the Region of Peel, some of which were historic in nature (i.e., greater than 20 years old). Species included Eastern Gartersnake (110), DeKay s Brownsnake (34), Milksnake (27), Red-bellied Snake (21), Northern North-South Environmental Inc. page 140

156 Watersnake (17), Smooth Greensake (5), Eastern Ribbonsake (4), Ring-necked Snake (3), and Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (1). The total number observations for each species are shown in parenthesis. Therefore, it is recommended that sites that support the following conditions should be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: 10 or more Eastern Gartersnakes, or 5 or more or DeKay s Brownsnakes, or 2 or more of the remaining species (Ring-necked Snake, Smooth Greensnake, Northern Watersnake, Red-bellied Snake), or 2 or more of the above species. Notably, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, Milksnake, and Eastern Ribbonsnake were not considered for designation as part of this criterion since they are designated Species at Risk in Canada and Ontario and as such are protected under other existing policies (i.e., Section of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement) and provincial and federal Species at Risk legislation. Milksnake and Eastern Ribbonsnake are designated Special Concern by OMNR and their habitats are protected by SWH criterion C2 and C3. In addition, foundations of buildings in active use shall be exempt. However, any significant hibernacula associated with abandoned buildings should be considered for protection through some type of stewardship or mitigation measures. Furthermore, significant snake hibernacula associated with existing municipal infrastructure should be managed in such a way that maintains the function of the facility, but reduces any potential impacts to the hibernacula itself Criterion A7: Bat Maternal Roosts and Hibernacula Bat maternal roosts and hibernacula are places where bats congregate to breed in summer and seek protection from freezing temperatures in winter. Five of the eight regularly occurring species of bat in Ontario are considered year-round residents. This means they breed and overwinter in the Province. This includes Small-footed Bat, Little Brown, Northern Long-eared Bat, Eastern Pipistrelle and Big Brown Bat. The other species of bat (Silver-haired Bat, Red Bat and Hoary Bat) typically migrate south of the border prior to the onset of winter. Overwintering sites include mines, caves, rock crevices and buildings. Depending on the species some prefer sites with high humidity levels whereas others prefer good air circulation. All require temperatures to stay above freezing (OMNR 2006). All but two of the species of bat (Red Bat and Hoary Bat) are known to establish breeding colonies. Sites used as maternal roosts include buildings (such as barns), hollow trees, storm sewers, rock crevices, bat boxes and mature, shade tolerant deciduous tree stands (OMNR 2006). Maternal roosts and hibernacula are considered potential SWH since relatively large numbers of individuals can be negatively impacted if disturbed, affecting a disproportionate percentage of their local population. In addition, it is also believed that suitable winter hibernacula are limited in number, making local populations especially vulnerable. North-South Environmental Inc. page 141

157 Unfortunately, very little information has been collected related to either resident or migrating bats in the Province, and the OMNR has no documented maternal roosts or hibernacula in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon (Jamie Stewart pers. comm. 2008). Until more specific information becomes available, it is recommended that the provincial guidelines provided in Appendix Q of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) be used in both jurisdictions. Accordingly, the following numbers of bats should be considered significant at maternity colonies and winter roosts in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon respectively: Big Brown Bat, 30, 30; Little Brown Bat, 100, 50; Eastern Pipistrelle, 10, 20; Silver-haired Bat, 10, N/A; Long-eared Bat, 10, 20; Small-footed Bat, 10, all sites. However, with the discovery of White-Nose Syndrome in neighbouring New York State in 2007, a mysterious condition that has resulted in over 10,000 bat deaths, OMNR staff should be contacted to see if more restrictive thresholds are warranted. If so, these should supersede those in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). It should also be noted that the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), a department of the OMNR, is collecting information and will be providing hibernacula habitat mapping in the future. However, due to its sensitive nature, specific location information will not be made available except to individuals with NHIC data sensitivity training. It is possible that general locations will be shown in the OMNR Wind Resource Atlas ( representing candidate SWH. Due to the lack of available information, the OMNR also advises that any known cave or crevice ecosites or old mine shafts should be considered candidate SWH and evaluated as such (J. Boos pers. comm. 2008) Criterion A8: Bullfrog Concentration Areas The thresholds recommended for the ORM (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) will be incorporated into criterion B8ii (Amphibian breeding habitat non-forested sites) so that any sites supporting breeding Bullfrogs in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon are recommended to be considered SWH Criterion A9: Wild Turkey Winter Range According to the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Bowman 2007, Cadman et al. 2007). Wild Turkeys were common in mixed and temperate forests and savannahs in southern Ontario prior to European settlement. However, habitat loss and overhunting resulted in population declines during the 1800s. By 1909, the species was extirpated from Ontario. However, in 1984 the OMNR began reintroducing these birds to the Province. This has been so successful that it has resulted in large population increases across southern Ontario, so much so that the restocking program was ceased in January In fact, the current distribution of the Wild Turkey is believed to be greater than its known historical range. North-South Environmental Inc. page 142

158 At this time, the Wild Turkey is no longer of conservation concern in Ontario, the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. As such, it is not recommended that Wild Turkey winter range be adopted as a criterion in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. Should future studies indicate population declines, Wild Turkey Winter Range could once again be reintroduced as a SWH criterion Criterion A10: Turkey Vulture Summer Roosting Areas In Ontario, Turkey Vultures tend to nest in agricultural landscapes interspersed with forest. More specifically, they nest on cliff ledges, in crevices and caves, among boulders on talus slopes, in standing hollow trees and stumps, and in abandoned buildings (Peck 2007b). According to mapping in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 2007), this bird occurs throughout Peel Region, including the Town of Caledon. It is not clear to what extent Turkey Vultures utilize summer roost sites in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon, or in what numbers. The consultant team was not able to find any information, and the OMNR and Conservation Authority staff could only add that potential daytime roosting areas could be associated with the Niagara Escarpment. This is supported by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), which states: Turkey vultures like to roost on rocky cliff ledges and large, dead or partially dead trees, preferably in undisturbed areas, and often near water. Preferred day roosting areas appear to be open areas where the birds can easily take flight or sunbathe. Cliff ledges have excellent rising air currents that are conducive for flight and soaring. Significant sites are those that are used consistently year after year. However, given the fact that the Niagara Escarpment only passes through a portion of the Region of Peel, and entirely within the Town of Caledon, it is expected that if Turkey Vulture summer roosting areas do exist within the study area they are uncommon and as such should be considered for protection as SWH, if not already protected under existing land use policies. Notably, although there is insufficient information currently available to suggest a specific threshold for this criterion, most preferred roosting areas (i.e., cliff ledges) would be protected through SWH Criteria B1 (Rare Vegetation Communities) and B6 (Cliffs and Caves) Criterion B1: Rare Vegetation Communities Rare vegetation communities are those natural communities that are the most uncommon in a given jurisdiction, and therefore are considered a high priority for protection. Although some species of plants and wildlife are able to migrate between and survive within a variety of habitat types, other species have evolved to be adapted to specific conditions and/or resources only available within certain habitat types. If vegetation communities, which are already scarce on the landscape, are not protected and disappear from the landscape, so do all the species that depend specifically on those habitats for survival. North-South Environmental Inc. page 143

159 Both the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) suggest that all provincially rare vegetation communities (S1 to S3 ranking 18, per the NHIC and as described by Bakowsky1996) in the planning area should be considered significant. The provincial guidelines further state that all other areas that could potentially be rare in the planning area should be evaluated based on community representation in the planning area, presence of rare species, diversity of the site, quality of the community, size and location of site, potential for protection of the site and the presence of SWH. For both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, the presence of any S1, S2 or S3 vegetation communities is recommended as a reasonable minimum threshold. The presence of any S1, S2 or S3 vegetation communities would apply equally to the Region Peel and Town of Caledon. Current NHIC records list eight S1 through S3 communities in the Region, all within the Caledon Slope Forest Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) (three cliff communities, three talus communities, and two forest communities). However, there are very likely additional rare communities on the Escarpment outside the ANSI that have yet to be mapped that would also qualify. For example, there are also at least two prairie remnants known in the Region (one site in Lorne Park in Mississauga, and one on the east slope of the Credit River north of the QEW) (Wasyl Bakowsky, NHIC Ecologist, pers. comm. March 2008) and potentially other small remnants on the rim of the Credit River, all of which would be considered rare. The Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity (Henson and Brodribb 2005) identified a number of vegetation community targets 19 for Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E-4, representing rare or high-quality vegetation types. This included forested and non-forested vegetation types. The vegetation community targets not considered provincially significant (i.e. those ranked S3S4, S4 or S5) are recommended for inclusion under this criterion, with a few exceptions. These are listed in Table 11 below. Notably, in a few cases communities listed in Henson and Brodribb (2005) do not correspond precisely to ELC communities as listed in Lee et al. (1998), and so the closest approximation to the ELC standard was selected. Sugar Maple dominated types listed as target vegetation communities for Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E-4 were excluded because the consultant team did not consider these to be rare in the context of Peel/Caledon. These communities are specifically: Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-1) Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Beech Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-2) Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-3) Dry Fresh Sugar Maple White Ash Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-8) Once finer level ELC mapping (i.e., to Ecosite and Vegetation Type) has been completed on a Region-wide basis, it will be possible to verify which communities are rare using empirical data 18 See Section 1.5 for a description of species rankings 19 The Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity is a document developed by the Nature Conservancy of Canada n collaboration with the Natural Heritage Information Center OMNR in which various sources of existing data were compiled and analyzed to generate summaries for all Ecodistricts in the Great Lakes area. As part of this exercise, species targets and vegetation community targets were identified for each Ecodistrict. Ecodistrict 6E-7 encompasses all of Caledon and approximately 44% of the Region of Peel, while 7E-4 contains all of Mississauga, most of Brampton and approximately 34% of the Region of Peel. North-South Environmental Inc. page 144

160 and analyses, and revisit this list. In the interim, other communities may need to be added to (or removed) from this list as new information becomes available. Table 11. Vegetation community targets for Ecodistricts 6E-7 and 7E-4 from the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity (Henson and Brodribb 2005) and their closest ELC community descriptions and codes. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity community description Closest Ecological Land Classification (ELC) community description and code Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Shallow Marsh Type Willow Organic Thicket Swamp Type Dry Red Pine White Pine Coniferous Forest Type Dry Fresh Red Oak Deciduous Forest Type Dry Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest Type Dry Fresh White Pine Red Maple Mixed Forest Type Dry Fresh White Pine Oak Mixed Forest Type Moist Fresh Hemlock Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type White Cedar Hemlock Organic Swamp Type Non-forested vegetation communities Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Shallow Marsh Type (MAM3-6) Willow Organic Thicket Swamp Type (SWT3-2) Forested vegetation communities Dry Fresh White Pine Red Pine Coniferous Forest Type (FOC1-2) Dry Fresh Red Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-1) Dry Fresh White Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD1-2) Dry Fresh White Pine Sugar Maple Forest Ecosite (FOM 2-2) Dry Fresh White Pine Oak Mixed Forest Type (FOM2-1) Moist Fresh Hemlock Sugar Maple Mixed Forest Type (FOM 6-1) White Cedar Conifer Organic Swamp Type (SWC3-2) Additional vegetation communities not considered provincially significant (i.e. those ranked S3S4, S4 or S5) but identified as rare woodland habitats by the ORM Technical Paper #2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007c) are also recommended for inclusion under this criterion. These are specifically: Dry-Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 1-4) Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-2) Dry-Fresh Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD 2-3) Fresh Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD 6-2) The upland forest communities listed above are also included under the recommended criteria for significant woodlands (see Section ). It is assumed that any of these identified ELC types would be identified as both significant woodlands and SWH in their entirety. Although there may be some redundancy in listing these communities under more than one criterion, the North-South Environmental Inc. page 145

161 Technical Advisory Team has indicated their preference for redundant criteria than having a significant area potentially overlooked. CVC has also suggested that relatively small and/or isolated fens or bogs should be captured under SWH as they are rare in the Region (and in the watershed) and are not always captured as Provincially Significant Wetlands. The consultant team agrees with this suggestion and correspondingly recommends that all fen and bog habitats be recognized as SWH. Notably, a review of the Vegetation Types currently mapped by CVC includes only one recorded fen (Low White Cedar Shrub Fen, FES 1-9) and no bog communities however this will change as more information is collected. Although, TRCA has suggested consideration of the vegetation communities they have ranked as L1, L2 or L3 in their jurisdiction, the landscape context in the northern half of the Region (i.e., the Town of Caledon) is considered sufficiently distinct (i.e., much greater forest and natural cover) from most of the TRCA s jurisdiction to make the wholesale adoption of this list questionable. The preferred approach to identification of additional communities is described below. Currently, the main conservation authorities in Peel and Caledon (i.e., TRCA and CVC) are refining their ELC mapping and databases to include classification at the Vegetation Type level. This requires somewhat detailed field assessment, and current coverage for the entire Region at this level is approximately 30%. Once this dataset is more comprehensive (e.g., 65 75%, with comparable coverage in the Region and Town of Caledon as a whole) it will be possible to run an analysis that identifies rare communities in these two jurisdictions using data that accurately captures which communities are represented in the Town and Region. Although the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000, Appendix Q, Table 2) suggests five or fewer occurrences across the jurisdiction or communities representing 3% of remaining natural area as a threshold, the CVC use 5% of remaining natural areas as a threshold for rarity (CVC 2007, CVC 2008), which would likely be appropriate for both the Region and Town. A final consideration is whether or not a minimum size for rare vegetation communities should be set. This study recommends consistency with the ORMCP guidelines, which set 0.5 ha as the minimum size for rare forest types, which is also supported by the conservation authorities. The rationale behind this is that these communities are considered rare on the landscape and so even small remnants should be protected as examples of these community types and potentially as reference sites for future restoration efforts Criterion B2: Forests Providing a High Diversity of Habitats Forests providing a diversity of habitats are described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) (Appendix Q) as relatively large and mature forests in a given jurisdiction. The guidelines indicate that forests with some of the following characteristics are likely to be more significant: a variety of age classes; a high proportion of mature trees; North-South Environmental Inc. page 146

162 uneven-aged stands; presence of numerous tree cavities, more significant in living than dead trees and if large; a variety of tree species; near water; and with little or no management. The suite of criteria for significant woodlands capture all woodlands greater than 4 ha as well as all woodlands 0.5 ha or greater within 30 m of a watercourse, containing mature trees and/or oldgrowth characteristics or containing rare woodland vegetation types or species. Furthermore, based on the preliminary application of the recommended suite of criteria for significant woodlands, the overall proportion of wooded areas both in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon captured by the criteria is quite high, with only relatively small and isolated woodland patches not associated with a watercourse and not known to contain rare species or habitats being excluded. Given this and the guidance provided through the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), the consultant team is confident that all forests providing a high diversity of habitats will be captured by the suite of significant woodlands criteria (see Section 5.4), even though the specific criterion for diversity has not been recommended Criterion B3: Old-growth or Mature Forest Stands Old-growth forests contain trees in all phases of their life cycle, from saplings to mature trees, as well as dead standing trees and rotting trees on the forest floor. This provides a home for many species of plants, fungi, invertebrates, salamanders and snakes, and makes old-growth forests hotspots for biodiversity and a refuge for high concentrations of Species at Risk. No thresholds are set by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) or the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) for this criterion. However, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) guidelines state these forests may be identified differently for each jurisdiction depending on representation of old growth in the study area, age and age class distribution of trees, disturbance, long-term protection potential and presence of old growth characteristics, species of conservation concern and SWH. In this study, old-growth and mature forests are captured by the significant woodlands criterion for old-growth / late successional forests, as well as the size and forest interior criterion (see Section ). Notably, there are no mapping data available for this on a Regional basis, although information could be obtained from existing site-specific reports and studies over time Criterion B4: Foraging Areas with Abundant Mast Forests providing foraging areas with abundant mast are described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) (Appendix Q) as relatively large forests with numerous nut producing trees (e.g., beech, oak) and more open areas with large patches of berry-producing North-South Environmental Inc. page 147

163 shrubs (e.g., blueberries, raspberries, serviceberries). Although other species of wildlife utilize these food sources, the focal species in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) appears to be black bear, which does not normally occur (i.e., there has been one recent sighting) in Peel-Caledon. The guidelines indicate that areas with some of the following characteristics are likely to be more significant: large sites with a high proportion and diversity of fruit-producing shrubs and nutproducing trees; sites with abundant Red Oak trees in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region; and sites that provide travel corridors for wildlife and that are well removed from people. No thresholds are set by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) for this criterion and the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) does not even address this criterion, suggesting it may have been considered inapplicable on the ORM, or considered covered by other natural heritage designations. With the available data, coarse mapping of such areas could capture ELC forest types dominated by nut-producing species (e.g., oak, hickory, beech) that occur in the Region/Town but mapping for large areas with berry-producing shrubs would require more detailed site information that is not currently available. However, determining thresholds based on this information is impossible without site-specific information related to the production levels of these species. For this study, it has been assumed that most forests providing foraging areas with abundant mast (as described above) will be captured by the significant woodlands criterion for size/interior, as well as the criterion for old growth (see Section ). However, it was recognized that there may be forested areas with abundant mast that may not be captured by the significant woodlands criterion. Therefore, we are also recommending that that any Oak or Hickory dominated forest (of any size) be identified as SWH under this criterion in the absence of more detailed site-specific information. In practice this would mean any ELC community that is FOD 1 (Dry-Fresh Oak Deciduous Forest Ecosite), FOD 2 (Dry-Fresh Oak-Maple- Hickory Deciduous Forest Ecosite) or FOD 9 (Fresh-Moist Oak-Maple-Hickory Deciduous Forest Ecosite) would be considered SWH. This would capture communities that are sufficiently mature, or have the potential to, produce abundant mast. Although there is some overlap between this criterion and B1 (rare vegetation types), as stated elsewhere in this report, wherever possible each criterion has been evaluated and considered independently so that SWH identification errs on the side of overlap or redundancy rather than potentially overlooking a significant feature. While this does not capture every possible scenario of habitats with abundant mast, this provides a preliminary and easily applied threshold that may be expanded to include some species of native shrubs to when more floral data is available for the Region or the Town Criterion B5: Highly Diverse Areas As with the significant woodlands criterion for diversity of communities and species (see Section ), this criterion s importance is rooted in the Province s commitment to protecting, and North-South Environmental Inc. page 148

164 where possible increasing biodiversity values (OMNR 2005). Preservation of habitat diversity on a variety of scales is recognized as a cornerstone in building sustainable natural heritage systems, and protecting combinations of different natural habitat types in contiguous blocks in an urban or rural landscape helps ensure protection of the range of natural ecological communities in a given area, thereby ensuring habitat for a broader range of species and providing a broader range of ecological functions (e.g., Hooper et al. 2005, Loreau et al. 2001). In southern Ontario, this type of habitat conservation is important, for example, for species of amphibians that require both forests and wetlands in close proximity to each other for completion of their life cycle (e.g., Guerry and Hunter 2002, Regosin et al. 2003, Semlitsch and Bodie 2003, Calhoun and Klemens 2002, Helferty 2002, Gabor et al. 2002). Preservation of a range of natural areas is also considered important for enabling ecosystems to remain more resilient and adapt to climate change (e.g., Halpin 1997; Varrin et al. 2007). Given that almost all of southern Ontario, and indeed much of the globe, has been impacted extensively by human settlement and related activities, it is increasingly being recognized by scientists, governments and other bodies that the only feasible solution to the protection of biodiversity on multiple scales in settled landscapes is to recognize the ecological values of some cultural habitats or successional areas associated with more pristine natural areas, and work towards their combined preservation and co-existence (e.g., CEC 2001; Anon 2002, Anon 2004, Totten Simms Hubicki et al. 2006a,b, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental 2007). In southern Ontario, the meadows, thickets and even woodlands that have grown up on previously farmed lands provide habitat for many species of birds including some of conservation concern and/or known to be in decline in northeastern America (e.g., Dettmers 2003; see Section 9.5 of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental 2007). Consequently, in addition to all forested (FO-) and wetland communities (SW-, MA-, FE-, BO-), cultural thickets (CUT), savannas (CUS) and woodlands (CUW), as well as plantations (CUP), were included as part of the analysis for habitat diversity. Cultural meadows (CUM), were however, excluded, along with all mapped agricultural areas (AGR). It is difficult to distinguish cultural meadows from active agricultural fields using aerial photograph interpretation (which was the basis for much of the ELC mapping provided for this study). In addition, the consultant team did not want to capture active agricultural fields in this analysis. While it is recognized that open habitats such as abandoned farm fields provide habitat for grassland bird species (i.e., species that prefer open habitats (e.g., Askins 2000, Bay 1996), it also needs to be recognized that in a rural landscape even temporarily abandoned and marginal farmlands provide habitat as well (e.g., Berger et al. 2003, Vickery et al. 2004, Milne and Bennett 2007). Such habitats are currently abundant in the rural portions of the Region within the Town of Caledon. Rural landowners are encouraged to regenerate these areas through normal farm practices. The Region and Town should continue to support farmers in biodiversity conservation on their lands by providing both information and support for initiatives like those under the Environmental Cost-Share Opportunities for Ontario Farmers available through the Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan. No thresholds are set by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and this criterion is not specifically addressed by the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), North-South Environmental Inc. page 149

165 although the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) states that these areas may be identified differently for each jurisdiction depending on number of species and vegetation communities present, size of site, level of disturbance, presence of rare species/vegetation communities, and representation of area within the planning area. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) (Appendix Q) further indicates that this criterion is intended to capture areas with multiple habitat types (e.g., wetlands, woodlands, grasslands) closely associated with each other. There are also no standards or widely used methods for measuring habitat diversity of a given planning area, in part because this measure is dependent on the size and nature of the study area and the available data. However, some jurisdictions have used the number of unique habitat types within a given patch or area (e.g., Fort Erie - Dougan and Associates 2003) and the CVC has also used this measure for their watershed scale diversity analyses. After further consultation with CVC (A. Patel, pers. comm. April 2008), this measure (number of ELC Community Types per habitat patch) was adopted for this criterion. Although this is a somewhat coarse measure of habitat diversity, at the scale of the Region it is considered a reasonable measure that could be applied with available data. Notably, this measure was considered too coarse to be applicable at the Town of Caledon scale, and so only a Regional analysis is being applied for this criterion, although it could also be adopted at the Town level if desired. If ELC mapping to Vegetation Type is completed through CVC s Natural Areas Inventory Study for the Region and Town such data could be used to conduct a more refined analysis at both scales. The approach adopted for this study was to identify the top 5% most diverse habitat patches in (a) the Town of Caledon and (b) the urban portions of the Region. Given the contrast in natural cover between the urban and rural portions of the Region (i.e., Cities of Brampton and Mississauga vs. Town of Caledon), it was determined that the criterion should be applied separately to these two areas in order to capture the most diverse habitat patches in each. Capturing the top 5% was felt to be an appropriate threshold because (a) the intent of the criterion is to capture the areas that are most diverse, and (b) use of ELC Community Series (as opposed to the more refined and detailed Vegetation Types) meant that the range in numbers of ELC types per patch would be relatively low and so even the top 5% was anticipated to capture close to a quarter of the patches identified. Diversity was determined by the number of ELC community types (at the Community Series level) per habitat patch. Habitat patches were defined as continuous natural areas (i.e., all woodland, wetland, and successional community polygons) not separated by arterial or collector roads or built-up areas by more than 20 m gaps. Successional communities included thicket and savannas but not cultural meadows. It is recommended that mapping of this criterion be developed for the Region for future reference purposes. North-South Environmental Inc. page 150

166 Criterion B6: Cliffs and Caves Cliffs occur in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon along the Niagara Escarpment and include the natural cliff faces as well as the associates talus areas (at the base of the cliffs) and caves and crevices found within the cliffs. These habitats are unique in the landscape and provide habitat for a number of rare and relict species of plants and wildlife (e.g., Matthes et al. 1999, Larson et al. 2000). Caves also provide habitat for bats. No thresholds are set by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) or the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) with respect to this criterion. However, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) states these areas may be identified differently for each jurisdiction depending on number of species and vegetation communities present (including rare species/communities), size and location of cliff, level of disturbance, historical use of cliff, provision of SWH, representation of area within the planning area. For both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon, the consultant team recommends the presence of any S1, S2 or S3 cliff, talus, crevice or cave community as a minimum threshold. ELC Ecosites in these categories that rank S1 through S3 are listed on the NHIC website. Because cliffs are on a different dimension than most other vegetation communities, no minimum size threshold is suggested, although a significant cliff should be located within the context of a natural area (as suggested by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) (Appendix Q) and cannot be within an active and licensed quarry site. Notably, these communities are all technically covered under criterion B1 rare vegetation types, but are one of the communities especially unique to Peel-Caledon and are consequently worthy of specific mention, even as a sub-category under the broader umbrella of rare vegetation types, since they are sometimes overlooked as vegetation types per se. Current NHIC records list eight S1 through S3 communities in the Region, all within the Caledon Slope Forest ANSI, including three cliff and three talus communities. However, there are likely additional cliff and talus communities on the Escarpment outside the ANSI that have yet to be mapped that would also qualify Criterion B7: Seeps and Springs Seepage areas are defined as areas where groundwater emerges from the ground over a diffuse area and springs are defined as points of natural, concentrated discharge of groundwater (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). These areas have intrinsic ecological value because they provide habitat for many uncommon and rare species of plants and wildlife, as well as foraging areas for wildlife such as deer and wild turkey in the winter (OMNR 2000). They are also recognized as valuable from a water protection perspective by agencies (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) and stakeholders alike. No specific thresholds are set for this criterion by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) although, the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) North-South Environmental Inc. page 151

167 guidelines state these areas may be identified differently for each jurisdiction depending on the abundance and location of the seeps or springs, the permanency (duration of surface water), whether they provide fish habitat, the presence of rare species, and the surrounding vegetation communities. Appendix Q of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide further suggests sites with several seeps (e.g., more than five), that can be observed even in very dry summers and that support a diversity of native vegetation have greater significance. The ORMCP TP12 Hydrological Evaluations for Hydrologically Sensitive Features (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007d) provides some more specific guidance tailored to the southern Ontario context regarding identifying and verifying seepage and spring areas. These have been largely adopted, with a few minor refinements, for this study, as described below. Notably, the last bullet point listed (i.e., presence of marl) was added based in input from Bill Blackport, a Consulting Hydrogeologist with extensive experience in southern Ontario (pers. comm. July 2008). Preliminary identification via remote sensing can be inferred from topographic, drainage, and wetland digital map layers (provided by the OMNR), regional groundwater studies that show likely areas of groundwater discharge (e.g., maps of discharge areas and potential discharge areas), vegetation maps showing characteristic wet site indicator plant species and aerial thermography. Site-specific verification can be conducted through any of the following: visual confirmation of surface discharge or springs; groundwater investigations or detailed vegetation assessments (e.g., confirmed presence of plant species known to be associated with seepage areas in southern Ontario such as Carex scabrata); identifying areas with red or rust coloured stains on the soil surface (these are usually precipitates of iron hydroxides indicating areas of groundwater discharge); locating patches of ground that are free of ice and snow in winter and where there is evidence of seepage or springs, or where there are previously confirmed records for seeps or springs; or presence of marl (i.e., precipitates of carbonates in solution where groundwater pathways go through areas of concentrated dissolved solids and come to the surface). The points above function as indicators used to identify the presence of seeps or springs rather than a means for defining significance. However, given the discrete and variable nature of seeps and springs, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to develop quantitative thresholds (e.g., aerial extent, minimum flow volumes). Instead, it is recommended that evidence (either through site-specific background or current field studies) demonstrating that the seep or spring provides an ecological function to wildlife (plants or animals, per the definition of wildlife provided by the OMNR and cited in Section 6.4 above) is used for determining significance. Specifically, it is recommended that if a seep or spring provides habitat for or otherwise supports other SWH criteria (as identified in this study) that it also be designated SWH. Examples of SWH criteria potentially supported by seeps and springs include: Deer Wintering Areas, Rare Vegetation Communities (mostly indirectly), Highly Diverse Areas, Amphibian Breeding North-South Environmental Inc. page 152

168 Habitat (indirectly), and Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern. The last criterion could also include fish species. The area to be identified as SWH in relation to the seep or spring will need to be determined on a site-specific basis and relate to the SWH function being supported or provided. While protection of groundwater functions in source areas for seeps and springs (i.e., the catchment area) should also be identified and considered, this larger area should not necessarily be identified as SWH in its entirety as long as flows can be sustained to the seep or spring itself. While this would typically be undertaken as part of a more comprehensive study dealing with site hydrology, there may be situations where scoped evaluation of a seep or spring is warranted. This feature is not mapped either for the Region or the Town (based on the available data) and would need to be confirmed by site-specific studies Criterion B8i: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Forested Sites) Most species of amphibians that occur in Ontario move from forests to wetlands in spring to breed, although some of these species prefer woodland pools for breeding. However, suitable breeding sites are not common in the landscape, making amphibian breeding ponds present in forested sites candidate SWH. For example, suitable woodland ponds should be shallow, unpolluted, contain emergent or submerged vegetation, provide shoreline structures for calling, and be either permanent or temporary in nature. If the ponds are permanent, fishless ones are best. If they are temporary, they must hold water long enough to allow larvae to develop into adults (OMNR 2002). In addition, the surrounding woodland habitat must provide a closed canopy, offer a moist understory, and offer an abundance of downed woody debris. Lastly, breeding ponds should be close to summer habitat (OMNR 2002). The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) were both used to help guide the development of suitable thresholds. No supplementary data sources were readily available. No specific thresholds are listed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Instead, a variety of criteria were recommended for consideration, including: number of amphibians/species (including species of conservation concern) using the pond, size and number of ponds, permanency of pond, shoreline vegetation, disturbance, water quality and adjacent forest habitat. In contrast, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) requires the presence of breeding populations of two or more of the listed species with at least 20 (approximately) breeding pairs. Listed species include: Red-spotted Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Spotted Salamander, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, Western Chorus Frog and Wood Frog. Since almost one-third of the Town of Caledon is covered by the ORM, and close to another third of the Town appears to be similarly vegetated, the consultant team believes it is reasonable to apply the ORM standards in the Town of Caledon. However, given the low level of forest North-South Environmental Inc. page 153

169 cover south of the Niagara Escarpment and ORM within Peel Region, it did not seem appropriate to lower the recommended thresholds for the Region of Peel simply to accommodate this reality. By doing so, it would have unnecessarily lowered the threshold for the Town of Caledon. However in the future, when more field data become available, thresholds should be reviewed and refined to reflect habitat conditions in the City of Mississauga and the City of Brampton. Therefore, it is recommended that sites that support any of the following conditions be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Breeding populations of two or more listed species in Group A with a combined total of at least 40 individuals 20 present; A combined total of at least 30 individuals from any species listed in Group B (i.e., species that tend to behave more like vernal pool obligate species, at least in Peel Region). also see footnote below; and All breeding populations of Four-toed Salamander regardless of number of individuals. Group A: Red-spotted Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Jefferson Salamander complex hybrids (where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates), Spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Ambystoma salamander genus, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, and Wood Frog. Group B: Blue-spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Jefferson Salamander complex or hybrids where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates, and Wood Frog. Note: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence/Canadian Shield population of the Western Chorus Frog, whose geographic range includes the Region of Peel, was designated Threatened by COSEWIC in April This species is now addressed under Criterion C1. Although the recommended thresholds are based on the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), slight modifications were made to reflect the species complement present within the Region of Peel, comments received from CVC staff (S. Sampson pers. comm. 2008, Charlotte Cox and Heather Lynn pers. comm. 2009), as well as a conversation with University of Guelph Professor Emeritus, Dr. James Bogart (J. Bogart pers. comm. 2009). For example, the list of species was expanded to include hybrids belonging to the Jefferson Salamander complex (where the Blue-Spotted Salamander dominates), unidentified members of the Ambystoma salamander genus, and Four-toed Salamander. Also, since some of the species behave more like vernal pool obligates than the other species (i.e., are more restricted to vernal pools), two groups of species were created to reflect these preferences. In particular, the requirement to have at least two species present at each site was eliminated for species listed in Group B. However, given the fact so few species are represented in Group B, it was also decided that the threshold should be lowered slightly to reduce the individual contribution required. Lastly, due to the complicated breeding ecology and habits of amphibians, and salamanders in particular, it was considered inappropriate to use the term breeding pairs when applying thresholds. Instead, the term 20 It is assumed that for every male frog calling a female frog is also present. That is, if 5 male frogs are heard calling, it is assumed 10 individuals of that species are present. North-South Environmental Inc. page 154

170 breeding pair was replaced by total number of individuals present. The threshold for total number of individuals is set at twice the number of breeding pairs recommended in the ORMCP TP2. Although even lower thresholds (e.g., presence of 20 individuals) are likely justified for the forest-poor regions of Peel Region south of the Greenbelt, it should be the responsibility of the City of Brampton and City of Mississauga, in consultation with the conservation authorities, to implement those thresholds at the area municipal level. In order to be able to confidently establish how many individuals are present at any given site, populations must be surveyed at the right time of year and day, under acceptable weather conditions and using the right methodology. Failure to do so will render any conclusions invalid. If there is any confusion how surveys should be conducted, it is recommended that local Conservation Authority or OMNR staff be contacted. With respect to calling frogs, an effective way to determine how many individuals are present at a site is to utilize nocturnal amphibian call surveys. The Marsh Monitoring Program protocols (BSC 2009) should be followed to ensure surveys are conducted in a seasonally appropriate and consistent manner. Although calling level 1 & 2 generate counts/estimates of individuals calling, calling level 3 or full chorus does not. Nevertheless, for most species, twenty calling males are likely required to have a full chorus. This would therefore meet the threshold for significance since it is assumed that for every calling male there is a female present. However, since their calls can last longer than others or can be difficult to differentiate, some caution should be shown when documenting choruses of Gray Treefrog and Wood Frog. Lastly, thresholds represent aggregate totals of all species across the entire breeding season (early spring to mid- summer). Comprehensive (i.e., at least 3 to 4 visits) surveys are required, of which at least two surveys should be undertaken to document the earliest calling species (i.e., Spring Peeper, Western Chorus Frog and Wood Frog). Even within the accepted window for this group, peak calling periods can be narrow, after which calling output drops significantly. When it comes to documenting pond-breeding salamanders listed in Group A or B, the use of minnow traps is becoming standard practice. In fact, in order to confirm the identity of some Ambystoma salamanders, including the provincially and nationally Threatened Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum), genetic analyses are required, and so tissue samples (typically a small piece of the salamander s tail) must be taken. However, special permits are required from the OMNR to undertake any trapping or sampling. Check with local staff for complete details. The application process can take as long as two months so all submissions must be made well in advance of the trapping season. Peak breeding activity occurs within a narrow window in spring, typically between the middle of March and middle of April 21. Furthermore, breeding bouts may be limited to one or two events, which are closely linked with periods of rain and warming temperatures, and potentially last only a few days in length. Therefore, setting traps at the right time is critical to success. To increase the chance of successfully documenting maximum numbers at any given site, at least two or three nights of 21 The dates listed should only be used as a general guide. Timing should be determined according to prevailing weather conditions at the time. That is, it is possible that depending on the weather conditions, peak breeding activity could be earlier or later than what is considered typical. North-South Environmental Inc. page 155

171 trapping are recommended. After breeding, adults retreat to wooded habitats where they spend the remainder of the year under ground, irregularly coming to the surface in search of food. If appropriate field surveys cannot be conducted within this time period, assessments will likely be considered incomplete and potentially inaccurate. Visual surveys conducted at night can detect the presence of adults at breeding ponds and provide information on numbers, but are generally considered supplementary. Visual surveys may miss deeper parts of a pond and the ability to see through the water can be compromised. Nevertheless, this type of data can be helpful when attempting to assess numbers. If surveys at ponds are not conducted during the mid- March to mid-april time period, the presence of salamander egg masses and/or larvae does indicate presence. However, numbers of egg masses and larvae cannot be reliably used to determine the number of individuals present. Enough variability exists that surveys that document adults at breeding ponds are recommended. Seasonally appropriate surveys should therefore be conducted the following year. Regardless of where these SWH are found, it is recommended that the protection/management of woodland breeding pools follow the guidelines described in Conserving Pool-breeding Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern United States by Calhoun and Klemens (2002). This document recognizes three management areas: Vernal Pool Depression (up to spring high water mark), Vernal Pool Envelope (area within 30.5 m of pool s edge), and Critical Terrestrial Habitat (area within m of the pool s edge). The specific management objectives detailed for each zone should be followed. How much habitat is necessary to protect these sites? The extent of upland forested habitat that is protected needs to be determined on a site-by-site basis and take into account species-specific habitat requirements. Based on a study that surveyed large populations of Spotted Salamanders, Blue-spotted Salamanders and Wood Frogs, Calhoun & Klemens (2002) recommend that less than 25% of the critical terrestrial habitat (i.e., area within m of the breeding pool) be developed. For example, if the critical terrestrial habitat zone is equivalent to ha of suitable upland forest (assuming the breeding pool is a point); a minimum of ha would be needed to protect the individuals utilizing the breeding pools. However, since breeding ponds are not point-sized and are often irregular in shape, additional lands would need to be set aside. The presence of nonforested sites within this zone should also be considered. That is, if non-forested lands are present, protection should extend outward even further, since it is the total amount of suitable habitat that is protected that is important. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that successional lands are of lower habitat value to vernal pool forest amphibians, flexibility may be shown on this matter if commitments to restoration are made and started as early in the planning process as possible. Ultimately, the restoration of non-forested environments within the critical terrestrial habitat zone should be a priority. In addition, no roads within the critical terrestrial habitat zone are recommended. Occasionally migration distances to and from breeding ponds extend beyond the management zones described above. As a result, the proponent must demonstrate that any amphibian breeding habitat deemed significant is not negatively impacted by virtue of the fact they cannot access them. See Animal Movement Corridor section of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). North-South Environmental Inc. page 156

172 In addition to the above considerations, Calhoun and Klemens (2002) list numerous other conservation issues that pertain to woodland pool breeding amphibians. It is recommended that these management guidelines also be followed Criterion B8ii: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Non-forested Sites) Most species of amphibians that occur in Ontario move from forests to wetlands in spring to breed, and most select non-forested sites such as marshes. Although more common than woodland breeding sites, wetland cover in the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon is relatively low (see Table 6). As a result, all suitable breeding sites are recommended as candidate SWH. Amphibian breeding habitat occurring in non-forested habitats was not identified as a criterion in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). However, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) does list it as a criterion with a specific threshold, requiring the presence of breeding populations of two or more of the listed species with at least twenty breeding pairs (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). Listed species included: Red-spotted Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Spotted Salamander, American Toad, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, Western Chorus Frog, Leopard Frog, Pickerel Frog, Green Frog and Mink Frog. Since almost one-third of the Town of Caledon is covered by the ORM, and close to another third of the Town appears to be similarly vegetated, the consultant team believes it is reasonable to apply the ORM thresholds in the Town of Caledon. However, because the amount of wetland cover contained within the Town of Caledon is roughly equal to that present in the remainder of the Region of Peel the same thresholds can also be applied through the Region. In the future, when more field data become available, thresholds should be reviewed and refined to better reflect habitat conditions in the City of Mississauga and the City of Brampton. Therefore, it is recommended that sites that support any of the following conditions be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: Breeding populations of two or more listed species in Group A with a combined total of at least 40 individuals 22 present; A combined total of at least 30 individuals from any species listed in Group B (i.e., species that tends to behave more like vernal pool obligate species, at least in Peel Region). also see footnote below; All breeding populations of Bullfrog regardless of number of individuals; and All breeding populations of Mudpuppy regardless of number of individuals. 22 It is assumed that for every male frog or toad calling a female frog is also present. That is, if 5 male frogs or toads are heard calling, it is assumed 10 individuals of that species are present. North-South Environmental Inc. page 157

173 Group A: Red-spotted Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Jefferson Salamander complex hybrids (where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates), Spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Ambystoma salamander genus, American Toad, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, Green Frog, Pickerel Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Mink Frog, and Wood Frog. Group B: Blue-spotted Salamander, unidentified members of the Jefferson Salamander complex or hybrids where the Blue-spotted Salamander genome dominates, and Wood Frog. Note: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence/Canadian Shield population of the Western Chorus Frog, whose geographic range includes the Region of Peel, was designated Threatened by COSEWIC in April This species is now addressed under Criterion C1. Although the recommended thresholds are based on the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), slight modifications were made to reflect the species complement present within the Region of Peel, comments received from CVC staff (S. Sampson pers. comm. 2008, Charlotte Cox and Heather Lynn pers. comm. 2009), as well as a conversation with University of Guelph Professor Emeritus, Dr. James Bogart (J. Bogart pers. comm. 2009). For example, the list of species was expanded to include hybrids belonging to the Jefferson Salamander complex (where the Blue-Spotted Salamander dominates), unidentified members of the Ambystoma salamander genus, Bullfrog (originally considered in Criterion A8), as well as Mudpuppy. Also, since some of the species behave more like vernal pool obligates than the other species (i.e., are more restricted to vernal pools), two groups of species were created to reflect these preferences. In particular, the requirement to have at least two species present at each site was eliminated for species listed in Group B. However, given the fact so few species are represented in Group B, it was also decided that the threshold should be lowered slightly to reduce the individual contribution required. Lastly, due to the complicated breeding ecology and habits of amphibians, and salamanders in particular, it was considered inappropriate to use the term breeding pairs when applying thresholds. Instead, the term breeding pair was replaced by total number of individuals present. The threshold for total number of individuals is set at twice the number of breeding pairs recommended in the ORMCP TP2. In order to be able to confidently establish how many individuals are present at any given site, populations must be surveyed at the right time of year and day, under acceptable weather conditions, and using the right methodology. Failure to do so will render any conclusions invalid. If there is any confusion how surveys should be conducted, it is recommended that local Conservation Authority or OMNR staff be contacted. With respect to calling frogs, an effective way to determine how many individuals are present at a site is to utilize nocturnal amphibian call surveys. The Marsh Monitoring Program protocols (BSC 2009) should be followed to ensure surveys are conducted in a seasonally appropriate and consistent manner. Although calling level 1 & 2 generate counts/estimates of individuals calling, calling level 3 or full chorus does not. Nevertheless, for most species, twenty calling males are likely required to have a full chorus. This would therefore meet the threshold for significance since it is assumed that for every calling male there is a female present. However, since their North-South Environmental Inc. page 158

174 calls can last longer than others or can be difficult to differentiate, some caution should be shown when documenting choruses of American Toad, Gray Treefrog and Wood Frog. Lastly, thresholds represent aggregate totals of all species across the entire breeding season (early spring to mid- summer). Comprehensive (i.e., at least 3 to 4 visits) surveys are required, of which at least two surveys should be undertaken to document the earliest calling species (i.e., Spring Peeper, Western Chorus Frog and Wood Frog). Even within the accepted window for this group, peak calling periods can be narrow, after which calling output drops significantly. When it comes to documenting pond-breeding salamanders listed in Group A or B, the use of minnow traps is becoming standard practice. In fact, in order to confirm the identity of some Ambystoma salamanders, including the provincially and nationally Threatened Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum), genetic analyses are required, and so tissue samples (typically a small piece of the salamander s tail) must be taken. However, special permits are required from the OMNR to undertake any trapping or sampling. Check with local staff for complete details. The application process can take as long as two months so all submissions must be made well in advance of the trapping season. Peak breeding activity occurs within a narrow window in spring, typically between the middle of March and middle of April 23. Furthermore, breeding bouts may be limited to one or two events, which are closely linked with periods of rain and warming temperatures, and potentially last only a few days in length. Therefore, setting traps at the right time is critical to success. To increase the chance of successfully documenting maximum numbers at any given site, at least two or three nights of trapping are recommended. After breeding, adults retreat to wooded habitats where they spend the remainder of the year under ground, irregularly coming to the surface in search of food. If appropriate field surveys cannot be conducted within this time period, assessments will likely be considered incomplete and potentially inaccurate. Visual surveys conducted at night can detect the presence of adults at breeding ponds and provide information on numbers, but are generally considered supplementary. Visual surveys may miss deeper parts of a pond and the ability to see through the water can be compromised. Nevertheless, this type of data can be helpful when attempting to assess numbers. If surveys at ponds are not conducted during the mid-march to mid-april time period, the presence of salamander egg masses and/or larvae does indicate presence. However, numbers of egg masses and larvae cannot be reliably used to determine the number of individuals present. Enough variability exists that surveys that document adults at breeding ponds are recommended. Seasonally appropriate surveys should therefore be conducted the following year. It is important that wetland hydrology and water quality be maintained. Protection must also be extended to adjacent upland habitats to appropriately accommodate the terrestrial portion of their life cycles. The size of the area protected must reflect the habitat requirements of the listed species present, taking into account the type of adjacent upland vegetation, presence of built infrastructure, etc. Whatever figure is deemed appropriate should be based on available scientific literature. If this literature is unavailable, it is recommended that the precautionary principle be followed and larger rather that smaller patches of upland habitat be set aside. 23 The dates listed should only be used as a general guide. Timing should be determined according to prevailing weather conditions at the time. That is, it is possible that depending on the weather conditions, peak breeding activity could be earlier or later than what is considered typical. North-South Environmental Inc. page 159

175 It is also recognized that adjacent upland habitat occasionally includes agricultural lands. This means that the amount of upland habitat that is protected may need to extend beyond the agricultural area to ensure that enough natural habitat is available. The extent of the adjacent upland habitat that would need to be considered as part of the SWH would have to be determined on a site-by-site basis. However, some flexibility may be appropriate if restoration initiatives are considered acceptable. Open country and successional habitats utilized by members of this group are far easier and quicker to recreate than closed canopy conditions required by other forest dwelling amphibian species. Nevertheless, restoration initiatives should be started as early in the planning process as possible to be considered viable options. Existing agricultural activities should continue to be permitted Criterion B9: Turtle Nesting Habitat and Turtle Overwintering Areas Turtles have been around since at least the late Triassic period, about 225 million years ago (Harding 1997). However, despite this evolutionary longevity all native turtle species occurring in southern Ontario, with the exception of Snapping Turtle and Midland Painted Turtle, are currently designated as Species at Risk (SAR) (OMNR 2008b; COSEWIC 2007) and therefore already protected under existing policies and legislation. Species at Risk (SAR) are known to be experiencing significant population declines that could threaten their continued existence. The reasons why some species are declining are varied and not entirely understood but include habitat loss, pollution, urbanization and resource management activities, as well as the spread of exotic invasive species (OMNR 2008b). With respect to turtles in Ontario, additional reasons for declines include predation pressure, road mortality, and fragmentation of remaining habitats. The definition of suitable nesting habitat depends on the species but often corresponds with south-facing areas consisting of sands, loams or gravels, with good exposure to the sun. Overwintering areas typically correspond with the muddy bottoms of ponds, marshes etc. Despite the fact that Snapping Turtle and Midland Painted Turtle are still considered common across Ontario according to the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), the consultant team supports the threshold put forward for the ORM in the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) that requires the presence of five or more pairs/individuals of breeding or hibernating Snapping Turtle or Midland Painted Turtle to be considered SWH. Both nesting habitat and overwintering areas are crucial to the long-term success of the species, and unless pre-emptive efforts are made to conserve these species they may become SAR as well 24. Therefore, it is recommended that if five or more pairs/individuals of Snapping Turtle or Midland Painted Turtle are present at a site in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon, and identified as breeding or hibernating, the site should be designated as SWH. It is also 24 During the finalization of this document, Snapping Turtle was designated Special Concern nationally by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, 2008). It is expected to be evaluated by COSSARO in 2009 and its conservation status may be elevated to that of a Species at Risk in Ontario by OMNR. If it is designated Special Concern in Ontario, any nesting and overwintering habitat, regardless of number of pairs present, will be automatically designated SWH (as per criterion C2) and receive appropriate protections. If it is designated Threatened or Endangered in Ontario by OMNR; it will receive protection according to the Endangered Species Act. North-South Environmental Inc. page 160

176 recommended that the documentation required be expanded to include turtle nests, not just pairs, since raided turtle nests are the most frequently observed sign of nesting evidence. Consideration should only be given to the remains of turtle nests known to have been dug up during the same year. It is possible remains from previous years of nesting may still be in evidence and suggest greater numbers than present. Notably, Northern Map Turtle was removed from the list of species considered since it is designated Special Concern in Ontario and therefore qualifies under SWH criterion C2. Turtle nesting sites can be very difficult to discover therefore all studies should be conducted under appropriate conditions (i.e., during the appropriate season, appropriate time of day, under appropriate weather conditions, based on an adequate number of visits to detect nesting activity, etc.) and preferably according to protocols meeting local conservation authority approval. If the above thresholds are exceeded, the consultant team suggests it be required that all nesting habitat within the wetland/waterbody edge (distance to be determined on a case by case basis) be identified and designated as SWH. This distance should correspond with the approximate distance that either Snapping Turtle or Midland Painted Turtle will travel to nest based on the current scientific literature as well as site surveys for suitable nesting habitat in all potential locations on site. Regardless, the proponent will need to demonstrate that turtle nesting habitat will not be negatively impacted. To this end, it will be important to demonstrate that migratory routes between overwintering/foraging and nesting areas are protected along with nesting and overwintering areas, as suggested under the Animal Movement Corridor section of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Where site plans have the potential to impact hydrology, the water balance supporting the overwintering areas must also be protected Criterion B10: Habitat for Area-sensitive Species Forest Interior Breeding Bird Species Area-sensitive species are those that require large areas of suitable habitat to maintain their populations (e.g., for foraging and breeding) (OMNR 2000). These species tend to be more susceptible to the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation than species that are able to forage and/or breed in smaller habitat fragments, and are typically among the first species to decline or disappear from an area where habitat loss and/or fragmentation has occurred. Alternately, areas that contain habitats large enough to accommodate the needs of area-sensitive species typically also provide habitat for additional species that are more tolerant to land use changes, and so protecting these larger forest patches helps maintain local biodiversity. Although there is some debate about where exactly "interior" begins, and it will naturally vary with the forest type, the condition and age of the forest, and the forest's shape, the generally accepted definition is that forest interior begins 100 m in from the forest edge (e.g., Riley and Mohr 1994, Hounsell 1999, Gartner-Lee 2002, and Environment Canada 2004). The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) provides generalized evaluation guidelines for this criterion, however, the consultant team decided to use the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) as the primary guiding document for this criterion because it North-South Environmental Inc. page 161

177 specifically lists the number and types of species required for an area to be designated as SWH. It also lists the minimum forest patch size and amount of forest interior habitat required for designation. Since almost one-third of the Town of Caledon is covered by the ORM and close to another third of its land area appears to be similarly vegetated, the consultant team considers it reasonable to apply the ORM thresholds in the Town of Caledon. These same thresholds have also been applied to the Region of Peel, despite the lower forest cover and limited forest interior conditions in the urban portion of the Region, because the evidence in the literature indicates that certain ecological minimums must be met to provide suitable habitat for forest interior bird species (e.g., Austen et al. 2001; see Table 12) To provide an ecological basis for a recommended threshold, a scoped review of existing scientific literature was undertaken. This included an analysis of the habitat requirements of area-sensitive forest interior species occurring in Peel, as well as forest interior patch size. Species-specific information is provided below in Table 12. Table 12: Population density and forest requirement information for area-sensitive forest-interior breeding bird species occurring in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Species Hairy Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker Red-breasted Nuthatch Brown Creeper Winter Wren Veery Northern Parula Black-throated Blue Warbler Population Densities and Forest Requirements Dbh 25+ cm; prefers large tracts, can use as small as 7 14 ha; at least 4 ha to maintain population. Dbh 36+ cm; feeding territory ha; eastern Ontario combined several woodlots into territory; typically ha forest per pair; BNA 120 ha with >5 snags/ha. Dbh cm; probably 4 10 ha required for viable population; Quebec 0.2 ha average; New Hampshire 10 ha; Arizona 1 3 ha; pair density related to snag availability. Dbh 25+ cm; Durham 11.5 prs/40.5 ha; Michigan ha per pair; Minnesota ha per pair; probably at least 5 ha required for viable population ha per pair; Durham 10.5 pairs/40.5 ha; Idaho ha per pair; Alaska ha per pair; BC ha per pair (1.38 ha average); probably requires at least 5 10 ha for viable population. 5+ ha required for nesting; mid-atlantic region >20 ha required for 50% probability of occurrence; Illinois 20 of 22 patches with pairs were 100+ ha singing males/40.5 ha; 100 ha continuous forest required; NS 0.32 ha average territory; Maine ha territory; maximum probability of occurrence at ha, 50% at 520 ha, rarely encountered <100 ha males/40.5 ha in Maryland; BNA 1 4 ha; minimum 10 ha of forest. North-South Environmental Inc. page 162

178 Species Population Densities and Forest Requirements Black-throated Green Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Black-and-white Warbler Ovenbird Scarlet Tanager ha territory, average 0.6 ha; probably requires 2 5 ha to sustain viable population. BNA Densities vary considerably with habitat, between 0.2 and 1.7 pairs/ha; Hounsell (1989) Considered a deep woods species. Probably 10 ha of forested area necessary. Territory 2 5 ha; BNA 295+ ha continuous forest required; Hounsell (1989) 100+ ha required; AB not in forests <10 ha ha/pair; probably requires 70+ ha for viable population; small forests = larger territory. E.g., 900+ ha = 0.88 ha territory, <350 ha = 1.4 ha; 2650 ha necessary for 100% probability of occurrence, 20% for ha of continuous forest. Durham 11 pairs/40.5 ha; Maryland 2 3 ha territory; 100 ha necessary to maintain population (Hounsell 1989); BNA ha required; Territory size: Quebec ha, Maryland , New Hampshire ha, New York ha, Illinois ha, Wisconsin 2.5 ha; <50% probability of occurrence in small woodlots New Jersey only bred in 3+ ha forests; Southeastern U.S. 20% probability in 1 ha, 70% in 100 ha. ACRONYMS: Dbh = Diameter at breast height; BNA = Birds of North America Online ( Based on this research, and consideration for other key scientific publications and reviews, it is recommended that mature forests (i.e., greater 60 years old, per Riley and Mohr 1994) with interior patch size of at least 4 ha be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Notably, small inclusions of younger forest should not be excluded when analyzing forest interior patch size. In addition, habitats in either jurisdiction (including plantations) that support of 3 or more listed species with probable or confirmed breeding evidence (as defined on page 7 in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario , Cadman et al. 2007) should be considered significant. However, it is recommended that a minimum of two, preferably three visits be made to all habitat patches during the breeding season, and that each visit is of adequate duration (e.g., 5-10-minutes), to ensure that breeding evidence is accurately established and documented. Listed Species include: Hairy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Brown Creeper, Winter Wren, Veery, Northern Parula, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, Ovenbird, and Scarlet Tanager. The 4 ha forest interior patch size threshold for forest interior birds is supported by a variety of sources (OMNR 2000, NRC 2005, CVC pers. comm. 2008). However, this should be recognized as the minimum size that can be justified ecologically, and larger patches of forest interior habitat (i.e., 10 ha or larger) are required to provide for a wider range of area-sensitive species. Nonetheless, given the relatively little amount of forest interior in parts of the Region of North-South Environmental Inc. page 163

179 Peel it is reasonable to include areas that may only provide interior habitat for a few species. Furthermore, smaller forest interior patches located close to larger forest cores can support a broader range of forest interior species as compared with similarly-sized patches away from other forested habitats. Relatively small (i.e., 4 to 10 ha) forest interior patches are also excellent focal points for future restoration and/or enhancement efforts. Notably, CVC staff requested that forests with any interior (i.e., as small as 4 ha in total area with as little as 0.1 ha of interior) be considered for inclusion because of the low percentage of forest interior habitat in the Credit Watershed (1% according to CVC). However, the consulting team felt that setting the threshold this low for this criterion was unjustified because (a) Peel Region currently contains approximately 5,647 ha of forest interior habitat (as measured 100 m away from any edge) representing 24.8% of all forest cover in the Region; and (b) the research conducted (see Table 10) does not support such a threshold for the vast majority of forest interior birds. The amount of forest interior in Peel represents 7.8% of the total area. This is less than the 10% figure suggested in How Much Habitat is Enough? (Environment Canada 2004) for protection in each watershed, but is relatively high for a Region that is nearly two thirds urban in the context of southern Ontario, and certainly higher than in the surrounding watershed. It is also worth noting that the vast majority of the forest interior present in the Region of Peel is, not surprisingly, located within the Town of Caledon which contains 5,418 ha or 97% of all existing forest interior habitat in the Region. Although the recommended thresholds are based on the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) approach, modifications to the species list were made to reflect the species complement present within the Region of Peel. For example, it was the consultant team s opinion that Whip-poor-will, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, and Blue-headed Vireo be removed from the list since they also occur along forest edges and openings. In contrast, Hairy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Brown Creeper, Winter Wren, and Black-throated Blue Warbler were added to the list because they are considered forest interior species. Ultimately, 13 forest interior species have been recommended as compared to 12 for the ORM (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). Therefore, despite the fact that the lists are somewhat different in composition, the requirement to document three or more pairs remains a reasonable threshold. The list of area sensitive forest interior species was developed by consulting several sources of information and screening potential species. First, all species considered to be area-sensitive in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (as listed in Appendices C and G, OMNR 2000) were included. The list was then filtered to include only those species known to have bred in the Region of Peel within the last 20 years using the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 2007). This list was then screened to include only species known to require forest interior conditions for breeding per both Hounsell (1989) and Freemark and Collins (1992), with one exception. It was the consultant team s opinion that Pine Warbler did not warrant being designated as forest interior because it often breeds in small groves of pines and along their edges. North-South Environmental Inc. page 164

180 Criterion B11: Habitat for Open Country and Early Successional Breeding Bird Species Mirroring other North American declines, results from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario indicate that the grassland/open country breeding bird group is showing the most declines between atlases of any habitat-preference group (Cadman et al. 2007). Early successional (e.g., shrubland) species also showed declines between atlases (Cadman et al. 2007). In addition, some grassland and open country breeding bird species are also recognized as area-sensitive. Area-sensitive species are those that require large areas of suitable habitat to maintain their populations (OMNR 2000). As a result, they are often more susceptible to the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation. For these reasons, habitat for grassland, open country, and early successional breeding bird species is a criterion requiring consideration as SWH. The consultant team used the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) as the primary guiding document since it specifically addresses the protection of open country breeding bird species, including area-sensitive breeding bird species. It specifically lists the number and types of species required to be present for an area to be designated as SWH. It also lists the minimum grassland patch size required for designation. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) provides more generalized evaluation guidelines for area-sensitive grassland bird species. Lastly, consultations with OMNR staff provided valuable insights into how they were attempting to address this combination of species. Considering the above sources of information, and the fact that the size and habitat requirements do not differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is recommended that sites that support the following conditions should be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: Open country habitats 10 ha, not actively farmed for 5 years with confirmed habitat utilization by: at least four area-sensitive species from Group A; or three area-sensitive species from Group A and four or more species from Group B. Group A: Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, Grasshopper Sparrow, Northern Harrier, Savannah Sparrow, Upland Sandpiper, Western Meadowlark. Group B: American Kestrel, Brown Thrasher, Clay-colored Sparrow, Eastern Bluebird, Eastern Kingbird, Field Sparrow, Horned Lark, Sedge Wren, Vesper Sparrow or Willow Flycatcher. The lists of species were originally based on the list presented under the Open Country Breeding Bird Species criterion in the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a), but it was adjusted based on consultation with OMNR staff and the professional experience of the consultant team. Given the relative timeframe within which active agricultural fields can become suitable breeding habitat for area-sensitive open country bird species, an alternative approach to the North-South Environmental Inc. page 165

181 protection of this group could be considered. This approach would look at the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon as a whole and actively select an as yet unspecified contiguous amount of land best suited for the protection of this group. This might be the easiest way to ensure that the relatively large amounts of grasslands required to sustain this group are preserved as well as managed into the future. Targets that differentiate between identified future growth areas and those remaining rural could be considered. The expansion of the Region s Greenlands Securement Project to assist CVC, TRCA and the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust in acquiring high priority grassland habitat or the use of other land securement tools through partner agency programs should be considered as important conservation tools for this purpose. Although stewardship activities are undertaken, there is rarely a coordinated focus in any one location. Nevertheless, all stewardship opportunities should be encouraged Criterion B12: Habitat for Wetland Breeding Bird Species Southern Ontario has experienced significant wetland loss since European settlement (Snell 1987). Not surprisingly, breeding birds that depend on wetlands to breed have also declined significantly. As a result, protection of remaining wetland habitats has become a priority. The designation of habitat for wetland breeding bird species as SWH is consistent with this direction. Habitat for wetland breeding bird species was not included as a criterion in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). However, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) did include it and provided thresholds. This criterion and the related thresholds are considered appropriate for both the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon because (a) the ORM occupies such a large proportion of both jurisdictions and (b) has a comparable level of wetland cover. Therefore, it is recommended that sites that support the following conditions should be considered SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon: five nesting pairs of any combination of Group A species (Group A species = Common Loon, Pied-billed Grebe, American Bittern, Virginia Rail, Sora, Common Moorhen, American Coot, Sandhill Crane, Wilson s Snipe, Wilson s Phalarope, Black Tern, Marsh Wren, and Sedge Wren); or four nesting pairs of any combination of Group B species (Group B species = Black Tern, Marsh Wren, and Sedge Wren). Purple Gallinule was removed from list since there are no breeding records for Ontario (Sutherland 2007). Despite the fact that Wilson s Snipe is widespread and common in Ontario, it was added to the Group A species list. According to the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 2007, Peck 2007c) it occurs less frequently in the Region of Peel, especially in Mississauga and Brampton, than some of the other surrounding areas. The species has also shown statistically significant declines in detection across both the Carolinian and Lake Simcoe- Rideau atlas regions since the first atlas was conducted (i.e., 1981 and 1985). Five of the 13 wetland breeding bird species listed are considered area-sensitive. That is, they require large North-South Environmental Inc. page 166

182 areas of suitable habitat to maintain their populations (OMNR 2000). As a result, they are also often more susceptible to the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation. Any proposed developments will need to clearly demonstrate that the habitat requirements of these species will not be negatively impacted. Finally 10 of the 13 species listed showed decreases in proportional change between the first and second Ontario breeding bird atlases in the Carolinian and Lake Simcoe Rideau atlas regions, some of which are considered statistically significant at the 90% probability level (Cadman et al. 2007). Some of these species may eventually be covered under Criterion C4, which captures species known to be in significant decline in Ontario. However, such a list has yet to be developed Criterion B13i: Raptor Nesting Habitat (Raptors Associated with Wetlands, Ponds, and Rivers) Raptors typically refer to birds of prey such as hawks, eagles, falcons and owls. Some of these species prefer to nest near wetlands, ponds or rivers, such as Northern Harrier, Osprey and Shorteared Owl. Like all species of predators, raptor populations are low compared with typical prey species. Therefore, potential negative impacts on nesting habitat can have disproportionately large impacts on the species. For this reason, suitable raptor nesting habitat is considered SWH. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) were consulted to help develop suitable thresholds for the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Aside from declaring all Osprey nests significant, no specific thresholds were listed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Instead, a variety of criteria were recommended for consideration, including: maturity of trees, location of trees (near water, shorelines, wetlands), disturbance, access to foraging area, evidence of use, representation of site within planning area and the degree of threat to the site. In contrast, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) only requires the presence of one or more active nests of the three listed species (Northern Harrier, Osprey, and Short-eared Owl) to merit designation as SWH. Given the fact that the Town of Caledon appears very similar in natural cover with the ORM, the consultant team supports (with one exception) the use of the same thresholds for the Town of Caledon as put forward in the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a). That is, it is recommended that the presence of one or more active Northern Harrier or Osprey nests is sufficient to designate those sites as SWH. Short-eared Owl was removed from the list of species considered since it is designated Special Concern in Ontario and Canada and is included under criterion C2. Since the thresholds only require a single active nest of either species to be present, the same standards are also applicable to the remainder of the Region of Peel, where roughly equal amounts of wetland cover is present. Northern Harrier is also considered an area-sensitive species (OMNR, 2000). As such, any proposed development will need to clearly demonstrate that the area around the nest site will not be negatively impacted. This may mean protecting a relatively large area of suitable habitat. North-South Environmental Inc. page 167

183 Although Osprey can range widely when foraging, some considerations should also be extended to ensure that the hydrologic regime of adjacent wetlands are not negatively altered Criterion B13ii: Raptor Nesting Habitat (Raptors Associated with Woodland Habitats) Raptors typically refer to birds of prey such as hawks, eagles, falcons and owls. Some of these species prefer to nest within woodlands. Like all species of predators, raptor populations are low when compared with typical prey species. Therefore, potential negative impacts on nesting habitat can have disproportionately large impacts on the species. For this reason, suitable raptor nesting habitat is considered SWH. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) were consulted to help develop suitable thresholds for the Region and the Town. No specific thresholds are listed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000); instead, a variety of criteria were recommended for consideration, including: maturity of trees, location of trees (near water, shorelines, wetlands), disturbance, access to foraging area, evidence of use, representation of site within planning area and the degree of threat to the site. In contrast, the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) defines the threshold for significance as the presence of one or more active nests of the listed species (i.e., Sharp-sinned Hawk, Cooper s Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Eastern Screech-Owl, Barred Owl, Long-eared Owl, and Northern Saw-whet Owl). Given the fact that the Town of Caledon appears to have similar amounts of natural wooded cover compared with the ORM, the consultant team supports (with one exception) the use of the ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) thresholds for the Town of Caledon. Therefore, it is recommended that the presence of one or more active nest of any listed species is sufficient to designate those sites as SWH. To be consistent with the exclusion of abundant species like Red-tailed Hawk and Great Horned Owl, Eastern Screech-Owl was also left off the list because of its similar status. Listed species include: Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper s Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Redshouldered Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk, Northern Saw-whet Owl, Barred Owl, and Long-eared Owl. Since the thresholds only require a single active nest of a listed species to be present, the same standards are also applicable to the remainder of the Region of Peel, where far less woodland is present. In addition, since all of the woodland raptor species, with the exception of Eastern Screech-Owl, Long-eared Owl and Northern Saw-whet Owl are considered area-sensitive species (OMNR 2000), any proposed development will need to clearly demonstrate that the nest sites will not be negatively impacted. This may mean protecting a relatively large area of forest around the nest site. North-South Environmental Inc. page 168

184 Criterion B14: Mink, River Otter, Marten, and Fisher Denning Sites Like all carnivores, members of the weasel family are far less abundant when compared with their prey populations. As a result, each individual takes on greater significance in the system. Therefore the designation of their denning sites as SWH is justified. No specific thresholds are listed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Instead, a variety of criteria are recommended for consideration, including: presence of suitable habitat (shoreline habitat, forest), degree of disturbance, and the size of local fish, crustacean and insect populations. The ORMCP TP2 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007a) does not include denning sites as a category of SWH. Given that River Otter and Fisher occurrences are rare in southern Ontario (D. Sutherland pers. comm., 2008) and the large home ranges and specialized habitat of these species make them particularly sensitive to disturbance (OMNR 2000), it is recommended that all identified River Otter and Fisher den sites be considered SWH and a 10 x 10 m minimum no-touch zone around the den site should be established. Mink populations are common throughout Ontario. However, despite being the most adaptable of our weasel species, they also have large home ranges and specialized habitats that make them sensitive to disturbance (OMNR 2000). It is therefore recommended that identified Mink den sites occurring within areas of suitable habitat and low levels of disturbance be considered SWH, and as a minimum, a 10 x 10 m no-touch zone around the den site should be established. Suitable Mink habitat should be determined on the basis of shoreline habitat characteristics including type of forest cover, amount of shrub cover and woody debris as well as available nearby wetland habitat for foraging. Marten are not known to occur as far south as the Region of Peel (D. Sutherland pers. comm. 2008), however, if they were to be found in this region in the future, any identified den sites should be considered SWH. Mink and River Otter rely on undisturbed shoreline habitat for denning sites (OMNR 2002). It is recommended that the protection/management of Mink and River Otter denning sites include the establishment of a 30 meter no-development buffer from the edge of the shoreline associated with the identified SWH, as identified in the mitigation recommendations of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System document (OMNR 2002). The 30 m buffer should extend in both directions from the identified denning site for a distance appropriate to that species home range and the landscape context. Unless shown to be inappropriate, the 30 meter no-development buffer from the shoreline should extend 500 m in either direction for Mink and 2 km in either direction for River Otter. Fisher and Marten require large contiguous mature coniferous or mixed wood forest habitat to maintain viable populations (OMNR 2002). It is recommended that in locations where den sites are found, the largest possible area of continuous forest surrounding the site be protected. Protection of intact forest will support their large home ranges and preserve large trees and woody debris for den sites (OMNR 2000). In summary, and based on available distribution and occurrence data, it is recommended that the following supporting habitats be considered SWH: North-South Environmental Inc. page 169

185 all River Otter, Marten and Fisher den sites (i.e., a min.10 x 10 m area around the den site); or Mink den sites in natural areas with low levels of disturbance (i.e., a min.10 x 10 m area around the den site). With respect to Mink and River Otter, it is also recommended that as much wetland and undeveloped, undisturbed shoreline is protected as possible by establishing a 30 meter nodevelopment buffer from the shoreline for a distance of up to 500 m for Mink and 2 km for River Otter. For Fisher, it is recommended that as many large blocks of contiguous mid-aged to mature forest as possible surrounding the den site is protected Criterion B15: Mineral Licks A mineral lick is a point feature that identifies an area of mud pools or puddles, fed by slow seeping springs, and used by wildlife. Mineral licks occur in areas of both sedimentary and volcanic bedrock. They occur rarely in granitic bedrock except where overlain by calcareous glacial till. Well-established mineral licks typically appear as open muddy areas and are usually characterized by well-worn wildlife trails radiating from them. Almost all discussion of the mineral lick criterion in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and corresponding Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System (OMNR 2002) refers to Moose. In only one place are White-tailed Deer mentioned and only then in brackets following a discussion involving Moose. Although White-tailed Deer can use mineral licks, consultation with OMNR staff indicated that naturally occurring mineral licks in southern Ontario (i.e., south of Canadian Shield) are not considered significant or limiting. The network of roads in southern Ontario is so dense and the use of road salts so ubiquitous that White-tailed Deer likely do not need naturally occurring mineral licks. Based on the above assessment, mineral licks are not recommended as a criterion for the Region of Peel or the Town of Caledon Category C: Habitats for Species of Conservation Concern This category of criteria captures a range of species considered to be significant at the provincial, regional and local levels. However, not all provincially significant species are covered. Existing protections are already in effect for species designated as Threatened or Endangered by OMNR via Section ( Significant habitat of endangered and threatened species ) of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, as well as Ontario s newly revised Endangered Species Act (2007). North-South Environmental Inc. page 170

186 The following eight criteria have been adopted, almost verbatim, from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and provide direction for identifying all wildlife habitat not already covered by the above-referenced policy that could be of significance or concern at the scale of the Province, Region of Peel or the Town of Caledon. This category of criteria was not dealt with specifically on the ORM and so no precedents or guidance beyond the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) was available. All species within this category are considered either rare or uncommon in the context of the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. They do not have thresholds in the same sense as some of the criteria because in all cases the confirmed presence of a single species (or population) under any one of these categories requires consideration of appropriate habitat protection measures. However, wherever sufficient readily available information was available, species that would qualify under each of these criteria have been identified. Notably, in virtually all cases there is no comprehensive Region or Town-wide mapping for any of these species, although the ongoing Natural Areas Inventory for the Region of Peel will certainly provide some information in this regard. Although there is some mapping for species identified as Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC but not regulated by the Province (Criterion C1), these data are considered highly sensitive and specific point locations cannot be mapped, only generalized 1 km squares can. The same is true for species identified as Special Concern by OMNR (Criterion C2), and ranked as S1, S2 or S3 by the Natural Heritage Information Center (Criterion C3). Data related to some species (e.g., snakes) are considered so sensitive that these species cannot even be specifically associated with their 1 km squares in a published map. Therefore, Region or Town-wide mapping of this category of criteria is not a realistic or a practical objective, and presence or absence will need to be required on a case by case basis using background information and field verification. Established procedures are in place whereby specific information on the species for conservation concern is provided to qualified professionals on a need-to-know basis. Another important consideration for this category of criteria is that status lists for species at different jurisdictional levels are periodically revised based on new information (e.g., some species whose numbers have shown a consistent increase over a period of time may be removed from a list, while others that have shown a sudden and/or consistent decrease may be added), and that any study undertaken must have regard for the most current available lists for each criterion, irrespective of the information provided in this study Criterion C1: Species Identified as Nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC which are Not listed as Endangered or Threatened under Ontario s Endangered Species Act. The habitat for any species identified to be nationally Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC that is not identified as an Endangered or Threatened species on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List under Ontario s Endangered Species Act should be designated as SWH. Requirements for habitat protection will vary from species to species and need to be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with OMNR. North-South Environmental Inc. page 171

187 This information is available on-line through the COSEWIC website, is updated regularly by the Province (sometimes twice per year), and the most current list should be consulted for any studies undertaken. For example, new species were added to the Species at Risk in Ontario List when the Endangered Species Act (2007) came into force. Current examples of such species that occur or have occurred within the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon include: Rapids Clubtail (Gomphus quadricolor), the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence- Canadian Shield population of Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) and Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) Criterion C2: Species Identified as Special Concern Based on Species at Risk in Ontario List that is Periodically Updated by OMNR. As stated in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), the habitat for any species designated Special Concern according to the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List should be designated as SWH. Requirements for habitat protection will vary from species to species and need to be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with OMNR. This list can be viewed on-line, is updated annually by the Province, and the most current list should be consulted for any studies undertaken. It is expected that new species were added to the list when the Endangered Species Act (2007) came into force. Examples of some of the species that occur within the Region and the Town include American Hart s-tongue Fern, West Virginia White, Monarch, Milksnake, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Short-eared Owl, Cerulean Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush Criterion C3: Species that are Listed as Rare (S1 S3) or Historical in Ontario Based on Records Kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough. As stated in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), habitat for any species listed as S1, S2 or S3 (see Section 8 for definitions) based on the records kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), a branch of the OMNR, should be designated as SWH. This information is updated periodically by the NHIC, is available on-line through the NHIC website, and the most current information should be consulted for any studies undertaken. Requirements for habitat protection will vary from species to species and need to be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with OMNR and/or the local conservation authority. According to the data available through the NHIC database (as of March 2008), 20 S1 to S3 species of plants and 27 S1 to S3 species of wildlife (excluding fish) have been documented from the Region of Peel. In contrast, Town of Caledon had four such plant species listed and six such wildlife species listed (as shown in Table 6). North-South Environmental Inc. page 172

188 Criterion C4: Species whose Populations Appear to be Experiencing Substantial Declines in Ontario. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) does not provide any specific guidance in terms of defining what substantial declines might be. For this study, following consultations with the Technical Advisory Team, the consulting team recommends that substantial declines be defined as significant declines at the 90%confidence level. Breeding Birds Upon careful review of existing information sources such as the Breeding Bird Survey (Downes et al. 2005), Forest Bird Monitoring Program (OFBMP 2006), Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP 2008), and the recently completed Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 2007), the consultant team did not feel comfortable putting forward a threshold for this criterion. The available information sources did not appear to adequately capture Province-wide trends, as specifically required by the criterion. Each had certain deficiencies (e.g., BBS disproportionately covered southern Ontario) or biases (e.g., only covered forest [FBMP] or marsh [MMP] habitats) that prevented them from being appropriately applied. Also, while the comprehensive and Province-wide coverage provided by the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas seemed appealing, the proportional change information provided does not necessarily correspond to population change. Perhaps in 20 years time, after the next atlas is completed, it will be possible to compare population trend information. Other Wildlife Groups Although this was not pursued as part of this study, calling frog and toad population trend data gathered as part of the Marsh Monitoring Program, Frogwatch Ontario, Amphibian Road Call Count, and Backyard Frog Survey, could all be utilized if deemed suitable. Unfortunately, there are currently no population trend data available for other wildlife groups in Ontario Criterion C5: Species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are rare or uncommon in the Region of Peel/Town of Caledon. Although this criterion is considered applicable to the study area, an adequate analysis of what species should be considered needs to be undertaken before a threshold can be recommended for the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon. This was outside the scope of this study, but should be undertaken as part of future work Criterion C6: Species that are rare within the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon, even though they may not be provincially rare There are currently no lists of locally significant species for the Town of Caledon, however it is not unusual for area municipalities not to have such lists and for them to defer to Regional lists. North-South Environmental Inc. page 173

189 For plants, there is a relatively recent list of rare species for the Region of Peel developed by the OMNR (Varga et al. 2005) which both the consulting team and Technical Advisory Team agree is appropriate to determine what species are rare in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. There is, however, no comparable list for wildlife for the Region. Although outside the scope of this study, it is recommended that a composite list using existing data from both the TRCA and CVC be prepared. CVC currently has a list of bird species of conservation concern, but it is out-dated. It is being revised and may feed into this process in the future. TRCA has a fairly comprehensive list of wildlife species ranked as L1, L2, L3 or L4 that should be considered in the context of the Region of Peel. Both conservation authorities should regularly be consulted to assess what lists are available, especially if a composite list is not prepared. In addition, the significant species lists produced for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan-Technical Paper 6 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007b) should apply to areas on the ORM and should be considered during development of a wildlife list for the Region. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan-Technical Paper 6 (Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007b) identifies confirmed SWH for wildlife as follows: Brown Thrasher: o shrubby fields, including old haylands and pasture > 10 ha. (OMNR 2000) o territories = 0.6 ha (CWS 2002) o 20 or more confirmed breeding or nesting pairs; Bobolink: o large grassland fields, including haylands and pasture > 50 ha. (OMNR 2000) o territories = 2.6 ha (CWS 2002) o 20 or more confirmed breeding or nesting pairs; Eastern Meadowlark: o large grassland fields, including haylands and pasture > 10 ha. (OMNR 2000) o territories = 2.8 ha (CWS 2002) o five or more confirmed breeding or nesting pairs; Field Sparrow: o shrubby fields, including old haylands and pasture > 10 ha. (OMNR 2000) o territories = 0.76 ha (CWS 2002) o 15 or more confirmed breeding or nesting pairs; Western Meadowlark: o large grassland fields, including haylands and pasture > 10 ha. (OMNR 2000) o territories = 6.0 ha (CWS 2002) o two or more confirmed breeding or nesting pairs; Upland Sandpiper: o large grassland fields, including haylands and pasture > 25 ha. (OMNR 2000) North-South Environmental Inc. page 174

190 o territories = 10 ha (CWS 2002) o two or more confirmed breeding or nesting pairs; and Ruffed Grouse: o Sites identified by OMNR and studies confirming presence of viable breeding population in a woodland 25 ha or greater Criterion C7: Species that are Subjects of Recovery Programs Recovery planning happens at both national and provincial levels. Recovery strategies must be prepared for species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Extirpated under the federal Species at Risk Act (2002) (SARA) (see In Ontario, recovery strategies must be prepared for species designated as Threatened or Endangered in the Endangered Species Act (2007). These species are listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List ( Management plans must also be prepared for species designated as Special Concern on the SARO List. However, habitat for species listed as Threatened and Endangered in Ontario by OMNR is already afforded protection via the new Endangered Species Act (2007) and Section ( significant habitat of endangered and threatened species ) of the PPS (2005). Similarly, habitats for OMNR Special Concern species receive protection by designation as SWH, in particular through criterion C2, described in this report. Therefore, in the Region of Peel or Town of Caledon, this criterion primarily applies to species that are designated as Threatened, Endangered or Extirpated by COSEWIC but not Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered in Ontario. As of August 2008, this applies to only half a dozen species: Rapids Clubtail (Gomphus quadricolor), the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence-Canadian Shield population of Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), and Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis). Habitats that support any of these species (as defined above) in the Region or Town should be considered SWH. In addition, if any other species are subject to other recovery programs (such as the Black Duck is with the Black Duck Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), habitats for these species should also be considered SWH. It is also recommended that both the COSEWIC and OMNR web sites are checked on a regular basis to ensure that the list of species that qualify for protection under criterion C7 is accurate. For example, it is possible that some of the species listed have not yet been evaluated for significance and their status may be subject to change. North-South Environmental Inc. page 175

191 Criterion C8: Species Considered Important to The Region of Peel/Town of Caledon, Based on Recommendations from the Conservation Advisory Committee Although this criterion is considered applicable to the study area and recommended, no associated list of species is being recommended since no Conservation Advisory Committee currently exists in the Region or the Town. Notably, most of the species falling under this criterion would likely be captured by lists of Regionally rare species, as described under Criterion C6. The term Conservation Advisory Committee was taken verbatim from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). It generically describes a committee with membership of knowledgeable naturalists familiar with conditions and biota in the jurisdiction. Some Environmental Advisory Committees possibly fall into this category although typically their role is to review planning submissions and they may not have the necessary field knowledge, or mandate to develop such specific lists. It is expected that that a Conservation Advisory Committee would be aware of and consult status lists prepared by local conservation authorities, but would also have the knowledge base to refine the use of such lists Criterion D: Animal Movement Corridors Animal movement corridors are defined by the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) as elongated, naturally vegetated parts of the landscape areas used by animals to move from one habitat to another. They exist at different scales and frequently link or border natural areas. Animal movement corridors encompass a wide variety of landscape features including riparian zones and shorelines, wetland buffers, stream and river valleys, woodlands, and anthropogenic features such as hydro and pipeline corridors, abandoned road and rail allowances, and fencerows and windbreaks. The Natural Heritage policies of the PPS (2005) further states that The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water. These corridors are important in the landscape because they allow animals to move across the landscape and they increase the dispersal and re-colonization ability of both plant and animal species (thereby off-setting some of the negative impacts of habitat fragmentation and supporting long-term population viability) (e.g., Saunders et al. 1991, Fahrig and Merriam 1994, Boulinier et al. 2001, Fahrig 2001). They are especially important for species that require a variety of habitats for survival (e.g., forest salamanders that spend summer and winter in forest soils but breed and lay eggs in ponds in the spring) or move in response to seasonal changes (e.g., white tailed deer, migratory birds), and can also provide permanent habitat for some plants and animals. Although corridors are also known to facilitate dispersal of undesirable (e.g., exotic invasive) species and, depending on their structure and size, may create environments that make some species more vulnerable to predators, scientific research and practice continues to demonstrate North-South Environmental Inc. page 176

192 that maintaining terrestrial linkages and connectivity between natural habitats ensures better ecosystem functioning than having a number of isolated natural areas (e.g., Noss 1993, Naiman et al. 1993, Forman 1995, Fleury and Brown 1997, Beier and Noss 1998, Fahrig 2002). As stated by Merriam (1991): "In regional planning and management, connectivity in general, corridors connecting patch populations, and corridors connecting vital resource patches, will be critical to retaining ecological integrity. There is a vast amount of literature that deals with various aspects of animal movement corridors, and it is outside the scope of this study to provide a comprehensive review. However, key issues and supporting literature that have particular relevance to the Region and the Town are summarized below along with some suggestions regarding corridor identification for this study area. In terms of ideal sizes for corridors there are no standards in the literature or technical guidelines. This is in part because optimal sizes, which have been examined for a number of wildlife species and groups, vary so much between and within taxonomic groups (see Appendix 6), and are unknown for many other species. Minimum widths and lengths of corridors also depends on habitat structure and quality within individual corridors, nature of the surrounding habitat, and human use patterns (Adams and Dove 1989). However, there are some general principles and guidelines that can be extrapolated from the literature. The longer the corridor, the wider it should be. For example, in southern Ontario, a natural corridor of about 0.5 km wide extending through the settled areas (as has been identified in the Province s Greenbelt Plan, 2005) is recommended for maintaining a healthy natural heritage system on a relatively large scale (Diamond et al. 2002). A corridor should be wide enough to shelter the animal species from predators, allow for movement, and provide nesting and feeding opportunities for a slower moving groups of wildlife groups (Forman 1995, Spackman and Hughes 1995, Fleury and Brown 1997). In general, a corridor that is continuously at least 200 m wide but no less than 100 m wide allows for the movement of many species but not breeding or feeding (Environment Canada et al. 2004, Forman 1995). There is evidence that even narrow linkages, such as fencerows connecting woodlands, can help relieve the isolating effects of fragmented landscapes as well as provide temporary habitat for migrating birds and small mammals (Wegner and Merriam 1979, Merriam 1991, Hess and Bay 2000, Aude et al. 2004). Some authors suggest that the requirements of species that are high on the food chain (so-called umbrella species ) should be utilized as a minimum necessary width for corridors (e.g., Fleury and Brown 1997, Soulé and Terborgh 1999). However, a recent review by Roberge and Angelstam (2004) discounts the value of the umbrella species approach entirely and argues that since fulfilling habitat requirements for any one single species cannot ensure conservation of all co-occurring species it is best to adopt a multi-species strategy based on systematic selection procedures. Certainly, the value of corridors and linkages has been recognized by many municipalities in southern Ontario, and in a review of 25 Regional Official Plans, CDGL (1999) found 20 of them provided for some type of natural connections between habitat patches. However, the main North-South Environmental Inc. page 177

193 challenge to developing size thresholds for animal movement corridors is that minimum size requirements of corridors for many species is unknown, and for those species where data are available, requirements appear to vary tremendously for different species and different types of wildlife. This makes it difficult to determine what appropriate minimum sizes should be for corridor habitat when doing landscape planning at a Regional scale for multiple species in a fragmented network where impacts and species responses are still poorly understood (Lambeck and Hobbs 2002). An additional challenge is that it is seldom possible to observe wildlife species actually using corridors, and so corridors must be designed based on (a) a knowledge of the species present in a given landscape, (b) a review of the most current data of habitat needs and mobility of those species, (c) an analysis of the most suitable pathways available in a given landscape, and (d) with consideration for the minimum requirements of the key species and/or those with the broadest needs. Animal movement corridors, as described above, are utilized and should be identified at various scales, and typically vary in size (width and length) as well as quality (e.g., plant species composition, diversity and structure). These scales, tailored to the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon context, can generally be defined as follows: 1. Primary: Inter-regional movement corridors following major physiographic features (e.g., along the Niagara Escarpment or ORM) Can be identified remotely using air photo interpretation and mapping related to other designated areas. Should be identified early on and be considered during large, medium and small scale planning projects (including infrastructure developments) as high priority elements to be protected from further fragmentation. 2. Secondary: Regional movement corridors (e.g., along natural linear features such as river valleys, or across active and abandoned agricultural lands in rural areas). Can be identified remotely using air photo interpretation and mapping related to other designated areas, in conjunction with information from watershed studies. Should be identified early on and be considered during large, medium and small scale planning projects (including infrastructure developments) as high priority elements to ensure continued connectivity in the landscape in the face of urbanization. Should focus on opportunities in the landscape to incorporate small or undesignated remnants of natural features into linkages that provide the most direct connection between core or otherwise designated natural features, but may incorporate agricultural lands or other open spaces (e.g., golf courses) as well as anthropogenic, semi-natural linear features associated with anthropogenic uses (e.g., power lines, pipelines, railways and highway rights-of-ways) where no other alternatives exist. Should be identified on lands that are already or have the potential to become naturalized, but should also recognize that some connectivity is supported by active agricultural lands as well as other managed open spaces, and that as long as the lands remain open (i.e., do not become built-up or urbanized) some connectivity is retained in the landscape. Should, wherever possible, be identified in locations that minimize the potential for human-wildlife conflict, particularly with respect to vehicular or rail transit. This North-South Environmental Inc. page 178

194 means that crossings over highways and arterial roads should be minimized, and that where such crossings are identified mitigation measures (such as wildlife underpasses or overpasses, or at the very least signs and reduced speed limits) should be implemented. 3. Tertiary: Local movement corridors (e.g., hedgerows, riparian strips). Should be identified as part of the local planning process prior to major land use decisions being made to identify the most appropriate opportunities for connectivity in the landscape. If not already identified, may need to be defined at the secondary plan or site development application stage. Should be identified based on knowledge of the local wildlife populations and the requirements these species have for movement and connectivity. Should, wherever possible, be identified in locations that minimize the potential for human-wildlife conflict, particularly with respect to vehicular or rail transit. This means that crossings over highways and arterial roads should be minimized, and that where such crossings are identified mitigation measures (such as wildlife underpasses or overpasses, or at the very least signs and reduced speed limits) should be implemented. These corridors are important at the local scale, but may be identified more flexibly than Primary or Secondary corridors in relation to proposed developments since they are not typically associated with relatively fixed and large-scale natural features. For example, in some cases it may be of more ecological value to create a linkage across open space that directly connects two protected natural areas with native trees and shrubs rather than preserve an existing hedgerow dominated by invasive species that provides a less direct link. An additional important consideration when identifying wildlife corridors, particularly across existing or planned roads, is the potential for road kill and, in the case of larger mammals like deer, vehicle-wildlife accidents. Identification of existing wildlife corridors over roads should also include safety considerations for people and wildlife (e.g., warning signs, retrofitting of large culverts that allow for wildlife passage where possible). Identification of wildlife corridors prior to design and construction of new roads provides an excellent opportunity to integrate safe passage for wildlife into the road designs. Typically, animal movement corridors, particularly at a landscape scale, are identified as part of natural heritage systems and only after other natural features (and SWH) have been mapped. The development of animal movement corridors needs to be developed in accordance with the Region s Greenlands System framework for both the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon. Regional and Town-wide corridors identified on a map will likely be primary and secondary in nature. However, secondary plans and site-specific developments should also consider tertiary corridors, as described above. North-South Environmental Inc. page 179

195 6.6 Concluding Remarks This study has carefully considered the full range of possible criteria for SWH that could be applicable to the Region of Peel and/or the Town of Caledon. A total of 41 criteria selected from existing provincial policy documents were considered within each of the following SWH subcategories: A. Seasonal Concentration Areas (15 criteria) B. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats for Wildlife (17 criteria) C. Habitats for Species of Conservation Concern (8 criteria) D. Animal Movement Corridors (1 criterion) Criteria were then recommended based on guidance from provincial and ORM technical guidelines, consultations with OMNR, consideration for local conditions and consideration for consultation input. For each recommended criterion, thresholds were developed and recommended where possible based on provincial and ORM technical guidelines, review and analysis of available data, and input from agency and other experts. In all cases, thresholds have only been recommended for criteria where they could be based on sufficient data/available research and/or expert opinion considered to be defensible. Correspondence with OMNR staff has been ongoing throughout the project to help ensure consistency with current provincial direction. Where the level of confidence did not warrant recommending a threshold, an approach for determining significance has been suggested wherever possible, including collection of Region-wide data where it was felt this would be a beneficial undertaking. In all cases, new information may be cause for reconsideration of the recommended thresholds, and policy documents should provide a framework for this reconsideration. Despite the challenges and limitations of undertaking an unprecedented municipal-wide SWH assessment, the consultant team was able to make recommendations for the majority of the recommended criteria. Of the 41 preliminary criteria, for the Region of Peel 28 (58.5%) have been recommended with thresholds, 11 have been recommended without thresholds, and 2 were not recommended because they were considered inapplicable. In the Town of Caledon 26 of the 41 (53.7%) criteria have been recommended with thresholds, 11 have been recommended without thresholds, and 4 were not recommended because they were considered inapplicable. Some of the differences between Peel and Caledon are because of the fact that the Town of Caledon does not include the Lake Ontario lakeshore. As stated in previous sections, it is impossible to produce comprehensive SWH mapping, although some candidate SWH areas could potentially be mapped individually. This is primarily because of data gaps (i.e., not all sites are known in the Region/Town), but also because of the sensitivity of the data (i.e., rare species locations cannot be specifically shown on maps because of conservation concerns regarding the disclosure of critical habitat). Policies developed with regard to SWH will also need to be put forward with the understanding that development applications will need to consider all the SWH criteria that may apply to their site, and the related thresholds (where provided) rather than any mapping. The only two exceptions to this are criterion A4ii (Migratory landbird stopover areas; only applicable to the Region) and criterion B5 (Highly diverse areas/habitats) for which mapping can be undertaken. North-South Environmental Inc. page 180

196 Finally, it is important to recognize that the recommended SWH species and thresholds will likely need review and updating as additional natural heritage is collected in the study area (and beyond), to recognize new developments in the conservation biology and landscape ecology, changes in species (and habitat) designations, and on a broader scale, consider the impacts of climate change where appropriate. North-South Environmental Inc. page 181

197

198 7.0 CONCLUSIONS This study report provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of criteria and thresholds for identifying significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. Section 5, addressing significant woodlands, discussed a total of 18 criteria and thresholds, and recommends a final suite of six for identifying significant woodlands. Section 6 recommends 39 criteria for identifying significant wildlife habitat in the Region of Peel and 37 in the Town of Caledon. Of the 39 regional criteria, 28 have suggested thresholds and of the 37 Town criteria, 26 have thresholds recommended. The remaining criteria do not, at this time, have any recommended thresholds. Summaries of these criteria are provided in Sections 5.4 (significant woodlands) and 6.6 (significant wildlife habitat). The discussion of the criteria and thresholds in this report has focused on technical merits. Although there is recognition of the policy framework in which this study was undertaken, it was decided at the outset that policy issues would be dealt with through the policy development phase for both the Region and the Town. It is, therefore, recommended that the criteria and thresholds proposed in this technical study be considered in the development of policy for protecting significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat in the Region of Peel as part of the Natural Heritage Policy Review component of the Peel Region Official Plan Review (PROPR) and the Town of Caledon through their Provincial Policy Conformity (PPC) exercise. As noted in Section 2.0 (Study Process), the analyses and evaluation that was used to develop the recommended criteria and thresholds was based on existing information. As additional information is collected on the vegetation and fauna of the Region and the Town, and the understanding of species and community distribution and abundance increases, it would be appropriate to re-visit some of the thresholds, especially for significant wildlife, to determine if a revision is appropriate. The on-going Natural Areas Inventory being undertaken by the CVC is expected to contribute to this body of knowledge. There are some criteria and thresholds that require site-specific knowledge to apply. It is, therefore, important that the appropriate information be collected as part of environmental impact studies, sub-watershed studies, secondary plan studies or other natural heritage studies to undertake these determinations. To this end, it is recommended that a list of items to be addressed in environmental studies, that can be used to write Terms of Reference for such studies, be developed for inclusion in Regional and area municipal policy. This should include policy that requires the approval of Terms of Reference for environmental studies, prior to them being undertaken, to ensure that appropriate field programs methods and analyses are employed. It is recognized that identification and protection of significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat alone is insufficient to ensure their long term persistence. Many of these natural heritage features (including wildlife), especially smaller areas and/or those in or proximate to urban areas, are subject to a variety of impacts. To mitigate these impacts it is important that management/stewardship plans be developed and the capacity (staff and funding) be put in place to undertake management, stewardship activities and monitoring. North-South Environmental Inc. page 183

199

200 8.0 DEFINITIONS COSEWIC/COSSARO Definitions: Threatened (T): A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Endangered (E): A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Special Concern (SC): A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Extirpated (XT): A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, or in the case of COSSARO no longer existing in Ontario, but occurring elsewhere. Extinct (X): A wildlife species that no longer exists. Data Deficient (DD): A wildlife species for which there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction. Not At Risk (NAR): A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Ranking Definitions: S1: Critically Imperiled - Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. S2: Imperiled - Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. S3: Vulnerable - Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4: Apparently Secure - Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5: Secure - Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. SX: Presumed Extirpated - Species or community is believed to be extirpated from the nation or state/province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. SH: Possibly Extirpated (Historical) - Species or community occurred historically in the nation or state/province, and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past years. North-South Environmental Inc. page 185

201 SNR: Unranked - Nation or state/province conservation status not yet assessed. SU: Unrankable - Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SNA: Not Applicable - A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. S#S#: Range Rank - A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). Definitions used for Significant Woodlands Criteria: Significant Feature: all wetlands; all life science ANSIs (regionally and provincially significant); all significant valleylands as determined by the Region of Peel in partnership with the Area Municipalities, CVC and TRCA, Environmentally Significant/Sensitive Areas (ESAs), and significant woodlands that satisfy the size criterion (i.e., significant woodlands that are identified based solely on criteria other than size are not considered to be significant features with respect to the application of the proximity criterion ). Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) Areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features which the Ministry of Natural Resources has identified as having provincial significance, possessing values related to natural heritage appreciation, scientific study or education: Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest are those areas identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources for their high quality representation of important provincial biotic attributes. Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest are those areas identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources for their high quality representation of important provincial geological attributes. Environmentally Sensitive or Significant Areas (ESAs) Places where ecosystem functions or features warrant special protection. These may include but are not limited to rare or unique plant or animal populations or habitats, plant or animal communities, or concentrations of ecological functions. Environmentally Sensitive or Significant Areas are identified by the conservation authorities according to their established criteria. Wetland: For the purpose of this study wetlands includes only those wetlands that would be defined as a wetland if evaluated using the Provincial Wetland Evaluation System. Unevaluated wetlands may be subject to evaluation in the future and a determination made that these features are wetlands in accordance with the Provincial Wetland Evaluation System-Southern Manual. North-South Environmental Inc. page 186

202 Wetlands are defined in the PPS as: means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition. Watercourse: The definition of a watercourse will be as defined in the Black s Law Dictionary as a body of water flowing in a reasonably definite channel with bed and banks. Surface Water Features: This includes lakes, woodland ponds, watercourses, springs, seeps, reservoirs etc., which provide ecological functions. It is not intended to include small surface water features such as farm ponds or stormwater management ponds, which would have limited ecological function. Some judgment will have to be exercised when assessing eligibility of features for the application of criterion related to surface water features. North-South Environmental Inc. page 187

203

204 9.0 LITERATURE CITED Adams, L.W., and L.E. Dove Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban Environment: a Guide to Ecological Landscape Planning and Resource Conservation. National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, Maryland. Alerstam, T Bird Migration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 420pp. Anon Cultural Landscapes in Ontario. Government of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. Anon Parks, Heritage and Development: Cultural Landscapes. National Capital Commission, Ottawa, Ontario. Askins, R.A Restoring North America s birds. Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA. Aude, E., K. Tybirk, A. Michelsen, R. Ejrneas, A.B. Hald, and S. Mark Conservation value of herbaceous vegetation in hedgerows does organic farming make a difference? Biological Conservation. 118: Bakowsky, Wasyl. NHIC Ecologist, pers. comm. March Bakowsky, W.D Natural heritage resources of Ontario: S-ranks for communities in site regions 6 and 7. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough. Barrett, K. A Reply Witness Statement, Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Case No. PL031169, Palm Place Developments Inc., 3506 Lakeshore Road West, Part of Lots 34 and 35, Concession 4, SDS, Town of Oakville. Representing The Halton Region Conservation Authority, June 21, Bay, M.D Breeding Birds in Early Successional Oldfields: the Effect of Area on Community Structure. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science. 76: Beak Town of Caledon Woodland Policy Review. 46 pp. Beier, P., and R. Noss Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology. 12: Berger, G., P. Holger, H. Kachele, S. Andreas, and J. Hoffmann Nature protection in agricultural landscapes by setting aside unproductive areas and ecotones within arable fields ( Infield Nature Protection Spots ). Journal of Nature Conservation. 11: Blackport, Bill. Consulting Hydrogeologist, independent. Personal communication July Boos, J. Planning Biologist, OMNR. Personal Communications. February-June North-South Environmental Inc. page 189

205 Booth, D.B Forest Cover, Impervious-Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization Impacts in King County, Washington. Report prepared for King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Wa. 18 pp. Boulinier, T., J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.R. Sauer, C.H. Flather, and K.H. Pollock Forest fragmentation and bird community dynamics: inference at regional scales. Ecology. 82: Bowman, J Wild Turkey. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Brewer, D Sedge Wren. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. BSC (Bird Studies Canada) Marsh Monitoring Program Participant's Handbook for Surveying Amphibians Edition. 13 pages. Published by Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February Burbrink, F.T., C.A. Phillips, and E.J. Heske A riparian zone in southern Illinois as a potential dispersal corridor for reptiles and amphibians. Biological Conservation. 86: Burgess, R. L., and D. M. Sharpe (eds.) Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin. Burke, D. and E. Nol Edge and fragment size effects on the vegetation of deciduous forests in Ontario, Canada. Natural Areas Journal. 18: Buss, M., K. Morrison, and M. Wilton Identification and Delineation of White-tailed Deer Winter Habitat. Pg In Ranta, W.B. (ed.) Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual for use in Forest Management Planning VERSION 1.0 August pp. Buttle, J.M Identifying hydrological responses to basin restoration: an example from southern Ontario. pgs 5-13 in: J. McDonnell, D. Leopold, J. Sterling and L. Neville (eds.) Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association Annual Symposium, July 14-17, 1996, Syracuse New York. North-South Environmental Inc. page 190

206 Cadman, M Conserving What's Left of Southern Ontario's Forest Birds. pages in: A. Kettle and W. Bates Southern Ontario Woodlands, The Conservation Challenge. Conference Casebook from conference held June pp. Cadman, M.D Cliff Swallow. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto. xxii pp. Calhoun, A. J. K. and M.W. Klemens Best development practices: Conserving poolbreeding amphibians in residential and commercial developments in the northeastern United States. MCA Technical Paper No. 5, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York. Catry, P., V. Encarnacao, A. Araujo, P. Fearon, A. Fearon, M. Armelin and P. Delaloye Are long-distance migrant passerines faithful to their stopover sites? Journal of Avian Biology 35: CDGL Natural Heritage Planning Policy in Ontario: A Review of County and Regional Official Plans. 47 p. Prepared for WWF-Canada in partnership with OPPI, MOE, OMNR and MMAH by The Community Development Group Ltd. (CDGL). CEC The North American Mosaic: A State of the Environment Report. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec. Chapman, L. J. and D.F. Putnam The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2, 270 pp. Chernetsov, N Habitat selection by nocturnal passerine migrants en route: mechanisms and results. Journal of Ornithology, 147(2): City of Hamilton, Planning and Development Department Review of Significant Woodland Criteria. Technical Discussion Paper Draft (Revision 1). City of Hamilton Official Plan Review pp. City of Hamilton Rural Hamilton Official Plan. City of London Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands.17 pp. North-South Environmental Inc. page 191

207 City of Ottawa White Paper - Ottawa s Natural Environment System: How Well is it Working? Available: ml Coady, G. and R.B.H. Smith Greater Toronto Area Bird Checklist and Reporting Guidelines Toronto Ornithological Club. Toronto. 84 pp. Conservation Halton Palm Place Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, OMB Case No. PL OMB Files No. O030400, Z and M Final Written Submission, March 23, COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) Canadian Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, January pp. Available: see also: Schedule 1 COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, December pp. Available: Crins, W.J. and P.S.G. Kor Natural Heritage Gap Analysis Methodologies Used by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Draft. Internal report produced by Ontario Parks, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. Cronquist, M.J., and R.P. Brooks Effects of habitat disturbance on bird communities in riparian corridors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 48: CVC (Credit Valley Conservation) Landscape Scale Analysis of the City of Mississauga s natural and cultural habitats. Credit Valley Conservation, Draft Technical Document, Feb. 26, 2008, 68 p. + appendices. CVC (Credit Valley Conservation) Interim Watershed Characterization Report for the Credit River Watershed. Completed by Credit Valley Conservation for the CTC Source Protection Region; Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), Feb. 28, 2007, 187 p. CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service) (Downes, C.M., B.T. Collins and J.A Kennedy.) Canadian Bird Trends Web Site Version 2.0. Migratory Birds Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, Hull, Que. Available: Darling, Chris. Region of Durham. Planning Department. Personal communication on February 28, North-South Environmental Inc. page 192

208 David Suzuki Foundation David Suzuki Foundation website. Accessed February 19, < Dettmers, R Status and conservation of shrubland birds in northeastern US. Forest Ecology and Management. 185: Diamond, M., J. Dougan, N. Helferty, E. Hodge, P. Niblett, M. Rose, and S. Rowe Natural Heritage Systems in Urbanizing Settings: Sustainable Practices for the Oak Ridges Moraine. 83 p. + appendices. Prepared on behalf of Save the Rouge Valley Systems Inc. and the City of Toronto Natural Areas Inventory: Town of Fort Erie Settlement Areas, Final Draft, Volumes 1 & 2, March and North-South Environmental Inc Migratory Birds in the City of Toronto: A Literature Review & Data Assessment. Final Report, September Downes, C.M., B.T. Collins and M. Damus Canadian Bird Trends Web site Version 2.1. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3. Durham Region The Regional Municipality of Durham Official Plan. An Unofficial Working Consolidation Including Amendment No. 114, as Adopted by Regional Council on September 13, Environment Canada How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great lakes Areas of Concern, 2 nd ed. 80 pp. Environment Canada Great Lakes Fact Sheet. Forest Birds in Urban Areas: Habitat Needs of Area-Sensitive Species. 12 pp. Available: Environmental Law Institute Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planner. Washington D.C., ISBN# , ELI project code , 64 p. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Great Lakes Fact Sheet. Accessed December 21, < Evans Ogden, L.J Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Published by World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Light Awareness Program. 46 pages. Faccio, S.D Postbreeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and Spotted Salamanders in Vermont. Journal of Herpetology. 37: Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology. 8: North-South Environmental Inc. page 193

209 FLAP (Fatal Light Awareness Program). Accessed 5 December < nestegg_3.htm>. Fleury, A.M., and R.D. Brown A framework for the design of wildlife conservation corridors with specific application to southwestern Ontario. Landscape and Urban Planning. 37: FON (Federation of Ontario Naturalists) Suggested Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario. Prepared by Conserving Southern Woodlands Project, Ontario Nature Federation of Ontario Naturalists, DRAFT, February Forbes, G Forest management Guidelines to Protect Native Biodiversity in the Fundy Model Forest. Stand Age - Provisions for Mature Forest Stands. Downloaded from the internet site January 28, Forman, R.T.T Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fox, W.S. and J.H. Soper The Distribution of Some Trees and Shrubs of the Carolinian Zone of Southern Ontario. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute vol. 29, pt II, pp 65-84; vol. 30, pt. I, pp 3-32; and vol. 30, pt. III, pp Freemark, K. and B. Collins Landscape ecology of birds in temperate forest fragments. pp , In, J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, editors, Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 609pp. Friesen, L Impacts of urbanization on plant and bird communities in forest ecosystems. The Forestry Chronicle 77(6): Friesen, L., P.F.J. Eagles and R.J. McKay Effects of residential development on Forest- Dwelling Neotropical Migrant Songbirds. Conservation Biology 9(6): Gabor, T.S., A.K. North, L.C.M. Ross, H.R. Murkin, J.S. Anderson, and M. Raven The Importance of Wetlands and Upland Conservation Practices in Watershed Management: Functions and Values for Water Quality and Quantity. Ducks Unlimited Canada s Institute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research, February Garner-Lee Ltd Rationale and Methodology for Determining Significant Woodlands in the Regional Municipality of Halton. Draft Technical Background Paper #6. Unpublished report prepared for Halton Region. 66 pp + app. Gauthreaux, Jr., S.A Age-Dependent Orientation in Migratory Birds. In: Avian Navigation, Eds. Papi and Wallraff. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp North-South Environmental Inc. page 194

210 Guerry, A.D., and M.L. Hunter Jr Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. 16: Hagan, J.M. and A.A. Whitman Late-successional Forest: A disappearing age class and implications for biodiversity. Publication of the Forest Conservation Program of Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. FMSN pp. PDF file downloaded from the internet site 28 January, Halpin, P.N Global climate change and natural-area protection: management responses and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. 16: Harding, J.M Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 378pp Harris, L.D The Fragmented Forest. Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press. 211 pp. Heaton, Mark Biologist, Aurora District OMNR, pers. comm. March Helferty, N.J Natural Heritage Planning for Amphibians and their Habitats. 71 p. Supplementary Report for Oak Ridges Moraine Richmond Hill Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. and the City of Toronto. Hennings, L.A. and W.D. Edge Riparian bird community structure in Portland, Oregon; Habitat, urbanization, and spatial scale patterns. The Condor, 105(2): 288. Henson, B. L. and K. E. Brodribb Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity. Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries, 344 p. Hess, G.R., and J.M. Bay A regional assessment of windbreak habitat suitability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 61: Hewlett, J.D Principles of Forest Hydrology. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. as cited in Buttle Hills, G.A The Ecological Basis for Land-use Planning. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto. Research Report pp. Hostetler, M., S. Duncan and J. Paul Post-construction Effects of an Urban Development on Migrating, Resident, and Wintering Birds. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(3): Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchasuti, S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setala, A.J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D.A. Wardle Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs. 75:3-35. North-South Environmental Inc. page 195

211 Hounsell, S.W Methods for assessing the sensitivity of forest birds and their habitats to transmission line disturbances. Ontario Hydro, Land Use and Environmental Planning Department, stations and Transmission Programs Group, Toronto, Ontario. 616pp. Hounsell, S.W Southern Ontario Planning with the end in sight. pp in: A. Kettle and W. Bates (eds) Southern Ontario Woodlands The Conservation Challenge. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 164 pp. Hutto, R.L On the Importance of Stopover Sites to Migrating Birds. The Auk 115(4): Hutto, R.L On the Importance of En Route Periods to the Conservation of Migratory Landbirds. In: Stopover Ecology of Nearctic-Neotropical Landbird Migrants: Habitat Relations and Conservation Implications, F.R. Moore (Ed.), Studies in Avian Biology No. 20, published by the Cooper Ornithological Society. Jalava, J.V., J.L. Riley, D.G. Cuddy, and W.J. Crins A Proposed Revision to Ecological Site District Boundaries in Site Regions 6 and 7 (Unpublished draft). Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario. Jenkins, D.H., D.A. Devlin, N.C. Johnson and S.P. Orndorff System design and management for restoring Penn s Woods. Journal of Forestry April/May pp Jobes, Andrew Planning Biologist, OMNR, pers. comm. February-June Joyal, L.A., M. McCollough, and M.L. Hunter Jr Landscape and regional planning for conservation: Issues and practicalities. Pages in K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York. Kaiser, J A Vascular Plant Flora of the Region of Peel and the Credit Valley Conservation. Kerlinger, P., How Birds Migrate. Stackpole books, PA. Klem, D. Jr Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101(4): Kopysh, N.C Eastern Screech-Owl. Pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto. xxii pp. Lamond, W.G The Reptiles and Amphibians of the Hamilton Area. An Historical Summary and the Results of the Hamilton Herpetofaunal Atlas. Hamilton Naturalists Club. 174pp. North-South Environmental Inc. page 196

212 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Beacon Environmental Natural Heritage System for the Lake Simcoe Watershed, Phase 1: Components and Policy Templates. Larson, B., J. Riley, E. Snell and H. Godschalk The Woodland Heritage of Southern Ontario. A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 262 pp. Larson, D.W., U. Matthes, and P.E. Kelly Cliff Ecology. Cambridge University Press, U.K. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P.Ulhig, and S. McMurray Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Lewis, Dena Manager of Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Toronto Region Conservation Authority. Personal Communication. Line, L Eating on the run. National Wildlife 1997: Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J.P. Grime, A. Hector, D.U. Hooper, M.A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman, D.A. Wardle Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 294: Mabey, S.E., and B.D. Watts Conservation of Landbird Migrants: Addressing Local Policy. In: Stopover Ecology of Nearctic-Neotropical Landbird Migrants: Habitat Relations and Conservation Implications, F.R. Moore (Ed.), Studies in Avian Biology No. 20, published by the Cooper Ornithological Society. Machtans, C.S., M. Villard, and S.J. Hannon Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors by forest birds. Conservation Biology. 10: Marshall Macklin Monaghan Norfolk County Lakeshore Special Policy Area Secondary Plan Natural Heritage System Strategy. Marzluff J.M., and K Ewing Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the conservation of Birds: A general Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9(3): Matlack, G Sociological Edge Effects: Spatial Distribution of Human Impact in Suburban Forest Fragments. Environmental Management 17(6): Matthes-Sears, U., J.A. Gerrath, J.F. Gerrath, and D.W. Larson Community structure of epilithic and endolithic algae and cyanobacteria on cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Vegetation Science. 10: North-South Environmental Inc. page 197

213 McCracken, J Management of forest interior birds in relation to basal area. pp in: A. Kettle and W. Bates (eds) Southern Ontario Woodlands The Conservation Challenge. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 164 pp. Meffe, G.K. and R. Carroll Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinaur, Sunderland, Mass. 600 pp. Merriam, G Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. Pages in D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs, eds. Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey, Beatty & Sons, New York. Milne, R.J. and L.P. Bennett Biodiversity and ecological value of conservation lands in agricultural landscapes of southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecology. 22: MMP (Marsh Monitoring program) The Marsh Monitor. Spring Number 14. Mönkkönen, M., and P. Reunanen On critical thresholds in landscape connectivity: A management perspective. Oikos 84(2): Moore, D. and C. Weseloh Common Tern. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Moore, F.R., and D.A. Aborn Mechanisms of En Route Habitat Selection: How do Migrants Make Habitat Decisions During Stopover? In: Stopover Ecology of Nearctic- Neotropical Landbird Migrants: Habitat Relations and Conservation Implications. F.R. Moore (Ed.), Studies in Avian Biology No. 20, published by the Cooper Ornithological Society. Moore, F.R., S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr., P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons Habitat Requirements during Migration: Important Link in Conservation. Pages , In: T.E. Martin and D.M Finch, editors, Ecology and Management of Neotropical Birds: A synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, New York. 489 pp. Moore, F.R. and T.R. Simons Habitat suitability and stopover ecology of Neotropical landbird migrants. Manomet Symposium Morris, S.R Mass loss and probability of stopover by migrant warblers during spring and fall migration. Journal of Field Ornithology 67(3): Murray, Dan. Region of Waterloo. Planning Department. Personal communication March 4 th, Nadalin, Ezio. Lambton County. Planning Department. Personal communication February 28 th, North-South Environmental Inc. page 198

214 Naiman, R.J., H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications. 3: Niagara Region Amendment 187 to the Official Plan for the Niagara Planning Area Incorporating Modifications Supported by Regional Council. Policy 7.B.1.4. p.16. Norfolk County Norfolk County Significant Woodlands Study. Norfolk County Planning and Economic Development Department. 21 pp. North-South Environmental Inc York Region Significant Woodlands Study. 92 pp. Noss, R.F Wildlife Corridors. In Ecology of Greenways: Design and Functions of Linear Conservation Areas. Eds. D.S. Smith and P.C. Hellmund. Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, pp Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider Saving Nature s Legacy. Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C. 416 pp. NRC (Natural Resources Canada) Monitoring and Reporting on the State of Eastern Ontario s Forests Wooded Interior by Watershed. _wooded_interior_by_watershed_e.htm OFBMP (Ontario Forest Bird Monitoring Program) Ontario Forest Bird Monitoring Program Newsletter. Volume 16, issue 1, Spring OMMAH (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. 82 pp + maps. OMMAH (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) Greenbelt Plan. 57 pp. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Ducks at a Distance A Waterfowl Identification Guide. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern Manual. NEST Technical Manual TM-002. Peterborough, ON. 177 p. + app OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Natural Heritage Reference Manual. For Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources June Available: OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, Southcentral Sciences, Peterborough. Queen's Printer for Ontario. 139 pp + Appendices (Pgs ). North-South Environmental Inc. page 199

215 OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Significant Wildlife Habitat: Decision Support System. Southern Science and Information Section, Kemptville, ON. Available: OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Natural Heritage Information Centre. Available: OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Ontario s Biodiversity Strategy. ISBN OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section. Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) 2008a. Technical Paper 2: Technical Definitions and Criteria for Significant Woodlands in the Natural Heritage system of the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan (2005). DRAFT. 11 pp. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) 2008b. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. Available at: and OMPIR (Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal) Places to Grow. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 48 pp. + app. Ontario Nature Suggested Conservation Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario. Ontario Nature, Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Draft February pp. OPIF (Ontario Partners in Flight) Ontario Landbird Conservation Plan: Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (North American Bird Conservation Region 13), Priorities, Objectives and Recommended Actions. Environment Canada/Ministry of Natural Resources. Draft. February Available: Osbourne, L.L. and D. Kovacic Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29: Parnell, J.F Habitat relations of the Parulidae during spring migration. Auk 86: Patchett, J.M. and G.S. Wilhelm The Ecology and Culture of Water. Unpublished manuscript presented at several conferences. Conservation Design Forum, Inc. 13 pp. available on the www at: Peck, G.A., and R.D. James Breeding Birds of Ontario, Nidiology and Distribution, Volume 1: Nonpasserines. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. 321pp. North-South Environmental Inc. page 200

216 Peck, G.A., and R.D. James Breeding Birds of Ontario, Nidiology and Distribution, Volume 2: Passerines. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. 387pp. Peck, G.K. 2007a. Great Egret. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Peck, G.K. 2007b. Turkey Vulture. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Peck, G.K. 2007c. Wilson s Snipe. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Peppard, Michael. Ontario Nature. Personal Communication. As cited in North-South Environmental Petit, D.R Habitat Use by Landbirds Along Nearctic-Neotropical Migration Routes: Implications for Conservation of Stopover Habitats. In: Stopover Ecology of Nearctic- Neotropical Landbird Migrants: Habitat Relations and Conservation Implications,. F.R. Moore (Ed.), Studies in Avian Biology No. 20, published by the Cooper Ornithological Society. Plosz, Cathy, Planner with the City of Hamilton, Personal Communication February 28 th, Plourde, S.A., E.L. Szepesi, J.L. Riley, M.J. Oldham and C. Campbell Distribution and Status of the Herpetofauna of Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Parks and Recreational Areas Section, OMNR, Open File Ecological Report SR8903, Central Region, Richmond Hill, Ontario. 27pp. Provincial Policy Statement (2005). Available: Puric-Mladenovic, D. Ministry of Natural Resources, Personal Communication. Queen s Printer for Ontario. 2007a. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: Technical Paper Series, 2 - Significant Wildlife Habitat. 32 pp. Queen s Printer for Ontario. 2007b. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: Technical Paper Series, 6 - Identification of Significant Portions of Habitat for Endangered, Rare and Threatened Species. 22 pp. North-South Environmental Inc. page 201

217 Queen s Printer for Ontario. 2007c. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: Technical Paper Series, 7 - Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands. 9 pp. Queen s Printer for Ontario. 2007d. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: Technical Paper Series, 12 Hydrological Evaluations for Hydrologically Sensitive Features. 17 pp. Ranta, W.B. (ed.) Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory Manual for use in Forest Management Planning VERSION 1.0 August pp. Rappole, J.H. and D.W. Warner Relationships between Behavior, Physiology and Weather in Avian Transients at a Migration Stopover Site. Oecologia (Berl.) 26, Rappole, J.H The Ecology of Migrant Birds: A Neotropical Perspective. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 269 pages. Regosin, J.V., B.S. Windmiller, and J.M. Reed Terrestrial habitat use and winter densities of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Journal of Herpetology. 37: Rich, Kevin, Ducks Unlimited. Personal Communication Riley, J.L. and P Mohr The natural heritage of southern Ontario s settled landscapes. A review of conservation and restoration ecology for land use planning and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR pp. Roberge, B.B. and R.D. Semlitsch An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conservation Biology. 16: Rodewald, P.G. and S.N. Matthews Landbird Use of Riparian and Upland Forest Stopover Habitats in an Urban Landscape. The Condor, 17(2): Rowe, J.S Forest Regions of Canada. Department of the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service, Publication No pp+ map. Rudolph, D.C. and J.G. Dickson Streamside zone width and amphibian and reptile abundance. The Southwestern Naturalist. 35: Sandilands, A. 2007a. Green Heron. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. North-South Environmental Inc. page 202

218 Sandilands, A. 2007b. Northern Rough-winged Swallow. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Sandilands, A. 2007c. Bank Swallow. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology. 5: Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology. 17: Sibley, D Bird Conservation Mortality. Accessed December 20, < Smithsonian Migratory Bird Centre Travel Alert for Migratory Birds: Stopover Sites in Decline. Accessed December 15, < Snell, E. A Wetland Distribution and Conversion in Southern Ontario. Pages Inland Waters and Lands Directorate. Environment Canada. Soule, M.E. and B.A. Wilcox. (eds.) Conservation Biology An Evolutionary Perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. 395 pp. Soule, M.E. and J. Terborgh Conserving nature at regional and continental scales a scientific program for North America. BioScience. 49: Spackman, S.C. and J.W. Hughes Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological conservation: Species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA. Biological Conservation. 71: Sutherland, D.A Purple Gallinule. Page 631. In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto. xxii pp. Sutherland, Don Natural Heritage Information Center, Ecologist, pers. comm., March Terres, J.K The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. First Edition. Published in Canada by Random House of Canada. Toronto pp. North-South Environmental Inc. page 203

219 Totten Simms Hubicki, Parish Geomorphic, Natural Resource Solutions Inc., Donald G. Weatherbe Associates, Morrison Environmental Ltd., and Environmental Water Resources Ltd. 2006a. North Oakville Creek Subwatershed Analysis Report. August Tozer, D.C Marsh Wren. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. TRCA (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Toronto and Region Terrestrial Heritage System Strategy. Draft. 55 pp + maps. Uhlig, P., A. Harris, G. Craig, C. Bowling, B. Chambers, B. Naylor and G. Beemer Old growth forest definitions for Ontario. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Queen s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON. 53 p. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) Middlesex Natural Heritage Study. A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County. 41 pp + app. Downloadable from: Varga, S., D. Leadbeater, J. Webber, J. Kaiser, B. Crins, J. Kamstra, D. Banville, E. Ashley, G. Miller, C. Kingsley, C. Jacobsen, K. Mewa, L. Tebby, E. Mosley and E. Zajc (draft). Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of the Greater Toronto Area. OMNR, Aurora District. 90 p. Varrin, R., J. Bowman, and P.A. Gray The known and potential effects of climate change on biodiversity in Ontario s terrestrial ecosystems: case studies and recommendations for adaptation. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 47 p. Vickery, J.A., R.B. Bradbury, I.G. Henderson, M.A. Eaton, and P.V. Grice The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biological Conservation Vought, L. B.-M., G. Pinay, A. Fugslang and C. Fuffinoni Structure and function of buffer strips from a water quality perspective in agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 31: Wegner, J.F. and A.G. Merriam Movements by birds and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology. 16: Welsch, D Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Resources Management. NA-PR North-South Environmental Inc. page 204

220 Weseloh, C. 2007a. Black-crowned Night Heron. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Weseloh, C. 2007b. Ring-billed Gull. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Weseloh, C. 2007c. Herring Gull. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Weseloh, C. 2007d. Great Black-backed Gull. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Weseloh, C. 2007e. Caspian Tern. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Weseloh, C. 2007f. Black Tern. pp In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.) Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii pp. Weyrauch, S.L. and T.C. Grubb Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: and information-theoretic approach. Biological Conservation. 115: Whitman, A.A. and J.M. Hagman A rapid-assessment late-successional index for northern hardwoods and spruce-fir forest. Forest mosaic science notes. As publication of the Forest Conservation Program of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. FMSN , Dec pp. Yong, W., D.M. Finch, F.R. Moore and J.F.Kelly Stopover ecology and habitat use of migratory Wilson s Warblers. The Auk 115(4): North-South Environmental Inc. page 205

221

222 APPENDIX 1: Definition of Woodlands (adapted from the Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper #7, Queen s Printer for Ontario 2007c) North-South Environmental Inc. page 207

223

224 Recommended Woodlands Definition A discussion of approaches to defining woodlands is provided in Section 5.2 of the report. For the purpose of this report, a woodland will be defined as any treed area 0.5 ha or greater that has: (a) a tree crown cover of over 60% of the ground, determinable from aerial photography ( forest of Lee et al. 1998), or (b) a tree crown cover of over 25% of the ground ( savannah of Lee et al. 1998), determinable from aerial photography, together with on-ground stem estimates of at least: 1,000 trees of any size per hectare, or 750 trees measuring over five centimeters in diameter, per hectare, or 500 trees measuring over 12 centimeters in diameter, per hectare, or 250 trees measuring over 20 centimeters in diameter, per hectare (densities based on the Forestry Act of Ontario, 1998) Treed portions with less than the required stocking level will be considered part of the woodland as long as the combination of all treed units in the overall connected treed area meets the required stocking level. Woodlands experiencing changes such as harvesting, blowdown or other tree mortality are still considered woodlands. Such changes are considered temporary whereby the forest still retains it long-term ecological value. And, which have a minimum average width of 40 metres or more measured to crown edges. As noted in Section 5.2, the clarifications and guidance for interpretation provided in the ORM Technical Paper #7 would apply, including the guidelines to assist in defining patches and addressing interior gaps, provided for reference on the following two pages. The ORM definition and guidelines as articulated in ORM Technical Paper #7 would continue to apply on the ORM. Additional notes on the application of the definition, including cultural woodlands, is provided in Section 5.2 of the report. North-South Environmental Inc. page 209

225 North-South Environmental Inc. page 210

226 North-South Environmental Inc. page 211

227

228 APPENDIX 2: Summary of Data Sources Reviewed North-South Environmental Inc. page 213

229

230 Appendix 2: Digital data used and their sources Data Layer Agency that supplied the data Original source of data (where known) Last modified (where known) Physiography Town of Caledon ELC Peel Updated 2007 CVC Feb 26, 2008 ELC LSRCA LSRCA Mar 29, 2007 Region of Peel EOs NHIC 2007 Region of Peel Odonata NHIC 2005 Region of Peel OHS NHIC 2002 Region of Peel-ITS Spatial Data Orthoimagery Region of Peel 2007 Parcel Fabric Region of Peel Feb 8, 2008 Single Lined Street Network Region of Peel Feb 8, 2008 Region of Peel-Planning Services Spatial Data Base Data Land Use Region of Peel Jul 25, 2006 Hamlets Region of Peel Nov 21, 2006 Lots and Concessions Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Municipal Boundary Region of Peel Jul 27, 2006 Railway Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Ward Boundaries Region of Peel April 19, 2007 Environmental Data ESA Peel Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Major Rivers Region of Peel CVC, TRCA, HRCA Feb 4, 2008 Natural Area Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 MNR ANSI - Earth Region of Peel Ontario (MNR) Mar 14, 2008 MNR ANSI - Life Region of Peel Ontario (MNR) Mar 14, 2008 MNR Evaluated Wetlands Region of Peel Ontario (MNR) Mar 14, 2008 Pits and Quarries Region of Peel Ontario (MNDM) Feb 4, 2008 Species at Risk Region of Peel Ontario (MNR) Feb 4, 2008 Sub-watersheds Region of Peel CVC Feb 4, 2008 Valley Lands Region of Peel Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 North-South Environmental Inc. page 215

231 Data Layer Agency that supplied the data Original source of data (where known) Last modified (where known) Water Bodies Region of Peel CVC, Brampton, Mississuaga updated Feb 4, 2008 by Region of Peel Watersheds Region of Peel CVC Feb 4, 2008 Woodlands Region of Peel Ontario (MNR) modified by Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Planning Policy Data Mineral Aggregate Locations Region of Peel Town of Caledon Feb 4, 2008 Settlements 2021 Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Greenbelt Plan Region of Peel Ontario (MMAH) Feb 4, 2008 Greenbelt Plan Region of Peel Region of Peel Ontario (MMAH) Feb 4, 2008 Greenbelt Plan - NHS Region of Peel Ontario (MMAH) Feb 4, 2008 Greenlands System Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 NEC Plan Area Region of Peel NEC Feb 4, 2008 Niagara Escarpment Plan Region of Peel NEC Feb 4, 2008 Oak Ridges Moraine Region of Peel Ontario (MMAH) Feb 4, 2008 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area Region of Peel Ontario (MMAH) Feb 4, 2008 Prime Agricultural Area Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Urban Boundary 2021 Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Urban Boundary 2031 Region of Peel Feb 4, 2008 Fauna Region of Peel TRCA 10/01/2007 Flora Region of Peel TRCA 09/12/2007 Region of Peel 1000m Buffer TRCA Vegetation Region of Peel TRCA 08/13/2007 Additional Species and Vegetation Type Data for SWH Analyses Significant Species Observations (onatlas_sign_species_ _dougan Mammal Observations (excluding ROM data) Bird Studies Canada (BSC) Jon (Sandy) Dobbyn (author of Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario) Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas March 31, 2008 Ontario Mammal Atlas March 23, 2008 North-South Environmental Inc. page 216

232 Data Layer Bullfrog locations in the Credit Valley Watershed Vegetation Communities Detected Through ELC in the Credit River Watershed (not clipped to Peel) Agency that supplied the data CVC Original source of data (where known) CVC ELC fieldwork as well as miscellaneous reports and incidental observations Last modified (where known) April 7, 2008 CVC CVC ELC fieldwork April 7, 2008 North-South Environmental Inc. page 217

233

234 APPENDIX 3: Summary of Significant Woodlands Criteria Used by Other Municipalities & Recommended in Technical Documents in Southern Ontario North-South Environmental Inc. page 219

235

236 Appendix 3a. Criteria for identifying Significant Woodlands proposed or used by Counties or Regional Municipalities. Size Forest Interior Criterion (sometimes inferred from shape) York (NSE 2005) woodlands >2ha included if: 100m from another significant feature Occurs within Regional Greenlands System woodlands 4ha south of the Oak Ridges Moraine woodlands 10 ha north of the Oak Ridges Moraine Halton (Gartner-Lee 2002) urban >2 ha rural: below escarp. >4ha above escarp. >10ha 4 ha of woodland > 100 m from an edge* Durham (Durham 2006) woodlands >4ha in rural system woodlands >.5 ha in urban system any woodland having interior forest defined using a 100m buffer measured from the interface between woodland and other land use Norfolk (Norfolk County 2003) woodlands at East end of county >10ha woodlands at West end of county >25ha comparison with circle based on perimeter/area ratio forest greater than 50m or 100m from an edge, and circular in shape Age/Old Growth >99 years old >80 years old >150 years old trees only - not woodlands Linkage within 50m of watercourse within 150m of escarp. edge specified major valleys Slope on slopes >10% Proximity to other Woodlands or Natural Features Diversity of Communities and Species Groundwater Quality and Quantity Surface Water Quality and Quantity (hydrology) woodland within 30m of a watercourse, surface water feature, evaluated wetland within headwaters as indicted by location in catchments of 1 st order streams within 30m of a watercourse woodlands within 30m of a stream or lake Existing Designations any woodland that intersects with a key natural heritage feature Significant Species and Communities any G1-G3, S1-S3 plant, animal, or community any species designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as threatened, endangered, or of special concern within 120m of another woodland specific measures not provided within 50m of significant biotic, or other designated features specific measures not provided within the first 3 orders of watershed catchments site-specific measures not provided within designated Carolinian Canada Life Zone sites Species at Risk Middlesex (UTRCA 2003) woodlands >10ha <10 ha with >0.05 ha more than 100m from an edge 50% is within 750m of a Natural Heritage Feature within 100m of another woodland >10 ha within specified NHS corridors and not within 50m of a watercourse on porous soils (porous soils are identified) containing or within 50m of a watercourse Niagara (Niagara 2007) must be equal or greater than: 2ha, if within or overlapping Urban Area Boundaries; 4ha, if outside Urban Areas and north of the Niagara Escarpment; 10ha, if outside Urban Areas and south of the Escarpment presence of habitat >100m in from woodland boundary older growth forests that are >2ha overlap or contain one or more of the other significant natural heritage features listed in Policies 7.B.1.3 or 7.B.1.4 abut or be crossed by a watercourse or water body and be >2ha Lambton (Nadalin pers. comm.) contiguous size of >4ha <4ha if the woodland can be used to increase connectivity between surrounding woodlots mature stand woodland is part of a corridor Waterloo (Murray pers. comm.) contiguous size of >4ha <4ha if adjacent to other natural areas or watercourses North-South Environmental Inc. page 221

237 Criterion York (NSE 2005) Halton (Gartner-Lee 2002) Durham (Durham 2006) Norfolk (Norfolk County 2003) Middlesex (UTRCA 2003) Niagara (Niagara 2007) Lambton (Nadalin pers. comm.) Waterloo (Murray pers. comm.) Economic or Social Value within 50m of, or containing specific recreation functions (parks, trials, etc.) managed through certified forest programs North-South Environmental Inc. page 222

238 Appendix 3b. Criteria for identifying Significant Woodlands used by cities or towns. Criterion Hamilton (Hamilton 2004) London (London 2006) Ottawa (Ottawa 2007) Guelph (Guelph 2006) Caledon (Beak 2000) Oak Ridges Moraine (Technical Paper 7) Greenbelt Plan PPS/NHRM Ontario Nature (Ontario Nature 2004) Size dependent on forest cover: <5% - 1ha 5-10% - 2ha 11-15% - 4 ha 16-20% - 10ha 21-30% - 15ha >9 ha (H) 2-9ha (M) <2ha (L) contiguous size of >1ha dependent on physiography: woodlands >4ha on Peel Plain woodlands >30 ha north of Peel Plain NOTE: Peel Plain = the South Slope physiographic region or area south of the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine woodlands 4ha in Countryside or Settlement Areas; or woodlands 0.5ha in Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas; or woodlands 0.5ha within or intersecting with key natural heritage feature or hydrologically sensitive feature or their vegetation protection zone size (undefined) dependent on forest cover: <5% - 2ha 5-15% - 4ha 15-30% - 40ha (preferably 300m wide) >30% - minimum size not suggested; consider other factors dependent on forest cover: < 5% - all woodlands 5-10% - 2 ha 11-15% - 4 ha 16-20% - 10 ha 20-30% - 15 ha 31-50% - 25 ha >50% - 40 ha Forest Interior (sometimes inferred from shape) interior greater than 100m from an edge presence of habitat >100m from an edge, or perimeter/area ratio <1.5m/m 2 (H) no interior habitat but has Perimeter:Area (P:A) ratio m/m 2 (M) no interior habitat & P:A ratio >3.0 m/m 2 (L) possible breeding conservative bird species 1+ level 1 species, 2+ level 2 species, or >5 level 2-4 species (H) 1 level 2 species, or 2+ level 3 species or 4+ level 3-4 species (M) 1-3 level 3-4 species (L) presence of habitat >100m from an edge any woodland containing interior habitat on Peel Plain woodlands with >4ha interior forest habitat north of Peel Plain in areas where interior habitat limited and/or interior forest interior dependent species are declining, select woodlands that provide more interior habitat if choosing between similar habitat blocks 4 ha of interior where forest cover is <30%, then any woodland with 4ha interior (defined using 100m buffer), or any woodlands with any forest interior where total forest interior is <10% of total forest area, or where forest cover is 30%, then any woodland with 4ha interior (defined using 200m buffer) Age/Old Growth trees >100 years old mature or older growth community present (H) mid-aged community present (M) woodland of pioneer to young age (L) trees >50cm dbh abundant in 1+ communities in patch (H) trees >50cm dbh rare/occasional in 1+ within patch (M) trees >50cm dbh not present mature stands currently >80 years old contains stand of old growth trees (>100 years) age of trees and stand history older woodlands should be protected Linkage intersects with the Hamilton NHS connected by riparian features, contiguous or semi contiguous habitat (H) indirectly connected by various features (M) not connected (L) woodlands that have potential to form link between another natural heritage feature or area, water, or another woodland, or where an opportunity exists to restore linkages to adjacent areas any woodland that falls within or overlaps a core area or corridor in any identified NHS Slope on slopes >25%, or on remnant slopes not continuous with the river system, or on slopes >10-25% with erodible soils (H) on slopes >10-25% with less erodible soils (M) on slopes <10% with any soil (L) on slopes 10% North-South Environmental Inc. page 223

239 Criterion Hamilton (Hamilton 2004) London (London 2006) Ottawa (Ottawa 2007) Guelph (Guelph 2006) Caledon (Beak 2000) Oak Ridges Moraine (Technical Paper 7) Greenbelt Plan PPS/NHRM Ontario Nature (Ontario Nature 2004) Proximity to other Woodlands or Natural Features when choosing between woodland patches of similar size, choose patches that are in close proximity to other patches Diversity of Communities and Species contains 6+ communities 5 (H) contains 3-5 communities (M) contains 1-2 communities (L) 3+ ecosites, or 4+ veg. types, or 3+ topo. features (H) 2+ ecosites, or 3 veg. types or 2 topo. features or 1 veg. type with inclusions or complexes (M) 1 ecosite or 1-2 veg. types on 1 topographic feature (L) 3+ amphibian sp. in patch, or 1 amphibian abundant in 1+ communities, or 2+ critical habitat components (H) 1-2 amphibian sp. in patch, 1 amphibian occasional in 1+ communities, or 1 critical habitat component (M) no amphibian sp., or no critical habitat component (L) conifer communities present >4ha (H) conifer communities present 2-4ha (M) conifer communities present <2ha, or no coniferous, mixed forest, swamp, or plantation communities(l) where two or more community types are found in close association and represent an unusual diversity for the area species composition when choosing between otherwise similar woodlands, select those which are of higher diversity Groundwater Quality and Quantity >0.5ha and within 30m of a hydrological feature (i.e., groundwater recharge/discharge area) woodlands that are in, close to, or adjacent to, a groundwater discharge, recharge, or headwater region Surface Water Quality and Quantity (hydrology) >0.5ha and within 30m of a hydrological feature (headwater area, stream, wetland, lake, groundwater recharge/discharge area) hydrological features/functions located within or contiguous with patch (category 1 patch / within ground water recharge area / contains a wetland >2ha (H) within 50 m of watercourse or contains wetland <2ha (M) no hydro. feature (L) dissolved oxygen (DO) >8mg/L or abundant instream debris/rocks with natural channel DO 5-8mg/L or moderate instream debris/rocks with portions channelized DO <5mg/L or no instream debris with watercourse channelized within 5m of a surface water feature (i.e., river, creek, drain, pond, or wetland) woodlands in wetland complexes where woodlands and wetland area which together are >4ha on Peel Plain or >30 ha north of Peel Plain woodlands 5ha located within or intersecting with a Key Hydrologic Feature woodlands that are in, close to, or adjacent to, a groundwater discharge, recharge, or headwater region woodlands within 30 m of any hydrologic feature including: streams, wetlands, lakes; headwater sources catchments of 1 st order streams North-South Environmental Inc. page 224

240 Criterion Hamilton (Hamilton 2004) London (London 2006) Ottawa (Ottawa 2007) Guelph (Guelph 2006) Caledon (Beak 2000) Oak Ridges Moraine (Technical Paper 7) Greenbelt Plan PPS/NHRM Ontario Nature (Ontario Nature 2004) Existing Designations located on Earth Science ANSI, or Beach Ridge or Sand Plain located on Till Plain or Till Moraine located on Spillway 5ha in a Natural Core or Natural Linkage Area woodlands with 1 nat. heritage features or areas within their boundaries woodlands which overlap with other natural heritage features and areas Floristic Quality Index coefficient of conservatism (CC) of one or more communities >4.6 or CC of patch >4.5 (H) CC of one or more communities 4.2 to 4.5 or CC of patch >4.0 to 4.5 (M) CC of all communities <4.2 or CC of patch <4.0 (L) Significant Species and Communities rare, vulnerable, threatened or endangered plants or wildlife presence of rare species (H) 1+ communities with SRANK of S3/S4 or higher no communities with SRANK >S4 no communities with SRANK >S5 woodlands known to provide habitat for vulnerable, threatened, or endangered (VTE) plants or breeding location of VTE animals for uncommon woodland types, planning authorities should try to maintain historically (or if unavailable, current) representative amounts of these woodland communities Representation (community) woodland is rare community in the Region of Peel or Province of Ontario unique composition, age or site quality represented by < 5% of the woodland area in the planning area Ecological Function mentions using function but does not provide clear guidance Succession/ Buffering Economic or Social Value woodland shape, linkages, diversity, and proximity are all considerations economically important because of site quality, species composition, or past management history maintain woodlands subject to long term forest management agreements Landscape Richness % cover of vegetation in 2km radius of woodland centre: >10% cover (H) 7-10% cover (M) <7% cover (L) Woodland Distribution woodland clusters >40ha or is a meta core or patch >20ha (H) clusters 20-40ha or is an island core or patch >10ha and <20ha (M) cluster <20ha or patch <10 ha functionally important due to contribution to the broader landscape because of location North-South Environmental Inc. page 225

241 Criterion Hamilton (Hamilton 2004) London (London 2006) Ottawa (Ottawa 2007) Guelph (Guelph 2006) Caledon (Beak 2000) Oak Ridges Moraine (Technical Paper 7) Greenbelt Plan PPS/NHRM Ontario Nature (Ontario Nature 2004) Quality average basal area 16m 2 /ha for trees >25cm dbh; or >24m 2 /ha for trees >10cm dbh; or all diameter size classes are represented (H) average basal area 12-24m 2 /ha for trees >10cm dbh; or missing 1 size class average basal area <12m 2 /ha for trees >10cm dbh; or missing 2 size classes one community in excellent condition; or all communities in good condition (H) combination of communities in good, fair, and poor condition (M) all communities in poor condition (L) site quality denotes economic importance site quality represented by less than 5% of the woodland area in a planning area NOTES i Criteria for Halton are derived from a background report (Gartner-Lee 2002) ii Durham tried to incorporate these criteria into their official plan, however due to an appeal by the aggregate industry, the Region now defers to the general definition of a Significant Woodland as defined in the PPS and evaluates woodland significance on a case-by-case basis using the Natural Heritage Technical Reference Guide iii The County of Lambton generally uses guidelines such as these, however their significant woodlands are identified on a case-by-case basis iv The list of significant woodland criteria for the Region of Waterloo is incomplete. This is a work in progress. v The City of London has a comprehensive set of criteria each of which is evaluated as high, medium or low, shown as H, M or L in the table. Only patches >4ha, or smaller patches within 100m of each other if together they exceeded 4ha were evaluated. Woodlands achieving high evaluations in 3 criteria, or 4 medium evaluations are considered significant. Conservative bird species level determined using Couturier (1999). For Diversity, London has used the ELC classifications, which define community series, ecosite, etc. North-South Environmental Inc. page 226

242 APPENDIX 4: Summary of Interviews with Technical Experts on Significant Wildlife Habitat North-South Environmental Inc. page 227

243

244 Contact (Title, Organization) Key Comments Date(s) of Contact Status of Request(s) John Boos (Planning Biologist, Southern Region Planning Unit, Peterborough, OMNR) Indicated that SWH guidelines specific to Site Regions 6E and 7E were being prepared recommended speaking with Andrew Jobes (OMNR) for more details agreed to review the draft criteria and thresholds / approaches provided additional assistance with respect to specific criteria provided opinion on comments the study team received Various times between February and August 2008 Written comments/ communications were received over June Andrew Jobes (a/planning Biologist, Southern Region Planning Unit, OMNR) contacted to see if any draft materials related to the ongoing revisions to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and Decision Support System could be released to our study team to help guide criteria selection and, where possible, threshold development. revised documents should be available later this year (2008) verbally reviewed the current list of SWH criteria and identified which ones would be removed conveyed that the ongoing revisions are conforming closely to the Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper 2- Significant Wildlife Habitat (OMNR 2007). confirmed the draft materials and/or supporting literature review documents could not be released March 2008 Not possible to release either the draft revised documents or the literature reviews completed to support the revisions. However, some information provided verbally. Greg Pulham (Team Lead and Senior Policy Advisor Municipal Planning, Land Use and Environmental Planning Section, Peterborough, OMNR) Mark Heaton (Biologist, Aurora District OMNR) March 2008 Confirmed the status above. contacted for guidance on how deer wintering areas are defined comments on SWH criteria and thresholds also provided through OMNR comments / correspondences received at Technical Advisory workshops and in writing provided update on summer 2008 heronry surveys March, May and June 2008 Guidance provided North-South Environmental Inc page 229

245 Contact (Title, Organization) Key Comments Date(s) of Contact Status of Request(s) Jamie Stewart (Wildlife Biologist, OMNR) contacted to see if it would be possible to have access to the bat hibernacula / maternity roost data that OMNR is collecting suggested contacting Simon Dodsworth (Biodiversity Information Biologist, Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) indicated that without any field data he could not provide guidance on what bat hibernacula and maternity roosts would qualify as SWH in the Region of Peel and Town of Caledon contacted to see if additional OMNR information was available for the Town of Caledon and Region of Peel that was not available through NHIC suggested waiting until we find out what OMNR information will be provided to us via the OGDE agreement the Region has with the Province March 2008 Provided verbal responses immediately. Melinda Thompson-Black (a/district Ecologist, Aurora District OMNR) March 2008 OMNR data layers requested through the Region were provided May 28, 2008; not further follow-up required. Mikhail Paramonov (Information Biologist, NHIC, OMNR) An information request for OMNR Species at Risk data and rare species data was submitted (through the Region) Request submitted Mar. 3, 2008; Data received Mar. 13, 2008 Due to sensitivity data cannot be published or released, even as part of internal reports; can be used for background information only. Provided verbal responses immediately. Don Sutherland (Zoologist, NHIC, OMNR) contacted several times for specific species information support and provided helpful comments (integrated into Section 6 of this report) March 2008 Wasyl Bakowsky (Community Ecologist, NHIC, OMNR) provided additional commentary on information request to NHIC provided some information regarding his knowledge of rare vegetation communities in the Region of Peel / Town of Caledon. contacted for Mammal Atlas data for the Region of Peel Mar. 4, Data was received towards the end of March March 2008 Provided verbal and responses immediately. Data provided Sandy Dobbyn (Zone Ecologist, Southwest Park Zone, London, OMNR) Request submitted Mar. 4, 2008; Data received by end of March 2008 North-South Environmental Inc page 230

246 Contact (Title, Organization) Key Comments Date(s) of Contact Status of Request(s) Sue Hayes (Project Coordinator, Terrestrial Field Inventory [Humber], Toronto Region Conservation Authority [TRCA]) Kevin Rich (Head, Municipal Extension [Ontario], Ducks Unlimited Canada information request was submitted for TRCA s Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and Species Information data Request submitted Feb. 8, 2008; Data received Feb. 25, 2008 Data provided contacted to see if Ducks Unlimited Canada was aware of any important waterfowl stopover or staging areas, as well as nesting areas within Peel. indicated that he was not but that the northern half of the Region (i.e., the Town of Caledon) looked promising, at least from a brief review of aerial photography on Google Earth offered to be of further assistance if desired correspondences conducted regarding available CVC data comments on SWH criteria and thresholds also provided through CVC comments / correspondences received at Technical Advisory workshops and in writing along with Charlotte Cox (CVC) and Heather Lynn (CVC), he expressed concerns with respect to Amphibian Breeding Habitat criteria. March 2008 Scott Sampson (Senior Natural Heritage Ecologist, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC)) Formal request for data submitted Feb. 28, 2008; ELC data was provided Mar. 27, Phone conversation on June 2, Additional communication February Data provided; comments on draft materials to date also provided. Conversation helped fine tune threshold. North-South Environmental Inc page 231

247 Contact (Title, Organization) Key Comments Date(s) of Contact Status of Request(s) Kari Van Allen (Natural Heritage Ecologist, CVC) & Leah Lefler (Natural Heritage Technician, CVC) contacted (March 6, 2008) to provide an update on CVC s Species of Conservation Concern lists; only the bird list is currently available (prepared 1997) but additional wildlife lists are in progress and may be available to us shortly as drafts. April 1, received working drafts of the significant species lists (plants, amphibians and reptiles and birds only. Notably, with respect to fauna, CVC has not yet been able to determine what species should be considered significant at the local (i.e., Credit watershed) level and this information is not expected for a couple years. April 7, provided information on Bullfrog locations, as well as amphibian roadside call count data collected during the East Credit Subwatershed Study. To look for similar call count information from the Subwatershed 16/18 study. Also provided list of which ELC communities CVC has field inventoried in their watershed along with the number of occurrences of these communities (list currently includes sites outside of the Region of Peel boundary). March April 2008 Data provided Charlotte Cox (Natural Heritage Ecologist, CVC) & Heather Lynn (Natural Heritage Technician, CVC) CVC staff had questions regarding the proposed thresholds for the Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Forested Sites) and Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Non-Forested Sites) criteria. Questions centered around how many individuals needed to be present to be considered significant as well as the terms breeding pairs. CVC staff also recommended some minor edits to wording for the Habitat for Open Country and Early Successional Breeding Bird Species threshold Data on colonial nesting birds as well as Species at Risk was made available. February 2009 Recommendations considered and acted upon. Changes were made to the thresholds. Denis Lepage and Ellen Kempmann (Bird Studies Canada) Data requested early March 2008; provided Mar. 31, 2008 Data provided North-South Environmental Inc page 232

248 Contact (Title, Organization) Key Comments Date(s) of Contact Status of Request(s) Dr. James Bogart (Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph) Provided assistance with respect to whether the term breeding pair could be appropriately applied to salamanders, at least as presented in the two Amphibian Breeding Habitat criteria being proposed. Also discussed what might be considered an appropriate threshold level. February 2009 Information helped substantiate changes made to the thresholds. North-South Environmental Inc page 233

249

250 APPENDIX 5: Old-growth Forest Associations and Age-of-Onset (Table 4 from Uhlig et al. 2001) North-South Environmental Inc. page 235

251

252 North-South Environmental Inc. page 237