The URL can be used to link to this page

01 - January 14, 2020 County Council Agenda Package ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2020 – 9:00 A.M. ORDER Accessible formats available upon request. 1 DeclarationofOffice 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board (d)labourrelationsoremployeenegotiations; (k) a position,plan,procedure,criteriaor instructiontobeappliedtoanynegotiationscarriedonortobecarriedonbyoronbehalf ofthemunicipalityorlocal board (k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board – (e) litigation or potentiallitigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board 12 (k) a position,plan,procedure,criteriaorinstructiontobeappliedtoanynegotiations carriedonortobecarriedonbyoronbehalfofthemunicipalityorlocalboard (k) a position,plan,procedure,criteriaorinstructiontobeappliedtoanynegotiations carriedonortobecarriedonbyoronbehalfofthemunicipalityorlocalboard (k) a position,plan,procedure,criteriaorinstructiontobeappliedtoanynegotiations carriedonortobecarriedonbyoronbehalfofthemunicipalityorlocalboard – – – – – 13 14 15 ELGIN/ST. THOMAS SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE 2019 UPDATE DECEMBER 12 16 Discussion Outline Topics to be Covered About the SBEC Power in Numbers Focus Elgin County BridgestoBetterBusiness Success Stories Vision for 2020 & Beyond YourSBECTeam 17 THE ELGIN/ST. THOMAS SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE (SBEC) 1 of 54 SBECs in the Province A partnership of the Province of Ontario, the County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas an ecosystem where small businesses in Elgin County and St. Thomas can connect, learn and grow their business Since 2010 18 TARA McCAULLEY YOUR SBEC Manager MIKE KERKVLIET (from West Elgin) SBEC Business Advisor SARAH NOBLE (from East Elgin) TEAM Business Advisor 19 THE ELGIN/ST. THOMAS SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE (SBEC) ЊЎА ЊЏЉ ЊЍЉ 9ƌŭźƓΉ{Ʒ͵ ŷƚƒğƭ {.9/ ЊЋЉ ВЏ ЊЉЉ БЉ {.9/ źƓ ğ ЏЊ {źƒźƌğƩ {źǩĻ ЏЉ /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ЍЉ ЌЊ ЍЉ ЊЊ ЋЉ Љ .ǒƭźƓĻƭƭĻƭ {ƷğƩƷĻķ.ǒƭźƓĻƭƭĻƭ 9ǣƦğƓķĻķWƚĬƭ /ƩĻğƷĻķ 20 THE ELGIN/ST. THOMAS SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE (SBEC) ЍЏЋВ ЎЉЉЉ ЍЎЉЉ 9ƌŭźƓΉ{Ʒ͵ ŷƚƒğƭ ЍЉЉЉ {.9/ ЌЎЉЉ ЌЉЉЉ ЋЍЏЌ ЋЎЉЉ {.9/ źƓ ğ ЋЉЉЉ {źƒźƌğƩ {źǩĻ /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ЊЎЉЉ ВЉЍ ЊЉЉЉ ЎЉЏ ЎЉЉ Љ /ƌźĻƓƷ /ƚƓƭǒƌƷƭ9ƓƨǒźƩźĻƭ 21 γn the last 5 years... $675,688 Value of Grants Distributed 403 Businesses Started or Expanded 463 New Jobs γn the first half of 2019... 15,618 Opened Grow Pop Up Shop ‎ןפ‎businesses started or expanded Inquiries Ready Set Grow Competition ‎פפ ‎new jobs A Walk in Her Shoes Women's Event ‎מפףنן ‎inquiries 174 Travel Tuesdays ‎ףפע‎client consultations Workshops/Events Hosted Certified in Mental Health First Aid 22 Overthe last 5 years,ElginCounty has supported the SBEC with funding totaling $175,000 Total Grants to Elgin Businesses: $271,250 FOCUS υЊЋЌͲЉЉЉ υЊЊЌͲЋЎЉ ELGIN COUNTY υЌЎͲЉЉЉ {ǒƒƒĻƩ /ƚƒƦğƓǤ{ƷğƩƷĻƩ /ƚƒƦğƓǤ{ƷğƩƷĻƩ /ƚƒƦğƓǤ tƌǒƭ 23 th The 10annual 2019 Bridges to Better Business: -Featured over 40 businesses from Elgin County & St. Thomas -Small Business awards -Relevant and impactful keynotes Nearly 400 people came together at the Elgin County Railway Museum to celebrate small business in our community. 24 Some Success Stories 25 The Future Increased presence in the East & West Additional workshops added to the roster Focus on agritourism Increased emphasis on helping businesses with online presence Challenges Provincial funding decreased by 16% while # of clients increases every year Will need additional funding to continue to provide the high level of service 26 SBEC Budget 2020: $255,525 (confirmed) SBEC BUDGET $70,000 (confirmed) &ASK $55,000 (proposed) 27 December 10, 2019 Elgin County Council c/o Ms. Julie Gonyou, CAO County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 wĻʹ wĻƨǒĻƭƷ ŅƚƩ 9ƌŭźƓ hƓƷğƩźƚ IĻğƌƷŷ Ļğƒ wĻƭƚǒƩĭĻƭ As you are aware, the provincial government is restructuring health care and a group of health care organizations have been working since the spring with the goal of creating an Ontario Health Team for Elgin. We are continuing to recruit members for the Steering Committee that is overseeing the process. We are asking County Council to approve that Michele Harris, Director of Homes and Seniors Services be permitted to join this Steering Committee. Long-Term Care is an important part of the health care system and the Committee will benefit from having Ms. Harris actively engaged in these discussions. Unfortunately, the process has not received additional funding from the Ministry. Therefore we are tasked with finding the resources required to support the development of the Elgin Ontario Health Team full proposal. Funding may include such things as facilitation, project management, communication, community engagement and other expenses. th At the last Steering Committee meeting on November 26, the Terms of Reference were approved in principle. Therein, members agreed that they will share in the actual resource needs of the proposal We are asking that members let us know the resource contribution they are able to make to support the project. As a guideline, we are suggesting that they contribute 0.1% of the annual operating budget of the health programs they deliver in Elgin. If they are unable to contribute that amount, we ask them to let us know what amount and/or other resources they are able to contribute to this important work. This is currently a one-time request, although circumstances may change as the project moves forward that may require the need for additional resources. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely, Andy Kroeker Dr. Kellie Scott Judith Wiley Executive Director Executive Director Family Physician West Elgin Community Central Community Health Health Centre Centre 28 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 The intention of the property owner is to establish a condominium over the property to align their management of the facility with an ownership structure that suits their needs…. Within the process there is an option to allow for exemption from the requirements of a full Plan of Condominium application if the development is suitable for the exemption and has the support of the lower tier municipality. In this case, the conditions of approval on the registered Site Plan Approval are deemed sufficient to protect the interests of the Corporation of the Town of Aylmer. That Report CORP 62-19 entitled11 Jane Street Condominium Exemption Request be received for information; and That Council for the Town of Aylmer confirms Site Plan Approval was granted and a Development Agreement has been executed and registered on title for the property at 11 Jane Street in Aylmer; and further That Council for the Town of Aylmer therefore confirm that there is no objection to the request from Barbara Rosser as agent for Escalade Property Corporation for exemption from the Draft Plan of Condominium Application process at the County of Elgin. 36 ® Map Produced by: Township of Malahide GIS Department Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 17 Date: Dec 12, 2019 This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. 37 38 ® Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 17. DISCLAIMER:This drawing is neither a legally recorded 39 map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. A decision of the council of a municipality in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, a)shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision Natural heritage systems shall be identifiedin Ecoregions 6E & 7E, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas. 40 It is a policy of this Plan that the establishment of a natural heritage system be considered at the time of the next Official Plan Review. 41 42 ElginNaturalHeritage SystemsStudy (includesCityofSt.Thomas) th 2019 (June 5 DRAFT) UpperThamesRiverConservationAuthority Acknowledgements | Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study 2016 1 43 Published by: The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Phone: (519) 631-1460 Web: www.perthcounty.ca Available at: www.elgincounty.ca Project Management by: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road London, Ontario N5V 5B9 Phone: (519) 451-2800 Web: www.thamesriver.on.ca Email: info@thamesriver.on.ca Cover Photo A bird’s eye view of the Elgin County shoreline and nearby woodlands. Drone photo by Joseph McNeil. Cite as: Elgin County. 2019. Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study (includes St. Thomas and Aylmer). Project management by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with Elgin County Conservation Authorities. Document Number: 1257 Acknowledgements | Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study 2016 ii 44 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Study Team Cathy Quinlan Report author and technical expertise Terry Chapman GIS modeling and technical expertise Tracey Haycock GIS vegetation mapping Tracy Annett Project management, policy and implementation Tara Tchir Technical expertise Chris Harrington Project management The UTRCA would like to thank all of the Project Study Team Participants: for their valuable input into and participation in this study. Project Study Team Participants Steve Evans County of Elgin, Manager of Planning Marion-Francis Cabral MMAH, Municipal Advisor Karina Cerniavskaja Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Aylmer District Kathleen Buck MNRF, Biologist Jason Webb MNRF, Management Biologist Val Towsley Lower Thames Valley CA, Resource Technician Joe Gordon Kettle Creek CA, Director of Operations Leigh-Anne Mauthe Long Point Region CA, Planning Technician, Regulations Officer Chris Boothe Long Point Region CA, Planning Technician, Regulations Officer Tony Difazio Catfish Creek CA, Resource Planning Coordinator Peter Dragunas Catfish Creek CA, Water Quality Technician Tracey Pillon-Abbs Dutton/Dunwich, Planner Heather James West Elgin, Southwold, Planner Jim McCoomb Central Elgin Planning Office and City of St. Thomas, Manager of Planning Services Gene DiMeo Malahide, Director of Development & Community Services Margaret Underhill Bayham, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator Kale Brown Town of Aylmer, Director of Corporate Services Steering Committee Ed Ketchabaw Mayor of Bayham Sally Martyn Mayor of Central Elgin Dominique Giguere Deputy Mayor of Malahide Heather Derks Citizen appointee Thanks go to Steve Evans, Director of Planning & Development, and other staff at the County of Elgin for their direction and guidance of the study. Thanks to the County of Elgin for the financial support of this study. Acknowledgements | Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study 2016 3 45 The 2019 Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study (ENHSS) evaluates the existing ecologically important terrestrial (land) resources of the county based on 2015 aerial photography (ortho- imagery) using scientific methods and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) modeling. Chapter 1 introduces the importance of the natural heritage systems planning, including policy rationale and a summary of natural heritage systems studies in other nearby counties. The study scope is discussed, including the study area, project governance, and general limitations of the study. The distinction between “significant” features, as defined in the PPS, and “ecologically important”, as defined in this study, is explained. A summary of past natural heritage studies in Elgin County is provided. Chapter 2 describes how the various components of the county’s natural heritage system were defined and mapped. A variety of base mapping layers were developed by the Upper Thames River, Lower Thames Valley, Kettle Creek, Catfish Creek and Long Point Region Conservation Authorities. Using these mapping layers, the first step was to identify and delineate the smallest unit of vegetation, the Vegetation Community. Seventeen types of Vegetation Communities were delineated. The Vegetation Communities were then lumped into six broader categories called Vegetation Groups: woodlands, thickets, meadows, water features, and connected vegetation features. Three Vegetation Ecosystems were defined: terrestrial, wetland and aquatic. The final step consisted of delineating Vegetation Patches, which are a mosaic of one or more abutting Vegetation Groups. Chapter 2 concludes with a summary of mapping results for the Elgin Study Area (geographic Elgin plus a 500 mbuffer around all sides except the lake side). In the Elgin Study Area there is 20.77% woodland cover, 0.77% thicket cover, 1.80% meadow cover, 0.48% water feature cover, and 0.07% connected vegetation feature cover. Wetland cover (comprised of woodland, thicket and meadow groups) is 2.64%. The wetland cover is based on MNRF evaluated wetlands plus unevaluated wetlands mapped by the UTRCA using only air photo interpretation. Environment Canada (2013) sets guidelines for sustainability of at least 30% vegetation cover and at least 10% wetland cover at the watershed (or county) scale. Chapter 3 describes the 13 criteria used to identify ecologically important Vegetation Groups and Vegetation Patches. Each criterion is described, providing rationale, application/mapping rules and modeling results in terms of how many vegetationgroups or patches meet each criterion. Maps showing the results for each criterion are included in Appendix H. Chapter 4 summarizes the overall results of the criteria modeling at the vegetation group and patch levels. Patches meeting one or more criteria are deemed ecologically important in this study. The woodland group criteria for ecological importance also establish significance for woodlands consistent with the PPS. Maps showing the patches that meet one or more criteria for ecological importance are provided for Elgin County and for each local municipality and the City of St. Thomas in Appendix K and L. Approximately 81% of vegetation patches meet at least one criteria, representing 98.8% of the patch area. Some 21.74% of Elgin County is in ecologically important vegetation cover (24.12% for Elgin County Study Area with the 500 m buffer). At the local municipal level, the results range from 10.72% in Aylmer to 32.47% in Bayham. Chapter 5 provides recommendations for the implementation of this science-based study. A number of land use planning related recommendations are provided along with additional stewardship and education recommendations. The appendices provide additional information on methodology, rationale, and metadata. The digital data is provided to each municipality and conservation authority. Executive Summary ENHSS 2018 i 46 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 3 ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... vii 1.0Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Elgin County Natural Heritage Systems Study .............................................. 1 1.2 Natural Heritage Systems Studies .......................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Natural Heritage Studies (2003 to 2006) .................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Natural Heritage Systems Studies (2014 to present) ................................................... 6 1.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.4 Project Governance ................................................................................................................ 7 1.5 Significant versus Ecologically Important ........................................................................... 10 1.6 Statement of Limitations (Scope) ....................................................................................... 12 1.6.1 Mapping Limitations ................................................................................................. 12 1.6.2 Watercourse Layer .................................................................................................... 12 1.6.3 Connectivity and System Linkages ........................................................................... 13 1.7 Earlier Elgin Studies on Natural Areas and Features .......................................................... 14 2.0Mapping Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Assemble Digital Vegetation Layers (Base Mapping Layers) ............................................. 15 2.2 Delineation of Digital Vegetation Layers ............................................................................ 16 2.3 Vegetation Communities ...................................................................................................... 18 2.4 Vegetation Groups ............................................................................................................... 22 2.4.1 Wetland Vegetation Group ....................................................................................... 24 2.4.2 Woodland Vegetation Group .................................................................................... 25 2.4.3 Thicket Vegetation Group ......................................................................................... 25 2.4.4 Meadow Vegetation Group ....................................................................................... 26 2.4.5 Water Feature Vegetation Group .............................................................................. 26 2.4.6 Connected Vegetation Feature Vegetation Group .................................................... 26 2.4.7 Clustering around Narrow Breaks (Roads, Railroads, Rivers) ................................. 27 2.5 Vegetation Patches .............................................................................................................. 28 2.6 Vegetation Ecosystems ......................................................................................................... 30 2.7 Results of Mapping the Vegetation Layers .......................................................................... 32 Executive Summary ENHSS 2018 ii 47 3.0Criteria for Ecological Importance .................................................................................. 36 3.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Ecologically Important Criteria ........................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 Thirteen Ecologically Important Criteria .................................................................. 37 3.2.2 Significant Woodlands .............................................................................................. 39 3.3 Criteria Applied to all Vegetation Groups and Ecosystems ................................................. 40 3.3.1 Criterion 1 – Vegetation Group within or touching a Significant Valleyland .......... 40 3.3.2 Criterion 2 – Vegetation Group within 100 m of the Shoreline Zone....................... 44 3.3.3 Criterion 3 Vegetation Group within or touching any Life Science ANSI ............ 47 3.3.4 Criterion 4 – Vegetation Group within 30 m of an Open Watercourse .................... 50 3.4 Size Criteria Applied to Specific Vegetation Groups ......................................................... 53 3.4.1 Criterion 5 – All Wetland Vegetation Groups 0.5 ha ............................................ 53 3.4.2 Criterion 6 – Woodland Vegetation Groups 4 ha .................................................. 56 3.4.3 Criterion 7 – Woodland Vegetation Groups within 100 m of a Woodland Vegetation Group 4 ha ............................................................................................................................. 58 3.4.4 Criterion 8 – Thicket Vegetation Group 2 ha ........................................................ 60 3.4.5 Criterion 9 – Meadow Vegetation Group 5 ha ....................................................... 62 3.4.6 Criterion 10 – Meadow Vegetation Group within 100 m of a 4ha Woodland or 2 ha Thicket Vegetation Group .................................................................................................... 64 3.5 Criteria Applied to All Vegetation Patches ........................................................................ 66 3.5.1 Criterion 11 – Vegetation Patches containing a Vegetation Group that meets a Group Criterion 66 3.5.2 Criterion 12 – Vegetation Patch Containing a Diversity of Vegetation Ecosystems, Groups or Communities ............................................................................................................ 67 3.5.3 Criterion 13 Vegetation Patches that don’t meet any criteria but are within 100 m of a Vegetation Patch that meets other Patch Criteria .............................................................. 70 3.6 Additional Information – Criteria that did not pick up any patches not already picked up by other criteria ......................................................................................................................... 72 3.6.1 Vegetation P atches 100 ha ..................................................................................... 72 3.6.2 Woodland Interior Habitat ........................................................................................ 73 3.7 Criteria Reviewed but Not Included .................................................................................... 75 4.0Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ............................................... 76 4.1 Vegetation Groups that meet Criteria .................................................................................. 77 4.2 Vegetation Patches that meet Criteria .................................................................................. 78 4.3 Woodlands: Significant, Ecologically Important, and Other .............................................. 81 Executive Summary ENHSS 2018 iii 48 5.0Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 82 5.1 Land Use Planning ............................................................................................................... 83 5.2 Other Implementation Measures .......................................................................................... 85 References ........................................................................................................................................ 88 List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 97 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 99 Appendix A-1. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Code Descriptions .............................. 100 Appendix A-2. The similarities and differences between the ELC Vegetation Community Series and the ENHSS Vegetation Groups ................................................................................... 101 Appendix B. Evaluated Wetland Layer .................................................................................... 102 Appendix C. Unevaluated Wetlands and their Identification and Mapping (UTRCA Methodology) .................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix D. Summary of Ecologically Important Criteria, Rationale and Application .......... 104 Appendix E. Summary of rationale for criteria NOT used in the ENHSS ................................. 107 Appendix F. Metadata: Vegetation Patch and Group Criteria Mapping and Field Description . 112 Appendix G. Metadata for Vegetation Communities and Vegetation Groups ........................... 117 Appendix H-1. Criterion 1 Map, Vegetation Group within or touching a Significant Valleyland 125 Appendix H-1-1. Significant Valleylands .............................................................................. 126 Appendix H-2. Criterion 2 Map, Vegetation Groups within 100m of the Shoreline Zone ........ 127 Appendix H-3. Criterion 3 Map, Vegetation Groups within or touching a Life Science ANSI . 128 Appendix H-4. Criterion 4 Map, Vegetation Groups within 30 m of an open watercourse ....... 129 Appendix H-5. Criterion 5 Map, Wetlands (Evaluated) ............................................................. 130 Appendix H-6. Criterion 6 Map, Woodland Size 4 ha ............................................................ 131 Appendix H-7. Criterion 7 Map, Woodlands within 100m of a >4 ha Woodland (Proximity) .. 132 Appendix H-8. Criterion 8 Map, Thicket Group Size 2 ha ..................................................... 133 Appendix H-9. Criterion 9 Map, Meadow Size 5 ha ............................................................... 134 Appendix H-10. Criterion 10 Map, Meadow Group within 100m of a Thicket >2 ha or a Woodland >4 ha ................................................................................................................. 135 Appendix H-11. Criterion 11 Map, Patches that meet a Group Criteria ..................................... 136 Appendix H-12. Criterion 12 Map, Diversity ............................................................................. 137 Appendix H-13. Criterion 13 Map, Patch Proximity .................................................................. 138 Appendix I-1. Map showing patches 100 ha ............................................................................ 139 Appendix I-2. Map showing Woodlands that contain Woodland Interior .................................. 140 Appendix I-3. Map showing the watercourse layer (open and tiled) ......................................... 141 Executive Summary ENHSS 2018 iv 49 Appendix J-1. Valley in relation to Significant Groundwater Recharge .................................... 142 Appendix J-2. Valley in relation to Geological Features ............................................................ 143 Appendix J-3. Valley in relation to vegetation patch cover ....................................................... 144 Appendix K-1. Woodland Groups that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Elgin ................................................................................................................................... 145 Appendix K-2. Meadow Groups that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Elgin ................................................................................................................................... 146 Appendix K-3. Thicket Groups that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Elgin 147 Appendix L-1. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in West Elgin 148 Appendix L-2. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Dutton/Dunwich................................................................................................................. 149 Appendix L-3. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Southwold 150 Appendix L-4. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Central Elgin 151 Appendix L-5. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in St. Thomas 152 Appendix L-6. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Malahide 153 Appendix L-7. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Bayham .. 154 Appendix L-8. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Aylmer .... 155 Appendix L-9. Patches that meet one or more criteria for Ecological Importance in Elgin ....... 156 Appendix M. Woodlands: Significant, Ecologically Important and Other in Elgin County ..... 157 Appendix N. Other Natural Heritage Features and Areas Identified at the Site Level ............... 158 Appendix O. Lakeshore Zone ..................................................................................................... 160 Executive Summary ENHSS 2018 v 50 Figure 1 County of Elgin showing member municipalities, City of St. Thomas and 8 Conservation Authority Watersheds …………………………………………… Figure 2 Illustration of two Woodland Vegetation Communities (deciduous woodland 22 and deciduous swamp) forming a Woodland Group ……………………………. Figure 3 Illustration of how small and large Vegetation Communities are combined into 23 Vegetation Groups and Patches……………………………………………….. Figure 4 Illustration of clustering Vegetation Groups around narrow roads into one 27 Woodland Cluster ……………………………………………………………….. Figure 5 Illustration of the composition of a Vegetation Patch comprised of different 29 Vegetation Communities,Groups and Ecosystems …………………………….. Figure 6 Criterion 1, illustration of Significant Valleyland boundary delineation using 40 flood limit, steep slope and 100 m from watercourse edge …………………….. Figure 7 Criterion 1, illustration showing Vegetation Groups on or touching a Significant 42 Valleyland ……………………………………………………………….…….... Figure 8 Criterion 3, illustration showing Vegetation Groups within or touching a Life 49 Science ANSI …………………………………………………………………… Figure 9 Criterion 4, illustration showing Vegetation Groups within 30 m of Open 52 Watercourses (small and large) ………………………………………………… Figure 10 Criterion 7, illustration of 100 m proximity between Woodland Groups 4 ha .. 59 Figure 11 Criterion 12, illustration of patches containing many different Vegetation 69 Ecosystems, Groups and Communities ……………………………………….. Figure 12 Criterion 13, illustration of a small patch that does not meet any criteria but is 71 within 100 m of a patch that does meet criteria …………………….………... Figure 13 Illustration showing how interior woodland area is calculated ……………... 74 List of Figures ENHSS 2018 vi 51 Table 1 Significant versus Ecologically Important Natural Heritage Features and Areas .. 11 Table 2 Digital mapping layer development for the 2019 ENHSS……………………….. 15 Table 3 Relationship between Vegetation Communities, Groups and Ecosystems ….….... 17 Table 4 Definition and attributes of the 18 Vegetation Communities …………………..... 19 Table 5 Vegetation Ecosystems in relation to Vegetation Communities and Groups ……. 31 Table 6 Number of Vegetation Communities, Groups and Patches in the Study Area …... 32 Table 7 Number and area of the 18 Vegetation Community Types in the Study Area …… 33 Table 8 Vegetation Community types sorted by Area in the Study Area ………………... 34 Table 9 Area of Vegetation Groups as a percentage of Elgin Study Area ……………..… 35 Table 10 Summary of the 17 Ecologically Important Criteria ……………………………. 38 Table 11 ENHSS Criteria for Ecologically Important Woodlands that meet PPS Criteria 39 for Significance ……………………………………………………………..…… Table 12 Criterion 1 Results – Vegetation Groups located on or touching Significant 43 Valleylands in the Study Area …………………………………………………… Table 13 Criterion 2 Results – Vegetation Groups within 100 m of the Shoreline Zone …. 45 Table 14 Criterion 3 Results – Vegetation Groups within or touching a Life Science ANSI 48 in the Study Area …………………………………………….…………………... Table 15 Criterion 4 Results – Vegetation Groups containing or within 30 m of an Open 51 Watercourse in the Study Area …………………………………………………. Table 16a Criterion 5 Results -- Vegetation Groups that contain Wetland Vegetation 55 Communities ……………………………………………………………………. Table 16b Evaluated and Unevaluated Wetland Cover ……………………………………. 55 Table 16c Wetland Cover by Municipality ………………………………………………… 55 Table 17 Criterion 6 Results – Woodland Vegetation Groups 1 ha in the Study Area …. 57 Table 18 Criterion 7 Results – Woodland Vegetation Groups within 100 m of a Woodland 58 Vegetation Group 4 ha in the Study Area ……………………………………... Table 19 Criterion 8 Results – Thicket Vegetation Groups 2 ha in the Study Area …….. 61 Table 20 Criterion 9 Results – Meadow Vegetation Groups 5 ha in the Study Area …... 63 Table 21 Criterion 10 Results – Meadow Vegetation Groups within 100 m of a 4 ha 65 woodland or 2 ha thicket Vegetation Group in the Study Area ……..…………. Table 22 Criterion 12 Results – Vegetation Patches that contain a Vegetation Groups that 66 meets a Group Criteria in the Study Area …………………………………......... List of Tables ENHSS 2018 vii 52 Table 23 Criterion 11 Results – Vegetation Patches that contain a diversity of Vegetation 68 Ecosystems, Groups or Communities in the Study Area ………………………. Table 24 Criterion 12 Results – Vegetation Patches that do not meet any criteria but are within 100 m of a Vegetation Patch that meets other patch criteria in the Study 70 Area……………………………………………………………………………… Table 25 Vegetation Patches 100 ha ……………………………………………………. 72 Table 26 Woodland Groups with Woodland Interior Habitat …………………………….. 73 Table 27 Vegetation Group Results for Elgin Study Area …….…………………………... 77 Table 28 The number of Vegetation Patches versus the number of criteria met in the Elgin 78 Study Area………………………………………………………………………... Table 29 The Area of Vegetation Patches that meet criteria in the Elgin Study Area …….. 78 Table 30 Number of Vegetation Patches that are Ecologically Important by 79 Municipality …………………………………………………………………….. Table 31 Area of Vegetation Patches that is Ecologically Important by Municipality …… 79 Table 32 Woodland Category Results for Elgin Study Area ………………………..…… 81 AmericanGoldfinch.tŷƚƷƚĬǤwƚƓwźķƚǒƷ List of Tables ENHSS 2018 viii 53 The Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study (ENHSS) addresses the need for information on the state of the county’s natural areas and systems. The study provides a landscape level assessment of natural heritage features and functions. The identification of natural features and areas in southwestern Ontario is an important undertaking. Environment Canada (2013) identified that human activities, such as agriculture, urban development and associated infrastructure, have resulted in the loss or degradation of over 70% of the naturally vegetated areas in Southern Ontario. In some areas this reduction is greater. The remaining naturally vegetated areas tend to be in unconnected patches across the landscape. Intensive land use activities have also been found to contribute to degraded water quality conditions in many streams and lakes. The Province of Ontario provides policy guidance to municipalities on matters of provincial interest in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS (2014) includes the following general directives for municipalities related to planning for natural heritage: 9ǣĭĻƩƦƷŅƩƚƒƷŷĻЋЉЊЍtt{ΛƦğŭĻЋЋΜ 2.0WiseUseandManagementofResources Ontario'slongtermprosperity,environmentalhealth,andsocialwellbeingdependon conservingbiodiversity,protectingthehealthoftheGreatLakes,andprotectingnatural heritage,water,agricultural,mineralandculturalheritageandarchaeologicalresourcesfor theireconomic,environmentalandsocialbenefits. Accordingly: 2.1NaturalHeritage 2.1.1Naturalfeaturesandareasshallbeprotectedforthelongterm. 2.1.2Thediversityandconnectivityofnaturalfeaturesinanarea,andthelongterm Ļĭƚƌƚŭźĭğƌ ŅǒƓĭƷźƚƓ andbiodiversityof ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒƭ,shouldbemaintained,restoredor, wherepossible,improved,recognizinglinkagesbetweenandamong ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭğƓķğƩĻğƭ,ƭǒƩŅğĭĻǞğƷĻƩŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ and ŭƩƚǒƓķǞğƷĻƩŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ. 2.1.3 bğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒƭ shallbeidentifiedinEcoregions6E&7E1 Ͳ recognizingthat ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒƭ willvaryinsizeandformin ƭĻƷƷƌĻƒĻƓƷğƩĻğƭ,ƩǒƩğƌğƩĻğƭ,and ƦƩźƒĻğŭƩźĭǒƌƷǒƩğƌğƩĻğƭ. Note:Elgin County falls within Ecoregions 6E and 7E1, more specifically 7E2 and 7E6. Background ENHSS 2018 1 54 The ENHSS is a science based study that uses high quality ortho-imagery and Geographic Information System (GIS) modeling to identify natural vegetation patches that are considered to be ecologically important at the County level. Many of the ecologically important features also are significant in the context of the PPS (see text box below). 9ǣĭĻƩƦƷŅƩƚƒƷŷĻЋЉЊЍtt{ΛƦğŭĻƭЍБͲЍВΜ Significantmeans a)inregardtowetlands,coastalwetlandsandareasofnaturalandscientificinterest, anareaidentifiedasprovinciallysignificantbytheOntarioMinistryofNatural ResourcesusingevaluationproceduresestablishedbytheProvince,asamended fromtimetotime; termsoffeatures b)inregardtowoodlands,anareawhichisecologicallyimportantin suchasspeciescomposition,ageoftreesandstandhistory;functionallyimportant duetoitscontributiontothebroaderlandscapebecauseofitslocation,sizeordue totheamountofforestcoverintheplanningarea;oreconomicallyimportantdueto sitequality,speciescomposition,orpastmanagementhistory.Thesearetobe identifiedusingcriteriaestablishedbytheOntarioMinistryofNaturalResources; c)inregardtootherfeaturesandareasinpolicy2.1,ecologicallyimportantintermsof features,functions,representationoramount,andcontributingtothequalityand diversityofanidentifiablegeographicareaornaturalheritagesystem; Criteriafordeterminingsignificancefortheresourcesidentifiedinsections(c)(e)are recommendedbytheProvince,butmunicipalapproachesthatachieveorexceedthe sameobjectivemayalsobeused. Whilesomesignificantresourcesmayalreadybeidentifiedandinventoriedbyofficial sources,thesignificanceofotherscanonlybedeterminedafterevaluation. The ENHSS methodology is intended to establish the local approach for identifying the terrestrial Natural Heritage System (Fish Habitat and other aquatic habitat features are not identified in the study), as required by the natural heritage policies of the PPS. The ENHSS incorporates the most current information available from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to identify the Natural Heritage Features and Areas that they are responsible for identifying as per a) of the PPS definition of significant in the above text box and related policies (e.g., provincially significant wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest). The study also includes the identification of significant woodlands and valleylands, in accordance with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010), and sets outs a recommended approach for identifying significant wildlife habitat, to address the PPS requirement for planning authorities to identify such Natural Heritage Features and Areas as per b) and c) of the PPS definition in the text box above. The complete list of Natural Heritage Features and Areas as set out in the PPS is shown in the text box below. NOTE: In the case of valleylands, the identification and evaluation of Significant Valleylands is based on the recommended criteria outlined in section 8.3.1 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010). It is the responsibility of planning authorities to identify these features. Background ENHSS 2018 2 55 9ǣĭĻƩƦƷŅƩƚƒƷŷĻЋЉЊЍtt{ΛƦğŭĻЋЋΜ 2.1.4 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ and ƭźƷĻğƌƷĻƩğƷźƚƓ shallnotbepermittedin: a)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷǞĻƷƌğƓķƭ inEcoregions5E,6Eand7E1;and b)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷĭƚğƭƷğƌǞĻƷƌğƓķƭ. 2.1.5 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ and ƭźƷĻğƌƷĻƩğƷźƚƓ shallnotbepermittedin: 1 a)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷǞĻƷƌğƓķƭ intheCanadianShieldnorthofEcoregions5E,6Eand7E; b)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷǞƚƚķƌğƓķƭ inEcoregions6Eand7E(excludingislandsinLakeHuron 1 andtheSt.MarysRiver); c)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷǝğƌƌĻǤƌğƓķƭ inEcoregions6Eand7E(excludingislandsinLakeHuron 1 ; andtheSt.MarysRiver) d)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷǞźƌķƌźŅĻŷğĬźƷğƷ; e)ƭźŭƓźŅźĭğƓƷğƩĻğƭƚŅƓğƷǒƩğƌğƓķƭĭźĻƓƷźŅźĭźƓƷĻƩĻƭƷ;and f)ĭƚğƭƷğƌǞĻƷƌğƓķƭ inEcoregions5E,6Eand7E1thatarenotsubjecttopolicy 2.1.4(b) unlessithasbeendemonstratedthattherewillbeno ƓĻŭğƷźǝĻźƒƦğĭƷƭ onthenatural featuresortheir ĻĭƚƌƚŭźĭğƌŅǒƓĭƷźƚƓƭ. 2.1.6 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ and ƭźƷĻğƌƷĻƩğƷźƚƓ shallnotbepermittedin ŅźƭŷŷğĬźƷğƷ exceptin accordancewith ƦƩƚǝźƓĭźğƌğƓķŅĻķĻƩğƌƩĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭ. 2.1.7 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ and ƭźƷĻğƌƷĻƩğƷźƚƓ shallnotbepermittedin ŷğĬźƷğƷƚŅĻƓķğƓŭĻƩĻķƭƦĻĭźĻƭ ğƓķƷŷƩĻğƷĻƓĻķƭƦĻĭźĻƭ,exceptinaccordancewith ƦƩƚǝźƓĭźğƌğƓķŅĻķĻƩğƌƩĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭ. 2.1.8 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ and ƭźƷĻğƌƷĻƩğƷźƚƓ shallnotbepermittedon ğķƆğĭĻƓƷƌğƓķƭ tothe ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ŷĻƩźƷğŭĻŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭğƓķğƩĻğƭ identifiedinpolicies2.1.4,2.1.5,and2.1.6unlessthe ĻĭƚƌƚŭźĭğƌŅǒƓĭƷźƚƓ ofthe ğķƆğĭĻƓƷƌğƓķƭ hasbeenevaluatedandithasbeen demonstratedthattherewillbeno ƓĻŭğƷźǝĻźƒƦğĭƷƭ onthenaturalfeaturesorontheir ĻĭƚƌƚŭźĭğƌŅǒƓĭƷźƚƓƭ. 2.1.9Nothinginpolicy2.1isintendedtolimittheabilityof ğŭƩźĭǒƌƷǒƩğƌǒƭĻƭ tocontinue. This study also identifies various other natural features and areas that comprise the natural heritage system that are not considered “significant” as defined in the PPS. These other features and areas are described in more detail in Section 1.5. The ENHSS provides mapping of the Natural Heritage Systems for the Corporate County of Elgin, including local municipalities: Municipalities of West Elgin, Dutton/Dunwich, Central Elgin, and Bayham and the Townships of Southwold and Malahide and the Town of Aylmer. The City of St. Thomas is geographically located in Elgin County and so is included in this study, but it is a separated city. Background ENHSS 2018 3 56 The PPS (2014) defines the natural heritage system as follows: 9ǣĭĻƩƦƷŅƩƚƒƷŷĻЋЉЊЍtt{ΛƦğŭĻЍЎΜ bğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒʹmeansasystemmadeupof ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭğƓķğƩĻğƭ, andlinkagesintendedtoprovideconnectivity(attheregionalorsitelevel)andsupport naturalprocesseswhicharenecessarytomaintainbiologicalandgeologicaldiversity,natural functions,viablepopulationsofindiesesystemscan genousspecies,andecosystems.Th include ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭğƓķğƩĻğƭ,federalandprovincialparksandconservation reserves,othernaturalheritagefeatures,landsthathavebeenrestoredorhavethepotential toberestoredtoanaturalstate,areasthatsupporthydrologicfunctions,andworking landscapesthatenableecologicalfunctionstocontinue.TheProvincehasarecommended approachforidentifying ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒƭ,butmunicipalapproachesthatachieveor exceedthesameobjectivemayalsobeused. The Natural Heritage System includes: woodlands, wetlands, thickets, young plantations, meadows, waterbodies and watercourses and connected vegetation features. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the County of Elgin. The working agricultural fields can provide linkages between natural features and areas and these linkages may be utilized in different ways depending on the cropping patterns or the time of year. The ENHSS does not attempt to map all of these potential system linkages but rather acknowledges that the agricultural landscape (i.e., crop fields, pastures, etc.) can provide some linkage functions. Given the size of the study area, the predominantly agricultural land use and that land use change is anticipated to be limited, the ENHSS maps the Natural Heritage Systems at the county level of scale. In cases where land use change is anticipated, the potential impact of the land use change on system linkages must be considered. For example, if agricultural land is proposed to be converted to urban development or other non-agricultural uses, the system linkages that would have been provided in the working agricultural landscape may be disrupted or eliminated by the post development urban landscape. In such cases it is necessary that Natural Heritage System linkages be studied at an appropriate level of detail and that system linkages be provided as part of the planning approval process. Background ENHSS 2018 4 57 The 2015 Elgin County Official Plan, Section D1.2.4 states that “It is a policy of this Plan that the establishment of a natural heritage system be considered at the time of the next Official Plan Review.” 9ǣĭĻƩƦƷŅƩƚƒƷŷĻЋЉЊЎ9ƌŭźƓ/ƚǒƓƷǤhŅŅźĭźğƌtƌğƓ SectionD1.2.4EstablishingaNaturalHeritageSystem TheCountyofElginiscommittedtomaintainingandpromotingahealthynaturalenvironment andprotectingitsuniqueandspecialnaturalheritagefeaturesforthepresentgenerationand allsuccessivegenerations.Therefore,anecosystembasedplanningandmanagementapproach isrequiredtoguidethelandusedecisionmakingprocess.Thisapproachmustemphasizethat ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ shouldnotonlyprotectandmanageimpactstoecosystemsbutalsoincludethe objectiveofenhancingandrestoringecosystemsappropriately.Thediversityandconnectivity ofnaturalfeaturesinanarea,andthelongterm ĻĭƚƌƚŭźĭğƌŅǒƓĭƷźƚƓ andbiodiversityof ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒƭ,shouldbemaintained,restoredorwherepossible,improved,recognizing linkagesbetweenandamong ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭğƓķğƩĻğƭ,ƭǒƩŅğĭĻǞğƷĻƩŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ and ŭƩƚǒƓķǞğƷĻƩŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ.ItisapolicyofthisPlanthattheestablishmentofa ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻ ƭǤƭƷĻƒ beconsideredatthetimeofthenextOfficialPlanReview. AfteraNaturalHeritageStudyiscompletedtheCountyOfficialPlanwillbeamendedto implementtherecommendationsofthestudy.Localmunicipalitieswillalsoneedtoupdate theirOfficialPlanstoconformwiththeCountyOfficialPlan.TheCountywillengageadjacent jurisdictionswhendevelopingits ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻƭǤƭƷĻƒ,recognizingthat ƓğƷǒƩğƌŷĻƩźƷğŭĻ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭğƓķğƩĻğƭ crossmunicipalboundaries. Background ENHSS 2018 5 58 The UTRCA has led Natural Heritage Systems Studies in Oxford (County of Oxford, 2016), Middlesex (County of Middlesex, 2014) and Huron (County of Huron, 2014 draft). These studies evolved from earlier Natural Heritage Studies (County of Oxford 2006 and County of Middlesex 2003). The first study, the 2003 Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (County of Middlesex and UTRCA 2003), was a pilot project for the Carolinian Canada Big Picture Project and the Ministry of Natural Resources Ecological Land Classification System. The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (MNHS) involved analysis of existing information along with new botanical information for private property that was collected as part of the study. This information, combined with a detailed review of the ecological literature, led to the development of a set of landscape criteria that were then modelled using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. The study focused on the identification of significant woodland patches only. Building upon the Middlesex study, the 2006 Oxford Natural Heritage Study (ONHS) (County of Oxford 2006) was led by the UTRCA in collaboration with other county Conservation Authorities and completed for the County of Oxford.Various partners participated in the project. The 2006 ONHS had the following goals: 1.To increase understanding of the County’s natural heritage features and systems (e.g. woodlands, wetlands, aquatic systems such as streams and rivers, etc.). 2.To develop land use planning information and establish the scientific and provincial policy basis, to identify, protect and enhance the natural heritage features and systems, at both the County and local municipal levels. 3.To encourage and facilitate private stewardship and public education. 4.To strengthen links between natural areas and protect the relationships between plant and animal communities. The ONHS broadened the approach beyond wooded areas to include flood plain meadows and other elements of the natural heritage system, including an aquatic resources analysis. The ONHS was subjected to a third party peer review. The basic approach was validated through the peer review and minor adjustments were made to some criteria. Since the 2014 PPS Section 2.1.3 requires that natural heritage systems be identified in ecoregions 6E and 7E, new iterations of natural heritage studies are using a systems approach. The system expands from the previous studies that primarily focused on identifying significant woodlands. Current system studies now include other habitat types such as meadows, thickets, hedgerows, riparian buffers, etc. Recent studies using this approach were completed by the UTRCA for Middlesex (County of Middlesex, 2014), Huron (County of Huron, 2014 draft), Oxford (County of Oxford, 2016 draft), and Perth (County of Perth, 2018 draft). These studies provide the basis for this Elgin study. Background ENHSS 2018 6 59 A map of Elgin County is shown in Figure 1. The County of Elgin has seven local municipalities, including the municipalities of Bayham, Central Elgin, Dutton/Dunwich, Town of Aylmer, Township of Malahide, Municipality of Southwold, and Municipality of West Elgin. The City of St. Thomas is geographically located in Elgin County and so is included in this study, but is a separated city. However, this study treats the entire county as a whole for the purposes of natural heritage mapping. The county is under the jurisdiction of four Conservation Authorities: Lower Thames Valley, Kettle Creek, Catfish Creek and Long Point Region. A 500m buffer was placed around the county boundary when modelling the criteria to avoid cutting off woodlands and other natural heritage features that spanned both sides of the boundary or were less than 120 m from the boundary. The buffer is not included on the lake side of the county. This larger area is termed the Study Area. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (page 156) recommends that the natural heritage system adequately and appropriately connect features to other natural heritage systems beyond the study area. The Elgin County geographic area is approximately 188,482 ha and the study area with the 500 m buffer is 197,159 ha. To involve all of the partners, a Project Team was assembled and invited to meetings to review the methodology and discuss various specifics around criteria, etc. The project was guided by a partnership of the following agencies: County of Elgin, Planning & GIS staff Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Catfish Creek Conservation Authority Long Point Region Conservation Authority Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Aylmer Office) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipality of West Elgin Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich Township of Southwold Municipality of Central Elgin City of St. Thomas (separated city) Township of Malahide Municipality of Bayham Town of Aylmer A total of three meetings were held between Sept 2018 and April 2019. The kick-off meeting provided an introduction to natural heritage systems studies and some of the technical issues to be discussed. The second meeting was a technical workshop where the woodland size cutoff options were reviewed in detail with draft mapping results, and the modeling criteria were reviewed in greater depth. The third meeting focused on reviewing the study findings, maps, and recommendations. The County of Elgin approved the final project proposal and oversaw the fulfillment of project time lines and deliverables. The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) oversaw project coordination. Background ENHSS 2018 7 60 ty of St. Thomas and Conservation Authority Watersheds Figure 1. County of Elgin showing Local Municipalities, Ci Background ENHSS 2018 8 61 Peer Review A third party peer review of the ENHSS was not part of the contract as similar earlier studies have been peer reviewed and the ENHSS project team and steering committee provided feedback at several stages throughout the study. The 2006 Oxford Natural Heritage Study (ONHS) and the 2014 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study (MNHSS) were both peer-reviewed by third party consultants. The early 2006 ONHS was received by the County of Oxford and subjected to a third party per review. The basic approach was validated through the peer review and minor adjustments were made to some criteria. The 2014 MNHSS was subjected to a technical peer review by a qualified third party expert at two stages in the process, the criteria development phase and the mapping results phase.This study was the first ‘systems’ study to evolve out of the earlier natural heritage studies, so a review was appropriate. Again, the approach was validated. The only significant changes from the 2014 MNHSS to this ENHSS study are: -the meadow size criterion cut-off was reduced from 10 ha in the MNHSS to 5 ha (the rational is included in section 3.4.2.), -there was the addition of the Shoreline Zone criterion (see section 3.3.2), and -the unmapped criterion (Significant Wildlife Habitat, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems, and Watercourse Bluffs & Depositional Areas) were removed as criterion and grouped into the list of additional natural heritage features and areas that must be considered in an EIS (see Appendix N and Section 5.1). The methodology used to identify the valleyland systems in the 2014 MNHSS and 2016 Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study was reviewed by the MNRF who agreed that the methodology met evaluation criteria and standards as per the NHRM requirements to identify Significant Valleylands. Background ENHSS 2018 9 62 As outlined in Section 1.1., this study maps and evaluates the natural heritage systems of Elgin County and its component features and areas, to provide the scientific basis for their identification by the County, as required to be consistent with the applicable natural heritage policies of the PPS. The term/phrase “ecologically important” is used to identify the features of the natural heritage system that meet the ecologically based criteria established in this study. These features include: vegetation groups and patches that are “significant” as per the definitions of significant in the PPS and MNRF criteria, including significant woodlands, significant valleylands, fish habitat, provincially significant wetlands, and provincially significant ANSIs, and various other vegetation groups that are ecologically important from a natural heritage system analysis perspective, including additional features and areas such as meadows, thickets, regionally significant ANSIs, evaluated and unevaluated wetlands, and connected vegetation features. These latter features are not significant as per the PPS definition and the MNRF criteria (unless they are determined to be Significant Wildlife Habitat). Table 1 summarizes the natural heritage features that meet the definition of significant and ecologically important. The valleyland layer developed in this study meets the requirements of Significant Valleylands as noted in the previous section. Natural Heritage Systems Studies identify “ecologically important” features using a series of ecologically based criteria and GIS modeling. Each criterion measures a unique aspect of the ecological services that a natural feature provides. Thus, any patch that meets at least one criterion is considered “ecologically important” in Elgin, with some of these ecologically important features also being significant as per the PPS. This one-criterion approach has been utilized in many other studies including the 2016 Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study, 2014 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study and the 2014 Huron Natural Heritage Study. In these other studies, the criteria were called “significance criteria”, but in this study the word “significant” has been replaced with “ecologically important”. This change was made to distinguish the use of the word significant in the Provincial Policy Statement for features such as Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially Significant ANSIs. Background ENHSS 2018 10 63 Table 1. Significant versus Ecologically Important Natural Heritage Features and Areas SignificantEcologicallyImportant NaturalHeritageFeatures asperthePPSintheENHSS2019 SignificantWoodlands that meetPPSCriteria(asperTableYesYes(seeSection3.2.2ofthisstudy) 72NHRM) Yes(onlytheNHFswithinortouching SignificantValleylands Yes them) No(notacriteriainthisterrestrial FishHabitat Yes study) No(someNHF&Aonthemmaybeif ProvincialEarthScienceANSIs Yes theymeetotherENHSScriteria) ProvincialLifeScienceANSIs YesYes Yes(theENHSSistheappropriate RegionalLifeScienceANSIs No regionalscaletorecognizethem) ProvinciallySignificant YesYes Wetlands EvaluatedWetlands(non NoYes significant) UnevaluatedWetlands NoYes Yes(ifmeetENHSSgrouporpatch Meadows No criteria) Yes(ifmeetENHSSgrouporpatch Thickets No criteria) Yes(ifmeetENHSSgrouporpatch ConnectedVegetationFeatures No criteria) NonsignificantWoodlands that NoYes(iftheymeetENHSSpatchcriteria) donotmeetPPScriteria WaterbodiesandMajor Yes(IftheycontainFishYes(ifpartofagrouporpatchthat Watercourses Habitat)meetsENHSScriteria) OtherNaturalFeaturesandAreasthatrequirefieldlevelidentification (e.g.,theyarenotlandscapelevelcriteriasocannotbemodeledaspartoftheENHSS) HabitatofEndangered,Yes(whereidentified, Threatenedspecies undertheSARAct) Yes(whereidentified,see SignificantWildlifeHabitat SWHCriteriaSchedule) WatercourseBluffsand Yes(iftheycontainFish DepositionalAreas Habitat) Yes(iftheymeetMNRF GroundwaterDependent ProvinciallySignificant Wetlands/Ecosystems Wetlandcriteria) Background ENHSS 2018 11 64 The methodology for this study involves using the best available vegetation information from digital mapping layers and current landscape ecology literature to develop landscape criteria for local importance (e.g., size, proximity). Several limitations are noted in this section. The base mapping layer is based on spring colour 2015 aerial photography (ortho-imagery). The boundaries of the natural features are accurate for that point in time only. Base mapping layers are manually interpreted through an on-screen process. The Vegetation Community information is derived from the colours and patterns seen on the photography. Misinterpretation of certain features may occur. As well, the mapping layer is only accurate to the date and season when the air photo was taken. The 2015 photography was flown prior to leaf-out and is an excellent product for discerning natural heritage features. Although the boundary of some natural heritage features will have changed from 2015 to present, it is important to use a base layer from a single point in time that is consistent across the county so that it can be used for future comparisons. If needed, an Environmental Impact Study will verify any changes to the boundaries of the natural features. Another limitation with mapping features that are developed and maintained by dynamic processes (e.g., old field succession) is that they are more likely to change over a shorter period of time than features that are more stable (e.g., mature woodlands). For many of the ecosystem functions and derived services, it is not possible or appropriate to delineate clear spatial boundaries between natural heritage features. Often these boundaries are dynamic in both space and time, depending on seasonal patterns of rainfall and/or land use. Dynamic processes include geomorphology (e.g., bluff development), natural disturbances such as fire, wind erosion, flooding, plant succession (e.g., meadow to thicket to woodland), and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., cattle grazing, drainage changes, deforestation, etc.). Although digital data for watercourses exists for southern Ontario, this data is not current and was not updated as part of this study. Recognizing time and resource constraints, a method was developed that eliminated the need to update the entire watercourse layer when running the criteria. Using spring 2015 aerial photography (SWOOP – Southwestern Ontario Orthoimagery Project), an on-screen interpretation of the edge (i.e., the bank-full width) of open watercourses was completed in tandem with the interpretation of Vegetation Community boundaries. Section 3.3.3 provides more details. Notwithstanding the state of the water course layer, it should be understood that all open watercourses are still considered to be potential fish habitat and should be screened for at the site level as part of any development application. All open watercourses are considered part of the aquatic system, however, this study focuses on the terrestrial system. Best available watercourse mapping is shown in Appendix I-3. Background ENHSS 2018 12 65 Ecological connectivity is a fundamental conservation biology principle that is scientifically defensible, yet difficult to identify given the dynamic nature of the landscape and the species within it (Rodewald 2003). In urban areas, roads, hard surfaces and dense human populations are an obvious barrier to many native plant and animal species. As a result, remaining wildlife linkages in existing developed urban areas are often limited to waterways, valleys and protected parkland/natural areas. However, in agricultural landscapes, it is difficult to define linkages outside of the defined natural heritage system (woodlands, hedgerows, wetlands, major watercourses, etc.) where it could be argued that many farm fields can be part of the system. Ontario Nature (2014) recognizes the natural heritage / agricultural matrix interactions in southwestern Ontario. Crop fields and pastures do not present as much of a barrier to animal/seed movement as dense urban landuses, though they do not replace Natural Heritage Features and Areas (NHFA) and formal linkages. Thus the ENHSS does not attempt to identify current or future linkages between patches or across agricultural fields or along unvegetated stretches of watercourses (drains) in rural areas, as the concern over loss of connectivity is not asd great as it is for urban areas. Identifying and planning for a natural heritage systems study ideally should include both the identification of patch and linkage/corridor attributes. This is supported in the policies/definition for natural heritage studies under the PPS 2014, and the technical guidance under the 2010 Natural Heritage Reference Manual. This study identifies Significant Valleylands as per the methods established in the 2016 Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study, which MNRF recommended form the backbone of the linkages/corridors of the Natural Heritage System. This study also identifies the Lake Erie shoreline zone as an important linkage feature that connects the vegetation groups along the shore as well as the lower ends of the valleys/ravines that discharge into the lake. Chapter 5 outlines recommendations for identifying and evaluating natural linkages as part of the review of proposals to develop land for uses that could affect the ability for species to move between natural features. The recommendations consider the site as a part of the overall system and the need to demonstrate that there is no impact on the loss of connectivity and linkages between the features defined in this study. The analysis of proposed development of agricultural and future development lands for other uses must characterize and prioritize these linkages according to factors such as the presence of threatened and endangered species, proximity to other features, application of the Carolinian Canada Big Picture corridor rules, etc. As well, several criteria deal with proximity between Vegetation Communities and Patches. This study evaluates what is significant, but does not attempt to analyze whether the natural heritage features are in the best location, nor does it build an ecologically sustainable ecosystem. Through the submissions of an Environmental Impact Study, opportunities to improve linkages should be provided. Background ENHSS 2018 13 66 Over the last few decades, several studies have been undertaken to identify the most important natural areas in the county and to further restore and conserve the natural heritage of Elgin County. These studies, and others like it, can be seen as the precursors to this landscape-level natural heritage systems study. This section highlights three key studies. Significant Natural Areas of Elgin County, Ontario 1985-1986 (Carolinian Canada 1993) In 1985-1986, an in-field study was undertaken in Elgin and Kent Counties, under the Carolinian Canada Committee, to identify key natural areas throughout the region which required protection through government and municipal planning processes in order to protect the natural diversity of the county. Identification of areas was accomplished by accumulating data on the vegetation, flora, fauna and physical features of candidate sites (Bowles, Oldham and Klinkenberg, 1993). A standard set of environmental criteria were developed by which to judge the sites. In total, 41 Significant Natural Areas were identified, those which met at least three, but usually more of the criteria. Elgin Landscape Strategy (Elgin Stewardship Council 2005) The Elgin Landscape Strategy is an information tool to identify and prioritize potential stewardship actions throughout Elgin County. It maps out key natural heritage areas where focused conservation and restoration efforts would be most effective in retaining a healthy and functioning landscape. The Elgin Stewardship Council, in partnership with many stakeholders, undertook this GIS mapping exercise, producing maps of restoration potential that identify the potential contribution of non-vegetated lands to meeting the county-wide stewardship goals. The strategy was meant to provide coordination and direction for informing stakeholders about options for land stewardship actions, a tool to identify and prioritize areas for rehabilitation in cooperation with landowners and the farming community. Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan (Carolinian Canada Coalition 2012) In 2012, the Carolinian Canada Coalition completed the Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan (CAP) in partnership with many local stewardship, agricultural and naturalist groups and agencies. The CAP identified 10 key conservation targets ranging from valley and ravine forests to inland wetlands and Species At Risk reptiles. It also identified key stressors and key conservation objectives and strategic actions to overcome or improve the health of the system including establishing functional ecological linkages between and within existing core natural areas, developing outreach strategies to communication the themes to residents, control the spread of invasive plant species, and develop a strategy to promote sustainable agricultural practices. As a spinoff project, the Thames Talbot Land Trust (TTLT) spearheaded the Lake Eire Coastal Ravines Initiative aimed at securing and protecting natural habitat specifically along Elgin County’s coastline. Background ENHSS 2018 14 67 Before evaluation criteria can be applied to the natural heritage features of the county, it is necessary to develop a method to define and delineate these natural heritage features and systems. Photo interpretation techniques using 2015 South Western Ontario Orthoimagery Project (SWOOP) as a backdrop were used to prepare a detailed and comprehensive mapping product of the natural heritage features in Elgin County. Air photo interpretation enables coarse level identification of vegetation communities without a site visit. The natural heritage features were defined using a minimum scale of 1:2,000. The work was completed primarily by the UTRCA with base layers supplied by LTVCA, KCCA, CCCA, and LPRCA.Table 2 summarizes the work that each conservation authority undertook. Table 2. Digital mapping layer development for the 2019 ENHSS Agency Data Provided Lower Thames -Natural Heritage Cover, reviewed by UTRCA Valley CA -Draft of Valley Lands and Lakeshore Zone -Draft Woodlands -Hydrology Kettle Creek CA -Component of Valley Lands and Shoreline Zone -Draft Woodlands Catfish Creek CA -Hydrology -Component of Valley Lands and Shoreline Zone Long Point Region -Hydrology CA -Component of Valley Lands and Shoreline Zone -Evaluated Wetlands layer, evaluated using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (MNRF) Land Information -Draft Woodland layer for Long Point Region CA watershed within Elgin Ontario County -Review and update of natural heritage features using SWOOP 2015 Upper Thames River imagery CA (as the ENHSS -Unevaluated Wetlands identified through a cursory view of the SWOOP consultant)imagery. No other wetland parameters (e.g., soils, elevation data, historical woodlands, etc.) were used to confirm wetland identification. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 15 68 Natural heritage in Elgin County is comprised of a hierarchy of four vegetation layers or components described in detail in this chapter and shown in the schematic below. The smallest unit of delineation is the Vegetation Community.Vegetation Communities are lumped by type into Vegetation Groups and contiguous Vegetation Groups are then lumped into Vegetation Patches. Vegetation Communities are also lumped by type into Vegetation Ecosystems. The graphic below summarize and illustrate how the layers are put together and Table 3 summarizes the relationship between the various layers. Land ownership boundaries do not impact the creation of Vegetation Communities,Groups,Ecosystems and Patches. For example, any given Vegetation Patch could be under the ownership/jurisdiction of many landowners. The metadata for Vegetation Patch and Group is included in Appendix F and the metadata for Vegetation Community is included in Appendix G. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 16 69 Table 3. Relationship between Vegetation Communities,Groups and Ecosystems Vegetation CommunityVegetation GroupVegetation Ecosystem (18 types) (7 types) (3 types) Deciduous Woodland Woodland Terrestrial Mixed Woodland Woodland Terrestrial Coniferous Woodland Woodland Terrestrial Mature Plantation Woodland Terrestrial Deciduous Swamp Woodland, Wetland Wetland Woodland, Wetland Wetland Mixed Swamp Woodland, Wetland Wetland Coniferous Swamp Woodland, Wetland Wetland Plantation Swamp Thicket Terrestrial Upland Thicket Thicket Terrestrial Young Plantation Thicket, Wetland Wetland Young Plantation Swamp Wetland Thicket Thicket, Wetland Wetland Meadow Marsh Meadow, Wetland Wetland Upland Meadow Meadow Terrestrial Connected Vegetation Feature Connected Vegetation Feature Terrestrial Water bodies Water Feature Aquatic Major Watercourses Water Feature Aquatic Note:The shoreline bluff can be considered an open vegetation community but because of its vertical nature it cannot be seen well on aerial photography (i.e., not wide enough) and so cannot be mapped. The Lakeshore Zone as a whole is an important natural heritage/landform feature, and is mapped as an overlay feature (see Section 3.3.2). 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 17 70 Vegetation Communities The smallest unit mapped in this study is the Vegetation Community.TheVegetation Community is a unit of vegetation that is normally visible and consistently interpreted on remotely sensed images. Vegetation Communities are internally homogenous and distinguishable at a 1:2,000 scale by the dominant types of plant forms that characterize the Vegetation Community. The Vegetation Communities must be at least 0.5 ha in area and 30 m wide to be included (length is the longer direction and width is the shorter). This minimum width was chosen to ensure the protection of the roots of some of the tree species. Tree roots often extend out from the core of the tree to a distance of at least the height of the tree, and the average height of a mature tree in this region is 30 m. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (section 7.3.2) suggests 0.5 ha in size and 40 m width, but the width was reduced to 30 m in the Middlesex, Oxford and Perth NHSSs for the reasons mentioned above. Vegetated areas 20 to 30 m wide and connected to two or more Vegetation Communities are considered connecting features (e.g., hedgerows), not woodlands. Unconnected vegetated areas of the same width are not mapped or included in this study. Linear treed areas <20 m wide are considered windbreaks and are not mapped or included in this study, though it is understood that windbreaks do provide many benefits to the environment including protection from soil erosion. For consistency, the 30 m width was chosen as the minimum width for thickets and meadows as well as woodlands. A Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU) of 0.5 ha was used as the minimum size of an isolated Vegetation Community. The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) (Lee et al. 1998) uses 0.5 ha and that is one of the standards referenced as being acceptable for woodland delineation in the PPS definition. Land cover classifications commonly use a MMU of 0.5 to 1.0 ha for large scale county level maps, and 10 to 100 ha for very small scale regional maps. Exceptions to the 0.5 ha MMU rule in this study include: Connected Vegetation Features. These features do not have a minimal area associated with them, but they do have to be > 20 m in length and 20 to 30 m in width and connected to two or more Vegetation Communities. Provincially Significant Wetlands. Some evaluated wetland communities are smaller than 0.5 ha and are retained as part of the natural heritage system. Artifacts of Mapping.Vegetation Communities smaller than 0.5 ha in size are identified if they are either: 1) surrounded by Vegetation Communities or 2) connect two or more Vegetation Communities that are greater than 0.5 ha. A Vegetation Community < 0.5 ha does not, by itself, become a Vegetation Group, but it is included in the Vegetation Patch to maintain shape and size of the Vegetation Patch (see Figure 3). 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 18 71 Vegetation Communities in Elgin County were mapped using on-screen air photo interpretation. The work was guided by the Southern Ontario Land Resources Information System (SOLRIS) Image Interpretation Manual (MNR 2004). A note about features that do and do not break up a vegetation community: Small Intrusions – Existing buildings, structures, gardens, manicured areas and waterbodies that are < 20 m in width are considered part of the surrounding natural feature (i.e., they do not cause a break in the Vegetation Community), as per the SOLRIS manual. Roads, Railroads, Watercourses All municipal roads, railroads and watercourses do separateVegetation Communities regardless of their width. However, later, when Vegetation Communities are put into Vegetation Groups, clustering rules apply when these features are < 20 m wide (see Section 2.4 and 2.4.7). Seventeen types of Vegetation Communities were delineated in Elgin County for this study. Table 4 provides a description of each Vegetation Community including how they are identified and the ELC (Ecological Land Classification) equivalent. The ELC code name descriptions are provided in Appendix A1 and A2. RoyalFernsgrowinadeciduousswampwithintheLustyFamilyTractofWestLorneWoods,aThames TalbotLandTrustproperty.PhotobyCathyQuinlan. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 19 72 Table 4. Definitions and attributes of the 17 Vegetation Communities ELC Vegetation Description and Methods uses for Identification on Imagery Equivalent Community (Appendix A) -Contains 60% tree cover. Comprised of tree species that lose their leaves at the end of the growing season and are capable of reaching 1.Deciduous heights of several metres (typically 20-30 m). WoodlandFOD -Individual deciduous trees have a billowy texture on air (Forest) photography. If the image is taken when trees are not in leaf, individual trees have a translucent appearance such that tree trunks can be seen through the branching canopy. 2.Mixed -Contains 60% tree cover. Comprised of a combination of FOM Woodland coniferous and deciduous tree types scattered throughout. -Each tree type comprises >25% but <75% of the canopy. -Contains 60% tree cover. Comprised of >60% coniferous (cone- 3.Coniferous bearing) tree species capable of reaching heights of several metres. FOC Woodland -Individual trees are dark in colour as most are evergreen, and have a conical shape with a pointed top. -Contains 60% tree cover. Comprised of deciduous and/or coniferous tree species. 4.Mature -In the past, most plantations start as planted rows of conifers, but in CUP Plantation time deciduous trees filled in. -Boundary distinguishable by at least one edge with a straight line. -At maturity, individual trees or rows of trees are not clearly discernible at 1:2,000. -Contains 60% tree cover. Deciduous woodland with a more open 5.Deciduouscanopy (indicating lower tree vigor) located in a wetland as SWD Swamp identified by MNRF or CAs. -Common in Elgin. -The standing water, common in spring, appears dark in colour. -Contains 60% tree cover. Mixed woodland (coniferous and 6.Mixed Swamp SWM deciduous) with a more open canopy (indicating lower tree vigor) located in an MNRF or CA identified wetland area. -Contains 60% tree cover. Coniferous woodland with a more open 7.Coniferous canopy (indicating lower tree vigor) located in a MNRF or CA SWC Swamp identified wetland area. -Treed bogs, a type of coniferous wetland, are uncommon and often have a pond or low open thicket at the centre. -Contains 60% tree cover. A mature plantation with a more open 8.Plantation canopy (indicating lower tree vigor) located in a MNRF or CA CUP Swamp identified wetland area. -Not common in Elgin. -Trees are usually conifers (planted). TPW, CUT, 9.Upland -Comprised of 25 to 60% tree or shrub cover. Shrubs are woody Thicket plants that are not capable of reaching heights of several metres. CUW -< 20% standing water. SWT, FET, -A thicket located either along a watercourse or in a MNRF or CA 10.Wetland FES, BOT, identified wetland area and/or has 20% standing water. Thicket -Has 10-25% tree cover or, <10% tree cover and >25% shrub cover. BOS -Dark water tones interspersed demarking standing water. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 20 73 -Comprised of coniferous (usually) or deciduous trees planted in 11.Young rows that are discernable at 1:2,000 scale. Trees short, not mature. CUT, CUW Plantation -Boundary distinguishable by at least one edge with a straight line -Does NOT include fruit/nut orchards or Christmas tree farms and these may need to be verified at the site level if in question. 12.Young -A young plantation Vegetation Community located in a MNRF or Plantation CA identified wetland area where individual trees or rows of trees CUT Wetland are discernible at 1:2,000. Trees are usually young conifers. 13.Upland-Comprised of grasses or forbs primarily, with <25% tree or shrub TPO, CUM Meadow cover. - A meadow marsh Vegetation Community located in a wetland identified by the MNRF or CA, comprised of cattails, wetland FEO, BOO, 14.Meadow grasses and other wetland forbs (non-treed). MAM, MAS, Marsh - Fens and open bogs may not be distinguished in the wetland SAS, SAM, mapping layer, but these habitats are uncommon in Elgin County. SAF They should be distinguished when conducting EIS surveys. - Comprised of a body of standing water 20 m wide adjacent to another Vegetation Community. Can include a: man-made pond associated with construction or extraction (e.g., aggregate pit), 15.Water Bodies reservoir created by a dam or barrier, OAO natural pond within a wetland or a natural water feature such as a kettle lake, or sewage lagoon found in/on the outskirts of an urban area. -Appears as a flat plain surface on air photos; may show patterns of wind disturbance, floating aquatic vegetation, or cloud reflections. - A linear feature >1 km long and mostly >20 m wide and containing 16.Major flowing water at least for part of the year. Watercourse - Delineated as a polygon using bank-full width as seen on aerial OAO photography flown in the spring. - See Section 2.4.5 for more details. - A linear feature comprised of woody plants (trees, shrubs) that 17.Connected connects two or more Vegetation Communities, often called a Vegetation buffer, hedgerow or shelterbelt. -- Feature - Length is >20 m and width is >20 m but <30 m. See Section 2.4.6 - Considered one feature as long as there are no gaps >20 m. - Often located between farm fields. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 21 74 Vegetation Groups EachVegetation Community is assigned to broader Vegetation Groups. Six types of Vegetation Groups were delineated in Elgin County for this study: 1)Wetland (contains woodland, thicket and meadow) 2)Woodland 3)Thicket 4)Meadow 5)Water Feature, and 6)Connected Vegetation Feature. Vegetation Groups are comprised of a mosaic of one or more Vegetation Communities within 20 m of each other, as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 3also illustrates Vegetation Group formation as well as Vegetation Patch formation. Figure 2. Illustration of two Woodland Vegetation Communities (Deciduous Woodland and Deciduous Swamp) forming a Woodland Group 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 22 75 Figure 3. Illustration of how small and large Vegetation Communities are combined into Vegetation Groups and Patches Note:SmallĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ/ƚƒƒǒƓźƷźĻƭ<0.5habecomepartofĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓDƩƚǒƦƭ iftheyareadjacentto(or <20mfrom)aĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ/ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ofthesamegroup(e.g.,DeciduousWoodlandandDeciduousSwamp arebothintheWoodlandGroup).SmallĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ/ƚƒƒǒƓźƷźĻƭ<0.5habecomepartofaĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ tğƷĭŷ iftheyareadjacenttoanyĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ/ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ withinthepatch. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 23 76 Table 4, shown earlier, presents a comparison between the Vegetation Groups identified in this study to the ELC Vegetation Community Series level (Lee et al. 1998). Appendix A-2 contains additional details on the similarities and differences between the ELC (Ecological Land Classification) Vegetation Community Series and the Vegetation Groups defined in this study. There are four main differences outlined below. The ELC distinguishes whether the vegetation is the result of an anthropogenic (cultural) process or a natural process. However, it should not be assumed that a cultural feature is not significant. Cultural, disturbed or successional natural features can have significant ecological functions and could be identified as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH). Therefore, it is important to consider any ELC communities classified as cultural for their potential to provide important ecological functions by comparing the community description with criteria in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Thus, there is no distinction in this study as to whether the vegetation was influenced by natural or anthropogenic (cultural) processes. The ELC defines Open Water bodies as > 2 m depth and Shallow Water bodies as <2 m depth. Since depth of water bodies cannot be determined from aerial photos or remotely sensed data, these two features are combined into a single open water feature. The key factor in distinguishing wetlands from water bodies and other aquatic components in the ELC is the presence of > 25% emergent or woody vegetation cover. For this study, water bodies did not contain any water tolerant herbaceous or woody plants. The ELC distinguishes thickets, woodlands and forests. The ELC lists two types of woodlands (Tallgrass Woodland TPW and Cultural Woodland CUW), with a tree cover of 35% to 60%. Both these woodland types are rare in Elgin. For the ENHSS, these ELC woodlands were lumped in the thicket Vegetation Community because of the low tree cover. As well, the ELC defines forests as habitats with > 60% tree cover. The ENHSS calls them woodlands to be consistent with the PPS wording. See Appendix A for more details. Vegetation Group The wetland Vegetation Group is comprised of seven wetland Vegetation Communities of which four are treed and three are untreed: 1) coniferous swamp (treed) 2) deciduous swamp (treed) 3) mixed swamp (treed) 4) plantation swamp (treed) 5) wetland thicket (untreed) 6) meadow marsh (untreed) 7) young plantation wetland (untreed) The wetland information for this study was derived from the MNRF Evaluated Wetlands layer (2017). Additional unevaluated wetlands were mapped through air photo interpretation by the UTRCA during the vegetation mapping for this study. The full procedure for mapping unevaluated wetlands was not used so additional work to refine the layer and to map additional unevaluated wetlands may still be required. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 24 77 Vegetation Group The Woodland Vegetation Group is comprised of eight Vegetation Communities, of which four are terrestrial/upland and four are wetland: 1) coniferous woodland (terrestrial/upland), 2) deciduous woodland (terrestrial/upland), 3) mixed woodland (terrestrial/upland), 4) mature plantation (terrestrial/upland), 5) coniferous swamp (wetland), 6) deciduous swamp (wetland), 7) mixed swamp (wetland) and 8) plantation swamp (wetland). Because this is a GIS exercise, the SOLRIS (Southern Ontario Land Resources Information System) definition for woodland is used: Woodland describes areas with more than 60% tree cover. The ELC uses the word forest for this same definition, but to be consistent with the PPS, the word woodland is used in this study. In the NHRF (OMNR 2010), woodland means “a treed area, woodlot or forested area, other than a cultivated fruit or nut orchard or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees, that is located south and east of the Canadian Shield”. Mature plantations and plantation swamps are included as part of the woodland Vegetation Group as they are important components in the ecosystem. Mature plantations are old enough that the original tree rows (usually conifers) are not very visible on the ortho-imagery because a variety of other tree species (usually deciduous) have moved in. Plantation swamps are communities where trees have been planted in an area recognized as a wetland (evaluated or unevaluated) and the trees are full size or taller than shrub height. Similar to natural forests and woodlands, plantations contribute to the net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, produce oxygen, modify wind and temperature, remediate soil pollution and structure and provide wildlife habitat. Often, landowners plant trees into a plantation or block planting to retire a parcel of land from agriculture and begin the process of natural succession towards mature forest/woodland. Narrow plantings of trees < 30 m wide and < 0.5 ha in size are not included in this group as they fall into the category of windbreaks, screen trees or visual barriers. Vegetation Group The Thicket Vegetation Group is comprised of four Vegetation Communities, two terrestrial and two wetland: 1) upland thicket (terrestrial/upland), 2) young plantation (terrestrial/upland), 3) wetland thicket (wetland), and 4) young plantation swamp (wetland). Thickets are usually early successional communities dominated by shrubs, young trees or stunted mature trees. Upland thickets that develop on abandoned farm fields succeed to woodland much more quickly than wetland thickets which tend to be found in areas too wet for trees. Wetland thickets may also succeed to swamp if the wetland slowly fills in. Thickets along watercourses may be maintained even longer as flooding and ice scour knock back trees. Young tree plantations are called thickets when the trees are still short (e.g., shrub height). Table 4 provides definitions for each thicket Vegetation Community. To be included, thicket Vegetation Communities must be 30 m wide and 0.5 ha. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 25 78 Vegetation Group The Meadow Vegetation Group is comprised of two Vegetation Communities, one terrestrial/upland and one wetland: 1) upland meadow (terrestrial/upland), and 2) meadow marsh (wetland). Table 4 provides a description of the defining meadow habitat features. Meadows are short, open Vegetation Communities dominated by grasses and broad-leaved herbaceous plants and a scattering of shrubs and trees. Many meadows in Elgin County are old fields of cultural origin (e.g., abandoned or retired farmland, future development land) and may, in time, succeed to thicket and then forest/woodland if left in a natural state. Meadows are often transitional communities, as in the examples given. However, meadows along watercourses may be more permanent habitats as the frequent flooding and ice scour keeps trees and shrubs from becoming established. Meadows must be 30 m wide and 0.5 ha to be included. Pastures are not included in meadows as they are often heavily grazed and are part of the farm cycle. Vegetation Group The Water Feature Vegetation Group is comprised of two Vegetation Communities: 1)permanent water bodies and 2)major watercourses. Permanent water bodies include natural and man-made ponds 20 m wide and 0.5 ha in size without any vegetation cover or emergent vegetation. Major watercourses are defined as watercourses 20 wide and 1 km long. Short stretches of major watercourses that are < 20 m wide are included as part of the major watercourse to maintain continuity. However, when a watercourse is < 20 m wide for 1 km or longer, it no longer becomes a major watercourse and becomes part of the surrounding Vegetation Group. However, all open watercourses are used to inform the proximity criteria as described in Section 3.3.3. Vegetation Group The Connected Vegetation Feature Vegetation Group is comprised only of the Connected Vegetation Features Vegetation Community. Connected Vegetation Features are narrow Vegetation Communities consisting of trees and/or shrubs that connect two or more Vegetation Communities. They must be >20 m long and 20-30 m wide. They are sometimes called buffers, hedgerows, shelterbelts or natural fencerows. For example, a connected vegetation feature can connect two deciduous woodlands, or it can connect a deciduous woodland and a major watercourse, or a water body and a meadow marsh and a mixed woodland. They are an important component of the natural heritage system because they provide corridors for wildlife movement as well as wildlife habitat, and may include remnants of vegetation present prior to disturbance (e.g., forest remnants). More common in the past, many of these features have been or are being removed in the agricultural landscape to increase field size. This is despite the fact that these features have many advantages to agriculture including protecting crops from wind damage, protecting soil from wind erosion, increasing crop yields, conserving water and controlling snow accumulation (Agriculture Canada and Ministry of A griculture and Food 1992). Hedgerows provide a barrier that can slow water flow and trap soil particles especially along waterways (Hobbs and McGrath, 1998). 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 26 79 Section 7.3.2 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) (MNR 2010) recommends establishing a minimum width to Woodland Vegetation Groups to exclude these relatively narrow linear treed areas (e.g., windbreaks). Recognizing that breaks < 20 m are too small to separate Woodland Vegetation Groups, the width of a connected vegetation feature was defined as being >20 m but < 30 m in width. As stated in Section 2.3, roads, railroads and watercourses 20 m separate Vegetation Communities andVegetation Groups. Where roads, railroads and watercourses are < 20 m wide, the vegetation is not broken, but an extra step in the mapping is needed so that the area of the road/railroad/ watercourse is not included when vegetation area measurements are calculated, as per section 7.3.2 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010). This step is called clustering and is applied to woodlands, thickets and meadow groups. Clustering methodology is as follows (see Figure 4 example): A unique identification number is assigned to each Vegetation Group (in Figure 4: 1725, 1695, 1670). A unique cluster identification number is assigned to each clustered Vegetation Group (5070). Clustering was applied to the Vegetation Groups before modeling the criteria (Chapter 3). Criteria that measure area were applied to the entire clustered Vegetation Group (5070), and then the area of the road was subtracted. The remaining criteria were applied to the clustered Vegetation Groups (5070). Figure 4. Illustration of clustering Vegetation Groups (1725, 1695, 1670) around narrow roads into one Woodland Cluster (5070) 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 27 80 Vegetation Patches AVegetation Patch is a mosaic of one or many different abutting (or < 20 m apart) Vegetation Groups (see Figure 5). Roads 20 m wide separate Vegetation Patches as they do for Vegetation Groups. However, where smaller roads < 20 m wide separate Vegetation Patches, the patches are rejoined as a cluster as described for Vegetation Groups in Section 2.4.8. Clustering is applied to the Vegetation Patches before modeling the patch criteria (see Table 9). Since the NHRM does not calculate the area of a road when determining size and interior (MNR 2010), area criteria will be applied to the entire clustered Vegetation Patch less the area of the road. The remaining criteria will be applied to the clustered Vegetation Patches and include the road and railroads as part of the Vegetation Patch (see Figure 4). AVegetation Patch digital layer was created with unique number attributes assigned to each Vegetation Patch: the unique identification number to each Vegetation Patch, and a unique cluster identification number for clustered Vegetation Patch(s). Theyoungtreeplantingsiteintheforegroundisclassifiedasameadowuntilthetreesreachcloseto matureheight.Thismeadowisalsopartofapatchthatcontainstheadjacentwoodland. tŷƚƷƚĬǤ/ğƷŷǤvǒźƓƌğƓ 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 28 81 Figure 5. Illustration of the composition of a Vegetation Patch comprised of different Vegetation Communities,Groups and Ecosystems 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 29 82 Vegetation Ecosystems The 18 Vegetation Communities belong to one of three Vegetation Ecosystems: 1)terrestrial, 2)wetland and 3)aquatic. Vegetation Groups can belong to one or more Vegetation Ecosystem (see Table 5). For example, woodland, thicket and meadow Vegetation Groups include both wetland and terrestrial Vegetation Communities. The only time Vegetation Ecosystems are used is for Criterion 13 on habitat diversity. Terrestrial Vegetation Ecosystem Table 5 lists the nine Vegetation Communities and five Vegetation Groups that are part of the Terrestrial Vegetation Ecosystem within this study. TerrestrialVegetation Ecosystems occur where soil moisture is scarce for at least some point in the growing season. Terrestrial Vegetation Ecosystems are distinguished from wetland or aquatic Vegetation Ecosystems by: a lower availability of water and the consequent importance of water as a limiting factor, greater temperature fluctuations on both a diurnal and seasonal basis, greater availability of light and gases (including carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, oxygen for aerobic respiration, and nitrogen for nitrogen fixation), and a subterranean portion (soil) from which most water and ions are obtained, and an atmospheric portion from which gases are obtained and where the physical energy of light is transformed into the organic energy of carbon-carbon bonds through the process of photosynthesis. Wetland Vegetation Ecosystem Table 5 lists the seven Vegetation Communities and four Vegetation Groups that are part of the Wetland Vegetation Ecosystem. Wetland Vegetation Ecosystems are considered semi aquatic. Section 2.4.1 describes how these features were identified and delineated. Aquatic Vegetation Ecosystem Table 5 lists the two Vegetation Communities (Water Bodies and Major Watercourses) and one Vegetation Group (Water Body Feature) that are part of the Aquatic Vegetation Ecosystem. Freshwater aquatic Vegetation Ecosystems are characterized as lotic (having flowing water) or lentic (still water). 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 30 83 Table 5.Vegetation Ecosystems in relation to Vegetation Communities andGroups Vegetation Ecosystem Terrestrial Wetland Aquatic Vegetation Community Deciduous Woodland Yes Coniferous Woodland Yes Mixed Woodland Yes Yes Mature Plantation Yes Deciduous Swamp Yes Mixed Swamp Yes Coniferous Swamp Yes Plantation Swamp Upland Thicket Yes Wetland Thicket Yes Young Plantation Yes Young Plantation Wetland Yes Upland Meadow Yes Meadow Marsh Yes Yes Water Bodies Yes Major Watercourse Yes Connected Vegetation Feature Vegetation Group Woodland Yes Yes ThicketYes Yes Yes Yes Meadow Yes Wetland Yes Water Body Feature Yes Connected Vegetation Feature 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 31 84 Table 6 summarizes the number and area of the three vegetation layers: communities, groups and patches. The 7,413 Vegetation Communities are merged into 4,072 Vegetation Groups, and then are compiled into 1,909 Vegetation Patches. Table 6. Number of Vegetation Communities,Groups and Patches in the Study Area Approximate Number in the Vegetation Layers Study Area* Communities 7,413 4,072 Groups (642 Wetlands**) 1,909 Patches *The Study Area is the area of geographic Elgin County plus a 500 m buffer around the perimeter, excluding the lake side which ends at the top of the bluff, established to capture natural heritage features that are located on both sides of the boundary and need to be modeled based on their full size. The area is 197,159 ha. **Wetland Groups are all part of other Vegetation Groups (e.g., Deciduous Swamp is part of the Wetland Group and Woodland Group) so it is double counting to add them to the 4,072 other groups. Table 7 shows the number and area of each Vegetation Community in the study area (buffered Elgin). Table 8 shows the same information, sorted from largest to smallest area. The three Vegetation Communities making up the largest area (83% of total vegetation cover) are: deciduous woodland, mixed woodland and deciduous swamp. Deciduous woodland is by far the largest community at 26,228 ha or 56% of the total vegetation cover. In second place is mixed woodland (coniferous/deciduous woodland) at 8,070 ha or 17.3% of the total vegetation cover. A distant third, deciduous swamp at 4,156 ha or 8.9% of the vegetation cover. In fourth place is upland meadow at 3,226 ha or 6.9% of the vegetation cover. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 32 85 Table 7. Number and area of the 17 Vegetation Community types in the Study Area Area of % Area of all Number of % of Elgin Vegetation Community Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Study Area (sorted by like types) CommunitiesCommunities Communities(197,159ha) (ha) (46,548 ha) Deciduous Woodland 2,428 26,228 56.3% 13.30% Mixed Woodland 465 8,070 17.3% 4.09% 450 993 2.1% 0.50% Coniferous Woodland 131 331 0.7% 0.17% Mature Plantation 589 4,156 8.9% 2.11% Deciduous Swamp 90 579 1.2% 0.29% Mixed Swamp 20 9<1% 0.00% Coniferous Swamp 1<10% 0.00% Plantation Swamp Upland Thicket 679 1,206 2.6% 0.61% Wetland Thicket 53 86 0.2% 0.04% Young Plantation 133 237 0.5% 0.12% Young Plantation Swamp 0 0 0% 0.00% Upland Meadow 1,724 3,225 6.9% 1.64% Marsh Meadow 219 317 0.7% 0.16% (Meadow Marsh) Water Body 230 408 0.9% 0.21% Major Watercourse 15 541 1.2% 0.27% 184 160 0.3% 0.08% Connected Vegetation Feature TOTAL 7,411 46,548 100% 23.61% Shoreline Zone* 8,842 Notes: -Study Area = Geographic Elgin County plus a 500 m buffer around all sides except the lake side. The boundary is the top of the bank, not the waterline or out into the lake. -*The Shoreline Zone is an important natural feature in Elgin, and is treated as an overlay feature for the purposes of this study, similar to the Significant Valleylands. Its area is shown here for information only. It is not treated as a vegetation community or vegetation group because it is extremely large (8,842 ha) and would skew the percent vegetation cover results. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 33 86 Table 8.Vegetation Community types sorted by Area in the Study Area % of Total Vegetation OrderArea Vegetation Community Community Area Number (ha) (46,548 ha) 1 Deciduous Woodland 26,228 56.3% 2 Mixed Woodland 8,070 17.3% 3Deciduous Swamp 4,156 8.9% 4Upland Meadow 3,225 6.9% 1,206 2.6% 5 Upland Thicket 993 2.1% 6 Coniferous Woodland 541 1.2% 7Major Watercourse 408 0.9% 8Water Body 579 1.2% 9 Mixed Swamp 331 0.7% 10 Mature Plantation 11 Marsh Meadow/Meadow Marsh 317 0.7% 12 Young Plantation 237 0.5% 13 Connected Veg Feature 160 0.3% 14 Wetland Thicket 86 0.2% 15 Coniferous Swamp 9<0.0% 16 Plantation Swamp <1<0.0% 0 0.0% 17 Young Plantation Swamp Total 46,548 100% Shoreline Zone* 8,842 Notes: -Study Area = Geographic Elgin County plus a 500 m buffer around all sides but the lake side. The boundary is the top of the bank, not the waterline or out into the lake. -*The Shoreline Bluff is an important natural feature in Elgin, and is treated as an overlay feature for the purposes of this study, similar to the Significant Valleylands. Its area is shown here for information. It is not treated as a vegetation community or vegetation group because it is extremely large (8,842 ha) and would skew the percent vegetation cover results. 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 34 87 Table 9 summarizes the information by Vegetation Group for the Study Area.Vegetation Groups make up 23.89% of the Elgin Study Area. As expected, the woodland group is the largest. Overall, woodland covers 20.77% of the Elgin Study Area, meadow 1.80%, thicket 0.77%, water features 0.48% and connected vegetation features 0.07%. Watercourse bluffs and depositional areas are not mapped but will be very small. There is 2.64% wetland cover in the county, comprised of swamps, wetland thickets and meadow marshes. It makes up 11.1% of the vegetation cover. The 2.64% wetland cover is part of the total vegetation cover, not in addition to it. Table 9. Area of Vegetation Groups as a percentage of the Elgin Study Area % Area of Total % of Elgin Study Vegetation Group # of groups Area (ha) Vegetation Cover Area (47,107 ha)(197,159 ha) 1,730 40,949 6.9% 20.77% Woodland 784 1,527 3.2% 0.77% Thicket 1,217 3,544 7.5% 1.80% Meadow 237 949 2.0% 0.48% Water Feature Connected Veg. Feature 104 138 0.3% 0.07% Total 4,072 47,107 100% 23.89% Wetland Group 690 5,210 11.1% 2.64% (part of the total above) 2.0 Mapping Guidelines ENHSS 2018 35 88 In settled landscapes, both habitat loss and fragmentation of the original natural cover increases the significance of, and need to protect, any remaining natural heritage features and functions (Levenson 1981, Lovett et al. 2005, Manning et al. 2004). However, haphazard protection of individual natural heritage features is unlikely to ensure the survival of species or ecosystems, as it does not take into account how well the remaining natural features function or how effective they are in providing environmental benefits (Humke et al. 1975). Carter (2000), Bowles (1997) and Bowles et al. (2000) argue that no single characteristic can sufficiently measure the value of a natural feature. On the one hand, there is a danger of cumulative loss when habitat patches are assessed solely on site specific characteristics because their importance within the broader landscape is unknown. On the other hand, the external characteristics or location of a feature using landscape metrics such as size, connectedness, regional representation, and hydrological function may not always reflect its internal quality. Instead, it is important to use multiple criteria to assess the characteristics of a natural feature. Site level analysis (i.e., biological inventory) is not feasible for a county scale study. However, local municipalities, because of their smaller geographic area, are encouraged to conduct more in- depth studies and evaluate their natural heritage features at the site level. For example, the City of London has used landscape, community and species parameters to assess importance/significance (City of London 2006). In general, regional (i.e., county) natural heritage studies evaluate natural areas based on landscape metrics while local (i.e., lower tier) natural heritage studies tend to use both landscape metrics and site specific content metrics (i.e., what the natural feature contains). The location, size and shape of a Vegetation Patch have been identified as critical factors in the maintenance of species diversity and abundance in fragmented landscapes (Burgess and Sharpe 1981, Forman 1995a, b and c, Forman and Godron 1986, Harris 1984, Turner and Gardner 1991, Schiefele and Mulamoottil 1987, Robbins et al. 1989, Hounsell 1989, Weyrauch and Grubb 2004). These metrics act as surrogate measurements of more detailed studies and can be easily measured using remote sensing/GIS. However, these indicators provide only a partial picture of the complexity of ecosystem functioning. Land managers must realize that conservation of biological diversity might not be achieved by manipulating the size and configuration of remnant Vegetation Patches, but instead depend on how the extensive areas surrounding the Vegetation Patches are managed. Recognizing that this area of human modified land, the habitat matrix, overwhelmingly dominates all of the world's terrestrial ecosystems (Foley et al. 2005, Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002), conservation biologists and resource managers need to also focus attention on improving the quality of the habitat matrix and the environmental impacts associated with a change of land use in the habitat matrix if programs to conserve biological diversity are to succeed. According to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010), the responsibility for the identification and evaluation of significant wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), in accordance with the PPS, lies with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The MNRF also approves what is to be considered as significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species. In all other cases, with the exception of fish habitat, the responsibility for the identification, evaluation and designation of significant natural features and areas in accordance with the PPS lies with the planning authority. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 36 89 The purpose of this 2019 Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study is to identify the Natural Heritage Systems, which is comprised of “ecologically important” natural features and areas identifiable on 2015 colour air photos of Elgin County using a set of ecological criteria that include and go beyond the criteria for Significance according to the PPS. The term “Significant” as it relates to Natural Heritage Features and Areas in the (PPS) is discussed on page 2 of this report. Natural Heritage Features and Areas include the following: Significant Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Life and Earth Science*, Fish Habitat*, Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species*, and Significant Wildlife Habitat*. Of the above features, those with asterisks (*) are not identified in this study. Earth Science ANSIs are not necessarily correlated to the importance of the vegetation community on it. The presence of an Earth Science ANSI does not mean that there are unique vegetation community features that result from the characteristics of the Earth Science ANSI (e.g., a moraine or glacial spillway). Fish habitat is identified by DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). This study does not identify or address habitat of endangered and threatened species because Species at Risk have their own legislation and are not uniformly mapped across the landscape (i.e., they need to be identified at the site level). Significant Wildlife Habitat also needs to be identified at the site level (see Chapter 5, Recommendations). These features should still be identified at the site level during an EIS (see Chapter 5). Thirteen criteria were developed in this study to identify ecologically important Vegetation Patches, using the discrete Vegetation Communities,Vegetation Groups and Vegetation Patches defined in Chapter 2. Table 10 provides a summary of the criteria. Appendix D provides a more detailed summary table that includes rationale and a list of other studies that have used the criteria. Criteria 1 to 10 are used to identify ecologically important Vegetation Groups. Criteria 1 to 4 are applied to all Vegetation Groups. Criterion 5 is applied to wetlands only. Criteria 6 to 10 are applied to either woodlands, thickets or meadows and are based on specific size cutoffs and proximity. Criteria 11 to 13 are applied to all Vegetation Patches. Two additional criteria (patches 100 ha and woodland with interior 0.5 ha) were modeled but did not capture any patches that were not already captured by other criteria, so they were not used. However, the results are provided as additional information (Section 3.6). As well, many other criteria were examined but were not used for a variety of reasons as described in Appendix E. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 37 90 Table 10. Summary of the 13 Ecologically Important Criteria Criterion Key Words Description # Applied to Vegetation Groups Significant 1Any Vegetation Group within or touching a Significant Valleyland Valleylands 2Any Vegetation Group within 100 m of the Shoreline Zone Shoreline Zone Any Vegetation Group located within or touching a provincial or regional 3 ANSI Life Science ANSI (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest) 4Any Vegetation Group located within 30 m of an Open Watercourse Open Watercourse All evaluated and unevaluated Wetland Vegetation Groups 0.5 ha 5 Wetlands (Note: additional unmapped wetlands are to be included when identified) 6Woodland Size Any Woodland Vegetation Group 4 ha Any Woodland Vegetation Group within 100 m of a 4 ha Woodland 7 Woodland Proximity Vegetation Group 8Any Thicket Vegetation Group 2 ha Thicket Size 9Meadow Size Any Meadow Vegetation Group 5 ha Any Meadow Vegetation Group within 100 m of a 4 ha Woodland or 10 Meadow Proximity 2 ha Thicket Vegetation Group Applied to Vegetation Patches Patches with a Vegetation GroupAny Vegetation Patch that contains a Vegetation Group that meets a group 11 that meet a Group criteria (i.e., meets Criteria 1 – 10 above) Criteria Any Vegetation Patch that contains a diversity of Vegetation 12 Diversity Communities,Groups or Ecosystems Any Vegetation Patch within 100 m of a Vegetation Patch that meets 13 Proximity Criteria 11 or 12 above. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 38 91 Of the 13 criteria mentioned above and shown in Table 10, six establish Significant Woodlands consistent with the PPS (section 2.1) and NHRM (Table 7-2 Recommended Significant Woodland Evaluations Criteria and Standards). Table 11 provides a summary of ENHSS criteria that are applied to woodland vegetation groups that meet the criteria for significance in the PPS. The GIS layers and associated data for this study have been provided to the County to allow Significant Woodlands (e.g., woodlands meeting one or more of the above noted criteria) to be differentiated from other ecologically important woodlands for the purposes of informing Official Plan policy development. PPS,Section6,Definitions. ͻ Significant:ƒĻğƓƭͶ b)inregardto ǞƚƚķƌğƓķƭ,anareawhichisecologicallyimportantintermsoffeaturessuchas speciescomposition,ageoftreesandstandhistory;functionallyimportantduetoits contributiontothebroaderlandscapebecauseofitslocation,sizeorduetotheamountof forestcoverintheplanningarea;oreconomicallyimportantduetositequality,species composition,orpastmanagementhistory.Thesearetobeidentifiedusingcriteriaestablished bytheOMNR; Table 11. ENHSS Criteria for Ecologically Important Woodlands that meet PPS Criteria for Significant Woodlands ENHSS Ecologically Important NHRM Description of how it meets/fits PPS PPS Criteria applied to Woodland Table 7-2 Criteria for Woodland Significance Section Vegetation Groups Section Criteria 1 Any Vegetation Group Due to their connectivity and linkage 2c within or touching a Significant 2.1.5 function Valleyland Criteria 2 – Any Vegetation Group Due to linkage function, stepping 2c within 100 m of the Shoreline Bluffstones for movement Criteria 3 – Any Vegetation Group located within or touching a Meets standards for proximity and 2b, 2c provincial or regional Life Science linkage functions ANSI Criteria 4 – Any Vegetation Group 2d located within 30 m of an Open Meets water protection standard Watercourse Criteria 6 – Any Woodland Vegetation Meets size criteria and may contain 1, 2a Group 4 ha woodland interior Criteria 7 – Any Woodland Vegetation Meets the standard for proximity and 2b Group within 100 m of a 4 ha linkage function Woodland Vegetation Group NHRM = Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2005) 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 39 92 Vegetation GroupsEcosystems Note: Small Vegetation Communities <0.5 ha become part of Vegetation Groups if they are adjacent to another Vegetation Community belonging to the same Group (e.g., a small deciduous swamp next to a larger mixed swamp). Small (<0.5 ha) Vegetation Communities also become part of the patch if they are adjacent to any other larger Vegetation Community or Group. Figure 3 in Chapter 2 illustrates this mapping rule. Vegetation Group Rationale River valleys perform numerous ecological functions. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) (MNR 2010) recognizes that valleys can be important linkages and corridors for wildlife movement, providing habitat for a variety of wildlife and connecting natural areas over large distances. Some river valleys have unusual features associated with them, such as calcareous seeps, cliffs, bedrock pavements, etc. These features are characterized by micro-environments that may provide conditions for unusual and diverse Vegetation Communities and / or species. Permanent vegetation on valley lands improves water holding capacity and reduces river erosion. Actively eroding valleys have unstable slopes with little or no vegetation cover. As they erode, valleys deepen, widen and land area is lost. Valley land erosion is exacerbated by human activity. Excess weight near the top of the slope from buildings, roads or farm machinery can increase internal stresses. Structural attempts to stabilize valleys (e.g., retaining walls or hardening the toe of the slope) can be expensive and are usually unsuccessful in the long term. Valleys are linear depressions that stretch across the landscape from their origins in headwater areas to their outlets into aquatic systems such as lakes. They contain water that flows for at least some periods of the year. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) recognizes that an understanding of hydrological and geomorphic structure is important to identifying valley lands. Valley lands are formed by a combination of the down cutting action of swiftly flowing water, the slumping action of river banks, and the removal of slumped material from the river bed (Etmanski and Schroth 1980, Bowles 1993). Application / Mapping Rules Table 8-1 (Recommended Significant Valleylands Evaluation Criteria and Standards) of the NHRM was used to identify and map Significant Valleylands in ElginCounty. It is the responsibility of planning authorities to identify Significant Valleylands using these recommended NHRM criteria and standards. The key components are outlined below. Groundwater function – areas contributing to groundwater infiltration and groundwater release. Overlayed Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs) defined by local Source Water Protection Plans (see Appendix J-1). SGRCAs are prominent along the valley borders, suggesting groundwater seepage may be occurring along the banks, creating groundwater dependent wetlands and seepage zones. Landform prominence – Large, well-defined valleylands are often significant landscape features essential to the character of an area. Valley land makes up approximately 13% of the Elgin Study Area. Distinct geomorphic landforms – Soils, quarternary geology and physiography mapping provide information that allows distinct landforms to be identified. Fluvial features from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Surficial Layer, Bottom Land and Water from the OMAFRA Soils layer, and Beaches and Shorecliff, Spillways, and Water from the Physiography of Ontario were used to assist in the identification of Significant Valleys (see Appendix J-2). 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 40 93 Degree of naturalness – 71% of the valley land in Elgin County is in natural patch cover and 39% of total patch cover in the county lies within the valley boundaries (see Appendix J-3). Unique communities – though not unique, the valleyland contains a majority of the 18 Vegetation Communities in the Study Area, making it one of the most naturally diverse areas within the county Linkage function – some of the largest and most diverse patches within the county are within the valley corridor because of the continuous watercourse layer linking many vegetation communities and groups together. The linkage to the watercourse also provides habitat value as described in the Habitat Value Section of the NHRM. Figure 6 illustrates the delineation of the Significant Valley System boundary using flood limit, steep slope and 100 m from watercourse edge. Figure 6. Criterion 1, illustration of Significant Valleyland boundary delineation using flood limit, steep slope and 100 m from watercourse edge For well-defined valleys, the following components of the Conservation Authority riverine erosion and flooding hazards boundaries were used to identify the stable top of bank (top of slope): i)The valley must be 100 m wide and 2 km long. ii)The valley banks must be 3 m in height (extrapolated from 5 m contours at 1:10,000 or better). iii)To create a continuous valley feature in situations where the valley slope is 3:1 on one side and no slope on the opposite side, the opposite valley limit was delineated using either the limit of the floodplain (based on conservation authority flood lines) or, if unavailable, 100m from the centre line of the water course. iv)Where 3:1 valley slopes occur on both sides of the river, but they are not continuous, the flood plain limit (or contour information and professional judgment) was used to delineate a continuous valley feature. For less defined valleys, riparian vegetation, flooding hazard limit (based on regional events), meander belt, or highest seasonal (annual) inundation were used to determine the valley boundary. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 41 94 AllVegetation Groups found within or touching the valley land meet this criterion (see Figure 7). Other land uses within the valleyland (e.g., cropland, pasture, golf courses) are not identified as part of the Natural Heritage System in this study. However, the valleyland, by its nature, includes natural hazard features (i.e., flood plains, erosion hazards) which are constraints to development. The areas of Significant Valleylands not identified as part of the Natural Heritage System may provide Natural Heritage System linkage functions which should be assessed if a substantial land use change is proposed within or adjacent to such areas. See Chapter 5 for further discussion. Figure 7. Criterion 1, illustration showing Vegetation Groups on or touching a Significant Valleyland 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 42 95 Results Table 12 below shows the results of the application of Criterion 1 in the Study Area. Over 40% (43%) of the Vegetation Groups meet Criterion 1, accounting for 61.9% of the total vegetation cover (total of all Vegetation Groups). This result is not surprising given the large number of watercourses and ravines in Elgin County. Of the Vegetation Groups that meet this criterion, only a small number (163 of 2,147) meet only Criterion 1 and no other. See map in Appendix H-1. Table 12. Criterion 1 Results Vegetation Groups located on or touching Significant Valleylands in the Study Area Number Area # that % that # that Area that % Area % of Study TotalTotal Vegetation meetmeetmeet only meets that meet Area # area Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion that meet Group Groups (ha) 1111 (ha) 1Criterion 1 552 2,146 25.7% 13 25,626 40,949 62.6% 13.00% Woodland 426 784 53.3% 103 837 1,527 54.8% 0.42% Thicket 977 1,712 57.1% 4 1,946 3,544 54.9% 0.99% Meadow Water 107 237 45.1% 34 678 949 71.4% 0.34% Feature Connected 85 119 71.4% 9 92 138 66.7% 0.05% Veg. Feature TOTAL2,147 4,998 43.0% 16329,179 47,107 61.9% 14.8% Wetland119 642 18.5% 0 963 5,210 18.5% 0.49% TheStudy Area is 197,159 ha and includes a 500 m buffer around the county perimeter, excluding the lake side. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 43 96 Vegetation Group Rationale Lake shorelines perform numerous ecological functions. Wildlife such as foxes, deer and snakes move along shoreline beaches and bluff and access the lake water for drinking or foraging (MNRF Aylmer Biologist, Personal communication). Some species such as the threatened Bank Swallow, nest exclusively in bluffs and banks. Bald Eagles nest near the shoreline and frequent it in search of fish prey. Rare forest birds such as the Acadian Flycatcher breeds in the coastline’s forested ravines and adjoining patches of upland forest. The Lake Erie shoreline is a major migratory pathway for birds. Archibald et al. (2017) showed that when birds migrate south in the fall, they can pileup on the north side of the lake if the weather is poor or they judge they can’t make the crossing successfully in one night. Thus shoreline habitats are highly valuable for conservation of migratory bird populations in the Great Lakes Region by providing resting and feeding areas so the birds can continue their migration in good physical condition (lakeeriewaterkeeper.org). With the exception of the Gulf coast, no other region of eastern North American can demonstrate concentrations of avian migrants like Lake Erie’s coastland (lakeeriewaterkeeper.org.). The strip of Elgin coastline from J.E. Pearce Provincial Park (in Dutton/Dunwich) westwards to the Chatham-Kent border (IB948 Southwest Elgin Forest Complex) is designated an internationally Important Bird Area (www.ibacanada.ca/). The north shore of Lake Erie is renowned as one of the best places in North America to view flights of hawks. The birds become concentrated through a combination of wind and geography. Hawks and other birds of prey try to avoid crossing large bodies of open water and so follow the shoreline and move down the spits (Theberge 1989). Migrating Monarch butterflies rely on meadows near the shore to fuel up before the long flight southward in the autumn. Lake Erie water levels have been high for the last several years, so very little beach is evident. However, during lower lake level conditions, beaches are present, providing increased linkage function for wildlife movement as well as feeding grounds for shorebirds, etc.Soil from these bluffs is washed into the lake, then moved by shoreline currents, and finally deposited on the sand spits of Point Pelee, Rondeau and Long Point (Theberge 1989). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recognizes that linkage is an important factor in woodland significance. Just as watercourse valleys play an important role in connecting habitats, the Lake Erie shoreline bluff would do the same. Linkages are natural corridors for wildlife movement, and connecting natural areas over large distances. Vegetation on or near the bluff also provides some protection from erosion. Permanent vegetation on the lakeshore bluff improves water holding capacity and reduces erosion somewhat. While this erosion is a natural process, erosion can be exacerbated by human activity. Excess weight near the top of the slope from buildings, roads or farm machinery can increase internal stresses. Structural attempts to stabilize valleys (e.g., retaining walls or hardening the toe of the slope) can be expensive and are usually unsuccessful in the long term. Application / Mapping Rules To map the shoreline zone, a polygon was created from the top of the bluff to 1 km out into the lake, as seen on the 2015 aerial photography (see map in Appendix H-2). The shoreline zone is extended 1km out as this is the active zone where sediment that is eroded from the bluff mixes with the lake water and travels up and down the shore to the major sand spits (see illustration in Appendix O). The shoreline in Elgin County is over 80 km long and1 km wide, totalling 8,842 ha. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 44 97 The ENHSS Project Team Participants agreed that the bluff and shoreline zone should be recognized as a key natural heritage feature in the county since it is an important linkage between the land and lake, especially for migratory birds. Given the benefits associated with proximity of vegetation communities to the shore and using 100m as the cutoff distance (a conservative estimate based on the scientific literature discussed in Section 3.4.3), all Vegetation Groups found within 100 m of the Shoreline Zone meet Criterion 2. Note 1: The shoreline zone polygon is provided as an overlay feature in this study, similar to Significant Valleylands. Note 2: It is recognized that the policies of the PPS do not provide protection for upland thickets and meadows as natural heritage features and areas, unless they have been determined to be significant wildlife habitat. Results The results for Criterion 2 are shown in Table 13 and in Appendix H-2. Only 4.6% of the Vegetation Groups meet Criterion 2, accounting for 10.1% of the total vegetation cover (total of all Vegetation Groups). This result is not surprising given that only vegetation groups within 100 m of the Shoreline Zone are eligible, but the shoreline is very long, over 80 km. Of the 233 Vegetation Groups that meet this criterion, only 23 meet only Criterion 2 and no other criteria. See map in Appendix H-2. Table 13. Criterion 2 results Vegetation Groups within 100 m of the Shoreline Zone Number Area % of Elgin # that % that # that meet Area that Total Vegetation % Area Study meetTotal # meetCriterion 2 meetarea of Group of All Veg Area that Criterion Groups Criterion and no Crit. 2 Groups Groups meet (ha) (ha) 22other Criterion 2 108 2,146 5.0% 9 4,362 40,949 10.7% 2.21% Woodland 40 784 5.1% 13 86 1,527 5.6% 0.04% Thicket 78 1,712 4.6% 0 196 3,544 5.5% 0.10% Meadow Water 7 237 3.0% 1 110 949 11.6% 0.06% Feature Connected 0 119 0.0% 0 0 138 0% 0% Veg Feature Total2334,998 4.6% 234,754 47,107 10.1% 2.41% 12 642 1.9% 0 75 5,210 1.4% 0.04% Wetland Notes: The Study Area is the geographic Elgin County plus a 500 m buffer around all sides but the lake side. The boundary is the top of the bank, not the waterline or out into the lake. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 45 98 TheLakeErieshorelinewithHawkCliffWoodsintheforeground.DronephotobyJosephh͸bĻźƌ͵ 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 46 99 Vegetation Group Rationale The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recognizes that significant natural heritage features and areas are typically used as a starting point in natural heritage system studies as they provide a logical foundation upon which to design a planning area’s natural heritage system. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) are areas of land and/or water located on both public and private lands that are significant representative segments of Ontario’s biodiversity and natural landscapes (MNR 2000a). These areas contain relatively undisturbed vegetation and landforms including specific types of forests, valleys, prairies, and wetlands as well as their associated plant and animal species and communities. ANSIs are a critical complement to provincial parks and conservation reserves as they represent important natural features that are not found in publicly protected areas. Earth Science ANSIs were not included in this criterion for the reasons noted in Appendix E, point 16. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) evaluates and subdivides candidate ANSIs into categories of significance: provincial (considered Significant under the PPS), and regional or local (not Significant under the PPS). These categories are based on the consideration of five evaluation selection criteria (MNR 2000a): i. Representation – landform/vegetation features of an ecodistrict, ii. Condition – degree of human-induced disturbances, iii. Diversity – the number of high quality, representative features that exist within a site, iv. Other ecological considerations – ecological and hydrological functions, connectivity, size, shape, proximity to other important areas, etc., and v. Special features – such as populations of species at risk, special habitats, unusual life science features and educational or scientific value. Application / Mapping Rules The Life Science ANSI boundary layer is based on MNRF data. This study considers both provincially and regionally designated Life Science ANSIs as ecologically important as they contain the best examples of landform/vegetation features and contribute to the representation of the natural features and landscapes of the county. All Vegetation Groups included within a Life Science ANSI boundary or those touching the ANSI meet Criterion 3 (see Figure 8). There are 21 Life Science ANSIs in the Elgin Study Area (see map in Appendix H-3): Regional ANSIs Provincial ANSIs Big Mundy Creek Little Otter Creek Big Otter Creek Big Otter Creek S of Bayham Mount Salem Forest Kent & Elgin Shoreline Eagle Woodlots North Rodney Woodlots Skunk’s Misery* Hawk Cliff Plum Point Springwater Forest Iroquois Beach Prov. Pk. Tate’s Bridge Floodplain* Talbot Creek Lakeview South West Elgin Tract Thames River Floodplain Little Jerry Creek West Lorne Tract Note: * located on the north side of the Thames River in Middlesex County 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 47 100 Results Table 14 below summarizes the mapping results for Criterion 3. Not surprisingly, only a moderately small number of Vegetation Groups (180) meet Criterion 3 since there are only 21ANSIs in the study area.However, the groups that meet this criterion account for a large area (7,487 ha or 15.9% of the vegetation cover), indicating that the ANSIs include some of the largest natural areas on the landscape. Only 9 Vegetation Groups meet this criterion and no other, also not surprising since ANSIs are designated on numerous criteria. See map in Appendix H-3. Table 14. Criterion 3 results Vegetation Groups within or touching a Life Science ANSI in the Study Area Number Area Area that % of # that Total# that % Area Vegetation % that meetTotalStudy meet # meet only of All Group meetCriterion areaArea Criterion Groups Criterion Veg (ha) Crit. 3 3that meet 33Groups (ha) Criterion 3 44 2,146 2.0% 0 6,785 40,949 16.6% 3.44% Woodland 30 784 3.8% 4 67 1,527 4.4% 0.33% Thicket Meadow 91 1,712 5.3% 0 216 3,544 6.1% 0.11% Water 10 237 4.2% 5 415 949 43.7% 0.21% Feature Connected Vegetation5 119 4.2% 0 4 138 2.3% 0.00% Feature Total1804,998 3.6% 97,487 47,107 15.9% 3.80% 75 642 11.7% 0 1,265 5,210 24.3% 0.64% Wetland Study Area is 197,159 ha and includes a 500 m buffer around the county perimeter, excluding the lake side. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 48 101 Figure 8. Criterion 3, illustration showing Vegetation Groups within or touching a Life Science ANSI 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 49 102 Vegetation Group Rationale Natural areas adjacent to watercourses (i.e., areas of riparian vegetation) affect and are affected by the water. Open watercourses contain flowing water for at least part of the year and can be natural or channelized, but not buried or tiled (these are considered closed watercourses). Some watercourses in ElginCounty are classified as agricultural drains. Whether or not they are open drains or natural watercourses they are all part of a connected creek or river system and can support Species at Risk, sport fish, top predators, cool water species, and have permanent flow. Best available watercourse mapping is shown in Appendix I-3. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recognizes that the relationship between water features and vegetation is interactive. The physical processes operating in and adjacent to the stream channel create and maintain fish habitat by providing shade for water temperature regulation, food through organic inputs such as leaves, habitat from input of large woody debris, and cover in the form of accumulated vegetation. As a result, fish community composition and productivity in streams is partly related to the condition and health of vegetation beside the stream. Permanent vegetation near waterways protects water quality by reducing peaks in water flow, filtering out sediments and excess nutrients, trapping toxins, and reducing soil erosion by retaining water run-off (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Mooney 1993, Filyk 1993). Riparian habitats are important terrestrial habitats in their own right and are supported by healthy watercourses. Vegetated riparian areas along streams are regional hot spots for a disproportionately high number of wildlife species, providing a wide array of ecological functions and values (Naiman et al. 1993, Fischer and Fischenich 2000). Watercourses and associated riparian areas can provide important linkage functions and act as continuous corridors for the movement of wildlife because the land-water interface usually supports a high level of biodiversity that meets multiple species needs (Wegner and Merriam 1979). Many plants and animals benefit from riparian habitat where the water and the high level of nutrients derived from overland flow create primary centres of bird activity and critical locations for amphibians and reptiles (Harris and Gallagher 1989). Definition Natural features and areas in proximity to water features maintain linkages across the landscape. The PPS recognizes linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features (MMAH 2014) Based on a review of literature, Fischer and Fischenich (2000) found that 30 m is the minimum width for ecological functions such as wildlife movement and that a vegetated strip of 30 m will protect most water quality parameters on moderate slopes. Environment Canada (2013) sets a guideline target of at least 30 m wide naturally vegetated riparian areas on both sides of streams, as a minimum to protect aquatic habitat, and wider riparian buffers to provide highly functional wildlife habitat. Environment Canada (2013) also sets a guideline of 75% of stream length be naturally vegetated. In the Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards (UTRCA 2012), one of three indicators for forest condition grades is “percent riparian zone forested”. Here, a 30 m swath on both sides of a watercourse defines the riparian zone. Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends the same approach for conservation authorities developing watershed report cards. Since 30 m is a commonly held minimum riparian buffer width, this Criterion 3 captures Vegetation Groups that contain a watercourse or lie wholly or in part within this 30 m riparian zone. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 50 103 Application / Mapping Rules Open watercourses are linear features that contain flowing water for at least part of the year and can be natural or channelized. They include open intermittent or headwater drainage features, streams, rivers, creeks and open drains. Tiled or buried drains with no surface connection are considered “closed” watercourses and were excluded from the analysis. Although digital data for watercourses exists for southern Ontario, this data is not current. Recognizing time constraints, a method was developed that eliminates the need to update the entire watercourse layer. Using spring 2015 aerial photography (SWOOP), an on-screen interpretation of the edge of open watercourses (i.e., the bank-full width) was completed in tandem with the interpretation of Vegetation Community boundaries. Onscreen measurements were made from the watercourse edge to the Vegetation Community edge, and if 30 m, the community was identified as meeting this criterion. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities within 30 m of the bank-full width of an open watercourse are identified as a riparian area (Figure 9). As these riparian Vegetation Communities were attributed to their broader Vegetation Groups, the Vegetation Groups containing these riparian Vegetation Communities meet this criterion (Criterion 4). Results Table 15 below summarizes the results for Criterion 4 and the map in Appendix H-4 shows the results. About half (55.7%) of the Vegetation Groups meet this criterion but 85.2% of the vegetation cover. These figures indicate that many of the remaining natural areas on the landscape are near a watercourse because the land is harder to farm or develop and/or because there is a high density of watercourses in the county. Of the 2,786 Vegetation Groups that met this criterion, 405 (14%) met only this criterion and no other criterion. Table 15. Criterion 4 Results Vegetation Groups containing or within 30 m of an Open Watercourse in the Study Area Number Area % of # that % that # that meet Area that Total Vegetation % Area Study meetTotal # meetCriterion 4 meetarea of Group of All Veg Area that Criterion Groups Criterion and no Crit. 4Groups Groups meet (ha) 44other (ha) Criterion 4 1,124 2,146 52.4% 155 35,819 40,949 87.5% 18.17% Woodland 443 784 56.5% 107 1,009 1,527 66.1% 0.51% Thicket 1,025 1,712 59.9% 96 2,491 3,544 70.3% 1.26% Meadow Water 99 237 41.8% 28 693 949 73.0% 0.35% Feature Connected 95 119 79.8 19 107 138 77.5% 0.05% Veg Feature Total2,786 4,998 55.7 40540,119 47,107 85.2% 20.35% 322 642 50.2% 0 3,293 5,210 63.2% 1.67% Wetland Study Area is 197,159 ha and includes a 500 m buffer around the county perimeter, excluding the lake side. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 51 104 Figure 9. Criterion 4, illustration showing Vegetation Groups within 30 m of Open Watercourses 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 52 105 Vegetation Groups A note about clustering Vegetation Groups around roads, railroads and watercourses Vegetation Groups separated by a road, railroad or watercourse < 20 m in width were clustered into the adjacent Vegetation Group (Section 2.4.8). All criteria for Vegetation Groups, except area, were applied to the clustered Vegetation Group. When calculating the area of a Vegetation Group cluster, the area of the road/railway/watercourse was not included in the calculation. Instead, area was calculated as the area of the entire Vegetation Group cluster less the area of the road/railroad/watercourse. Area of the woodland Vegetation Group and interior area were calculated on the non-clustered woodland Vegetation Groups (i.e., calculated before clustering so it does not include roads or watercourses in the calculation). Vegetation Groups Rationale Since European settlement, approximately 85% of wetlands greater than 10 ha have been lost in southern Ontario (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2010). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recommends protection of wetland areas for their important contribution to stream flow through groundwater release. Wetlands provide important breeding and overwintering habitat for reptiles and amphibians, many of which are at-risk due to habitat loss, as well as herons and Wood Ducks. Wetlands are among Ontario’s most productive and diverse habitats, in large part because of the irregular mosaic of ‘edge’ created where land and water meet. Wetlands occur where the water table is close to or at the surface and are characterized as seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water less than 2 m deep. The presence of this abundant water causes the formation of hydric soils. The fluctuation of water levels and the presence of water tolerant plants distinguish wetlands from aquatic Vegetation Ecosystems (Lee et al. 1998). It has been well documented that wetlands improve water quality and base flow by storing and infiltrating precipitation and runoff on the landscape and filtering out contaminants. In Wisconsin, Hey and Wickencamp (1996) found that increasing the amount of wetland in a watershed to 10% resulted in reduced flooding, higher base flows, and reduced occurrence of high flows. Environment Canada (2013) set the following guideline: “At a minimum, the greater of (a) 10% of each major watershed and 6% of each subwatershed, or (b) 40% of the historic watershed wetland coverage, should be protected and restored”. Wetlands are not uniformly distributed across the landscape and there is limited data on historical wetland cover within the watersheds of Elgin County. Environment Canada (2013) recognizes that a watershed and a municipality are similar- sized units, useful for planning purposes. It is important to protect as many wetlands on the landscape as possible. Johnson et al. (1990) found that watersheds containing less than 10% wetland cover were more susceptible to incremental losses of wetlands than those with more wetlands. The amount of natural habitat that is located adjacent to wetlands can be important to the maintenance of wetland functions and attributes. The value of a wetland is enhanced where the wetland is located close to other wetlands and natural areas so that wildlife can move between them to take advantage of favourable habitat and food (Findlay and Houlahan 1997, Houlahan and Findlay 2003). For example, wetlands situated within 100 m of other wetlands are more likely to have movement of fish among them (Golet 1976). 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 53 106 Application / Mapping Rules The wetland layer was derived from: -the MNRF evaluated wetland mapping layer (2017), providing Significant Wetlands and evaluated wetlands, and -the unevaluated wetlands mapped as Vegetation Communities by the UTRCA during the vegetation mapping of the ENHSS (see Section 2.4.1). See Note 3 below. All evaluated wetlands approved by the MNRF, regardless of size, as well as unevaluated wetlands 0.5 ha identified by the UTRCA, meet Criterion 5. Since it is recognized that there are additional unmapped and unevaluated wetlands on the landscape that have not been captured in this model, any wetlands mapped or evaluated in the future also meet this criterion. Note 1: The term significant wetland is reserved for wetlands that have been evaluated and deemed significant using the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System of MNRF. The identification and delineation of significant wetlands must be approved by MNRF. Note 2: If a Woodland Group contains a Wetland Vegetation Community, the entire woodland group does NOT become ecologically important until it becomes a Vegetation Patch. Note 3: The evaluated wetland layer obtained from MNRF can contain wetlands that are shown as many small components dispersed throughout a larger feature. For example, some woodland swamps are characterized by gently undulating topography, and only the wettest pockets are mapped as wetland by the MNRF, creating a tight, intricate pattern. However, the entire feature is generally considered to function as a wetland (e.g., swamp), not just the wettest pockets. During the mapping process for the ENHSS, these small communities may be captured and represented as a single feature (i.e., one large swamp). Thus, the wetland layer in this study will not represent the Evaluated Wetlands boundaries defined by MNRF and the original layer should be obtained from MNRF when reviewing planning applications. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 54 107 Results Table 16a shows the results of the wetland Vegetation Group (see map in Appendix H-5). There are 658 wetland Vegetation Groups, totaling 5,001 ha in the Study Area. There is 2.54% wetland cover in the Elgin Study Area. Table 16b shows the breakdown of wetlands by type/source: evaluated and unevaluated. The unevaluated wetlands mapped by the UTRCA as part of this study add another 50% to the evaluated cover. Table 16c shows the results for each member municipalities (the areas do not include the buffer zone).West Elgin has the highest wetland cover (3.87%) and the other municipalities have less than 3% wetland cover. Environment Canada (2013) recommends a minimum of 6% wetland cover at the subwatershed scale (equivalent to a small sized municipality). Table 16a. Criterion 5 Results Vegetation Groups that contain Wetland Vegetation Communities(in the Study Area) % that meet % of Elgin Study Vegetation Group Number Area (ha) Area(197,159 ha) Criterion 5 WetlandVegetation 642 100% 5,210 2.64% Group Table 16b. Wetland Cover: Evaluated and Unevaluated in the Study Area Wetland (Source) Area (ha) % of Total Wetland Area Evaluated (Significant and other) 3,293 63% Unevaluated 1,917 37% Total 5,210 100% Table 16c. Wetland Cover by Municipality Municipal Area Wetland Area % Wetland Cover Name (ha)(ha) in Municipality West Elgin 32,324 1,250 3.87% Dutton/Dunwich 29,526 436 1.48% Southwold 30,182 889 2.95% Central Elgin 28,142 688 2.45% Malahide 39,552 855 2.16% Bayham 24,558 668 2.72% St. Thomas 3,588 29 0.80% Aylmer 611 2 0.35% County (no buffer) 188,482 4,816 2.56% Areas of the municipalities and wetlands do NOT include the 500 m buffer, so the area figures are smaller than shown in Tables 16a and 16b. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 55 108 Vegetation Groups Rationale Habitat size is one of the most important measures for sustaining stable, diverse and viable populations of wildlife species. Larger woodlands tend to have a greater diversity of habitat niches and are more effectively buffered from external negative influences such as environmental disturbances, nest predation, and parasitism (Askins and Philbrick 1987, Villard et al. 1999, Schwartz 1999, Soulé and Terborgh 1999, Burke and Nol 2000, Burke et al. 2011, Forman 1995c, Kohm and Franklin 1997, Bennett 2003, Marini et al. 1995). In a highly fragmented landscape, the size definition of a “large” woodland can be relatively small. Studies indicate that smaller woodlands (<10 ha) can be considered important and worth protecting as they provide certain ecosystem benefits. Small mammals, such as mice and voles, use woodlands as small as 0.1 ha. In agricultural landscapes, these small woodlands become especially important during harvest, when these rodents are displaced from the field (Fitzgibbon 1997). Although small woodland Vegetation Groups are often regarded as poor habitat for breeding birds, Friesen et al. (1999) have demonstrated that small woodlands in agricultural landscapes can experience high pairing success for birds. Small forest fragments of 1 to 4 ha are also important stopover sites for migratory birds (Packett and Dunning 2009, Swanson et al. 2005). Insects, especially bees and butterflies, also rely on small woodlands in a fragmented landscape. Small woodlands may be just as important as larger ones for pollinator diversity and abundance (Banaszak 1996, Cane 2001, Donaldson et al. 2002). Application / Mapping Rules Riley and Mohr (1994) and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recommend that the minimum standard for determining the size of wooded Vegetation Groups considered to be significant within the planning area is a function of the percentage of forest cover within that area. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recommends that woodlots of 4 ha or more should be considered significant in landscapes with about 5-15% woodland cover, and woodlots of 20 ha for areas with about 15-30% woodland cover. However, the Provincial Policy Statement states that authorities can go above the minimum standards. Based on this guidance, the 2016 Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study, 2013 Huron Natural Heritage Systems Study (draft) and 2014 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study all used a woodland size cutoff of 4 ha. These counties had approximately 13.2%, 16.6% and 15.8% woodland cover respectively.Elgin County has approximately 20% woodland cover (see Table 9), slightly more than these other counties, but well within the range. The Elgin NHSS Project Team reviewed the woodland size options. Elgin County’s current Official Plan policy for significant woodlands states: SectionD1.2.2.1 ElginCountyconsiderswoodland10haassignificantwoodland. Woodlandsbetween2haand10haarealsosignificantiftheyarelocatedwithin30mofa significantnaturalheritagefeature(e.g.,significantwetland,significantvalleyland,fishhabitat and/orwatercourse). To make the determination, the consultants mapped the woodland criteria for both the 4 ha and 2 ha woodland size cutoffs. The maps and statistics were reviewed and discussed at the subsequent meeting. The 4 ha and 2 ha cutoffs capture close to 98% and 99% of woodland area, respectively. The Project Team felt the 4 ha cutoff was appropriate as this cutoff is used in many other southwestern Ontario jurisdictions. Also, woodlands 1 ha will still be subject to the Woodlands Conservation Bylaw. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 56 109 Therefore, all woodland Vegetation Groups 4 ha in size meet Criterion 6 (see Appendix H-6). Results Table 17 shows the results for Criterion 6 and a map of the results is provided in Appendix H-6. Slightly fewer than half (47.8%) the woodland Vegetation Groups (1,026 of 2,146) met this size criterion but they account for over 95% of the woodland area (39,114 of 40,949 ha). Thus, the remaining woodland Vegetation Groups that don’t meet the criterion are very numerous but small and don’t add up to a lot of area. Of the 1,026 Vegetation Groups that meet this size criterion, 240 (approximately 23%) meet only Criterion 6 and no other criterion. Table 17. Criterion 6 Results Woodland Vegetation Group 4 ha in the Study Area % of Total % of # that % of all # that Area that Woodland Study Area meetWoodlandmeet only meetGroup Area (197,159 ha) Vegetation Group (40,949 ha) criterion Groups criterion Criterion 6 that meet 6(2,146)6(ha)that meet Criterion 6 Criterion 6 Woodland 1,026 47.8% 240 39,114 95.5% 19.84% Vegetation Group 4 ha 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 57 110 Vegetation Groups Vegetation Group Rationale The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recognizes that the distance between individual woodlands is an important factor in maintaining woodland integrity. Woodlands that are located near each other or to other natural features have more opportunities for restoring connectivity since linkages are important for both animal and plant dispersal. Small woodlands located close to large woodlands are more important in feature and function than those that are isolated. One reason is that smaller woodlands that are closely spaced can serve as stepping stones for species movement. For example, Bowles (1997) found that species richness was higher for small Vegetation Patches closely linked to larger Vegetation Patches than similarly sized Vegetation Patches not linked to larger Vegetation Patches. The identification of landscape connectivity is an evolving science. Sutherland et al. (2000) compared dispersal data for 77 bird and 68 mammal species. In the case of birds, maximum dispersal distances ranged from 130 m for the European Magpie to 1,305 km for the Great Horned Owl. For mammals, maximum dispersal distances ranged from 140 m for the Prairie Vole to 930 km for the Lynx. As for plants, the limited distances that most seeds travel are well documented for all growth forms (Cain et al. 2000, Harper 1977, Howe and Smallwood 1982, Willson 1993, Cain et al. 1998). Recognizing that plants (seeds, pollen) have limited mobility compared to animals, the average wind dispersal distance of 100 m (Nathan et al. 2002) was used as the distance that would functionally connect two woodlands. Application and Mapping Rules Woodland Vegetation Groups that are within 100 m of a woodland Vegetation Group 4 ha, regardless of what is surrounding them, meet Criterion 7 (see Figure 10). Results The findings are shown in Table 18 and in Appendix H-7. Over 40% (42.2%) of all the woodland Vegetation Groups are within 100 m of a woodland Vegetation Group 4 ha, amounting to 75.1% of all woodland area. These figures indicate that about three-quarters of woodland area is in close enough proximity to larger woodlands to help maintain ecological integrity. Table 18. Criterion 7 Results Woodland Vegetation Groups within 100 m of a Woodland Vegetation Group 4 ha in the Study Area Area % of all # that % of Total # meet meeting % of Study Woodlandmeet only Woodland Criterion Criterion Area Groups Criterion Group Area (197,159 ha) 77 (2,146)(40,949 ha) 7 (ha) WoodlandVegetation Group within 100 m of a 905 42.2% 188 30,743 75.1% 15.59% WoodlandVegetation Group 4 ha 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 58 111 Figure 10. Criterion 7, illustration of 100 m proximity between woodland Vegetation Groups 4 ha 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 59 112 Vegetation Group Rationale Thickets are vegetation communities dominated by shrubs or young trees. Like woodlands, they are most likely to support and sustain a diversity of species if they are large (Rodewald and Vitz 2005, MNR 2012). Often thicket habitats are temporary and eventually succeed or transition into woodlands/forests. For example, when a farm field is left fallow for just a few years, grasses and sun-loving herbaceous plants will colonize the field first as part of the natural succession process. A few years later the area is colonized by shrubs (e.g., hawthorn, sumac, Grey Dogwood) and young trees such as poplars and willows; this is the thicket stage. As the trees mature, they shade out most shrubs, grasses and sun-loving wildflowers and within 25 to 30 years, the area becomes a young woodland. Some thickets do not succeed to woodlands as they are maintained by wet, poor or shallow soils or disturbances such river flooding and ice scour. Wetland thickets and upland thickets can be identified by remote sensing. The literature on bird species that use thickets suggests that thicket habitat is on the decline and large thickets are becoming increasingly uncommon. Thicket habitats may be declining due to changes in rural land uses (e.g., more cropland and less rough land pasture and hedgerow). As a result, many of the bird species that typically use thickets and early succession stages of woodland development are also declining rapidly (Sauer et al. 2001). Some thicket birds are area sensitive and select large areas of contiguous habitat for breeding. Birds such as the Chestnut-sided Warbler will use smaller areas less than 0.5 ha, but the more uncommon species such as Golden-winged Warblers, Yellow-breasted Chats or Woodcock require areas of 10 ha or more (Chandler et al. 2009, Rodewald and Vitz 2005, Oehler et al. 2006, Schlossberg and King 2008, King et al. 2001, King and Byers 2002, King et al. 2009). In general, large blocks of any habitat (grassland/meadow, thicket, mature forest, wetland, etc.) are more valuable to wildlife than small blocks because they tend to support both the common and uncommon species. Note: It is recognized that the policies of the PPS do not provide protection for upland thickets and meadows as natural heritage features and areas, unless they have been determined to be significant wildlife habitat. Wetland thickets are protected under wetland policies. Application / Mapping Rules If managing thickets to enhance the long-term survival of a variety of wildlife, larger is better. Thickets of at least 10 ha in size are required for area sensitive thicket birds, yet this class size is very rare in Elgin County. To determine the cut-off size for thicket Vegetation Groups in the study th area, the top 25 percentile of data was calculated (a method of descriptive statistical analysis to th determine rarity). The 25 percentile was 2.1 ha and it was then rounded to the nearest whole number, 2 ha. Thus, all thicket Vegetation Groups2 ha meet Criterion 8. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 60 113 Results The results of the mapping are shown in Table 19 and in Appendix H-8. Over a quarter (28.1%) of all thicket Vegetation Groups (220 of 784) meet the criterion, accounting for almost two-thirds (62.3%) of all thicket area. Appendix H-8 shows the results in map form. Only 38 of 220 thicket Vegetation Groups (17%) met only this criterion and no other criterion. Table 19. Criterion 8 Results Thicket Vegetation Group2 ha in the Study Area # that Area % of all % area of all # meet meetmeeting % of Study thicketthicket Criterion only Criterion Area groupsgroups (197,159 ha) 8Criterion 8 (784)(1,527 ha) (ha) 8 ThicketVegetation Group 220 28.1% 38 952 62.3% 0.48% 2 ha 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 61 114 Vegetation Group Rationale Meadows and grasslands of all sizes are used by many different native wildlife species from butterflies and bees to birds and mammals. The amount of native grassland and meadow habitat has declined drastically throughout North America. Minimum habitat size is not usually a limiting factor for most generalist species and no reasonable estimate of minimum habitat size exists for butterflies as a group (USDA and the Wildlife Habitat Council 2000). Grassland birds, however, are of special concern since they are habitat size dependant and have suffered more serious population declines than any other group of birds (Igl and Johnson 1997, Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, Sauer et al. 2001). Johnson (2001) demonstrated a number of grassland bird species, including the Savannah, Grasshopper, and Henslow's Sparrow prefer large grasslands far in excess of their territory size (typically <1 ha). Corace et al. (2009), Davis (2004), Winter et al. (2006) and Ribic and Sample (2001) found that the density of open land bird species is regulated by the interaction of field size, shape and edge type, and that larger open areas tend to support a more diverse bird community. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR 2000b) identifies 10 ha blocks of undisturbed grassland as excellent raptor hunting areas, and meadows >30 ha as significant open country bird breeding habitat. Grassland species such as Bobolink, Savannah Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark and Grasshopper Sparrow are more abundant as breeding birds in continuous grassland habitats of 4-6 ha (McCracken et al. 2013, Ochterski 2006a, 2006b, Mitchell et al. 2000). Bobolinks and Eastern Meadowlarks can nest in relatively small patches of grassland, but abundance and productivity are higher in large patches (>10 ha) and in patches surrounded by other open habitats (e.g., Ribic and Sample 2001, Herkert et al. 2003, Bollinger and Gavin 2004, Keyel et al. 2011). The General Habitat Description for the Eastern Meadowlark (MNR undated) notes that “minimum patch area requirements to support breeding habitat for the species have been reported at 5 ha (Herkert 1994), however abundance and productivity are higher in larger patches and in patches surrounded by other open habitats”. Regardless of the patch size, breeding habitat for Eastern Meadowlark is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Application Based on the Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark Recovery Strategy (McCracken et al. 2013) and the General Habitat Description for the Eastern Meadowlark, patch areas of 5 ha support these grassland bird species protected under the Endangered Species Act. In Elgin County the natural cover is fragmented by other land uses and grassland/meadow patches closer to 5 ha may be more widely utilized by listed grassland birds because there is a lack of larger patches to support breeding th pairs. In fact, in the Elgin study area, the top 25 percentile of meadow sizes is 2.4 ha, indicating most (75%) meadows are less than 2.4 ha in size. Thus, all meadow habitats 5 ha meet Criterion 9. Note: It is recognized that the policies of the PPS do not provide protection for upland thickets and meadows as natural heritage features and areas, unless they have been determined to be significant wildlife habitat. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 62 115 Results The results for Criterion 9 are shown in Table 20 below. Only 7.9% of the meadow Vegetation Groups meet this criterion, but account for over a third (38.5%) of the meadow area. Of the 136 meadowVegetation Groups that meet the criterion, only 3 meet this criterion alone and no other criteria. Thus the vast majority of meadows meet other criteria as well. The map in Appendix H-9 shows the meadows that meet criterion 9. Table 20. Criterion 9 Results Meadow Vegetation Groups 5 ha in the Study Area # that % of % of total # that meet Meadow % of Study meetTotalMeadow only Area Area Criterion Number Area (ha)(197,159 ha) Criterion 9 9(1,712)(3,544 ha) Meadow Vegetation 136 7.9% 3 1,364 38.5% 0.69% Groups 5 ha 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 63 116 Vegetation Group Vegetation Group Rationale While larger meadows are required for grassland and open country birds, smaller meadows and meadows closely associated with woodlands and thickets are used by other animals. Mammals such as White-tailed Deer, Red Fox, and Coyote are generalists and live in many diverse habitats from forests to grasslands. Meadows provide both food and cover for animals at times when the woodlands do not. Butterflies, in particular, rely on this habitat mosaic of meadow-thicket-woodland. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Wildlife Habitat Council (2000), land use and development practices have resulted in significant losses of native butterfly habitat. Among the invertebrates, butterflies are an iconic species for recognition and conservation for many reasons; butterflies are important pollinators, are not usually considered pest species, are of interest to the public, have a relatively short lifespan as an adult, are relatively low in biodiversity, and are a food source for other species. Minimum habitat size is not usually a limiting factor for most generalist species and no reasonable estimate of minimum habitat size exists for butterflies as a group (USDA and the Wildlife Habitat Council 2000). Instead, it is important to consider meadow butterfly habitat in context with the surrounding range of habitats. To be effective, butterfly habitat must support as many of the life stages of the butterfly species as possible. The adults have very different food and cover needs from their larval (caterpillar) stage. Adult butterflies have a strong preference for open, sun-lit habitats with nectar sources (flowers), while the larvae require host trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants found in shaded thicket and woodland habitats (USDA and the Wildlife Habitat Council 2000). Larger woodlands and thickets are more likely to contain a wider variety of species to meet the needs of a range of butterfly species. Application / Mapping Rules Given the benefits associated with proximity of meadows to larger woodland and thicket habitats and using 100 m as the cutoff distance (a conservative estimate based on the scientific literature discussed in Section 3.4.3), all meadow Vegetation Groups found within 100 m of a 4 ha woodlandVegetation Group (see Criterion 7) or 2 ha thicket Vegetation Group (see Criterion 8) meet Criterion 10. Note: It is recognized that the policies of the PPS do not provide protection for upland thickets and meadows as natural heritage features and areas, unless they have been determined to be significant wildlife habitat. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 64 117 Results The results for Criterion 10 are shown in Table 21 and in Appendix H-10. Over 80% (81.8%) of all meadowVegetation Groups meet this criterion. Of the 1,401 groups that meet this criteria, a moderate number, 221(12.9%), meet only this criterion and no others. These results suggest the three habitat types (meadow, thicket and woodland) are closely tied and intermixed in the landscape. Table 21. Criterion 10 results Meadow Vegetation Groups within 100 m of a 4 ha woodland or 2 ha thicket Vegetation Group in the Study Area Area that # that % of all # that meet % of all % of Study meet meetMeadow only Meadow Area Criterion Criterion Groups Criterion Area (197,159 ha) 10 (1,712) (3,544 ha) 1010 (ha) Meadow Vegetation Group within 1,401 81.8% 221 2,994 84.5% 1.80% 100 m of a 4 ha woodland or 2 ha thicket Vegetation Group 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 65 118 Vegetation Patches Vegetation PatchesVegetation Group Note: Criterion 11 is used to identify the natural heritage system since it recognizes that Vegetation Groups identified using Criteria 1-10 and 14-17 do not exist in isolation. Criterion 11 is a mapping rule that translates Vegetation Group criteria 1-10 into a single Vegetation Patch criterion. Rationale Vegetation Patches are comprised of one- to- many Vegetation Groups. The spatial arrangement between the Vegetation Communities within the Vegetation Patch determines the resistance to flow or movement of species, energy, materials, and water (Forman 1995b). Recognizing this interdependency between landscape structure and function, it is important to consider the entire Vegetation Patch as a single entity when determining importance. To maintain biological diversity, natural functions, and viable populations of native species and ecosystems, significant natural features and functions cannot exist in isolation. Application Mapping rules of adjacency and proximity were used to define a Vegetation Patch. If a Vegetation Patch contained a Vegetation Group that met a group criterion (i.e., Criterion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10), the entire Vegetation Patch meets this criterion. Results The results for Criterion 11 are shown in Table 22 and in Appendix H-11. Some 76.5% of the patches met this criterion, accounting for 98.5% of the patch area. Since Criterion 11 is really a summary of Criteria 1 through 10, it should account for a great number of patches on the landscape. Table 22. Criterion 11 Results Vegetation Patches that contain a Vegetation Group that meets a group criteria in the Study Area % Area of # that % of all # that met % of Study all meetVegetationonly Patch Area Area Vegetation Criterion Criterion (ha) Patches Patches (197,159 ha) 11(1,909) 11 (48,116 ha) Vegetation Patches that contain a 1,141 Vegetation Group that 1,460 76.5% 47,397 98.5% 24.04% (9,025 ha) meets a Group Criterion 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 66 119 Vegetation PatchVegetation Ecosystems, GroupsCommunities Rationale Representation approaches have become key concepts in developing methods to select the most significant remaining natural areas (Canadian Council on Ecological Areas 1991, Peterson and Peterson 1991, Horn and Koford 2004). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recognizes that a fundamental step in natural heritage system planning is to consider the protection of the full range of natural features that occur in an area (representation), including both rare and common features, in order to preserve biodiversity at the species and community levels. Natural areas or clusters of natural areas that span a range of topographic, soil and moisture conditions tend to contain a wider variety of plant and animal species, and may support a greater diversity of ecological processes. The diversity of species is dependent upon the diversity of habitats on the landscape since dissimilar habitats provide food, shelter, and reproductive requirements for different species. Since many species use more than one habitat type to meet their life cycle requirements, it is valuable for Vegetation Patches to be comprised of different habitat/vegetation types or communities. This criterion encompasses structural diversity (i.e., the full range of canopy heights and types), as well as diversity in the context of slope, aspect, wetness, physiography, etc. Definition The number of different Vegetation Ecosystems,Vegetation Groups and Vegetation Communities in aVegetation Patch can be used as proxy measures of diversity. The three types of Vegetation Ecosystems, terrestrial, wetland and aquatic (see Table 3 in Section 2.2),are linked by a multitude of processes. For example, aquatic Vegetation Ecosystems in forests are coupled to adjacent terrestrial Vegetation Ecosystems by transitional riparian zones and wetland areas. Processes within wetlands and riparian zones can regulate the retention and release of nutrients and carbon into the aquatic Vegetation Ecosystem (Tufford et al. 1998, Junk et al. 1989). At a broader scale, the inflow of water, nutrients, and sediments from surrounding watersheds are heavily influenced by conditions within the floodplain. Conversely, floodplain plant and animal habitat value and sediment supply and fertility are often determined by river hydrology. The surrounding landscape can also influence the capacity of wetlands to perform functions such as sequestering pollutants, modifying nutrient loads, and providing habitat (Wetzel 2001). The interdependencies between the three natural Vegetation Ecosystems provide strong support for criteria basedon linkages and spatial patterns. Application Three different measures (combinations of vegetation ecosystems, groups and communities) were used to determine if a Vegetation Patch was diverse. If any one of the following three measures was met, the Vegetation Patch met this criterion (see Figure 11): i)Vegetation Patch contains > 1 Vegetation Ecosystem or, ii)Vegetation Patch contains > 2 Vegetation Groups or, ii)Vegetation Patch contains > 3 Vegetation Communities. 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 67 120 Results Table 23 shows the results for Criterion 12 and the results map is included in Appendix H-12. Only 19% of all patches met this criterion, but the area totals 81.2% of patch area, indicating it is picking up mostly large patches. It is not surprising, since large patches are more likely to contain more habitat types than small patches. Only a small number of patches (12) met only this criterion and no others. Table 23. Criterion 12 Results Vegetation Patches that contain a diversity of Vegetation Ecosystems, Groups and/orCommunities in the Study Area # that % of # that meet % Total % of Study meetonly Area Vegetation Patch AreaArea (ha) Criterion Patches Criterion (48,116 ha) (197,159 ha) (1,909) 1212 Vegetation Patches that contain: 12 362 19.0% 39,077 81.2% 19.82% > 1 Vegetation Ecosystem or (36 ha) > 2 Vegetation Groups or > 3 Vegetation Communities 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 68 121 Figure 11. Criterion 12, illustration of patches containing many different Vegetation Ecosystems, Groups and Communities 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 69 122 Vegetation Patches Vegetation Patch Rationale The presence of large natural habitat patches in a landscape is not sufficient to counteract the effects of fragmentation, especially if there are relatively few such patches, they are widely dispersed, or there are few natural corridors linking them (Riley and Mohr 1994, Prugh et al. 2008). Natural areas close to protected areas are increasingly seen as important to the ecological integrity of the protected sites. Research shows local landscapes that include large natural areas, linked to the regional landscape mosaic by a network of smaller interacting natural areas and corridors, offer the highest probability of maintaining overall ecological integrity (Larson et al. 1999, Villard et al. 1999). Smaller Vegetation Patches of natural cover that are closely spaced can serve as stepping stones for species movement. Baguette and Van Dyck (2007) showed that the ability and willingness of wildlife species to move between and successfully settle in different Vegetation Patches was affected by the distance between the Vegetation Patches. Environment Canada (2013) found that two or more Vegetation Patches are more likely to support more species collectively than they would if they were isolated from each other. In areas where large core areas do not exist, clusters of smaller natural areas that span a range of habitats and are arranged close together support a greater diversity of ecological processes and are able to reduce the effects of fragmentation. Application / Mapping Rules Recognizing that plants have limited mobility compared to animals, the average wind dispersal distance of 100 m (for seeds and pollen) was used as the distance that would functionally connect twoVegetation Patches (Cain et al. 2000, Harper 1977, Howe and Smallwood 1982, Nathan et al. 2002, Willson 1993, Cain et al. 1998). In Elgin County, all Vegetation Patches that do not meet a criterion but are within 100 m of a Vegetation Patch that does meet a criterion, meet Criterion 13. Figure 12 illustrates this criterion. Results Table 24 below shows the mapping results for Criterion 13. The map showing the results is included in Appendix H-13 (note, the patches are very tiny and difficult to see). This criterion is met by only 77 patches and accounts for only 113 ha (0.2% of patch area). Because this is the last criterion and it is targeted at those patches that have not met any other criterion, it stands to reason that all 77 of these patches only meet this one criterion. Thus, this criterion picks up a small number of small patches that would not have been picked up with any other criteria. Table 24. Criterion 13 Results Vegetation Patches that do not meet any criteria but are within 100 m of a Vegetation Patch that meets other patch criteria in the Study Area # that # that % of all only Patch % Total % of Study meetVegetation meetArea Patch AreaArea Criterion Patches (ha)(48,116 ha) (197,159ha) criterion (1,909) 13 13 Vegetation Patches that do not meet any criteria, but 77 4.0% 77 113 0.2% 0.06% are within 100 m of a Vegetation Patch that meets other patch criteria 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 70 123 Figure 12. Criterion 13, illustration of a small patch that does not meet any criteria but is within 100 m of a patch that does meet criteria 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 71 124 Two criteria, Vegetation Patches 100 ha and Woodland Interior, were part of the 2006 Oxford Natural Heritage Study and other early natural heritage studies. However, the current study has more and slightly different criteria. For example, the woodland size cutoff is 4 ha versus 10 ha in the earlier study (see section 3.4.3). When the model was run for the current study, these two criteria did not pick up any patches that were not already picked up by other criteria. These two criteria and their results are provided here as added information items. Vegetation Patches Rationale Size is a key landscape-level factor affecting the presence, abundance, and diversity of species (Environment Canada 2013, Mazerolle and Villard 1999, Lovett-Doust and Kuntz 2001, Lovett- Doustet al. 2003, Bender et al. 1998). The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) recognizes that large patches of natural area are more valuable than smaller patches, provided that size is not the only consideration. The size of a Vegetation Patch considered to be large depends on the landscape of the planning area. In a planning area with a low percentage of natural feature cover that is highly fragmented, the size of areas considered to be large would be smaller than in a region where natural feature cover is extensive. As well, natural areas should be large enough to be resilient to typical natural disturbances. Current science suggests that 100 ha woodland Vegetation Groups will support approximately 60% of area sensitive species while 200 ha woodland Vegetation Groups will support approximately 80% (Environment Canada 2013). Burke and Nol (2000) determined that reproductive success of forest birds in southern Ontario was consistently higher for woodland Vegetation Groups greater than 94 ha. However, the size of a patch does not take into account its shape; long linear patches would not function the same as square shaped patches of the same size. Application / Mapping Rules AllVegetation Patches 100 ha in size or greater meet this parameter. Results Table 25 shows there are only 62 patches (3.2% of all patches) that are 100 ha. However, these patches account for almost two-thirds (63.6%) of all the vegetation patch area. Appendix I-1 shows the results in map form. Many of the large patches include the long, continuous vegetated ravine corridors. Table 25.Vegetation Patches 100 ha # meeting % of all # meeting thisPatch % Total % of Study Vegetation thiscriterion Area Patch AreaArea Patches criterion and no (ha)(48,116 ha) (197,159 ha) (1,909) other Vegetation Patches 100 ha 62 3.2% 0 30,611 63.6% 15.53% 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 72 125 Interior habitat is useful as a measure of ecosystem health (Weathers et al. 2001, LRC and MNR 2000, Sandilands and Hounsell 1994, Sisk et al. 1997), but not as useful in selecting significant woodlands. Environment Canada (2013) recommends that a minimum of 10% of watersheds should be in woodland interior habitat. Many area-sensitive forest birds require the protective core of a woodland to nest successfully, away from the edge habitat that is more prone to high predation, wind damage and alien species invasion. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) defines edge habitat as habitat that exists within 100 m from the outermost trees. Meffe and Carroll (1997), Matlack (1993), Chen et al. (1995), and Hamill (2001) consider edge habitat as a zone of influence that varies depending on where and what is being measured. Application / Mapping Rules To define interior habitat, a swath of 100 m around the inside perimeter of the woodland Vegetation Group, before clustering around roads, was delineated as “edge” habitat. Any habitat within the woodlandVegetation Community, but not within the 100 m wide edge, was identified as woodland interior. Figure 13 provides an illustration of the mapping of interior. The 2006 Oxford Natural Heritage System study used an interior habitat criterion because the woodland size cutoff was 10 ha and the study wanted to capture those woodlands 4 to10 ha with interior. Woodlands 4 to 10 ha in size may contain interior habitat depending on their shape, but woodlands < 4 ha do not (i.e., a perfectly square 4 ha woodlot is 200 m x 200 m, leaving no room for interior). Since the current study uses a 4 ha woodland size minimum, there should be no woodlands smaller than 4 ha that contain interior. Results Table 26 and Appendix I-2 provide a summary of interior woodland habitat in the Elgin Study Area. Only 21% of all woodland groups contain interior habitat, which means 79% of woodlands are too small and/or narrow to contain interior. There are 6,045 ha of interior forest in the study area, representing almost 15% of the woodland area and 3% of the study area. Environment Canada (2013) recommends at least 10% woodland interior cover by watershed. Table 26. Woodland Groups with Woodland Interior Habitat #Area of % of all # that Total Area of Woodlandwoodland Woodlandonly meet woodland Groups groups that Groups thisinterior 0.5 ha that have contain interior (2,146)(ha) criterion (ha) interior 6,045 WoodlandVegetation 455 Groups that contain 21% 0 32,982 (14.8% of (755 0.5 ha of interior Woodland area; polygons) woodland habitat (3.07% of Study Area) Study Area = 197,159 ha; Total Woodland Area = 40,949 ha 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 73 126 Figure 13. Illustration showing how interior woodland area is calculated 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 74 127 Several additional potential criteria were suggested and reviewed as part of the 2014 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study and 2016 Oxford NHSS and were not used for a variety of reasons. Many did not add value (e.g., were redundant), did not fit the study or had other limitations. A full description of these criteria and the rationale for not including them is shown in Appendix E. Below is a list of the 19 criteria that were not used: Best representative Vegetation Patch on landform physiography and soil type Located on a distinctive, unusual or high quality landform. All areas (both vegetated and non-vegetated) on: gullies, valley lands, within 30 m of limestone outcroppings Vegetation Patch on an Earth Science ANSI that contributes to the presence of an uncommon Vegetation Community AllVegetation Patches found alongside a coldwater watercourse or watercourse containing Brook Trout Shape of Vegetation Patch (i.e., closest to a round shape) Adjacent to an MNR evaluated wetland or life science ANSI Contains an area identified in the local official plans such as the Locally Significant Natural Areas identified by Hilts and Cook 1982 Unique intrinsic characteristics (i.e., site level characteristics) Distance from development (e.g., permanent infrastructure and buildings) or matrix Persistence or threatened Porous or erodible soils Vegetation Patch contains a large sized wetland defined as: o wooded wetlands > 4 ha based on Environment Canada (2013), o wetland meadows and marshes >10 ha based on Environment Canada (2013), o small wetland meadows and marshes adjacent to other Vegetation Communities may be vital to butterflies, o wetland thicket size determined by top 75th percentile distribution cutoff of all county wetland thicket sizes. Vegetation Patch contains a wetland that is within 1000 m of another wetland Vegetation Patch contains a recently observed (post 1980) regionally rare plant Vegetation Patch contains thicket with interior Carolinian Canada Big Picture Corridors Interior woodland habitat that is 0.5 ha in size of continuous habitat Presence of Species at Risk The 2014 MNHSS and 2016 ONHSS included three “unmapped criteria” (see list below). However, upon review for the ENHSS, it was decided that since these features can only be identified at the site-level, they should not be included as landscape-level criteria in this modelling study. Instead, they are specifically named in the list of features to be identified at the EIS stage (See Chapter 5). Vegetation group contains a Significant Wildlife Habitat Vegetation group contains a Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems or Wetlands Vegetation group contains a Watercourse Bluff or Depositional Area 3.0 Criteria for Ecological Importance ENHSS 2018 75 128 Each criterion in this study measures a unique aspect of the ecological services that a natural feature provides. Thus, any patch that meets at least one criterion is considered “ecologically important” in Elgin County. This one-criterion approach has been utilized in many other studies including the 2018 Perth Natural Heritage Systems Study (draft), 2016 Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study, 2014 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study and the 2014 Huron Natural Heritage Study (draft). In the Middlesex and Huron studies, the criteria were called “significance criteria”, but in this study the word “significant” has been replaced with “ecologically important”. This change was made to distinguish it from the use of the word significant in the Provincial Policy Statement for certain Natural Heritage Features and Areas such as Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially Significant ANSIs (see section 1.1). As explained in the previous chapter, the running of the criteria was done on the Elgin Study Area that includes a 500 m buffer around the perimeter of Elgin County (excluding the lake side). This was done so that Vegetation Communities and Patches that spanned the border would be modelled in their entirety and not artificially cut off by the political boundary. Section 4.1 summarizes the results of running the Vegetation Group level criteria (Criteria 1 to 10). Section 4.2 summarizes the results of running the VegetationPatch level criteria (Criteria 11 to 13). Section 4.3 describes the three categories of woodlands that inform Official Plan policies. CentralElginlandscapewithHawkCliffintheforeground.DronephotobyJosephMcNeil. 4.0 Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ENHSS 76 2018 129 Vegetation Groups Table 27 summarizes the results of running the model for Vegetation Groups for the Elgin Study Area. As expected, the woodland group, which is the largest group at 40,949 ha, has the largest percentage that is ecologically important (98.4% or 40,276 ha). The meadow group has the second largest area (3,544 ha) and 95.4% of the area is ecologically important. The thicket group and water feature groups have similar areas (952 ha and 949 ha respectively), and 91.3% and 80.3% of those groups respectively are ecologically important. The wetland group, made up of woodland, thicket, and meadow vegetation communities, is also quite large at 5,210 ha or 2.64% of the Elgin Study Area. All wetland groups are ecologically important. As noted earlier, only the evaluated wetlands are included at this time, and unevaluated wetlands are currently unmapped. The map in Appendix K-1 shows the woodland groups that meet a criterion (and are ecologically important) and those that do not. Since the woodland group criteria (Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) establish significance for woodlands consistent with the PPS (see Table 11), the ecologically important woodland groups also represent Significant Woodlands as per the PPS. The map in Appendix K-2 shows the meadow groups that meet a criterion (and are ecologically important) and those that do not. The map in Appendix K-3 shows the thicket groups that meet a criterion (and are ecologically important) and those that do not (note: the features are quite small). Note: It is recognized that the policies of the PPS do not provide protection for upland thickets and meadows as natural heritage features and areas, unless they have been determined to be significant wildlife habitat. Table 27.Vegetation Group Results for the Elgin Study Area % Ecologically Total % Total Ecologically % Group Area Important Group Group Area of Important that is Group Area of Vegetation Area Study Area Area Ecologically Study Area (ha)(197,159 ha)(ha) Group Important (197,159ha) 40,949 20.77% 40,276 20.43% 98.4% Woodland 1,527 0.77% 1,390 0.71% 91.3% Thicket 3,544 1.80% 3,379 1.71% 95.4% Meadow Water Feature 949 0.48% 762 0.39% 80.3% Connected 138 0.07% 115 0.06% 83.7% Veg. Feature Total47,107 23.90% 45,922 23.29% 98.7% 5,210 2.64% 5,210 2.64% 100.0% Wetland Wetlands include woodland, thicket and meadow groups and are already part of the total. Wetland area includes evaluated and some unevaluated wetlands (see Section 3.4.1) Ecologically ImportantWoodland Groups also meet criteria for Significant Woodlands as per the PPS 4.0 Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ENHSS 77 2018 130 Vegetation Patches Table 28 summarizes the number of vegetation patches that met a certain number of criteria in the Study Area. The number of criteria met refers to the total number of criteria, not any specific criterion. The maximum number of criteria any patch can meet is 11 out of the 13, since Criterion 11 is simply a mapping rule to bring Criteria 1-10 from a Vegetation Group to a Vegetation Patch, and Criterion 13 can only apply to patches that have not yet met any criteria. Over 80% of patches (1,549 of 1,909) meet at least one criterion, and are thus ecologically important. Some 360 patches (18.9%), do not meet any criterion, however, the total area of these patches is very small. The figures in Table 29 show that 98.8% of Vegetation Patch area meets one or more criteria, representing 24.12% of the Elgin Study Area. Tables 30 and 31 summarize the modeling results by municipality. These results were calculated for the municipalities without the 500 m buffer, so the figures are smaller than shown in Table 29 for the entire Study Area. The corresponding maps showing the patches that do and do not meet a criterion for each municipality are included in Appendix L-1 to L-10. Table 28. The number of Vegetation Patches versus the number of criteria met in the Elgin Study Area #Vegetation % of Patches # of Criteria Met Patches(1,909) 0360 18.9% 1 617 32.3% 2 350 18.3% 3 206 10.8% 4 130 6.8% 5 80 4.2% 6 68 3.6% 7 35 1.8% 8 35 1.8% 9 17 0.9% 10 8 0.4% 11 3 0.2% TOTAL 1,909100.0% Note: The number of criteria met refers to the total number of criteria, not any specific criterion. Table 29. The Area of Vegetation Patches that meet criteria in the Elgin Study Area Total Area of Area of Vegetation % of Vegetation % Ecologically Important Vegetation Patches that met at Patch Area that Vegetation Patches in Elgin Study Area (197,159 ha) Patchesleast one criterion meet criteria 48,116 47,546 98.8% 24.12% 4.0 Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ENHSS 78 2018 131 Table 30. Number of Vegetation Patches that are Ecologically Important by Municipality # Patches that are % of Patches that are Municipality # Patches ecologically importantecologically important West Elgin 331 275 83.1% Dutton/Dunwich283 236 83.4% Southwold 309 252 81.6% Central Elgin 309 255 82.5% Malahide 350 279 79.7% Bayham 222 167 75.2% Aylmer 17 13 76.5% St. Thomas 47 41 87.2% Elgin County (no buffer) 1,868 1,549 81.3% - The number of patches is slightly lower than in the Study Area results shown in Table 28 because the buffer zone around the municipalities has been removed. Table 31. Area of Vegetation Patches that are Ecologically Important by Municipality Area of % of Area of % of patches that % of patch Municipalmunicipality allmunicipalityarearea that is Municipality Area that is patchesin patch ecologically ecologically (ha) ecologically (ha)cover* importantimportant important* (ha) West Elgin32,324 7,442 23.02% 7,344 98.7 22.72% Dutton/ 29,526 6,504 22.03% 6,421 98.7 21.75% Dunwich Southwold30,182 5,568 18.45% 5,479 98.4 18.15% Central Elgin28,142 6,388 22.70% 6,308 98.8 22.42% Malahide39,552 6,704 16.95% 6,598 98.4 16.68% Bayham24,558 8,049 32.77% 7,973 99.1 32.47% Aylmer 611 69 11.30% 66 94.9 10.72% St. Thomas3,588 794 22.14% 784 98.7 21.85% Elgin County 188,482 41,517 22.03% 40,973 98.7 21.74% (no buffer) -Area of each municipality was calculated based on municipal boundaries obtained from Land Information Ontario, 2017 (based in 2015 photography). The vegetation patches were clipped at the municipal boundaries, and no buffer was added. 4.0 Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ENHSS 79 2018 132 The key findings are listed below. Results for the Elgin Study Area (includes 500 m buffer around all sides except lake side): 24.40% is in natural vegetation/patch cover (48,116 ha of 197,159 ha) 20.77% is in woodland/forest cover and an additional 3.12% is in other vegetation cover (meadow, thicket, water feature and connected vegetation feature cover) 24.12% is in ecologically important patch cover (47,546 ha) 20.43% is in ecologically important woodland cover 81% of vegetation patches meet at least one criteria for ecological importance, representing 98.8% of the patch area. Municipal and Elgin County Results (no buffer) 98.7% of the natural vegetation/patch cover by area (40,974 of 41,519 ha) in Elgin County meets one or more criterion and is ecologically important and only 1.3% of the vegetation patch cover (545 ha) meet no criteria 21.74% of Elgin County is in ecologically important vegetation cover and at the municipal level, the results range from 10.72% in Aylmer to 32.47% in Bayham 2.64% of Elgin County is in wetland cover, including both evaluated and unevaluated wetlands, totaling 5,210 ha 4.0 Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ENHSS 80 2018 133 To inform Official Plan policies, woodlands have been sorted into three categories: 1)Significant Ecologically Important Woodlands o Definition: woodland groups that meet group level criteria within the ENHSS o As explained in section 3.2.2, ENHSS criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 establish significance for woodlands consistent with the PPS (see Table 7-2 of the NHRM). o These woodlands are considered to be both significant as per the PPS and ecologically important as per the ENHSS. 2)Non-Significant Ecologically Important Woodlands o Definition: woodland communities or groups within a patch that meet patch level criteria but not group level criteria within the ENHSS o Some woodlands that do not meet Vegetation Group level criteria, may be part of a largerVegetation Patch made up of other vegetation groups such as thicket, meadow, or water feature, that does meet a patch level criteria (i.e., Criteria 11, 12 or 13). o Thus, the woodland is ecologically important and part of the Elgin Natural Heritage System, though not Significant as per the PPS. 3)Other Woodlands / Non-ecologically Important Woodlands o Definition: woodland groups and patches containing woodlands that do not meet any group or patch level criteria within the ENHSS o Although non-ecologically important based on mapped ENHSS criteria, these woodlands could still be considered “candidate sites” until an EIS determines that no unmapped criteria are present (see Chapter 5 recommendations). Appendix M provides a map that shows these three categories of woodlands in Elgin County. Other PPS features (e.g., Significant Wetlands) are not shown on this map as they are part of the provincial data layer available from MNRF. The Significant Valleylands are shown separately in Appendix H-1-1.Table 32 shows that 98.4% of the woodland group area falls under the significant ecologically important category and occupies 20.43% of the Elgin County study area. The GIS data for the ENHSS allows the planning agencies to determine which criteria any individual vegetation group or patch met, as well as other details. Table 32. Woodland Category Results for the Elgin Study Area % of total # of % of total % of Elgin number of Area Woodland Category WoodlandWoodlandStudy Area Woodland(ha) (197,159 ha) Groups Group Area Groups Significant Ecologically 1,730 81% 40,276 98.4% 20.43% Important Non-significant Ecologically 134 6% 205 0.5% 0.10% Important Other (Non-ecologically 282 13% 469 1.1% 0.24% Important) Total 2,146 100% 40,949 100.0% 20.77% 4.0 Results of Running the Ecologically Important Criteria ENHSS 81 2018 134 The ElginNatural Heritage Systems Study (ENHSS) is a science based study that identifies natural heritage system components following a landscape ecology methodology. The information it provides can be implemented through both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. However, regulation must play a role in implementation due to the need for local planning policies and decisions to be consistent with the PPS natural heritage policies. This section provides various recommendations for implementation of the study. It is important to note that the ENHSS focused primarily on the natural heritage system of the Elgin landscape and that implementation will also require consideration of cultural, economic, public health and safety factors. The broader considerations are inherent in implementation processes under Planning and Environmental Legislation. These processes involve considerable review and consultation to assist in providing a positive impact on the quality of life in Elgin County and its environs. The ENHSS project did not include a process to engage stakeholders on implementation options. However, extensive consultations on implementation options were undertaken as part of the 2006 ONHS. The majority of the implementation options developed as part of that study could be applied to the Elgin County area and so are included in Appendix K for reference. The ENHSS focused primarily on identifying and characterizing natural heritage features and areas and the broader natural heritage system, so that this information could inform the various implementation options. It is recognized that further stakeholder consultation will be undertaken as part of the various processes required to implement the study recommendations (e.g., updates to Official Plan policies and Woodland Conservation By-Law). JohnE.PearceProvincialParkpreservesanoldergrowthdeciduousforest.PhotobyCathyQuinlan 5.0 Recommendations ENHSS 2018 82 135 The results of this study should be incorporated into the Official Plan policies, as necessary to ensure consistency with the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS notes that the policies represent minimum standards while planning authorities and decision- makers may go beyond these standards to address matters of local importance (see text box below). 9ǣĭĻƩƦƷŅƩƚƒЋЉЊЍtt{ΛƦğŭĻЌΜ PoliciesRepresentMinimumStandards ThepoliciesoftheProvincialPolicyStatementrepresentminimumstandards. Withintheframeworkoftheprovincialpolicyledplanningsystem,planningauthoritiesand decisionmakersmaygobeyondtheseminimumstandardstoaddressmattersofimportance toaspecificcommunity,unlessdoingsowouldconflictwithanypolicyoftheProvincial PolicyStatement. The most appropriate means to implement the results of this study will be determined at the time that Planning Act applications are considered and will be guided by the PPS, Official Plan policies and input obtained through the process. To ensure an appropriate review framework is put in place to evaluate such applications, this study provides a number of specific land use planning recommendations for consideration by the County and City of St. Thomas, as follows: 1)To be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), it is recommended that the County of Elgin and City of St. Thomas utilize the ENHSS (2019) as the scientific basis for identifying natural heritage features and areas and the broader natural heritage systems within the Official Plans. The Official Plan should include policies governing the protection of natural heritage features and areas and the protection of natural heritage systems as a result of land use change that could impact such features and areas. Such policies should require assessment that is appropriate to the scale of the proposed land use change. For example, small scale applications should consider the potential impact on the natural heritage system through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or edge management planning process (i.e., verifying natural feature boundaries on a site specific basis for scoped level assessments). Larger scale developments and urban expansions should be assessed at a subwatershed scale of study and include the integration of natural heritage, natural hazard and servicing planning. The natural heritage features and areas can be identified on a map schedule in an appendix to the Official Plan which would not require such features and areas to be designated as a land use. Rather, such mapping would raise the public’s awareness that these natural heritage features are important to the County and its local municipalities and that they should be protected for future generations. Note: Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially Significant ANSIs are designated in the OP. 5.0 Recommendations ENHSS 2018 83 136 2)An updated Environmental Impact Study (EIS) guideline document should be developed to provide more specific guidance on the implementation of the ENHSS through the land use planning and development process, including initial consultation, EIS submission requirements, review process and scoping and/or waiver criteria. Currently, Appendix B of the Elgin OP outlines the contents of an EIS. The City of St. Thomas OP contains policies and associated guidelines in Section 8.3.4. a)A patch validation guideline should be developed to support the EIS guideline document. The patch validation guideline can assist with confirming patch attributes (e.g., which criteria were met, confirm unevaluated wetlands are wetlands, etc.) and patch boundaries. An example would be re-measuring distance to woodlands, valleylands and the shoreline. b)Patches that do not meet any criteria can be viewed as non-ecologically important or candidate ecologically important. If development is proposed, preparation of an EIS should be requested to confirm that the patch does not: meet any of the 13 mapped landscape criteria, contain an unevaluated or unmapped wetland, contain any natural heritage features and areas that need to be identified at the site level including: Significant Wildlife Habitat, Groundwater Dependent Wetlands/Ecosystems, Bluffs and Depositional Areas (see Appendix N), and rare vegetation communities, contain fish habitat or habitat of endangered or threatened species in accordance with provincial and federal requirements (MMAH, 2014). Note: It should be recognized that development and site alteration may not be permitted in fish habitat and habitat of endangered species and threatened species except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements (MMAH, 2014). These features need to be confirmed to be consistent with the PPS. c)The guideline document should also identify instances where the completion of an EIS can be scoped and/or waived (i.e., maintenance activities associated with stormwater management ponds and sewage lagoons, minor additions to buildings, etc.). 3)If agricultural or other similar lands are proposed to be developed for settlement or other non-agricultural land uses, the system linkages that would have been provided in the working agricultural or other pre-development landscape may be disrupted or eliminated by the post development landscape. In such cases, it is necessary that natural heritage system linkages be studied at an appropriate level of detail and that appropriate system linkages be identified (e.g., through an EIS) and provided as part of the development review process. 5.0 Recommendations ENHSS 2018 84 137 4)Significant valleylands have been identified in this study. The vegetation groups within or abutting these valleylands meet the criteria for significance consistent with the PPS, as well as this study. However, farmland and other lands that do not correspond with an ecologically important vegetation group that fall within significant valleylands are not specifically identified as part of the Elgin Natural Heritage System. Thus, proposed developments adjacent to these lands (e.g., farmland) do not require the completion of an EIS to assess negative impacts. Development within valleylands is typically already limited by the Natural Hazard features with which the valleyland is associated. However, in the limited instances where development may be proposed within a significant valleyland, natural heritage system linkages should be studied at an appropriate level of detail and appropriate system linkages identified (e.g., through an EIS) and provided as part of the development review process. 5)Policies should be included in the Official Plan to maintain, restore and improve the existing natural heritage systems. Note: The ENHSS does not determine if there are enough natural heritage features, whether they are in the right places or of the right type. Also, this study does not determine whether the existing natural heritage system is sustainable over the long term. The 2005 Elgin Landscape Strategy (Elgin Stewardship Council) does present restoration potential. 1)Elgin County’s Protection and Enhancement of Tree Canopy and Natural Vegetation Policy includes several initiatives that, cumulatively, protect and enhance the tree canopy and natural vegetation within the County including: the Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study, the Elgin County Official Plan, Decisions under the Planning Act, and the Woodlands Conservation By-law. 2)The County should develop a mechanism to implement the No Net Loss Policy under the Woodland Conservation By-law to ensure trees that are planted by order as part of a No Net Loss Policy (i.e., when trees are cleared for development), are maintained and allowed to mature into woodland over time. 3)The ENHSS should be considered in the development and ongoing implementation of stewardship and incentive programs (i.e., Clean Water Program and ALUS), education programs and the management of publicly owned forests and natural areas in the county. 5.0 Recommendations ENHSS 2018 85 138 4)The county/municipalities should produce a factsheet on ways to minimize negative impacts on wildlife during routine maintenance of man-made pond structures such as sewage lagoons, stormwater management ponds, irrigation ponds and ponds in licenced aggregate pits. These man-made ponds can be included in the Water Feature Vegetation Group if they are connected to meadows, woodlands or other Vegetation Groups. Some of theseVegetation Groups may be ecologically important by meeting one or more criteria. The results of this study do not presume to change the intended purpose of these man-made structures. These structures can continue to function as designed. However, since they attract plants and wildlife by their very design (i.e., holding water, using biological processes to break down pollutants, etc.), undertaking cleanouts and other maintenance activities should be done prior to wildlife hibernation or after fledging. Such a factsheet could assist the managers of these pond structures. Regular maintenance activities would not require the submission of an EIS, however, the updated EIS guidelines recommended above should address this. The county/municipalities should work with the Certificate of Approval process for sewage lagoons and stomwater management ponds to see if there is flexibility in the timing of maintenance works. 5)The county/municipalities should continue to support the Southwestern Ontario Ortho- Imagery Project (SWOOP), or other similar partnerships, to obtain updated digital aerial photography on a regular basis. The County should update the vegetation layers (including unevaluated wetlands) as new ortho-imagery becomes available, approximately every 5 years. The natural heritage systems model of the ENHSS should be re-run with the updated vegetation layers to assess vegetation cover changes every five years. The ENHSS modeling criteria (Criteria 1 to 13) should be re-visited at 10 year intervals to confirm and/or update the science. 6)The watercourse layer should be updated to ensure that smaller watercourses are accurately delineated and categorized to distinguish them from other features such as swales and enclosed drains. Note: Notwithstanding the current state of the water course mapping layer shown in this study, all open watercourses are considered to be potential fish habitat and should be screened for at the site level as part of any development application. All open watercourses are considered part of the aquatic system, however, this study focuses on the terrestrial system. 5.0 Recommendations ENHSS 2018 86 139 MixedwoodlandonsteepvalleylandinWestElgin.PhotobyCathyQuinlan. 5.0 Recommendations ENHSS 2018 87 140 Agriculture Canada and Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1992. Best Management Practices: Farm Forestry and Habitat Management. Archibald, Kevin M., Jeffrey J. Buler, Jaclyn A. Smolinsky, and Robert J. Smith (2017) Migrating Birds Reorient toward Land at Dawn over the Great Lakes, USA. The Auk: Ornithological Advances, Volume 134. DOI: 10.1642/AUK-16-123.1 Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s Birds: Lessons from Landscape Ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 320 pp. Askins, R.A., and M.J. Philbrick. 1987. “Effects of changes in regional forest abundance on the decline and recovery of a forest bird community.” Wilson Bulletin 99: 7-21. Baguette, M., and H. Van Dyck. 2007. “Landscape connectivity and animal behaviour: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal.” Landscape Ecology 22: 1117 – 1129. Banaszak, J. 1996. “Ecological bases of conservation of wild bees.” Pages 55–62 in A. Matheson, S. Buchamann, C. O’Toole, P. Westrich, and I. Williams, editors. The conservation of bees. Academic Press, London, UK. Bender, D.J., T.A. Contreras and L. Fahrig. 1998. “Habitat loss and population decline: a meta- analysis of the patch size effect.” Ecology 79(2): 517-533. Bennett, A.F. 2003. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 254 pp. Bosch, J. and M. Hewlett. 1982. “A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration.” Journal of Hydrology 55: 3-23. Bowles, J.M. 1993.Ecological model of the Lake Middlesex shoreline terrestrial ecosystems. Maitland Valley Conservation Authority. 74pp. Bowles, J. 1997. Oxford County Terrestrial Ecosystems Study: Life Sciences Report. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, London, Ontario. Bowles, J.M., T.D. Schwan, D. Kenny, N. Gaetz, and R. Steele. 2000. Maitland Valley Conservation Authority Forest Resource Assessment. 70pp. + maps Brussard, P.F., D.A. Charlet and D. Dobkin. 1999. “The Great basin – Mojave desert region.” In: Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett-Haecker and P.D. Doran (eds.). The status and trends of the nation’s biological resources. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: pp. 505-542. Budd, W.W., P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. “Stream corridor management in the Pacific Northwest: determination of stream corridor widths.” Environmental Management 11(5): 587-597. Burgess, R.L., and D.M. Sharpe. (eds.). 1981.Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Burke, D.M. and E. Nol. 2000. “Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of forest-breeding birds in Ontario.” Ecological Applications 10:1749-1761. Burke, D.M., K. Elliot, K. Falk and T. Piraino. 2011. A Land Managers Guide to Conserving Habitat for Forest Birds in Southern Ontario. MNR Science and Information Resources Division. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. MNR # 52508. ISBN: 978-1-4435-0097-5. References ENHSS 2018 88 141 Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA). 1991. Framework for Developing a Nation-wide System of Ecological Areas. CCEA Systems Plan Task Force report. 12pp. Cain, M.L., B.G. Milligan and A.E. Strand. 2000. “Long-distance seed dispersal in plant populations.” American Journal of Botany 87(9): 1217- 1227. Cain, M. L., H. Damman, and A. Muir. 1998. “Seed dispersal and the Holocene migration of woodland herbs.” Ecological Monographs 68: 325–347. Cane, J. H. 2001. “Habitat fragmentation and native bees: a premature verdict?” Conservation Ecology 5: 3. Carolinian Canada. 1993. Significant Natural Areas of Elgin County, Ontario 1985-1986. Edited by Jane M. Bowles, Michael J. Oldham and Rose Kinkenberg. Carolinian Canada Coalition. 2012. Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan. Report Posted at: https://ontarionature.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ELGIN-GREENWAY- CONSERVATION-ACTION-PLAN_Aug-2012.pdf Carter, N. 2000.Predicting internal conservation value of woodlots in south western Ontario using landscape features. 4th year honours thesis. Department of Plant Sciences. University of Western Ontario. 41pp. + Appendices. Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. “Wetland and stream buffer size requirements – a review.”Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878 – 882. Chandler, R.B., D.I. King, and C.C. Chandler. 2009. “Effects of management regime on the abundance and nest survival of shrub land birds in wildlife openings in northern New England, USA.” Forest Ecology and Management 258:1669-1676. Chen, J., J.F. Franklin and T.A. Spies. 1995. “Growing Season Microclimate Gradients from Clear cut Edges into Old-growth Douglas-Fir Forests.” Ecological Applications 5:74-86. City of London. 2006. Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands. Approved by Council June 26, 2006. Conservation Ontario. 2011. Guide to Developing Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards. Corace, R.G. III, P.C. Goebel, and T.C. Wyse. 2009. A Multi-scale Assessment and Evaluation of Historic Open Lands at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Vol. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GLKN/NRTR?2009/150 Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service. County of Huron. 2013 (Draft). Huron County Natural Heritage Study. Project management by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. County of Lambton, City of Sarnia, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, Carolinian Canada Coalition, and North-South Environmental Inc. 2012 (Draft). Lambton County Natural Heritage Study. County of Middlesex and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2003. Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (MNHS): A natural heritages study to identify significant woodland patches in Middlesex County. 41 pps. + Appendixes. (also referenced under UTRCA) County of Middlesex. 2014. Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study: A study to identify natural heritage systems in Middlesex County. Project management by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with Middlesex County Conservation Authorities. References ENHSS 2018 89 142 County of Oxford. 2006. Oxford Natural Heritage Study. www.county.oxford.on.ca County of Oxford. 2016. Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study: A study to identify natural heritage systems in Oxford County. Project management by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with Oxford County Conservation Authorities. County of Perth. 2008. Perth County Official Plan. http://www.perthcounty.ca/County_of_Perth_Official_Plan Cunningham, R.B., D.B. Lindenmayer, M. Crane, D. Michael, C. MacGregor, R. Montague-Drake and J. Fischer. 2008. “The combined effects of remnant vegetation and tree planting on farmland birds.” Conservation Biology. 22:742–752. Curtis, J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Davis, N.B. 1978. “Territorial defense in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegenia): the resident always wins.” Anim. Behav. 26: 138-147 Davis, S.K. 2004. “Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan.” Auk 121: 1130 – 1145. Dillon Consulting Ltd. and D.R. Poulton and Associates. 2011. The City of London Thames Valley Corridor Plan. Donaldson, J., I. Nanni, C. Zachariades, J. Kemper and J. D. Thompson. 2002. “Effects of habitat fragmentation on pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in renosterveld shrublands of South Africa.” Conservation Biology 16:1267–1276. Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2010. Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion Analysis – Final Report. 23pp. + Appendices Environment Canada. 2013. How Much Habitat is Enough? Third Edition. Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Elgin Stewardship Council. 2005. Elgin Landscape Strategy: Identifying and Prioritizing Stewardship Options in Elgin County. Written by Bill Thompson, Project Directors Kit Brown and Mark Emery. Excerpt posted at: https://caroliniancanada.ca/legacy/Publications/elgin_Final_version_070726.pdf Etmanski, A., and R. Schroth. 1980. An inventory of gully erosion problems along the Lake Middlesex shoreline. Maitland Valley Conservation Authority. 77pp. Experimental Farm Service. 1952. Soil map of Middlesex County, Ontario. Soil Survey Report No. 13. Compiled, drawn, and published by the Experimental Farm Service from base maps supplied by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa. Filyk, G. 1993. “Agricultural stewardship.” In: Marczyk, J.S., and D.B. Johnson (eds.). 1993. Sustainable Landscapes.Proceedings of the Third symposium of the Canadian Society for Landscape Ecology and Management. Polyscience Publications, Morin Heights, Canada. Pp. 37 - 43. Findlay, S. and J. Houlahan, 1997. “Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in south eastern Ontario wetlands.”Conservation Biology 11(4):1000-1009. First Base Solutions. 2007. Selected Vector Compilation. Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA). Markham, Ontario. References ENHSS 2018 90 143 Fischer, R. A. and J. C. Fischenich. 2000. Design recommendations for riparian corridors and vegetated buffer strips. EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-24). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr24.pdf Fitzgibbon, C.D. 1997. “Small mammals in farm woodlands: the effects of habitat, isolation and surrounding land-use. “ Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 530-539. Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Halloway, E.A. Howard, C.J. Kucharik, C. Manfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, and P.K. Snyder. 2005. “Global consequences of land use.” Science 309:570–574. Forman, R.T.T. 1995a.Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, New York. Forman, R. T. T. 1995b. “Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology.” Landscape Ecology 10(3):133-142. Forman, R.T.T. 1995c. “Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology.” Landscape Ecology 10(3):2-9. Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Friesen, L.E., Wyatt, V.E. and M.D. Cadman. 1999. “Pairing success of wood thrushes in a fragmented agricultural landscape.” Wilson-Bulletin 11(2): 279-281. Golet, F.C. 1976. “Wildlife Wetland Evaluation Model.” Models for the Evaluation of Freshwater Wetlands. J.S. Larson (ed.). Water Resources Research Centre, University of Massachusetts. Pp. 13 – 34. Griffiths, R.W. 2001. Mapping the water quality of watercourses in the Region of Halton. Planning and Public Works, Regional Municipality of Halton. Hamill, S. 2001. Biodiversity Indicators for Woodland Owners. Prepared for Canadian Biodiversity Institute and eastern Ontario Model Forest. 23pp. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London, UK. Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Harris, L.D., and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. “New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement corridors.” In: Defense of Wildlife, Preserving Communities and Corridors. Washington, D.C. Defenders of Wildlife. Herkert, J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4:461-71. Hey, D.L., and J.A. Wickencamp. 1996. “Effects of wetlands on modulating hydrologic regimes in nine Wisconsin watersheds.”The Wetlands Initiative. Chicago, Illinois. Hilts, S.G., and F.S. Cook. 1982.Significant Natural Areas of Middlesex County. Hobbs, J. and D. McGrath. 1998. A Guide to Multifunctional Hedgerows in Western Oregon. Horn, D.J. and R.R. Koford. 2004. “Could the area-sensitivity of some grassland birds be affected by landscape composition?” Proceedings of the 19th North American Prairie Conferences. pp. 109 – 116. References ENHSS 2018 91 144 Houlahan, J.E. and S.C. Findlay. 2003. “The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60(9):1078-1094. Hounsell, S.W. 1989. Methods for assessing the sensitivity of forest birds and their habitats to transmission line disturbances. Land Use and Environmental Planning Department. Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario. Howard, J. and M. Merrifield. 2010. “Mapping Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in California. “PLOS One: 5(6): e11249. Howe, H. F., and J. Smallwood. 1982. “Ecology of seed dispersal.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics13: 201–228. Humke, J.W., B.S. Tindall, R.E. Jenkins, H.L. Wietung, and M.S. Lukowski. 1975. The Preservation of Natural Diversity: A Survey and Recommendations. The (US) Nature Conservancy. Igl, L.D., and D.H. Johnson. 1997. “Changes in breeding bird populations in North Dakota: 1967 to 1992-93.” Auk 114: 74-92. Jalava, J.V., P.J. Sorrill, J. Henson and K. Brodribb. 2000. “The Big Picture Project: Developing a natural heritage vision for Canada’s southernmost ecological region.” Science and Management of Protected Areas Association (SAMPAA), Conference Proceedings. 12 pp. Johnson, D.H. 2001. “Habitat fragmentation effects on birds in grasslands and wetlands: A critique of our knowledge.” Great Plains Research 11: 211- 231. Published by the Center for Great Plains Studies. Johnson, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Nieme. 1990. “The cumulative effects of wetlands on stream quality and quantity, a landscape approach.” Biogeochemistry, Vol. 10 (3): 105 – 141. Junk, W.J., P.B. Bayley and R.E. Sparks. 1989. “The flood pulse concept in river floodplain systems.” Pp. 110-127. In: D.P. Dodge (ed.). Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci.106. King, D.I., Degraaf, R.M., and C.R. Griffin. 2001. “Productivity of early-successional shrub land birds in clear cuts and group cuts in an eastern deciduous forest.” Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 345 – 350. King, D.I. and B.E. Byers. 2002. “An evaluation of power line rights-of-way as habitat for early- successional shrub land birds.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 868-874. King, D.I., R.B. Chandler, J.M. Collins, W.R. Petersen, and T.E. Lautzenheiser. 2009. “Habitat use and nest success of scrubland birds in wildlife and silvicultural openings in western Massachusetts, U.S.A.” Forest Ecology and Management 257:421 – 426. Kohm, K.A., and J.F. Franklin (eds.). 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Larson, B.M., J.L. Riley, E.A. Snell and H.G. Godschalk. 1999. The Woodland Heritage of Southern Ontario: A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 262pp. Lederhouse, Robert C. 1982. “Territorial defense and lek behavior of the black swallowtail butterfly, Papilio polyxenes. “ Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 10 (2): 109-118 References ENHSS 2018 92 145 Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, South-Central Science section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Lesica, P. and F.W. Allendorf. 1995. “When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation?“ Conservation Biology 9(4):753-760. Levenson, J.B. 1981. “Woodlots as biogeographical islands in south eastern Wisconsin.” Pp. 13-14 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe (eds.). Forest Island Dynamics in Man- dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag. 310 pp. Lindenmayer, D.B, J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach (Island Press, Washington, DC). Lomolino, M.V. and R. Channell. 1995. “Splendid Isolation: Patterns of Geographic Range Collapse in Endangered Mammals.” Journal of Mammalogy 76:335-347. Lovett, G.M., C.G. Jones, M.G. Turner, K.C. Weathers, J.F. Franklin. 2005. (In): Ecosystem Function in Heterogeneous Landscapes, (eds) Lovett, G.M., C.G. Jones, M.G. Turner, K.C. Weathers, (Springer, New York), pp 427–441. Lovett-Doust, J., M. Biernacki, R. Page, M. Chan, R. Natgunarajah and G. Timis. 2003. “Effects of Land Ownership and Landscape-level Factors on Rare-species Richness in Natural Areas of Southern Ontario, Canada.” Landscape Ecology 18:621-633. Lovett-Doust, J. and K. Kuntz. 2001. “Land ownership and other landscape-level effects on biodiversity in southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, Canada.” Landscape Ecology 16:743-755. MacKay, H. 2006. “Protection and management of groundwater-dependent ecosystems: emerging challenges and potential approaches for policy and management.” Australian Journal of Botany. 54: 231-237. Manning, A.D., D.B. Lindenmayer, H.A. Nix. 2004. “Continua and Umwelt: Novel perspectives on viewing landscapes.” Oikos 104:621–628. Marini, M.A., S.K. Robinson, and E.J. Heske. 1995. “Edge effects on nest predation in the Shawnee National Forest, Southern Illinois.” Biological Conservation 74:203-213. Matlack G.R. 1993. “Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States.” Biological Conservation 66:185-194. Mazerolle, M.H. and M.A. Villard. 1999. “Patch characteristics and landscape context as predicators of species presence and abundance: A review.” Ecoscience 6:117-124. McCracken, J.D., R.A. Reid, R.B. Renfrew, B. Frei, J.V. Jalava, A. Cowie, and A.R. Couturier. 2013. Recovery Strategy for the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. viii + 88 pp. Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Middlesex County – see County of Middlesex Mitchell, L.R., C.R. Smith, and R.A. Malecki. 2000. Ecology of grassland breeding birds in the Northeastern United States: A literature review with recommendations for management. USGS, Biological Resources Division, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. References ENHSS 2018 93 146 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. 50p. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2000a. Identification and Confirmation Procedure for Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Parks and Protected Areas Policy. Procedure PAM 2.08 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2000b. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151p. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2004. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS). Image Interpretation Manual. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. 2nd edition. 233pp. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregional Criteria Schedules. EBR # 011-5740 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern th ed. Manual Covering Hills Site Regions 6 and 7. 4 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E. MNR http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at- risk/mnr_sar_ghd_est_mdwlrk_en.pdf Mooney, P.F. 1993. “Structure and connectivity as measures of sustainability in agro ecosystems.” In: Marczyk, J.S., and D.B. Johnson (eds.). 1993. Sustainable Landscapes. Proceedings of the Third symposium of the Canadian Society for Landscape Ecology and Management. Polyscience Publications, Morin Heights, Canada. pp. 13 – 25. Moudrak, N., Hutter, A.M., Feltmate, B. 2017. “When the Big Storms Hit: The Role of Wetlands to Limit Urban and Rural Flood Damage.” Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, University of Waterloo. Naiman, R.J., H. Dé camps, and M.Pollock. 1993. “The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity.” Ecological Applications 3:209-212. Nathan, R., G.G. Katul, H.S. Horn, S.M. Thomas, R. Oren, R. Avissars, S.W. Pacala, and S. Levin. 2002. “Mechanisms of long-distance dispersal of seeds by wind.” Nature 418: 409 – 413. Niemi, G.J., and J.R. Probst. 1990. “Wildlife and fire in the upper Midwest.” Pages 31-46 IN: J.M. Sweeney (ed.). Management of Dynamic Ecosystems. The Wildlife Society. Lafayette, IN. Oehler, J.D., D.F. Covell, S. Capel, and B. Long (eds.). 2006. Managing Grasslands, Shrublands and Young Forest Habitats for Wildlife: A Guide for the Northeast. The Northeast Upland Habitat Technical Committee and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Ochterski, J. 2006a.Transforming Fields into Grassland Bird Habitat. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schuyler County, NY. SCNY Agriculture Team Natural Resources. Ochterski, J. 2006b. Hayfield Management and Grassland Bird Conservation. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Shuyler County, NY. 8 p. Ontario Nature. 2014. Best Practices Guide to Natural Heritage Systems Planning. Oxford County – see County of Oxford Packett, D.L. and J.B. Dunning. 2009. “Stopover habitat selection by migrant landbirds in a fragmented forest-agricultural landscape.” The Auk 126: 579-589. References ENHSS 2018 94 147 Peterjohn, B.G., and J.R. Sauer. 1999. “Population status of North American grassland birds from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, 1966-1996.” Studies in Avian Biology 19: 27- 44. Peterson, E.B. and N.M. Peterson. 1991. A First Approximation of Principles and Criteria to make Canada’s Protected Areas System representative of the Nation’s Ecological Diversity. Western Ecological Services Ltd., Victoria, BC. Report for the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. 47pp. + app. Prugh, L.R., K.E. Hodges, R.E. Sinclair, J.S. Brashares. 2008. “Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775. Ribic, C.A., and D.W. Sample. 2001. “Associations of grassland birds with landscape factors in southern Wisconsin.” American Midland Naturalist 146: 105-121. Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario's Settled Landscapes: A review of Conservation Biology and Restoration Ecology for Land use and Landscape Planning. MNR, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR-001. 78pp. Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell. 1989. “Habitat area requirements of breeding birds of the middle Atlantic states.” Wildlife Monographs, Vol. 103. 34 pp. Rodewald, A.D. 2003. “The importance of land uses within the landscape matrix.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 31 (2): 586 – 592. Rodewald, A.D. & A.C. Vitz. 2005. “Edge- and area-sensitivity of shrub land birds.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2): 681-688. Sandilands, A.P., and S.W. Hounsell. 1994. “The effects of 5000kV transmission facilities on forest birds in two wetland forest systems in southern Ontario: Testing for the edge effect.” In: Snodgrass, W.J. (ed.).Wetland Impacts Workshop. Grand River Conservation Authority. Cambridge, Ontario. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 – 2000. Version 2001.2. U.S. Geological Survey, Pawtuxet Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Schiefele, G.W., and G. Mulamoottil. 1987. “Predictive models applicable to Ontario’s wetland evaluation system.” Pp. 267 – 273 in C.D.A. Rubec and R.P. Overend (eds.). Symposium ’87 Wetlands / Peatlands. Edmonton, Alberta. Environment Canada. 704pp. Schlossberg, S.R., and D.I. King. 2008. “Are shrub land birds edge specialists?” Ecological Applications 18:1325-1330. Schwartz, M.W. 1999. “Choosing an appropriate scale for conservation reserves.” Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 30: 83-108. Sisk, T.,N.M. Haddad, P.R. Ehrlich. 1997. “Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: Modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats.” Ecol Appl 7:1170–1180. Soulé, M.E. and J. Terborgh. 1999. “Conserving nature at regional and continental scales – a scientific program for North America.” Bioscience 49: 809-817. Steedman, R.J. 1987. Comparative analysis of stream degradation and rehabilitation in the Toronto area. PhD thesis. University of Toronto. Sutherland, G. D., A. S. Harestad, K. Price, and K. P. Lertzman. 2000. “Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals.” Conservation Ecology 4(1): 16. \[online\] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art16/ References ENHSS 2018 95 148 Swanson, D.L., Dean, K.L., Carlisle, H.A. and E.T. Liknes. 2005. Riparian and Woodlot Landscape Patterns and Migration of Neotropical Migrants in Riparian Forests of Eastern South Dakota. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Theberge, John B. 1989. Legacy: The Natural History of Ontario. Article by Gerald McKeating, The Erie Sand Spits: Long Point, Rondeau and Point Pelee, page 222. Tufford, D.L., H.N. McKellar, and J.R. Hussey. 1998. “In-stream non-point source nutrient prediction with land-use proximity and seasonality.” Journal of Environmental Quality 27: 100-111. Turner, M.G., and R.H. Gardner (eds). 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape heterogeneity. Springer-verlag, New York, New York. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2003. The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (MNHS): A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County. 41pps. + Appendices. UTRCA. 2012. Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards. USDA and Wildlife Habitat Council. 2000. Butterflies (Order: Lepidoptera). Fish & Wildlife Habitat management leaflet. No. 15. 12 pp. Villard, M.A., M.K. Trzcinski and G. Merriam. 1999. “Fragmentation effects on forest birds: Relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy.” Conservation Biology 13(4):774-783. Weathers, K.C., Cadenasso, M.L. and S.T.A. Pickett. 2001. “Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies and the atmosphere.” Conservation Biology 15(6): 1506-1514. Wegner, J.F., and G. Merriam. 1979. “Movements by birds and small mammals between a woodland and adjoining farmland habitats.” Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 349-357. Wetzel, R.G. 2001. “Fundamental processes within natural and constructed wetland ecosystems: Short-term verses long-term objectives.” Water Science and Technology Vol 44 (11-12): 1-8. Weyrauch, S.L. and T.C. Grubb. 2004. “Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: an information-theoretic approach.” Biological Conservation 115: 443-450. Willson, M. F. 1993. “Dispersal mode, seed shadows, and colonization patterns.” Vegetation 107/108: 261–280. Winter, M., D.H. Johnson, J.A. Shaffer, T.M. Donovan, and W.D. Svedarsky. 2006. “Patch size and landscape effects on density and nesting success of grassland birds.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(1): 158 – 172. References ENHSS 2018 96 149 ANSI Area of Natural and Scientific Interest CA Conservation Authority CCCA Catfish Creek Conservation Authority COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSSARO Committee on the Status of Species At Risk in Ontario DEM Digital Elevation Model DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans EIS Environmental Impact Study ELC Ecological Land Classification EO Element Occurrence ESA Environmentally Significant Areas FEFLOW Finite Element Subsurface FLOW System (software package for modeling fluid flow) GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems GIS Geographic Information System HVA Highly Vulnerable Aquifer IRS Indian Remote Sensing ISI Intrinsic Susceptibility Index IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KCCA Kettle Creek Conservation Authority LPRCA Long Point Region Conservation Authority LTVCA Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority MECP Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks MMU Minimal Mapping Unit MNHS Middlesex Natural Heritage Study MNHSS Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study NHIC Natural Heritage Information Centre NHRM Natural Heritage Reference Manual NHS Natural Heritage System NRVIS Natural Resource Value Information System OBM Ontario Base Mapping OMAFRA Ontario Ministry of Agriculture ,Food and Rural Affairs ONHS Oxford Natural Heritage Study ONHSS Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study MMAH Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing MNR Ministry of Natural Resources MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ONHSS Oxford Natural Heritage Systems Study OWES Ontario Wetland Evaluation System PNHSS Perth Natural Heritage Systems Study PPS Provincial Policy Statement SAR Species At Risk SOLRIS Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System List of Acronyms ENHSS 2018 97 150 SWH Significant Wildlife Habitat SWHTG Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide SWOOP South West Ontario Ortho Photography SWP Source water Protection USDA United States Department of Agriculture UTRCA Upper Thames River Conservation Authority List of Acronyms ENHSS 2018 98 151 Appendices ENHSS 2018 99 152 FOC – Coniferous Forest FOD – Deciduous Forest FOM – Mixed Forest CUP – Cultural Plantation TPW – Tallgrass Woodland CUT – Cultural Thicket CUW – Cultural Woodland TPO – Open Tallgrass Prairie CUM – Cultural Meadow BBO – Open Beach / Bar BBS – Shrub Beach / Bar BBT – Treed Beach / Bar BLO – Open Bluff BLS – Shrub Bluff BLT – Treed Bluff CLO – Open Cliff CLS – Shrub Cliff CLT – Treed Cliff TAO – Open Talus TAS – Shrub Talus TAT – Treed Talus SWC – Coniferous Swamp SWD – Deciduous Swamp SWM – Mixed Swamp SWT – Thicket Swamp FET – Treed Fen FES – Shrub Fen BOT – Treed Bog BOS – Shrub Bog FEO – Open Fen BOO – Open Bog MAM – Meadow Marsh MAS – Shallow Marsh SAS – Submerged Shallow Aquatic SAM – Mixed Shallow Aquatic SAF – Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic OAO – Open Aquatic Source: Lee et al, 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Appendices ENHSS 2018 100 153 Vegetation CommunityVegetation Groups ELCVegetation Community Series ENHSSVegetation Group Veg. Group Code Definition Definition (Ecosystem) SWC, SWD >25% tree or shrub cover; SWM >20% standing water; Woodland >20% standing water; (Wetland) >25% tree or shrub >60% tree cover; CUP >20% standing water; 1 linear edge; FOC, FOD >60% Tree cover FOM Woodland >60% Tree cover >60% tree cover (Terrestrial) <20% standing water CUP < 20% standing water; 1 linear edge TPW 35-60% tree cover Thicket 25-60% tree/shrub cover; CUT <25% Tree cover; >25% shrub cover (Terrestrial) <20% standing water CUW, TPW 35-60% tree cover <25% tree cover; >25% hydrophytic SWT shrub cover FET 20-25% tree cover 10-25% tree cover or Thicket <10% tree cover and FES <10% tree cover; >25% shrub cover (Wetland) >25% shrub cover; >20% standing water BOT 10-25% tree cover BOS <10% tree cover; >25% shrub cover TPOMeadow<10% tree cover and <25% tree cover; <25% shrub cover CUM(Terrestrial) <25% shrub cover FEO <10% tree cover; <25% shrub cover <10% tree cover and BOO <25% shrub cover; Meadow MAM located in wetland as <25% tree cover; <25% shrub cover (Wetland) MAS defined in Section 2.2.2.1 SAS, SAM below No tree cover; >25% macrophytes SAF Water Feature OAO No vegetation; open water No vegetation; open water (Aquatic) BBO, BBS <60% tree cover; along shorelines BBT BLO Watercourse <10% tree cover; <60% tree cover; BLS Bluff and on active or steep near vertical surfaces on naturally active sites BLT Depositional such as shorelines, steep CLO, CLS <60% tree cover; Area slopes and base of cliffs CLT on steep near vertical surfaces (Terrestrial) TAO, TAS <60% tree cover; on slopes of rock TAT rubble at base of cliffs *Note: Connected Vegetation Group can be made up trees and shrubs Appendices ENHSS 2018 101 154 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Evaluated Wetlands The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry evaluates wetlands based on the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Southern Manual (MNR 2013). Sites are evaluated in the field, mapped, and then scored based on field data, hydrology and use. Since evaluated wetlands have been mapped during site visits, they can be smaller than 0.5 ha and are retained as part of the natural heritage system. In some cases, Conservation Authority staff found the perimeter of the evaluated wetland did not match the natural heritage feature boundary on the latest orthoimagery and so boundary amendments were made. It should be noted that this may have resulted in extending or decreasing the wetland beyond the boundary approved under OWES at the time of the evaluation. For policy decisions, the approved wetland boundary should be referenced. Recognizing that wetlands are dynamic, an Environmental Impact Study be completed to determine the accurate wetland boundary using the OWES (MNR 2013). The OWES uses an open file system where files can be amended as new information becomes available. MNRF is the approval authority on Significant Wetlands so any changes to the boundaries must be approved by the MNRF. Appendices ENHSS 2018 102 155 The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) began identifying unevaluated wetlands in 2006 in an attempt to consolidate information and map the numerous wetlands that were not part of the evaluated wetland layer of MNR to better represent natural features in the watersheds. These wetland areas were identified for the generic regulations using the following desk-top procedure: i. Wetland indicators: a.Historic Forest Cover -- historic forest cover information collected in the 1950s and 1960s by teams of foresters who examined every woodlot in the watershed and characterized dominant cover types. Identify areas associated with wetland species (e.g., Silver Maple, Black Ash, cedar, White Elm, and Tamarack). b. Soils -- organic and clay soils (wetland soils) using OMAF soils maps. c.Elevation -- areas in depressions or lower elevations using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). d. Groundwater -- discharge areas as defined in the Six CA Groundwater Model Study, July 2008, and recharge areas as defined as Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas from the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region, Upper Thames River Source Protection Area, Assessment Report, Approved, September 16, 2015. e.Proximity -- areas within 120 m of an MNRF evaluated wetland since 120 m is the distance at which adjacent lands may have an impact on a wetland. ii. Overlay the indicators to determine possible wetland areas. The more indicators that overlap, the more likely there is a wetland in that area. iii. Compare the areas delineated by overlaying the wetland indicators to an aerial photo interpretation of wetland areas where wetness is indicated by color (dark), texture (granular), and canopy cover (sparse or spotty). Areas that matched were identified as unevaluated wetlands. Note: Several other Conservation Authorities use similar methods in mapping unevaluated wetlands within their jurisdictions. Appendices ENHSS 2018 103 156 Vegetation Group #Scientific Rationale Application Criteria Vegetation on valley lands Any Vegetation prevents erosion, improve water Vegetation Group on valley land Group within or 1holding capacity that ensures defined using 3:1 slope or 100m from touching a significant regeneration of vegetation, and centerline of watercourse. valleyland encourages wildlife movement. Vegetation along the Lake Erie shoreline is crucial for migrating To map the shoreline zone, a polygon Any Vegetation birds as resting and feeding areas. was created from the top of bluff to 1 Group within 100 m 2The western section is an km out into the lake. The bluff itself of the Shoreline Important Bird Area. Vegetation is too narrow to map. The shoreline Zone near the bluff also provides some is over 80 km long in Elgin County. erosion protection. Any Vegetation Group located within Pre-determined by MNR using five or touching a Life 3 Recognized ANSIs are a logical evaluation selection criteria: Science ANSI (Area foundation on which to design a representation, condition, diversity, of Natural and natural heritage system.other ecological considerations, and Scientific Interest) special features. (provincial and regional) Relationship between water course and vegetation is interactive whereby vegetation AllVegetation Groups within 30 m Any Vegetation along watercourses improves from the edge of an open watercourse 4 Group located within water quality for aquatic (defined as the bank-full width if 30 m of an open Vegetation Ecosystems through greater than 20m wide, or a defined reduction in soil erosion and input channel visible on the aerial watercourse of nutrients; while the photography if less than 20m wide). watercourse attracts animals and acts as a corridor. Wetlands have disproportionately been removed from the landscape of southern Ontario. Some of their important functions are to The wetland layer was derived from All evaluated and maintain the hydrological regime the MNRF evaluated wetland unevaluated wetlandof the surrounding area by mapping layer, as well as the 5 Vegetation Group dampening water peaks in the unevaluated wetland layers 0.5 ha gullies, reduce the potential for developed by the UTRCA for this erosion and provide critical study. breeding and overwintering habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Appendices ENHSS 2018 104 157 Habitat size is one of the most important measures for sustaining Any woodland stable, diverse and viable All woodland vegetation groups 6populations of wildlife species. Vegetation Group 4 ha meet this criterion. In a highly fragmented landscape, 4 ha the definition of a “large sized” woodland can be relatively small. Any Woodland All woodland less than 1 ha within Vegetation GroupThe < 100 m distance is based on 100 m of a 4 ha woodland, 7average seed dispersal distances within 100 m of a regardless of what land use surrounds in the literature. 4 ha Woodland them, meet this criterion. Vegetation Group Larger thickets are better if managing to enhance the long- term survival of a variety of Any ThicketThickets 2 ha meet this criterion. wildlife. Large thickets >2 ha are 8They are relatively rare in Perth Vegetation Group relatively rare in Perth County, County 2 ha in size yet thickets of at least 10 ha in size are required for uncommon species (Oehler et al. 2006). The amount of native meadow habitat has declined drastically throughout North America. Grassland birds are of special concern since they have suffered Any Meadow more serious population declines All meadows 5 ha meet this 9 Vegetation Group than any other group of birds. criterion. 5 ha in size Johnson (2001) demonstrated a preference for large grassland Vegetation Groups by a number of grassland bird species, irrespective of territory size. Meadow butterfly habitat must be considered in context with the Any Meadow surrounding range of habitats. Vegetation GroupUsing the average distance of 10 All meadows within 100 m of a within 100 m of a wind dispersed seeds as a 4 ha woodland or 2 ha thicket 4 ha Woodland or conservative estimate, all meet this criterion. 2 ha Thicketmeadows found within 100 m of a Vegetation Grouplarge shrub land or woodland were identified meeting this criterion. Appendices ENHSS 2018 105 158 Any Vegetation AllVegetation Patches containing a Patch that contains Criterion 10 is really a summary 11 Vegetation Group that has been aVegetation Group of Criteria 1 through 9. identified as significant. identified as significant Any Vegetation TheVegetation Patch was identified Patch that contains a The number of Vegetation as significant if it either contained diversity of Communities in a Vegetation more than one Vegetation 12 Vegetation Patch is a measure of habitat and Ecosystem, or more than two Communities, species diversity. Vegetation Groups, or more than Ecosystems or threeVegetation Communities. Groups Local landscapes that include large natural areas linked to the regional landscape mosaic by a Any Vegetation network of smaller interacting AllVegetation Patches within 100m Patch within 100 m natural areas and corridors, offers of a significant Vegetation Patch, 13 of a Vegetation Patch the highest probability of regardless of what land use surrounds that meet Criteria 11 maintaining overall ecological them, are identified. or 12 above integrity. The < 100 m distance is based on average seed dispersal distances in the literature. Appendices ENHSS 2018 106 159 Use in Other Natural Heritage Criteria Rationale for Not Including Studies* ONHS 2006: largest patch on each landform and each soil type LCNHS 2013: largest patch on slope of 10% or greater and largest patch on each 1. Best representative landform and each soil type This is redundant as the Life Science ANSI uses Vegetation Patch on COL 2006: patch contains either: this criterion, even though it is done at a different landform physiography and -> 1 ecosite in 1 Community series scale (i.e., by site district rather than by county). soil type OR -> 2 vegetation types OR -> 1 topographic feature OR -1 vegetation type with inclusions/ complexes COL 2006: patch located on either 2.Located on a distinctive, -Beach Ridge Definition of a distinctive, unusual or high quality unusual or high quality -Sand Plain landform is subjective. -Till Plain landform -Till Moraine The ENHSS identifies Vegetation Patches on Significant valleylands as ecologically important ONHS 2006: patches on valley lands and recommend that other land uses on valley lands HCNHS 2013: patches on or < 100m 3.All areas (both vegetated (e.g., agriculture, golf courses, etc.) be considered from landform features andnon-vegetated) on: as special policy areas with limitations on further -dunes, -Valley lands development to maintain valley land connectivity. -shore bluffs, -Gullies Gullies not used because they require field level -gullies, -within 30 m of limestone -valley lands, surveys to map; it is an important feature in Huron outcroppings -within 30m of limestone County by the Lake shoreline outcroppings Limestone outcroppings are not mapped at this time. Definition of a watercourse, both cold and warm, includes an additional area immediately adjacent to the water (in proportion to the size of the 4.AllVegetation Patcheswatercourse feature) and therefore it is not found alongside a coldwater necessary to include additional lands for protection watercourse or watercourse (e.g.,Vegetation Patches 30 m from edge) Non vegetated setbacks from watercourses can containing Brook Trout be restricted using other official plan and zoning plan policies. Questions remain: Is this sensitive information? How easy is it to determine coldwater streams? Are they already identified? When shape metrics are used, often very small and COL 2006: has perimeter to area ratio 5.Shape ofVegetation PatchroundVegetation Patches are selected over larger 2 <3.0 m/m Vegetation Patches. Appendices ENHSS 2018 107 160 Criteria Rationale for Not Including Use in Other Natural Heritage Studies* MNHS 2003: woodland < 750m from This is redundant as other adjacency 6.Adjacent to a MNRF evaluated recognized feature. rules have these features incorporated wetland or life science ANSI ONHS 2006: < 150m of non-wetland into them. feature 7.Contains an area identified in The natural heritage systems studies the local official plans e.g. Local use modern landscape parameters. ONHS 2006: Local OP designated habitats ESAs (Environmentally Verification that the old ESAs are Significant Areas) identified in the being identified as locally important 1970s or 1980s. will occur. LCNHS 2013: > 0.5 ha woodland with either - -unique species composition, -cover type, -age, and -structure. COL 2006: woodland with either – No field work or site visits are being -mid to old age community, or conducted for this landscape study, so -tree size > 50 cm DBH, or it is not possible to evaluate the 8.Unique Intrinsic -> 16 m2/ha for trees >25 cm DBH, or intrinsic or site specific Characteristics (i.e., site level) -> 12 m2 / ha for trees > 10 cm DBH, or characteristics of Vegetation Patches -All diameter class sizes represented or at this fine scale. -community with MCC > 4.1, or -patch MCC > 3.9, or -> 1 community in good condition or -Community with SRANK > S4 or - > 1 northern / specialized habitat / tree / shrub species or -> 2 Carolinian tree / shrub species 9.Distance from development Difficult to evaluate. Too complex COL 2006: > 7% vegetation cover within 2 (e.g., permanent infrastructure and for this study.km radius from woodland centroid buildings) or matrix A natural feature that persists through time is not necessarily more important or significant. However, it LCNHS 2013: > 0.5 ha woodland with 10.Persistenceor Threatened is interesting to compare 2006 to high economic or social value 2010 aerial photography to see what the trends are and why. The aim of the PNHSS is to identify MNHS 2003: woodland on porous soils important biological natural heritage COL 2006: patch on either- features, not to protect the ground -25% slope any soil 11.Porous or erodible soils water system. -Remnant slope ->10% to <25% on clay, silty clay Appendices ENHSS 2018 108 161 Use in Other Natural Heritage Criteria Rationale for Not Including Studies* 12.Vegetation Patch contains a large sized wetland defined as: Wooded wetlands > 4 ha based on Env. HCNHS 2013: either - Canada -4 ha wooded wetland Wetland meadows and marshes > 10ha The PNHSS has identified all -10ha wetland meadow or based on Env. Canada wetlands0.5 ha (MMU) as marsh ecologically important, regardless -2.5ha wetland shrubland Small wetland meadows and marshes of size or type. adjacent to other Vegetation Communities COL 2006: woodland contains or may be vital to butterflies th contiguous to a wetland Wetland thicket size determined by top 75 percentile distribution cutoff of all county wetland thicket sizes 13.Vegetation Patch contains a wetland that iswithin 1,000m of another wetland; distance based on S. Ont. Wetland Evaluation ONHS 2006: < 750 m from Manual where wetlands are scored based on PNHSS 2016 has identified all wetland their proximity to another wetland (Section wetlands0.5 ha (MMU) as HCNHS 2013: < 1000 m from 1.2.4) and receive points if they are within 1 ecologically important. wetland km of another wetland. The 750m is for delineating wetland boundaries, not scoring wetlands. Regional rarity was once tracked by MNR Aylmer but no longer. ONHS 2006: contains rare species Data is difficult to find and COL 2006: Contains either: confirm. Neither MNRF Aylmer 14.Vegetation Patch contains a recently Rare tree / shrub nor NHIC have retained or observed (post 1980) Regionally Rare Plant digitized the historic data. Rare herbaceous Presently, no agency is Regionally rare plant responsible for ensuring the data is being updated and monitored for change in status Appendices ENHSS 2018 109 162 Use in Other Natural Heritage Criteria Rationale for Not Including Studies* Although studies have shown that most shrub land birds avoid edges (Schlossberg and King 2008) and experience lower nesting success 15.Vegetation Patch contains near edges (King et al. 2001, King and Byers 2003, King et al. 2009b), there is not a thicket with interior consistent definition of edge habitat. Rather, the size of a shrub land is used as a proxy measure of edge habitat. Biodiversity planning requires an understanding of uncommon Vegetation Communities in terms of their distribution on significant/important areas. However, the 16.Vegetation Patch on an presence of an ES ANSI does not mean there Earth Science ANSI that are unique Vegetation Community features that contributes to the presence of are resulting from the characteristics of the an uncommon Vegetation Earth Science ANSI. Soils have more of an Community influence on vegetation than deeper features. Uncommon Vegetation Communities are not usually identifiable from ortho-imagery. Field level analysis would be needed. Carolinian Canada’s Big Picture has been accepted as a planning tool when no other landscape level studies were complete. Many of the rules used to identify Carolinian Corridors on the larger landscape (SW Ont) MNHS 2003: woodland within have been incorporated in the PNHSS criteria, recognized corridor but refined for the smaller County scale (e.g., COL 2006: woodlands connected by valley land definition layer and proximity either – criteria). -Watercourses The Big Picture corridors incorporate areas -Gaps < 40m 17.Carolinian Canada Big that are not vegetated at present, as part of a -Recognized corridors restoration plan. The PNHSS captures only Picture Corridors -Abandoned rail and utility vegetated natural heritage patches, not lines farmland or other lands that could be restored -Open space greenways and or naturalized. golf courses Picking corridors at a larger scale is -Active agriculture or pasture somewhat arbitrary. It is proposed that more current science and mapping be used to delineate corridors. Recommend as a followup step to the PNHSS or deal with it when there is a landuse change. MNHS 2003: has interior >100 m from edge No patches were picked up with this criteria ONHS 2006: has interior >100 m from edge that were not already picked up by other 18.Interior woodland criteria, therefore redundant. This criteria was HCNHS 2013: has interior > 0.5 ha habitat that is 0.5 ha in size used in the past when the woodland size cutoff that is > 100 m from edge of continuous habitat of 10 ha (i.e., woodlands 4-10 ha that had LCNHS 2013: has interior >100 m interior were picked up).from edge COL 2006: : has interior >100 m from edge Appendices ENHSS 2018 110 163 Use in Other Natural Criteria Rationale for Not Including Heritage Studies* Includes plants, Vegetation Communities, birds, mammals, herptofaunal (frogs, toads, salamanders, turtles and snakes). Rare or uncommon species can be indicators of unusual and rare habitat and are often used to guide conservation strategies (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, Lomolino and Channell 1995). Table 3-4 in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010) recognizes species rarity as an ecological function, and habitats that contain rare species are more valuable. MNR recommends that this be restricted to END and THR. SAR have their own legislation for protection and an EIS needs to consider their presence 19.Species at Risk This is not a criterion for the following reasons: -This is a landscape study rather than an intrinsic characteristics study and there is not a complete inventory -The absence of a species does not mean that suitable habitat or conditions are not present -Areas with END or THR species are already protected in the SAR Act while IUCN S1 – S3 are considered under SWH -Mapping limitations of the past limit accuracy in identifying locations. New species are added to the SAR over time. These areas are not mapped currently but it is recommended that they be mapped as they are identified through site studies on the landscape and reported to the MNR and the appropriate Conservation Authority. Natural Heritage Studies Referenced above COL City of London (City of London, 2006) evaluation of woodlands, cutoffs based on medium to high rankings HCNHS Huron County Natural Heritage Study (County of Huron, 2013 Draft) based on more complete natural heritage system mapping and no field work LCHNS Lambton County Natural Heritage Study (County of Lambton et al., 2012 Draft) based only on woodlands and field work MNHS Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (UTRCA, 2003) based only on woodlands and field work ONHS Oxford Natural Heritage Study (County of Oxford, 2006) based on woodlands, floodplain meadows, watercourses and dated fieldwork Perth Perth County Official Plan Amendment #47 (County of Perth Official Plan. 2008. Section 11.5.5) regarding minimal woodland size Appendices ENHSS 2018 111 164 The following Information describes the feature classes (layers) and fields that are associated with criteria section of the report. The feature classes are being delivered in a file geodatabase format (name). Naming Convention A naming convention is being followed that should make data easy to understand and follow. Table 1 describes short forms used for Groups: Group Type Short Form Woodland WDL Meadow MDW Thicket THK Wetland WTL Connecting Features CNF Waterbody WBY Table 2 describes short forms used for Patch: PatchShort Form Patch PTC Table 3 describes how the level of information are defined. Level of Detail Detail Field provides criteria of the individual group CR Field provides supporting information that may INF be important to the group Study Area Features Mapping was completed beyond the Elgin County boundary and study limits. The features (Communities, Groups and Patches) that were included in the study are represented by the “Study_Area” field in most layer. Field Name (Included in most layers) Short Form Study_Area 0 =Not included in mapping and study calculations 1= Included in mapping and study calculations Populated data and Field Structure Field names are generally named in the following manner “Short Form”_”Detail”_Description (eg. Woodland_Criteria_Greater Than 1ha is WDL_CR_GT1ha) Group, Patch and Information fields are short integers fields and are populated with 1 or 0, 0=Not applicable or 1=Applicable – See table below “Short Form”_”CR”_Total– are short integers fields that indicate the total number of criteria met within the individual group Appendices ENHSS 2018 112 165 Table 4 provides field descriptions and field names within each group and patch feature class. It also provides information of what values are populated. Feature Name and Field Description Field Name Value Group_Woodland_Cluster Within valley land WDL_CR_Valleyland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within 100m of the Lakeshore Bluff WDL_CR_Shoreline_100 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within Life Science ANSI WDL_CR_ANSI0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Group within 30m of Watercourse WDL_CR_Watercourse 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any Woodland or Woodland Cluster >4ha WDL_CR_GT4ha 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any Woodland within 100m of a Woodland WDL_CR_100m_GT4ha 0= Not applicable, Cluster > 4ha1=applicable Number of Significant Woodland Criteria Met WDL_CR_Total 0 = Not applicable >0=Applicable Wetland within Woodland WDL_INF_Wetland0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Individual Woodland or Woodland within WDL_INF_Interior 0= Not applicable, Cluster has Interior 1=applicable 1. Defines if a feature meets a group and WDL_INF_Ecological_Level 1. Group and System system feature (meets one or more group Ecological Important criteria)2. System Ecological 2. Defined if only meets a system criteria (is Important part of feature within the patch that meets 3. Candidate for patch criteria other than Group Woodland Ecological Important Criteria, does not include 1 above or 3 below) 3. Defines features that do not meet a group or system criteria. Does not include 1 or 2 above. Require further study beyond landscape level. 1. Defines if a feature meets a group and WDL_INF_Ecological_Status 1. Significant system feature (meets one or more group Ecologically criteria) and meets Provincial Policy Statement Important (PPS) as Significant. 2. Ecological 2. Defined if only meets a system criteria (is Important part of feature within the patch that meets 3. Candidate for patch criteria other than Group Woodland Ecological Important Criteria, does not include 1 above or 3 below). Recognized as part of the overall heritage system as defined by PPS but does not fall under level as significant. 3. Defines features that do not meet a group or system criteria. Does not include 1 or 2 above. Require further study beyond landscape level. Appendices ENHSS 2018 113 166 Group_Meadow_Cluster Within valley land MDW_CR_Valleyland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within 100m of the Lakeshore Bluff MDW_CR_Shoreline_100 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within Life Science ANSI MDW_CR_ANSI0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Group within 30m of Watercourse MDW_CR_Watercourse 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any Meadow or Meadow Cluster >5ha MDW_CR_5ha 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any Meadow within 100m of a 4ha Woodland MDW_CR_Proximity 0= Not applicable, or 2ha Thicket 1=applicable Number of Meadow Significant Criteria Met MDW_CR_Total 0 = Not applicable >0=Applicable Wetland within Meadow WDW_INF_Wetland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any Meadow or Meadow Cluster >10ha MDW_INF_10ha 1. Defines if a feature meets a group and system MDW_INF_Ecological_Level 1. Group and System feature (meets one or more group criteria) Ecological Important 2. Defines if only meets a system criteria (is part 2. System Ecological of feature within the patch that meets patch Important criteria other than Group Meadow Criteria, does 3. Candidate for not include 1 above or 3 below) Ecological Important 3. Defines features that do not meet a group or system criteria. Does not include 1 or 2 above. Require further study beyond landscape level. Group_Thicket_Cluster Within valley land THK_CR_Valleyland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within 100m of the Lakeshore Bluff THK_CR_Shoreline_100 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable With Life Science ANSI THK_CR_ANSI0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Group within 30m of Watercourse THK_CR_Watercourse 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any Thicket or Thicket Group >2ha THK_CR_GT2 ha 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Number of Significant Thicket Criteria Met THK_CR_Total 0 = Not applicable >0=Applicable Wetland within Thicket THK_INF_Wetland0= Not applicable, 1=applicable 1.Defines if a feature meets a group and system THK_INF_Ecological_Level 1. Group and System feature (meets one or more group criteria) Ecological Important 2.Defined if only meets a system criteria (is part 2. System Ecological of feature within the patch that meets patch Important criteria other than Group Thicket Criteria, does 3. Candidate for not include 1 above or 3 below) Ecological Important 3. Defines features that do not meet a group or system criteria. Does not include 1 or 2 above. Require further study beyond landscape level. Appendices ENHSS 2018 114 167 Group_Wetland Within valley land WTL_CR_Valleyland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within 100m of the Lakeshore Bluff WTL_CR_Shoreline_100 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable With Life Science ANSI WTL_CR_ANSI0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Group within 30m of Watercourse WTL_CR_Watercourse 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Any wetland >0.5 ha or Provincial Evaluated WTL_CR_Wetland 0 = Not applicable Wetland>0=Applicable Number of Significant Wetland Criteria MetWTL_CR_Total >0=applicable Group_Connected_Feature Within valley land CNF_CR_Valleyland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within 100m of the Lakeshore Bluff CNF_CR_Shoreline_100 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable With Life Science ANSI CNF_CR_ANSI0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Group within 30m of Watercourse CNF_CR_Watercourse 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Number of Connecting Features Significant CNF_CR_Total 0 = Not applicable Criteria Met >0=Applicable Wetland within Connecting Feature CNF_INF_Wetland0= Not applicable, 1=applicable 1. Defines if a feature meets a group and system CNF_INF_Ecological_Level 1. Group and System feature (meets one or more group criteria) Ecological Important 2. Defines if only meets a system criteria (is part 2. System Ecological of feature within the patch that meets patch Important criteria other than Group Connected Vegetation 3. Candidate for Criteria, does not include 1 above or 3 below) Ecological Important 3. Defines features that do not meet a group or system criteria. Does not include 1 or 2 above. Require further study beyond landscape level. Group_Waterbody Within valley land WBY_CR_Valleyland 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Within 100m of the Lakeshore Bluff WBY_CR_Shoreline_100 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable With Life Science ANSI WBY_CR_ANSI0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Group within 30m of Watercourse WBY_CR_Watercourse 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Number of Waterbody Significant Criteria MetWBY_CR_Total 0 = Not applicable >0=Applicable Appendices ENHSS 2018 115 168 1. Defines if a feature meets a group and WBY_INF_Ecological_Level 1. Group and System system feature (meets one or more group Ecological Important criteria)2. System Ecological 2. Defined if only meets a system criteria (is Important part of feature within the patch that meets 3. Candidate for patch criteria other than Group WBY Criteria, Ecological Important does not include 1 above or 3 below) 3. Defines features that do not meet a group or system criteria. Does not include 1 or 2 above. Require further study beyond landscape level. Elgin_NH_Patch_2015_Cluster Patch contains at least one group significant PTC_CR_Group 0= Not applicable, from field list below (see field descriptions 1=applicable below in Patch Information) MDW_CR_Significant- patch meets a criteria THK_CR_Significant - patch meets a criteria WDL_CR_Significant- patch meets a criteria WTL_CR_Significant- patch meets a criteria CNF_CR_Significant- patch meets a criteria WBY_ CR_Significant- patch meets a criteria Vegetation Communities PTC_CR_Diversity 0= Not applicable, I) Patch contains more than one 1=applicable vegetation system, or ii) Patch contains more than two vegetation groups, or iii) Patch contains more than three vegetation communities Other patches that are within 100m of a PTC_CR_Proximity 0= Not applicable, patches that meet either/both a Group or Patch 1=applicable Diversity criteria Number of Patch Criteria Met PTC_CR_Total0= Not applicable, >0=Applicable Patch Information Patch contains a Woodland Group criteria WDL_CR_Signficant 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Patch contains a Meadow Group criteriaMDW_CR_Signficant 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Patch contains a Thicket Group criteria THK_CR_Signficant 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Patch contains a Wetland Group criteria WTL_CR_Signficant 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Patch contains a Connecting Feature Group CNF_CR_Signficant 0= Not applicable, criteria1=applicable Patch contains a Waterbody Group criteria WBY_CR_Signficant 0= Not applicable, 1=applicable Number of Group and Patch Criteria each PTC_Group_CR_Totals 0 -10 Patch meets (including, Valley, ANSI, Shoreline, Watercourse) Appendices ENHSS 2018 116 169 The following information describes the feature classes (layers) and field names within the Study data. Naming Convention Table 1 describes short forms used for Groups: Group Type Short Form Woodland WDL Meadow MDW Thicket THK Wetland WTL Connecting Features CNF Waterbody WBY Table 2 describes short forms used for Patch: PatchShort Form Patch PTC Table 3 describes how the level of information are defined. Level of Detail Detail Field provides criteria of the individual group CR Field provides supporting information that may INF be important to the group Study Area Features Mapping was completed beyond the Elgin County boundary and study limits. The features (Communities, Groups and Patches) that were included in the study are represented by the “Study Area” field in most layer. Field Name (Note: in most layers) Short Form Study_Area 0 =Not included in mapping and study calculations 1= Included in mapping and study calculations Appendices ENHSS 2018 117 170 Elgin_NHSS_Community_(Date) The community feature class consists of all community features that allow them to be dissolved into individual Groups or create the overall Patch Feature Class. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to the community or group/patch type and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Visible bluff or Deposition areas have been mapped but not all features can be defined so they have not been mapped as a group. Field Name TypeParameters NH_Community_ Text Bluff or Deposition, Coniferous, Deciduous, Connected Vegetation Type_2015 Feature, Meadow Marsh, Meadow Upland, Mixed, Plantation Mature, Plantation Young, Thicket, Water Body, Watercourse Status Text Present 2015 - Feature is present on 2015 NH_Woodland Short 0, 1 NH_Meadow Short 0, 1 NH_Thicket Short 0, 1 NH_Wetland Short 0,1 NH_Water Short 0, 1 NH_Connecting_ Short 0 ,1 Features Vegetation_Group Text Bluff or Deposition Area, Connected Vegetation Feature, Meadow, Meadow and Wetland*, Thicket, Thicket and Wetland*, Water, Water and Wetland*, Woodland, Woodland and Wetland* * included in both groups Vegetation_Ecosystem Text Aquatic, Wetland, Terrestrial Upland WTL_Defined_By Text MNR PSW Text 0,1 ELC_CODE Text Bluff or Deposition Area (BBO), Connecting Vegetation Feature (NA), Meadow (CUM), Meadow and Wetland (MAM), Thicket and Plantation Young(CUT), Thicket and Wetland, Plantation Young and Wetland (SWT), Water (OAO), Woodland Conifer ( FOC), Deciduous (FOD), Mixed (FOM), Mature Plantation (CUP) Woodland Conifer Swamp (SWC), and Wetland Deciduous Swamp (SWD), Mixed Swamp (SWM) Plantation Swamp (CUT) Study_Area Short 0,1 Appendices ENHSS 2018 118 171 Group Woodland This feature class was created by exporting woodlands from the Elgin_NH_Community_”Date” feature class. Using values equal to one in the NH_Woodland field, data was exported to a new feature class and all communities were dissolved using the NH_Woodlands field equal to one to create a seamless polygon woodlands feature class. The woodlands less than 0.5 ha were then deleted using the Shape Area Field to create the Group_Woodland feature class. This feature class was then used to establish the Woodland Cluster Feature Class (see below) and perform the interior forest calculation. Group_Woodland_Cluster This feature class was created from the Group_Woodland Feature Class. The values in the WDL_Cluster_ID field were merged to create multipart features which act as a single woodland polygon. This feature class supports the criteria information for the woodland group. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to criteria or information and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Field Name TypeParameters WDL_Cluster_ID Short Unique Value, values over 6000 have been clustered WDL_CR_Valleyland Short 0, 1 WDL_CR_Shoreline_100 Short 0, 1 WDL_CR_ANSI Short 0, 1 WDL_CR_Watercourse Short 0, 1 WDL_CR_GT_4ha Short 0, 1 WDL_CR_GT_4ha_100m Short 0, 1 WDL_INF_Wetland Short 0, 1 WDL_INF_Interior Short 0, 1 WDL_CR_Total Short 0 to 7 Study_Area Short 0,1 Appendices ENHSS 2018 119 172 Group Meadow This feature class was created by exporting meadows from the Elgin_NH_Community_”Date” feature class. Using values equal to one in the NH_Meadow field, data was exported to a new feature class and all communities were dissolved using the NH_Meadow field equal to one to create a seamless polygon meadow feature class. The Meadows less than 0.5 ha were then deleted using the Shape Area Field to create the Group_Meadow Feature Class. This feature class was then used to establish the Meadow Cluster Feature Class (see below). Group_Meadow_Cluster This feature class was created from the Group_Meadow feature class. The values in the MDW_Cluster_ID field were merged to create multipart features which act as a single meadow polygon. This feature class supports the criteria information for the meadow group. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to criteria or information and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Field Name TypeParameters MDW_ClusterShort Unique Value, values over 6000 have been clustered MDW_CR_Valleyland Short 0, 1 MDW_CR_Shoreline_100 Short 0, 1 MDW_CR_ANSI Short 0, 1 MDW_CR_Watercourse Short 0, 1 MDW_CR_GT_5ha Short 0, 1 MDW_CR_Proximity Short 0, 1 MDW_INF_Wetland Short 0, 1 MDW_CR_Total Short 0 - 7 Study_Area Short 0,1 Appendices ENHSS 2018 120 173 Group Thicket This feature class was created by exporting Thickets from the Elgin_NH_Community_”Date” feature class. Using values equal to one in the NH_Thicket field, data was exported to a new feature class and all communities were dissolved using the NH_Thicket field equal to one to create a seamless polygon Thicket Feature Class. The Thickets less than 0.5 ha were then deleted using the Shape Area Field to create the Group_Thicket Feature Class. This feature class was then used to establish the Group Thicket Cluster Feature Class (see below). Group_Thicket_Cluster This feature class was created from the Group_Thicket feature class. The values in the THK_Cluster_ID field were merged to create multipart features which act as a single Thicket polygon. This feature class support the criteria information for the Thicket group. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to criteria or information and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Field Name TypeParameters Unique_Cluster Short Unique Value, values over 6000 have been clustered THK_CR_Valleyland Short 0, 1 THK_CR_Shoreline_100 Short 0, 1 THK_CR_ANSI Short 0, 1 THK_CR_Watercourse Short 0, 1 THK_CR_GT_2ha Short 0, 1 THK_INF_Wetland Short 0, 1 THK_CR_Total Short 0 - 6 Study_Area Short 0,1 Group Wetland_Source This feature class was created by exporting Wetlands from the Perth_NH_Community_2015 Feature Class. Using values equal to one in the NH_Wetland field, data was exported to a new feature class and all communities were dissolved using the Wetland field equal to one to create a seamless polygon Wetland feature class. All wetlands that were identified are included in this layer. The Wetland_Group field identifies wetlands that are used to be identified as significant (greater than 0.5 ha or evaluated), where zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Field Name TypeParameters WTL_Defined_By Text MNRF-County-Unevaluated, MNRF Unevaluated Other, MNRF-Evaluated Provincial, UTRCA- Unevaluated, UTRCA for LPRCA-Unevaluated Group_Wetland Short 0, 1 Appendices ENHSS 2018 121 174 Group Wetland This feature class was created from the Group Wetland_allfeature class. The values equal to 1 in the Group Wetland field were selected and features were exported to a new layer Group Wetland. This feature class supports the criteria information for the wetland group. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to criteria or information and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Feature Class Field Name TypeParameters Group_Wetland WTL_CR_Valleyland Short 0, 1 WTL_CR_Shoreline_100Short 0,1 WTL_CR_ANSI Short 0,1 WTL_CR_Watercourse Short 0,1 WTL_CR_Wetland Short 0,1 WTL_CR_Total Short 1 to 5 Study_Area Short 0,1 Group Connected Vegetation Features all This Feature Class was created by exporting Connected Vegetation Features from the Perth_NH_Community_2015 Feature Class. Using values equal to one in the NH_ Connected_Featues field, data was exported to a new Feature Class and all communities were dissolved using the NH_Connecting_Features field equal to one to create a seamless polygon Group_Connected_Features, Feature Class. Feature Class Field Name TypeParameters Group_Connecting_Features_all Connecting_FeatureShort 0, 1 Study_Area Short 0,1 Group Connected Vegetation Features This feature class was created from the Group_Connected_Feature_all, feature class. The values >0.5ha in shape field were exported to a new feature class. This feature class support the criteria information for the Connected Vegetation Feature group. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to criteria or information and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Field Name TypeParameters CNF_CR_Valleyland Short 0, 1 CNF_CR_Shoreline_100 Short 0, 1 CNF_CR_ANSI Short 0, 1 CNF_CR_Watercourse Short 0, 1 CNF_INF_Wetland Short 0, 1 CNF_CR_Total Short 0 to 5 Study_Area Short 0,1 Appendices ENHSS 2018 122 175 Group_Waterbody_All This feature class was created by exporting Group_Waterbody_All from the Elgin_NH_Community_2015 Feature Class. Using values equal to one in the NH_Water field, data was exported to a new Feature Class and all communities were dissolved using the NH_Water field equal to one to create a seamless polygon Waterbody feature class. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to the Information being provided and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Group _Waterbody This feature class was created from the Group_Waterbody_all feature class. The values in the >0.5ha in shape field were exported to a new feature class. This feature class support the criteria information for the Waterbody group. Zero in the field indicates that it is not applicable to criteria or information and 1 indicates that it is applicable. Field Name TypeParameters WBY_CR_Valleyland Short 0, 1 WBY_CR_Shoreline_100 Short 0, 1 WBY_CR_ANSI Short 0, 1 WBY_CR_Watercourse Short 0, 1 WBY_CR_Total Short 0 to 4 Study_Area Short 0,1 Valley_Shoreline_Landform Valley Land data was created according to description in report. This layer represents the major valley areas within the County. The shoreline is defined using SWOOP 2015, estimated from top of bluff to 1 km into the lake. Field Name TypeParameters CA Text Kettle Creek, Catfish Creek, Long Point Region, Lower Thames Valley Landform Text Valley Landform, Great Lakes Bluff and Deposition (Shoreline Zone) Appendices ENHSS 2018 123 176 Elgin_NH_Patch_2015_Cluster Elgin_NH_Patch_2015 Cluster feature class was created from Elgin_NHSS_Community_”Date” feature class. All communities were dissolved using the Patch Field that is equal to 1. Field Name TypeParameters Unique_ ID Short Unique Value, values over 6000 have been clustered WDL_Cr_Significant Short 0, 1 MDW_Cr_Significant Short 0, 1 THK_Cr_Significant Short 0, 1 WTL_Cr_Significant Short 0, 1 WBY_Cr_Significant Short 0,1 CNF_Cr_Significant Short 0, 1 PTC_CR_Group Short 0, 1 PTC_CR_Diversity Short 0, 1 PTC_CR_Proximity Short 0 ,1 PTC_CR_Total Short 0, 1, 2 DIV_Community_Total Short 0 to 15 DIV_Group_Total Short 0 to 6 DIV_Ecosystem Short 0 to 3 PTC_INF_GT_100ha Short 0, 1 PTC_Group_CR_Total Short 0 to 11 Study_Area Short 0,1 Appendices ENHSS 2018 124 177 Appendices ENHSS 2018 125 178 Appendices ENHSS 2018 126 179 Appendices ENHSS 2018 127 180 Vegetation Groups Appendices ENHSS 2018 128 181 Appendices ENHSS 2018 129 182 Appendices ENHSS 2018 130 183 Appendices ENHSS 2018 131 184 Appendices ENHSS 2018 132 185 Appendices ENHSS 2018 133 186 Appendices ENHSS 2018 134 187 Appendices ENHSS 2018 135 188 Appendices ENHSS 2018 136 189 Appendices ENHSS 2018 137 190 Appendices ENHSS 2018 138 191 Appendices ENHSS 2018 139 192 Appendices ENHSS 2018 140 193 Appendices ENHSS 2018 141 194 Appendices ENHSS 2018 142 195 Appendices ENHSS 2018 143 196 Appendices ENHSS 2018 144 197 Appendices ENHSS 2018 145 198 Appendices ENHSS 2018 146 199 Appendices ENHSS 2018 147 200 Appendices ENHSS 2018 148 201 Appendices ENHSS 2018 149 202 Appendices ENHSS 2018 150 203 Appendices ENHSS 2018 151 204 Appendices ENHSS 2018 152 205 Appendices ENHSS 2018 153 206 Appendices ENHSS 2018 154 207 Appendices ENHSS 2018 155 208 Appendices ENHSS 2018 156 209 Appendices ENHSS 2018 157 210 There are natural features and areas that are important but that cannot be mapped at the GIS level or modelled, but instead must be identified at the site-level (e.g., during an EIS). Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR 2010) describes four categories of significant wildlife habitat: Seasonal concentrations of animals Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat for wildlife (includes IUCN S1-S3) Habitat of species of conservation concern (not including Endangered or Threatened species) Animal movement corridors Criteria for Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) are provided by MNRF in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR 2000b) and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010). More detailed guidelines for evaluating habitat within Ecoregions 6E and 7E, including thresholds of number of species that designate an area as a SWH, have been provided in the January 2015 Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E and 7E (MNRF 2015). The MNRF also recommends that the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) class S1- S3 species be considered under Significant Wildlife Habitat. Identification of this habitat can occur through field studies conducted through EISs or other field studies/inventories, and then reported to the MNRF. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and Wetlands (GDEW) Groundwater is not only an important water source to meet human consumptive needs, it also plays a critical role in supporting many ecosystems. However, the policies and regulations that protect groundwater for human consumption may not necessarily protect Groundwater-Dependent Wetlands (GDWs), a vital yet poorly understood sub-set of the natural environment (Howard and Merrifield 2010). GDWs are ecosystems that require access to groundwater to maintain their communities of plants and animals, ecological processes and ecosystem services. Typical examples of these systems are springs, seeps, fens and perched groundwater wetlands. In all of these systems, terrestrial vegetation interacts with the groundwater. Recognizing that the chemical composition of groundwater is closely related to the type of bedrock and surficial deposits through which it has moved, the groundwater contributes water and nutrients to maintain a rich and unique biodiversity adjusted to these special conditions (Howard and Merrifield 2010). There has not been a great deal of study or conservation planning around groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Consequently, there is much that needs to be learned about these ecosystems. The increasing demand for groundwater resources due to the combined pressures of development, a variable climate, and a growing population threatens these ecosystems (Brussard et al. 1999, MacKay 2006). The availability of surface water to meet consumptive needs has declined and the pressure on groundwater resources is growing. GDWs are threatened by the alteration of the quality or quantity of groundwater discharge resulting from development in groundwater recharge areas and by heavy machinery either in the GDW itself or in its immediate vicinity. Heavy Appendices ENHSS 2018 158 211 machinery can create deep ruts that destroy the vegetation, alter the hydrology, and disturb resident amphibian species that spend their adult lives in or near water. According to the NHRM (MNR 2010), woodlands should be considered significant if they are located within, or a specific distance from, a sensitive groundwater discharge area (e.g., springs, seepage slopes). Groundwater discharge is evident at the seep margin and provides a constant supply of water to the seep community, with flows at many seeps persisting even through the driest summer months. As a result of the continuous soil saturation, thin surface organic layers are generally present over saturated mineral soils. Currently, areas of groundwater release tend to be small occurrences (i.e., not picked up by aerial photography). Groundwater ecosystems can be classified by their geomorphic setting (aquatic or terrestrial) and associated groundwater flow mechanism (deep or shallow). On this basis, Howard and Merrifield (2010) identified three groundwater dependent ecosystem types: springs and seeps, wetland ecosystems, and groundwater dependent streams. Watercourse Bluff and Deposition Areas Steep slopes, cliffs, valley bluffs, gravel bars and beaches are similar to upturned sections of earth and can create unique natural features for specialized assemblages of plants and animals. Bluffs found along rivers can be devoid of life due to the arid conditions or full of rare and fragile plant life that grow sporadically along different soil layers. Bluffs of steep river banks are formed by river erosion on the outside of a meander. Erosion can also be the result of ground water movement and surface runoff. Bluffs can provide prime nesting quarters for all sorts of birds, including an assortment of swallows, Belted Kingfishers and Turkey Vultures. The Bank Swallow that nests along naturally eroding slopes of streams, rivers, and lakes, has undergone significant population declines throughout Canada. In Ontario, Bank Swallows have declined at a rate of 4.7% annually over the last 40 years based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the precise mechanisms driving the declines are unknown, the size and longevity of Bank Swallow colonies is dependent on bank erosion, which determines suitable nesting habitat. Declines are generally thought to be a consequence of habitat loss, changes in food source (i.e., aerial insects), and threats during migration or on the wintering grounds. Depositional areas include gravel bars and beaches that form in watercourses where water flow is slower (e.g., inside river meander), allowing soil, sand and gravel to settle out of the water column. These features, while often small in scale, are prime nesting sites for turtles, especially Snapping Turtles and Spiny Softshell turtles. Bars and beaches can be unvegetated or support early successional plants, depending on how recent there has been flooding and re-shaping of the feature. Proposed development along watercourses would require approval from the Conservation Authority. As part of the permit process an EIS may be required. Appendices ENHSS 2018 159 212 Conceptual diagram representing coastal and hinterland types. Hinterland landforms begin 100 m from top of bank. The diagram was prepared for the Huron Natural Heritage Plan (2018 draft). Appendices ENHSS 2018 160 213 Members of the Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee Elgin County Staff Consultant Team – Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 1 214 September 11, 2018: Project Kick-Off Meeting 2 215 December 6, 2018: Ecological Criteria and other Technical Components 3 216 as per th April 9, 2019: Joint Steering Committee and Project Team Meeting Section 5.1 Planning Recommendations Section 5.2 Other Implementation Measures 4 217 5 218 per se 6 219 7 220 221 222 223 Police Services Act 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 o o o 238 o o o 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 2019 Town Crier’s Report To Council th , 2019 – Lorne Spicer funeral – Keystone, Shedden March 29 th May 25, 2019 – 741 Air Cadets – Parkside Collegiate – St Thomas st June 1, 2019 – Edisonfest – Vienna, Bayham Note:Town Crier Dave Phillips partnered with Mayor Ed Ketchabaw of Bayham to defeat MPP Jeff Yurek and partner in the Cross Cut Log Sawing Competition. At the Grand Re-Opening of the Village Crier Gallery, Dutton, Dave challenged all dignitaries to attend and participate in the competition. Town Crier Dave & Mayor Ketchabaw will defend their title. It is important to support each other’s community events and help promote them where we can. th , 2019 – A ceremony was held to mark the identification of a pilot that went down June 5 in a plane from the Fingal Bomb and Gunnery School during WWII. An official from Ottawa, other dignitaries and service men from the Trenton Air Force Base attended along with the Legion colour party. A new head stone was unveiled on the WW II D Day anniversary atFairview Cemetery – Currie Rd., Dutton Dunwich th , 2019 – Annual Port Stanley Artists’ Guild Reception & Show - Port Stanley June 8 Legion th June 8, 2019 - Rosy Rhubarb - Shedden th, June 9 2019 - Rosy Rhubarb - Shedden nd June 22, 2019 – Backus Page House Museum - Wallacetown st July 1, 2019 - Canada DayCeremony & Parade –Port Burwell st July 1, 2019 - Canada Day Ceremony - Dutton st July 1, 2019 - Canada Day Ceremony and Fireworks - Aylmer th September 14 2019 – Ploughing Days at Glanworth – A vast display of antique and modern tractors, demonstrations and exhibits as well as a Fish Fry and Live Music. All funds raised were split between the Belmont Lions Club and the St. Thomas – Elgin General Hospital th September 25, 2019 – Village Crier Grand Re-Opening – This marked Town Crier Dave’s thirtieth year as Town Crier for the municipality of Dutton Dunwich and his many years as Town Crier for the County of Elgin. To mark the occasion Town Crier Dave walked the main street crying messages for the local merchants as he did for several years when he first became a crier. 1 269 2019 Town Crier’s Report To Council th , 2019 – VillageCrier Gallery Grand Re-Opening – Dignitaries’ September 26 Reception – Dutton. This event was also to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the Village Crier Gallery, 194 Currie Rd., Dutton th September 26, 2019 – After 30 years of service IDA Pharmacy, Currie Rd. Dutton employee Deb Armstrong has retired. A party and Open house were held in her honour and Debwasalso surprised by a visit from the Town Crier who proclaimed the news to a large street audience. th September 27, 2019 – Proclamation Down Town Dutton for listing the various locations of Culture Dayevents in Dutton Dunwich. th September 28, 2019 – – Proclamation Down Town Dutton for the various locations of Culture Day events in Dutton Dunwich. th , 2019 - Town Crier Dave and his wife Jenny were in communication with a October 18 retired professor from Trinity Elder College an affiliate of Windsor university. Prof. John Lloyd-Brown brought a small bus load of seniors to Elgin County to familiarize themselves with the area so they could later come on their own and do an in depth visit. The Town Crier waved the bus to a parking spot in front of the Village Crier Gallery and did a greeting cry for the visitors. They had spent the morning and lunch in and around Port Stanley, then visited the Iona Earth Works, Backus page House museum, outside Lawrence Station were a plane had gone crashed years ago, then on the Galbraith monument, the VC Gallery, Butter Milk Bog where we arranged for Naturalist Marg Hulls to speak about the bog and the types of unique trees planted there. They were running late and didn’t have time to visit Rodney’s tiny jail. They will be back in 2020 with a fresh crew of senior students from Elder College - Windsor rd , 2019 – Remembrance Day Service - Shedden November 3 th November 10, 2019 –Remembrance Day Evening Service – Dutton th November 16, 2019 - Santa Claus Parade – Dutton November 22, 2019 – Town Crier Dave was pleased and honoured to read a proclamation at Warden Duncan McPhail’s banquet in the CASO Station Dining Room, Talbot St., St. Thomas. 2 270 2019 Town Crier’s Report To Council A reminder to new and old council: If you wish to have the services of the Town Crier at your event you must send him a request/invitation. Criers only go where they are invited. David may be reached at 519-762-2862 or by email to jennyphillips@golden.net. Jenny looks after all Dave’s bookings and makes sure he arrives at the proper place and time. 2020 we hope to travel and maybe take in the Ontario Guild of Town Criers Competition but that all depends on weather and health. Thanks to all for your support. Dave Phillips official Town Crier for the municipality of Dutton Dunwich and the County of Elgin. 3 271 PARTNERSHIP REPORT BACK AGREEMENT FOR DISASTER RESPONSE SERVICES ST.THOMAS-ELGIN Dec 1 2018- Dec 1 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CRC). We are serving hundreds of thousands of people in Canada and around the world. Last year we assisted more than 130,000 people recovering from disasters in Canada. The following report summarizes key achievements in Year Two of our partnership with the City of St. Thomas and Elgin County from Dec 1, 2018 to Dec 1, 2019. The reporting period is organized in accordance with the areas of focus outlined in the agreement and aligned with the goals within our Operational Plan. There is a focus on Response and Deployments, Personnel Updates, Training and Engagement Opportunities, Community Preparedness Work, and Systems from both a national/provincial and local perspective. 272 RESPONSE AND DEPLOYMENTS CRC responded to a significant number of both small and large-scale emergencies across Canada the past year. Across Ontario, the Red Cross responded to 666 Personal Disaster Assistance (PDA) calls and a number of large scale disasters including the 2019 Ottawa and area floods, Northern ON forest fire and flood evacuations, and large multi-unit apartment fire responses in the Toronto area. One of the main strengths of our organization is the ability to deploy in teams and resources from across the province in order to execute service delivery plans (see infographic below) when a disaster strikes in your community. Level 1 (Personal Disaster Assistance) Responses: In this reporting period, the Personal Disaster Assistance (PDA) program in St. Thomas-Elgin responded to 9 emergencies and provided direct assistance to 39 residents. The number of responses for this reporting period is an increase of 66% over the previous year. Assistance included emergency lodging, food, clothing, and hygiene items. 26 Red Cross responders contributed 56 hours. The St. Thomas-Elgin team also was on standby for 4 additional emergencies. Although teams were stood down, the Red Cross had mobilized human and material resources to respond and support any resulting response. Level 2+ Responses: In this reporting period, there were 0 Level 2 or above responses. 273 COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS WORK Exercises: In this reporting period, the CRC participated in 1 external exercise in partnership with City of St. Thomas and Elgin County. As a result of the exercise, the Red Cross was able to increase awareness amongst attendees, including key Emergency Management stakeholders, about the role of the CRC in times of disaster and the various ways we support those impacted by emergencies. Moving ahead, CRC will continue to assist in the planning and conduct of any tabletop or field exercises hosted by City of St. Thomas and/or Elgin County. Shelter Surveys: In the early part of 2020, shelter survey updates will be conducted for the Belmont Arena and East Elgin Community Complex sites. Stocks and Materials/Supply Management : In the past few years, the Canadian Red Cross has strategically positioned 50 person shelter modules across Ontario. These modules contain resources (ex. cots, blankets, and administrative supplies) to support a 50 person shelter operation. The Canadian Red Cross is currently working on positioning a unit in the City of St. Thomas with an anticipated shipment by early 2020 upon confirmation of a site. Additional resources available in surrounding areas to support operations in Elgin County include a Command and Administration module (Windsor), Information Technology kits, and intermodal containers which house additional cots and blankets if required in a larger scale scenario. 2 standardized Level 1 kits are located in the community to support our response to small scale emergencies. Supplier Agreements: Supplier agreements were maintained with local vendors including hotels, clothing establishments and restaurants. These pre-established agreements ensure we are able to provide clients with necessary assistance in a timely manner. Throughout St. Thomas Elgin, there are currently 14 supplier agreements with local businesses. In our last annual report, the need for a supplier agreement with a caterer was identifiedone was subsequently signed with local company and would be utilized in the provision of emergency food for L2+ event. Public Events: The St. Thomas-Elgin team attended 6 public events reaching approximately 1000 residents with a focus on recruitment, raising the profile of the Emergency Management program, and emergency preparedness. PERSONNEL UPDATES to meet the ever changing and more frequent need to respond to large scale emergencies and disasters. The total number of DM personnel in St. Thomas Elgin is currently 5 with additional support of 70 personnel in neighbouring London-Middlesex. 274 In this reporting period, St. Thomas Elgin volunteers logged 123 hours in support of response and program preparedness activities including candidate interviews, team meetings, and inventory maintenance. A workforce plan has been established with goal of increasing personnel in St. Thomas Elgin and a recruitment strategy will be discussed in early 2020 with focus on increasing number of local Personal Disaster Assistance responders. TRAINING AND ENGAGEMENT Our Learning and Development Department, responsible for the training of our volunteers, continues to launch new and updated training for our general responders and those tasked with specialized job assignments (Logistics, Safety and Wellbeing, IT support and others). In the year ahead it is anticipated that the majority of St. Thomas-Elgin volunteers will have completed cross training and specialization, further enhancing our capabilities to support both local and large-scale responses. This kind of training is Canada-wide, ensuring that not only are our local volunteers ready to respond, but that we can bring in volunteers who have the same level of skills, abilities, and training from across Ontario and Canada to support St. Thomas Elgin should the need ever arise. Community Based Teams : Further work was done this past year to further continue our objective of developing volunteer response teams in local communities. These Community Based Teams continue to be a mainstay and fundamental to the CRC service delivery model. These teams build and strengthen relationships with emergency management and emergency social services partners at the community level and strengthen our level of preparedness. 275 Additionally, regular meetings are coordinated with St. Thomas-Elgin volunteers to provide overview on program changes, recent responses, and upcoming events. Emergency Social Services (ESS) Orientations: During this reporting period, the CRC facilitated 1 ESS orientation for St. Thomas-Elgin Social Services staff. The 2 hour session familiarized staff with the role of the CRC in a disaster response, introduced the six core Emergency Social Services, discussed reception and evacuation centres, and shared best practices and common challenges. A session in Spring of 2020 is being discussed which will be an extension of the aforementioned learnings in a more interactive setting. SYSTEMS Direct Travel During this reporting period, St. Thomas-Elgin successfully implemented a centralized hotel booking service. This service has enhanced our lodging capabilities by providing responders with immediate access to a 24/7 hotel booking capabilities and has significantly improved our efficiencies in securing emergency accommodations. It also provides assurances that beneficiaries in more rural communities will also be able to secure safe and appropriate emergency lodging where options are often more limited. All volunteers were provided an orientation in how to utilize the service. EMIS The Emergency Management Information System (EMIS) is a standalone system enabling the Canadian Red Cross to provide registration, case management, reporting and financial assistance. EMIS has become the primary vehicle for the Canadian Red Cross to manage beneficiary information and provide assistance on a mass scale. Current focus is on utilizing EMIS for Level 3-5 responses and would be used in St. Thomas Elgin should an event of that size occur. RAVE RAVE (formerly known as Emergency Response Management Service or ERMS) is a mass notification system which enables the Red Cross to quickly reach volunteers by phone, text, and/or email. Alerts and messages are sent out from a dispatcher when a disaster occurs to activate teams and gather availability. The system is currently used in half of the operational areas within Ontario, with pilots also having been conducted at a provincial level and for mass-scale events. In 2020, it is anticipated that RAVE will expand to include the St. Thomas-Elgin geography. The dispatch model which deploys local teams, and was implemented during the last reporting period, continues to be successfully utilized in St. Thomas-Elgin. 1 additional dispatcher in St. Thomas Elgin has been trained during this reporting period. 276 OTHER CANADIAN RED CROSS UPDATES Further work has been done to integrate Safety and Wellbeing (SWB), the program that aims to support the immediate wellbeing needs of emergency affected populations and Red Cross personnel, into our provincial operations. In relief operations, SWB volunteers work in collaboration with other responders to ensure safe and supportive environments, provide service to beneficiaries, provide services to CRC personnel and promote community mobilization and engagement. The Red Cross is preparing for the implementation of loadable payment cards as the primary means of providing financial assistance for emergency services offered to beneficiaries. This will provide more timely resources to beneficiaries and support scalability in larger responses. Provincial implementation will begin once piloting is completed within the GTA early in the new year. We look forward to our continued collaboration on these and other initiatives, to ensure we are prepared to effectively respond to emergencies within St. Thomas Elgin and meet the needs of those impacted by disaster. 277 438 University Avenue 438, avenue University the 7 Floor 7 étage Toronto, Ontario Toronto, Ontario M7A 1N3 M7A 1N3 Tel.: (416) 325-5225 Tél. : (416) 325-5225 Fax: (416) 325-5240 Téléc. : (416) 325-5240 278 279 Melanie Knapp, Corporate Admin & Accessibility Clerk t.(519) 631.1680 x4125 f.(519) 633.9019 e.mknapp@stthomas.ca 545 Talbot St., P.O. Box 520, City Hall St. Thomas, Ontario, N5P 3V7 January 8, 2020 Green Lane Community Trust Fund Attn: Katherine Thompson, CAO/Clerk/Deputy Treasurer Township of Southwold Via Email: cao@southwold.ca Re: Green Lane Community Trust Fund - Committee Appointment Dear Mrs. Thompson: Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of St. Thomas appointed Mayor Preston to the Green Lane Community Trust Fund for 2020. Shouldyou have any questions, please contact myself at the information above. Sincerely, Melanie Knapp Corporate Administrative & Accessibility Clerk c/cJ. Gonyou,CAO, County of Elgin, Via Email: cao@elgin.ca 280 281 Municipal Act Section 239 (2)(k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried onby or on behalf of the municipality or local board – Municipal Act Section 239 (2) (d) labour relations or employee negotiations Municipal Act Section 239 (2) (k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board 282