NVCA Report - Town of Collingwood

Transcription

Town of Collingwood
Natural Heritage System
Prepared by David Featherstone and Natosha Fortini
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
October 2011
Executive Summary
The Town of Collingwood entered into an agreement with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority in August 2010 to review and update the natural heritage schedules and policies within
the Town Official Plan. This study was deemed necessary to ensure Official Plan conformity
with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and associated natural heritage guidelines and also to
address the presence of previously unevaluated natural heritage features within areas proposed for
future development.
The project Terms of Reference outlines a three-phase approach. Phase 1 – largely completed in
late summer and fall 2010 – consisted of extensive field work including roadside surveys (private
lands) and in-field surveys (public lands) to identify vegetation communities and potential
associated natural heritage functions within the Town of Collingwood. Nearshore surveys were
also completed to assist with understanding linkages between land and water as well as a broader
understanding of biodiversity associated with land and shoreline areas. Phase 2 included analyses
of the Phase 1 data as well as extensive stakeholder consultation which was used to derive natural
heritage scenarios and a proposed natural heritage system for Town consideration – the first two
phases form the basis for this report. Phase 3 consists of public consultation and continuing work
to assist the Town with natural heritage updates to Official Plan policies and schedules.
The main body of the report opens with an outline of natural heritage planning in Southern
Ontario (including its evolution over the past thirty years), natural heritage policies associated
with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS; Province of Ontario, 2005), and technical direction
provided by the PPS companion Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2010). This provides a broad provincial framework for natural heritage system
discussion. In particular, the sections in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual pertaining to
natural heritage system development within Settlement Areas were used to guide this study. An
iterative approach with input from key community and agency stakeholders was used to strike a
balance between municipal development and natural heritage system mandates. This balance is
also reflected in the mission statement of the Town of Collingwood Strategic Plan (1995):
“We, the community of Collingwood, working in partnership with
our elected leaders, our business sector, and our community
service organizations will maintain our small-town atmosphere,
our natural environment and our heritage while embracing
opportunities to enhance our quality of life and to acquire
economic benefits through stainable development, four -season
tourism and active participation in the global economy.”
A number of initiatives undertaken within the last ten years have implications for natural heritage
system development within the Town of Collingwood. These studies range from international
efforts that span the entire Lake Huron basin to local efforts within the Town of Collingwood
itself. Each initiative is summarized to provide a broader context for Town natural heritage
system development.
The current natural heritage planning context within the Town of Collingwood is identified.
Designated features within this context include provincially-designated features (e.g. provincially
significant wetlands), regionally-designated features (County Greenlands) and Town-designated
features and associated policies.
Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System
1/12/2011
i
Existing natural heritage features and functions within the Town are identified based on
background literature review and field studies associated with this project. This is a
comprehensive assessment which includes cultural history, forests, wetlands, regenerating
vegetation communities, watercourses, shorelines and fish and wildlife habitat functions.
A number of unevaluated wetlands were identified through this study - some of which support
globally rare Great Lakes coastal marshes which are endemic to shallowly sloping limestone
shorelines along the Great Lakes. The northwest portion of Collingwood – including the
nearshore area and associated islands as well onshore wetlands and forests – is identified as a key
area of biodiversity.
Analyses of the natural features and functions within the Town of Collingwood were undertaken
using a PPS perspective. Recommendations as to which features/functions meet provincial
criteria for significant wetlands, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat are
provided.
Following this analysis, the report outlines the steps undertaken to build a consensus-based
natural heritage system for the Town of Collingwood. It begins with a discussion of candidate
Town Greenlands – broad groupings of natural features within the Town – and their associated
features and functions. Based on stakeholder committee direction, three natural heritage scenarios
were developed and brought back to the stakeholder committee for review. A draft proposed
natural heritage system, based on stakeholder committee discussion, was then developed and
subject to further stakeholder review (Figure ES-1). The report then examines how the draft
system integrates with a number of perspectives and initiatives including: the Town’s
development mandate, the Provincial Policy Statement, County and adjacent municipal natural
heritage systems, as well as broader natural heritage initiatives.
Challenges and opportunities associated with the Town natural heritage system are identified in
the conclusion of the report. Challenges include:
provision of linear infrastructure to support development (which may potentially cross
portions of the system)
shoreline alteration and dredging (which may lie beyond Town jurisdiction)
adjacent lands
impacts of upstream land uses (in municipalities outside the Town of Collingwood)
A number of community-based opportunities to support the natural heritage system are available.
These include:
public education
reforestation on public and private lands
stream restoration
invasive plant removal
citizen-based monitoring initiatives to assess the health of natural heritage features and
functions
input in support of continued development of the Town’s renowned trail system
1/12/2011
ii
1/12/2011
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv
1.0
Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
5.0
Town of Collingwood Context ........................................................................... 1
NVCA Context.................................................................................................... 2
Report Outline ..................................................................................................... 4
Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................4
Work Plan and Deliverables ............................................................................... 5
Steering and Technical Advisory Committees ................................................... 6
Public Consultation ............................................................................................. 7
Natural Heritage Planning in Southern Ontario........................................................7
Provincial Policy Statement (Province of Ontario, 2005) .................................. 8
Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010)............................................. 9
Natural Heritage Background Studies ......................................................................10
Existing Natural Heritage Features and Designations ............................................17
5.1
Provincially Significant Wetlands .................................................................... 17
5.1.1 Silver Creek Wetland Complex .................................................................... 18
5.2
Simcoe County Greenlands............................................................................... 18
5.3
Town of Collingwood Official Plan ................................................................. 22
6.0
Ecological and Cultural History ................................................................................25
6.1
Cultural Heritage ............................................................................................... 25
6.1.1 Aboriginal History ........................................................................................ 25
6.1.2 Recent History .............................................................................................. 26
6.2
Post-glacial History ........................................................................................... 26
6.3
Geology, Physiography and Soils ..................................................................... 26
6.3.1 Paleozoic/Bedrock Geology.......................................................................... 26
6.3.2 Physiography and Quaternary Geology ........................................................ 27
6.3.3 Soils............................................................................................................... 29
6.4
Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 31
6.4.1 Functions and Historical Trends ................................................................... 31
6.4.2 Study Results ................................................................................................ 32
6.5
Forest Cover ...................................................................................................... 32
6.5.1 Temporal Trends ........................................................................................... 33
6.5.2 Forest Interior Habitat ................................................................................... 34
6.5.3 Hydrological and Air Quality Functions....................................................... 35
6.5.4 Study Results ................................................................................................ 35
6.6
Non-treed Upland Habitats ............................................................................... 40
6.6.1 Functions and Historical Trends ................................................................... 40
6.6.2 Study Results ................................................................................................ 40
6.7
Watercourses ..................................................................................................... 41
6.7.1 Bower’s Beach Creek ................................................................................... 41
6.7.2 Batteaux Creek .............................................................................................. 42
6.7.3 Pretty River ................................................................................................... 42
1/12/2011
iv
6.7.4 Black Ash Creek ........................................................................................... 42
6.7.5 Silver Creek .................................................................................................. 43
6.7.6 Townline Creek ............................................................................................. 43
6.7.8 Local Drainage Features ............................................................................... 43
6.8
Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 45
6.8.1 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................... 45
6.8.2 Groundwater Discharge Areas and Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ................. 45
6.8.3 Significant Recharge Areas........................................................................... 48
6.9
Shoreline ........................................................................................................... 48
6.9.1 Shoreline Impacts.......................................................................................... 51
6.10 Islands ............................................................................................................... 51
6.11 Climate Change ................................................................................................. 52
6.12 Invasive Species ................................................................................................ 54
7.0
Provincial Policy Statement - Natural Heritage Features and
Functions .........55
7.1
Provincially Significant Wetlands .................................................................... 55
7.1.1 Silver Creek Wetland Complex .................................................................... 56
7.1.2 Unevaluated Wetlands .................................................................................. 56
7.2
Species At Risk - Threatened and Endangered Species .................................... 60
7.2.1 Butternut – Endangered ................................................................................ 60
7.2.3 Spotted Turtle – Endangered ........................................................................ 61
7.2.4 Blanding’s Turtle – Threatened .................................................................... 61
7.2.5 Boblink – Threatened .................................................................................... 61
7.2.6 Chimney Swift – Threatened ........................................................................ 62
7.3
Significant Woodlands ...................................................................................... 62
7.3.1 Woodland Size .............................................................................................. 63
7.3.2 Ecological Functions ..................................................................................... 63
7.3.3 Uncommon Characteristics ........................................................................... 65
7.3.4 Economic and Social Functional Values ...................................................... 66
7.3.5 Significant Woodlands Summary ................................................................. 66
7.4
Significant Wildlife Habitat .............................................................................. 66
7.4.1 Seasonal Concentrations of Animals ............................................................ 68
7.4.2 Rare Vegetations Communities .................................................................... 70
7.4.3 Specialized Habitats for Wildlife .................................................................. 73
7.4.4 Highly Diverse Areas .................................................................................... 75
7.4.5 Seeps and Springs ......................................................................................... 77
7.4.6 Habitat of Species of Conservation of Concern ............................................ 77
7.4.7 Animal Movement Corridors ........................................................................ 79
8.0
Natural Heritage System Development .....................................................................81
8.1
Town of Collingwood Candidate Greenlands................................................... 81
8.1.2 Fairgrounds Forest ........................................................................................ 83
8.1.3 Braeside Forest.............................................................................................. 83
8.1.4 Batteaux Creek .............................................................................................. 83
8.1.5 Sandford Fleming.......................................................................................... 84
8.1.6 Pretty River ................................................................................................... 84
8.1.7 Black Ash Creek ........................................................................................... 85
8.1.8 Harbour East ................................................................................................. 85
8.1.9 Harbour West ................................................................................................ 86
1/12/2011
v
8.1.10
White’s Bay .............................................................................................. 87
8.1.11
Lighthouse Bay ......................................................................................... 87
8.1.12
Georgian Trail ........................................................................................... 87
8.1.13
Mountain Road Regeneration ................................................................... 88
8.1.14
Silver Creek North .................................................................................... 88
8.1.15
Silver Creek South .................................................................................... 89
8.1.16
Townline Creek ......................................................................................... 90
8.1.17
Southwest Regeneration............................................................................ 90
8.1.18
Southwest Forest ....................................................................................... 90
8.2
Natural Heritage Scenario Development .......................................................... 91
8.2.1 PPS/Existing Official Plan Scenario ............................................................. 92
8.2.2 Middle Scenario ............................................................................................ 92
8.2.3 Protective Scenario ....................................................................................... 93
8.3
Scenario Discussion ...................................................................................... 97
8.4
Draft Proposed Natural Heritage System .......................................................... 97
8.6
Category 1 and Category 2 Recommendations ............................................... 101
8.7
Integration with Settlement Area Needs ......................................................... 102
8.8
Integration with PPS Features ......................................................................... 102
8.9
Integration with Simcoe County Greenlands .................................................. 103
8.10 Integration with Adjacent Municipal Environmental Protection Features ..... 103
8.11 Integration with Areas of Concern Habitat Targets ........................................ 106
8.11.1
Forest Cover ............................................................................................ 109
8.11.2
Wetland Cover ........................................................................................ 109
8.12 Integration with Other Local, Provincial and International Initiatives ........... 109
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
9.10
9.11
10.0
Natural Heritage System – Challenges and Opportunities ...................................111
Environmental Impact Studies ........................................................................ 111
Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 112
Shoreline Alteration and Dredging ................................................................. 112
Adjacent Lands ............................................................................................... 112
Upstream Land Use......................................................................................... 113
Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 114
Reforestation ................................................................................................... 114
Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................... 115
Trails ............................................................................................................... 115
Education ........................................................................................................ 115
Performance Indicators ................................................................................... 116
References .............................................................................................................117
1/12/2011
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Town of Collingwood Study Area ..................................................................... 3
Figure 2: MNR Big Picture .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 3: Simcoe County Greenlands .............................................................................. 21
Figure 4: Town of Collingwood OP - Schedule A .......................................................... 23
Figure 5: Town of Collingwood OP - Schedule B ........................................................... 24
Figure 6: Nipissing Shorecliff .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 7: Soil Types ......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 8: Existing Forest Cover ....................................................................................... 37
Figure 9: Forest Loss ....................................................................................................... 38
Figure 10: Forest Interior Habitat .................................................................................... 39
Figure 11: Watercourses .................................................................................................. 44
Figure 12: Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ........................................................................... 46
Figure 13: Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...................................................... 47
Figure 14: Shoreline ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 15: Provincially Significant Wetlands .................................................................. 58
Figure 16: Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 59
Figure 17: Provincially Rare Habitat Types .................................................................... 71
Figure 18: Biodiversity Hotspot....................................................................................... 76
Figure 19: Landscape Corridors....................................................................................... 80
Figure 20: Candidate Town Greenlands .......................................................................... 82
Figure 21: PPS/Existing OP Scenario .............................................................................. 94
Figure 22: Middle Scenario ............................................................................................. 95
Figure 23: Protective Scenario………………………………………….…………….....96
Figure 24: Proposed Natural Heritage System…………………………...……………...98
Figure 25: Proposed Natural Heritage System and Land Use Designations……………100
Figure 26: Integration of Draft Proposed Natural Heritage System with Adjacent
Environmentally Protected Lands…………………………………………..105
Figure 27: Draft Proposed Natural Heritage System and Outlying ELC Cover………..108
1/12/2011
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Simcoe County Greenland Features and Functions……………………………20
Table 2: Soil Type Descriptions…………………………………………………………29
Table 3: ELC Wetland Communities – Town of Collingwood………………………….32
Table 4: Forest Interior Bird Species of Southern Ontario………………………………34
Table 5: ELC Forest Communities – Town of Collingwood…………………………….36
Table 6: ELC Successional Communities – Town of Collingwood……………………..41
Table 7: Species at Risk – Town of Collingwood……………………………………….60
Table 8: Rare Vegetation Communities – Town of Collingwood……………………….72
Table 9: Regionally/Provincially Rare Species – Town of Collingwood………………..78
Table 10: Habitat Targets for Great Lakes Areas of Concern………………………….106
Table 11: Comparison of Town Natural Heritage Features to AOC Habitat Targets…..107
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Appendix B: Stakeholder Committee Meetings – Members in Attendance
Appendix C: Drawing C-1: ELC Communities in the Town of Collingwood
1/12/2011
viii
1.0
Introduction
In summer 2010, the Town of Collingwood entered an agreement with the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority to undertake a Natural Heritage System Update and Review (NVCA,
2010). The purpose of this study is to develop a collaboratively based natural heritage system for
the Town of Collingwood. This system is based on a broad understanding of natural heritage
features and functions within the Town and adjacent municipalities, coupled with an
understanding of the Town’s mandate as a Settlement Area. The natural heritage system is a
community-based product that recognizes a variety of stakeholder interests within the Town of
Collingwood.
This review was supported by significant field work to identify natural heritage features and
functions associated with the Town and adjacent Nottawasaga Bay shoreline. These features and
functions were reviewed within a broader subwatershed context to ensure that natural heritage
system connections to adjacent municipalities were identified and appropriately protected.
1.1
Town of Collingwood Context
The Town of Collingwood (Figure 1) supports a wide range of natural heritage features and
functions. Several of these features and functions are rare from a global, national, provincial and
regional perspective. The Town has been a proactive leader in environmental protection and
restoration – in partnership with federal, provincial and local agencies and groups, the
Collingwood Harbour Area of Concern (AOC) became the first Great Lakes AOC to be delisted
in 1994.
The importance of natural heritage systems and natural heritage planning, in balance with a
mandate for growth, is acknowledged in Section 1.6 of the Town’s Official Plan (Town of
Collingwood, 2004) which states that “the primary municipal aim in developing new Official
Plan policy is to establish a strategy for growth which addresses the long-term living, working
and recreational needs of the municipality’s residents while remaining true to the Plan’s broader
environmental, social and economic goals. This balance is also reflected in the mission statement
of the Town of Collingwood Strategic Plan (1995):
service organizations will maintain our small-town atmosphere,
our natural environment and our heritage while embracing
Natural heritage policies and schedules in the Official Plan are intended “to preserve and enhance
the quality of the natural environment by establishing development guidelines and policies which
implement the Greenlands objectives of the County of Simcoe Official Plan and which
minimize land use conflicts within environmentally sensitive areas” (Goal 1; Section 4.1.1) and
“to preserve and enhance natural heritage features and areas (Greenlands) deemed to have
Provincial or regional significance by establishing development guidelines and policies in relation
to locally significant environmental features.
NVCA
1
A number of unevaluated wetlands and unassessed forest blocks and wetlands have recently been
identified within the Town of Collingwood. A significant proportion of these features lie within
areas currently designated and zoned for development. The status of these unassessed natural
features has been brought into question as part of recent development applications within the
Town of Collingwood. The Town of Collingwood has identified a need to undertake a natural
heritage system study to ensure that natural heritage features are recognized appropriately and
that the Town’s Official Plan natural heritage schedules and policies are updated and consistent
with provincial policy and Town needs.
1.2
NVCA Context
The NVCA has long recognized the importance of natural heritage planning at a watershed and
municipal/subwatershed level and also recognizes that significant responsibility for natural
heritage planning has been downloaded to local municipalities by the provincial government
through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS; MMAH, 2005). The Natural Heritage Reference
Manual (NHRM; MNR, 2000) a key supporting document for the PPS, acknowledges the role of
municipal planning authorities stating that “natural heritage planning should be a communitybased activity”, involving the public and local environmental agencies, “working cooperatively
with the planning authority to identify and protect the significant natural heritage features and
areas”.
Conservation Authorities have a mandate to participate in natural heritage planning through the
Conservation Authorities Act (1990). The NVCA goal, as stated in the Nottawasaga Valley
Watershed Management Plan (1996) is to conserve the “natural resources within our watershed in
a cooperative, integrated manner in which human needs are met in balance with the need to
sustain the natural environment”. Conservation Authorities have regulatory jurisdiction over
water-oriented components of natural heritage systems such as watercourses, floodplains,
valleylands and wetlands.
The NVCA Business Plan has developed a natural heritage planning program, in part to assist
partner municipalities in meeting natural heritage system obligations set out in the PPS, and to
assist with meeting community-specific environmental objectives. Natural heritage planning
studies have been developed by the NVCA in partnership with the Town of New Tecumseth
(NVCA, 2004), Essa Township (Featherstone et al., 2004) and the Town of Wasaga Beach
(Featherstone et al, 2005).
NVCA
2
NVCA
3
1.3
Report Outline
Section 2 describes the terms of reference for this study including work scope and methodologies
used for field investigations. Public consultation is a key component of this study and this
process is also described here.
Section 3 provides an outline of natural heritage planning in Southern Ontario (including its
evolution over the past thirty years), natural heritage policies associated with the Provincial
Policy Statement (Province of Ontario, 2005), and technical direction provided by the PPS’
companion Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010). This section provides a broad
provincial framework for natural heritage system discussion.
Section 4 summarizes a number of studies undertaken within the last ten years that have
implications for natural heritage system development within the Town of Collingwood. These
studies range from international efforts that span the entire Lake Huron basin to local efforts
within the Town of Collingwood itself.
Section 5 identifies the current natural heritage planning context within the Town of Collingwood
including provincially-designated features (e.g. provincially significant wetlands), regionallydesignated features (County Greenlands) and Town-designated features and associated policies.
Section 6 provides a description of natural heritage features and functions within the Town of
Collingwood based on study fieldwork, analysis and background information review.
Section 7 provides analyses of the natural features and functions within the Town of Collingwood
from a PPS perspective and provides recommendations as to which features/functions meet
provincial criteria for significant wetlands, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat.
Section 8 documents the steps undertaken to build a consensus-based natural heritage system for
the Town of Collingwood. It begins with a discussion of candidate Town Greenlands, describes
three natural heritage scenarios which were brought to the stakeholder committee for review, and
then a proposed natural heritage system based on further stakeholder review. This proposed
natural heritage system is then compared to existing natural heritage designations within the
Town OP as well as Environment Canada guidelines for ecosystem health.
Section 9 identifies challenges and opportunities for the Town of Collingwood natural heritage
system. These include community-based opportunities for education, reforestation, stream
restoration and invasive plant removal. Challenges and opportunities associated with the Town’s
renowned trail system are also discussed.
2.0
Terms of Reference
The purpose of the natural heritage strategy is to provide the Town with the information and tools
necessary to strike an appropriate balance between land and resource use and the protection of the
Town’s significant natural features and their functions. The strategy identifies and evaluates all
natural heritage components within the Town and identifies a core natural heritage system based
on this evaluation, with a focus on increased protection of core systems identified through the
study. The strategy will help the Town to refine natural heritage policies in its Official Plan, and
NVCA
4
to address municipal responsibilities to “be consistent with” the natural heritage provisions of the
Provincial Policy Statement within a Settlement Area context.
2.1
Work Plan and Deliverables
A three phase approach to development of a Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System was
undertaken:
Phase 1 – Classification of all natural heritage features in the Town of Collingwood to
Vegetation Type using an Ecological Land Classification (ELC) approximation approach.
The ELC system has been developed by the MNR in partnership with other public agencies to
establish a comprehensive and consistent province-wide approach for ecosystem description,
inventory and interpretation. This system has been designed to facilitate conservation planning
and ecosystem management objectives at various site to landscape scales of resolution (Lee et al.,
1998).
For the purposes of this study, natural heritage features within the Town of Collingwood were
first identified and delineated as a GIS layer via air photo and orthophoto interpretation. Where
available, Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) were used to map and document ELC
communities. A minimum vegetation community size of 0.5 ha was used (as per ELC protocol)
to delineate vegetation polygons.
Site visits on September 21, 22, 24, 26, 30, October 1,3,6,7,8,11,14,15, and November 10, 2010,
and May 11, 2011, were undertaken to refine ELC analysis to Vegetation Type where EIS
information did not exist. The relatively small aerial extent of the Town and extensive road
network enabled staff to view many vegetation communities from the roadside. Trails on public
lands (i.e. Georgian Trail) provided access to other vegetation communities. Private lands were
not accessed as part of this study. A small proportion of total identified vegetation communities
could not be viewed from roadside or trail. ELC Vegetation Type analysis for these communities
was undertaken through orthophoto interpretation and comparison to known ELC Vegetation
Type communities. Please see Appendix C for a drawing of ELC communities within the Town
of Collingwood.
ELC Vegetation Type assessment was undertaken using an approximation approach rather than
using the full ELC protocol. ELC mapping from various development applications were
combined with classification of previously unmapped areas. Unmapped area classification was
undertaken using a combination of roadside surveys, trail walks, orthophoto interpretation and
field surveys (where access is available on public lands only). Where roadsides and trails abutted
or intersected mapped vegetation communities, NVCA staff documented dominant tree, shrub
and ground cover and combined this with an understanding of general soil characteristics in the
area to derive ELC Vegetation Types. This approximation approach provides a reasonable
assessment of vegetation communities and associated biodiversity within the Town of
Collingwood; however, staff recognize that Vegetation Type may be subject to refinement based
on full access to vegetation community features and implementation of the full ELC protocol.
In addition to ELC mapping, shoreline features (natural and anthropogenic) were mapped to
better understand these features and their functions. An informal shoreline survey was conducted
on November 16th, 2010 by canoe, which identified shoreline use, substrate conditions, and
aquatic vegetation. Watercourses and associated valleylands and fish habitat were also identified.
NVCA
5
Phase 2 – Evaluate Feature Significance and Develop Natural Heritage System
Feature evaluation and natural heritage system development was based on accepted natural
heritage theory embodied within the PPS, and associated support documents, which state that the
physical characteristics of the natural heritage feature dictate its ecological function, such that
larger, well-connected, and more compactly shaped areas provide more functions and are,
therefore, generally more important than small, narrow or isolated features. Large features are
vital components of the natural heritage system, providing a range of habitats and internal
connectivity that support biodiversity on the landscape.
The fine resolution of vegetation community mapping combined with functional knowledge of
interactions between these communities and, in some cases, watercourses/valleylands and the
Georgian Bay shoreline, allow for a functional assessment that goes beyond most municipal
natural heritage approaches which tend to focus on landscape-scale associations. This draft
Natural Heritage System report documenting the results of the natural heritage feature assessment
and development of a proposed natural heritage system is provided at the end of Phase 2.
Phase 3 – Develop and Implement Natural Heritage Schedules and Policies
Following preparation of the Natural Heritage System report, the final step will be to work with
Town staff and council to develop updated natural heritage schedules and policies to protect and
enhance the Town Natural Heritage System. This will be a consultative process with the Town
and the public.
The Natural Heritage Strategy is intended to be incorporated into the Town Official Plan as part
of its ongoing review and update processes. Through appropriate policy, the NHS can be used to
facilitate: protection of identified significant natural areas, development application review,
stewardship initiatives involving restoration and rehabilitation, and long-term land securement
decision-making.
2.2
Steering and Technical Advisory Committees
The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010) strongly encourages community-based
natural heritage system development in designated settlement areas, recognizing the need for
balance between development and natural heritage mandates. To ensure that this balance was
recognized, an initial meeting was held with Town staff, representatives from Blue Mountain
Watershed Trust, Georgian Triangle Development Institute and NVCA staff to discuss the broad
objectives of the study and to determine an appropriate steering committee structure to guide the
study process. The intent of this steering committee structure was to ensure an iterative system
development process where all views could be shared to work toward a consensus-driven natural
heritage system for the Town of Collingwood.
A stakeholder committee was organized comprised of interested municipal staff, the County of
Simcoe, NVCA, Blue Mountain Watershed Trust, Georgian Triangle Development Institute,
Town of Collingwood Economic Development Board, Grey Sauble Conservation, and WILD
Canada Ecological Consulting. The group continues to meet to discuss project and policy
development as well as study progress. For a complete list of committee members and attendance
at each meeting, please refer to Appendix B.
NVCA
6
The first meeting was held on August 12, 2010 where an introduction to Natural Heritage
Systems was presented, and the Town of Collingwood Official Plan review was discussed within
a natural heritage context. The Terms of Reference for the project was also developed at this time.
A second Phase 1 meeting was scheduled on November 19th, 2010. During this meeting, Dave
Featherstone (NVCA) provided an overview of project objectives, a review of natural heritage
systems and provincial policy, and also provided an update on Phase 1 of the study (Lay of the
Land, forests, wetlands, streams, and shorelines). Preliminary analysis and mapping of forest and
wetland habitat were presented and an open group discussion followed.
The first Phase 2 meeting occurred on February 4th, 2011, where a Phase 2 update was presented,
along with three NHS scenarios and Greenland mapping. Open discussion of the presented
material followed which helped to provide direction for the draft proposed NHS.
The draft proposed natural heritage system was presented to the stakeholder committee on May
13th, 2011. A Phase 2 update and review was also presented, along with a recap of the three NHS
scenarios. An open discussion on the proposed NHS followed.
2.3
Public Consultation
Consultation with the public will occur following completion of Phase 2 of the Natural Heritage
Strategy. A public open house format will be used to provide the public with input and review of
the draft natural heritage system mapping and reporting.
3.0
Natural Heritage Planning in Southern Ontario
Approaches for studying natural heritage have evolved over the last two decades. Areas of
Natural and Scientific Interest, wetland evaluation, and Environmentally Significant Area (ESA)
studies were originally undertaken in the late 1970s and 1980s to identify significant,
representative features in response to increasing degradation and loss of natural habitat in
southern Ontario (TRCA, 2001).
However, the protection of only the most significant features (“islands of green” approach) has
been ineffective at maintaining a reasonable level of ecosystem health in much of southern
Ontario (TRCA, 2001). The natural landscapes of southern Ontario have been altered and
fragmented since settlement to meet the need for economic and social development of the
province (Riley and Mohr, 1994). In many areas of southern Ontario, the natural features of the
landscape are now reduced to levels where natural heritage and landscape functions are impaired
and fail to approximate or meet most natural heritage health criteria. Provincial and regional
efforts to protect the most significant natural features, while laudable, have been insufficient to
protect landscape function in much of southern Ontario.
Ecosystem and watershed planning approaches evolved in the late 1980s in an effort to look
beyond individual habitat features to recognize and understand ecosystem functions. The County
of Simcoe Greenlands initiative in the mid 1990s (Gartner Lee Limited, 1996) was an important
first step in landscape-level ecosystem planning. Additional efforts have been undertaken within
the Town of Collingwood to refine natural heritage system mapping including Gartner Lee (2004;
Background Environmental Study – Town of Collingwood) and MNR (2005; Silver Creek
Wetland Complex – boundary update).
NVCA
7
The Provincial Policy Statement (Province of Ontario, 2005) has continued to move natural
heritage planning toward an ecosystem function-based approach by promoting the protection of
identified significant features and functions across the landscape. The Natural Heritage
Reference Manual - a supporting document for the PPS - states that “by developing natural
heritage systems, planning authorities can proactively maintain or restore linkages between
features by identifying and protecting core areas, ecological linkages and landscape features that
contribute to a system” (MNR, 2010).
The Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System review uses this function-based approach to
identify significant natural heritage features and functions on the landscape. This information is
then used – in concert with iterative stakeholder discussions - to develop a sustainable natural
heritage system strategy for the Town.
3.1
Provincial Policy Statement (Province of Ontario, 2005)
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is issued under the Planning Act (1990) and provides
direction on land use planning and development in Ontario. It supports the provincial goal of
enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Ontario by providing guidelines for appropriate
development while protecting public health and safety, the quality of the natural environment,
and resources of provincial interest. The official plan is the most important vehicle for
implementation of the PPS – municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and
attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas (Policy
4.5).
The Provincial Policy Statement is more than a set of individual policies and is intended to be
read in its entirety where all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. It is recognized
that there are complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic, and social factors in
land use planning, and the Provincial Policy Statement supports and addresses a comprehensive
long-term approach to planning. The policies of the PPS represent minimum standards; this does
not prevent planning authorities and decision-makers from going beyond the minimum standards
established in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the PPS (Policy
4.6). The PPS encourages municipalities to “be consistent with” natural heritage policies outlined
in Section 2.1. With the exception of Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), Areas of Natural
and Scientific Interest (ANSI), and significant portions of habitat for Species At Risk,
municipalities are ultimately responsible for identifying significant natural heritage features on
the landscape. The PPS defines “significant” as those features that are “ecologically important in
terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and
diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system”.
The Wise Use and Management of Resources policy as it relates to natural heritage is found in
section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, and is as follows:
Policy 2.1
Natural Heritage
2.1.1
Natural Features and areas shall be protected for the long-term
2.1.2
The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term
ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be
maintained, restored, or where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between
and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and
ground water features.
NVCA
8
2.1.3
Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
a) significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species;
b) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and
c) significant coastal wetlands
2.1.4
Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and
7E;
b) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield;
c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield;
d) significant wildlife habitat; and
e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest unless it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features
or their ecological functions.
2.1.5
Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in
accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
2.1.6
Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the
natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.1.5,
unless the ecological functions of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has
been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features
or on their ecological functions.
2.1.7
Nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to
continue.
3.2
Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010)
The most recent edition of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM; MNR, 2010)
provides technical guidance for implementing the natural heritage policies of the PPS, 2005. This
manual includes recommended technical criteria and approaches for being consistent with the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) in protecting natural heritage features and areas and natural
heritage systems in Ontario. This section, unless otherwise noted, paraphrases key sections of the
NHRM that pertain to natural heritage system development – particularly in designated settlement
areas.
The NHRM notes that natural heritage systems should be identified in appropriate designations
and information on land use schedules. Official plan policies should restrict permitted uses in
these areas to existing uses and/or those uses that are compatible with the long-term protection of
the natural heritage areas. Further, it states that a coordinated, integrated and comprehensive
approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within municipalities, or which
cross lower, single and/or upper-tier municipal boundaries including:”….(b) managing natural
heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources; and,
…(d) ecosystem, shoreline and watershed related issues” (Policy 1.2.1). Planning for natural
heritage systems facilitates the coordination of ecosystem-based and watershed-based issues
across planning authority boundaries.
The NHRM recognizes that for settlement areas (as defined by the PPS), there can be some
unique considerations in planning for natural heritage systems. The Town of Collingwood has
NVCA
9
been designated as a settlement area and development of a natural heritage system should address
the considerations discussed in the NHRM.
Natural heritage systems in settlement areas should not be viewed in isolation but rather as part of
a larger regional context. In existing built-up areas, efforts should concentrate on protecting the
remaining significant features and their functions and connecting features or improving them
wherever possible. In designated growth areas, natural heritage systems are a key element that
should be functionally integrated into the urban community. The intent is to identify and protect
a system of connected natural features that will retain long-term ecological function once
development has been established around the system.
A preliminary natural heritage system should be identified before any other planning interests are
considered. This allows an opportunity to assess the natural heritage features and ecological
functions and determine the best way to connect them. Further refinement can occur later in the
planning process to incorporate other planning objectives. The integration of the natural heritage
system with other planning consideration is an interactive process in which the public and
decision makers, supported by appropriate experts, develop workable and achievable plans for
urbanizing areas through the development of comprehensive official plan policies and land use
designations.
Due to proximity of people and traffic in settlement areas, natural features and areas (and linkages
between and among them) may be subject to more stressors than their counterparts in rural areas.
This makes it important to include lands within a natural heritage system that will help to
maintain its long-term ecological function and diversity. This can include agricultural and
regenerating lands that link or contribute to core natural heritage system components. These nontraditional natural heritage lands are particularly important in fragmented landscapes.
Once a final natural heritage system has been identified, it should be designated and zoned in
municipal documents. Because development is expected to occupy most other lands, natural
heritage systems in designated growth areas, in contrast to such systems in non-settlement areas,
may need to be implemented with more prescriptive or restrictive land use designations and
zones.
Permitted uses within natural heritage systems in settlement areas should be limited to those that
support low-impact activities. The NHRM recognizes that roads and other linear infrastructure
may need to cross the natural heritage system to ensure an efficient urban community. These
types of crossings should be kept to a minimum and incorporate suitable design and mitigation
measures to maintain linkages between and among natural heritage features.
4.0
Natural Heritage Background Studies
Several studies with strong linkages to natural heritage system development have been completed
over the past ten years. Study scale ranges from a national overview of biodiversity to studies
specific to the Town of Collingwood (Gartner Lee, 2004). A summary of each study with
specific reference to the Town of Collingwood context is provided below.
NVCA
10
Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010 (Federal, Provincial and
Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010)
Biodiversity is defined as the “variety of life as expressed through genes, species and ecosystems
and is shaped by ecological and evolutionary processes”. A full spectrum of biodiversity is
essential to maintaining the ecological functions, processes and connections that sustain us and
deliver many economic and social benefits.
The report is in response to the United Nations biodiversity target “to achieve by 2010 a
significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national
level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth” and to review
progress toward the Biodiversity Outcomes Framework (2006) goal of “Healthy and Diverse
Ecosystems” which outlined two key outcomes i) productive, resilient, diverse ecosystems with
the capacity to recover and adapt, and ii) damaged ecosystems restored.
The report noted the importance of ecological goods and services, breaking them down into the
following categories:
Regulating services: flood and drought mitigation, filtration of air and water, control of
pest populations;
Provisioning services: food, fibre, and water
Cultural services: education, recreation, psychological health and spiritual experience;
and,
Supporting services: for production of other ecosystem services i.e. soil formation and
nutrient cycling
Ecological goods and services provide critical life support and underpin our economy and quality
of life. The full suite of services cannot be duplicated with human-made alternatives. Within the
southern Ontario Greenbelt alone, measurable non-market ecosystems services is approximately
$2.6 billion/year.
Key findings of the report note that plant communities and animal populations are responding to
climate change and that invasive non-native species have reached critical levels in the Great
Lakes and elsewhere. Despite significant efforts to conserve and restore wetlands in some areas,
overall loss and degradation continue, with wetlands near urban centres being particularly
threatened.
When impact thresholds have been crossed, ecosystems shift irrevocably from one state to
another – options for action are usually limited, expensive, and have a low probability of success.
Protection of natural areas, as well as sustainable management outside of these areas, is equally
important. The use of conservation corridors to enhance the biodiversity value of protected areas
is an important conservation tool in fragmented landscapes (such as southern Ontario). Actions
to maintain large, intact landscapes will likely slow the rate of biodiversity loss.
Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011: Renewing Our Commitment to Protecting What Sustains
Us (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2011)
This report provides a guiding framework for coordinating the conservation of our province’s rich
variety of life and ecosystems and builds on Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy (2005). The 2011
strategy builds on the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy and provides a renewed commitment to
NVCA
11
safeguard Ontario biodiversity as part of building a strong and prosperous future for the province.
It recognizes that healthy ecosystems sustain healthy people and a healthy economy.
The strategy’s vision is “a future where biodiversity loss is halted and recovery is advanced.
People value, protect and enhance biodiversity and the ecosystem services essential for human
health and well-being.”
A number of targets are identified within the 2011 Biodiversity Strategy to achieve the strategy
visions. Target 12 states that “By 2015, natural heritage systems plans and biodiversity
conservation strategies are developed and implemented at the municipal and landscape levels.”
Great Lakes Conservation Blueprints (Nature Conservancy of Canada and MNR, 2005)
The Conservation Blueprint program was launched by Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) and
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 2005 to develop a conservation blueprint for
terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity for the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes.
The purpose of the blueprints was to identify the best representative areas across the Great Lakes
for conservation planning, regardless of land tenure. Stream systems, inland lakes, wetlands and
Great Lakes shoreline habitat were deemed to be under-represented within existing protected
areas and conservation lands, and improved representation within protected areas was
recommended.
Coastal marshes were highlighted for their pivotal role in sustaining the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem. They process nutrients and organic material from the land and make major
contributions to the aquatic food web. Many fish species depend upon them for spawning and
rearing. Large populations of migratory waterfowl use these areas for feeding and staging.
The following vegetation communities and species of biodiversity interest were identified
proximal to the Town of Collingwood:
Ram’s-head Lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) – globally and provincially rare;
associated with fresh-moist mixed forests
Stiff Yellow Flax (Linum medium var. medium) – provincially rare; associated with
endemic coastal marshes
Sand Cherry (Prunus pumila var. pumila); associated with shoreline sand/gravel ridges
Black Tern - Special Concern-Ontario; colonial nester in shallow marshes
Least Bittern – Threatened; nests in large, quiet marshes
Spotted Turtle – Endangered; inhabits suite of wetland habitats and adjacent upland areas
Graminoid Coastal Meadow Marsh – endemic Great Lakes shoreline marsh community;
globally imperiled, provincially very rare
Shrubby Cinquefoil Coastal Meadow Marsh - endemic Great Lakes shoreline marsh
community; globally imperiled, provincially very rare
MNR Big Picture 2002 (MNR, 2002)
Although not regarded as a true natural heritage designation or policy, the MNR Big Picture 2002
project provides guidance regarding the significance of natural heritage core areas and corridors
on the landscape from a southern Ontario perspective. The purpose of this project was to identify
high-value core natural areas and highest probability linkages using a replicable, rule-based
NVCA
12
model. The model was targeted to include >30% of the non-urban area within each ecological
district. Minimum core sizes of 200 ha were used south of the Canadian Shield. Viable
occurrences of provincially and globally rare species and communities were also included in core
areas. Minimum corridor width of 200 m was used within the model. The Big Picture 2002
project was intended to map natural heritage cores and linkage at a regional scale. The project
team noted that natural heritage planning is still needed at local levels and that alternate core and
linkage criteria and weighting could be explored.
The broad scale of mapping derived from the Big Picture model becomes pixilated and difficult
to observe at the local scale; however, elements of Big Picture core areas and corridors were
identified in the Collingwood area (Figure 2). Portions of northwest Collingwood including
broad natural heritage blocks associated with the Silver Creek Wetlands and Georgian Trail
forests/wetlands were identified as “Cores and Nearby Natural/Values”. Regenerating
forest/wetland habitats along Black Ash Creek were identified as “Linkages – natural portion”.
Forest cover north of the Nipissing ridge in east Collingwood was also identified as “Linkagesnatural portion”. Portions of these “Linkage” areas have been fragmented by urban development
and highway construction since the Big Picture 2002 project.
NVCA
13
Legend
Cores and Nearby Natural/Values
Linkages – non-natural portion
Linkages – natural portion
Island Cores
Figure 2: MNR Big Picture Mapping
NVCA
14
La Mer Douce – The Sweet Sea. An International Biodiversity Strategy for Lake Huron; Lake
Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Core Team, 2010
Lake Huron is an ecologically rich and globally significant ecosystem, but its biodiversity is at
risk due to a number of stresses, including: degradation of water quality, climate change, invasive
species, rapid and poorly planned residential and industrial growth, altered hydrology and
incompatible agricultural, fisheries and forestry management and practices.
The Conservation Strategy is an international initiative designed to identify what actions are
needed to protect and conserve the native biodiversity of Lake Huron. The most critical threats
were determined through a collaborative, science-based process and strategies were developed to
restore and conserve a functioning ecosystem. Priority Biodiversity Conservation Areas were
identified for implementation of strategies.
The following biodiversity features were chosen to represent the overall biodiversity of the
project area:
Open water benthic and pelagic ecosystem (beyond the 30 m bathymetric contour)
Nearshore zone (shoreline to 30 m bathymetric contour)
Islands
Native migratory fish
Coastal wetlands
Coastal terrestrial system (shoreline to 2 km inland)
Aerial migrants (migratory birds, bats, butterflies and dragonflies with high fidelity to
Lake Huron
Incompatible development and shoreline alterations along southern Georgian Bay have
resulted in the degradation and fragmentation of nearshore and coastal ecosystems. These
activities have also disrupted the natural processes acting on the lakebed and shoreline
that create and maintain important coastal and aquatic habitats.
Priority Biodiversity Conservation Areas are identified in Section 7 of the Lake Huron report.
The Collingwood shoreline is rated high for coastal wetland and medium-high for coastal
terrestrial communities.
A number of strategies developed through this initiative have natural heritage system
implications. These include:
1.1
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
4.1
4.3
Effectively conserve a system of public and private conservation lands for coastal
terrestrial, nearshore zone and island features that are resilient to changes in land use and
climate
Develop and implement an integrative, adaptive, and harmonized framework for coastal
management within selected US and Canadian geographic regions
Restore priority coastal terrestrial, nearshore zone and island features (Silver Creek
Wetlands identified as priority area)
Develop and implement programs that identify and conserve priority coastal terrestrial,
nearshore zone and island habitats (Silver Creek Wetlands identified as priority area)
Restore native populations of Lake Huron’s aquatic and terrestrial species
Enhance knowledge, technical skills and information exchange to build capacity of local
policy and land use planning authorities to include biodiversity values into their decisions
Increase community engagement, awareness, understanding and commitment to coastal
NVCA
15
terrestrial, nearshore zone and island conservation
The report concludes with a Call To Action stating that the maintenance and protection of the
biological integrity of the Great Lakes is a cornerstone of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement and that success lies in cooperative partnerships and stakeholder engagement
throughout the basin.
Lake Huron-Georgian Bay Watershed – A Canadian Framework for Community Action.
(Environment Canada, 200*)
In 2005, representatives from Canadian provincial and federal agencies, First Nation, county,
municipal and environmental/non-governmental organizations discussed the need for a unifying
vision and strategy to improve collaboration and integrated ecosystem management for the
Canadian portion of the watershed. There was an overwhelming consensus on the need to adopt
an integrated domestic approach and to empower communities and individuals.
A Lake Huron Charter was struck stating that “We, the people(s) of the Lake Huron Watershed
believe in a healthy, life sustaining ecosystem that provides our cultural, economic and spiritual
fulfillment. Through this Charter we commit to working together to restore and protect the lands
and waters of the Lake Huron Watershed for today and for all generations. A variety of actions
are proposed to ensure that:
•
•
•
Degraded areas are restored and environmental health sustained;
Our use of land and water is ecologically sound; and
Our open waters, shorelines, farmlands, forests, river, streams and wetland across the
watershed, are protected today and for all future generations
Status and Trends in Shoreline Development and Alteration Along the Southern Georgian Bay
Shoreline (MNR, 2010).
This report is one of a series of reports prepared by MNR (in collaboration with other
stakeholders) in support of the Southern Georgian Bay Coastal Initiative. This project began in
2008 and was initiated by Mayor Ellen Anderson, Town of Blue Mountains. The initiative was
supported by mayors and municipal councils from Tobermory to Penetanguishene and other
agency and non-government organization stakeholders quickly became involved. It has direct
linkages to strategies recommended in the Lake Huron Biodiversity Strategy.
A variety of shoreline classifications from previous studies and recent remote sensing are
provided for the study area. The NVCA report builds on this work through informal shoreline
observations (Section 6 of this report).
The Town of Collingwood encompasses 5.9% of the Southern Georgian Bay shoreline. Within
this area, 98.4% is considered to be high development while 1.6% is considered moderate
development.
A variety of shoreline alterations are identified including dredging, groyne construction and
hardened shoreline (details in Section 6 of this report). Road densities within one kilometer of
the shoreline (which impacts biodiversity and ecosystem function) are noted as moderate (1-3 km
road/km2 - east and west Collingwood) and high (>5 km road/km2 – urban Collingwood) with a
NVCA
16
small area in west Collingwood (Georgian Trail/Silver Creek) noted as low to moderate density
(0-1 km road/km2)
Migratory bird stopover habitat is addressed in the report. Stopover habitat functions are
considered high to very high in east and west Collingwood. The report notes that it is important
to protect key habitat areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life
cycle. For migratory stopover habitats, natural areas within 400 m of the shoreline are considered
of very high importance and natural areas 400-1600 m from the shoreline are of high importance.
Background Environmental Study – Town of Collingwood (Gartner Lee Limited, 2004).
This background study was commissioned by the Town in the late 1990s to assist with their
Official Plan update and to bring Official Plan schedules and policies in conformity with the 1995
Provincial Policy Statement. The report consisted of a desktop review of existing resource
mapping including review of Forest Resource Inventory maps (FRI; MNR) and MNR wetland
mapping. No attempts were initiated to update vegetation community and wetland mapping
within the Town of Collingwood.
The study noted that, based on FRI mapping, relatively few forest stands were greater than 75
years old. This is not consistent with NVCA review of 1950s air photos which indicates many
forest stands were present on the landscape at that time and were approaching, if not greater than,
75 years of age at the time of the study.
Much of the forest cover is described as young (cedar/poplar), unproductive, not significant
wildlife habitat, and with limited value as corridors and linkages though this was not supported by
any in-season field work. North of Nipissing ridge, much of this forest cover is similar in
character to that described in the pre-settlement surveys (DERM, 1964). Forests dominated by
aspen and cedar were excluded from significant woodland consideration regardless of size – this
approach is not supported by the current NHRM.
The report noted that a diversity of habitat types should be represented in the natural heritage
system, including successional old fields and shrub thickets.
5.0
Existing Natural Heritage Features and Designations
Several natural features within the Town of Collingwood have been designated by the MNR,
Simcoe County and/or the Town as significant natural areas through provincial, regional and local
planning policy. One provincially significant wetland complex – Silver Creek Wetlands
Complex - has been designated by the MNR and recognized in the Town’s OP. The County of
Simcoe has designated four County Greenland areas that are wholly or partially encompassed by
the Town. The Town of Collingwood has designated additional natural heritage features as
Category 1 and Category 2 lands within its OP. This section provides an overview of these
designations and associated natural heritage features.
5.1
Provincially Significant Wetlands
Evaluation of wetlands in southern Ontario began in 1984 in an attempt to recognize and protect
provincially significant wetlands on the landscape. Scoring is based on a wetland’s biological,
NVCA
17
hydrological, social and special features attributes. Wetlands which are connected by local
surface flows or proximity are grouped together and evaluated as a wetland complex.
The first two editions of the evaluation protocol ranked wetlands as Classes 1 through 7 with
Classes 1, 2 and 3 designated as provincially significant wetlands. The 3 rd edition of the
evaluation system dropped the class distinctions. Wetlands scoring 600 or more points (or at least
200 points in biological or special features) are designated provincially significant while other
wetlands are identified as non-provincially significant. A key change from the 2nd edition to the
3rd edition is a significant revision of the hydrological scoring component within the evaluation
system.
Provincially significant wetlands in southern Ontario (south of the Canadian Shield) are protected
from development by Section 2.1 of the PPS which states “development and site alteration shall
not be permitted within provincially significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E” and shall
not be permitted on adjacent lands (within 120 m) unless it has been demonstrated that there will
be no negative impacts on the wetland or its ecological functions (MMAH, 2005). The Town of
Collingwood lies within Ecoregion 6E.
5.1.1
Silver Creek Wetland Complex
The Silver Creek Wetland Complex is the only evaluated wetland within the Town of
Collingwood. This provincially significant wetland is over 327 ha in size and lies within one
kilometer of the Nottawasaga Bay shoreline. A portion of this complex extends west into the
Town of Blue Mountains. Earlier wetland evaluations identified three separate wetland
complexes – Cranberry Marsh, Collingwood Harbour and Silver Creek; however, all three
wetlands were complexed into one unit in 1995. A broad update of the Silver Creek Wetland
Complex was undertaken by MNR in 2005. Since that time several wetland unit boundaries have
been refined in the field by consultants/MNR and previously unevaluated wetlands have been
added to the complex.
From a functional standpoint, Cranberry Marsh and its contiguous swamp forests comprise an
“island” which is separated from other portions of the complex by urban and golf course
development. Wetlands extending westward along the shoreline from Collingwood Harbour
through Princeton Shores are generally narrow and abut urban development. Larger blocks of
wetland and contiguous upland cover are present north of Highway 26 in northwest Collingwood
in the vicinity of Silver and Townline Creeks.
The Silver Creek Wetland Complex consists of a mosaic of swamp, marsh and rich fen habitats.
Globally rare Great Lakes coastal marsh communities are present along the Nottawasaga Bay
shoreline. These communities expand and contract in association with lower and higher lake
levels. Inland and west of Princeton Shores Boulevard, a variety of deciduous, mixed, coniferous
and thicket swamps are intermixed with upland habitats. These community associations are
generally absent to the east due to urbanization. A large cattail marsh is associated with
Cranberry Marsh – this habitat historically supported area-sensitive marsh birds.
5.2
Simcoe County Greenlands
The County of Simcoe Greenland system is based on a background report entitled “Development
of a Natural Heritage System for the County of Simcoe” (Gartner Lee, 1996). Section 3.7 of the
County of Simcoe Official Plan (2000) states that “the purpose of the Greenland designation is to
NVCA
18
ensure that the scale, form and location of development is such that the features and functions of
the natural heritage system are sustained for future generations.”
Within the Town of Collingwood, the Greenland designation includes evaluated and unevaluated
wetlands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, fish habitat and major river and
creek systems. The County Official Plan encourages local initiatives to augment the County
Greenland system stating that “locally significant features and functions which support the
County Greenland system are to be identified and protected in local municipal official plans”.
Greenland areas are subject to several policies within the County Official Plan which seek to
protect these areas from incompatible development.
Four Greenland areas are wholly or partially located within the Town of Collingwood (Figure 3)
and are associated with the Wasaga Lowlands (WL) physiographic region. A brief description of
these areas follows. Key features and functions associated with these areas are included in Table
1.
WL1 – Collingwood Shores-Northwest Collingwood
WL1 encompasses much of the provincially significant Silver Creek Wetland and adjacent forests
as well as large blocks of forest/wetland along the Georgian Trail. Shallow, calcareous soils over
limestone bedrock support globally and provincially rare coastal meadow marsh communities.
This Greenland unit is functionally connected to other portions of the Silver Creek Wetland
complex (and contiguous forest) within Town of Blue Mountains (Grey County).
WL2 – Stayner Swamp
Though mostly associated with scattered blocks of wetland and woodland located in the vicinity
of Stayner, WL2 also includes a narrow forest along the south side of Highway 26 that extends
from Batteaux Creek to the Town of Wasaga Beach boundary (Gartner Lee, 1996). Forest cover
in this area has been fragmented by residential, recreational and highway bypass development.
Remaining unfragmented forest in the vicinity of Batteaux Creek is functionally part of the
Batteaux Creek Greenland (WL6)
WL5 – Pretty River
The Pretty River arises within Grey County with headwater tributaries entering a large re-entrant
valley that cuts into the Niagara Escarpment southwest of Nottawa. Significant coldwater habitat
for rainbow trout and brook trout is present in this section. Downstream of the valley, the Pretty
River flows through agricultural lands and then enters a flood control dyke which conveys flows
through much of urban Collingwood. Downstream reaches through Collingwood are narrow and
support local corridor functions only.
WL6 – Batteaux Creek
Batteaux Creek arises as a series of springs along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment west of
Duntroon. Coldwater habitats associated with the Escarpment transition quickly to warmwater
habitats as the Batteaux Creek flows through an agricultural landscape with limited forest and
riparian cover. A relatively large forest and regeneration block is located south of Highway 26 –
the older forest communities are an outlier of WL2; however, functionally, they have a much
closer association with Batteaux Creek.
NVCA
19
Table 1: Simcoe County Greenland Features and Functions
(adapted from Gartner Lee, 1996)
FUNCTION
Terrain
Functions
Vegetation
Functions
Attributes
Linkage
Status
Designations
Recharge
Discharge
Flood Storage
Conveyance
Erosion Protection
Temperature Control
Water Quality Enhancement
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Coldwater Habitat
Warmwater Habitat
Fish Spawning
Deer Concentrations
Waterfowl Concentrations
Provincially Rare Animals
Provincially Rare Plants
Uncommon Vegetation
Large Core Area
Number of Links
Aquatic
Riparian/Lowland
Upland
Narrow Link in Agriculture
Linkage Beyond Simcoe
County
Restoration Opportunity
Provincial ANSI
Regional ANSI
Site of Interest
ESA
PSW
LSW
Prov. Park/Cons. Area
WL1
WL2
WL5
X
Xa
X
Xa
X
X
Xa
Xa
X
X
Xa
Xa
X
WL6
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
X
X
N
N
X
X
X
1
X
2a
X
X
Xa
X
X
Xa
1
X
X
1a
a
function/feature lies outside Town of Collingwood
X
Function, attribute or linkage occurs
N
Links exist but are narrow
?
Unknown
Numerical references refer to the number of particular attribute types found within the Greenland
NVCA
20
NVCA
21
5.3
Town of Collingwood Official Plan
The environmental goals set out in the Town Official plan are as follows:
1. To preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment by establishing
development guidelines and policies which implement the Greenlands objectives of the
County of Simcoe Official Plan and which minimize land use conflicts within
environmentally sensitive areas.
2. To ensure the health and safety of area residents by preventing the loss of life and
minimizing property damage due to flooding.
3. To preserve and enhance natural heritage features and areas (Greenlands) deemed to have
Provincial or regional significance by establishing development guidelines and policies in
relation to locally significant environmental features.
The lands in Collingwood warranting protection due to their environmental importance are
designated Environmental Protection Areas on Schedule A (Figure 4). These lands are shown in
greater detail on Schedule B (Environmental Protection – Natural Heritage Resource Areas;
Figure 5).
The Environmental Protection Areas classification on Schedule A includes lands unsuited for
development due to inherent natural hazards such as susceptibility to flooding or erosion, poor
drainage, organic soils or steep slopes. This designation has also been utilized to provide an
added level of protection to the Town’s most significant (Category 1 on Schedule B) natural
heritage features such as provincially significant wetlands.
The Environmental Protection - Natural Heritage Resource Areas classification on Schedule B
identifies lands warranting varying levels of protection due to their environmental importance.
The natural heritage features identified on Schedule B include: provincially significant wetlands,
valleylands, woodland, and fish and nursery habitats. These areas fall into two categories:
Category 1 Lands
Category 1 lands are included within the Environmental Protection Areas designation on
Schedule A in order to provide a higher level of protection for Collingwood’s most sensitive
natural resources. Category 1 lands, by virtue of their significant functions, attributes and
linkages, are those considered to make the greatest contribution to the natural heritage system of
the Town of Collingwood and include; provincially significant wetlands, major river valleys, fish
habitat located within significant valley-lands and primary woodlands greater than 4 hectares (9.9
acres) that are more than 75 years old.
Category 2 Lands
The Category 2 classification encompasses locally significant wetlands, younger woodlands
greater than 10 hectares (25 acres), and/or fish habitat located outside significant valley-lands.
Category 2 lands are where limited forms of development, in accordance with the land use
designations on Schedule A, may be possible subject to the findings of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
NVCA
22
Figure 4: Town of Collingwood Official Plan Schedule A
NVCA
23
Figure 5: Town of Collingwood Official Plan Schedule B
NVCA
24
6.0
Ecological and Cultural History
This section provides an overview of geological, Aboriginal, and recent history of the Town of
Collingwood, as well as an overview of terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage features and
functions present on the Town landscape and natural heritage connectivity to adjacent
municipalities.
6.1
Cultural Heritage
6.1.1
Aboriginal History
Although small bands of nomadic Paleolithic hunters and Archaic tribes from the south
doubtlessly traveled through the present-day Town in the interval between the recession of Lake
Algonquin and the transgression of the Nipissing lake stage, most evidence of their passage was
likely lost during the Nipissing transgression. Evidence of prehistoric settlement near the Town
has been uncovered along the lower Nottawasaga River (Thornbush, 2001) in the vicinity of
Jack’s Lake with a number of Middle Woodland sites clustered between Jack’s Lake and “the
Oxbow”. This evidence dates back to the Middle Woodland period about 1,800 years ago. At this
time, aboriginal peoples retained their nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle but incorporated pottery
and ceramic vessels into their way of life.
During the Late Woodland period, the Petuns settled in villages along the lower slopes of the
Escarpment from the Noisy River north to Silver Creek. The Petuns may have originally come
from the Wendat (Huron) nation to the northeast and likely moved into the area during the
protohistoric period (1580 to 1600) to supplement the fur trade. Although their subsistence
economy (corn agriculture with fishing and some hunting) was similar to that of the Wendat, the
Petuns likely specialized in beaver hunting which became more prominent as the French made
contact with the Wendats. Trade with the Wendats increased markedly during the French contact
period with the Wendat often acting as trade intermediaries and moving beaver pelts to the
markets along the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers. (Reference*)
At the point of French contact, the Petun population was approximately 8,000; however,
following contact, up to 90% of the aboriginal population was lost through disease, displacement
and intertribal warfare (Larson et al., 1999). Two-thirds of the Wendat nation died in the
smallpox epidemics of the mid-1630s (Drury, 1972) and the Petun nation was no doubt similarly
afflicted. Iroquois pressure from the south led to a northward retreat of the Petun. On December
7, 1649, the Iroquois attacked Petun Village of Etharita and the survivors fled to Ekarenniondi
(present-day Scenic Caves). In spring 1650, the remaining Petuns and Wendats journeyed
westward to Mackinac Island then continued southwest, eventually settling in Oklahoma.
Over the next 200 years, human presence was marked by sparse populations of Ojibways who
used the area for hunting and fishing. Temporary campsites were established in sunny glades
near the mouth of the Nottawasaga River. The Ojibwa ceded lands in the Collingwood area to the
British Crown in 1818.
NVCA
25
6.1.2
Recent History
As the dawn of European settlement approached, the southern Georgian Bay area was generally
forested, providing large tracts of habitat for mammals such as black bear, marten, fisher,
wolverine, timber wolf, lynx, elk and eastern cougar that are now extirpated or rare.
Settlement near Collingwood began in the 1830s with the surveying of Scotch Corners (present
day Duntroon) in 1833 and 1834 (Lewis, 2004). A post office was established at this location in
1836 and farmers soon settled property around this settlement. Since farmland north of the
Nipissing shorecliff was marginal at best, settlement within Collingwood itself did not occur until
1843 when “Tallyho” Stephens constructed Hurontario Mills on the Pretty River near present day
Raglan and Ontario Streets (Lewis, 2004).
Significant settlement in Collingwood came with the construction of the Ontario, Simcoe and
Huron Union Railroad (and later the Northern Railway of Canada) line from Toronto to
Collingwood in January 1855 (Messenge, 1968). The rail line was built to facilitate construction
of a shipping harbour on Nottawasaga Bay. The construction of the rail line resulted in a
population boom – from 50 prior to the railway to 2,000 at the time of Town incorporation in
1858 (Messenge, 1968). Several lumber mills operated in the harbour and accounted for
the processing of much of the original white pine stands that dominate the forest of
central/northern Simcoe County (Gartner Lee, 2004). Sporadic shipbuilding occurred for the
next two decades then became a driving force with the official opening of harbour facilities in
1883 (Heller, 1981).
The corporate shipbuilding industry prospered in Collingwood and continued to play an important
role in the economy of the Town until the Yard closed in 1986. While industry is still an
important part of the Town’s economy, Collingwood has focused on establishing itself as a fourseason tourist area in recent years, and has become a major recreation centre for the Southern part
of the province.
Recent growth within the Town has been steady with permanent resident population expanding
from approximately 14,700 in the 1990s to over 17,900 today (currently almost 26, 000 including
recreational residents; Town of Collingwood, 2004). By 2021, growth to over 21,000 permanent
residents is projected, with the population reaching approximately 30, 000 including recreational
residents.
6.2
Post-glacial History
About 12,000 years ago, the Wisconsinan ice sheets began their final retreat from southern
Ontario, leaving a legacy of till plains, moraines, drumlins, eskers and spillway valleys
throughout much of the NVCA watershed; however, within the Town of Collingwood, much of
the ecological features and functions are predicated on landform processes that occurred after
glaciation.
6.3
Geology, Physiography and Soils
6.3.1
Paleozoic/Bedrock Geology
Over 550 million years ago, shallow seas associated with the Iapetus Ocean covered most of
southern Ontario (Eyles, 2002). Simcoe Group limestone (Lindsay Formation) was laid down as
NVCA
26
compressed corals along the reefs of the shallow seas that covered present-day Collingwood
during the Middle Ordovician period (about 460 million years ago). Near the shoreline, Lindsay
Formation limestone bedrock lies close to the soil surface and is exposed along portions of the
shoreline as well as the downstream reaches of Batteaux Creek, Black Ash Creek and the Pretty
River.
South of the shoreline, Blue Mountain Formation shales (associated with compressed muds)
overlie the limestone bedrock. These muds are associated with sedimentation from a nearby
island arc to the east. The blue-grey to black shales in this formation are interbedded with thin
banks of limestone and calcareous siltstone.
6.3.2
Physiography and Quaternary Geology
Physiography is the study of the physical structure of the surface of the land. The Simcoe
Lowlands physiographic unit dominates the Town of Collingwood and is located north and
adjacent to the Niagara Escarpment. Morphologically, this region is characterized by flat, lowlying plains composed of silts, clays and fine to medium-grained sands. The surficial geology of
the Collingwood area consists of a series of linear deposits, oriented southeast to northwest, with
till deposits separated by glaciolacustrine sand and gravel deposits. A small area of ice contact
sand and gravel deposits lie to the west. Recent modern alluvial deposits are associated with
narrow valleys formed by the water courses.
The surficial till deposits in the town were deposited during the last (Wisconsian) glaciation and
are comprised of sandy and clayey silt. They are low relief, undulating, and subdued by lake
water or melt water erosion. This unit corresponds with the Newmarket Till deposited during the
Port Bruce Stadial (Gymn and DiLabio, 1972).
The physical geomorphological appearance of the Collingwood Area relates to the regression and
transgression of the postglacial lake shorelines. Following the retreat of the Wisconsinan ice
sheets, Collingwood was submerged to a depth of over 70 m in proglacial Lake Algonquin. This
forerunner of present-day Lake Huron/Georgian Bay emptied rapidly with the opening of outlets
through the North Bay area approximately 10,100 years ago. Collingwood and much of the
Georgian Bay basin was dewatered until 8,000 years ago when rising lake levels associated with
the proglacial Nipissing transgression re-advanced, eventually reaching their highest level about
4,700 years ago approximately one kilometre inland from the present-day shoreline. This ancient
shoreline is marked by a distinct shorecliff (Figure 6) that can be observed throughout most of its
length through Collingwood. The opening of the St. Clair River outlet and associated gradual
lowering of lake levels to their present elevation (approximately 2,000 to 2,500 years ago) is
marked by a series of beach ridges and troughs between the shorecliff and the present shoreline.
NVCA
27
NVCA
28
6.3.3
Soils
A variety of soil types have developed over the parent material deposited by glacial and postglacial processes. In general, soils north of the Nipissing ridge are imperfectly to poorly drained,
whereas soils south of the ridge are well-drained to imperfectly-drained. Figure 7 depicts the soil
types within the Town of Collingwood. Table 2 describes the various soil types (based on
Hoffman et al, 1962), location and associated land uses.
Table 2: Soil Type Descriptions – Town of Collingwood
Soil Type
Granby
Characteristics
Poorly drained sandy
loam
Locations
Northwest
Collingwood
Alliston
Imperfectly drained
sandy loam
Tioga
Well-drained sandy
loam
Poorly drained,
compact till
Northwest
Collingwood south of
Highway 26
West Collingwood
south of ridge
Cranberry Resort,
Black Ash Creek Golf
Course
Georgian Trail, East
Collingwood
Parkhill
Wiarton
Imperfectly drained,
compacted silt loam
with stones
Berrien
Imperfectly drained
sands over clay
Imperfectly drained
clay loam over
bedrock
Kemble
Sargent
Percy
Harkaway
Well-drained,
droughty sand/gravel
Well-drained fine sand
loam
Well-drained loam till
West Collingwood
Southwest
Collingwood, urban
area, Sandford
Fleming Drive
Southwest
Collingwood
South-central
Collingwood
Land Uses
Forest, wetlands,
abandoned
(regenerating)
farmland
Farmland
Recreation, pasture,
hay
Forests, wetlands,
abandoned
(regenerating)
farmland
Farmland
Urban, abandoned
(regenerating)
farmland, forests
Farmland,
Sand/gravel pit
Farmland
Farmland
The soils on the post-glacial/post-Nipissing landscape were eventually colonized and stabilized
by a variety of vegetation types adapted to the varied soil and moisture regimes left behind by the
proglacial lake systems (Figures 6 and 7). Rich sugar maple/beech forests developed over the
sandy loams south of the Nipissing shorecliff. Alternating bands of swamp and lowland forest
developed over the ridge/trough systems between the shorecliff and the Nottawasaga Bay
shoreline. Shallow shelves of limestone bedrock along the Nottawasaga Bay shoreline provided a
unique setting for the development of Great Lakes coastal marsh communities.
NVCA
29
NVCA
30
6.4
Wetlands
6.4.1
Functions and Historical Trends
Wetlands include lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water as well as
lands where the water table is close to, or at, the surface. Saturated conditions in these areas
result in the formation of hydric soils which favour hydrophytic and/or water-tolerant plant
species.
Traditionally viewed as unattractive and potentially dangerous by early settlers, it is now
recognized that wetlands support a number of functions on the landscape. Headwater wetlands
moderate flow regimes within watersheds. Runoff is stored during periods of high flow and
slowly released, thereby reducing flooding and erosion and enhancing watercourse baseflow
during the summer months. The economic value of flood control functions has been evaluated in
the Charles River wetland complex in the eastern United States. This wetland complex has been
estimated to provide $5,000/ha in flood control services on an annual basis (Norman, 2004). The
frequency of flooding in the Red River watershed (Manitoba) has doubled since 1950 as a result
of high wetland losses in headwater areas (Norman, 2004). There is a significant correlation
between the magnitude of flood peaks and the amount of basin storage (wetlands) within a
watershed. Stream hydrograph studies in the Saugeen River watershed in southern Ontario show
that subwatersheds with extensive swamp cover have significantly lower flood peaks than
subwatersheds where wetlands have been drained to facilitate agricultural and urban
development. Further, these storm peaks are spread out over a longer period modulating stream
flows. It is likely that historic losses of wetlands within the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority jurisdiction have resulted in increased flood peaks which affect low-lying watershed
communities such as the Town of Collingwood.
Some wetlands act as recharge areas whereby water seeps into the ground, replenishing important
groundwater aquifers. Other wetlands are associated with significant discharge areas which
support stream baseflow and coldwater habitat. Wetlands also have the ability to retain sediments
and filter nutrients and heavy metals, thus maintaining and improving downstream water quality.
The presence of wetlands increases the complexity of the landscape, thereby increasing
biodiversity. Extensive riparian cover associated with wetlands along watercourses stabilizes
stream banks and provides shading, food inputs and instream cover which are essential
components of healthy aquatic habitat. Wetlands also provide recreation and tourism
opportunities as well as renewable resources which contribute to the economy. At a global level,
carbon sequestration in wetlands is an important tool in managing climate change (DUC, 2010).
Following European settlement in the 1800s, timber operation and wetland drainage to facilitate
agriculture significantly reduced wetland coverage in southern Ontario. Urbanization in southern
Ontario has also contributed significantly to wetland loss. Recent studies by Ducks Unlimited
Canada (2010) indicate that 72% of pre-settlement wetlands have been lost in southern Ontario.
In Simcoe County, 50.6% of pre-settlement wetlands have been lost. Within former Nottawasaga
Township, wetland loss is pegged at 55.4% Although wetlands are being protected and restored
on the southern Ontario landscape, the trend of wetland loss continues –between 1982 and 2002,
3.5% of pre-settlement wetlands were lost
There are four wetland types in southern Ontario: swamp, marsh, bog and fen. Swamps and
marshes are represented within the Town of Collingwood – coastal marsh communities within the
Town are often regarded as “rich fens”.
NVCA
31
Swamps (wooded areas with at least 25% cover of live trees or tall shrubs) are the dominant
wetland type within the Town and are generally associated with the ridge/trough areas north of
the Nipissing shorecliff. Imperfectly drained clay soils south of the shorecliff and river
valleys/floodplains also support swamp forest communities.
Marshes are characterized by robust emergent plants, anchored floating plants and/or submerged
plant species. Extensive marsh features are associated with Cranberry Marsh and the Nottawasaga
Bay shoreline. Globally rare Great Lakes coastal marsh communities are associated with the
shoreline and are occasionally found inland as well. The shoreline marshes recede and expand in
concert with rising and falling water levels in Georgian Bay.
6.4.2
Study Results
Table 3 provides a breakdown of ELC wetland community types on the landscape as a percentage
of the total landscape coverage and as a percentage of total natural heritage cover within the
Town.
Table 3: ELC Wetland Communities within the Town of Collingwood
Wetland Type
Treed Wetlands
Deciduous Swamp
Mixed Swamp
Non-Treed Wetlands
Meadow Marsh
Shallow Marsh
Shallow Water
Thicket Swamp
TOTAL
Number
of
Polygons
Total
Area
(ha)
Landscape
Cover (%)
Natural
Heritage
Cover (%)
82
9
142.1
12.9
4.2
0.4
11.4
1.0
43
18
7
17
176
126.5
30.8
55.5
32.4
400.2
3.7
0.9
1.6
1.0
11.8
10.1
2.4
4.4
2.6
31.9
Of the treed-wetland communities, deciduous swamps are most common, with 82 occurrences
covering 142.1 ha within the Town. Of all deciduous swamp communities, green ash swamps are
most common (62 occurrences). The Town of Collingwood contains four provincially and
globally rare wetland types (Great Lakes Coastal Marshes) with 36 occurrences covering
approximately 108.9 ha. Total wetland cover (treed-wetlands included) in the Town of
Collingwood is approximately 11.8 %. Of available natural heritage cover within the Town,
wetlands account for 31.9 %. Please see Appendix C for a drawing of ELC wetland communities
within the Town of Collingwood.
6.5
Forest Cover
The Town of Collingwood lies at the southern edge of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest
Region. Forest cover within the Town is depicted in Figure 8.
Forest cover is concentrated between the Nipissing shorecliff and Nottawasaga Bay. Soils in this
area were not conducive for farming and, aside from urban and recreational development,
generally remain in forested condition. Trembling aspen, white cedar and green ash are typically
the dominant tree species in this area, with silver maple occasionally dominant in wetter swamp
NVCA
32
habitats. This species composition has not changed appreciably since the first surveys of the area
in the 1850s which noted “gravelly flat land” – a scrubby series of bush cedar, tamarack,
poplar and birch thickets” (DERM, 1964), similar to the forests that dominate this area today.
Several swamp forests located from Collingwood Harbour westward have been identified as
components of the provincially significant Silver Creek Wetland Complex. A number of
unevaluated swamp forests have also been identified through recent studies as well as field work
undertaken as part of this study.
Sandy, well-drained areas south of the Nipissing shorecliff are well-suited for farming and have
generally been cleared for agriculture. Tree cover is minimal and is generally restricted to
river/stream valley systems. Remnant sugar maple forests are found in better-drained areas and
represent a relatively rare forest feature on the Town landscape, though they are often dominant
elsewhere within NVCA jurisdiction.
6.5.1
Temporal Trends
In southern Ontario, it is estimated that forest clearing between 1800 and 1920 left less than 1%
of the land base in original older-growth condition and almost none in true old growth condition.
More that 90% of the original upland woodlands were converted to non-forest land uses by 1920
(Larson et al., 1999), a rate that exceeds wetland losses. The low point in forest cover appeared
to be reached in the early 1920s when the availability of fossil fuels and electricity began to
relieve the pressure for fuel-wood consumption (Larson et al., 1999).
Over the past eighty years, forest cover in southern Ontario has increased significantly as
marginal farmland has been removed from production. This increase has been particularly
dramatic in municipalities along the Niagara Escarpment where woodland cover increased by
more than 36% from 1954 to 1978.
Forest clearing within Simcoe County closely followed the general pattern observed in southern
Ontario. The influx of settlers in the mid-1800s led to significant changes in the extent of forest
cover within the watershed. The decline in forest cover is summarized below:
Combined forest cover in Dufferin, Grey and Simcoe counties declined from 90%
(1851) to 13% (1911) (DERM, 1964);
Restoration and succession within these counties increased the forest cover to 15% by
1961 (DERM, 1964);
Total forest cover within Simcoe County increased to 29% by 1978 (Larson et al., 1999);
Relative to Simcoe County, the Town of Collingwood has exhibited a somewhat different pattern
of forest change. Areas south of the Nipissing shorecliff were cleared in the 1800s to support
agriculture. Areas south of the shorecliff generally remained in forest cover until the mid-late
1800s when the construction of the Ontario, Simcoe and Huron Union Railroad led to urban
development around the harbour. Attempts were made to farm some areas north of the shorecliff;
however, farmland was marginal and was generally abandoned during the latter portion of the
20th century.
Forest regeneration is occurring in several portions of the Town – generally where soil conditions
are marginal for agriculture and where young forests/shrub thickets are regenerating following
farmland abandonment. The southwest corner of Collingwood (Osler Bluff Road and 6 th Line),
the area north of Mountain Road between 10th and 11th Lines, Batteaux Creek between old and
NVCA
33
new Highway 26, and areas along the Georgian Trail near Silver Creek are examples of
regenerating areas.
Forest loss continues to occur within the Town of Collingwood (Figure 9). Since 2002,
significant forest loss has been associated with residential development, industrial development
and highway construction (Highway 26 bypass). Loss of forest cover north of the Nipissing
shorecliff has also occurred within the Town of Wasaga Beach, significantly degrading the
forested core areas and corridor that historically existed between Collingwood and Wasaga
Beach.
6.5.2
Forest Interior Habitat
Forest interior habitat is generally defined as forest cover which is found a minimum of 100 m
from a forest edge. Compact forest shapes such as circular and square woodlots provide more
forest interior habitat than similarly sized forests that are elongate or irregular in shape.
Large, compact forests provide specialized habitats in their interior that support many neotropical
migrant and interior-specialist bird species. These species require sheltered, quiescent conditions
away from the forest edge to successfully forage and reproduce. Forest interior species are
typically insectivorous and are limited in distribution to forest over 10 ha in size (Riley and Mohr,
1994).
Neotropical migrant bird species often raise only a single clutch of eggs whereas generalist and
resident species will raise two or three clutches during the nesting season. These migrants tend to
nest on or near the ground. As a result of their reproductive habits, neotropical migrants are
highly susceptible to predation from domestic pets, common grackle, blue jay, raccoon and
Virginia opossum as well as nest parasitism from brown-headed cowbird. Predation and nest
parasitism tends to decrease away from the forest edge.
Large tracts of intact forest cover provide forest interior habitat for a number of bird species in
southern Ontario as listed in Table 4. Although these species may occasionally breed in smaller
woodlots and forest edges, these habitats become population “sinks” as successful nesting and
rearing is rare. In contrast, extensive areas of forest interior habitat act as population “sources”
where annual production equals or exceeds annual mortality rates.
Forest interior habitat also supports other species that require large tracts of forest for
reproduction and shelter. Herpetiles such as wood frog and yellow spotted salamander are
strongly associated with forest interior habitat. Similarly, mammals such as flying squirrels and
porcupines require large forest tracts to carry out their life cycles. These large tracts of forests
also provide habitat for larger mammals such as deer that utilize extensive mixed/coniferous
forest and swamp cover as significant over-wintering areas.
Table 4: Forest Interior Bird Species of Southern Ontario
(Larson et al., 1999 and Landowner Resource Centre, 2000.)
Acadian Flycatcher
Blackburnian Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
Canada Warbler
Barred Owl
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Brown Creeper
Cerulean Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Broad-winged Hawk
Hermit Thrush
NVCA
34
Hooded Warbler
Northern Goshawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Swainson’s Thrush
Wood Thrush
Louisiana Waterthrush
Northern Waterthrush
Red-shouldered Hawk
Winter Wren
Yellow-throated Vireo
MourningWarbler
Ovenbird
Scarlet Tanager
Veery
Note:
Species referenced in bold are considered neotropical migrants. Other species are resident or undertake relatively short
migrations south of their breeding range. It should be noted that there is disagreement within the scientific community as to what
species are true interior forest species. This list attempts to find a balance between exclusionary and inclusionary paradigms
(Featherstone, 2002).
Forest interior habitat is associated with relatively few large forest blocks within the Town of
Collingwood (Figure 10). The Georgian Trail forests, northwest Collingwood forest and
Batteaux Creek forest support the last remaining forest interior habitats within the Town.
6.5.3
Hydrological and Air Quality Functions
Although the wildlife habitat and forestry values of forests are well-recognized, forests also play
a critical role in the hydrological cycle of a watershed. Healthy, functioning watersheds naturally
filter pollutants and moderate water quantity by slowing surface runoff and increasing the
infiltration of water into the soil. The result is less flooding and soil erosion, cleaner water
downstream and greater groundwater reserves (Ernst, 2004).
A significant proportion (10%-50%; Norman, 2004) of precipitation is intercepted by the forest
canopy where it then evaporates into the atmosphere instead of running off the land. Roughly
three-quarters of the precipitation falling on a forest is returned to the atmosphere through
evaporation and transpiration (FON, 2004). Tree rooting systems provide pathways for
precipitation to infiltrate into the soil, further reducing surface runoff. Canopy shade slows
snowmelt processes, reducing flood peaks. Woodlands provide erosion protection on the
landscape, maintaining natural levels of erosion and sediment transport within the watershed.
The value of forests in maintaining high quality recharge to groundwater aquifers is emphasized
in cities such as New York (United States) and Augsburg (Germany) where large tracts of forests
in recharge areas have been purchased and managed to maintain high quality drinking water
supplies and reduce the need for expensive treatment systems. Reforestation of the Oak Ridges
Moraine following deforestation, which reached an apex in the 1920s, has increased groundwater
recharge to area aquifers (Imhof, 2004).
Natural heritage features, which are generally dominated by forests (upland and swamps) within
the Nottawasaga River watershed, provide a framework for aquatic ecosystems on the landscape.
Aquatic biota are the ultimate integrators of land uses within a catchment and can be viewed as
“children of the watershed”. Large areas of natural heritage cover well-distributed across the
landscape provide a framework for healthy aquatic ecosystems.
Local air quality benefits are associated with forest cover since leaf surfaces are able to trap and
absorb noxious gases and particulates. In a larger global context, forests sequester carbon
dioxide, a greenhouse gas, thereby moderating the effects of global warming.
6.5.4
Study Results
Table 5 provides a breakdown of forest types on the Town landscape as a percentage of the total
landscape coverage and as a percentage of total natural heritage cover.
NVCA
35
Table 5: ELC Forest Communities within the Town of Collingwood
Wetland Type
Forests
Cultural Plantation
Coniferous Forest
Deciduous Forest
Mixed Forest
Treed Wetlands
Deciduous Swamp
Mixed Swamp
TOTAL
Number
of
Polygons
Total
Area
(ha)
Landscape
Cover (%)
Natural
Heritage
Cover (%)
6
9
140
71
16.6
13.4
291.4
188.8
0.49
0.4
8.6
5.5
1.3
1.1
23.4
15.1
82
9
317
142.1
12.9
665.2
4.2
0.4
19.5
11.4
1.0
53.3
Deciduous forest communities are most common within the Town of Collingwood. Of the
deciduous forest communities, poplar forests are most numerous with 57 occurrences covering
144.3 ha. White cedar – hardwood mixed forests are the most numerous mixed forest type with
61 occurrences covering 178.3 ha with in the Town. Green ash swamps are the most common
type of deciduous swamp within the Town, with 62 occurrences covering a total of 114.6 ha.
Total forest cover (treed-wetlands included) in the Town of Collingwood is approximately 19.5
%. Of available natural heritage cover within the Town, forests account for 53.3 %. Please see
Appendix C for a drawing of ELC forest community within the Town of Collingwood.
NVCA
36
NVCA
37
NVCA
38
NVCA
39
6.6
Non-treed Upland Habitats
6.6.1
Functions and Historical Trends
Non-treed upland habitats consist of a mix of cultural features and features maintained by natural
processes such as drought, erosion and fire or dynamic beach processes.
Cultural features include old field meadows, cultural thickets and cultural savannahs (thinly treed
fields) that are regenerating on the landscape following a cessation of anthropogenic disturbances
such as agriculture and resource extraction. When such land uses are abandoned, they typically
revert, through natural succession, from forb (wildflower) and grass-dominated fields to
shrubland/successional tree dominated communities to climax forest communities (Geomatics,
1995). Twenty-five to forty years is often required to establish the dominant species of the
original, pre-disturbance community while “complete” community restoration has been estimated
to take from 80 to 100 years (Geomatics, 1995). It is important to note that successional habitats
are likely to evolve into mature woodlands given sufficient time and freedom from disturbance.
Since less than 1% of southern Ontario’s forests are considered old- growth, much of the forest
cover in southern Ontario has regenerated as a direct result of these successional processes on the
landscape.
Successional habitats are typically undervalued since they are not viewed as natural habitats and
are relatively abundant. Current provincial policy does not provide for the protection of these
features unless they provide habitat for threatened and endangered species or support rare
vegetation communities such as tallgrass prairies/savannahs, sand barrens, dynamic beaches or
alvars. However, they can provide important breeding/foraging habitat for valued fauna (i.e.
white-tailed deer, wild turkey) as well as suitable conditions for rare flora associated with early
succession. Large expanses of successional habitat can provide habitat for area-sensitive bird
species such as grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella
magna) and bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) which require large areas of unbroken grasslands
for breeding and rearing. Bobolink has recently been designated as a threatened species while
eastern meadowlark has recently been proposed for threatened designation. Both species are
relatively common within the NVCA watershed.
Natural values of successional areas are particularly important in landscapes that are
predominantly agricultural (Geomatics, 1995). These habitats can provide opportunities for
ecological restoration or rehabilitation that will benefit and enhance the natural values of the
natural heritage system particularly where they are contiguous or proximal to riparian areas,
woodlands, and wetlands, and where they provide linkages between these features.
6.6.2
Study Results
Table 6 provides a breakdown of non-treed upland habitats on the Town landscape as a
percentage of the total landscape coverage and as a percentage of total natural heritage cover.
NVCA
40
Table 6: ELC Successional Communities within the Town of Collingwood
Wetland Type
Cultural Woodland
Cultural Meadow
Cultural Savannah
Cultural Thicket
Open Alvar
TOTAL
Number
of
Polygons
45
44
3
18
1
111
Total
Area
(ha)
90.6
158.7
3.1
85.3
0.4
338.1
Landscape
Cover (%)
2.7
4.7
0.1
2.5
.01
9.9
Natural
Heritage
Cover (%)
7.3
12.7
0.2
6.8
.03
27.1
Cultural woodland and cultural meadow communities are most common within the Town of
Collingwood. Total regenerating cover in the Town of Collingwood is approximately 9.9 %. Of
available natural heritage cover within the Town, regenerating cover accounts for 27.1 %.
6.7
Watercourses
Six main watercourses flow through the Town of Collingwood and into Nottawasaga Bay
(Figure11). Five of these watercourses – Batteaux Creek, Pretty River, Black Ash Creek, Silver
Creek and Townline Creek – arise along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment south and west of
Collingwood. Bower’s Beach Creek arises on till plains near the village of Batteaux then flows
north, discharging to the bay at the eastern limits of the Town. Several small local drainages also
flow to Nottawasaga Bay including the Cranberry Marsh outflow, the Oak Street Canal, drainage
from the Sandford Fleming industrial area, and past channels now associated with the Silver
Creek spill area just west of Princeton Shores Boulevard. In some cases, these drainage features
have been historically excavated to drain adjacent lands while, in others, these features represent
remnants of historical watercourses.
6.7.1
Bower’s Beach Creek
Bower’s Beach Creek arises from relatively flat till features southeast of Collingwood.
Groundwater discharge is low compared to the Escarpment stream systems and flow can be
intermittent during the summer and early fall. Refuge pools along the creek provide fish habitat
during intermittent flow periods. Tolerant baitfish, such as creek chub, comprise the resident fish
community. Large numbers of baitfish (shiner species) have been observed in mid-late fall in the
downstream reaches of the creek near its confluence with the Bay suggesting that this small
system represents a fall refuge for these species. White sucker have historically ascended this
tributary in this spring to spawn (Collis, pers.comm.).
Bower’s Beach Creek is a highly altered system, with its headwaters flowing through agricultural
fields. Entering the Town of Collingwood, the creek flows through a roadside ditch along the
west side of 36-37 (Nottawasaga) Sideroad. Recent construction associated with the Highway 26
bypass has removed significant amounts of riparian vegetation in this area. Downstream (north)
of Highway 26, the creek flows through a ditched channel which extends north to Nottawasaga
Bay.
NVCA
41
6.7.2
Batteaux Creek
Batteaux Creek arises along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment west of Duntroon. Coldwater
habitat in the headwaters supports resident brook trout and spawning, nursery and juvenile habitat
for migratory rainbow trout. Downstream, groundwater inputs diminish and the creek rapidly
warms and becomes unsuitable for trout, though the creek continues to provide habitat for
warmwater baitfish species. Smallmouth bass have been observed in the downstream reaches of
Batteaux Creek and these areas may provide a thermal refuge for smallmouth bass during periods
of cold water upwelling in Nottawasaga Bay.
6.7.3
Pretty River
The Pretty River arises along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment northwest of Duntroon and
flows through a groundwater-rich outwash valley before entering the till plains that extend
northeast toward Collingwood. Rich groundwater discharge in its upper reaches supports
coldwater habitat for resident brook trout and spawning, nursery and juvenile habitat for
migratory rainbow trout. Chinook salmon also utilize coldwater habitats in the Pretty River.
Exposed limestone bedrock in the vicinity of the Pretty River Parkway forms a partial obstacle to
upstream fish passage. Historically, the Georgian Triangle Anglers Association and MNR have
excavated passage channels through the bedrock to facilitate fish passage (Gartner Lee, 2004).
Coldwater habitat extends downstream to the south limits of Collingwood. The Pretty River was
diked throughout most of the Town of Collingwood in 1975 (C.C. Tathum, 1997) to protect
Town residents and businesses from flooding. To ensure floodwater conveyance is maintained,
forest cover is discouraged within the diked system and warmwater habitat conditions prevail,
though the creek continues to provide habitat for warmwater baitfish species. Similar to Batteaux
Creek, the downstream sections of the Pretty River may provide a thermal refuge for smallmouth
bass during periods of cold water upwelling in Nottawasaga Bay.
6.7.4
Black Ash Creek
The Petun branch of Black Ash Creek arises along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment near
Castle Glen. Groundwater discharge along the Escarpment slopes supports coldwater habitat
within this tributary downstream into Collingwood. Other tributaries of Black Ash Creek are
generally associated with till plains and typically have minor groundwater contributions. Flows
in these systems may become intermittent during droughty summer/early fall conditions. Brook
trout are present only in the extreme headwaters near Castle Glen. Rainbow trout production
occurs throughout the Petun tributary. Some coldwater potential is also present in tributary
reaches south of Town. Other tributary reaches flowing east into Black Ash Creek (Underwood
tributary and Georgian Trail tributary) support seasonal baitfish habitat.
The downstream reaches of Black Ash Creek (north of Poplar Sideroad) were historically altered
to accept drainage from watercourses that otherwise would have flowed through (and periodically
flooded) urban Collingwood. The vertical profile of Black Ash Creek downstream of Campbell
Street to Collingwood Harbour was lowered in 2002 to address flooding issues within the Town
of Collingwood. Natural channel design was incorporated within its limestone bedrock base and
side slopes were re-vegetated, though forest cover will likely be discouraged to ensure
conveyance of flood flows. Connections to intermittent inflowing tributaries from the west were
impacted by this work.
NVCA
42
6.7.5
Silver Creek
Silver Creek arises along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment near Castle Glen. Unlike other
stream systems within the Town of Collingwood, coldwater habitat, associated with significant
groundwater discharge in the Escarpment headwaters, is present downstream through
Collingwood to its confluence with Nottawasaga Bay. Downstream of Highway 26, the main
channel of Silver Creek was reconfigured in the early 1970’s as part of highway construction.
Silver Creek supports resident brook trout and spawning, nursery and juvenile habitat for
migratory rainbow trout and Chinook salmon. The Silver Creek tributary flowing eastward from
Osler Bluff Road and Grey 19 also supports coldwater habitat for rainbow trout (Azimuth, *).
Similar to Batteaux Creek, the downstream sections of Silver Creek may provide a thermal refuge
for smallmouth bass during periods of cold water upwelling in Nottawasaga Bay.
6.7.6
Townline Creek
Townline Creek arises along the slopes of the Niagara Escarpment just south of the Blue
Mountain Ski Resort. The creek flows through the ski resort and the Monterra development
before entering the Town of Collingwood at Osler Bluff Road. Townline Creek enters a roadside
ditch just downstream of Georgian Trail and continues along the ditch north of Highway 26
before flowing east under Long Point Road toward the Silver Creek Wetlands. Townline Creek
has been historically altered through this forested reach.
Townline Creek supports spawning, nursery and juvenile habitat for migratory rainbow trout.
Recent partnership monitoring efforts by the Blue Mountain Watershed Trust, Nottawasaga
Valley Conservation Authority and Grey Sauble Conservation Authority have identified
significant water quality impacts associated with high concentrations of suspended sediment and
nutrients that appear to be originating from the ski hills. These impacts, combined with
alterations associated with roadside ditches and other channel works, continue to impact stream
health.
6.7.8
Local Drainage Features
Several smaller drainage features course through the Town of Collingwood to Nottawasaga Bay
(Figure 11). With the exception of the features in northwest Collingwood (former channels of
Silver Creek), these features have been highly altered and flow through urban areas. The
downstream portions of these features may support habitat for tolerant warmwater fish species.
NVCA
43
NVCA
44
6.8
Groundwater
6.8.1
Hydrogeology
The Collingwood area is underlain by two aquifer systems: 1) an overburden aquifer to the south,
and 2) a bedrock aquifer which is exposed at surface to the north (Golder Associates Ltd, 2004).
The overburden aquifer consists of localized inter-till units, which are hydraulically confined to
the south and become unconfined to the north. The overburden aquifer is up to approximately
10m thick (where it is confined), within the elevation range of approximately 170 m to 220 masl
(Golder Associates Ltd, 2004). This unit thins out to the north, and eventually disappears where
the underlying till and bedrock are exposed at surface.
The groundwater flow is to the northeast, generally aligned to the direction of flow in the local
stream. The recharge to the local aquifers is considered to originate largely from the area of the
Niagara Escarpment, with local contributions to the north where the sand aquifer becomes
unconfined, and further north where bedrock is exposed at surface.
It is noted that the Town of Collingwood is serviced primarily by a municipal water supply
system which obtains its supply from a surface water intake in Georgian Bay. Private water
supply wells service the outlying areas and are constructed primarily in the shallow overburden
aquifer or in a poorly confined bedrock aquifer. These areas are also typically serviced by
individual private sewage treatment systems (e.g. septics).
6.8.2
Groundwater Discharge Areas and Highly Vulnerable Aquifers
Groundwater discharge areas are associated with stream and river corridors, particularly where
these features cut into the landscape and intersect shallow, local aquifers. Discharge areas are
also associated with large expanses of low-lying lands/wetlands. Within the Town of
Collingwood, discharge areas are generally expressed as broad bands of low volume seeps rather
than discrete springs, such as those observed in the Escarpment headwaters of Batteaux Creek,
Pretty River, Black Ash Creek, Silver Creek and Townline Creek.
Shallow groundwater areas, often associated with discharge zones, can be highly vulnerable to
contamination from human activities. A highly vulnerable aquifer (HVA) is defined as the
subsurface soils underlying areas of high groundwater vulnerability. Through Source Water
Protection, an HVA is an aquifer (groundwater-bearing unit) on which external sources (generally
human activities) have or are likely to have a significant adverse effect. The HVA includes the
land/soils above the aquifer. In general, an HVA consists of permeable granular aquifer materials
or fractured rock near the ground surface in association with a relatively shallow water table.
Based on the intrinsic susceptibility index (ISI) method, a considerable percentage of the Town of
Collingwood corresponds to an HVA (South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection
Committee, 2010). The HVA is generally located north of the Nipissing ridge in areas where
there is minimal overburden (bedrock outcropping) and/or sand/gravel units on the surface
accompanied by a shallow water table (Figure 12).
NVCA
45
NVCA
46
NVCA
47
6.8.3
Significant Recharge Areas
Groundwater recharge zones, where precipitation and snowmelt infiltrate into the ground to feed
groundwater aquifers and groundwater discharge zones, feed area watercourses and wetlands and
are integral components of the natural heritage system. Significant recharge zones are typically
associated with coarse-grained soils (i.e. sands and gravels) covering upland areas on the
landscape.
A significant groundwater recharge area (SGRA) is an area where a relatively large percentage of
water recharges from the ground surface to an aquifer (South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source
Protection Committee., 2010). SGRAs represent important areas for groundwater to recharge the
water table. The SGRA in the Town of Collingwood is limited to the overburden area running
northwest to southeast along the lower flanks of the Niagara Escarpment in the southwest part of
the Town (Figure 13).
6.9
Shoreline
The nearshore zone is considered the most productive portion of Lake Huron with influences that
extend offshore and inland (LHBCSCT, 2010). Almost all fish inhabiting Georgian Bay utilize
the coastal wetlands, sand, gravel or cobble substrates associated with the nearshore zone at some
point during their life cycle. Most Great Lakes fish utilize coastal wetlands for at least one life
cycle stage, while nearshore reefs provide critical habitat for lake herring, lake trout and lake
whitefish. Several significant fish habitat areas have been identified along the Collingwood
shoreline by the Ministry of Natural Resources. These areas are reflected in Schedule B of the
Town’s Official Plan (Figure 5).
The nearshore zone of Nottawasaga Bay supports a variety of substrates and areas of aquatic
vegetation that provide habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl and fish. Exposed reefs and islands
provide thickets and open forests that provide habitat for colonial nesting bird species such as
terns, gulls, herons, egrets and cormorants. The nearshore area is intrinsically connected to
coastal terrestrial features within 2 km of the shoreline (LHBCSCT, 2010).
Relative to the remainder of southern Georgian Bay, the Collingwood shoreline has a shallow
shoreline profile including several islands and reef formations that appear to provide for a high
level of biodiversity within the southern Georgian Bay context.
Informal cruises of the Collingwood shoreline were undertaken on May 22 and November 16,
2010 in support of this study. The intent of these cruises was to identify general substrate
characteristics along the shoreline and to identify key areas of biodiversity in the nearshore area
(Figure 14). The results of these cruises suggest that the Town shoreline can be effectively
divided into east and west shoreline areas.
The east shoreline (east of Collingwood Harbour) is dominated by boulder/cobble substrates with
shallow bedrock shelves becoming prominent between the Pretty River mouth and the harbour.
Shoreline substrates are generally fully exposed to wave action and seiche events from Georgian
Bay. A shallow offshore reef east of the Batteaux Creek mouth provides a small, relatively
sheltered inshore environment that supports finer substrates (sand) and aquatic vegetation (elodea
and watermilfoil). Water depths tend to be fairly shallow and drop off uniformly to deeper
offshore basins. The east shoreline is fully developed and connections to coastal terrestrial
features are tenuous at best. Groynes are common along this shoreline but are relatively short and
NVCA
48
constructed from native substrates (boulder/cobble). A more significant hardening of the
shoreline is associated with the development west of Huronia Parkway.
The west shoreline (west of Collingwood Harbour) has a relatively high diversity of habitat types
compared to the east shoreline. Offshore reefs and islands effectively shelter inshore areas,
reducing exposure to Georgian Bay storms and seiche events. Substrates range from bedrock to
silt/clay with areas of gravel shoals, sand bars and boulder/cobble also present. Beds of aquatic
vegetation are present over some areas of finer substrate. Water depths are variable with shallow
shoals intermixed with areas of deep water (up to 3 m deep). Substrates and depths can change
from year to year as a result of storm and ice action (G. Reid, pers.comm.). Development is
variable along the west shoreline. Areas immediately west of the harbour are highly developed
with significant shoreline hardening and marina development. The shoreline along Princeton
Shores Boulevard and Bartlett Boulevard has been highly altered via dredging. Conversely, the
shoreline between Bartlett Boulevard and Madeline Drive represent the last undeveloped
shoreline in the Town of Collingwood and provides important connectivity between the nearshore
zone (including the offshore islands) and the inland terrestrial coastal zone.
NVCA
49
NVCA
50
6.9.1
Shoreline Impacts
Shoreline hardening effectively removes nearshore habitats and eliminates/degrades connections
to wetland and terrestrial features along the shoreline (MNR, 2010). Further, this hardening
disrupts natural nearshore coastal processes that drive erosion and sediment transport. Disruption
of these processes alters the character and extent of nearshore habitat and the vegetation and
habitat structure of the shoreline.
Groynes alter shoreline processes, particularly water flow and sediment transport; structures that
extend out further into the lake (150 m -300 m) are particularly disruptive. The east shore of
Collingwood has more than 30 groynes/km while the remainder of Collingwood has 1-10
groynes/km (MNR, 2010). The east shore tends to have many small, single lot-based groynes
whereas those associated with the central shoreline, though fewer, are much larger in scale.
Recent low water levels have exacerbated impacts to the nearshore zone. In some areas,
shoreline residents have responded to sustained low water levels by dredging to maintain boat
access. Suspension of colloidal material during dredging, even with best mitigation efforts, often
results in sediment plumes that extend far beyond the project area. Beach raking and removal of
riparian vegetation also contribute to ongoing impacts that extend beyond the initial impacts
caused by development. On average, much of the Collingwood shoreline has 1-10 dredging
events/km; however, this increases to 11-30 events/km between Bartlett Boulevard and
Collingwood Harbour (MNR, 2010)
Watershed land uses also impacts the nearshore system. Sediment loading from tributary rivers
and streams can introduce excessive nutrients and turbidity into the nearshore zone. Excessive
nutrients and suspended sediment loadings identified in Townline Creek (*,*) move into West
Black Bass Bay during storm events, resulting in significant turbidity in the nearshore zone which
impairs foraging activity of visual predators such as smallmouth bass.
6.10
Islands
With over 32 000 islands, the Great Lakes have the world’s largest collection of freshwater
islands containing significant biodiversity (Henson et al., 2010). They are important breeding and
staging areas for colonial nesting waterbirds, important stopover sites for migrating birds, and
contain rare habitats as well as endemic plant and animal species (Henson et al., 2010). Islands
are important for their biological and physical diversity, and are highly sensitive to anthropogenic
disturbances.
Many of the islands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay were connected to the mainland after the
last period of glaciation. Because of isostatic rebound and changes in outflows during the Lake
Nipissing stage (approximately 5,500 years ago), water levels rose to about 8 m above presentday levels, submerging and subsequently re-emerging some lands once water levels fell (Henson
et al., 2010). This led to the current combination of land-bridge and primary islands we see today.
Islands of Life: A Biodiversity and Conservation Atlas of the Great Lakes Islands, prepared by
Nature Conservancy Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and The Nature
Conservancy, identifies 4 key islands for biodiversity conservation along the Collingwood portion
of Nottawasaga Bay: East Black Bass Bay Island Complex, Hen and Chicken Island,
Nottawasaga Island, and Sunset Point Island Complex. Islands are defined as “any land
mass...that is surrounded by an aquatic ecosystem.” A particular island can be periodically
NVCA
51
connected to the mainland or part of a reef depending on water levels. Rock, shoals, shallow
reefs and breakwaters can all be considered islands in the context of this report.
East Black Bass Bay Island Complex received high scoring due to its biological diversity, while
Hen and Chicken Island received high scoring for both its physical and biological diversity. Both
islands were categorized as having a medium to high threat level, primarily due to agriculture and
building development – though soils are poor and not conducive to agriculture and planning and
regulatory policy generally protect these features from development. Sunset Point Island
Complex was top scoring for its biological diversity and its relative threat level is perceived as
low. These three islands are generally protected via Town zoning and/or NVCA regulations and
portions lie within the Silver Creek PSW. Development pressure along adjacent shorelines is
high.
Nottawasaga Island received top scoring as it is significant habitat for colonial nesting waterbirds.
It is the only Island in the Town of Collingwood that holds a natural heritage designation. The
Nottawasaga Island Important Bird Area (IBA) is one of only four large Great Egret colonies in
Canada, and is home to almost three percent of the Canadian population of Black-crowned Nightherons (Henson et al., 2010).
6.11
Climate Change
Climate change can be defined as a “long term shift in overall weather patterns over time,
measured by changes in temperature, precipitation, wind, snow cover, and other indicators”
(Government of Canada, 2010). On a global scale, climate change can be due to natural causes,
such as volcanic activity, or human causes, such as fossil fuel burning and the clearing of natural
features on the landscape. It is this human-induced climate change that is of such great concern.
Climate change is not just “global warming”. Rising temperatures can lead to changes in wind
and water currents, precipitation, and frequency of severe weather events. All of these factors can
have severe impacts not only on the environment, but on the social and economic well being of
societies around the world (Government of Canada, 2010).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that climate change adaptation and
mitigation be addressed at all levels of government to identify the root cause of climate warming
and to minimize its potential damages, such as loss of biodiversity (Peel Region, 2008). At a
municipal level, this involves including natural heritage system approaches as a critical element
of sustainable community design (Peel Region, 2008).
The following information on climate change in the Lake Huron area was excerpted from La Mer
Douce – The Sweet Sea: An International Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Huron,
prepared by the Lake Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Core Team.
Over the last 100 years, the average global surface temperature has increased approximately 0.8
⁰C, with an increase of another 1.1⁰C to 6.4⁰C or more projected in the next 90 years. Being at
moderate latitude, climate change projections for the Great Lakes region are slightly higher than
global average projections, with most effects being seen in maximum summer temperatures and
minimum winter temperatures. It is expected that global climate change will lead to six major
changes in Lake Huron: 1) increased annual averages in air and surface water temperatures, 2)
increased duration of the stratified period, 3) changes in direction and strength of wind and water
currents, 4) flashier precipitation, 5) decreased ice cover, and 6) changes in lake levels.
NVCA
52
These expected changes pose a threat to all biodiversity features. Because climate change and its
effects are occurring at such fast rates, species are not able to adapt due to physiological and/or
mobility limitations or because changes in their habitat hinder their adaptive ability. Many species
will experience climate change as a stressor that reduces survival and/or reproduction. In general,
most species will respond to climate change by changes in their range or local abundance and
viability, or changes in timing of seasonal events. In order for species to make long-term shifts
into new areas, there must be a way for them to move, a path for them to follow, and a place to go
that has climactic and habitat conditions that will allow individuals to survive and reproduce.
Habitat loss and disconnected or fragmented natural features (such as wetlands and forests) will
hinder the ability of species to move into new areas. Species unable to disperse will also have the
added stress of species from lower latitudes invading their habitats and competing for resources.
Climate change is also a high threat to aerial migrants due to the loss of key habitats such as
nesting, foraging, and staging habitats (most importantly wetlands), the depletion of food
resources within those habitats, and phenology mismatches (the idea that migrant birds
experience greater warming on their breeding grounds than their wintering grounds and will miss
the early stages of the breeding season, leading to global population declines).
The rapid changes associated with climate change in the Great Lakes area suggest a high potential
for species to respond at different rates which can have negative implications for inter-species
interactions. With species making shifts into new areas at different rates, the potential exists for
the disruption of symbiotic relationships between species which can critically affect the survival
of one or both species and lead to changes in ecosystem function. It is also suggested that climate
change will contribute to the disruption of entire food webs.
Of other considerable concern in the Great Lakes area is the extreme threat to rare coastal
communities. Decreased lake levels result in a change of area, distribution, and abundance of
coastal wetlands which can severely affect the ecology of these globally rare and important
natural features. Impacts of climate change are likely to exacerbate human disturbances such as
dredging and filling, water diversion, and pollution. Also occurring with decreased water levels is
the colonization of coastal systems by invasive species, such as Phragmites, which outcompete
native species and change the ecology and hydrology of the wetlands.
Increased drought and intensity of rainfall have the potential to increase erosion and reduce the
viability of sensitive coastal systems. Changes in wind and current patterns can also cause
changes in the physical processes that shape coastal communities by causing changes in sediment
movement patterns and distribution of near shore habitat types. Alterations and disruptions to
these habitats can negatively impact foraging areas for many species as well as near shore fish
spawning areas. Warmer near shore water temperatures and longer stratified periods will lead to
higher summer oxygen depletion which will severely impact food web dynamics. All of the
above changes create the potential for phenological mismatches that reduce the viability of key
species.
Climate change also has implications for native fish species. Each species has a preferred water
temperature which, as ectotherms, matches closely with their body temperature. Foraging,
metabolism, growth, and mating behavior are all very closely intertwined with a species’
preferred water temperature. Because of this dependence on optimal water temperature for
survival and reproduction, fish will respond strongly to changes in water temperature, water
volume, and water flow by either shifts in distribution or in overall productivity. Coupled with
potential changes in critical near shore habitat, the impact of climate change on native, migratory
fish species could be severe.
NVCA
53
The role of natural heritage systems in the context of climate change is to help ensure that
ecosystems are as connected and resilient as possible so that species can move and remain viable
under both current and future climate conditions.
6.12
Invasive Species
Terrestrial and aquatic invasive species harm native ecosystems and impact a range of human
activities. From a natural heritage perspective, invasive species often find no natural enemies in
their new habitat and rapidly expand their populations, adversely impacting native vegetation
communities, wildlife habitat, and overall biodiversity. Invasive species are considered the
second-most significant threat to biodiversity after habitat loss (ref***).
The Town of Collingwood hosts a range of invasive species. Some are well-established – and
likely beyond all but local control – while others are found in relatively isolated pockets and may
still be effectively controlled through concerted community action. Key invasive species and
affected areas are described below.
Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) is a common – and often dominant – component of the
shrub layer in fresh-moist mixed and deciduous forests in Collingwood. This invasive shrub is
also present along wetland forest fringes. Forests in the east portion of Collingwood are
particularly infested. Common buckthorn berries are ingested by birds – they are a diuretic and
seeds pass through the digestive system unharmed and are rapidly introduced to adjacent forest
areas.
Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) are members
of the carrot family. Both species can cause photodermatitis when bare skin exposed to sap is
exposed to sunlight, resulting in severe skin blisters and burns in some individuals. Giant
hogweed is found along much of the Oak Street Canal downstream into Harbourview Park. The
Town of Collingwood and NVCA have been working at controlling this population over the past
three years. Giant hogweed has recently (2010) been declared a noxious weed under the Ontario
Weeds Act. Several municipalities (i.e. Wellington County) have passed bylaws under the
Municipal Act to control plants in areas other than on agricultural lands where there is a potential
for risks to human health and safety. Wild parsnip is present along portions of the Pretty River
dyke trail as well as along trails in Harbourview Park. Town staff continue to control wild
parsnip along these trail sections.
The non-native strain of common reed (Phragmites australis) has colonized shoreline areas along
the east shore of Lake Huron and portions of Georgian Bay. Recent low water levels have
created habitat opportunities for common reed which, in suitable environments, can form dense
monocultures that exclude native marsh/beach species. Common reed has colonized the rare
shoreline marshes along the Collingwood shoreline. Dense monocultures are not typically
associated with these colonies though disturbed shoreline areas and areas with high nutrient
inputs do have denser stands. The low nutrient regime associated with the coastal marsh may
limit their distribution and density; however, these colonizing stands could also become denser
and have increasing impacts over time.
Dog-strangling vine (Vincetoxicum nigrum) is a highly invasive vine that has colonized portions
of the White’s Bay/Hen and Chicken Island shoreline in Collingwood. This species will likely
expand throughout dry to moist shoreline habitats as well as inland unless control efforts are
forthcoming.
NVCA
54
Natural communities associated with Harbourview Park and adjacent areas have been impacted
by invasive species. Hybrid poplars are present in the forests. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum
cuspidatum), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) are
abundant in forest understorey and along forest edges. A non-native forest dominated by black
locust (Robinia pseudocacia), common buckthorn and garlic mustard is present east of the
boardwalk trail.
Invasive aquatic species are present along the Collingwood shoreline. Zebra mussels are present
on rocky substrates in the nearshore area. Round gobies are abundant and can be observed
feeding off sheet piles along the harbour walls. Common carp are present in large numbers along
the shoreline, uprooting wetland vegetation and creating turbid conditions through their foraging
and spawning activities.
7.0
Provincial Policy Statement - Natural Heritage Features and
Functions
The PPS identifies a number of natural heritage features that are of provincial interest.
Identification of provincially significant wetlands and significant habitat of Endangered and
Threatened species falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Identification
of significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat is the mandate of the planning authority.
Various levels of protection are provided to these features based on PPS policy (Section 3.1 ). An
assessment of these features, based on background investigations and field work associated with
this study, is provided below.
7.1
Provincially Significant Wetlands
Evaluation of wetlands in southern Ontario began in 1984 in an attempt to recognize and protect
provincially significant wetlands on the landscape. Scoring is based on a wetland’s biological,
hydrological, social, and special features attributes. Wetlands which are connected by local
surface flows or proximity are grouped together and evaluated as a wetland complex.
The first two editions of the evaluation protocol ranked wetlands as Classes 1 through 7 with
Classes 1, 2 and 3 designated as provincially significant wetlands. The 3 rd edition of the
evaluation system dropped the class distinctions. Wetlands scoring 600 or more points (or at least
200 points in biological or special features) are designated provincially significant while other
wetlands are identified as non-provincially significant. A key change from the 2nd edition to the
3rd edition is a significant revision of the hydrological scoring component within the evaluation
system.
Evaluated wetlands in the Town of Collingwood (Silver Creek Wetland Complex) are shown in
Figure 15. These wetlands have been evaluated using the 1st and 2nd editions of the MNR
Wetland Evaluation System (MNR, 1984). A broad update of the Silver Creek Wetland Complex
was undertaken by MNR in 2005. Since that time several wetland unit boundaries have been
refined in the field by consultants/MNR and previously unevaluated wetlands have been added to
the complex.
A number of unevaluated wetlands have recently been documented within the Town of
Collingwood. Wetland units east and south of the evaluated Silver Creek Wetland Complex were
identified as part of the NVCA Generic Regulation update exercise in 2005/2006. Several of
these units have been verified and boundaries refined through consultant and NVCA studies.
NVCA
55
Provincially significant wetlands in southern Ontario (south of the Canadian Shield) are protected
from development by Section 2.1 of the PPS which states “development and site alteration shall
not be permitted within provincially significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E” and shall
not be permitted on adjacent lands (within 120 m) unless it has been demonstrated that there will
be no negative impacts on the wetland or its ecological functions (MMAH, 2005). The Town of
Collingwood lies within Ecoregion 6E.
7.1.1
Silver Creek Wetland Complex
This provincially significant wetland is over 327 ha in size and lies within one kilometer of the
Nottawasaga Bay shoreline. A portion of this complex extends west into the Town of Blue
Mountains. Earlier wetland evaluations identified three separate wetland complexes – Cranberry
Marsh, Collingwood Harbour and Silver Creek; however, all three wetlands were complexed into
one unit in 199*. From a functional standpoint, Cranberry Marsh and its contiguous swamp
forests comprise an “island” which is separated from other portions of the complex by urban and
golf course development. Wetlands extending westward along the shoreline from Collingwood
Harbour through Princeton Shores are generally narrow and abut urban development. Larger
blocks of wetland and contiguous upland cover are present north of Highway 26 in northwest
Collingwood in the vicinity of Silver and Townline Creeks.
The Silver Creek Wetland Complex consists of a mosaic of swamp, marsh and rich fen habitats.
Globally rare Great Lakes coastal marsh communities are present along the Nottawasaga Bay
shoreline. These communities expand and contract in association with lower and higher lake
levels. Inland and west of Princeton Shores Boulevard, a variety of deciduous, mixed, coniferous
and thicket swamps are intermixed with upland habitats. These community associations are
generally absent to the east due to urbanization. A large cattail marsh is associated with
Cranberry Marsh – this habitat historically supported area-sensitive marsh birds.
7.1.2
Unevaluated Wetlands
A number of unevaluated wetlands exist within the Town of Collingwood (Figure 16) and
additional wetlands have been identified south and east of the provincially significant Silver
Creek Wetland Complex. Field work undertaken in support of this study (and also through
private sector consultant studies) confirmed and refined wetland boundaries in several areas north
and south of Georgian Trail between Townline Creek and Black Ash Creek. These wetlands
generally consist of a mosaic of forested swamp and thicket swamp habitats. A Great Lakes
coastal marsh unit was identified just north of the former Goodyear plant on the south side of the
Georgian Trail.
Unevaluated wetlands that meet a set of criteria identified within the Ontario Wetland Evaluation
System can be complexed with identified wetland complexes. The criteria that must generally be
met are outlined below:
Wetland size – generally ≥ 2ha though MNR often considers wetlands ≥ 0.5 ha as part of
wetland complexes (G. Findlay, MNR; pers.comm.)
Proximity – within 750 m of the provincially significant wetland complex
Hydrological connectivity – lying within same catchment as the provincially significant
wetland complex
NVCA
56
Based on field work associated with this study, several of these units could potentially be
complexed with the Silver Creek Wetland Complex based on unit size, proximity and
hydrological connection.
Smaller wetland units have been identified east of the Pretty River. Wetland units – one with
potential coastal marsh affinities - have been identified within the Batteaux Creek Greenland. A
Great Lakes coastal marsh has also been identified along the Nottawasaga Bay shoreline just west
of Huronia Parkway. These smaller, relatively isolated wetland units may meet provincially
significant criteria by virtue of community rarity.
Several smaller, isolated wetland units with relatively common vegetation communities have also
been identified as part of this study. These wetlands likely do not meet tests for provincial
significance. A subset of these wetlands is protected via their presence in floodplain/valley
NVCA
57
NVCA
58
NVCA
59
7.2
Species At Risk - Threatened and Endangered Species
Since 1977, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has
been providing advice to the Canadian federal government on the status of wildlife species.
Provincially, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) performs a
similar role. Recently, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has implemented changes to
provincial species at risk terminology and status that will reduce confusion and move the
province toward conformity with the federal Species At Risk Act (SARA, 2003).
Five categories of risk are assigned to species at risk in Canada:
Extinct – no longer exists anywhere in the world (i.e. passenger pigeon)
Extirpated – native species no longer existing in the wild in Canada/Ontario (i.e. timber
rattlesnake) but may exist in other countries
Endangered – any native species that is at risk of becoming extinct or extirpated (i.e.
butternut)
Threatened – any native species that is at risk of becoming endangered (i.e. eastern hognosed snake)
Special Concern – any native species that is sensitive to human activities or natural
events (i.e. red-shouldered hawk)
Review of the OMNR Natural Heritage Information Centre database and historical reports
indicates the presence of eight Species At Risk (SAR) in the Town of Collingwood (Table 7). A
brief overview of species designated as endangered or threatened can be found below.
Table 7: Species at Risk in the Town of Collingwood
Species Name
Butternut
Spotted Turtle
Blanding’s Turtle
Chimney Swift
Bobolink
Snapping Turtle
Northern Map Turtle
Eastern Ribbonsnake
7.2.1
Provincial Status
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Special Concern
Special Concern
Special Concern
Butternut – Endangered
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) is a medium-sized tree of the Walnut family, which is easily
recognizable by its compound leaves of 11-17 leaflets, arranged in a feather-like pattern. It is
found throughout central and eastern North America. In Ontario, Butternut can be found
throughout the southwest, north to the Bruce Peninsula, and south of the Canadian Shield [MNR,
n.d (a)]. Butternut prefers moist, well-drained soils or gravel, and can often be found along stream
banks. The species grows in deciduous forests and can be found growing alone or in small groups
in sunny openings or along forest edges [MNR, n.d (a)].
A major threat to Butternut trees is the Butternut canker, a fungal disease that can quickly spread
and kill infected trees. This fungus has already ravaged Butternut populations across North
America. There is no known cure for the canker disease, although experts are hopeful that
NVCA
60
Butternut populations can be restored by using seeds from canker resistant trees for propagation
[MNR, n.d (a)]. In Ontario, Butternut trees are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007,
which protects against any type of harm to the species.
7.2.3
Spotted Turtle – Endangered
The Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) is named for the bright yellow spots that can be found on
its black carapace. It is a small turtle that prefers ponds, marshes, and bogs which have an
abundant supply of aquatic vegetation. After emerging in the spring and mating, females lay eggs
in soil and leaf litter in wooded areas that are close to wetlands (Royal Ontario Museum, 2008a).
They remain active until the fall when they return underground to hibernate in groups. The
Spotted Turtle can be found in Eastern North America, from Ontario south to Florida, and west to
Michigan. There are approximately 75 known locations in Ontario (ROM, 2008a).
Spotted Turtles are highly sensitive to habitat alteration, nest predation, and pollution. Hatching
success is very low, and the ability of the turtles to recover from population declines are slow and
very limited (ROM, 2008a). Spotted Turtles are also highly sought after for illegal pet trade, and
are particularly vulnerable during spring and fall when large numbers of turtles congregate
together.
Spotted Turtles are protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007, which prohibits the
“harming, collecting, possessing, trading, or killing of the species”. Spotted Turtles are also
protected under Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.
7.2.4
Blanding’s Turtle – Threatened
Blanding’s Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) are easily distinguishable by their bright yellow throat
and jaw. They are a medium-sized turtle that moves between streams, lakes, and shallow
wetlands, also spending a significant amount of time in upland areas moving between preferred
habitats. Blanding’s Turtles can be found in the southern Great Lakes region, from Nebraska, to
Illinois, to Ontario (ROM, 2008b). There are also isolated populations in Quebec, Nova Scotia,
and the East coast of the United States. In Ontario, the turtles are found in the southern and
central parts of the province, except for along the Bruce Peninsula and the far southeast (ROM,
2008b).
Threats to Blanding’s Turtles include: habitat loss and fragmentation, road mortality, nest
predation, collection for the pet trade, and cool summer weather which results in fewer
hatchlings. As Blanding’s can take up to 25 years to reach reproductive maturity, loss of even a
few individuals from the population can have devastating effects (ROM, 2008b).
Blanding’s Turtles are protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007, and any actions
which cause harm to the species is prohibited. Blanding’s are also protected under the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act. The Provincial Policy Statement (under Ontario’s Planning Act) also
provides protection to significant habitat of threatened species.
7.2.5
Boblink – Threatened
Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) are medium-sized songbirds that can be found in grasslands
and hayfields, foraging for insects and seeds on the ground. Nests are also built on the ground in
thick grasses [MNR, n.d.(b)]. The Bobolink breeds throughout North America, and in Ontario can
be found wherever suitable habitat exists. In North America, both the degradation of nesting
NVCA
61
habitat and the inadvertent disturbance and killing of nesting adults, eggs, and young birds,
occurs during the mowing of hay and as a result of modern day hay production practices [MNR,
n.d.(b)].
Bobolinks are protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007, which also protects their
habitat from damage and destruction.
7.2.6
Chimney Swift – Threatened
Chimney swifts (Chaetura pelagica) are rather small, sooty-coloured birds, which can be easily
distinguished by their erratic flight pattern while foraging for flying insects in the air [MNR,
n.d.(c)]. While Chimney swifts historically nested in caves or tree cavities, they are most likely to
be found near urban settlements where they nest and roost in chimneys and other manmade
structures. Chimney swifts breed in eastern North America and can be found throughout most of
Ontario, but they are most concentrated in the Carolinian zone in the south and southwest of the
province [MNR, n.d.(c)].
Scientists are unsure what is causing current Chimney Swift population declines, although there is
speculation that it is likely related to a decline of the flying insects they prey upon. It is also likely
that habitat loss is affecting population sizes, as the modernization of chimney structures has
prevented the swifts from using potential nesting sites [MNR, n.d.(c)].
Chimney swifts are protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007, which also protects
their habitat from damage and destruction.
7.3
Significant Woodlands
The PPS (Section 2.1.4) states that “development and site alteration shall not be permitted in
significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield unless it has been demonstrated that
there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions” and that
“development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands unless the ecological
function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be
no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions”. Significant
woodlands (SW) are features intended to be identified and protected by Planning Authorities (i.e.
the Town of Collingwood).
Significance, in regard to woodlands, is associated with areas that are ecologically important in
terms of features such as species composition, age of trees, and stand history; functionally
important due to their contribution to the broader landscape because of their location, size or due
to the amount of forest cover in the planning areas; or economically important due to site quality,
species composition or past management history (PPS, 2005). Criteria used to evaluate SW are
outlined in the NHRM (MNR, 2010) and are broadly grouped into the following categories:
woodland size, ecological functions, uncommon characteristics, and economic/social functional
values. Woodlands that meet a suggested minimum standard for any one of the criteria should be
considered significant (MNR, 2010). Criteria within each category are described below followed
by an analysis of broad Town of Collingwood woodlands and assessment of how they may meet
each criterion.
NVCA
62
7.3.1
Woodland Size
The woodland size criterion is related to the percentage of woodland cover within a municipality.
This criterion should also account for differences in landscape-level physiography (NHRM,
2010). Woodland cover in the Town of Collingwood is approximately 19.5 %; however, there is
a distinct difference in forest cover north and south of the Nipissing ridge. Based on scarcity of
forest cover south of the Nipissing ridge, woodlands south of the ridge may be considered
significant at smaller sizes relative to woodlands north of the ridge. The NHRM notes that, as a
consideration in addressing the potential loss of biodiversity, the largest woodland in the planning
area should be identified as significant.
Where woodland cover is between 15-30 % of the land cover, woodlands 20 ha in size or larger
should be considered significant. Within the Town of Collingwood, the following forests meet
this criterion:
Braeside Forest (22 ha)
Batteaux Creek Forest (40 ha)
Georgian Trail Forest (70+ ha)
Silver Creek North Forest (60+ ha)
South of the Nipissing ridge, where woodland cover is significantly lower, the Southwest Forest
(19 ha; 6th Street and Osler Bluff Road) would likely meet the woodland size criterion (where
woodland cover is between 5-15% of the land cover, woodlands 4 ha in size or larger should be
considered significant).
7.3.2
Ecological Functions
Woodland Interior
Woodland interior is defined as woodland habitat located more than 100 m from woodland edge.
Gaps of less than 20 m generally do not create a separate woodland; however, the NHRM notes
that a maintained public road is considered an edge, even if the opening is less than 20 m. Where
woodlands cover between 15-30% of the planning area, woodlands should be considered
significant if they support 2 ha or more of interior habitat. Where woodland cover is less than
15% (i.e. south of the Nipissing ridge), any interior habitat should be considered significant.
Within the Town of Collingwood, the following woodland features meet this criterion:
Braeside Forest (5 ha)
Batteaux Creek Forest (11 ha)
Georgian Trail forests (3 units; 24 ha total)
Silver Creek North forests (4 ha)
Southwest Forest (3 ha)
Proximity to Other Woodlands or Other Habitats
Woodlands that overlap, abut, or are close to other significant natural heritage features or areas
could be considered more valuable or significant than those that are not. Patches close to each
other are of greater mutual benefit and value to wildlife (MNR, 2010). Woodlands should be
considered significant if a portion of the woodland is located within a specified distance of a
NVCA
63
significant natural feature or fish habitat likely receiving ecological benefit from the woodland
and the entire woodland meets the minimum area threshold (0.5 ha – 20 ha, depending on
circumstance).
In the Town of Collingwood context, woodlands abutting river valleys and streams could be
considered significant even if they do not meet other significant woodland criteria (i.e. size).
Woodlands that do not meet size/forest interior criteria but which likely are significant based on
the proximity criterion include those woodlands associated with:
Pretty River
Black Ash Creek (and tributaries)
Townline Creek
Silver Creek South (and tributaries)
Small shoreline woodlands abutting shoreline PSW units
Linkages
Linkages are important connections providing for movement between habitats. Woodlands that
are located between other significant features or areas can be considered to perform an important
linkage function as “stepping stones” for movement between habitats. Woodlands should be
considered significant if they are located within a defined natural heritage system or provide a
connecting link between two other significant features, each of which is within a specified
distance and meets the minimum area threshold (1-20 ha, depending on circumstance).
Natural heritage system development within the Town of Collingwood is discussed in Section 8
and provides a rationale for inclusion of linkages that meets the SW linkage criterion for linkage
identification.
Water Protection
Source water protection is important for the Town of Collingwood and adjacent municipalities.
Protection of woodlands located over sensitive recharge and discharge areas can be an important
component of source water protection and is needed to maintain natural hydrological processes
(MNR, 2010). Woodlands should be considered significant if they are located within a sensitive
or threatened watershed or a specified distance of a sensitive groundwater discharge, sensitive
recharge area, sensitive headwater area, watercourse, or fish habitat, and meet the minimum area
threshold (0.5 – 10 ha, depending on circumstance).
Within the Town of Collingwood, this criterion generally overlaps with the SW proximity
criterion. Woodlands overlie shallow groundwater over bedrock north of the Nipissing ridge.
These shallow groundwater areas are considered sensitive aquifers due to their proximity to the
ground surface and potential for contamination. This sensitivity is somewhat offset by the Town
water intakes which are located in Nottawasaga Bay and that most of the Town no longer relies
on private well supplies. Contamination of this shallow groundwater aquifer could still
potentially impact remaining private well users as well as watercourses, wetlands, and the
nearshore environment of Nottawasaga Bay. Protection of woodlands (typically meeting other
SW criteria) over this area combined with municipal policies requiring best management
practices for any development (as per the Source Water Protection Act) is required to protect
shallow groundwater resources north of the Nipissing ridge.
NVCA
64
Woodland Diversity
Certain woodland species have had major reductions in representation on the landscape and need
special consideration. Native biodiversity is valuable on the landscape (MNR, 2010).
Woodlands should be considered significant if they have:
A naturally occurring composition of native forest species that have declined
significantly south and east of the Canadian Shield and meet a minimum area threshold
(1-20 ha, depending on circumstance)
A high native diversity through a combination of composition and terrain and meeting a
minimum area threshold (2-20 ha, depending on circumstance)
Although not rare from a watershed or subwatershed perspective, sugar maple woodlands have
declined significantly within the Town of Collingwood largely due to clearing for agricultural
purposes in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Remaining sugar maple forests that meet the
minimum area threshold should be considered significant. Most, if not all, of these woodlands
are located adjacent to or within valleylands, and meet the proximity and water protection criteria
as well as the high native diversity subcriterion associated with woodland diversity.
Woodlands associated with the Georgian Trail, Silver Creek North and Townline Creek natural
heritage features support a high native diversity. Ridge/trough terrain associated with the
proglacial stages of the Nipissing introgression, support a mosaic of upland woodlands which are
intermixed with a mosaic of swamp communities. This significant diversity of forest and swamp
habitats provides a variety of habitat opportunities for wildlife.
7.3.3
Uncommon Characteristics
Woodlands that are uncommon in terms of species composition, cover type, age or structure
should be protected. Older woodlands (i.e. woodlands greater than 100 years old) are particularly
valuable for several reasons, including their contributions to genetic, species and ecosystem
diversity (MNR, 2010).
Woodlands should be considered significant if they have:
A unique species composition or the site is represented by less than 5% of overall
woodland cover and meets a minimum area threshold (0.5 ha, depending on
circumstance)
A vegetation community with a provincial ranking of S1, S2 or S3 and meets a minimum
area threshold (0.5 ha, depending on circumstance)
Habitat of a rare, uncommon or restricted woodland plant species and meets a minimum
area threshold (0.5 ha, depending on circumstance)
Characteristics of older woodlands or woodlands with larger tree size structure in native
species and meet a minimum area threshold (1-10 ha, depending on circumstance)
Woodlands that likely meet the older woodland criterion (greater than 100 years old) are present
north of the Nipissing ridge. Poor soils and moist-wet conditions precluded agricultural clearing
in this area. These same conditions provided unsuitable habitat for merchantable timber. With
the exception of grazing in some woodlands, the ash/poplar/cedar forests in this area have
remained relatively undisturbed since settlement. However, the species composition of these
forests (and slow growth associated with soil conditions) does not lead to the typical conditions
associated with older woodlands (i.e. trees greater than 100 years of age or trees of large diameter
NVCA
65
– 40-50 cm). The NHRM does not provide direction for older woodlands of this type. Most
older woodlands within the Town of Collingwood are encompassed within other SW criteria.
Portions of the remnant forests within the Sandford Fleming Drive area may meet this criterion.
7.3.4
Economic and Social Functional Values
Woodlands that have high economic or social values through particular site characteristics or
deliberate management should be protected (MNR, 2010). Woodlands should be considered
significant if they have:
High productivity in terms of economically valuable products together with continuous
native natural attributes, and meet a minimum area threshold (2-10 ha, depending on
circumstance)
A high value in special services, such as air-quality improvement or recreation at a
sustainable level that is compatible with long-term retention and meet a minimum area
threshold (0.2-10 ha, depending on circumstance)
Important identified appreciation, education, cultural or historical value and meet a
minimum area threshold (0.2-10 ha, depending on circumstance)
Within the Town of Collingwood, woodlands associated with the award-winning Town trail
system could be considered to have high social functional value. Local air quality improvement
is broadly provided by larger forests within the Town of Collingwood (as well as those in
adjacent municipalities and at a much broader regional level). Within the Town of Collingwood,
these woodlands are generally encompassed within other SW criteria.
7.3.5
Significant Woodlands Summary
Significant woodlands and associated criteria overlap with a number of other PPS natural heritage
policies including those associated with significant wildlife habitat and provincially significant
wetlands. Natural heritage system development for the Town of Collingwood (Section 8)
considers inclusion of significant woodlands as a key component of preferred system form.
7.4
Significant Wildlife Habitat
Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is identified within the PPS as a feature to be identified and
protected by Planning Authorities (i.e. the Town of Collingwood) – any proposed development
within SWH is subject to an Environmental Impact Study which must demonstrate “no negative
impacts” to SWH functions. SWH covers a wide range habitat functions – from rare vegetation
communities to Species of Special Concern to specialized habitats that support more common
wildlife. SWH features identified by MNR (MNR, 2000) are listed below. Those features likely
present within the Town of Collingwood based on field work and background investigations
undertaken as part of this report are discussed in greater detail below.
Seasonal Concentrations of Animals
•
•
•
•
Winter deer yards
Moose late winter habitat (not present in Collingwood)
Colonial bird nesting sites
Waterfowl stopover and staging areas
NVCA
66
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Waterfowl nesting
Shorebird migratory stopover areas
Landbird migratory stopover areas
Raptor winter feeding and roosting areas (none known in Collingwood)
Wild turkey winter range
Turkey vulture summer roosting areas (most likely on Escarpment cliffs southwest of
Collingwood)
Reptile hibernacula
Bat hibernacula (most likely on Escarpment features southwest of Collingwood)
Bullfrog concentration areas (none known in Collingwood)
Migratory butterfly stopover areas
Rare Vegetation Communities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alvars
Great Lakes Coastal Marsh
Tall-grass prairies (not present)
Savannahs (none observed in Collingwood)
Rare forest types
Talus slopes (on Escarpment features southwest of Collingwood)
Rock barrens (not present)
Sand barrens (not present)
Great Lakes dunes (not present)
Specialized Wildlife Habitats
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Habitat for area-sensitive species
Forest providing a high diversity of habitats
Old-growth or mature forest stands
Foraging areas with abundant mast (limited/none in Collingwood)
Amphibian woodland breeding ponds
Turtle nesting habitat
Specialized raptor nesting habitat
Moose calving areas (not present)
Moose aquatic feeding areas (not present)
Mineral licks (not present)
Mink, otter, marten and fisher denning sites
Highly Diverse Areas
Cliffs (not present)
Seeps and Springs
Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern
Animal Movement Corridors
NVCA
67
7.4.1
Seasonal Concentrations of Animals
Winter Deer Yards
White-tailed deer congregate in sheltered coniferous and mixed forests in the winter months to
find shelter, provide ease of movement, protection from predators, and forage. The closest MNRidentified deer yard lies just east of Collingwood. Similar forest types are present in the Braeside
Street-Batteaux Creek area and locally significant numbers of white-tailed deer appear to be using
these habitats based on NVCA staff observation. Similarly, mixed and conifer forest stands in
west Collingwood (larger forest/wetland complexes along Georgian Trail and near Silver Creek)
provide local winter deer yard habitat based on NVCA and private sector consultant observations
(Azimuth, *).
Colonial Bird Nesting Sites
Offshore islands in west Collingwood provide significant colonial bird nesting sites.
Nottawasaga Island supports dozens to hundreds of nesting pairs of great blue heron, blackcrowned night heron, great egret and double-crested cormorant. Thousands of pairs of ring-billed
gulls and herring gulls utilize this island and other island habitats to the south and west. Common
terns and Caspian terns nest on a smaller island northwest of Long Point Road. Great blue herons
formerly nested in the forested swamps near the mouth of Silver Creek but abandoned their
colony in * (G. Reid, pers.comm.), likely due to work along the shoreline. A black tern colony
was historically present at Cranberry Marsh (Gartner Lee, 2004); however, the status of this
colony is unknown.
Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas
The Nottawasaga Bay shoreline provides important stopover and staging habitat during the spring
and fall months. Hundreds of ducks and geese were observed along the shoreline during the
November shoreline survey. The invertebrate-rich vernal pool wetlands in the forest/wetland
complexes along Georgian Trail and Silver Creek likely provide important waterfowl stopover
habitat during spring migration. Cranberry Marsh likely provides locally important waterfowl
stopover and staging habitat during the spring and fall.
Waterfowl Nesting
Waterfowl nesting occurs along the Nottawasaga Bay shoreline, Cranberry Marsh, and likely in
the forest/wetland complexes along Silver Creek and Georgian Trail. Although significant
concentrations of nesting waterfowl have not been identified, protection of shoreline wetlands,
broader forest/wetland complexes, and adjacent upland habitats should protect waterfowl nesting
habitats within the Town of Collingwood.
Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas
Shorebirds are comprised of a diverse group of species, aptly named as they spend most of their
time in wetland habitats and can often be found on the shores of lakes, oceans, and other wet and
marshy areas (Environment Canada, 2001). The province of Ontario provides critically important
staging and breeding habitat for Western Hemisphere shorebirds (Environment Canada, 2003).
Both James and Hudson Bays are vitally important within the province and provide a major
migration route for arctic-nesting species; however, 35 species of migratory shorebirds in smaller
NVCA
68
numbers can also be found in Southern Ontario (Environment Canada, 2003). It is estimated that
tens of thousands of shorebirds regularly use southern Ontario habitats during both northward and
southward migration periods, and are found widely dispersed among the many wetlands, rivers,
ponds, lakes, mudflats, sewage lagoons, wet fields and pastures, as well as along the entire length
of the Great Lakes coasts (Environment Canada, 2003). These sites are important stop over areas
which allow the birds to rest, forage, and replenish fat reserves essential for long flights to staging
areas on the Atlantic coast or to wintering areas in South America (Environment Canada, 2003).
Shorebirds are exposed to a wide variety of threats throughout their life cycle. In Ontario, most of
these factors are directly related to human activity and are most prominent in heavily populated
southern Ontario (Environment Canada, 2003). Wetland drainage for agriculture and
development lands has been a significant cause of wetland loss in southern Ontario, while intact
wetlands are being degraded by invasive plants, livestock, and pollution (Environment Canada,
2003). Similarly, wetlands and shoreline habitats are being degraded or filled for cottage or
recreational property development. Shoreline and near shore recreation – such as walking/hiking,
jogging, boating, wildlife watching, dog-walking, use of recreational vehicles, and beach clearing
– is also a threat to shorebirds by causing disturbances which can limit their access to nesting
and food availability and can impact their physical condition (Environment Canada,
2003). Although current environmental regulations have slowed the removal and
degradation of wetland and shoreline habitats, these threats still exist and should be
monitored in order to maintain suitable stop over and breeding habitat for shorebirds.
Landbird/Butterfly Migratory Stopover Areas
Recent international studies (LHBCSCT, 2010) have identified the importance of coastal
terrestrial habitats as migratory stopover habitats for shorebirds, landbirds, bats, butterflies and
dragonflies. These aerial migrants show a high fidelity for the Lake Huron (including Georgian
Bay) shoreline. The broader Lake Huron region is known to be an important flyway for many
species of migrating birds and its shoreline provides stopover sites for millions of birds –
especially landbirds – which utilize coastal shoreline and terrestrial habitats as important
refueling sites and shelter. Key habitat areas lie within 2 km of the shoreline, with importance
increasing with proximity to the shoreline – habitats within 400 m of the shoreline are considered
of very high importance while those within 400 m - 1600 m of the shoreline are considered of
high importance (MNR, 2010). Within the Town of Collingwood, key habitat areas (based on
international studies) include the Braeside-Batteaux forests and the Georgian Trail-Silver Creek
forest/wetland complexes.
Wild Turkey Winter Range
Dense conifer forests near agricultural fields (particularly those with groundwater seeps) are most
important for winter survival. Wild turkeys are relatively common on the Collingwood landscape
and may potentially use the mixed/conifer forest stands near Braeside Street/Batteaux Creek and
along Georgian Trail/Silver Creek for winter cover.
Reptile Hibernacula
A variety of snakes and turtles are present within the Town of Collingwood. All species require
some form of hibernacula to survive through the winter months; however, province-wide, few
hibernacula are known and they are normally very difficult to find. Radiotelemetry studies have
been used to identify hibernacula sites for one species in Collingwood. Protection of wetlands
NVCA
69
serves to protect potential hibernacula for species such as snapping turtle and painted turtle while
abandoned structures/foundations may provide hibernacula for a variety of snake species.
7.4.2
Rare Vegetations Communities
A combination of fluctuating lake levels and exposure of shallow, shelving limestone bedrock
along the Collingwood shoreline provides conditions suitable for development of endemic coastal
marshes that are globally rare and found only here and along similar portions of Great Lakes
shorelines. Two types of Great Lakes Coastal Marsh are present along the Town of Collingwood
shoreline and in regenerating nearshore areas (north of the Nipissing ridge) – graminoid coastal
marsh and shrubby cinquefoil coastal marsh. These endemic wetlands are dependent on high
natural seasonal and year-to-year variability in water levels. Regulation of water levels in Lake
Ontario has adversely affected coastal wetland systems, reducing plant species diversity and
altering habitat values for many animals that depend wholly or partly on wetlands to thrive
(LHBCSCT, 2010). Two rare mineral fen meadow marshes – also associated with coastal
features – are also present in the Town of Collingwood. These rare communities are depicted in
Figure 17 and described below.
NVCA
70
NVCA
71
Table 8: Rare Vegetation Communities in the Town of Collingwood
ELC Vegetation
Community Type
Graminoid Coastal
Meadow Marsh
ELC
Code
MAM4-1
Global
Rank
G2?
Provincial
Rank
S2
Shrubby Cinquefoil
Meadow Marsh
MAM4-2
G2?
S2
Mineral Fen Meadow
Marsh
MAM5-1
G3
S1
Tallgrass Mineral Fen
Meadow Marsh
MAM5-2
G2
S1
Comment
Endemic to Great Lakes.
Dominated by rushes,
sedges.
Endemic to Great Lakes.
Mix of forbs and graminoid
species.
Associated with coastal
processes similar to MAM4
communities. Tamarack,
green ash, cedar with coastal
marsh graminoids and forbs
Associated with coastal
processes similar to MAM4
communities. Little
bluestem dominant with
scattered green ash/cedar.
Global ranks for each element are assigned by The Nature Conservancy (United States), based upon consideration of
the provincial and state ranks assigned by heritage programs for the element across the range of its distribution, as well
as the opinion of scientific experts. The two major criteria used in determining a community's rank are the total
number of occurrences and the total areal extent of the community range-wide.
G2
G3
Imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining hectares) or
because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its
locations) in a restricted range (e.g. a single province or physiographic region) or because of other
factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range; in terms of occurrences, in the
range of 21 to 100.
The NHIC assigns subnational ranks (SRANKS) for species and vegetation communities in Ontario (NHIC website).
These SRANKS parallel the global ranks (GRANKS), and range from S1 (extremely rare in Ontario, generally 5 or
fewer locations) to S5 (demonstrably secure in Ontario). Non-native species are not ranked.
S1
S2
S3
Extremely rare in Ontario; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the province, or very few remaining
hectares.
Very rare in Ontario; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the province or with many
individuals in fewer occurrences; often susceptible to extirpation.
Rare to uncommon in Ontario; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences in the province; may have
fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible
to large-scale disturbances. Most species with an S3 rank are assigned to the watch list, unless they
have a relatively high global rank.
Great Lakes Coastal Meadow Marsh/Fens
Natural portions of the Collingwood shoreline (and, in some cases, areas lakeward from shoreline
development) often support rare, endemic Great Lakes coastal marsh communities. Associated
with shallowly sloping limestone bedrock, these wetlands support rare species assemblages that
are endemic to similar Great Lakes settings and are not found elsewhere in the world. This
wetland type is very rare in Ontario and may be globally imperiled.
NVCA
72
These endemic marshes are dynamic and respond to changes in water levels in Georgian
Bay/Lake Huron. With recent low water levels in Lake Huron/Georgian Bay, these communities
have expanded lakeward to colonize newly-exposed shorelines. Ohio goldenrod (Solidago
ohioensis), rushes (Juncus spp.), small-flowered agalinis (Agalinus paupercula), shrubby
cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa), smaller fringed gentian (Gentiana procera), prairie loosestrife
(Lysimachia quadriflora) and Kalm’s St. John’s wort (Hypericum kalmianum), are characteristic
of these marsh communities. Graminoid marshes tend to be dominated by sedges and rushes
while shrubby cinquefoil marshes support a mix of graminoid and forb species.
Regenerating areas inland between the shoreline and Nipissing ridge occasionally support Great
Lakes Coastal Marsh communities. These areas tend to be dominated by the forb-rich shrubby
cinquefoil coastal marsh (often transitional between marsh and fen communities) and appear to
have regenerated from existing seedbanks in formerly grazed landscapes. These communities
may be transitional and may succeed to conifer/mixed/deciduous forest cover over time. Some
evidence of this succession has been observed in northwest Collingwood north of Highway 26.
Based on review of the coastal marsh community on the former Goodyear property over time (air
photo analysis), natural succession in these areas is a relatively slow process – occurring over
decades. Shallow bedrock, tight soils, and moist-wet soil moisture regimes appear to combine to
slow succession rates within these inland coastal marsh communities.
Locally Significant Vegetation Communities
Sugar maple forests, though common in the broader watershed context, are relatively rare in
Collingwood comprising less than 5 percent of forest cover within the Town. Conditions north of
the Nipissing ridge are unsuitable for sugar maple forests. The sand-silt loams which
predominate south of the ridge likely supported large stands of sugar maple forest prior to
settlement; however, these prime agricultural soils have largely been cleared. Clearing and
grazing activities in creek valleys have further impacted historical habitat. Remaining sugar
maple stands are largely restricted to creek valley slopes upstream of urban Collingwood along
Silver Creek, Black Ash Creek and their tributaries.
7.4.3
Specialized Habitats for Wildlife
Habitat for Area-sensitive Species
The SWH Technical Guide identifies area-sensitive species in both forest and grassland contexts.
Area-sensitive habitat is generally defined as forest cover which is found a minimum of 100 m
from a forest edge. Compact forest shapes such as circular and square woodlots provide more
forest interior habitat than similarly sized forests that are elongate or irregular in shape. A
description of forest interior functions and species is provided in Section 6.5.2.
Forest interior/area-sensitive habitat is associated with relatively few large forest blocks within
the Town of Collingwood. The Georgian Trail forests, northwest Collingwood forest and
Braeside Street-Batteaux Creek forest support the last remaining core forest habitats within the
Town.
Similarly, area-sensitive grassland bird species require large grassland areas for breeding habitat.
Species such as bobolink, savannah sparrow and grasshopper sparrow generally require
grasslands at least 10 ha in size. These habitats are associated with hayfields and abandoned
farmfields in south-central and southwest Collingwood. Without active manipulation, these
NVCA
73
habitats quickly revert to shrub/sapling and, eventually, forest cover and lose their ability to
support grassland fauna.
Forests Providing a High Diversity of Habitats
Forests with a variety of vegetation communities, particularly with complexes of upland and
wetland habitat are likely to have the highest diversity of plant and wildlife species. Trembling
aspen and white cedar – the dominant species in many Collingwood forests – readily form
cavities that are important to wildlife (MNR, 2000). The Georgian Trail and northwest
Collingwood forest complexes appear to provide a high diversity of habitats within the Town of
Collingwood.
Old-growth or Mature Forest Stands
North of the Nipissing ridge, there are a number of forests that have been on the landscape for
over 75 years (possibly much longer); however, the underlying soils/bedrock and imperfect
drainage combine to support species not typically associated with old growth/climax forest
conditions. Many of these stands have been impacted by past activities such as livestock grazing.
Stands that could be considered old-growth should exhibit little or no such disturbance.
Typical old-growth forests such as climax sugar maple forest stands are rare within the Town of
Collingwood. Likely limited to areas south of the Nipissing ridge in pre-settlement times,
remaining sugar maple stands are small and often associated with the slopes of creek valley
systems. Most of these stands are currently protected as Category 1 features in the Town Official
Plan.
Amphibian Woodland Breeding Ponds
Vernal pools within upland forests and forested wetlands provide breeding habitat for several
species of frogs and salamanders. Pools with diverse structure and surrounded by diversestructured woodlands are of highest value. Habitat complexes with several pond and/or ponds
close to creeks are especially valuable (MNR, 2000). The broad forest/wetland complexes
associated with Georgian Trail, Silver Creek and Townline Creek appear to provide this
component of significant wildlife habitat within the Town of Collingwood.
Turtle Nesting Habitat
In late spring/early summer, turtles lay their eggs in open sand/gravel areas, often close to
water/wetlands. Environmental impact studies are generally required to determine large
concentrations of turtle nesting activity. Consultant work in northwest Collingwood suggests that
most turtles are nesting along sand/gravel trails as well as open sand areas next to ponds and
wetlands (Azimuth, 200*). These findings can likely be extrapolated throughout Collingwood.
Unfortunately, turtles also nest on road shoulders, resulting in significant mortality.
Specialized Raptor Nesting Habitat
Mature, closed canopy forests – preferred by species such as red-shouldered hawks – are rare in
Collingwood and are generally too small to support forest hawk species. Shoreline forests in
northwest Collingwood may provide future nesting/habitat opportunities for species such as
osprey and bald eagle.
NVCA
74
Mink, Otter, Marten and Fisher Denning Sites
Mink are likely common in shoreline, pond and wetland habitats within the Town of
Collingwood. River otter and fisher are likely rare, if present, while marten are absent. The
SWH Technical Guide suggests that long-term survival of these species “is best assured by taking
a broad, landscape approach” to natural heritage system planning including protection of large
natural areas that include the best quality habitat for these species.
7.4.4
Highly Diverse Areas
Broad natural features with a variety of forest types, wetlands, regenerating fields, watercourses
and/or shorelines are important elements of biodiversity. The Batteaux Creek, Georgian Trail and
northwest Collingwood complexes of natural heritage features appear to provide significant
habitat diversity within the Town of Collingwood.
From a bioregional perspective, an extraordinary level of biodiversity is associated with
connected forest/wetland blocks extending from the Georgian Trail/Silver Creek/Townline Creek
north to the Silver Creek Wetland coastal marshes and then extending lakeward to the diverse,
sheltered nearshore substrates/habitats and offshore islands off northwest Collingwood shoreline
(Figure 18) .
NVCA
75
NVCA
76
7.4.5
Seeps and Springs
Groundwater discharge areas are present in the Town of Collingwood and are generally
associated with Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (Figure 12); however, these discharges are typically
expressed as groundwater seepages rather than full-blown springs. Seeps were occasionally
observed along the base of valley systems during field work and may be associated with areas
north of the Nipissing ridge. Seeps north of the ridge may be seasonal and may
dissipate/disappear during the summer months. Protection of valley systems and broader
forests/wetlands north of the Nipissing ridge would protect most seep habitats within
Collingwood.
7.4.6
Habitat of Species of Conservation of Concern
Species that can be considered species of conservation concern include:
species identified as nationally endangered or threatened by the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which are not protected in
regulation under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (2007)
species identified as Special Concern based on Species At Risk lists that are
updated periodically by the OMNR (Figure 7)
species that are listed as rare or historical in Ontario based on records kept by
the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough (S1 is extremely rare,
S2 is very rare, S3 is rare to uncommon)
species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and
are rare or uncommon in the planning area
species that are rare within the planning area, even though they may not be
provincially rare (i.e. regionally rare plant species)
Planning authorities are urged to protect species of conservation concern and their
habitats in the following order of priority (MNR, 2000):
globally rare
nationally rare
provincially rare
regionally rare
locally rare species
species of concern to the planning authority
Habitat of species of conservation concern does not include habitat for species that have been
designated threatened or endangered by the MNR. These species are protected under the Habitat
of Endangered and Threatened Species component of the Natural Heritage section of the
Provincial Policy Statement (Section 3.1).
Many habitats for species of conservation concern will be under-represented within the planning
area and therefore should be considered significant. A variety of factors can guide evaluation of
significance:
Habitats that support large populations of a species of concern should be considered
significant. If a species’ habitat is to be protected, sufficient area (based on the species’
NVCA
77
known requirements) should be retained to ensure a viable and sustainable population
(MNR, 2000).
Highly diverse sites that support one or more species of conservation concern are most
significant.
Habitats that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more
significant than similar habitats with little opportunity for protection or are facing an
uncertain future due to potential threats such as isolated habitats in close proximity to
expanding urban development.
Habitats that could be lost or severely degraded and cannot be replaced by similar
habitats in the planning area are highly significant.
The planning authority should focus its effort on habitats and species of
conservation concern that will not be adequately protected through the
identification/protection of other natural heritage system components
Table 9 identifies species of conservation concern known to present within the Town of
Collingwood based on background literature review and field work associated with this
study. The following sources were used to identify these species:
federal Species At Risk lists (COSEWIC)
provincial Species At Risk lists (COSSARO)
provincial rare species lists (S-ranks 1-3; NHIC, 2009)
regionally rare vascular plant species list (Riley, 1989)
Azimuth (2007)
Regionally Rare Species
Although not considered SAR, a number of provincially and regionally rare vascular plants are
present within the Town (Table 8). In most cases, these rare species are associated with
provincially rare habitat types (Figure 17).
Table 9: Regionally/Provincially Rare Species in the Town of Collingwood
Species Name
Sullivant’s Milkweed
Moss Campion
Shrubby St. John’s Wort
Sharp-fruit Rush
Greene’s Rush
Grassleaf Rush
Large Purple Agalinis
Great Egret
Black-crowned Night-heron
Stiff Yellow Flax
Schweinitz’s Sedge
Provincial
S-Rank
S2
S1
S2
S3
S3
S3
S1
S2
S3
S3
S3
Species Name
Great Ragweed
Tall Goldenrod
White Heath Aster
Canadian St. John’s Wort
Stiff Dogwood
Crawford’s Sedge
Livid Sedge
Gentian
Wild Cranes-bill
Black Walnut
Sharp Fruit-Rush
Torrey’s Rush
False Pennyroyal
Stiff Yellow Flax
Regional
R-Rank
R3
R4
R2
R1
R2
R6
R3
R4
R2
R1
R5
R1
R1
R4
NVCA
78
Species Name
Provincial
S-Rank
Species Name
Wirestem Muhly
Wood Anemone
Purple Meadowrue
Rough Avens
Marsh Grass-of-parnassus
Slender Agalinis
Provincial
R-Rank
R4
R1
R3
R3
R0
R1
Data referenced from Azimuth (2007) and NHIC (2009)
7.4.7
Animal Movement Corridors
Ecosystems cannot be considered in isolation because life moves and changes across landscapes.
The connections between habitat patches and the distances between patches are important.
Biodiversity can only be maintained if effective dispersal between patches is occurring (Larson et
al., 1999). In southern Ontario, the density of forest fragments on the landscape and the overall
proportion of habitat may be more critical to long-term stability of populations than the size of
individual habitat blocks (Riley and Mohr, 1994). Effective dispersal between patches occurs
through natural corridors and linkages.
Corridors are generally elongated, naturally-vegetated areas that link or border natural areas
within and between watersheds (Riley and Mohr, 1994). Corridors provide passage for animals
which require a variety of habitats to survive and corridor definition may shift depending on the
species of interest. For example, agricultural lands and meadows can form corridors for species
such white-tailed deer and wild turkey whereas they would be inappropriate areas for river otter
and salamander passage. Corridors allow the movement and reproductive interchange between
populations of plant and animal species and can buffer natural areas and processes from adjacent
land-use activities (Riley and Mohr, 1994).
Properly designed corridors and linkages may counter the effects of habitat fragmentation since
the viability of habitat islands (i.e. woodlots) as suitable wildlife habitat often depends on outside
recruitment of animals (Noss, 1987a,b). In southern Ontario, the re-establishment of corridors
over time may lead to the re-colonization and range expansion of species which were extirpated
or suffered significant range contractions since European settlement (i.e. river otter and fisher).
Corridors with a minimum width of 200 m are of highest value and facilitate the safe movement
of most wildlife species (Gartner Lee, 1996; MNR, 2000). Wider corridors are generally required
to support forest interior and area sensitive wildlife and to provide dispersal areas for some
species (i.e. breeding amphibians).
Although a number of benefits may be derived from natural corridors, they may also occasionally
be associated with adverse impacts. Narrow corridors may provide habitat for edge species such
as European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), brown-headed
cowbird (Molothrus ater), garlic mustard (Alliaria officinalis) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica) which may then move into more intact forest communities (Ambuel and Temple,
1983). However, overall, natural corridors provide important habitat connections within
watersheds and provide linkages to adjacent watersheds. In most cases, the ecological benefits of
corridors far outweigh any adverse impacts, particularly in agricultural and urban settings (Noss,
1987a,b) such as those found within the NVCA watershed.
NVCA
79
NVCA
80
Town of Collingwood Context
Within the Town of Collingwood, corridors exist at different scales (Figure 19). With the
exception of Silver Creek, stream and valley systems within and adjacent to the Town of
Collingwood tend to be narrow, altered features and provide local connectivity though they are
part of regional system that connect the Niagara Escarpment with Nottawasaga Bay. The Silver
Creek valley system and contiguous natural features provides a broader, albeit occasionally
fragmented, corridor from Escarpment to Bay. The Georgian Trail Corridor, though relatively
wide, is essentially a local corridor connecting the Black Ash Creek, Silver Creek and Townline
Creek systems.
The Nottawasaga Bay shoreline and associated nearshore and contiguous
onshore habitats is part of a larger provincial-scale corridor that provides seasonal stopover
habitat for migrating waterfowl and landbirds as well as corridors for seasonal fish movement.
8.0
Natural Heritage System Development
The intent of natural heritage system development is to integrate natural features on the landscape
including core areas and connecting links which support significant vegetation features, fish and
wildlife habitat and groundwater and surface water systems. This approach is consistent with the
natural heritage policy framework in Section 2.1.2 of the PPS, which states “that the diversity and
connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function of natural
heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or improved where possible, recognizing
linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and
ground water features”. From a human perspective, this model provides for a natural heritage
system that supports human amenities such as clean drinking water, clean air, passive recreational
opportunities (on public lands) and community aesthetics.
Following field work and background review associated with this study, NVCA staff worked
closely with study stakeholders to review natural heritage features and functions on the Town
landscape, including connections with adjacent municipal systems. Hazard lands associated with
watercourses were included as part of these discussions. Through these discussions, it became
clear that broad groupings of features could be considered within a Greenland context similar to
that developed by Simcoe County.
Greenland systems and associated functions were identified and reviewed in context with existing
Official Plan designations and zoning as well as short-term development priorities for the Town.
Based on the Greenland framework, three natural heritage system scenarios were developed by
NVCA staff and vetted through stakeholders, after which a draft proposed natural heritage system
was derived and presented to stakeholders. The Greenland framework and iterative process used
to move toward a proposed natural heritage system is described in the following subsections.
8.1
Town of Collingwood Candidate Greenlands
Following initial analysis of vegetation community mapping and assessment of habitat functions,
it was apparent that there were natural groupings of habitats with variable levels of connectivity
within the Town of Collingwood. Following the Simcoe County example, NVCA staff suggested
that a Town Greenlands approach would be appropriate to describe potential components of the
natural heritage system and to provide these components with a recognizable nomenclature that
would resonate with community residents. Study stakeholders agreed with this proposed
approach. Candidate Town Greenlands are depicted in Figure 20 and are discussed below.
NVCA
81
NVCA
82
8.1.2
Fairgrounds Forest
The Fairgrounds Forest is located at the east end of Collingwood northeast of the Hwy 26 bypass
between Fairgrounds Road and Nottawa Sideroad (36/37 Sideroad). This Greenland consists of a
fragmented forest (<10 ha) that appears to be more than 75 years old. Recent construction
associated with highway bypass construction as well as residential and recreational clearing has
fragmented this feature. An altered seasonal drainage feature cuts through the forest. Located
less than 1 km from Nottawasaga Bay, the forest provides minor stopover habitat for migratory
birds. Fairgrounds Forest is weakly linked to the Braeside Forest located north of Nottawa
Sideroad.
This forest is mostly in private ownership with several undeveloped lots present.
8.1.3
Braeside Forest
The Braeside Forest Greenland is located northeast of the Highway 26 bypass between Nottawa
Sideroad and Broadview Street. This Greenland consists of core forest habitat (approximately 22
ha) that appears to be more than 75 years old. Core forest habitat supports breeding habitat for
area-sensitive and forest interior bird species as well as stopover habitat for migratory birds.
Mixed and coniferous forest cover likely supports locally significant wintering habitat for whitetailed deer. Construction of the Highway 26 bypass has removed some forest cover from this unit
and will degrade landscape connections for species such as white-tailed deer.
An unevaluated wetland – potentially supporting amphibian breeding habitat - is present within
the Braeside Forest. Bower’s Beach Creek flows along the north side of Nottawa Sideroad and
supports habitat for tolerant warmwater baitfish species such as creek chub. This creek system
provides linkages south into Clearview Township. Braeside Forest is also linked to Fairgrounds
Forest (south) and the Batteaux Creek Greenland to the northwest.
The Braeside Forest is mostly in private ownership with several undeveloped residential-sized
lots at the south end of Braeside Street.
8.1.4
Batteaux Creek
The Batteaux Creek Greenland is located on either side of Batteaux Creek and is bracketed by
Poplar Sideroad to the north and Broadview Street to the southeast. This Greenland consists of
core forests (approximately 40 ha) that are more than 75 years old as well as regenerating
woodlands and thickets (approximately 28 ha) that are recovering from past agricultural use
(likely grazing). Core forest habitat supports breeding habitat for area-sensitive and forest
interior bird species as well as stopover habitat for migratory birds. Mixed and coniferous forest
cover likely supports locally significant wintering habitat for white-tailed deer. Construction of
the Highway 26 bypass has removed some forest cover from this unit and will degrade landscape
connections for species such as white-tailed deer.
Unevaluated wetlands – potentially supporting amphibian breeding habitat – are present
northwest and southeast of Batteaux Creek. Wetlands to the west of Batteaux Creek may support
coastal marsh communities. The reach of Batteaux Creek within the Greenland provides a
migratory corridor for rainbow trout and Chinook salmon and provides habitat for a variety of
warmwater fish species. The downstream reach of Batteaux Creek may provide refuge habitat for
smallmouth bass and other centrarchids during the summer when cold upwellings along the
NVCA
83
shoreline provide unsuitable conditions within the bay itself.
stream-based hazards are associated with the watercourse.
Significant floodplain and other
Batteaux Creek provides linkages south into Clearview Township. Forest and regenerating cover
is linked to the Braeside Forest to the southeast and the Sandford Fleming Forest to the northwest.
Most of this Greenland is encompassed within a large private land-holding.
8.1.5
Sandford Fleming
The Sandford Fleming Greenland is bracketed by old Highway 26 (north), Poplar Sideroad
(south), Raglan Street (west) and Sixth Line (east). This Greenland consists of several
fragmented forests ranging from 0.8 ha to 7 ha in size with some forest units more than 75 years
old. These fragmented forests are less than 1.4 km from Nottawasaga Bay and support minor
stopover habitat for migratory birds.
Unevaluated wetlands are present and may support amphibian breeding habitat.
An
ephemeral/intermittent drainage feature flows northeast toward Nottawasaga Bay.
Construction of the Highway 26 bypass and commercial/industrial development has removed
significant forest cover from this Greenland. There is limited connectivity between the Sandford
Fleming Greenland and the Batteaux Creek Greenland to the southeast. Similarly, there is limited
connectivity between Sandford Fleming and the Pretty Creek Greenland to the west. Most of the
Sandford Fleming Greenland is privately owned and designated and zoned for
industrial/commercial land uses.
8.1.6
Pretty River
The Pretty River Greenland courses north through Collingwood, discharging into Nottawasaga
Bay, east of Collingwood Harbour. Downstream of Lynden Street, the river flows through a dyke
system which protects urban areas from flooding. Significant forest cover is discouraged through
active management to provide sufficient capacity to convey larger flood events. The only large
forest within the Greenland is located just downstream from the Barrie-Collingwood Railroad
tracks. This forest is approximately 4 ha and supports Butternut, an endangered tree species.
Located approximately 2 km from Nottawasaga Bay, this forest has moderate potential to support
migratory bird stopover habitat.
The reach of the Pretty River within the Greenland provides a migratory corridor for rainbow
trout and Chinook salmon and provides habitat for a variety of warmwater fish species. The
downstream reach of the Pretty River may provide refuge habitat for smallmouth bass and other
centrarchids during the summer when cold upwellings along the shoreline provide unsuitable
conditions within the bay itself. Significant floodplain and other stream-based hazards are
associated with the watercourse. The Hamilton Drain – a narrow drainage feature – flows
eastward into the Pretty River just north of Poplar Sideroad. This drainage feature provides
habitat for warmwater baitfish as well as wetland habitat for amphibians.
The Pretty River provides linkages south and west into Clearview Township and extending
upstream into Grey Highlands. This Greenland corridor is weakly linked to the Sandford
Fleming Forest to the east. Most tableland areas next to the Pretty River have been developed or
are draft approved for development.
NVCA
84
8.1.7
Black Ash Creek
The Black Ash Creek Greenland consists of Black Ash Creek, adjacent natural features and its
adjoining tributaries. The main corridor associated with the Greenland follows Black Ash Creek
north through Collingwood downstream to Collingwood Harbour. Downstream of Campbell
Street, the creek has recently (2002) been lowered within a constructed creek block to protect
urban areas from flooding and to facilitate new development. Significant forest cover within the
creek block will likely be discouraged through active management to provide sufficient capacity
to convey larger flood events.
Forests, unevaluated wetlands, and regenerating woodlands and thickets are present along Black
Ash Creek alongside the reconfigured channel. Natural cover in this area continues to be
fragmented by residential and commercial development.
A large block of mixed natural habitats (approximately 30 ha) is present along the west side of
the channel south of Mountain Road. Located less than 1 km from the bay shoreline, these
habitats likely support stopover habitat for migratory birds. Formerly connected to the
floodplain, recent channel works have effectively decoupled these natural features from the Black
Ash Creek floodplain. Tributaries of Black Ash Creek flowing eastward along Georgian Trail
and through the Blue Mountain Golf and Country Club have similarly been affected.
A mix of forest, unevaluated wetlands and regenerating habitats (approximately 24 ha) is also
present near the upstream terminus of the channel works. The natural area east of High Street has
been draft approved for residential development and, with the exception of parkland/drainage
areas, will be fully developed. Tableland areas west of High Street are typically regenerating
from past land use and have been lotted out for future development (though pre-dating
amalgamation). A locally rare sugar maple forest is present along the west side of Black Ash
Creek upstream of the constructed channel. Butternut (Endangered) have been observed
upstream from the constructed channel within the Black Ash Creek floodplain and (remotely
viewed from gate) within the sugar maple forest.
Black Ash Creek provides a migratory corridor for rainbow trout and Chinook salmon with
coldwater habitat present in the Petun branch which parallels Sixth Street to the west of the main
branch. The main branch of Black Ash Creek provides habitat for a variety of warmwater fish
species. The Georgian Trail and Blue Mountain Golf & Country Club tributaries provide
marginal habitat for warmwater baitfish. Significant floodplain and other stream-based hazards
are associated with Black Ash Creek and its tributaries – in some cases (i.e. through the Blue
Mountain Golf & Country Club), the Greenland may be based solely on these hazards (and
potential fish habitat).
The Black Ash Creek Greenland is linked to the Harbour West Greenland to the north, the
Georgian Trail Greenland to the west and, via the Blue Mountain Golf & Country Club tributary,
to the Southwest Regeneration Greenland. Black Ash Creek itself provides linkages south and
west into Clearview Township and extending upstream into the Town of Blue Mountains.
Development designations and zoning are associated with lands abutting the reconfigured Black
Ash Creek channel which, at least in part, was designed to facilitate future development.
8.1.8
Harbour East
Owned by the Town of Collingwood, the Harbour East Greenland is located east of Collingwood
Harbour and is bordered by Highway 26 to the south, Sunset Point to the east, the harbour pier to
NVCA
85
the west and Nottawasaga Bay to the north. This Greenland consists of swamp forests and
wetlands associated with the Silver Creek Wetlands. The fringe forest is small with significant
encroachment of invasive, exotic species such as hybrid poplar, common buckthorn and dame’s
rocket. Lakeward, endemic coastal marshes are dominant, providing stopover and staging habitat
for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and foraging habitat for a variety of resident shorebirds
and colonial nesting birds. Nearshore areas provide suitable spawning and nursery habitat for a
variety of fish species. The entire area lies within flooding hazards associated with water levels
and wave heights in Georgian Bay and is protected from direct impacts, though impacts
associated with adjacent urban areas are evident.
Aside from linkages to Nottawasaga Bay, the Harbour East Greenland is not connected to other
Greenland areas in Collingwood and is surrounded to the south, east and west by residential,
commercial and recreational development.
8.1.9
Harbour West
Owned by the Town of Collingwood, the Harbour West Greenland is located on Collingwood
Harbour and is bordered by Water Street to the south, the harbour pier to the east, Black Ash
Creek to the west and Collingwood Harbour to the north.
The Collingwood Harbour was identified as a Great Lakes Area of Concern in 1977 due to
excessive algal growth (WWTP). Sediment contamination (metals and PCB) was discovered in
the early 1980s. In 1986, a Remedial Action Plan for the Harbour was developed and
implemented (Gartner Lee, 2004). Improved total phosphorus removal processes were
implemented at the Sewage Treatment to reduce nutrient and algae levels within the harbor.
Rehabilitation works were undertaken along Black Ash Creek (which flows into the Harbour) and
contaminated sediments were removed via a partnership between the Collingwood Shipyards and
Public Works Canada (Gartner Lee, 2004). These remedial activities led to the harbour’s
delisting as AOC (the first AOC to be delisted in the Great Lakes), in 1994.
Now delisted as an AOC, the Harbour West Greenland consists of swamp and lowland forests,
thickets and wetlands associated with the Silver Creek Wetlands. Shallow portions of the harbor
support submerged aquatic vegetation which provide fish habitat and foraging areas for
waterfowl. A mosaic of marsh types is present along the harbor fringe – these marshes provide
amphibian breeding habitat. Shoreward, a mix of swamp and upland forests extends toward
urban Collingwood. A small endemic coastal marsh is embedded between the harbor marsh and
forest communities. The forest units are relatively small (though larger than Harbour East) and
may provide stopover habitat for migratory birds. Significant encroachment of invasive, exotic
species such as Phragmites, common buckthorn, garlic mustard and Japanese knotweed is present
in most vegetation communities.
The harbor shoreline provides stopover habitat for migratory shorebirds and foraging habitat for a
variety of resident shorebirds and colonial nesting birds. Nearshore areas provide suitable
spawning and nursery habitat for a variety of fish species. Much of the area lies within flooding
hazards associated with water levels and wave heights in Georgian Bay and is protected from
direct impacts though impacts associated with adjacent urban areas are evident.
The Harbour West Greenland is connected to the Black Ash Creek Greenland – Black Ash Creek
enters the harbour at the west end of this unit.
NVCA
86
8.1.10 White’s Bay
The White’s Bay Greenland is located west of Collingwood Harbour and is bordered by urban
Collingwood to the south and marina development to the east and west. Hen and Chicken Island
is part of this Greenland. White’s Bay is dominated by wetlands associated with the Silver Creek
Wetlands. Gravel/cobble bars, particularly on Hen and Chicken Island, provide inclusions of
upland habitat. Endemic coastal marshes are dominant, providing stopover and staging habitat
for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and foraging habitat for a variety of resident shorebirds
and colonial nesting birds. Nearshore areas provide suitable spawning and nursery habitat for a
variety of fish species. Invasive species such as Phragmites and dog-strangling vine are present
in portions of the coastal marsh. The entire area lies within flooding hazards associated with
water levels and wave heights in Georgian Bay and is protected from direct impacts, though
impacts associated with adjacent urban areas are evident.
Aside from lakeward linkages to Nottawasaga Bay (including strong connectivity to offshore
nesting islands), the White’s Bay Greenland is not connected to other Greenland areas in
Collingwood and is surrounded to the south, east and west by residential and recreational
development.
8.1.11 Lighthouse Bay
Similar in character to White’s Bay, the Lighthouse Bay Greenland is located between Princeton
Shores Boulevard (west) and marina development to the east and is bordered by urban
Collingwood to the south. Lighthouse Bay is dominated by wetlands associated with the Silver
Creek Wetlands. Nearshore gravel and cobble bars provide narrow inclusions of upland habitat.
Endemic coastal marshes are dominant, providing stopover and staging habitat for migratory
shorebirds and waterfowl, and foraging habitat for a variety of resident shorebirds and colonial
nesting birds. Nearshore areas provide suitable spawning and nursery habitat for a variety of fish
species. Invasive species such as Phragmites are present in portions of the coastal marsh. The
entire area lies within flooding hazards associated with water levels and wave heights in Georgian
Bay and is protected from direct impacts, though impacts associated with adjacent urban areas are
evident.
Lakeward linkages to Nottawasaga Bay (including strong connectivity to offshore nesting
islands) are associated with Lighthouse Bay. A narrow inland linkage to the Silver Creek North
Greenland is present at the east end of Princeton Shores Boulevard. Inland linkages are highly
constrained by adjacent residential, commercial and recreational development.
8.1.12 Georgian Trail
The Georgian Trail Greenland encompasses a broad area (more than 200 ha) of forest, wetland
and regenerating habitats extending north and south of the Georgian Trail between Silver Creek
(west) and Black Ash Creek (east). The Nipissing ridge is generally associated with southern
edge of this Greenland, while portions extend north to Highway 26. This Greenland consists of
three core forest blocks. The central forest block is approximately 70 ha while the Goodyear
block (proximal to the former Goodyear plant) is 17 ha. A 14 ha forest block is located just west
of Silver Creek. Much of the forest cover in the central block and the Goodyear block is more
than 75 years old. Core forest habitat supports breeding habitat for area-sensitive and forest
interior bird species as well as stopover habitat for migratory birds. Mixed and coniferous forest
cover likely supports locally significant wintering habitat for white-tailed deer.
NVCA
87
Within the Georgian Trail Greenland, Cranberry Marsh and several smaller wetlands proximal to
Highway 26 form components of the Silver Creek Wetland complex. A number of unevaluated
wetlands are embedded in forest cover north and south of the trail. Cranberry Marsh historically
provided significant habitat for a number of sensitive marsh bird species. Wetlands embedded
within forest cover provide important breeding habitat for several amphibian species including
the federally threatened Western Chorus Frog. Endemic coastal marshes have regenerated near
the former Goodyear plant, along the north edge of Cranberry Marsh (near Pretty River
Academy) and along the periphery of a small portion of the Cranberry Golf Resort. Floodplain
and other stream-based hazards are associated with portions of the Georgian Trail Greenland.
The Georgian Trail Greenland provides significant east-west connectivity between the Black Ash
Creek and Townline Creek Greenland units. It provides significant north-south connectivity
between Silver Creek North and Silver Creek South Greenlands as well as southward to the
Mountain Road Regeneration Greenland. Portions of the Georgian Trail Greenland are owned by
the Town of Collingwood and Simcoe County while other portions are currently zoned for rural,
residential and industrial uses.
8.1.13 Mountain Road Regeneration
The Mountain Road Greenland is bracketed by the Nipissing ridge (north), Mountain Road
(south), 11th Line (west) and 10th Line (east). This Greenland consists of a mosaic of meadows,
thickets, small forests and plantations and regenerating woodlands. These communities have
regenerated from past agricultural use. High water table in this area may have contributed to
abandonment of agriculture uses. The small forests may support minor stopover habitat for
migratory birds. Vernal pools within some vegetation communities may support amphibian
breeding habitat.
The Mountain Road Regeneration Greenland is contiguous with the Georgian Trail Greenland to
the north; however, there is limited connectivity to other Greenlands. Much of this Greenland is
currently zoned for residential use.
8.1.14 Silver Creek North
The Silver Creek North Greenland encompasses a broad area (more than 140 ha) of forest,
wetland and regenerating habitats extending north of Highway 26 between Long Point Road
(west) and to the east of Princeton Shores Boulevard with strong connections to the Nottawasaga
Bay shoreline between Madeline Drive (west) and Bartlett Boulevard (east). This Greenland
consists of a 60+ ha core forest block (some of which is greater than 75 years old) which supports
breeding habitat for area-sensitive and forest interior bird species as well as stopover habitat for
migratory birds. Mixed and coniferous forest cover supports locally significant wintering habitat
for white-tailed deer.
Coastal and inland wetlands associated with the Silver Creek North Greenland are part of the
Silver Creek Wetland complex. Endemic coastal wetlands are associated with the Nottawasaga
Bay shoreline and with regenerating habitats inland from the shoreline. Shoreline coastal
marshes provide stopover and staging habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and
foraging habitat for a variety of resident shorebirds and colonial nesting birds. Nearshore areas
provide suitable spawning and nursery habitat for a variety of fish species. Invasive species such
as Phragmites are present in portions of the coastal marsh. Lake-based hazards are associated
with the shoreline and proximal low-lying inland areas of this Greenland.
NVCA
88
A variety of deciduous, mixed and thicket swamps are present inland from the shoreline. Several
of the marsh and swamp features within the Silver Creek North Greenland provide amphibian
breeding habitat as well as habitat for turtle species. The federally threatened Western Chorus
Frog and other Species At Risk are present within this Greenland.
Silver Creek and Townline Creek provide migratory corridors for rainbow trout and, in the case
of Silver Creek, Chinook salmon. Coldwater habitat is associated with Silver Creek while
Townline Creek provides warmwater habitat within the Greenland. Floodplain and other streambased hazards are associated with both systems.
Lakeward linkages to Nottawasaga Bay (including strong connectivity to offshore nesting
islands) are associated with Silver Creek North. The Silver Creek North Greenland also provides
significant connectivity south to the Georgian Trail Greenland – albeit partially fragmented by
Highway 26. This Greenland is also linked to natural areas west of Long Point Road (Town of
Blue Mountains) and upstream to the Townline Creek Greenland. Much of this Greenland has
been subject to extensive planning studies attempting to strike a balance between potential
development and natural heritage protection.
8.1.15 Silver Creek South
The Silver Creek South Greenland extends along Silver Creek and its tributaries upstream (south)
of the Georgian Trail Greenland to the southwest corner of Collingwood. Forests, small
unevaluated wetlands and regenerating woodlands/thickets/fields are present within this
Greenland unit.
Forests are typically associated with floodplain and valley slopes with limited tableland forest
cover present along the valley systems. Core forest habitats (more than 100 m from forest edge)
are absent. Located farther from the lake than most Town Greenland forests, potential stopover
habitat function for migratory birds is correspondingly smaller. Sugar maple forests – rare on the
municipal landscape – are occasionally associated with valley slopes. Butternut (endangered) has
been observed in a publicly-owned portion of the valley system (off Holly Court).
Unevaluated wetlands are small and confined to bottomlands within the valley systems of this
Greenland. They likely provide habitat for breeding amphibians.
Regenerating fields and other open floodplain habitats associated with this Greenland may
support habitat for grassland bird species which are generally in decline in southern Ontario. One
of these species – Bobolink – has recently been listed as a threatened species and threatened
status has also been proposed for eastern meadowlark (*,*). Both species are relatively common
in the NVCA watershed.
Silver Creek provides a migratory corridor and coldwater habitat for rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon. Coldwater habitat is also present in the tributary system located south of Holly Court
(Azimuth,*).
Other tributaries likely support permanent/seasonal warmwater fish habitat.
Significant floodplain and other stream-based hazards are associated with Silver Creek and its
tributaries.
The Silver Creek South Greenland is linked to the Georgian Trail Greenland to the north and to
the Southwest Regeneration Greenland to the south. This Greenland is also linked to natural
features west of Collingwood within the Town of Blue Mountains.
NVCA
89
8.1.16 Townline Creek
The Townline Creek Greenland consists of Townline Creek and contiguous forests and wetlands
extending north and south of Georgian Trail. It is bounded on the north by Highway 26 and by
the closed County landfill to the south. The Greenland consists of an 8 ha block north of the trail
and a 17 ha block south of the trail – these blocks are connected by a narrow riparian corridor
along Osler Bluff Road (Townline Creek).
Wetlands are strongly associated with the Townline Creek Greenland. Most wetlands north of
Georgian Trail are part of the Silver Creek Wetland complex while those to the south are
unevaluated.
Deciduous swamp forests are dominant north of the trail.
A mosaic of deciduous swamp and marsh habitats are present south of the trail. Although core
forest habitat is absent, forest cover in this area supports migratory bird stopover habitat.
Marshes and wetter swamps provide amphibian breeding habitat. The federally threatened
Western Chorus Frog has been documented in suitable habitats along the Georgian Trail.
Townline Creek provides a migratory corridor for rainbow trout and may provide coldwater
habitat (though this function is likely more significant upstream within the Town of Blue
Mountains). Significant floodplain and other stream-based hazards are associated with the creek.
The Townline Creek Greenland is linked to the Georgian Trail Greenland to the east and to the
Silver Creek North Greenland to the north. This Greenland is strongly linked to forest and
wetland cover to the west within the Town of Blue Mountains (including portions of the Silver
Creek Wetland complex).
8.1.17 Southwest Regeneration
The Southwest Regeneration Greenland lies east of Osler Bluff Road at the junction between the
Southwest Forest Greenland, the Silver Creek South Greenland and the Black Ash Creek Wetland
(west tributaries). This Greenland consists of a mosaic of meadows, thickets, regenerating forest
and a small wetland that have regenerated over abandoned agricultural lands. High water table in
this area may have contributed to abandonment of agriculture uses. Vernal pools within some
vegetation communities may support amphibian breeding habitat.
Regenerating fields and other open floodplain habitats associated with this Greenland may
support habitat for grassland bird species which are generally in decline in southern Ontario. One
of these species – Bobolink – has recently been listed as a threatened species and threatened
status has also been proposed for eastern meadowlark (*,*). Both species are relatively common
in the NVCA watershed.
The Greenland is contiguous with, and links, the Southwest Forest, Silver Creek South and Black
Ash Creek Greenlands. Much of this Greenland is currently zoned for rural use.
8.1.18 Southwest Forest
The Southwest Forest Greenland is located in the southwest corner of Collingwood at the
intersection of Osler Bluff Road and Sixth Street. This Greenland consists of core forest habitat
(approximately 19 ha) that appears to be more than 75 years old. Core forest habitat likely
supports breeding habitat for area-sensitive and forest interior bird species. Vernal pools appear to
be present and may provide amphibian breeding habitat.
NVCA
90
The Southwest Forest Greenland is linked to the Southwest Regeneration Greenland to the north
and east. This Greenland is also connected to forest cover in Clearview Township (south of Sixth
Line).
8.2
Natural Heritage Scenario Development
Initial and ongoing stakeholder discussion of Greenlands and natural heritage system
considerations resulted in consensus on a number of matters.
All “draft plan approved properties” were excluded from the natural heritage system – these
properties have undergone an extensive planning process and with approvals subject to various
planning conditions – some of which may be environmental.
“Lots of Record” were generally excluded from the natural heritage system unless they are
undeveloped and within hazard zones. For example, forest cover in development lots south of
Campbell Street was excluded from the system since development rights were assumed to be in
place in this fully serviced area.
Small, isolated natural heritage features within urban areas (i.e. the green ash swamp near the
Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, remnant features southwest of Collins Road and Peel
Street) were also excluded from the natural heritage system. Relatively low natural heritage
values combined with existing development designation and zoning made it
impractical/inappropriate to include these remnant natural heritage features within the natural
heritage system.
Regenerating areas were challenging decision-points for natural heritage system development.
As per the PPS, these areas can be important building blocks for natural heritage system
development; however, they are typically younger, more disturbed natural heritage elements that
are often deemed to have less significance from a natural heritage perspective. Unlike significant
forests and wetlands, regenerating or early successional upland habitats do not have specific
protective policies within the PPS except in conjunction with other PPS elements (i.e. rare flora
and fauna).
For the purposes of the Town of Collingwood natural heritage system study, regenerating areas
were considered for inclusion within the NHS if they:
Were located outside of existing development designations/zones;
Contributed to creation of large core habitats; and/or,
Provided linkages between otherwise disconnected or fragmented natural heritage
features
Regenerating areas were generally excluded from NHS consideration if they did not meet a
combination of these criteria. For example, the Mountain Road Regeneration Greenland was
excluded from all three natural heritage system scenarios (see below). Although inclusion of this
Greenland would contribute to the Georgian Trail Greenland, it is an area with existing
development designations and is not strongly linked to other Greenland features within the Town.
Based on stakeholder discussions, three scenarios were developed for review: the PPS/Existing
OP Scenario, the Middle Scenario and the Protective Scenario. These sample scenarios were
NVCA
91
intended to generate discussion toward a consensus-based system that can be supported by the
Town and brought into Official Plan schedule and policy updates as part of Official Plan review.
Stakeholders were advised that elements from various scenarios could be brought together to
achieve a preferred natural heritage system. Broader provincial direction (NHRM; MNR, 2010)
to work iteratively to achieve a balance between development and natural heritage system
protection in urbanizing areas, as well as direction to provide stronger protection for identified
natural heritage systems in urbanizing areas, was used as a starting point. NVCA staff noted their
role as providing a natural heritage science framework and acting as a facilitator for stakeholder
discussion.
The three scenarios are described below:
8.2.1
PPS/Existing Official Plan Scenario
This scenario (Figure 21) was based on natural heritage/hazard policies within the Provincial
Policy Statement and the existing Town Official Plan.
Category 1 lands, which are generally protected within the Town Official Plan, consisted of:
•
•
•
Valleylands, watercourses, floodplains
Provincially significant wetlands
Old forests >4 ha (> 75 years of age)
Category 2 lands, which have a lower level of protection but still must meet tests similar to “no
negative impact to features and functions” (PPS, 2005) consisted of:
•
•
•
Young forests >10 ha (< 75 years of age)
Unevaluated wetlands
Forests contiguous with valleylands (PPS direction)
This scenario includes additional >10 ha forests (as identified through this study) not currently
depicted in OP schedules. Provincially significant wetlands were expanded or contracted based
on field work (although this requires MNR confirmation). Unevaluated wetlands identified
through this study were added as Category 2 features. Although not fully encompassed in Figure
21, review of 1954 air photos suggests that additional forest cover meets >75 years forest age
criterion and should be considered Category 1 lands.
8.2.2
Middle Scenario
This scenario (Figures 22) was based on stronger protection of existing core natural heritage
features and functions outside of core development areas within the Town.
Category 1 lands consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
All wetlands except fragmented features
Core forests
Forest contiguous with valleylands
Regenerating areas that connect core features (Georgian Trail)
NVCA
92
•
•
Forests/regenerating areas along reconfigured Black Ash Creek (residential/industrial)
Regenerating areas that connect/rebuild core areas (Silver Creek South, Black Ash Creek
near Campbell Street)
Compared to the PPS/OP Scenario, forest blocks and unevaluated wetlands changed from
Category 2 to Category 1. Category 2 blocks were added along Black Ash Creek (south of
Mountain Road and near Campbell/High Street). Forest/regeneration blocks contiguous with
other natural heritage features were added as Category 2 features.
8.2.3
Protective Scenario
This scenario (Figures 23) was based on strong protection of existing core natural heritage
features and functions as well as restoration of fragmented Greenlands and connections within the
Town.
•
•
•
•
•
All wetlands except fragmented features
Core forests/core areas (all)
Forest contiguous with valleylands
Regenerating areas that connect core features (Georgian Trail)
•
•
Fragmented forests and linkages (Sandford Fleming Greenland)
Regenerating areas that connect/rebuild core areas (Southwest Collingwood)
Compared to the Middle Scenario, the Southwest Regeneration, Fairgrounds Forest and Sandford
Fleming Greenlands were brought into the system as Category 2 features. The Black Ash Creek
blocks (south of Mountain Road and near Campbell/High Street) changed from Category 2 to
Category 1. Forest and regeneration blocks that are contiguous with other natural heritage
features were added as Category 2 features.
NVCA
93
NVCA
94
NVCA
95
NVCA
96
8.3
Scenario Discussion
During the February 4, 2011 stakeholder meeting, there was general consensus among
stakeholders that the Protective Scenario included elements that constrained short-term
development needs within the Town of Collingwood. The Sandford Fleming Greenlands, in
particular, was identified as a strong node for commercial/industrial development and that
fragmented/isolated forests and wetlands associated with this Greenland were impractical or
inappropriate to include within the natural heritage system.
Although all stakeholders recognized provincial direction regarding natural heritage systems in
urbanizing areas, there was some discomfort expressed regarding implications for stronger
protection of an identified natural heritage system – particularly along Black Ash Creek where
recent (2002) channel works were intended, in large part, to facilitate development in former
flood-prone areas. Discussion centred on potential changes to the Category 2 land definition
within the Official Plan to facilitate development within Category 2 lands where it could be
demonstrated that significant features and functions (i.e. Species At Risk, rare vegetation
communities, significant amphibian breeding habitat) were absent.
8.4
Draft Proposed Natural Heritage System
Following the February 4, 2011 stakeholder meeting, NVCA staff were directed to develop a
draft proposed natural heritage system for further discussion. NVCA staff developed this system
in April 2011 and met with Nancy Farrer, Director of Planning (Town of Collingwood) to discuss
refinements based on draft approved plans and other planning imperatives. The proposed natural
heritage system was refined based on this meeting. A stakeholder meeting was convened on May
13th, 2011 and additional refinements to the system based on consensus discussion were
undertaken.
The proposed natural heritage system (Figures 24 and 25) has been designed to meet the intent of
natural heritage system development within Settlement Areas, as per the Natural Heritage
Reference Manual (MNR, 2010), which recognizes the need to balance natural heritage system
protection with mandates for municipal growth. Recommendations to expand the more protective
Category 1 land designations within the identified natural heritage system is consistent with
NHRM direction to provide stronger protection for lands that are to remain natural within
urbanizing areas.
The proposed natural heritage system builds on past natural heritage system work and identifies
and protects core areas, ecological linkages and landscape features on the Collingwood landscape.
Protection of this system will facilitate the maintenance of ecological functions and biodiversity
within the Town and in adjacent municipalities. It will provide an ecological framework that will
assist natural systems to adapt to climate change. The system allows for the restoration and
improvement of natural heritage features and functions via community stewardship.
The system is strongly aligned with Town Official Plan statement: “the primary municipal aim in
developing new Official Plan policy is to establish a strategy for growth which addresses the
long-term living, working and recreational needs of the municipality’s residents while remaining
true to the Plan’s broader environmental, social and economic goals”. The proposed system is
also aligned with the mission statement of the Town of Collingwood Strategic Plan (1995):
NVCA
97
NVCA
98
service organizations, will maintain our small-town atmosphere,
our natural environment, and our heritage, while embracing
NVCA
99
NVCA
100
8.5
Key NHS Components
The key elements of the Town of Collingwood Natural Heritage System consist of the following
Town Greenland areas:
Braeside and Batteaux Creek Greenlands
Pretty River Greenland
Collingwood Harbour Greenlands
Black Ash Creek Greenlands
White’s Bay and Lighthouse Point Greenlands
Georgian Trail Greenland
Silver Creek North and Silver Creek South Greenlands
Townline Creek Greenland
Southwest Forest and Southwest Regeneration Greenlands
Several Town Greenland units were refined to address areas draft approved for development or
where current or future ecological functions were not deemed significant within an urbanizing
context. Two candidate Greenland units – Mountain Road Regeneration and Sandford Fleming –
were removed from natural heritage system consideration due to a combination of habitat
fragmentation, weak linkages, and presence of existing planning designations or zoning. Other
natural areas outside of the candidate Greenlands were excluded due to small size and isolation
on the landscape.
8.6
Category 1 and Category 2 Recommendations
Most areas within the proposed natural heritage system are identified as Category 1, in part to
recognize the NHRM principle of providing stronger protection for identified natural heritage
systems within urbanizing areas. Category 2 areas generally consist of:
Large natural heritage blocks along the west side of Black Ash Creek which lie outside of
natural hazards and which lie within preferred development areas
Smaller natural heritage blocks in northwest Collingwood that are subject to ongoing
mediation as part of active planning applications
A large regenerating block in southwest Collingwood (Southwest Regeneration
Greenland)
The large forest/regenerating habitat blocks along the west side of Black Ash Creek support a
variety of habitats and functions – all of which appear to be relatively common in other
forest/regenerating blocks north of the Nipissing ridge. They are also within an area preferred for
short-term development goals within the Town. The Black Ash Creek channelization project
(completed in 2002 with the support of several agencies including MNR, DFO and NVCA) was
intended to reduce floodplain constraints and hazards and, in part, to facilitate future
development. The proposed Category 2 recommendation in this area could include less
restrictive OP policies that would facilitate development provided that an EIS demonstrating no
negative impacts on key ecological functions is prepared to agency satisfaction. This is similar to
the approach recently used for the Black Ash Lifestyle Community on the west side of Black Ash
Creek north of Georgian Trail.
The smaller natural heritage blocks in northwest Collingwood are subject to ongoing discussions
and study as part of active planning applications that predate this study. The results of these
NVCA
101
studies and associated negotiations will determine natural heritage designations on these
properties.
The Southwest Regeneration Greenland provides an excellent opportunity to connect the Silver
Creek South, Black Ash Creek and Southwest Forest Greenlands in southwest Collingwood. This
area appears to be marginal farmland and is currently dominated by regenerating fields. The most
appropriate configuration of this Greenland has yet to be determined and its Category 2 status
reflects a further opportunity to refine this important linkage through further study in the future.
8.7
Integration with Settlement Area Needs
The proposed natural heritage system excludes isolated forest and wetland areas within urban
Collingwood to allow flexibility for development within the existing urban area. Forests and
wetlands in draft approved subdivisions are similarly excluded from the natural heritage system.
Core development areas, such as the commercial/industrial zones associated with Sandford
Fleming Drive, were excluded from the system. Strong development mandates along Black Ash
Creek are recognized through less-restrictive natural heritage designations which will allow for
development subject to Environmental Impact Studies – these studies could be scoped to become
“due diligence” reports that would focus on presence/absence of provincially significant
species/vegetation communities (i.e. if these features are absent, development could proceed with
few natural heritage constraints aside from watercourses and associated hazards). The exclusion
of the Mountain Road Regeneration Greenland (regenerating fields and small forests) also
provides significant future development opportunities proximal to the existing urban area.
8.8
Integration with PPS Features
The proposed natural heritage system encompasses the provincially significant Silver Creek
wetland complex as well as most unevaluated wetlands that could potentially be added to the
complex. All valleylands and almost all fish habitat (possible exception of local drains) are
contained within the system.
Significant woodlands are encompassed within the system. Inclusion of the Braeside Forest,
Batteaux Creek, Silver Creek North, Georgian Trail and Southwest Forest Greenlands provides
protection of core forest areas and key areas of forest interior habitat within the Town of
Collingwood. Diverse habitats and associated functions associated with a mosaic of upland forest
and swamp forest communities are encompassed within the Georgian Trail and Silver Creek
North Greenlands. Older forests – including locally rare sugar maple forests as well as atypical
poplar/ash/birch/cedar forests - are well-represented in the system.
A number of significant wildlife habitat components are present within the Town of Collingwood.
The full range of these components (described in Section 7) are encompassed within the natural
heritage system. The following broad significant wildlife habitat categories are supported within
the proposed system:
seasonal concentrations of animals
rare vegetation communities
specialized wildlife habitat
highly diverse areas
habitats of species of conservation concern
springs and seepages
NVCA
102
animal movement corridors.
The proposed natural heritage system represents the full range of landforms and vegetation types
within the Town of Collingwood. Natural heritage features within the system are strongly linked
wherever possible. Linkages to natural heritage systems and features in adjacent municipalities
have been identified and protected. The natural heritage system includes local corridors such as
the Pretty River and Black Ash Creek Greenlands which support fish habitat and urban-tolerant
wildlife movement as well as broader corridors that provide habitat and movement opportunities
for area-sensitive wildlife and wildlife that require a variety of habitat types to fulfill their life
cycle requirements.
8.9
Integration with Simcoe County Greenlands
The proposed natural heritage system generally encompasses and, in many cases, builds upon the
County Greenlands system.
The Collingwood Shores-Northwest Collingwood Greenland (WL1) is represented in the Town
system by the Georgian Trail, Silver Creek North and Townline Creek Greenlands. This
Greenland has been expanded within the proposed natural heritage system to integrate the full
extent of large forest/wetland mosaics along Georgian Trail as well as regenerating fields that link
these habitat blocks to Silver Creek. Linkages to forest and wetland (Silver Creek Wetlands)
cover in the Town of Blue Mountains are identified and protected within the proposed natural
heritage system.
Portions of the Stayner Swamp (WL2) within the Town of Collingwood are encompassed within
the Town system via the Batteaux Creek and Braeside Forest Greenlands. Forest cover included
in the County Greenlands at the easternmost boundary of the Town has been excluded due to
significant recent fragmentation associated with construction of the Highway 26 bypass,
residential lot development and commercial development.
The portion of the Pretty River (WL5) Greenland within the Town of Collingwood has been
incorporated into the proposed natural heritage system and linkages south into Clearview
Township have been clearly identified.
The portion of the Batteaux Creek (WL6) Greenland within the Town of Collingwood has been
incorporated into the proposed natural heritage system. This Greenland has been expanded
within the natural heritage system to integrate the full extent of the large core forest east of
Batteaux Creek as well as regenerating wetlands and woodlands to the west. Linkages south into
Clearview Township have been clearly identified.
8.10
Integration with Adjacent Municipal Environmental Protection Features
The proposed natural heritage system is closely linked to natural features in adjacent
municipalities (Figure 26; Clearview Township and the Town of Blue Mountains), as currently
protected through environmental protection designation and zoning, or identified through NVCA
regulation mapping (generally associated with wetlands and watercourses). The proposed system
could be viewed as a building block for both of these municipalities should they wish to embark
on their own respective natural heritage systems in the future.
NVCA
103
Lands at the easternmost limit of the Town of Collingwood support small, fragmented natural
features. Adjacent lands in the Town of Wasaga Beach are similarly fragmented, have few
environmental designations and are associated with ongoing development applications. Ongoing
fragmentation has significantly impacted the natural corridors that once connected Collingwood
and Wasaga Beach, and natural heritage links between the two municipalities are not
provided/recommended within the proposed natural heritage system.
The proposed natural heritage system supports strong westward connections into the Town of
Blue Mountains along Silver Creek and its tributaries, as well as along Townline Creek.
Similarly, the system provides east-west linkages along core portions of the Silver Creek PSW
(and adjacent natural features) both north and south of Highway 26. Regenerating natural
features in southwest Collingwood are closely associated with similar features west of Osler Bluff
Road, representing a potential broader natural heritage block for future planning consideration
between the two municipalities.
Watercourse-related corridors provide the primary linkages extending south and southwest from
the Town of Collingwood into Clearview Township. Black Ash Creek and its tributaries, Pretty
River and Batteaux Creek are all linked to environmental protection features currently identified
within the Clearview Township Official Plan.
NVCA
104
NVCA
105
8.11
Integration with Areas of Concern Habitat Targets
An Area of Concern (AOC) is a specific area along the Great Lakes shoreline that has been
subject to environmental degradation and has been designated by the International Joint
Commission. Once designated, an AOC must have a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) completed to
provide guidance for restoration and protection of the site. However, before an AOC is
considered restored and de-listed as an AOC, targets must be developed to measure progress and
act as a point of reference (Environment Canada, 2004).
A number of habitat targets have been established for the Great Lakes AOCs (Environment
Canada et al., 2004). The Collingwood Harbour Area of Concern was the first Great Lakes AOC
to be delisted in 1994, in partnership with federal, provincial and local agencies and groups.
Table 10 outlines habitat targets which, if achieved or exceeded, will support a natural heritage
system that exhibits a high degree of biodiversity and robustness. The results of natural heritage
analysis conducted for the Town of Collingwood in support of this study are provided in Table
11. Figure 27 depicts ELC community cover that is currently on the landscape in the Town of
Collingwood and is outside the boundaries of the draft proposed natural heritage system.
Table 10: Habitat Targets for Great Lakes Areas of Concern
(adapted from Environment Canada, 2004)
Parameter
Percent Forest Cover
Target
> 30%
Size of Largest Forest Patch
(minimum 500 m wide)
Percent of Municipality that is Forest
Cover 100 m or farther from edge
Percent of Municipality that is Forest
Cover 200 m or farther from edge
Percent of First to Third Order
Streams* with at least 30 m wide
buffers
Percent of Municipality that is
Impervious
200 ha
Percent Wetlands
>10% watershed
>6% subwatershed
> 10%
> 5%
> 75%
< 10%
Rationale
Will support most bird species
expected within range
Will support most bird species
expected within range
Will support most forest interior
and forest edge bird species
Will support most forest interior
species expected within range
Maintain high water quality and
stream integrity
Maintain water quality/quantity;
preserve biotic density and
biodiversity
Ensure that wetlands are
distributed throughout the
watershed; ensure tangible
hydrological and ecological
benefits on a subwatershed basis
* Stream order is a method of ranking stream segments in a drainage basin in which larger segments are given higher order numbers.
Headwater tributaries are assigned order 1; where two order 1 streams combine, the next downstream segment becomes order 2; where
two order 2 segments combine, the next downstream segment becomes order 3, etc. (Newbury and Gaboury, 1993). For this study,
only the main Nottawasaga River has not been considered as its stream order is greater than 3 and its catchment area is between 800
km2 to 1500 km2. Other streams within Essa Township could be assigned a 4 th order designation (possibly due to smaller tributary
patterns on the landscape and/or available mapping); however, the catchment areas of all the tributaries to the main Nottawasaaga
River are considerably less than 100 km2. The decision to include all of these tributaries was based on in-house knowledge of the
watercourses within Essa Township and best professional judgment.
NVCA
106
Table 11: Comparison of Town Natural Heritage Features to AOC Habitat Targets
Great Lakes AOC Parameter
Forest Cover
Largest Forest Patch
Forest Interior Habitat (>100 m from
forest edge)
Deep Forest Interior Habitat (>200 m
from forest edge)
Riparian Habitat (30 m vegetated
buffers on either side of creek)
Wetland Coverage (including
swamps)
a
b
AOC Target
>30%
>200 ha and >500 m
wide
>10%
Town of Collingwood
19.5%
TBD
>5%
TBD
75%
TBD
>10% watershed
>6% subwatershed
11.75%
7%
Caution should be used when interpreting the impervious area metric. This metric should be
assessed at the catchment level. For example, intensive development in the headwaters of small
streams may result in significant stream impairment while imperviousness, when viewed over the
entire Town, remains below the target threshold.
calculated as percent urban area (excluding open space) X 0.2 (assumed impervious percentage of
20% in urbanized areas)
NVCA
107
NVCA
108
8.11.1 Forest Cover
The Town of Collingwood supports approximately 19% forest cover (including forested
wetlands). Although the Town falls short of Environment Canada’s 30% target, Collingwood is
part of the broader Blue Mountains watershed which does meet the suggested target with
approximately 31.5 % forest cover. Given that the Town of Collingwood has been designated an
Urban Settlement Area with a mandate for development, it is recognized that achieving the 30%
target is rather impractical. It is important, however, for the Town to maintain current forest cover
as part of the broader watershed context, focusing on protecting larger forest tracts with interior
forest habitat, and those forest tracts that are part of a wildlife movement corridor.
8.11.2 Wetland Cover
The Town of Collingwood supports a high wetland cover with respect to the broader Blue
Mountains watershed. Wetland cover (treed and non-treed wetlands) is approximately 11.75 % in
the Town of Collingwood, while wetland cover in the Blue Mountains watershed remains at
approximately 5%. Given that the Town meets the Environment Canada target of 10%, it is
important to protect these wetlands to maintain ecosystem health and function as well as help to
achieve larger subwatershed goals.
8.12
Integration with Other Local, Provincial and International Initiatives
Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010 (Federal, Provincial and Territorial
Governments of Canada, 2010)
The proposed natural heritage system contributes to the United Nations Biodiversity Outcomes
Framework (2006) goal of “Healthy and Diverse Ecosystems” which outlined two key outcomes:
i) productive, resilient, diverse ecosystems with the capacity to recover and adapt, and ii)
damaged ecosystems restored. The natural heritage system provides a protected framework
which allows ecosystems to recover and adapt as well as opportunities – via community
stewardship – to restore damaged ecosystems. The natural heritage system provides ecological
goods and services that contribute to the community. The system provides “conservation
corridors” which the biodiversity report notes as an important tool to enhance the biodiversity
value of protected areas in fragmented landscape (such as southern Ontario).
Great Lakes Conservation Blueprints (Nature Conservancy of Canada and MNR, 2005)
The proposed natural heritage system assists the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) and the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in identifying and protecting the best
representative areas across the Great Lakes for conservation planning. The system provides
improved representation of stream systems, wetlands and Great Lakes shoreline habitat (which
were deemed to be under-represented within existing protected areas), and conservation lands.
Vegetation communities and species of biodiversity interest, identified proximal to the Town of
Collingwood (Section 7), are encompassed within the proposed natural heritage system.
Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011: Renewing Our Commitment to Protecting What Sustains
Us (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2011)
The proposed natural heritage system supports the Ontario Biodiversity Strategy 2011 by meeting
Target 12 which states that: “By 2015, natural heritage systems plans and biodiversity
NVCA
109
conservation strategies are developed and implemented at the municipal and landscape levels.”
The proposed system incorporates key components of biodiversity within the municipal
landscape within a systems approach that provides broader linkages to adjacent municipalities,
adjacent shoreline areas of Georgian Bay, and to other provincially significant features such as
the Niagara Escarpment.
MNR Big Picture 2002 (MNR, 2002)
The proposed natural heritage system provides local level natural heritage information and
analysis that contributes to broader regional scale natural heritage system development. The
Georgian Trail and Silver Creek North Greenlands effectively encompass the “Cores and Nearby
Natural/Values” features depicted in the Big Picture 2002 mapping. Portions of regenerating
forest/wetland habitat along Black Ash Creek and in east Collingwood, identified as “Linkagesnatural portion”, have been included within the natural heritage system via the Black Ash Creek,
Batteaux Creek and Braeside Forest Greenlands. Other portions have been excluded due to
recent habitat fragmentation (east Collingwood and Black Ash Creek) or receive lesser (Category
2) protection (Black Ash Creek) based on Town development mandates.
La Mer Douce – The Sweet Sea. An International Biodiversity Strategy for Lake Huron; Lake
Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Core Team, 2010
The proposed natural heritage system contributes to international biodiversity efforts in the Lake
Huron basin. The Collingwood area is rated as a high priority biodiversity conservation area for
coastal wetlands and as a medium-high priority for coastal terrestrial communities (within 2 km
of the shoreline). The natural heritage system contributes to the following biodiversity strategies
identified in the report:
1.2
Effectively conserve a system of public and private conservation lands for coastal
terrestrial, nearshore zone and island features that are resilient to changes in land use and
climate
Restore priority coastal terrestrial, nearshore zone and island features (Silver Creek
Wetlands identified as priority area)
Develop and implement programs that identify and conserve priority coastal terrestrial,
nearshore zone and island habitats (Silver Creek Wetlands identified as priority area)
Enhance knowledge, technical skills and information exchange to build capacity of local
policy and land use planning authorities to include biodiversity values into their decisions
Increase community engagement, awareness, understanding and commitment to coastal
terrestrial, nearshore zone and island conservation
2.5
2.6
4.1
4.3
Lake Huron-Georgian Bay Watershed – A Canadian Framework for Community Action.
(Environment Canada, n.d)
The proposed natural heritage system contributes to the Lake Huron Charter which calls for “a
healthy, life sustaining ecosystem that provides our cultural, economic and spiritual fulfillment.”
The following actions identified in the framework are supported through the system:
•
•
•
Degraded areas are restored and environmental health sustained;
Our use of land and water is ecologically sound; and,
Our open waters, shorelines, farmlands, forests, river, streams and wetland across the
watershed, are protected today and for all future generations
NVCA
110
Status and Trends in Shoreline Development and Alteration Along the Southern Georgian Bay
Shoreline (MNR, 2010).
This collaborative stakeholder-driven report has direct linkages to strategies recommended in the
Lake Huron Biodiversity Strategy. Intensive development and shoreline alterations are identified
in the natural heritage system report and recommendations to minimize future shoreline
alterations are provided. Key undisturbed shoreline areas are encompassed within the proposed
natural heritage system with a view to protect these remnant pristine shoreline areas from future
alteration. Migratory bird stopover habitat is identified as an important component of the
southern Georgian Bay shoreline – this habitat function is encompassed within the proposed
natural heritage system.
Background Environmental Study – Town of Collingwood (Gartner Lee Limited, 2004).
The proposed natural heritage system builds on this background environmental study, using
comprehensive field work to update natural heritage feature and function information for the
Town. This information is then analyzed using updated PPS (2005), NHRM (MNR, 2010) and
best available natural heritage science to derive a holistic natural heritage system for the Town.
The study noted that a diversity of habitat types – including successional old fields and shrub
thickets – should be represented in the Town natural heritage system. The proposed natural
heritage system includes a number of regenerating habitats which contribute to overall habitat
diversity and function on the Town landscape and which often link components of the natural
heritage system and/or contribute to larger core habitats.
9.0
Natural Heritage System – Challenges and Opportunities
Effective implementation of the proposed natural heritage system and associated protective
policies within the Town of Collingwood Official Plan is an important step to protecting natural
heritage features and functions on the local and regional landscape. However, challenges to the
natural heritage system will remain on this urbanizing landscape. Conversely, there are many
opportunities to enhance the natural heritage system through community stewardship and
education. The Town of Collingwood is fortunate to have community organizations such as the
Blue Mountain Watershed Trust, Environment Network, Georgian Triangle Anglers and Hunters,
Nature League and others that are well-placed to take advantage of these opportunities. The
Town and resource agencies have also demonstrated a long-term commitment to environmental
enhancement that will serve the community well.
9.1
Environmental Impact Studies
Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) are generally required to review potential impacts of
proposed developments within or adjacent to natural heritage systems and features. Preconsultation is a key component of any EIS. Proponents need to work with the Town and other
agencies to derive an appropriate work scope based on the scope of the proposed development
and the context of natural heritage features/functions on a property. Pre-consultation ensures that
the proponent and agencies have agreed on environmental work required in support of a
development application. This should ensure that EIS field work will be undertaken to agency
NVCA
111
satisfaction and minimize delays in EIS review and potential requests for additional field work
which can significantly delay application processing.
The Town of Collingwood should consider development of an EIS Terms of Reference for use by
development proponents. Pre-consultation should be an integral component in the forefront of
the Terms of Reference.
9.2
Infrastructure
To effectively service a growing community, infrastructure projects such as road construction and
water/wastewater servicing will be required. These linear infrastructure projects are often subject
to Class Environmental Assessments and are not subject to the PPS policies applied to other types
of development and site alteration. For example, a highway can be built/widened through a
provincially significant wetland if the environmental assessment justifies this as the preferred
option through a multi-option review of social, economic and environmental impacts.
Infrastructure projects proposed within or adjacent to the natural heritage system should include
appropriate in-season environmental investigations to identify ecological features, functions and
key sensitivities within and adjacent to the project study area. Sensitive features and functions
should be avoided wherever feasible. Where avoidance is not feasible (through environmental
assessment alternative analyses), mitigation/compensation measures must implemented. Recent
studies in the field of road ecology should be reviewed to mitigate potential impacts associated
with wildlife crossings. Fish habitat protection (and compensation where impacts cannot be
avoided) is a required component of stream crossing design. Where possible, streams flowing
along roadsides should be reconfigured away from road right-of-ways through road design to
avoid continuous impacts associated with road runoff and periodic impacts associated with
roadside cleanouts.
9.3
Shoreline Alteration and Dredging
Much of the Collingwood shoreline has been highly altered to facilitate urban development and
access to Georgian Bay. Work undertaken through this study underscores the importance of
protecting the remaining natural shorelines. Much of the lakeward shoreline lies outside of the
jurisdiction of the Town of Collingwood, and other agencies such as the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority have jurisdiction/regulate works along the shoreline. It is critical that these agencies
work together to protect remaining natural areas along the Collingwood shoreline.
Dredging is an ongoing issue along the Collingwood shoreline, particularly with recent low water
levels in Georgian Bay. Landowners with historical access to the Bay require dredging to
maintain their access. Fine materials suspended during dredging activities can bypass standard
erosion and sediment controls and disperse some distance into the nearshore area. Responsible
agencies should continue to update best management practices for dredging activities to ensure
that impacts on the nearshore zone are minimized. Compensatory measures built in to dredging
projects should be monitored to ensure that they have been successfully implemented.
9.4
Adjacent Lands
Adjacent lands – the distance from a feature for considering potential negative impacts – has been
recommended as 120 m for almost all natural heritage features in the 2010 NHRM. The only
NVCA
112
exception to this is 50 m for Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (which are
absent in the Town of Collingwood). In some cases, this 120 m zone may need to be expanded to
account for species/habitat sensitivity (NRHM, 2010).
As per the PPS (Policy 2.6), development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent
lands “unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological
functions”. This typically must be demonstrated through an EIS or equivalent environmental
assessment approach.
Adjacent lands can contribute to natural heritage feature/system function through a variety of
mechanisms such as:
Direct habitat (i.e. upland dispersal habitat for amphibians next to wetland breeding
areas)
Habitat linkages to other natural heritage features
Water quality benefits (filtering pollutants)
Hydrologic support (maintaining hydrology of natural heritage features/systems)
Riparian cover supporting fish habitat (shading, bank stability, food/energy inputs)
Screening of natural areas from adjacent development (minimizing visual/auditory
impacts of development)
Given the potential importance of adjacent lands in contributing to the maintenance and health of
the natural heritage system, EIS and equivalent studies must review all potential functions that
may be provided in these areas and provide appropriate recommendations to maintain or enhance
the health of the natural heritage system.
Some areas within the 120 m adjacent lands may already be developed or development may be
proposed where existing development intervenes between the proposed development and the
natural heritage feature. In these cases, the Town and other supporting agencies should consider
simple statements of “no negative impact” rather than a more rigorous EIS approach.
9.5
Upstream Land Use
Despite best efforts within the Town of Collingwood, the Town’s natural heritage system can still
be impacted by land uses in adjoining municipalities. Water resources, in particular, flow
downstream from one municipality through another and downstream municipal resources can be
impacted by upstream land uses. Recent partnership studies undertaken by the Blue Mountain
Watershed Trust, Grey Sauble Conservation Authority and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority have identified significant impacts to water quality in Townline Creek associated with
recreational and residential development along and downstream of the Escarpment slopes in the
Town of Blue Mountains. Water quality is considered impaired as the stream enters the Town of
Collingwood, with nearshore impairments in West Black Bass Bay (high turbidity) also
associated with Townline Creek runoff.
Public agencies should work cooperatively, wherever possible, with local environmental
organizations to identify and address upstream land uses which may be impairing local
environmental quality and the health of the natural heritage system. Positive stewardship
approaches to landowners should be the first step in addressing any identified impacts.
NVCA
113
9.6
Invasive Species
Section 6.13 identifies a number of invasive species that inhabit the Town of Collingwood.
Some, such as common buckthorn and garlic mustard, are well-established and are abundant to
dominant in portions of the Town. These established species are extremely difficult to control
except in localized situations and only with much effort. Others, such as dog-strangling vine,
giant hogweed and wild parsnip appear to be more recent invaders and may potentially be
controlled in their isolated pockets – though not without significant community effort.
Public agencies and local environmental organizations should partner to discuss potential control
options for invasive species. Contacts should be made with key landowners (including the Town)
to discuss key problem areas and work toward community-oriented solutions to the satisfaction of
the landowner.
The Town of Collingwood should continue its excellent work in controlling giant hogweed (in
partnership with NVCA) and wild parsnip on Town lands – particularly on trails where both
species can potentially pose health hazards for trail users. Similar to several other municipalities
in southern Ontario, the Town should consider listing giant hogweed as a noxious weed under bylaw to control its planting as an ornamental on private lots.
Public agencies, possibly in partnership with local environmental organizations, should develop
education materials to be made available through the internet and key public venues to inform the
public about invasive species and their threats to human health and biodiversity.
9.7
Reforestation
Reforestation/restoration opportunities are present within the proposed natural heritage system.
The Nottawasaga Watershed Improvement Project (N-WIP) and community groups have initiated
work to restore vegetation cover in portions of the reconfigured Black Ash Creek channel.
Additional reforestation opportunities are available on tablelands on either side of the channel –
reforestation on these lands would improve local wildlife habitat conditions and provide increased
shading for trail users.
As floodplain/hazard lands come into public ownership through the development process, there
are additional opportunities to reforest/restore vegetation communities in hazard land areas.
Restoration in these areas would enhance the natural heritage system through:
Enhancing linkages within Greenland systems
Increasing habitat opportunities for local wildlife
Nutrient uptake – reducing nutrient loading to the creeks/Nottawasaga
River/Nottawasaga Bay;
Increased shading – reducing summer instream temperatures and providing cover;
Increased bank stability – reducing streambank erosion; and,
Provision of woody cover and food sources (leaves, insects)
Development of properly-designed stormwater facilities at appropriate outlets to hazard
lands/natural heritage systems can also enhance natural heritage system function. Stormwater
facility plantings should be designed to dovetail with adjacent natural heritage systems (i.e. utilize
native species similar/complementary to adjacent natural habitats).
NVCA
114
Native plantings appropriate to site conditions (soils and moisture) should be utilized wherever
possible for natural heritage system restoration.
9.8
Fish Habitat
Fish habitat can be impacted by poorly planned development; however, best management
practices combined with appropriate planning near watercourses and shorelines can minimize or
prevent impacts to fish habitat. Stormwater management is a constantly evolving science and
best available science should be used to minimize pollutant loadings (including thermal impacts)
on Town streams and shorelines. Cumulative impacts of urbanization on watercourses is an
ongoing concern, and the Town and other agencies should maximize use of lot level controls
wherever possible to replicate pre-development water balance and drainage conditions to avoid
these impacts.
In some situations, development provides an excellent opportunity for stream corridor
enhancement. Previously altered stream reaches can be enhanced using natural channel design
which can improve existing habitat conditions as well as downstream water quality. Riparian
plantings within a restored corridor are a key component of these enhancement opportunities.
9.9
Trails
The Town of Collingwood has a renowned trail system. Over 60 km of trails wind through the
community and connect with adjacent municipalities. Portions of most trails pass through
components of the proposed natural heritage system.
In most cases, properly designed trails through the natural heritage system offer an excellent
opportunity for the public to utilize active transportation and interact positively with nature.
Trails through public portions of the natural heritage system offer opportunities for education
through interpretive signage to better inform the public about natural heritage features and
functions (as well as cultural heritage and benefits of active lifestyles).
Sensitive areas within the natural heritage system – associated with rare/sensitive habitats and
rare species – require careful consideration if they are to be considered within the Town trail
system. Consultation with natural heritage experts and representatives from local environmental
groups and agencies is key to review a range of trail options (including the “no trail” option) to
protect sensitive species and habitats. For example, public trail systems should not be placed
through, or in proximity to, known aggregation areas for rare species.
The proposed natural heritage system includes lands in private as well as in public ownership. It
is not the intent of the natural heritage system to facilitate access/trail systems on private lands.
9.10
Education
There are an array of opportunities to educate the public about the features and functions of the
natural heritage system in the Town of Collingwood. Education materials can be produced and
made available on the internet, at key public locations (i.e. Town Hall), and as part of interpretive
signage along the Town trail system. Local environmental organizations and agencies (possibly
in partnership) could develop educational materials on a range of natural heritage subjects
including:
NVCA
115
The globally rare coastal marshes (biodiversity)
Provincially significant Silver Creek Wetland Complex
Fish habitat (including signage at stream crossings to raise awareness)
Amphibian breeding habitat (wetlands along Georgian Trail)
Invasive species (dog-strangling vine and common reed)
Species affecting human health (poison ivy, giant hogweed, wild parsnip)
9.11
Performance Indicators
The 2010 NHRM recommends that performance indicators be developed to track the health and
integrity of identified natural heritage systems over time. There are a number of tools that can be
used in support of performance tracking.
The NVCA Watershed Report Cards – published in 2007 and intended to be updated on five year
intervals – represent an existing tool that can be used to track subwatershed health. Report cards
are produced for each subwatershed (the Town of Collingwood lies within the Blue Mountains
Subwatershed). A set of indicators is used to report on the health of forests, streams and wetlands
within each subwatershed and trends are tracked over time. There may be a future opportunity to
develop a Nottawasaga Bay shoreline report card that could be directed at reviewing health of the
shoreline - from the nearshore zone inland to a distance 2 km from the shoreline - to assist with
recommendations set out in the Lake Huron Biodiversity Strategy.
Other tools are available to assist with performance tracking. Citizens’ monitoring initiatives can
be used to track amphibian breeding populations and marsh and forest bird breeding activity.
Methods to monitor wetland health using a variety of survey methods are currently being
developed.
A combination of performance indicators can be used to track the success of natural heritage
systems and associated planning. The results of this tracking can be used to inform future natural
heritage planning initiatives.
NVCA
116
10.0 References
Armstrong, D.K., and Dodge, J.E.P. 2007. Miscellaneous Release- Data 219: Palaeozoic Geology
of Southern Ontario, Project summary and technical document. 30 pp.
Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2002. Natural Heritage Evaluation and
Recommendations for Preservation of Environmentally Significant Areas on the Oro
Moraine. Prepared of the Township of Oro-Medonte. 48 pp. + Appendices.
Department of Energy and Resources Management. 1964. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Report.
Dixon Hydrogeology Limited, Golder Associates, Waterloo Hydrogeologic and Ainley Group.
2004. South Simcoe Municipal Groundwater Study.
Dobbs, F. 2004. Manager, Stewardship Services. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.
Personal communication.
Drury, E.C. 1972. All For a Beaver Hat. A History of Early Simcoe County. 160 pp.
Ducks Unlimited Canada. March 2010. Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion Analysis.
23 pp. + Appendices.
Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat
Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Second Edition. 80 pp.
Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1998. A framework for guiding habitat
rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Canada-Ontario Remedial Action Plan
Steering Committee. Canada.
Environment Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. 2001. Hinterland Who’s Who:
Shorebirds. Retrieved from <www.hww.ca>. Accessed June, 2011.
Enviroment Canada. 2003. Ontario Shorebird Conservation Plan. Retrieved from
<www.on.ec.gc.ca>. Accessed June 2011.
Ernst, Caryn. 2004. Protecting the Source. Land Conservation and the Future of America’s
Drinking Water. Published by The Trust for Public Land and American Water Works
Association. 52 pp.
ESRI 2004 GIS and Mapping Software www.esri.com
Eyles, Nick. 2002. Ontario Rocks. Three Billion Years of Environmental Change. University
of Toronto. 336 pp.
Featherstone, D. 2002. Bronte Creek Watershed Study, Appendix 7: Natural Heritage Report.
Conservation Halton. Milton, Ontario, Canada.
Featherstone, D., Anderson, S. and L. Moran. Essa Township Natural Heritage System
Background Review and Landscape Model. 2004. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority. pp. 67.
Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada. 2010. Canadian
Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010. Canadian Councils of Resource
Ministers. Ottawa, ON.
Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 2004. Making the Connection Between Woodlands and
Water.
Gale, D. 2000. Bronte Creek Watershed Study, Appendix 2: Ecological and Cultural Heritage.
Conservation Halton. Milton, Ontario, Canada.
Gartner Lee Limited. 2004. Background Environmental Study – Town of Collingwood.
Prepared for the Town of Collingwood. 38pp. + Appendices.
Gartner Lee Limited. 2002. Final Report: Rationale and Methodology for Determining
Significant Woodlands in the Regional Municipality of Halton. Prepared for the Regional
Municipality of Halton. 66 pp.
Gartner Lee Limited. 1996. Development of a Natural Heritage System for the County of
Simcoe. Prepared for the County of Simcoe. 62 pp.
Geomatics International Inc. 1995. Management options for old-field sites in southern Ontario.
Southern Region Science & Technology Transfer Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Brockville, Ontario. 65 pp.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2004. South Simcoe Groundwater Study WHPA- Town of Collingwood,
Appendix N. 16 pp.
Goodyear, D. Hydrogeologist, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Personal
communication.
Government of Canada. 2010. Canada’s Action on Climate Change: Information on Climate
Change. <www.climatechange.gc.ca>. Accessed June, 2011.
Gymn, Q., and DiLabio, R. 1972. Quaternary Geology of the Newmarket Area, Southern Ontario.
Ontario Division Mines. Geology. Preliminary Map, pg. 836
Hanna, J.E. & Associates. 1980. An Identification and Evaluation of Life Science Candidate
Nature Reserves in Site District 6-8. Prepared for: Parks and Recreation Section. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources. Central Region, Richmond Hill. 69 pp.
Hanna, R. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 6-6: A
Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas in Site District 6-6. Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources, Central Region, Richmond Hill, Ontario. SR OFER 8409. viii + 79
pp. + maps.
Henson, B.L, D.T. Kraus, M.J. McMurty and D.N. Ewert. 2010. Islands of Life: A
Biodiversity Conservation Atlas of the Great Lakes Islands. Nature Conservancy
Canada. 154pp.
Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for
Terrestrial Biodiversity. Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Ministry of
Natural Resources.
Hoffman, D.W., R.E. Wickland and N.R. Richards. 1962. Soil Survey of Simcoe
County. Report No. 29 of the Ontario Soil Survey. Research Branch, Canada
Department of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural College.
Hunter, A.F. 1948. The History of Simcoe County. 323 pp.
Imhof, J. Trout Unlimited Ecologist. “Linking the Wet Parts to the Dry Parts”. Presentation to
the South-central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group.
April 7, 2004.
Johnson, K. 2004. Park Naturalist, Ontario Parks. Personal communication.
Kor, Philip S.G. 1997. An Earth Science Inventory and Evaluation of Wasaga Beach Provincial
Park. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Open File Earth Science Report 9702. 131
pp.
Lake Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Core Team. April 2010. La Mer Douce
– The Sweet Sea. An International Biodiversity Strategy for Lake Huron.
Prepared by the Lake Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Core Team in
cooperation with the Lake Huron Binational Partnership.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2003. Town of Newmarket Natural Heritage Pilot
Project (draft). 40 pp.
Larson, B.M., Riley J.L., Snell, E.A. and H.G. Godschalk. 1999. The Woodland Heritage of
Southern Ontario. A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance.
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998.
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its
Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science
Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Lewis, Miles. 2004. 'Conservation strategies' in Inner urban conservation and redevelopment: an
independent panel report on a proposal for Smith Street, Collingwood, under Melbourne
2030: Miles Lewis, pp. 54-63 Melbourne.
MGP Information Systems Ltd. 2003. The Natural Heritage Strategy GIS Based Model.
Prepared for the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. 14 pp. + Appendix.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement.
MNR. n.d.(a). Fact Sheet – Butternut. <http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca >. Accessed June,
2011.
MNR. n.d.(b). Fact Sheet – Bobolink. <http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca >. Accessed June,
2011.
MNR. n.d.(c). Fact Sheet – Chimney Swift. <http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca >. Accessed
June, 2011.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Status and Trends in Shoreline Development and
Alteration Along the Southern Georgian Bay Shoreline. Prepared in support of
the Southern Georgian Bay Coastal Initiative by the Southern Science and
Information Section, Science and Information Branch, MNR.
MNR. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for
Ontario. 248 pp.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual. 126 pp.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 139 pp. +
Appendices.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) 2004 Natural Heritage Information Center
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/nhic/nhic.cfm
Ministry of Natural Resources. Undated. Wetland evaluation records.
Ministry of Natural Resources. NRVIS: Natural Resources and Values Information System.
Dataset.
Newbury, R.W. and M.N. Gaboury. 1993. Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design. A Field
Manual. Natural Direction. Winnipeg, Canada.
Norman, A. Ministry of Natural Resources Ecologist. “Role of Wetland, Woodland and Riparian
Zones in Regulating Water Quantity on the Landscape”. Presentation to the South-central
Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group. April 7, 2004.
Noss, R.F. 1987a. Corridors in real landscape: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservation
Biology 1:159-164 USA.
Noss, R.F. 1987b. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas Journal 7:213.
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. 1995. Watershed Management Plan. 111 pp.
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. 1996. Nottawasaga Valley Watershed Management
Plan. 48 pp.
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. 2004. Terms of Reference. Town of Wasaga Beach
– DRAFT Natural Heritage System Update and Review. 9 pp.
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. 2004. Town of New Tecumseth Natural Resource
Management Plan – Background Review and Natural Heritage Model. 50 pp.
Peach, G.H. 2003. Beach & Dune Guidance Manual for Saugeen Shores. Prepared by The Lake
Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation. 34 pp.
Peel Region.2008. Natural Heritage Policy Review – Discussion Paper. 101 pp. + Appendices.
Phair, C., B.L. Henson and K.E. Brodribb. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint
for Aquatic Biodiversity. Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Ministry of
Natural Resources.
Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario’s Settled Landscapes –
A Review of Conservation and Restoration Ecology for Land-Use and Landscape Planning.
Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario, Canada. 78 pp.
Riley, J.L., Jalava, J.V., Oldham, M.J., and H.G. Godschalk. 1997. Natural Heritage Resources
of Ontario: Bibliography of Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in
Ecological Site Regions 6E and 7E, Southern Ontario. First Edition. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Royal Ontario Museum. 2008a. Ontario’s Biodiversity: Species at Risk – Spotted Turtle.
< http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=96>. Accessed June, 2011.
Royal Ontario Museum. 2008b. Ontario’s Biodiversity: Species at Risk – Blanding’s Turtle.
<http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=317>. Accessed June, 2011.
Species At Risk Act. 2003. S.C. 2002 c.29 Published by the Minister of Justice at the following
address: <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca>
Simcoe County. 2003. Official Website @ http://www.county.simcoe.on.ca
Simcoe County Historical Society. 1908. Simcoe County Pioneer Papers. Nos. 1-6.
South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee. 2010. Draft Proposed
Assessment report: Nottawasaga Valley Source Protection Area.
Strahler, A.H. and A.N. Strahler 1992. Modern Physical Geography Fourth Edition John Wiley &
Sons, New York. 638pp.
Thornbush, M.J. 2001. Holocene Floodplain Development and Prehistoric Human Occupation:
Lower Nottawasaga River, Southern Ontario, Canada. Masters Thesis. Department of
Geography. University of Toronto. 138 pp.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2003. Targeted Terrestrial Natural Heritage
System – Value Surface Criteria (Draft).
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2001. City of Toronto Natural Heritage Study –
Final Report. 104 pp.
Town of Collingwood. 2004. Official Plan. <http://www.town.collingwood.on.ca/official_plan>.
Accessed June, 2011.
Appendix A
Glossary of Terms
This glossary defines some of the terms used in this Report. The definitions were obtained from
sources cited in the reference section (Section 10). The definitions are in context of this report.
alluvial deposits
aquatic
ArcGIS
Area of Natural and
Scientific Interest
(ANSI)
biodiversity
biomonitoring
biota
buffer
coniferous forest
(FOC)
coniferous swamp
(SWC)
cultural community
cultural meadow
(CUM)
cultural plantation
(CUP)
cultural savanna
(CUS)
cultural thicket
(CUT)
cultural woodland
(CUW)
deciduous forest
(FOD)
deciduous swamp
(SWD)
deep interior forest
discharge
drumlins
Environmental
Impact Study (EIS)
Ecological Land
Classification (ELC)
ecosystem approach
Material deposited by running water.
Anything living or growing in water.
ArcGIS is an integrated collection of geographic information system
(GIS) software products used to compile, author, analyze, map and
publish geographic information and knowledge.
Areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that
have values related to protection, natural heritage appreciation, scientific
study or education. Depending on the features of particular areas, they
may be referred to as life science or earth science sites.
Variability of and among living organisms including genetic and species
differences. Also includes ecosystem diversity.
Utilizes living organisms (fish and benthic invertebrates) in an aquatic
environment to measure the quality of the water.
The plant and/or animal life of a given area.
See riparian zone
A forest community with tree cover made up of 75% or more coniferous
trees.
A swamp community with tree cover > 25%, trees > 5m in height and
coniferous tree species > 75% of canopy cover.
A vegetation community originating from or maintained by
anthropogenic influences and culturally based disturbances.
Open terrestrial communities characterized by grasses or forbs; usually
originating or maintained by cultural disturbances such as mowing,
burning or grazing.
A deciduous or coniferous treed community in which the majority of
trees have been planted.
Treed communities with 11-35% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees.
A terrestrial vegetation type that is characterized by <10% tree cover and
>25% tall shrub cover.
A treed community with 35% to 60% cover of coniferous or deciduous
trees.
A forest community with a canopy cover of 75% or more deciduous
trees.
A swamp community with tree cover > 25%, trees > 5m in height and
deciduous tree species > 75% of canopy cover.
Forest cover with a minimum of 200m from a forest edge.
Areas on the landscape where water reappears above the ground.
Discharge zones feed area watercourses and wetlands.
Hill of glacial till, oval in shape with a smoothly rounded top. Formed
by plastering of till beneath moving glacial ice.
A study prepared to identify and assess the impacts of a development on
the natural features at a particular site.
A classification system that uses tools and techniques developed for the
consistent identification, classification, description and mapping of
ecological land units in southern Ontario.
Studying the ecosystem (plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms and
their environment) as a whole rather than studying any one of its
individual components.
Environmentally
Significant Area
eskers
forest
headwater
herpetiles
hydric
hydrograph
hydrophytic
impervious area
industrial
development (IND)
intensive agriculture
(IAG)
interior forest
kettle lakes
manicured open
space (MOS)
meadow marsh
(MAM)
mesic
mixed forest (FOM)
mixed swamp
(SWM)
moraines
natural heritage
neotropical migrant
non-intensive
agriculture (NAG)
open fen (FEO)
physiography
Essa Township defines ESA designated areas as lands containing
an ANSI. They are intended to be left in their natural state.
Narrow ridge of sediment deposited on the landscape that formally lay in
the bed of a melt water stream enclosed in an ice tunnel.
A treed community with tree cover >60%
The source of a stream.
A term used to collectively describe reptiles and amphibians.
Water logged soils that develop under poor drainage conditions such as
marshes, swamps and seepage areas.
A graph plotting the stream discharge of a river over time.
Vegetation that grows wholly or partially in water.
An area where the surface cannot infiltrate water as it once did with the
presence of vegetation. Fish and wildlife habitat is significantly altered
and/or destroyed and runoff processes are disturbed. Channel erosion
and downstream flooding can result. Example: paved parking lot.
Factories or building and grounds associated with manufacturing or
industrial processes (includes pits and quarries).
Agricultural fields that are actively farmed with row crops or other types
of crops.
Forest cover with a minimum of 100m from a forest edge.
A depression in the surface of the earth caused by the melting of the
glaciers. If the depression reaches the water table, a lake is formed.
Lands that are used for sports fields (including tennis courts, soccer
fields, baseball diamonds etc), parks, campgrounds, golf courses,
nurseries and storm water facilities.
An area at the wetland-terrestrial interface, which is seasonally
inundated with water and usually dominated by grasses or forbes.
A site where the moisture conditions are neither humid (hydric) nor very
dry (xeric).
A forest community with cover made up of 75% or more with a mixed
composition of trees (deciduous and coniferous) where each component
has a cover >25% but <75%.
A swamp with tree cover > 25%, trees > 5m in height and canopy cover
with > 25% coniferous tree species and > 25% deciduous tree species.
A mound, ridge, or other distinct accumulations of unstratified glacial
drift, predominantly till.
Incorporates all living organisms, natural areas and ecological
communities which we inherit and leave to future generations.
Bird species that spend their summers in North America and migrate to
the neotropics (southern United States, Mexico, Central and South
America) for the winter.
Land that is used as pasture or for grazing (includes hay fields).
A wetland with a peat substrate and nutrient-rich waters that is primarily
vegetated by shrubs and graminoids. An open fen has <10% tree cover
and <25% shrub cover.
The study of physical features on the earth’s surface.
Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS)
Provincially
Significant Wetland
(PSW)
recharge
riparian zone
rural development
(RUD)
shallow marsh
(MAS)
shallow water (SA)
sub-watershed
swamp
tallgrass prairie
tallgrass savanna
terrestrial
thicket swamp(SWT)
till
transpiration
treed fen (FET)
tributary
tundra
urban development
(URB)
wetland
watershed
The Provincial Policy Statement sets out the Ontario government’s
interests in land-use planning and development and provides policy
direction on matters of provincial interest.
A wetland that has been deemed provincially significant by the Ministry
of Natural Resources (MNR) utilizing criteria from the Ontario Wetland
Evaluation System.
Areas on the landscape where precipitation and snowmelt infiltrate into
the ground to feed groundwater aquifers.
Areas of vegetated land located directly adjacent to a river or stream,
also referred to as Buffers.
Any type of development outside an urban area; generally less than or
equal to three rooftops within close proximity to one another; may or
may not exist within or adjacent to natural area.
Vegetation communities with a water table that rarely drops below the
substrate surface and vegetation composed primarily of broad-leaved or
narrow-leaved emergent species.
Aquatic communities in which the permanent water is generally
<2metres deep and in which there is a vegetation cover of 25%
composed mainly of submerged or floating-leaved species.
The land drained by an individual tributary to the main watercourse.
A natural community with > 25% tree or shrub cover that is dominated
by hydrophytic shrub and tree species. Swamps have a variable flooding
regime, water depth < 2m and 20% of the ground covered by standing or
vernal pooling.
A natural community frequently disturbed by fire, subject to seasonal
extremes in moisture conditions (spring floods, summer droughts).
Ground layer is dominated by prairie graminoids such as Androgon
gerardii (big bluestem), Sorgastrum nutans (Indian grass) and Panicum
virgatum (switchgrass) with tree cover < 60%.
See Tallgrass Prairie. Tree cover between 25-35%.
Anything living or growing on land.
A wetland characterized by <10% tree cover and >25% shrub cover.
Sediments that were directly deposited by a glacier.
The process whereby water evaporates from the leaves of plants.
Wetland with a peat substrate and nutrient-rich waters that is primarily
vegetated by shrubs and graminoids. A treed fen has >10% tree cover.
A smaller stream that contributes its waters and joins a larger river.
A treeless plane of arctic and sub-arctic regions known for its low biotic
diversity, short growing season and nutrient poor soils.
Areas consisting of 4 or more rooftops within close proximity to one
another.
A natural community characterized by hydric soils, hydrophytic plant
species having a variable flooding regime; includes swamps, marshes,
bogs and fens.
The land drained by a river and its tributaries.
Appendix B
Stakeholder Committee Meetings – Members in
Attendance
November 19, 2010
Name
Brian MacDonald
Catherine Durrant
Shelley Hensel
Mike Hensel
George Powell
Garry Reid
Don Kerr
Andy Sorensen
Erika Haney
Brian Milligan
Glenn Switzer
Chris Hibberd
Dave Featherstone
Natosha Fortini
Nancy Farrer
Organization
Town of Collingwood
Town of Collingwood
Georgian Triangle Development
Institute
Hensel Design Group
Blue Mountain Watershed Trust
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
Simcoe Muskoka District Health
Unit
Simcoe Muskoka District Health
Unit
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Town of Collingwood
February 4, 2011
Name
Colin Travis
Michele Rich
Wendy Martin
George Powell
Jeff Brydges
Mike Edwards
Shelley Hensel
Organization
Town of Collingwood
Town of Collingwood
Institute
Chris Crozier
Garry Reid
Kevin Lloyd
Gail White
Scott Martin
Chris Hibberd
Glenn Switzer
Dave Featherstone
Natosha Fortini
Nancy Farrer
Town of Collingwood Economic
Development Committee
Town of Collingwood
County of Simcoe
WILD Canada Ecological Consulting
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Town of Collingwood
May 13, 2011
Name
Brian MacDonald
Nancy Farrer
Gail White
Chris Hibberd
Natosha Fortini
Dave Featherstone
Shelley Hensel
Chris Crozier
Don Kerr
George Powell
Scott Martin
Wendy Martin
Jeff Brydges
Organization
Town of Collingwood
Town of Collingwood
County of Simcoe
Authority
Authority
Authority
Institute
WILD Canada Ecological Consulting
Town of Collingwood
Appendix C
ELC Communities in the Town of Collingwood

NVCA Report - Town of Collingwood

Transcription

Similar documents

GREENHAWK COLLINGWOOD

True Love Chair Data Sheet

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

TALL SHIPS ARE COMING!

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

Carry On, Sargeant! With Live Music by the Hilotrons Ski Movie

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

SILVERTIPAREASTRUCTUR EPLAN Canmore, Alberta October