1.In terms of the methods…

ERO number


Comment ID


Commenting on behalf of


Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses


   1.In terms of the methods used to map the NHS, as per Section 6.0 in the Summary Report, dated

 June 8, 2017, why weren’t approved Watershed Plans and CA’s terrestrial mapping used as resources? 2.In terms of Table 3, “Quantities of natural features in the Growth Plan area..”, on page 13 of the Summary Report, the features listed do not correspond with features and definitions used in the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan.  Furthermore, features such as “significant woodlands”, “significant valleylands”, and “fish habitat” are not listed in the table.  Why the inconsistency? 3.In terms of section 6.3 (pg.12), 2nd paragraph of the Summary Report, what are the additional features that were added to the NHS in Pickering?  It is unclear on the map where these features are located, which features they relate too, and how these features were evaluated.

 4.The Natural Heritage System in the Seaton Urban Area was designated through the Central

 Pickering Development Plan (a Provincial Plan), and it is designated in the Pickering Official Plan.  It is suggested that it be added to the proposed Regional NHS for the Growth Plan.

 5.On pg.8 of the Summary Report, dated June 8, 2017 it is stated that a minimum linkage width of 500m was used for the NHS in the Growth Plan, which is significantly wider than many linkage areas identified in the Greenbelt Plan and the ORM.  There are various linkages of less than 500m in width within the Growth Plan area that are functionally linked to the greater NHS (beyond the boundaries of the Growth Plan) which should be included in the Growth Plan NHS.  The minimum linkage width of 500m may be acceptable from a theoretical perspective, but it is not practical/realistic.

 6.On pages 10 and 11 of the Summary Report, dated June 8, 2017, it is stated that the boundaries

 of the core and linkage areas has been extended to include a 30m zone around the edge of the natural feature.  MNR staff confirmed that this 30m zone represents the minimum vegetation protection zone around the feature, and that the 30m zone is not be counted on top of the required minimum vegetation protection zone.  To prevent any misinterpretation, this qualification should be included in the technical report and the summary report.

 7.The methodology used by the Province reflects a broad brush approach.  For the most part the proposed NHS appears to be a high level features map that can be used as a basis (point of departure) for further detailed mapping and possible expansion at a local level.

[Original Comment ID: 210920]