Responses to the guidance…

   Responses to the guidance questions:

  -Generally agree with the principles behind the NHS

 -Difficult to agree or disagree with the criteria for the size of core areas and linkages.  It is good that smaller areas are being considered for landscapes with low cover.  A 500 m wide corridor may not seem like much in some circumstances, however 500 m could be wider than the size of a core area in landscapes with low cover, so it is difficult to set standards.  Section 4.2.2 of the Growth Plan states that municipalities “may refine provincial mapping with greater precision.” Given this, the size of cores and linkages may ultimately be moot because some municipalities in the Greenbelt have defined natural heritage systems for their OP that have smaller cores and linkages than those defined by the Province.  It is imperative that the Province (e.g. the MNRF) work closely with municipalities to ensure that their redefined NHS does not undermine the intent of the GGH NHS.

 -There should absolutely be consideration of smaller core areas to acknowledge highly fragmented areas with limited natural cover.  Indeed, in landscapes such as this perhaps all natural cover (forest, wetland, tallgrass, beach/bluff) should be protected as part of the NHS, regardless of its size.  Otherwise there may be even less cover in the future.

 -The automated approach is more defensible and can identify natural features, cores and linkages that may have been missed through a desktop exercise.  However it can also miss many smaller habitat patches that ultimately add up to a large area of natural cover.  Since the model has to stop somewhere there can also be important features lying just outside of the system that, were the criteria slightly different, might have been included.  For this reason a follow-up desk top review of the NHS can be valuable to look for such situations.

 -Other suggestions are included in the following general comments.

  General comments

 -The approach used may be “repeatable” but it is very complicated and difficult to explain to the layperson

 -In places the Greenbelt NHS is much more extensive than that GGH NHS, incorporating many smaller features and valleylands.  This is very apparent for example between the Durham and City of Kawartha Lakes boundaries

 -Many smaller features are missing from the GGH NHS, as well as some reasonably large ones that

 are in close enough proximity to be connected to each other and to the proposed NHS. Adding more features to make a more comprehensive NHS would be valuable across the landscape, but it is particularly vital in those areas that have low natural cover to begin with.  And it should further be recognized that in both of these cases, not adding more such features will potentially contribute to even lower habitat cover on the landscape because the outstanding natural areas may end up with less protection through municipal planning given that municipalities have an ability to refine the system.  This is one reason why looking at other existing NHS combined with a desktop exercise to include these, would be useful.  Having a method that is “repeatable” precludes doing this, therefore adhering to that principle actually greatly reduces the potential size of the NHS. It is recommended that a group of experts go through a desk top exercise which overlays existing conservation authority and municipal NHS’s and air photography to top up the system with natural features that could/should be added.  Agreement between such experts may not be exactly repeatable, but it should be defensible – especially if the features added follow a NHS that was modelled based on defensible criteria, such as some of the CA NHS’s.

 -The Lake Ontario Shoreline is important both for its support of rare beach and bluff communities and as a potential wildlife corridor.  The Greenbelt NHS has a corridor along the shoreline in the Municipality of Clarington (Durham), yet this suddenly stops at the border of Northumberland County.  There is a concern that the important features and functions of this area are not included in the GGH NHS system and would like MNRF to take a closer look at why they did not appear in the model, and how they might be incorporated as a continuous corridor.

[Original Comment ID: 211083]