Identifying Land Acquisition Strategies for Simcoe County Forests A Review of Securement Strategies in

by

Anna Ketchum

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation

Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design University of

© Copyright by Anna Ketchum 2020

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Graeme Davis and the rest of the forestry staff at the County of Simcoe for the opportunity to learn and work in such an incredible role for my MFC internship and for giving me direction on a research topic for my capstone. Thank you to Dr. Anne Koven for providing guidance, feedback, and support throughout this process. Finally, thank you to my peers and friends in the MFC program for their kindness, camaraderie, and support.

2

EXCUTIVE SUMMARY

Simcoe County Forests are municipally owned, and managed forested lands located in , originally established and expanded through the Agreement Forest Program. Historically, Simcoe County acquired and restored marginal agricultural land, known as ‘wastelands’ which were the result of the reduction in forest cover, erosion, and depletion of topsoil by wind and rain. While the restoration of degraded agricultural land and expansion of revenue from timber sales was the initial priority for the acquisition of County Forests, enhancement of natural heritage and recreational opportunities have become increasingly important priorities for the County. Current land acquisition protocols for the County of Simcoe are based on documentation nearly 25 years old, and with the centennial of the County Forests in 2022, land acquisition priorities should be reviewed. With pressure on the County to increase forest lands due to an influx in population and challenges in maintaining wood flow, the review of land acquisition strategies from similar municipalities in Ontario and conservation organization organizations within Simcoe County could provide insight on how the County may align its management of the municipal forest to meet shared goals. This study conducted a comparative review of forest management plans and relevant documentation of eight similar upper tier municipalities and of three conservation organizations within Simcoe County to identify acquisition priorities and strategies when acquiring land. The protection of natural heritage features, connectivity between existing forest tracts, and enhancement of recreational opportunities were the most frequently identified priorities by municipalities when assessing land for acquisition. Conservation organizations identified properties that were eligible for tax exemptions through programs such as Ecogifts and CLTIP. These organizations also set minimum lot sizes and proximity to public conservation areas as criteria before a property was assessed. The development of a ranking strategy, the consideration of a forest cover target, and the establishment of underrepresented habitat types within the County Forest were also identified as potential strategies for Simcoe County to consider aligning its acquisition priorities with those identified in this review.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables ...... 5 List of Appendices ...... 6 Introduction ...... 7 Historical Context ...... 7 The Need for Acquisition ...... 8 Methods ...... 10 Review of Organizations ...... 11 ...... 11 ...... 11 ...... 12 Leeds and Grenville United Counties ...... 12 Northumberland County ...... 12 Prescott Russell United Counties ...... 13 ...... 13 York Region ...... 14 Region Conservation Authority ...... 14 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority ...... 15 Couchiching Conservancy Land Trust ...... 15 Summary of Findings ...... 16 Discussion and Recommendations...... 19 References ...... 21 Appendices ...... 23

4

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Comparative summary of acquisition priorities among upper tier municipalities in Ontario ...... 16 Table 2. Comparative summary among conservation organizations within Simcoe County ...... 18 Table 3. Dufferin County ranking criteria for acquisition of land. Adapted from Dufferin County Forest Management Plan (2016) ...... Appendix B

Figure 1. Historical acquisition of land in Simcoe County. Adapted from Simcoe County Forests (2011) ...... Appendix A

Figure 2. Historical tree planting volumes in Simcoe County. Adapted from Simcoe County Forests (2011) ...... Appendix A Figure 3. Forest tracts within Simcoe County – December 2020...... 9 Figure 4. Acquisition priorities identified by upper tier municipalities in Ontario ...... 19

5

LIST OF APPENDICIES

Appendix A. Simcoe County Historical Acquisition and Tree Planting Trends ...... 23

Appendix B. Evaluation and Ranking Method for Acquisition of Property in Dufferin County Forests ...... 24

6

INTRODUCTION

The County of Simcoe is an upper tier municipality located in Central Ontario, north of the , spanning from the eastern shores of towards Lake Simcoe. The County manages and operates over 150 forest tracts, covering over 13,000 ha across its jurisdiction. It is utilized for recreation (i.e.,hiking), sustainable timber harvesting, and ecological protection. The Simcoe County Forests are working forests, meaning the sustainable production of timber is balanced with non-consumptive uses of the forest. Annually, approximately 600 ha of coniferous plantations and hardwood stands are thinned or selectively harvested, with revenues reinvested into forest management and future acquisition.

Historical Context

The landscape of south-central Ontario was shaped by human influence for thousands of years. Prior to European settlement, Indigenous peoples utilized the land for agriculture, reducing forest cover to small pockets of mature forests and a mosaic of young trees (Butt et al., 2009). Following the severe reduction of the Indigenous population in the 17th century, much of the land reverted to forest cover; European settlement would significantly reduce this previously abandoned agricultural land only a century later (Butt et al., 2009). Fleeing the American Revolution in the 1780’s, United Empire Loyalists settled the shores of Lake Erie and up the St. Lawrence Valley (Suffling et al., 2003). Land was cleared for the intention of agricultural use, however extensive logging also occurred (Butt et al., 2009). Agricultural activities remained the dominant land use from the mid-twentieth century onwards as populations increased and the advent of the automobile and long-distance transportation of goods began. Ultimately, settlement resulted in the loss of forest cover in from 80% to less than 17% (Butt et al., 2009).

As a result of historical land use, few of the remaining forests in southern Ontario retained their original characteristics. Prior to European settlement, the area was composed of the forest type typical of the transitional Great Lakes - St. Lawrence forests and mixed composition deciduous forests (Pinto et al., 2008). However, by the early 20th century, the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of unprofitable land resulted in the depletion of topsoil by rain and wind, unprotected by the lack of tree cover (Borczon, 1986).

Simcoe County was home to some of the most extensive ‘wastelands’ in Ontario, particularly in the Anten Mills and Angus areas (Borczon, 1986). A series of legislated efforts to reforest the degraded areas and restore watersheds began in the late 19th century. In the early 1900’s, a young forester, E.J. Zavitz, responsible for touring and documenting the degree of desertification in the Province, produced a report (Reforestation of Waste Lands in Southern Ontario) in which the most affected areas were identified. In 1919, in partnership with E.C. Drury, a Simcoe County native and Premier of Ontario, Zavitz developed the Agreement Forest Program. This long-term agreement with the Province (Department of Lands and Forests at the time) would manage forestry activities for the owner (MNR, 2001). The Reforestation Act (1921) was implemented with the main objective of protecting soil from further erosion and restoring wastelands.

Simcoe County was the first to enter into the Agreement Forest Program, largely due to political will and the extent and severity of desertification in the area (Boczon, 1986). The first trees were

7 planted in 1922 in the Hendrie Tract of the former Vespra Township. Conifers, specifically red pine (Pinus resinosa) were selected for reforestation due their hardiness and suitability in sandy soils. Over the next three decades, there was significant focus on acquiring and restoring the most devastated areas in the County. The establishment of plantations provided several benefits: reduction in soil erosion, restoration of degraded lands, improved wildlife habitat and recreational areas, and a source of revenue for landowners (Borczon, 1986). Simcoe County would set the example for reforestation across the Province, with many municipalities and conservation authorities to follow.

By the 1950's, most of the severely affected wastelands in Simcoe County had been addressed, though acquisitions continued (Appendix A, Figure 1). Additions to SCF typically were 20 to 40 ha, distributed across the County, with a focus on increasing the land base of SCF (Davis, 2010). Previous management plans (1962-1982; 1983-2003) emphasised management objectives surrounding the production of wood and wood products and the inclusion of secondary objectives such as erosion control and recreation (Davis, 2010). As the use of red pine as a wood supply became more economically appealing to the Province, establishment of more plantations became a priority. Despite the price of land tripling in the 1950’s, Simcoe County continued to acquire land at a similar pace (Davis, 2010). In 1980, after 6 decades of investment in acquisition of land, revenues exceeded costs of forest management for the first time (Davis, 2020). This propelled purchases by county council until 1991, when provincial grants for land purchases were discontinued.

In 1996, changes to the MNR, associated with government spending cuts, resulted in a new agreement in which full management responsibility was allocated to the County rather than the Province. By-law 4268 and By-law 4279 were established for the Reforestation Reserve Account, which ensured funds are available for purchasing land.

The Need for Acquisition of Land

2022 will mark the centennial of the Simcoe County Forests. The success and growth of the forests has been attributed to the continued acquisition and reforestation efforts that occurred in Simcoe County since management and oversight of forestry activities had been relinquished from the Province. Currently, forest management planning in Simcoe County complies with The Municipal Act (Section 270 (1)7) that: “A municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the manner in which the municipality will protect and enhance the tree canopy and natural vegetation in the municipality”. However, it has been nearly 25 years since an in-depth examination of these practices has been reviewed. The historical acquisition of land in Simcoe County and restoration of these lands provided evidence of commitment to The Municipal Act and an updated strategy seeks to strengthen this commitment.

Current acquisition of County forests is based on the 1996 ‘Acquisitions Principles’, established under Simcoe County By-law 4268. This by-law establishes principles by which Simcoe County shall acquire land for purposes in which current tracts are connected, enlarged, or consolidated. However, this method has led to enlargement of existing historical tracts, leading to over representation of County forests in the northern part of the County. Tracts in the southern portion of the County, however, are small and largely underrepresented. This problem is further perpetuated by the large agricultural productivity and other competing land uses in the southern

8 portion of the County. Simcoe County also runs extensive timber operations in County Forests. This is due to the large number of red pine plantations established in the first half of the 20th century. Currently, annual sales from timber are at an all time high and are expected to remain consistent for the next 20 years (Davis, 2010). However, due to a reduction in tree planting in the 1970’s (Appendix A, Figure 2), a gap exists in the age distribution of red pine plantations on County Forest lands. Many plantations are now reaching the end of their rotation age, with conversion to natural mixed forests. Despite the inevitable reduction in red pine available for harvest in the upcoming decades, acquisition of suitable aged red pine plantations could help in this transitional period.

Figure 3. Forest tracts (green) within Simcoe County as of December 2020.

Simcoe County, along with Central Ontario is expected to experience a significant increase in population in the next 25 years. With an existing population of 548,825, Simcoe County is expected to see an increase in population to 740,073 by 2014 (Ontario, 2014). This increase of 38.4% is above the Provincial projected increase of 33%, highlighting the need for Simcoe County to expand recreational green spaces to meet the demands of its growing population.

9

METHODS

To establish recommendations for a land securement strategy, a qualitative and comparative review of forest management plans and other documentation available for other upper tier municipalities within Ontario was assessed. Similar upper tier municipalities were selected based on the following criteria:

• Prior participation in the Agreement Forest program • Proximity to Simcoe County • Desire and priorities available for acquisition of land

Given the criteria, the following municipalities were selected for review:

• Dufferin County • Grey County • Lanark County • Leeds and Grenville United Counties (Limerick Forest) • Northumberland County • Prescott & Russell United Counties (Larose Forest) • Renfrew County • York Region

Conservation Authorities and Land Trusts within the county were also considered for review to ensure that their conservation and land securement efforts worked in tandem with Simcoe County’s objectives. Consequently, the lands securement strategies of the following organizations were also considered:

• Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority • Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority • Couchiching Conservancy Land Trust

Once priorities were determined for selected organizations, assessed priorities were grouped into broader categories, by which the most common priorities could be identified.

10

REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONS

Dufferin County

Dufferin County, which is located in central Ontario, is southwest of Simcoe County. The County Forests span 1,054 ha spread over 13 tracts (Mach, 2015). In the past, the DCF was established in a somewhat haphazard way, however, Dufferin County has now conducted socio-economic and natural heritage assessments to ensure that future acquisition of land is conducted more objectively. With budget constraints in mind, Dufferin County has identified three major priorities for property acquisition: contiguous forest area for the Main tract, Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), and natural areas that are identified in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) (Mach, 2015).

Criteria for property acquisition was broken down into a ranked system, to give a more objective scoring of any given parcel (Appendix B). Dufferin County assesses the 2012 land value, recreational potential, distance from population centre (Orangeville), site class, species diversity (i.e., number of overstory working groups), size of parcel, ecosystem service value flow ($/year/ha), and natural heritage value as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) (Mach, 2015).

Grey County

The County of Grey is located in south-central Ontario, to the west of Simcoe County. The County forests comprise 46 properties totalling 3394.1 ha (GSCA, 2020). The County began acquisition of properties in 1938 under the Agreement Forest Program, with full management control given to the county in 1996 (GSCA, 2020). To maintain the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, Grey County prioritized and mandated protection of areas of high conservation value (HCV) and aims to manage these under good forestry practices. Generally, Grey County has identified the protection of ecologically significant areas over timber revenues.

Acquisition of land for Grey County has occurred largely through purchase or donation. Though no formal land acquisition strategy exists for the County, some priorities have been identified in the Forest Management Plan. Reserve funding for the acquisition of properties must be developed for the costs associated with surveys, assessments, and legal costs (GSCA, 2020). Funding for such purchases could be funded by existing timber sales, though total revenue from 2018 in the County was only $66,718 (GSCA, 2020). A declining trend in timber sales would likely make this option unfeasible. Other criteria identified by Grey County are significant woodlands or properties adjacent to existing tracts (enlargement), properties which contain PSW or Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), and woodlands that are within linkage (connectivity) or Core Green Areas (GSCA, 2020). The Forest Management Plan indicates that a ranking system (such as Dufferin County’s) would be the most objective method of analyzing future acquisitions.

11

Lanark County

Lanark County is located in , which was originally settled in the early 1800’s. The County Forests consist of 4583 ha consisting of over 40 properties. The current Forest Management Plan covers 2011 to 2030 and was prepared for the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority as a Memorandum of Understanding for forest management in the County. Lanark County also encompasses the Mazinaw-Lanark Management Unit and contains properties adjoining Crown Lands. Lanark County has placed priority on reducing costs to conduct inventory and maintain existing tracts and increase opportunities for trail and property maintenance, tree planting and future land acquisition (Streit, 2013). The County has also emphasised recreational use and improved access as priorities for acquisition. The most recent acquisition occurred through donation, involving a 36 ha parcel adjacent to an existing tract in Tay Valley Township in 2020.

Leeds and Grenville United Counties

The United Counties of Leeds and Grenville are located in Eastern Ontario, with a focus on the Limerick Forest, a County owned community forest. Limerick Forest covers an area of 5,782 ha, spread over 7 consolidated tracts (Byford, 2007). The inception of the community forest occurred in 1939 through the Agreement Forest Program, with the last acquisition occurring in 1990 (Byford, 2007).

Currently, Leeds and Grenville United Counties do not have a formal land acquisition strategy. Long-term objectives of the Forest Management Plan aim to dispose of current surplus land and acquire additional strategic lands (Byford, 2007). Revenue generated from timber harvesting, fur harvesting, mining, user fees, and recreational activities is utilized to manage the forest in an effective manner and maximize benefits to the United Counties (Byford, 2007). The Forest Management Plan does not anticipate any acquisitions within the 20-year planning period, although parcels will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in which private or Crown lands could be purchased. Priorities include consolidation and expansion of existing tracts, increased timber management, increased recreational use, and conservation of natural heritage (Byford, 2007).

Northumberland County

Northumberland County is located on the northern shore of Lake Ontario, with County forests making up 2,235 ha over 5 properties (Walters, 2016). The forest tracts are located almost entirely in the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand, with a small portion in the Township of Hamilton (Walters, 2016). The County first began acquisition of land in 1924 through the Agreement Forest Program (originally the United Counties of Durham and Northumberland).

Currently, expanding existing tracts is a priority for Northumberland County. The development of the core of the forest tract is highlighted to ensure continuity and connection within the County Forest. This would increase benefits such as ecological services and recreational opportunities to greater portion of the County (Walters, 2016). Other priorities for acquisition are as follows: adjacency to an existing tract, improvement or clarification of a boundary, improved access, increased recreational opportunity, provision of ecological services, natural resource management, economic development and tourism, conservation of significant ecological features, and potential ecological offsetting (Walters, 2016). The Forest Management Plan also comments on pursuing

12 partnerships with other County departments to acquire land such as landfill buffer lands and aggregate pits (Walters, 2016).

Prescott-Russell United Counties

The United Counties of Prescott-Russell (UCPR), which are located in Eastern Ontario, extend between the River and the St. Lawrence River. The County owns 10,761.4 ha of forested properties, largely centred around a large parcel known as Larose Forest (Hunter, 2008). Larose Forest was the first to enter into the Agreement Forest Program in Eastern Ontario in 1928, originally purchasing 40.5 ha to restore the “Bourget Desert”, the worst of the wastelands in the area (Hunter, 2008).

Current priorities for land acquisition for UCPR Forests focus on increasing canopy cover, protection of natural or cultural heritage sites, connectivity between significant woodlands, and increased recreational opportunity in the County Forests (Hunter, 2008). Consolidation of properties around the core area of Larose Forest is an objective because some private lands still exist within the Larose Forest (Hunter, 2008). Properties that are not located within the core area will be considered based on the number of tracts already owned by the County in the immediate area.

In 2010, the Planning and Forestry Department developed a policy for the acquisition of new forest lands for UCPR (UCPR Policy No. ADM/011). This policy applies to all former Agreement Forest properties with the intent to create a policy for the basic principles of selling and acquiring new county forest lands, particularly with a focus on consolidating the core of the Larose Forest. Currently, woodland cover is at 27% within the United Counties. A forest cover of below 30% has been indicated to reduce significantly the number of forest species (Belanger & Grenier, 2000). Therefore, UCPR recognizes the need to establish increased forest cover within the Counties.

Renfrew County

Renfrew County is in Eastern Ontario, along the west bank of the Ottawa River. The current County Forest area spans 6,527 ha over 53 properties with the first acquisition of land occurring in 1951 under the Agreement Forest Program (Rose, 2017). Similar to Simcoe County, a portion of Renfrew County’s revenue is derived from the thinning of red pine plantations in County Forests. Maintaining long-term economical sustainability will also be a challenge for Renfrew County due to a similar gap in the age distribution in pine plantations.

The Forest Management Plan indicates that marginal farmlands should be considered for acquisition and reforestation opportunities (Rose, 2017). These lands should be considered for replanting of red pine or a species or age class that is underrepresented in the County. The establishment of young plantations or the acquisition of an under mature forest may aid in mitigating the age-class gap that pine plantations are currently experiencing (Rose, 2017).

Further, any additions to Renfrew County Forest must meet the criteria proposed by an agreement between the County of Renfrew and City of Pembroke (County of Renfrew By-law No. 2232), which includes the acquisition of new properties at fair market value. Under this agreement the following criteria have been prioritized: improved access, improved recreational activities, and conservation of public lands (Rose, 2017).

13

York Region

York Region spans from the north of the City of Toronto, encompassed by Peel Region in the West, Durham to the east, and Simcoe County to the North. The York Regional Forest was established in 1924 under the Agreement Forest Program. It spans over 2,300 ha with 23 properties (YRFMP, 2019). As one the fastest growing municipalities in , there is significant pressure for development and urbanization, putting pressure on natural areas, green spaces, and forests within the municipality.

Since overtaking management of the Regional Forests in 1998, many new lands have been replanted as plantations (< 20 years old). However, due to the mounting pressure from urbanization on the Region, the Forest Management Plan has prioritized the preservation of existing tracts, increasing the forest cover in the region (currently at 31%), reforestation of underrepresented habitat types on new properties (oak savannah and tall grass prairie), establishing connectivity between natural heritage systems. As of 2019, 16.2 ha of tall grass prairie and 6.7 ha of oak savanna habitat have been established on newly acquired properties.

There are no Regional Forest tracts in Richmond Hill, Markham, Vaughan, or Aurora. However, York Region has contributed funds to the acquisition of green spaces in some of these municipalities. York Region also provides resources for the acquisition of land for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

Conservation Organizations Within Simcoe County

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA)

The LSRCA currently manages 2,425 ha of conservation lands spanning across 35 properties. The LSRCA typically acquires land through fee simple purchase, donation of land, or conservation easement agreements (Kennedy, 2019). It is estimated that the conservation lands currently owned by the LSRCA provide over $15 million in ecosystem services (Valuing Natural Capital in the Lake Simcoe Watershed, Green Analytics, 2017).

Acquisition of conservation lands currently is carried out with two challenges in mind: the loss of biodiversity and climate change (National Advisory Panel, 2018). Using a Natural Heritage System and Restoration Strategy, the LSRCA identified two objectives for land securement: ecological protection and restoration/enhancement. Using core data features from the Natural Heritage System and Restoration Strategy (2018), the LSRCA has used GIS software to map core features such as: Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, Provincially Significant Wetlands, fish habitat, and natural areas abutting Lake Simcoe (Kennedy, 2019).

The following criteria were given priority: occurrence of 3 or more NHSRS features, parcel size greater than 10 ha, low vegetative cover (<20%) and proximity to public lands (Kennedy, 2019). The LSRCA has also set a goal for acquisition by 2025 of 250 to 300 ha of protected lands with a budget allocation of $167,000/year (Kennedy, 2019).

14

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA)

The NVCA currently has secured about 5,240 ha over 23 properties within the watershed (Orland Conservation, 2020). Like Simcoe County, the NVCA watershed is facing significant development pressures and is working to secure ecologically significant land. Primarily, the NVCA acquires land through donations, followed by targeted purchases, with conservation easements occurring less frequently.

The NVCA has developed land securement criteria to guide the priority lands the CA should pursue based on financial and conservation mandates. Financial considerations include: the cost of the property and ongoing stewardship costs, and eligibility for Ecogifts and CLTIP programs. Eco(logical) Gifts Program is a government tax benefit made available by the federal government in cooperation with provincial and municipal governments and NGOs. Landowners who donate land receive a tax benefit under an agreement in which the land is 1) eligible for the program, and 2) the environmental integrity of the property is protected in perpetuity (ECCC, 2020). The Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) is an option available for private land owners in which a portion of their property may qualify for 100% property tax exemption as long as the following criteria are met: 1) it is identified as an ‘eligible land type’ by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and 2) is greater than 1/5 ha (Ontario, 2014).

The following are identified as priority areas: PSWs, ANSI, Habitat of SAR, natural Heritage Features identified in the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, NHIC species occurrences, Natural core or linkage areas, areas, areas of environmental protection under NVCA ESAs, lands adjacent to public protected areas, lands adjacent to existing NVCA lands, and parcel size (minimum of 20 ha).

Couchiching Conservancy Land Trust

The Couchiching Conservancy Land Trust is a non-government organization, focused on conserving land for public benefit. The land trust works with partners across six municipalities, centralized around the City of . As of 2019, the Couchiching Conservancy Land Trust has protected 5463.2 ha of land (Couchiching Conservancy Strategic Plan, 2020). The Land Trust has accelerated the rate at which acquisitions have been undertaken, using a natural heritage strategy as a guide. By 2025, they anticipate acquiring an additional 1620 ha of land through fee simple purchase, stewardship agreements, and easements (Couchiching Conservancy Strategic Plan, 2020). Using a natural heritage strategy, the Couchiching Conservancy has identified priority areas in which habitat can be retained and restored, specifically to aid species as their ranges shift due on-going climatic change.

Once acquired, a management plan is drafted within 12 months of acquisition, ensuring that ecological surveying and stewardship activities are appropriate to sustain natural heritage features on the property. The management plans are reviewed on a 5-year basis and compliance with the Ecogift criteria is assessed. An endowed stewardship fund is reserved for maintenance costs associated with the property which are based on 15% of the property value at time of acquisition (Couchiching Conservancy Strategic Plan, 2020).

15

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Table 1. Comparative summary of acquisition priorities among upper tier municipalities in Ontario

Municipality Forest Properties Agreement Acquisitional Priorities Area Forest (ha) Simcoe County 13,000+ 150+ 1922 • Quality forestry purposes • Consolidate existing tracts • Enlarge existing tracts • Quality sites for regeneration • Contribution to natural heritage values Dufferin County 1,054 13 1930 • Ranking strategy • Properties adjacent to main tract • PSW and ANSI • Significant natural heritage areas (2014 Policy Statement) • Cost of property • Cost of future maintenance • Restrictions that the owner wishes to place on future use • Ecosystem service value • Size • Species variety • Site Class • Distance from population centre • Recreational use • Land value

Grey County 3,394 46 1938 • PSW and ANSI • Significant woodlots adjacent to current properties • Connectivity of natural heritage system • Ranking strategy

Lanark County 4,583 40 1938 • Improved recreational opportunity • Improved access Leeds and Grenfell 5782 1 (7 1939 • Consolidate properties United Counties consolidated • Expand existing properties tracts) • Contribution to natural heritage values

16

Northumberland 2,235 5 1931 • Recreational use County • Contribution to natural heritage features • Increase timber revenues • Enlarge existing tracts • Abuts on more than 1 side • Improves or clarifies a boundary • Improves access • Ecosystem service value • Supports tourism or economic development • Conserves or enhances significant woodlands • Potential to balance floss from land clearing

Prescott-Russell 10,761 Multiple; 1928 • Increase forest cover United Counties (Larose) • Contribute to natural heritage values • Consolidate existing properties • Recreational use • Proportional representation

Renfrew County 6,527 53 1951 • Improves access • Contribute to natural heritage values • Recreational use • Reforestation of marginal farmland • Increase timber revenue • Fair market value York Region 2,300 23 1924 • Preserve ecological features • Increase canopy cover • Restore underrepresented habitat types • Regional Greening Strategy to aid other agencies in acquisition • Regional Greenlands System to connect natural heritage system

17

Table 2. Comparative summary among conservation organizations within Simcoe County

Organization Protected Properties Acquisition Priorities Area (ha) Lake Simcoe 2,425 35 • Restoration, enhancement, protection Region • Method of acquisition (fee simple Conservation purchase, donation, easement) Authority (LSRCA) • Desired acquisition process with partners • Property and securement costs • Property development costs • Property maintenance costs • Funding available • Identified through LSRCA Natural Heritage System and Restoration Strategy (NHSRS, 2018). • Corridor restoration and enhancement in flood plains • Contain 3 or more ecological features • Within 100 m to public land • Size of lot ( > 10 ha) • Low vegetative cover ( <20% biomass) • Proximity to wetlands and woodlands (100m) Nottawasaga Valley 5,230 23 • Cost of property Conservation • Maintenance costs Authority (NVCA) • Soft securement costs (appraisal, survey, legal) • Ecogifts or CLTIP criteria (appendix item) • Designated ANSI wetlands, ESAs, SAR habitat, floodplains, • Restoration potential • Property size (minimum 20 ha) • Consolidation of property or linkage. Adjacent lands minimize stewardship costs • Improved property access • Minimize edge effect Couchiching 5463.2 • Eligibility for Ecogift incentive program Conservancy • Natural heritage strategy as guide • Ecological, recreational, scientific, open, or scenic value • Restoring habitat corridors in response to climate change

18

Grants/Financial Aid Regeneration Future Maintenance Restrictions by Owner Dist. from Pop. Centre Site Class Ecological Offsetting Parcel Size Species Diversity Ecosystem Service Value Increases Forest Cover Increases Timber Revenues Identified Priorities Identified Improves Access Enlarge Recreation Connectivity Natural Heritage 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of Muncipalities

Figure 4. Acquisition priorities identified by upper tier municipalities in Ontario

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The preservation of natural heritage systems was identified as the most significant priority for municipalities and conservation organizations, with nearly all organizations identifying ‘natural heritage features’ in their relevant documentation. Specifically, ANSI, PSW, high conservation value forests, uncommon and rare species, species at risk (SAR), and significant natural heritage features, such as the Niagara Escarpment, were identified priorities for protection. The protection of natural areas in response to on-going development and rising population in the Province is a shared goal among many organizations, as acquisition and securement of land is the most effective strategy to achieve protection of these lands. The County of Simcoe has identified the securement and protection of natural heritage features as a desired state and goal in its forest management plan, while it continues to adhere to good forestry practices. The continued focus on the acquisition of land for the protection of natural heritage features among all municipalities and other conservation agencies will help to achieve conservation goals for the Province.

Connectivity between existing forest lands was the second most commonly identified prioritiy for municipalities. Reasons for the interest in connectivity between tracts included the reduction in the edge effect, improved ease in management, increased wood supply, preservation of land value, and increase in forest cover. Enlargement of existing tracts was also identified by several municipalities, citing ease of management and correction of boundaries as goals of these acquisitions.

The recreational use of the municipal forests was emphasised by many of the organizations in the comparative review. This is likely the result of the increasing demand for recreational spaces as

19 the population continues to increase in many of these municipalities. Most of the municipalities, apart from York Region, are rural, allowing for large stretches of land for recreational use. As the population continues to increase in Simcoe County, the expanding green spaces for passive recreational use should continue to be a priority for the County.

Conservation organizations within Simcoe County were much more specific in their criteria for the acquisition of properties. All three of the organizations used a Natural Heritage Strategy to identify priority lands for acquisition. Properties usually need to meet Ecogift, CLTIP, or other incentive programs to be considered for acquisition, largely due to financial constraints for many of these organizations. Both conservation authorities imposed a minimum lot size before a property would be reviewed for assessment; 10 ha and 20 ha for the LSRCA and NVCA, respectively. Conservation organizations also prioritized connectivity, usually requiring properties to be within a certain proximity to public conservation lands. In contrast to the County of Simcoe’s goals, acquiring timber revenue is not identified as high priority for those that do run smaller scale operations, such as the LSRCA. Identifying priorities for conservation organizations within Simcoe County, however, does allow for a greater understanding of the conservation goals of these organizations and how they may work in tandem with the County to achieve ecological protection of lands across the jurisdiction.

Several municipalities presented unique priorities or strategies that could be of interest to the County of Simcoe:

Dufferin County Ranking System: this strategy is used to attempt to objectively assess properties for acquisition. Points are awarded based on the characteristics of the property under review (Appendix B).

Forest Cover Targets: York Region has identified increasing canopy cover from 31% to 35% by 2025 as a priority in their forest management plan. Prescott-Russell has also identified increasing forest cover from the current value of 27%, though the increase was not specified. Forest cover below 30% has been observed to have a significant adverse impact on species diversity within a forest.

Establishment of Underrepresented Habitat Types: York Region has acquired property for the establishment of less common habitat types, such as oak savanna (6.7 ha) and tall grass prairie (16.2 ha) habitat types. Review and establishment of less common habitat types within Simcoe County will help contribute to species diversity.

Many of the priorities identified by municipalities and conservation organizations shared similar goals to Simcoe County. However, the scale of the forestry programs and operations in Simcoe County makes a direct comparison between these organizations difficult, due to variability in funding, County forest area, and staffing, among other factors. Despite this, the review of priorities identified could help to inform Simcoe County in future acquisition of land while continuing to meet ecological, social, and economic goals in a sustainable manner.

20

REFERENCES

Belanger, L., Grenier, M. (2000). Agriculture intensification and forest fragmentation in the St. Lawrence valley, Quebec, Canada. Landscape Ecology, 17(6): 495-507.

Borczon, E.L. (1982). Evergreen Challenge – The Agreement Forest Story. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Queens Printer for Ontario.

Borczon, E.L. (2019). Agreement Forests – The Challenge and the Accomplishment. Forest History Society of Ontario, 10(1): 5-17.

Butt, S., Ramprasad, P., Fenech, A. (2009). Changes in the landscape of Southern Ontario, Canada since 1750: Impacts of European Colonization.

Byford, B. (2007). United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Limerick Forest Twenty Year Forest Management Plan (2007-2027). Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. Retrieved from: http://www.limerickforest.ca/en/reports/resources/ManagementPlanfinal_Limerick-Dec2007.pdf

Couchiching Conservancy (2020). A Strategic Plan for The Couchiching Conservancy 2020- 2025. Retrieved from: https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.106/p94.9ac.myftpupload.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/CC-2020-Strategic-Plan-Jan-1-2020-FINAL.pdf?time=1608155083

Davis, G.P. (2010). Simcoe County Forests: 2011-2030.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2020). Ecological gift program: overview. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental- funding/ecological-gifts-program/overview.html

Green Analytics, 2017, Valuing Natural Capital in the Lake Simcoe Watershed.

Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (2020). County of Grey Forest Management Plan: For the Management of Grey County’s Forests from 2020-2039. file:///C:/Users/annae/Downloads/Draft+Grey+County+FMP+JAN2020+V1.2.pdf

Hunter, S. (2008). The United Counties of Prescott and Russell County Forest Lands – Forest Management Plan (2009-2028). South Nation Conservation. Retrieved from: http://www.prescott- russell.on.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Server_2375121/File/VISITORS%20AND%20LEISURE/Larose %20Forest/Management%20Documents/20%20Year%20Forest%20Policy%20Plan.pdf

Kennedy, K. (2019). Natural Heritage Land Securement Project (2019-2025). Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. January 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/03-19-BOD%20-%20Attachment%20- %20NHS%20Land%20Securement%20Project%20Report%202019_2025.pdf

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2018, Natural Heritage System & Restoration Strategy for the Lake Simcoe watershed.

21

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2014). Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/page/conservation-land-tax-incentive-program

Mach, C. (2015). Our Forest, Our Future: Dufferin County Forest Management Plan 2016-2036. Dufferin County. Accessed from: https://www.dufferincounty.ca/sites/default/files/forest/Management%20Plan_1.pdf

Pinto, F., Romaniuk, S., Ferguson, M. (2008). Changes to preindustrial forest tree composition in central and , Canada. Journal of Forest Research, 38: 1842-1954.

Rose, L. (2017). 2017-2026 Forest Management Plan for the Renfrew County Forest.

Streit, M. (2013). Lanark County Community Forest: Forest Management Plan (2011-2030). Upper Canada Forestry Service. Retrieved from: http://www.lanarkcounty.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=4272

Suffling, R., Evans, M., Perera, A. (2003). Presettlement forest in southern Ontario: Ecosystems measured through a cultural prism. The Forestry Chronicle, 79(3): 485-501.

Walters, B. (2016). Northumberland County Forest 5-year Silvicultural Operations Plan (2016- 2020). Retrieved from: https://www.northumberland.ca/en/discovering-and- exploring/resources/Documents/Silviculture-Plan.pdf

York Regional Forest Management Plan (2019). It’s In Our Nature (2019-2038). Accessed from: https://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/yorkpublic/c6c568ea-13bb-4f93-bf07- c742d14dea38/DraftForestManagementPlan20180919.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROO TWORKSPACE.Z18_29D41BG0PGOC70QQGGJK4I0004-c6c568ea-13bb-4f93-bf07- c742d14dea38-mu8rAMR

22

APPENDIX A

Appendix A: Simcoe County Historical Acquisition and Tree Planting Trends

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

Land (ha) Purchased Land 500

0 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Decade

Figure 1. Historical acquisition of land in Simcoe County. Adapted from Simcoe County Forests (2011).

6000000

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000 Trees Planted Trees

1000000

0 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Decade

Figure 2. Historical tree planting volumes in Simcoe County. Adapted from Simcoe County Forests (2011).

23

APPENDIX B

Appendix B: Evaluation and Ranking Method for Acquisition of Property in Dufferin County Forests

Table 3. Dufferin County ranking criteria for acquisition of land. Adapted from Dufferin County Forest Management Plan (2016). Criteria Points Awarding in Ranking System

Natural Heritage Defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

Ecosystem Service Value 1. $44-$440 ($/year/hectare) 2. $2200-$4400 3. $8800-$22000 4. $88000-$237600

Size of parcel 1. < 10 ha 2. 10- 30 ha 3. 31-50 ha 4. 51-75 ha 5. > 75 ha

Species Variety (based on number of 1. One overstory working groups) 2. Two 3. Three 4. Four 5. More than four

Site Class (derived from Plonski’s 3. Site class 3 yield tables) 4. Site class 2 5. Site class 1 or better

Distance from Population Centre 1. > 50 km (Orangeville) 2. 41-50 km 3. 31-40 km 4. 20-30 km 5. < 20 km

Recreation Use One point awarded to: • A good trail system • Important or unique natural heritage feature

Land Value (assessed in 2012) 1. < $300000 2. $3000001 - $600000 3. $600 001 - $900 000 4. $900 000 - $1 200 000 5. > $1 200 000

24

25