Rare Vascular Plants in the Lake Simcoe Watershed: Planning, Prediction and Protection

Laura Brodey

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements For the degree of Master of Forest Conservation Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Rare Vascular Plants in the Lake Simcoe Watershed: Planning, Prediction and Protection

Laura Brodey

Master of Forest Conservation

Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto

2018

Abstract Using the threat-status ranks for vascular plants found through Vegetation Sampling Protocol surveys within the Lake Simcoe watershed, this research looks at the protection of Vulnerable (S3) and Imperiled (S2) vascular plants within municipal planning zones and policy and planning documents. As well, several variables were tested to determine what can be used to predict the presence of rare plants. Land use maps revealed for Innisfil, Newmarket, Oro-Medonte and Barrie that 250.7 ha of Natural Heritage Features containing S2 and S3 plants are designated for protection, while 655.6 ha are being converted to development or open space. Protection zoning within these municipalities was shown to contain 969.5 ha of development and open space, which does not necessarily serve conservation goals. A series of t-Tests produced statistically insignificant results for Natural Heritage Feature size (P-value 0.99), Floristic Quality Index (P- value 0.92) and biomass (P-value 0.48) as indicators in predicting the presence of rare plants. Furthermore, land use within a 1 km radius around sites with rare plants and randomly selected non-rare plant containing sites, yielded one statistically interesting result from a stepwise logistic regression; Agriculture and Lawn produced a P-value of 0.09, with higher levels being associated with rare plants. This may be due to the rural landscape containing more natural areas. It can be concluded that vegetation surveys need to continue in order to uncover rare plants. In conjunction with locating these species, protection policy and planning documents should expand and solidify their inclusion of rare vascular plants, if hope is to remain for rare plant continuity, or possible decrease in rarity.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the University of Toronto for their support of the VSP project, along with Dr. Danijela Puric- Mladenovic for spearheading and supervising the VSP project, and for providing guidance in this capstone. I would like to thank Melanie Shapiera & Alex Kissel for their supervision over the field season. Steve Varga (OMNRF), Wasyl Bakowsky (OMNRF), Dave Bradley (OMNRF), Bohdan Kowalyk (OMNRF), and Richard Dickinson (VSP crew member) were all very helpful with plant training and/or plant identification, thank you for your assistance and education. I would like to thank my field partner, Katherine Baird, for keeping me going all summer, as well as the whole VSP team. Thank you, Dr. Jay Malcolm, for your statistical assistance, and all of the staff at Robarts’ Map and Data Library for their geospatial advice. Working together we can create meaningful projects.

iii

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi List of Appendices ...... vii Introduction ...... 1 Methodology ...... 6 Results ...... 9 Discussion ...... 21 Policy Implications ...... 29 Conclusion ...... 31 Possible Extensions of the Work ...... 32 References ...... 33 Appendices ...... 37

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

List of Tables

Table 1. Innisfil S2 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 10

Table 2. Newmarket S3 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 10

Table 3. Oro-Medonte S2 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 11

Table 4. Oro-Medonte S3 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 11

Table 5. Barrie S2 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 11

Table 6. Barrie S3 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 12

Table 7. All Innisfil’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 14

Table 8. All Newmarket’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 14

Table 9. All Newmarket’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning of planned future development (not graphed) ...... 15

Table 10. All Oro-Medonte’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning .... 15

Table 11. All Barrie’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning ...... 16

Table 12. Innisfil’s recent land use with Protection zoning ...... 18

Table 13. Newmarket’s recent land use with Protection zoning ...... 18

Table 14. Oro-Medonte’s recent land use with Protection zoning ...... 19

Table 15. Barrie’s recent land use with Protection zoning ...... 19

Table 16. Stepwise Logistic Regression results for land use within each site’s 1 km buffer ..... 21

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map: Location of Lake Simcoe watershed in Ontario ...... 5

Figure 2. Graph: Municipal zoning for S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features, hectares ...... 12

Figure 3. Graph: Municipal zoning for S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features, percentage ...... 13

Figure 4. Graph: Municipal zoning of all Natural Heritage Features, hectares ...... 16

Figure 5. Graph: Municipal zoning of all Natural Heritage Features, percentage ...... 17

Figure 6. Graph: Land use in Protected areas, hectares ...... 20

Figure 7. Graph: Land use in Protected areas, percentage ...... 20

Figure 8. Map: S2, S3, and non-rare plant sites, randomly offset by 350 meters, over LSRCA’s land use layer ...... 23

Figure 9. Maps: Natural Heritage Features containing S2, S3, and non-rare sites, over LSRCA’s land use layer, with cities and towns, used in this study, highlighted ...... 24

Figure 10. Map: Innisfil land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap ...... 25

Figure 11. Map: Newmarket land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap ...... 26

Figure 12. Map: Oro-Medonte land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap ...... 27

Figure 13. Map: Barrie land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap ...... 28

Figure 14. Flow Chart: Interconnectedness of policy and plans involving rare species and natural area protection, within Ontario and the Lake Simcoe watershed ...... 31

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

List of Appendices

Appendix A. COSEWIC and COSSARO Status Definitions for Species at Risk

Appendix B. National (N) and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Ranks Definitions of Subnational Ranks (S-Ranks) for Ontario

Appendix C. List of NatureServe Condition Status Factors

Appendix D. General Status of Vascular Plants in Canada, 2005/2010/2015

Appendix E. Comparison of NatureServe National/Subnational Status with IUCN Regional Red List and COSEWIC Statuses

Appendix F. Lake Simcoe Watershed Municipalities

Appendix G. Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds and Moraines

Appendix H. Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds: Forest Conditions

Appendix I. Municipal Disclaimers

Appendix J. Newmarket Planning Zones Legend

Appendix K. Habitats of the Rare Species Found

Appendix L. Policy Implications: Detailed

Appendix M. Greenbelt Natural Heritage System

Appendix N. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Land Use Designation Map

vii

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Introduction

The Government of Canada has made important commitments to “monitor, assess and report regularly on the status of all wild species”. From this commitment and from the 1996 signing of the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, the General Status of Species in Canada program came into effect (CESCC, n.d.). As mandated in the Species at Risk Act, the Minister, and hence this program, is to produce a report every five years that lists the threat-status of all wild species in Canada. These reports fall under the Wild Species series, the latest one being published in 2015 (CESCC, n.d.), and include designations for all known vascular plants in Canada (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016). Producing these reports is the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and the National General Status Working Group, the latter of which uses the methodology of NatureServe to determine the threat-status ranks (ranks) for each species (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016). In Ontario, the provincial government’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) reviews and approves the assigned provincial statuses of native species (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016; Government of Ontario, June 2, 2016), reinforcing how imperative it is to adhere to rigorous, consistent, and international methodology to adequately determine abundance, diversity, changes, and threats.

Once these ranks are determined, the National General Status Working Group assigns priority scores to identify the species that may be most at risk. This is based on their national rank and the percentage of the species’ range that occurs in Canada (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016). The latter factor, in a sense, both assumes that Canada cannot protect all species with a concerning rank, and that species with concerning ranks will continue “as is” in other countries. From there, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) can implement detailed assessments of these species to realize which are to fall under Canada’s Species at Risk (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016). Such that COSEWIC undertakes these assessments for Canada’s federally-owned land, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) performs similar assessments using these ranks to determine the at-risk designation for species in Ontario, under the Endangered Species

1 RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Act (ESA). The status designations and definitions used by COSEWIC and COASSARO can be found in Appendix A, the COSEWIC and COSSARO Status Definitions for Species at Risk list.

The NatureServe system assigns global (G-ranks), national (N-ranks), and subnational (S-ranks) ranks. The subnational category pertains to state-, province-, or territory-level jurisdictions (Master et al., 2012). At the subnational jurisdiction, rank levels range from S1 to S5, with S5 meaning that the species is at the level of least risk for extirpation within that state, province or territory. Therefore, the label for S5 is “Secure”, followed by “Apparently Secure” (S4), “Vulnerable” (S3), “Imperilled” (S2), then “Critically Imperilled” (S1). SH and SX are the “Possibly Extirpated” and “Presumed Extirpated” categories, respectively (Master et al., 2012). Definitions for these categories can be found in the National (N) and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Ranks table in Appendix B, along with a more tailored list of definitions, Definitions of Subnational Ranks (S-Ranks) for Ontario, as provided by the NHIC. The process of categorizing species into a rank involves assessing eight core status rank factors (10 overall). These factors are separated into three categories, “Rarity”, “Trends”, and “Threats” (Master et al., 2012), which are broken down in Appendix C, the List of NatureServe Condition Status Factors table. This paper will focus on Vulnerable (S3) and Imperilled (S2) vascular plants (collectively referred to as “rare” henceforth), as these plants are rare, yet present enough on the landscape to have influence on conservation goals.

It is important to look at rare plants because their rarity speaks about the landscape as a whole – in that a plant may be rare due to loss of its habitat, its need for pristine or secluded ecosystems, its time-bound role in a successional stage (such as its dependence on old-growth forests), its confrontation with invasive insects or plants, or its particularity for an ecosystem that is naturally infrequent on the landscape. Therefore, maintaining habitat diversity, secluded ecosystems, old- growth forests, and invasive-free vegetation, can help protect rare plants from declining, and consequently ensure provincial diversity of ecosystems and vegetation, which in turn provides critical habitat. Although not holding legal status in Ontario or Canada (Government of Ontario, June 2, 2016), ranks (which are derived solely from NatureServe’s methodology that heavily regards rarity) are more meaningful for this study than at-risk designations, as they are less

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY obscured by assumptions of how other jurisdictions or countries are managing their landscapes, as well as any competing interests that may influence these decisions.

Looking at the Wild Species: General Status of Species in Canada Reports, from 2005 to 2010, 54 vascular plants in Canada increased a level of risk, and from 2010 to 2015, 227 increased a level of risk (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2011; CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016). This trend not only suggests a great concern for plant and ecosystem diversity, but points to an urgency to start paying attention to these rare vascular plants. A breakdown of the ranks by province is graphically represented in Appendix D, General Status of Vascular Plants in Canada, 2005, 2010, and 2015, with varying ranking terms used over the years.

To help relate ranks to Canadian at-risk statuses, NatureServe produced a reference table that can be used to link these designations (Master et al., 2012), as seen in Appendix E, Comparison of NatureServe National/Subnational Statuses with IUCN Regional Red List and COSEWIC Statuses, bearing in mind that the criteria and methodology used by each organization does vary between them. Therefore, since this study is focussed on S2 and S3 species, policy and plans regarding Species at Risk deemed to be Threatened (S2 approximation) and Special Concern (S3 approximation) will be addressed, which often straddles the line of legal protection in Canada and Ontario.

A possible factor in the rarity of a plant species, as mentioned above, is how sensitive or how particular a plant is; its fidelity to a range of community parameters. A measure of these factors is called the Coefficient of Conservatism (CoC). CoCs are assigned for native vascular plants within a designated geographical area, such as in southern Ontario (Catling, 2013). Oldham et al. (1995) break down the CoC levels as: 0-3 being for “plants found in a wide variety of plant communities, including disturbed sites”, 4-6 being for plants that are “typically are associated with a specific plant community, but tolerate moderate disturbance”, 7-8 being for plants that are “associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone minor disturbance” , and 9-10 being for “plants with high degrees of fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters”.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

It is possible that site biomass may also be correlated to the presence of rare plants, particularly as it relates to old forests, which are less prevalent on the landscape and likely to contain larger trees (due to age). Aboveground biomass density is the organic dry mass per unit area (Lambert et al., 2005). Determining if a correlation exists between site CoC or biomass and rare plant presence could help to predict areas that contain rare plants, without having to rigorously search for rare species, thus contributing towards protection efforts.

The Lake Simcoe watershed will be used as an example to display the distribution of rare plants (Figure 1). In this watershed, over 450,000 people reside (LSRCA, 2016b). It is projected that urban areas within the watershed will increase by approximately 50% by the year 2041, with the population almost doubling, as based on Ontario’s Places to Grow Program and municipal official plans (LSRCA, 2016a). In addition to urban areas, as of 2009 there was 47% agricultural lands throughout the watershed (Government of Ontario, 2009). The Lake Simcoe watershed, being 3,400 square kilometers in size, falls within the single-tier, upper-tier or independent municipalities of York Region, Durham Region, Simcoe County, Barrie, Orillia and Kawartha Lakes, see the Lake Simcoe Watershed Municipalities map in Appendix F. It is bordered by the Oak Ridges Moraine in the south, while in the northwest, the Oro Moraine stretches along the watershed’s border, see Appendix G, the Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds and Moraines map. Twenty percent of the watershed is Lake Simcoe itself, which is fed by 18 major river systems (LSRCA, 2016b).

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 1. Location of Lake Simcoe watershed in Ontario (OCCIAR, 2017)

In the Lake Simcoe Watershed Report Card 2013 document, the conditions of the forests were rated for every subwatershed. Five of the subwatersheds were found to be “poor”, eight in “fair” condition, six in “good” condition, and the remaining two in “excellent” condition (LSRCA, 2013), see the Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds: Forest Conditions map in Appendix H. For this Forest Condition rating, subwatersheds were evaluated on the percentage of wooded area, the percentage of interior forest (densely wooded area found 100 meters in from the forest edge), and the amount of riparian zone (30 meters of buffer along all watercourses) that is forested (LSRCA, 2013). It is apparent that forests in the Lake Simcoe watershed could use assistance in improvement and growth. It is possible that incorporating rare plant conservation into land use planning could address concerns identified in this report card, particularly in terms of the percentage of wooded area and interior forest, as several rare plants require a substantial amount of both of these factors.

Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, approximately 500 monitoring sites have been sampled using the Vegetation Sampling Protocol (VSP) in a joint project by the Ontario Ministry of Natural

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) and the University of Toronto. VSP is a quantitative method for sampling the vegetation of forests, wetlands or grasslands. Within the fixed-area sampling plot, information is collected on vascular plant species, their abundances, tree heights and diameters, tree health, dead wood, snags, browsing, canopy cover, and general terrain characteristics (Forests in Settled and Urbanized Landscapes: Applied Science and Research, October, 2016). VSP sites have been evenly distributed throughout the watershed to the best of the project’s ability – access determined greatly by landowner permission.

Using the VSP data from the Lake Simcoe watershed, this study aims to reveal how rare plants are accounted for in city planning zones, what variables could be used to predict the presence of rare plants (CoC, biomass, natural area size, and surrounding land use), and how rare plants are represented in protection policy and planning documents.

Methodology

To gain a visual representation of the distribution of rare vascular plants across the landscape, from the 426 VSP sites sampled within the Lake Simcoe watershed, entries pertaining to vascular plants with the S-Rank of S3 or S2, (including those with the “?” qualifier, denoting an inexact numerical rank (Master et al., 2012)) were extracted from the dataset and mapped. The 2015 NHIC rank status designations used are available for download through the Government of Ontario’s website (NHIC, 2017). With rare plant findings spanning 36 sites, 36 additional sites were randomly selected on which no rare plants were observed. These were used for statistical purposes in the following procedures. Occurrences were mapped for each rank using a random offset of 350 meters to protect the rare plants’ location.

Zoning maps were attained from four cities and towns that fall within the watershed and that contained a rare plant occurrence. These cities and towns are Innisfil, Newmarket, Oro-Medonte, and Barrie. A series of Geographical Information System (GIS) queries and overlay procedures were used to determine how city and town zones align with rare vascular plants. Firstly, using the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s (LSRCA) GIS layer for recent land use (2008/2009), the Natural Heritage Features that the rare plants occurred in were selected. These were intersected with city and town zoning to determine what land use planning designations

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

(Protection, Open Space or Development) are being implemented on these natural areas. Secondly, as an extension of that, all Natural Heritage Features (not just those that hold rare plant occurrences) were intersected with these city and town zoning layers to determine the same factors. Lastly, the opposite approach was taken, in that city and town areas zoned for Protection were intersected with the LSRCA’s land use layer, to understand what is being protected.

It is important to look at the full extent of Natural Heritage Features in which rare plants are found, as opposed to just the site’s immediate surroundings, as some of these rare plants are intrinsically sensitive to disturbance, and thus require large natural areas to support them. Furthermore, alterations and fragmentation to these greater Natural Heritage Features may impose the edge- effects of changes in humidity, hydrology, temperature, or invasive plants, all of which could affect interior ecosystems. It is worth keeping in mind that the Official Plans on which these zoning determinations are based, are in effect until 2026 for Innisfil, 2026 for Newmarket, 2023 for Oro- Medonte, and 2031 for Barrie (City of Barrie, April, 2010; Meridian Planning Consultants, December, 2016; Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc., July 26, 2006; Township of Oro-Medonte, April, 2017).

Although the zoning layers used are rather up-to-date, and the land use layer is from 2008/2009 imagery, most of the official plans were put into effect before 2008 (with the exception of Barrie – being 2010), making the land use layer used relevant to how zoning was developed. Zoning By- Law documents were referred to in the preceding process to help determine (using definitions and allowed uses on said land) which zones qualify as Protection, Open Space or Development. With that said, it is important to note that many zones contain a mixture of restricted development options, allowable open space, and/or natural area percentage needed to be maintain. The categories of Protection, Open Space and Development are therefore generalized and at a broad scale. Exact zonal designations are listed in each city and town map’s legend, and thus can be cross referenced to the city and town Zoning By-Law documents for a breakdown of allowable, mandatory and planned land use for that zone (City of Barrie, August, 2009; MMM Group, July 10, 2013; Town of Newmarket, June 1, 2010; Township of Oro-Medonte, July, 2017).

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

As a predictive measure, the same Natural Heritage Features on which rare plant occurrences fell were measured for their areas. If more than 1 rare plant was observed at a site, the site was only accounted for once, as is the case for 2 sites with 2 different rare plant occurrences in each. A t- Test in SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 was used to compare the sizes of the rare-plant-containing Natural Heritage Features with those that contained randomly selected sites with no rare plants found in them. Statistical interest is considered at a P-value between 0.06-0.1. Statistical significance is considered at a P-value of 0.02-0.05. High statistical significance is considered at a P-value of 0.01 or lower.

Another possible tool to help predict the presence of rare plants was tested for using a 1 km buffer around all rare and non-rare plant sites. The areas of all land use that fell within these buffers were calculated using GIS. The results were combined into the categories of Active Aggregate, Development, Agriculture/Lawns, Natural Heritage Features, and Roads/Rails. A Stepwise Logistic Regression in SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 was performed on the dependent variable and quantitative variables.

To determine if CoC or biomass indicators could be used to predict the presence of rare plants, and thus also to infer as to the quality of sites that would be protected if rare species were protected, the biomass and CoCs for each site were determined by Dr. Danijela Puric-Mladenovic, OMNRF. To attain a site-level CoC, the coefficients for all native plants in a site are summed then divided by the total number of native plants. Following this, a Natural Area Index (also called a Floristic Quality Index - FQI) can then be determined by multiplying this mean site CoC by the square root of the total number of native plants (Oldham et al., 1995). The FQI was used for this study as it allows for diversity to be considered, while not being weighed too heavily (unlike the mean site CoC) (Catling, 2013).

Allometric equations were used by Dr. Danijela Puric-Mladenovic, OMNRF, to create site biomass figures from the tree diameter at breast height data. These equations take into account the estimated biomass of the compartments (foliage, branch, wood, and bark), which is constrained to equal the total biomass. They also take into account the dependence among error terms for the considered compartments of the same tree, as it relates to the estimates of both the model parameters and the

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY variance prediction. Predetermined coefficients for individual tree species were used in the equation (Lambert et al., 2005). Using both the FQI and biomass results (independent variables) for rare and non-rare plant sites (dependent variables), t-Tests in SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 were performed.

Lastly, protection policy and planning documents for Ontario and the watershed were examined to give insight into how rare vascular plants are incorporated into these structures, what this means for these plants on the landscape, and what can be adjusted to improve their situation. This will be discussed under the section “Policy Implications”.

Results

Out of the 426 randomly selected monitoring sites, 24 sites (5.6%) contained an S3 plant, and 13 sites (3%) contained an S2 plant. One of these sites contained both an S2 and an S3 plant, resulting in 36 sites with rare plants in them. It was determined through a rough assessment that about 40% of rare plants were found on public property and 60% on private property.

Regarding Natural Heritage Features containing S2 and S3 plants, Barrie is protecting the highest percentage of its S2 natural area, while Newmarket is protecting the highest percentage of its S3 natural area (Figure 3). This is also reflected in the graph on hectares (Figure 2). S2 and S3 natural area zoned for Development is highest in percentage for Oro-Medonte, this again is reflected in hectares. Combining the Open Space with the Development zones, yields the same results. The city and town land use planning zones that fall within S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features are summarised in Table 1 for Innisfil, Table 2 for Newmarket, Table 3 and Table 4 for Oro-Medonte, and Table 5 and Table 6 for Barrie. Note that for Barrie, any part of the Natural Heritage Features that fell on top of “Refer to Zoning By-law 054-04 Innisfil” (the dark tan colour in Figure 13) were not included in this analysis, as specific zoning for this area was not attained.

Natural areas containing S3 species are granted a higher percentage of Protection compared to the S2 natural areas, which is counterintuitive, as S2 (or Threatened) species are protected under the Species at Risk Act. When it comes to hectares, it is clear (due to Oro-Medonte) that Development is zoned higher for the S2 natural areas than the S3 natural areas. Hectares of Open Space is also

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY zoned a little higher for S2 natural areas than for S3 natural areas. Hectares of Protected areas is a little closer between S2 and S3 natural areas. S2 natural areas are granted 121.69 ha of protection amongst all of the towns and cities, and S3 natural areas are slightly higher with 128.99 ha of protection. Combining the areas zoned for Development and Open Space into Converted area, this area amongst the cities and towns equals 455.97 ha for S2 natural areas, and 199.64 ha for S3 natural areas. In terms of average percentage, S2 natural areas are protected on 49.4% of the landscape (all stipulated towns and cities), and S3 natural areas are protected on 57.5% of the landscape, the remaining percentages are attributed to conversion zoning. All S2 and S3 Natural Heritage areas are provided 250.68 ha of protection, while being Converted on 655.61 ha of land, across all of these towns and cities.

Table 1. Innisfil S2 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection 32.89 57.1 Total Protection 32.89 57.1 Agricultural General 14.30 24.8 Open Space 8.02 13.9 Total Open Space 22.32 38.8 Residential Rural 2.18 3.8 Unknown 0.19 0.3 Total Development 2.37 4.1 Grand Total 57.58 100

Table 2. Newmarket S3 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OPEN SPACE ZONE 62.81 81.1 Total Protection 62.81 81.1 OPEN SPACE ZONE 2.73 3.5 Total Open Space 2.73 3.5 INSTITUTIONAL ZONE 0.03 0.0 RESIDENTIAL 9.67 12.5 TRANSITIONAL ZONE 2.22 2.9 Total Development 11.93 15.4 Grand Total 77.48 100

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 3. Oro-Medonte S2 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection 0.00 0.0 Total Protection 0.00 0.0 Agricultural/Rural 22.03 5.2 Open Space 78.34 18.5 Total Open Space 100.37 23.8 Mineral Aggregate 321.06 76.0 Residential 1.07 0.3 Total Development 322.13 76.2 Grand Total 422.50 100

Table 4. Oro-Medonte S3 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection 51.58 22.4 Total Protection 51.58 22.4 Agricultural/Rural 79.91 34.7 Open Space 19.79 8.6 Total Open Space 99.70 43.3 Industrial 1.16 0.5 Mineral Aggregate 72.76 31.6 Residential 4.80 2.1 Total Development 78.72 34.2 Grand Total 229.99 100

Table 5. Barrie S2 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection Area 88.81 91.0 Total Protection 88.81 91.0 Agriculture 1.12 1.1 Open Space 0.34 0.3 Total Open Space 1.45 1.5 Commercial 0.23 0.2 Industrial 2.54 2.6 Residential 4.55 4.7 Total Development 7.32 7.5 Grand Total 97.58 100

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 6. Barrie S3 Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection Area 14.59 69.0 Total Protection 14.59 69.0 Open Space 0.24 1.1 Total Open Space 0.24 1.1 Commercial 0.13 0.6 Industrial 4.98 23.5 Residential 1.21 5.7 Total Development 6.32 29.9 Grand Total 21.15 100

Municipal Zoning for S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features, Hectares 350

300

250

200

150 Hectares

100

0 Innisfil S2 Oro-Medonte S2 Barrie S2 Newmarket S3 Oro-Medonte S3 Barrie S3

Protection Open Space Development

Figure 2. Municipal zoning for S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features, hectares

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Municipal Zoning for S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features, Percentage 100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

Percentage 40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 Innisfil S2 Oro-Medonte S2 Barrie S2 Newmarket S3 Oro-Medonte S3 Barrie S3

Protection Open Space Development

Figure 3. Municipal zoning for S2 and S3 Natural Heritage Features, percentage

Looking beyond the rare plant occurrences and the Natural Heritage Features in which they fall, all Natural Heritage areas were assessed for the level of protection zoned for within these towns and cities. When looking at percentage of this area zoned for Protection (Figure 4), it appears Newmarket is taking the lead. However, looking at this in terms of hectares (Figure 5), Newmarket only needs to protect a relatively tiny amount to achieve that high percentage. Oro-Medonte (Table 10) and Innisfil (Table 7) both are protecting around 2200 ha of their natural area, but that is only 25.7% of Oro-Medonte’s natural area. Instead, Oro-Medonte has zoned 60.5% or 5,172.79 ha for Open Space (predominantly agricultural) of their natural area. When combining zones for Development with zones for Open Space, Oro-Medonte is faring the worst, as it is Converting 4,154.46 more hectares than it is protecting. Innisfil is Converting on 691.37 ha more than they are protecting. On the other hand, Newmarket (Table 8 and Table 9) and Barrie (Table 11) are protecting 141.41 ha and 280.7 ha, respectively, more than they are Converting to Development or Open Space.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 7. All Innisfil’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection 2265.76 43.4 Total Protection 2265.76 43.4 Agricultural General 1955.44 37.4 Open Space 225.64 4.3 Urban Open Space 3.94 0.1 Residential Estate 94.10 1.8 Total Open Space 2279.11 43.6 Planned Future Development 12.02 0.2 Total Planned Development 12.02 0.2 Commercial 50.50 1.0 Commercial Highway 6.92 0.1 Community Service 30.38 0.6 Residential 375.28 7.2 Industrial 51.20 1.0 Mixed Use 7.69 0.1 Unknown 144.03 2.8 Total Development 666.00 12.8 Grand Total 5222.89 100

Table 8. All Newmarket’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - OAK RIDGES MORAINE 89.76 16.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OPEN SPACE ZONE 200.35 36.4 NATURAL CORE - OAK RIDGES MORAINE 55.81 10.1 Total Protected 345.91 62.8 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 0.72 0.1 INSTITUTIONAL CEMETERY ZONE 1.48 0.3 OPEN SPACE 120.26 21.8 RURAL GENERAL - OAK RIDGES MORAINE 2.26 0.4 Total Open Space 124.72 22.7 COMMERCIAL 4.70 0.9 URBAN 15.02 2.7 INSTITUTIONAL 3.97 0.7 RESIDENTIAL 49.29 9.0 RURAL RESIDENTIAL - OAK RIDGES MORAINE 0.13 0.0 TRANSITIONAL ZONE 6.67 1.2 Total Development 79.78 14.5 Grand Total 550.42 100

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 9. All Newmarket’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning of planned future development (not graphed) Zones Hectares Percentage INSTITUTIONAL 1.93 8.6 RESIDENTIAL 20.51 91.4 Grand Total 22.44 100

Table 10. All Oro-Medonte’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection 2200.69 25.7 Total Protected 2200.69 25.7 Agricultural/Rural 4833.81 56.5 Open Space 164.20 1.9 Private Recreational 174.78 2.0 Total Open Space 5172.79 60.5 Airport 31.93 0.4 Economic Development 48.00 0.6 Commercial 15.77 0.2 Institutional 6.25 0.1 Industrial 8.30 0.1 Mineral Aggregate 716.76 8.4 Residential 316.48 3.7 Waste Disposal 3.37 0.0 Unknown 35.49 0.4 Total Development 1182.36 13.8 Grand Total 8555.84 100

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 11. All Barrie’s Natural Heritage Features intersected with municipal zoning Zones Hectares Percentage Environmental Protection Area 921.38 59.0 Total Protected 921.38 59.0 Agriculture 16.37 1.0 Open Space 116.75 7.5 Total Open Space 133.12 8.5 Commercial 42.96 2.8 Industrial 220.34 14.1 Institutional 34.95 2.2 Municipal Services and Utilities 5.98 0.4 Neighbourhood Mixed Use 0.38 0.0 Residential 202.95 13.0 Total Development 507.56 32.5 Grand Total 1562.06 100

Municipal Zoning of All Natural Heritage Features, Hectares 6000

5000

4000

3000 Hectares

2000

1000

0 Innisfil Newmarket Oro-Medonte Barrie

Protection Open Space Development

Figure 4. Municipal zoning of all Natural Heritage Features, hectares

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Municipal Zoning of All Natural Heritage Features, Percentage 70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0 Percentage

20.0

10.0

0.0 Innisfil Newmarket Oro-Medonte Barrie

Protection Open Space Development

Figure 5. Municipal Zoning of all Natural Heritage Features, percentage

Areas that are zoned for protection do not necessarily just encompass Natural Heritage Features. It is worth noting what exactly these municipalities are protecting, using recent land use maps. Most of what is being protected is Natural Heritage areas, across the board (Figure 6 and Figure 7). With that said, all municipalities are also protecting areas that happen to already contain up to 381.85 ha (Innisfil: Table 12) of Open Space and up to 101.49 ha (Barrie: Table 15) of Development. Protection zoning land use for Newmarket and Oro-Medonte are summarized in Table 13 and 14, respectively.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 12. Innisfil’s recent land use within Protection zoning Recent Land Use Hectares Percentage Natural Heritage Feature 2265.76 82.9 Total Natural Heritage 2265.76 82.9 Agriculture 314.92 11.5 Lawn 40.31 1.5 Estate Residential 26.62 1.0 Total Open Space 381.85 14.0 Active Aggregate 6.11 0.2 Commercial & Institutional 6.65 0.2 Industrial 3.45 0.1 Rail & Road 1.05 0.0 Rural Development 37.59 1.4 Urban 31.09 1.1 Total Development 85.94 3.1 Grand Total 2733.55 100

Table 13. Newmarket’s recent land use within Protection zoning Recent Land Use Hectares Percentage Natural Heritage Feature 345.91 75.4 Total Natural Heritage 345.91 75.4 Agriculture 72.42 15.8 Lawn 2.70 0.6 Estate Residential 1.68 0.4 Total Open Space 76.79 16.8 Commercial & Institutional 5.25 1.1 Industrial 1.81 0.4 Rail & Road 11.24 2.5 Rural Development 3.09 0.7 Urban 14.36 3.1 Total Development 35.76 7.8 Grand Total 458.47 100

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Table 14. Oro-Medonte’s recent land use within Protection zoning Recent Land Use Hectares Percentage Natural Heritage Feature 2200.69 89.8 Total Natural Heritage 2200.69 89.8 Agriculture 205.37 8.4 Lawn 12.69 0.5 Estate Residential 2.26 0.1 Total Open Space 220.32 9.0 Active Aggregate 1.71 0.1 Commercial & Institutional 0.70 0.0 Industrial 0.80 0.0 Road 0.50 0.0 Rural Development 24.57 1.0 Urban 2.55 0.1 Total Development 30.83 1.3 Grand Total 2451.84 100

Table 15. Barrie’s recent land use within Protection zoning Recent Land Use Hectares Percentage Natural Heritage Feature 921.38 87.0 Total Natural Heritage 921.38 87.0 Agriculture 3.98 0.4 Lawn 29.89 2.8 Estate Residential 2.65 0.2 Total Open Space 36.53 3.4 Active Aggregate 18.99 1.8 Commercial & Institutional 24.46 2.3 Industrial 13.48 1.3 Rail & Road 8.35 0.8 Rural Development 10.08 1.0 Urban 26.13 2.5 Total Development 101.49 9.6 Grand Total 1059.39 100

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Land Use in Protected Areas, Hectares 2500

2000

1500

Hectares 1000

500

0 Innisfil Newmarket Oro-Medonte Barrie

Natural Heritage Open Space Development

Figure 6. Land use in Protected areas, hectares

Land Use in Protected Areas, Percentage 100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

Percentage 40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 Innisfil Newmarket Oro-Medonte Barrie

Natural Heritage Open Space Development

Figure 7. Land use in Protected areas, percentage

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

The t-Test to determine if there is a significant difference between the size of Natural Heritage Areas for sites with rare plants and sites with no rare plants resulted in the statistically insignificant P-value of 0.99. The results of the Stepwise Logistic Regression pertaining to the land use in the 1 km buffer around all rare and non-rare plant sites are found in Table 16. The results from the t- Tests pertaining to biomass and FQI in relation to rare versus non-rare plant occurrence are both statistically insignificant with P-values of 0.48 and 0.92, respectively.

Table 16. Stepwise Logistic Regression results for land use within each site’s 1 km buffer Independent Variable P-Value Active Aggregate 0.95 Development 0.61 Agriculture/Lawns 0.09 Natural Heritage Features 0.61 Roads and Rails 0.48

Discussion

It makes sense that there were more S3 plants than S2 plants found in the surveys, with S2 being considered rarer. The S2 occurrences seem to be located more on the west side of the watershed, while the S3 occurrences are located more throughout the watershed (Figure 8). Upon visual assessment, both S2 and S3 occurrences seem to have a cluster or two around urban settlements. This is concerning given the high development pressure often taking place around urban centres. The randomly selected non-rare plant sites also display a similar cluster pattern, and thus the rare occurrences clusters may be a result of the general sampling design. With approximately 40% of rare plants found on public property, and 60% on private property, there are cautions to be addressed for both. Private properties are not generally monitored for rare plant protection, and public properties may face impacts of invasive plants, soil compaction, etc., brought on by frequency of human use.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

It is probable that the stage of development a city or town is in is responsible for how much natural area they are planning to Develop on or Protect. Oro-Medonte being more north than Newmarket and Barrie, is likely experiencing a push in growth now, as opposed to more southerly municipalities that have already developed much of their land, resulting in Oro-Medonte’s large amount of Development and Agriculture over their Natural Heritage Areas. The difference in the current state of development can be observed in Figure 9 when comparing the amount of gray and dark grey versus yellow and green of the most northern and southern towns (Oro-Medonte in the north and Newmarket in the south).

It is concerning that 655.61 ha of natural area, containing within them S2 or S3 plant species, are zoned for Development or Open Space (agriculture or manicured lawns) (Figure 9). The rare plant Natural Heritage Features and land use planning zones for Innisfil, Newmarket, Oro-Medonte and Barrie are mapped in Figure 10, 11, 12 and 13, respectively. It is even more concerning that the S2 natural areas are under less protection than S3 natural areas. The low average percentage of protection amongst the municipalities is startling, and again reflects how areas with rarer vascular plants are more susceptible to land alteration. It is possible that rare plants observed in city and town Natural Heritage Features were not rare at the time of initial zone delineation, however predictive modeling and forward thinking could have been used to anticipate ecosystems that will be most disturbed or developed upon in the near future, both within city limits and on the greater landscape. When looking at all natural areas (not just S2 or S3 areas), it is clear that the more northern cities and towns are planning for development and agriculture over much of their natural areas. If the rare plants that depend on these areas are going to remain for the future, Protection zoning needs to be widened before too much growth and development occurs. With just under 1000 ha (969.51 ha) of Protected land, amongst these towns and cities, being zoned on top of Development or Open Space, instead of Natural Heritage Features, (as it was in 2008/2009), it is likely that these areas will remain disturbed, as existing uses are often allowed to continue, and pre-existing conditions are difficult to attain after land alterations.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 8. S2, S3 and non-rare plant sites, randomly offset by 350 meters, over LSRCA’s land use layer

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 9. Natural Heritage Features containing S2, S3, and non-rare sites, over LSRCA’s land use layer, with cities and towns, used in this study, highlighted

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 10. Innisfil land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap. Please regard Appendix I, Municipal Disclaimers

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 11. Newmarket land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap. Zone legend for Newmarket found in Appendix J

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 12. Oro-Medonte land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap. Please regard Appendix I, Municipal Disclaimers

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Figure 13. Barrie land use planning zones and the rare plant Natural Heritage Features that overlap

The size of the Natural Heritage Features on which rare plants occurred did not yield statistical significance in relation to those sites where no rare plants were recorded. This implies that the natural patch size does not dictate whether rare plants thrive there, or that the sample size was too low. On the other hand, it could mean that the landscape has changed so rapidly that a) the rare plants that have lived in large natural areas historically are likely to have their now smaller natural areas catch up to them in the near future and decrease their populations, b) more rare plants are being created, making rarity less dependent on innate sensitivity or specificity and more dependent on what habitat is desirable for humans to build on, and/or c) large natural areas have become so rare that the plants that thrive in them have followed suit.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Along the lines of explanation “b”, it follows (as seen in Appendix K, Habitats of the Rare Species Found) that 88% of the rare plants in this study thrive in terrestrial habitats, and 25% thrive in wetland habitats (2 species having dual preference). It is possible that more terrestrial rare plants were found due to sampling design, however, many wetland areas were sampled as well. This leads to the possibility that due to wetlands being less desirable for built structures, terrestrial habitats are more rapidly being developed upon, leading to more terrestrial vascular plants becoming rare. The undesirable nature of wetlands for development may be a factor in their higher level of protection than terrestrial habitats in planning policies – with wetlands and hydrological functions being parsed out in both Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and Significant Wildlife Habitat identification protocol (Government of Ontario, April 26, 2011; OMNR, 2000), along with in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (Government of Ontario, 2009).

The only factor that was statistically interesting for the 1 km buffered area around rare and non- rare plant sites was Agriculture/Lawns with a P-value of 0.09. The averages of 57.3 ha of Agriculture/Lawn surrounding non-rare sites, and 89.1 ha of Agriculture/Lawn surrounding rare sites, suggests that areas with higher agriculture and open spaces are more likely to contain rare plants in their nearby woodlots. This could be due to the general landscape of a more rural environment, which is likely to have contained a greater amount of Natural Heritage Features more recently than the urbanized and developed areas.

The non-statistically significant P-values obtained for biomass and FQI indicators could be attributed to several possibilities, such as that: rare plants can be found amongst a variety of tree densities and ages, there is not a larger proportion of sensitive or highly particular plants at sites with rare plants (possibly due to rarity being based less on intrinsic vulnerability and specificity and more on a rapidly developing landscape), or that the sample size is not large enough.

Policy Implications

If municipal zoning is to become more in-line with rare plant habitat protection, a greater understanding of the landscape and vegetation communities needs to be incorporated into municipal planning. Policy and overarching plans should address rare plants and/or Species at Risk vegetation, including species of Special Concern, so that municipalities are mandated to plan

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY according to protection goals. As well, protecting the immediate habitat of rare plants is not sufficient, as these habitats may rely on the hydrological or edge-effect protection provided by surrounding ecosystems. As such, large quality terrestrial Natural Heritage Features need to be conserved and quickly, as this is attractive land for development, especially in the rapidly developing northern area of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The following analysis reveals the rare plant habitat protection implications of relevant policy and planning documents (as well as a related program). Documents analyzed, pertaining to Ontario and the Lake Simcoe watershed, are the Endangered Species Act, 2007, 2014 Provincial Policy Statement: Under the Planning Act, Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, Identification and Confirmation Procedure for Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Greenbelt Plan (2017), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017), Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s 2016- 2020 Strategic Plan, and the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. The interconnectedness of these policies, plans and program are visually represented in Figure 14.

The full analysis of these documents can be found in Appendix L, Policy Implications: Detailed. Some takeaways from this inquiry are as follows. The Endangered Species Act should expand habitat protection to include species of Special Concern (Government of Ontario, 2007). This may catch some S2 species that didn’t make the cut into Threatened status. As well, it can help to prevent these species of Special Concern from becoming Threatened and Endangered in the future. It is recommended that the Provincial Policy Statement lessen the prioritization of agriculture over protection (in the Greenbelt Plan too), and exclude the word “significant” in reference to ANSI protection, thereby protecting all ANSIs and not just “significant” ones (a word also used in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan in relation to habitat protection of Endangered and Threatened species) (Government of Ontario, 2009; Government of Ontario, April 30, 2014; Government of Ontario, May, 2017a). The Greenbelt Plan should work on building up its designated Natural Heritage System to a less fragmented state. In reference to this Natural Heritage System, more concrete guidelines should be developed in order to eliminate destructive activities (not just suggest their avoidance), allowed disturbed area should decrease, and vegetated area requirements should increase. Furthermore, there should be a map provided of the Key Natural Heritage Features within this plan (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a).

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

For the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the percentage of Natural Core Areas should be increased from 38%. As well, within these areas, many destructive uses should not be allowed. This plan, along with others, should include the protection of habitats surrounding the immediate habitat of protected Species at Risk, and should be reflected in the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). Within the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, it is recommended that designation of Significant Woodlands not be left up to the discretion on municipalities (OMNR, 2000). The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Strategic Plan should mention Species at Risk or rare plants (LSRCA, 2016a). Lastly, the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program should include not only habitat of Threatened species, but also habitat of species of Special Concern (Government of Ontario, November 10, 2017).

Figure 14. Interconnectedness of policy and plans involving rare species and natural area protection, within Ontario and the Lake Simcoe watershed Conclusion

It can be concluded from the municipal planning zones analysis that rare plants and Natural Heritage Features are only moderately protected. The statistical analysis on predictive variables suggests that predicting the presence of rare plants is not a straightforward process, and that vegetation surveys need to continue if we are going to locate them. Looking at protection policy, plans and programs has uncovered areas where rare and Species at Risk plants can be incorporated

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY and protected further. With that said, a case can be made for having these documents explicitly include reference to threat-status ranks, particularly S3 to S1 species, as many of these are excluded when translated to Species at Risk (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016). Whether or not such protection extends to these ranks, it is imperative that current protection measures are supported with on-the-ground surveys and thorough Environmental Assessments that reveal the presence of rare and at risk vascular plants, so that their continuity can be maintained within the changing landscape of southern Ontario.

Possible Extensions of the Work

To use this study towards rare vascular plant protection, it is recommended that VSP continue and expand into other regions. This will reveal rare plant locations, and possibly provide a more robust dataset that can yield statistically significant results towards predictive variables. This data and resulting predictive variables should be applied through GIS in combination with municipal zoning to understand how zones and growth planning should be modified to ensure rare vascular plant protection, particularly S3 to S1 species.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

References

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). (2006). Wild species 2005: The general status of species in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.wildspecies.ca/reports

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC), & National General Status Working Group. (2011). Wild species 2010: The general status of species in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.wildspecies.ca/reports

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC), & National General Status Working Group. (2016). Wild species 2015: The general status of species in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.wildspecies.ca/reports

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). (n.d.). Wild species: The general status of species in Canada. Wild species website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://www.wildspecies.ca

Catling, P. M. (2013). Using coefficients of conservatism and the floristic quality index to assess the potential for serious and irreversible damage to plant communities. Canadian Field- Naturalist, 127(3), 285–288.

City of Barrie. (2009, August). City of Barrie comprehensive zoning by-law: Office consolidation December 2016. Barrie, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.barrie.ca/DOING%20BUSINESS/PLANNINGANDDEVELOPMENT/Page s/Zoning.aspx

City of Barrie. (2010, April). The City of Barrie official plan: Office consolidation January 2017. Barrie, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.barrie.ca/Doing%20Business/PlanningandDevelopment/Pages/Official- Plan.aspx

Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Associations (FOCA). (n.d.). Protecting species at risk in Ontario (COSSARO) & in Canada (COSEWIC). FOCA website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from https://foca.on.ca/protecting-species-at-risk/

Forests in Settled and Urbanized Landscapes: Applied Science and Research. (2016, October). Vegetation sampling protocol (VSP): A quantitative, integrating and adaptable method for vegetation inventory and monitoring. Forests in settled and urbanized landscapes: Applied science and research website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://forests- settled-urban-landscapes.org/VSP/

Government of Ontario. (2007). Endangered species act, 2007. Ontario: Government of Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Government of Ontario. (2009). Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Ontario: Government of Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-simcoe-protection-plan

Government of Ontario. (2011, April 26). Identification and confirmation procedure for areas of natural and scientific interest. Ontario: Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces Branch of the Government of Ontario. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20120523054613/http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/plan ning_pdf/ansi/ansi_procedure.pdf

Government of Ontario. (2014, April 30). 2014 Provincial policy statement: Under the Planning Act. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx

Government of Ontario. (2016, June 2). Natural heritage methodology. Government of Ontario website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage- methodology

Government of Ontario. (2017a, May). Greenbelt Plan (2017). Ontario: Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10882.aspx

Government of Ontario. (2017b, May). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017). Ontario: Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10882.aspx

Government of Ontario. (2017, June 16). Forest-associated species of conservation concern. Government of Ontario website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/forest-associated-species-conservation-concern

Government of Ontario. (2017, August 11). Report rare species (animals and plants). Government of Ontario website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/report-rare-species-animals-and-plants

Government of Ontario. (2017, October 2). How species at risk are listed. Government of Ontario website. Retrieved October 3, 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/how- species-risk-are-listed

Government of Ontario. (2017, November 10). Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. Government of Ontario website. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/conservation-land-tax-incentive-program

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). (2013). Lake Simcoe watershed report card 2013. Newmarket, Ontario: LSRCA. Retrieved from http://www.lsrca.on.ca/watershed-health/reportcard

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). (2016a). 2016-2020 Strategic Plan. Newmarket, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.lsrca.on.ca/about-us/strategic-plan

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). (2016b). Lake Simcoe watershed. LSRCA website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://www.lsrca.on.ca/Pages/watershed.aspx

Lambert, M. C., Ung, C. H., & Raulier, F. (2005). Canadian national tree aboveground biomass e equations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35(8), 1996-2018.

Master, L. L., Faber-Langendoen, D., Bittman, R., Hammerson, G. A., Heidel, B., Ramsay, L., … Tomaino, A. (2012). NatureServe conservation status assessments: Factors for evaluating species and ecosystem risk. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. Retrieved from http://help.natureserve.org/biotics/Content/Methodology/natureserveconservationstatusfa ctors_apr12.pdf

Meridian Planning Consultants. (2016, December). Town of Newmarket official plan 2006-2026: Office consolidation. Newmarket, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.newmarket.ca/towngovernment/pages/strategies,%20plans%20and%20public ations/plans/official-plan.aspx

MMM Group. (2013, July 10). Town of Innisfil comprehensive zoning by-law 080-13 (council adopted) (contains amendments up to end of April 2017). Innisfil, Canada. Retrieved from https://innisfil.ca/getFileByName/Zoning%20By-Law%20080- 13%20as%20amended%20April%202017.pdf

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). (2017). Ontario vascular plants. Ontario: NHIC. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information

NatureServe. (2017). NatureServe status. NatureServe explorer website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm

New England Flower Society. (2017). Go botany. New England Flower Society Website. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from https://gobotany.newenglandwild.org/

Oldham, M. J., Bakowsky, W. D., & Sutherland, D. A. (1995). Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Peterborough, Ontario: Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR). (2017). Project: Lake Simcoe. OCCIAR website. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://www.climateontario.ca/p_ls.php

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). (2000). Significant wildlife habitat technical guide. Peterborough, Ontario: OMNR. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-significant-wildlife-habitat

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. (2006, July 26). Town of Innisfil official plan. Innisfil, Canada. Retrieved from https://innisfil.ca/mygovernment/planningforourfuture/OurPlaceInnisfilOfficialPlan/offici alplan

Town of Newmarket. (2010, June 1). The corporation of the Town of Newmarket: Zoning by-law 2010-40: Consolidation December 2013. Newmarket, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.newmarket.ca/LivingHere/Pages/Planning%20and%20development/Zoning% 20By-laws.aspx

Township of Oro-Medonte. (2017, April). Township of Oro-Medonte official plan. Oro-Medonte, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oro-medonte.ca/municipal-services/planning- information/planning-documents

Township of Oro-Medonte. (2017, July). Township of Oro-Medonte zoning by-law 97-95. Oro- Medonte, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oro-medonte.ca/municipal- services/planning-information/planning-documents

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendices

Appendix A: COSEWIC and COSSARO Status Definitions for Species at Risk (FOCA, n.d.)

Extinct: a wildlife species that no longer exits. Extirpated: a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada (or Ontario, if COSSARO), but exists elsewhere. Endangered: a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened: a wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Special Concern: a wildlife species that may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Data Deficient: a category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species’ risk of extinction. Not at Risk: a wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given current circumstances.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix B: National (N) and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Ranks (Master et al., 2012)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Definitions of Subnational Ranks (S-Ranks) for Ontario (Government of Ontario, June 16, 2017)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix C: List of NatureServe Condition Status Factors (Master et al., 2012)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix D: General Status of Vascular Plants in Canada, 2005 (CESCC, 2006)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

General Status of Vascular Plants in Canada, 2010 (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2011)

General Status of Vascular Plants in Canada, 2015 (CESCC & National General Status Working Group, 2016)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix E: Comparison of NatureServe National/Subnational Statuses with IUCN Regional Red List and COSEWIC Statuses (Master et al., 2012)

2 COSEWIC status (aside from Extinct) applies only within Canada, and thus, is equivalent to the national rankings of NatureServe or the regional IUCN Red List status

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix F: Lake Simcoe Watershed Municipalities (LSCRA, 2016a)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix G: Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds and Moraines (LSCRA, 2016a)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix H: Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds: Forest Conditions (LSRCA, 2013)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix I: Municipal Disclaimers

1. neither the Township of Oro-Medonte, nor any of its employees, officers, servants or municipalities shall be liable for any damages or suffer any loss arising from any errors or inaccuracies therein, or from any misuse, misinterpretation or misapplication thereof, whether due to the negligence of such employees, officers, servants, or otherwise; and 2. the said information is made available to the recipient thereof solely on condition that the recipient and all the recipient’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns assume full responsibility for any risk associated with the use or misuse thereof and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Township of Oro-Medonte and its employees, officers ,servants from any and all damages or losses whether arising directly or indirectly from the release of Township of Oro-Medonte digital data including all damages and losses of the type described in Clause (i) hereof.

The Corporation of the Town of Innisfil

1. neither the Town of Innisfil nor any of its employees, officers, servants or municipalities shall be liable for any damages or suffer any loss arising from any errors or inaccuracies therein, or from any misuse, misinterpretation or misapplication thereof, whether due to the negligence of such employees, officers, servants, municipalities or otherwise; and 2. the said information is made available to the recipient thereof solely on condition that the recipient and all the recipient’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns assume full responsibility for any risk associated with the use or misuse thereof and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Town of Innisfil and its employees, officers ,servants and municipalities from any and all damages or losses whether arising directly or indirectly from the release of Town of Innisfil digital data including all damages and losses of the type described in Clause (i) hereof.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix J: Newmarket Planning Zones Legend

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix K: Habitats of the Rare Species Found (New England Flower Society, 2017)

Scientific Common S General Name Name Rank Habitat Specific Habitat Bogs, fens, forests, talus and rocky slopes, woodlands. Acidic to basic soils of forests, Blunt- woodlands, rocky slopes, openings, and Carex albicans scaled Oak Terrestrial, wetlands with a well-developed organic soil var. albicans Sedge S3 Wetlands horizon. Anthropogenic (man-made or disturbed habitats), floodplain (river or stream floodplains), forests. White walnut is a relatively Juglans cinerea Butternut S2? Terrestrial short-lived tree of rich soils and streambanks. Floodplain (river or stream floodplains), forests, Cattail shores of rivers or lakes, swamps. Forested Carex typhina Sedge S2 Wetlands wetlands, lacustrine and riverine floodplains. Forests, meadows and fields, shores of rivers or Smilax Common lakes, woodlands. Dry-mesic to mesic forests, rotundifolia Greenbrier S2 Terrestrial woodlands, fields, and pond borders. Hydrastis Golden Forests. Rich, mesic, often rocky forests, usually canadensis Seal S2 Terrestrial associated with limestone and trap bedrock. Great St. Floodplain (river or stream floodplains), Hypericum John's- marshes, meadows and fields, shores of rivers or ascyron wort S3 Terrestrial lakes. Riparian forests, river banks, low fields. Anthropogenic (man-made or disturbed habitats), cliffs, balds, or ledges, forests, meadows and fields, woodlands. Dry- mesic to mesic soils of deciduous forests and Ranunculus woodlands, cliff bases, clearings, fields, and hispidus var. Hairy roadsides, commonly found in areas of high-pH hispidus Buttercup S3 Terrestrial bedrock. Hairy Forests, Woodlands. Forests, forest openings, Carex Green and woodlands, usually on dry-mesic to mesic, hirsutella Sedge S3 Terrestrial circumneutral substrate. This conservative plant is occasional in high quality natural areas (primarily upland prairies and savannas), otherwise it is rare or absent. Habitats include black soil prairies, sand prairies, Lithospermum Hoary hill prairies, upland savannas, sandy Black Oak canescens Puccoon S3 Terrestrial savannas, and limestone glades. Anthropogenic (man-made or disturbed habitats), forest edges, forests, Crataegus Northern meadows and fields. Fields, forest borders, dissona Hawthorn S3 Terrestrial roadsides, early successional forests.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Anthropogenic (man-made or Monarda Oswego disturbed habitats). Roadsides, waste areas, didyma Tea S3 Terrestrial gardens, about dwellings. Anthropogenic (man-made or disturbed habitats), forests, woodlands. Mesic Hieracium Panicled to dry-mesic, deciduous forests and woodlands, paniculatum Hawkweed S2 Terrestrial trail edges Ribbed Carex virescens Sedge S3 Terrestrial Forests. dry to moist forests. Fens, marshes, meadows and fields. Rigid Circumneutral fens, meadows, and graminoid Carex tetanica Sedge S3? Wetlands marshes Stiff- It occurs on prairies, glades, oak savannas, dry Solidago rigida leaved open areas especially on calcareous soils, ssp. rigida Goldenrod S3 Terrestrial disturbed grounds (railroads, etc.) Virginia Shores of rivers or lakes, Lycopus Water- Terrestrial, swamps, wetland margins (edges of wetlands). virginicus horehound S3 Wetlands Swamps, shorelines, wetland margins.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix L: Policy Implications: Detailed

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act While Ontario’s 2007 Endangered Species Act bestows protection for Endangered and Threatened species and their habitats, it does not extend this protection to species of Special Concern (likened to S3 species) (Government of Ontario, 2007; Government of Ontario, October 2, 2017). Since, between the four municipalities looked at in this study, S3 natural spaces are zoned for conversion (Open Space or Development) on 199.64 ha or 42.5% (municipal average) of that land, it is reasonable to predict that some of these S3 species may become S2 species in the near future. Therefore, it would be advisable to expand Ontario’s Endangered Species Act to include species of Special Concern, along with all subsequent plans and policies that draw on this Act. This may involve more careful considerations and more work in processing proposed site alterations, but may save the OMNRF the hassle and resources of having to create Recovery Strategies (within 1 year for Endangered and 2 years for Threatened species) (Government of Ontario, October 2, 2017).

With that said, it is also suggested by NatureServe that broader scales of ranks be addressed when setting conservation priorities (Master et al., 2012), as in weigh if conservation is necessary for a species that is more common on the greater landscape (i.e. adjacent provinces or countries). This mildly applies to the Lake Simcoe watershed, primarily because Canada is so vast that focussing protection at the subnational level holds more importance than it would in a smaller country. Secondly, it may be advisable to address the ranks of vascular plants in adjacent subnational districts (when working collectively with those districts for protection) when the area in question is closer to those borders. However, the Lake Simcoe watershed is rather distanced from other subnational borders, and is buffered by the Great Lakes (Figure 1). Thus, using Ontario designations does not need to be augmented with ranks from adjacent provinces or states.

Provincial Policy Statement - Including ANSI and Significant Wildlife Habitat Ontario’s 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), under the Planning Act, provides policy direction concerning land use planning and development. As such, it may be complemented by provincial plans or by locally-generated policy (Government of Ontario, April 30, 2014). The

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY section on Natural Heritage (Section 2.1) predictably mirrors the ESA in stating “development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements” (Government of Ontario, April 30, 2014, Section 2.1.7). The limitation of designation protection to only Endangered and Threatened species is reflected here, while also creating a vague and open-ended out-clause pertaining to “provincial and federal requirements”. However, the Section 2.1.5 is more promising in its wording “development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: […] d) significant wildlife habitat; e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest” (Government of Ontario, April 30, 2014).

Regarding Significant Wildlife Habitat, as it pertains to rare vascular plants, it is worth noting several aspects. According to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, plants are included in the definition of wildlife, and their habitats can be considered significant when factoring in “representation or amount” (OMNR, 2000). Therefore, one of the four broad categories used to identify Significant Wildlife Habitat is “rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife”. Two key sentences stand out in the discussion of rare vegetation communities from the technical guide, “rare vegetation communities often contain rare species, particularly plants” and “protection of rare vegetation communities now, will protect their associated species and reduce costs of future species recovery programs” (OMNR, 2000). Furthermore, habitats of species of Conservation Concern include those of nationally Endangered or Threatened species not protected under the ESA, Special Concern species in Ontario, and S1 to S3 ranked species (OMNR, 2000). Therefore, locating and protecting rare vascular plants may aid in maintaining Significant Wildlife Habitat on the landscape, and thus uphold provincial policy.

An ANSI, which was also addressed in that section of the PPS, is an area that either contains life science or earth science (or both) values related to natural heritage protection, scientific study or education. The definition of Life Science ANSIs includes “specific types of forests, valleys, prairies and wetlands, their native plants […] and their supportive environments”, and “relatively undisturbed vegetation” (Government of Ontario, April 26, 2011). All five of the criteria used by the ONMRF to evaluate ANSI candidates can be logically linked to rare vascular plants. The first criteria, “Representation”, can include underrepresented vegetation, such as rare plants.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

“Condition” would lead to areas less affected by humans, and thus more likely to contain rare species, as those plants that are intolerant of human disturbances are restricted to the few areas of little human activity. Like “Condition”, high “Diversity” can relate to a lack of human disturbance through the association invasive plants have in decimating a site’s vegetative diversity. “Other Ecological Considerations” includes the size of an area, and larger sites are likely to contain more rare plants due to distance from human influence, as well as a general lack of large natural areas on the landscape (Government of Ontario, April 26, 2011).

The last criteria, “Special Features”, points to the presence of populations of Species at Risk, without restricting these to those species that are Endangered or Threatened, thus leaving it open to species of Special Concern (Government of Ontario, April 26, 2011). Attention, however, should be drawn to the use of the word “significant” before ANSIs are mentioned in point “e” in section 2.1.5 mentioned above. This alludes to a lack of protection from “development and site alteration” for all ANSIs, but instead for only select ones. Furthermore, the last note in Section 2.1 of the PPS (Section 2.1.9) states, “nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue” (Government of Ontario, April 30, 2014), another out-clause in protection policy. This prioritization of agriculture can help to explain how the Lake Simcoe watershed was composed of 47% agriculture in 2009 (Government of Ontario, 2009). It is clear that the PPS is intending to support the protection of rare plants; however, several stipulations and exceptions make this over-arching policy full of loopholes.

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan was prepared and approved under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, and took effect on June 2, 2009 (Government of Ontario, 2009). It addresses the shortfalls of Lake Simcoe’s subwatersheds through two targets in particular, as listed under the section on Shorelines and Natural Heritage. These targets are to achieve “a greater proportion of natural vegetative cover in large high-quality patches” and “a minimum 40 percent high quality natural vegetative cover in the watershed” (Government of Ontario, 2009). In 2009, when this plan was published, approximately 35 percent of the watershed was under natural cover (woodlands and wetlands), however it existed in a fragmented state. Moreover, the distribution of natural cover throughout the watershed is not uniform, having 9 percent cover in the Keswick Creeks

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY subwatershed and 55 percent cover in the Carthew Bay Creeks subwatershed, as an example (Government of Ontario, 2009).

Shifting the focus to regard rare vascular plants can potentially help to address and increase the quality of vegetative cover, while also revealing which areas are best to invest vegetative restoration efforts on, so as to help achieve these targets. This is attempted through the increased protection for Key Natural Heritage Features, being “wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, and natural areas abutting Lake Simcoe”. However, finding the definition of Significant Woodlands proved fruitless, even throughout all of the policy and plans touched on in this section. The only breakdown of what is meant by this term is found in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, and implies that these areas are at the discretion of municipalities that should use a variety of resources (including bird associations) to help identify larger patches of contiguous forest to support more area-sensitive forest species. It is recommended here that “each planning area should protect representative examples of these habitats” (OMNR, 2000), hardly the clear and binding policy needed.

The only explicit reference to Species at Risk within this plan, is based on the definition of “Significance” in regard to the habitat of Endangered and Threatened species. In this definition, it identifies habitat “as approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, that is necessary for maintenance, survival, and/or the recovery of naturally occurring or reintroduced populations of endangered species or, threatened species, and where those areas of occurrence are” (Government of Ontario, 2009). The instance that this term surfaces is under new mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries, which are not permitted in “significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species” (Government of Ontario, 2009). This is a very limited usage of Species at Risk, and does not reflect species of Special Concern.

Greenbelt Plan The Greenbelt Plan, along with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017) and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017), establish a land use planning framework for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Greenbelt Plan was prepared and approved under the Greenbelt Act, 2005. It took effect on December 16, 2004

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

(Government of Ontario, May, 2017a). This plan includes lands within, and further develops the environmental protection framework of, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The PPS is the policy foundation of the Greenbelt Plan, while this plan takes precedence in any areas of conflicting policy. The purpose of this plan is to inform decision-making so as to permanently protect the agricultural land base and the ecological and hydrological features, areas and functions that take place across this designated area, termed the Protected Countryside (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a).

Within the Protected Countryside, Environmental Protection, along with five other factors are promoted. Supporting the Environmental Protection objective is the goal to protect habitat of flora, particularly Species at Risk (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a). From there, three types of geographic-specific policies exist within the Protected Countryside. These are the Agricultural System, Natural System and Settlement Areas (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a). The Natural Heritage System is the fragmented dark green area seen in Appendix M, the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System map. Within the Natural Heritage System Policies, in addition to its existing fragmented nature, there are several factors that may put rare plants at further at risk, being: • “The full range of existing and new agricultural, agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses and normal farm practices are permitted […]” • “New development or site alteration in the Natural Heritage System […] shall demonstrate that: […] o The removal of other natural features not identified as key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features should be avoided […] o The disturbed area, including any buildings and structures, of the total developable area will not exceed 25 percent (40 percent for golf courses) […] o At least 30 percent of the total developable area will remain or be returned to natural self-sustaining vegetation […]” • “The Natural Heritage System, including the policies of section 3.2.5, does not apply within the existing boundaries of settlement areas, but does apply when considering expansions to settlement areas as permitted by the policies of this Plan” (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

The allowance of various agricultural activities, the meager language such as “should be avoided”, the large percentages of allowed disturbed area, the low percentage of natural self-sustaining vegetation, and the narrow geographical range that these ecologically focussed policies pertain to, create a landscape open to disturbance and further reduction of rare vascular plants. With that said, within the Natural Heritage System, the Key Natural Heritage Features, which are protected from site alteration, include Significant Wildlife Habitat, in particular the habitat of species of Special Concern (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a). However, no map of these Key Natural Heritage Features was provided in the plan, and they must be identified to serve as such.

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The Oak Ridges Moraine consists of an irregular ridge that spans 160 kilometers from the Niagara Escarpment in the west to the Trent River in the east. The Moraine divides the watersheds draining south into western Lake Ontario from those draining north into Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and the Trent River system. Some resources that attract human activity on the Moraine include, clean and abundant water, an attractive landscape, prime agricultural areas, and sand and gravel (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017) divides the Moraine into four land use designations: Natural Core Areas (38%), Natural Linkage Areas (24%), Countryside Areas (30%), and Settlement Areas (8%). At a rather low percentage, the Natural Core Areas (as shown in dark green in Appendix N, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Land Use Designation Map) focus on land that has the highest concentrations of Key Natural Heritage Features (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). Within these Natural Core Areas, existing uses, agricultural uses, restricted new resource management, low intensity recreational, home, businesses, and infrastructure uses are permitted (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). This may affect the integrity of its Key Natural Heritage Features.

Like the Greenbelt Plan, the Key Natural Heritage Features in this plan also include Significant Wildlife Habitat, particularly habitat that contains species of Special Concern (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). While this is important to include, it does not necessarily address the habitats surrounding the habitats of species of Special Concern, which likely support the function and persistence of the habitats in question. There is, however, regard to Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones (also present in the Greenbelt Plan), which act as a buffer to protect Key Features

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

(Government of Ontario, May, 2017a; Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). A Natural Heritage Evaluation is required in some instances, and it is within the power of this evaluation to determine if the nondescript (no regulation for type of vegetation required) specified Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone is sufficient. If it is deemed not sufficient, a new specified distance can be given, along with “where possible, improvement or restoration of natural self-sustaining vegetation within it” (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). The Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone required, according to this plan, for Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (Life Science) and for Significant Wildlife Habitat is to be determined through a Natural Heritage Evaluation. As for the habitat of Endangered and Threatened species, there is no Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone required, and thus is left up to the planner to determine if one is to be incorporated, and what its dimensions are to be (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b). These flexible designations and loose definitions leave room for edge-effect, invasive plant encroachment and future deterioration of natural areas that contain rare vascular plants.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 2016-2020 Strategic Plan The goal for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 2016-2020 Strategic Plan is to have a watershed that is healthier in 2041 than it is today. The pressure for growth, change and development within this watershed has never been greater (LSRCA, 2016a). Some strategies to combat such pressures and achieve the goal are to “develop and begin implementing a Natural Heritage System Restoration Strategy in 2 years”, “implement a Citizen Science Program in 3 years”, and “track key environmental trends and changes that are occurring in Lake Simcoe and across the watershed and report on results annually” (LSRCA, 2016a). These avenues could work to incorporate rare plant protection, but do not specifically mention rare or Species at Risk plants.

Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program Further aid in rare plant protection can be found in the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. Its focus is to foster long-term private stewardship (protection and OMNRF inspection) of Ontario’s provincially important natural areas, through 100 % tax exemptions on property that qualifies (Government of Ontario, November 10, 2017). Areas that qualify need to be one-fifth of a hectare in size, and must be provincially significant ANSIs that have been approved by the OMNRF as provincially significant, habitats of Endangered species (“where specific guidelines

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY for the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program have been developed” by the OMNRF), or one of the three other types of eligible land (Government of Ontario, November 10, 2017). The stipulations, along with the exclusion of Threatened and Special Concerned species, is concerning for rare plant protection.

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix M: Greenbelt Natural Heritage System (Government of Ontario, May, 2017a)

RARE PLANTS IN LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED LAURA BRODEY

Appendix N: Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Land Use Designation Map (Government of Ontario, May, 2017b)