1. INTERIM REPORT – WETLANDS RESOLUTION WORKPLAN

RAPPORT PROVISOIRE – PLAN DE TRAVAIL POUR LA RÉSOLUTION DES PROBLÈMES LIÉS AUX TERRES HUMIDES

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

That Council approve the following, as amended:

1. Direct staff to take the necessary municipal drain maintenance actions on the Hobbs Municipal Drain and other drainage improvements to return the surface drainage in the area north of Flewellyn Road to pre-existing conditions, as defined in this report, with any actions taken being subject to an evaluation of the environmental benefits of the recommended actions;

2. As part of the process to declare Flowing Creek a Municipal Drain which is subject to a separate report to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on June 22, 2006, direct staff to:

a. Monitor environmental changes as a result of these actions by establishing a baseline in advance and annual monitoring after the corrective works are undertaken;

b. Report annually to Committee and Council on the monitoring results or when significant landscape changes in vegetation, creek health or surface drainage are observed.

3. Direct staff to continue to provide feedback to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) through:

a. A letter to the Minister, attached in Document 6, recommending that the update of the OWES include such items as clear specification of wetland species, the re-examination of the criteria for complexing of wetlands, consideration of whether the wetland developed through natural or human forces, a re-examination of the points allocation under the Social factor, a broader consideration of social factors such as land tenure, population density and length of residency and an updating of the social value of wetlands to be aligned with current societal use and value of wetlands;

b. participation in the targeted consultation later in 2006 as a direct participant and through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

4. Direct staff to encourage the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, through the letter proposed in Document 7, to address issues that have arisen through this process, including the consideration of social aspects in environmental lands protection, development of a Provincial policy of compensation and associated incentives for landowners to encourage environmental protection on private lands and clarification of the Provincial Policy Statement interpretation when dealing with conflicting resource protection, such as mineral aggregates and wetlands.

5. Confirm that the Official Plan wetland designation process, initiated by the City in 2005, and the existing wetland evaluation study, are cancelled and withdrawn for those areas under review within the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward, including those lands that are subject to the completion of new drainage works. Further, a re-evaluation of the wetland status of the subject lands, as defined in this report, will not occur unless the following conditions are met:

a. For those lands within the influence area of the drainage corrections proposed in this report and outlined in Document 3, the wetland status of the lands will not be re-evaluated any sooner than a period of five years after the undertaking of the drainage works (expected in 2007), nor will a re-evaluation occur before completion of recommendations 3, 4, 6 and 7 and initiation of recommendation 8;

b. For those lands outside the influence of the planned drainage corrections, the wetland status of these lands will not be re-evaluated before completion of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System review by the Ministry of Natural Resources and completion of recommendations 3, 4, 6 and 7 and initiation of recommendation 8;

c. For those lands within existing designated Limestone Resource Areas, they shall remain as limestone resource through the 2008 Official Plan review.

6. Direct staff to refine its process for notification and involvement of landowners in the identification and application of conservation measures for newly identified environmental areas as part of the 2008 Official Plan review process, taking into consideration early stakeholder involvement, social and environmental factors and the applicability of the suite of conservation measures summarized in this report.

7. Direct staff to include a 2007 budget pressure of $50,000 in order to develop a compensation policy to accompany the relevant conservation measures available to the City or its agency partners in the conservation of environmental lands.

8. Direct staff to conduct an education program that addresses the value of wetlands, the land use implications of zoned and designated environmental lands and the responsibilities of landowners and the municipality in the maintenance of municipal drains, ward drains and private property drainage and in the protection of our shared groundwater resources.

9. Communicate the results of this wetland resolution process and the report outcome to all landowners within the subject lands and adjacent lands of the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn.

10. Extend the role of the Wetland Stakeholders’ Group and continue to engage the Group in actions arising from the recommendations, such as in the establishment of a baseline for the purpose of monitoring environmental changes, the monitoring itself, the development of the compensation policy and the establishment of the education program.

11. WHEREAS the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee has recommended that Council direct staff to include a 2007 budget pressure of $50,000 in order to develop a compensation policy to accompany the relevant conservation measures available to the City or its agency partners in the conservation of environmental lands (per Recommendation 7); and

WHEREAS the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee has recommended that Council direct staff to conduct an education program that addresses the value of wetlands, the land use implications of zoned and designated environmental lands and the responsibilities of landowners and the municipality in the maintenance of municipal drains, ward drains and private property drainage and in the protection of our shared groundwater resources (per Recommendation 8);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council consider the appropriate allocation of financial resources in the 2007 budget deliberation to enable these works to be completed by winter 2007/spring 2008.

12. That staff be directed to request the Ministry of Natural Resources to review Wetland Designation Criteria in concert with City of Ottawa staff in light of the recommendations coming out of the Goulbourn Wetland consultation process;

And further, that staff report back to the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) with a progress report encompassing all the recommendations.

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du comitÉ

Que le Conseil municipal approuve les recommendations modifiées qui suivent :

1. de charger le personnel de prendre les mesures voulues pour l’entretien et l’amélioration de l’installation de drainage municipale Hobbs en vue de rétablir le drainage des eaux de surface du secteur situé au nord du chemin Flewellyn dans l’état où il était avant l’aménagement, comme le définit le présent rapport, sous réserve de l’évaluation des bienfaits sur l'environnement de chaque mesure recommandée.

2. de charger le personnel, dans le cadre du processus visant à désigner le ruisseau Flowing comme étant une installation de drainage municipale, lequel fait l’objet d’un rapport distinct qui sera soumis au Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales le 22 juin 2006 :

a. de surveiller les changements environnementaux résultant des mesures prises, en définissant à l’avance les conditions de base et en suivant annuellement leur évolution après la réalisation des travaux d’amélioration;

b. de rendre compte annuellement des résultats de la surveillance au Comité et au Conseil chaque année ou lorsque l’on observe un changement important dans la végétation, la santé du ruisseau ou le drainage des eaux de surface.

3. de charger le personnel de continuer à participer à la révision de l’Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) effectuée par le ministère des Richesses naturelles par les moyens suivants :

a. en envoyant au ministre une lettre (voir document 6 ci joint) recommandant que la mise à jour de l’OWES précise clairement les espèces habitant en milieu humide, réexamine les critères pour le regroupement des terres humides, distingue les milieux humides naturels de ceux créés par l’homme, reconsidère la valeur pondérale accordée aux terrains en fonction des facteurs sociaux, tienne davantage compte des facteurs sociaux tels que le régime foncier, la densité de la population et la durée de résidence, et que la mise à jour de la valeur sociale des terres humides reflète l’utilisation et la valeur actuelles des terres humides dans la société;

b. en participant directement et par l’entremise de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario (AMO) à la séance de consultation ciblée qui aura lieu plus tard en 2006.

4. de charger le personnel d’inciter, au moyen de la lettre proposée au document 7, le ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement à se pencher sur les questions soulevées au cours du processus, notamment l’examen des aspects sociaux dans la protection des terres à valeur écologique, l’élaboration d’une politique provinciale portant sur la compensation et les mesures incitatives connexes destinées aux propriétaires afin de favoriser la protection des terres privées à valeur écologique, et la clarification de l’interprétation de la Déclaration de principes provinciale dans le cas de la protection de ressources conflictuelles, comme le granulat minéral et les terres humides.

5. de confirmer l’annulation du processus de désignation des terres humides entrepris par la Ville en 2005 et de l’étude d’évaluation des terres humides actuellement en cours ainsi que leur retrait du Plan officiel pour les zones à l’étude dans le secteur du chemin Flewellyn, dans le quartier Goulbourn, y compris les terres sur lesquelles de nouvelles installations de drainage doivent être construites, et d’interdire, en outre, toute réévaluation du classement des terres humides définies dans le présent rapport à moins que les conditions suivantes soient réunies :

a. pour les terres situées dans la zone d’influence des améliorations de drainage proposées dans le présent rapport et décrites dans le document 3, que cinq années se soient écoulées depuis le début des travaux d’aménagement de l’ouvrage de drainage (prévu en 2007), que les recommandations 3, 4, 6 et 7 aient été mises en œuvre et qu’ait été entreprise la mise en œuvre de la recommandation 8;

b. pour les terres situées à l’extérieur de la zone d’influence des améliorations de drainage prévues, que le ministère des Richesses naturelles ait terminé la révision de l’Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, que les recommandations 3, 4, 6 et 7 aient été mises en œuvre et qu’ait été entreprise la mise en œuvre de la recommandation 8;

c. pour les terres situées dans le secteur actuellement désigné zone de ressources calcaires, qu’elles demeurent des ressources calcaires jusqu’à la révision de 2008 du Plan officiel.

6. de charger le personnel d’améliorer le processus par lequel les propriétaires seront avisés des terrains qui auront été désignés aires environnementales dans le cadre de la révision de 2008 du Plan officiel et seront invités à participer à la détermination et à la mise en œuvre de mesures de conservation à leur égard, de manière à ce que les intervenants soient intéressés au processus dès le début, et à ce que celui ci tienne compte des facteurs sociaux et environnementaux ainsi que de l’applicabilité de la série de mesures de conservation résumées dans le présent rapport.

7. de charger le personnel d’inclure en 2007 une pression budgétaire de 50 000 $ afin d’élaborer une politique de compensation pour accompagner les mesures de conservation pertinentes que la Ville ou ses organismes partenaires peuvent prendre pour la conservation des terres à valeur écologique.

8. de charger le personnel de mettre en œuvre un programme éducatif expliquant la valeur des terres humides, les conséquences pour l’utilisation du sol associées à un zonage ou à une désignation de terre à valeur écologique et les responsabilités des propriétaires et de la Ville relatives à l’entretien des installations de drainage municipales, de celles des quartiers et des propriétés privées de même qu’à la protection de nos ressources communes en eaux souterraines.

9. de communiquer les résultats du processus de résolution des problèmes liés aux terres humides et de ce rapport à tous les propriétaires des terrains concernés et des terres adjacentes du secteur du chemin Flewellyn, à Goulbourn.

10. d’élargir le rôle du groupe d’intervenants dans le domaine des terres humides et de continuer à faire participer le groupe à des mesures découlant de recommandations, comme l’établissement d’un point de référence pour la surveillance des changements environnementaux, la surveillance en soi, l’élaboration de la politique de compensation et la mise en œuvre du programme éducatif;

11. ATTENDU QUE le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales a recommandé que le Conseil municipal charge le personnel d’inclure dans le budget de 2007 des crédits de 50 000 $ afin d’élaborer une politique de compensation pour accompagner les mesures de conservation pertinentes que la Ville ou ses organismes partenaires peuvent prendre pour la conservation des terres à valeur écologique (conformément à la recommandation 7);

ATTENDU QUE le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales a recommandé que le Conseil municipal charge le personnel de mettre en œuvre un programme éducatif expliquant la valeur des terres humides, les conséquences pour l’utilisation du sol associées à un zonage ou à une désignation de terre à valeur écologique et les responsabilités des propriétaires et de la Ville relatives à l’entretien des installations de drainage municipales, de celles des quartiers et des propriétés privées de même qu’à la protection de nos ressources communes en eaux souterraines (conformément à la recommandation 8);

IL EST DÉCIDÉ que le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales recommandera au Conseil de se pencher sur l’affectation appropriée des ressources financières dans le budget de 2007 pour permettre l’achèvement de ces projets d’ici à l’hiver 2007 ou au printemps 2008.

12. de charger le personnel de demander au ministère des Richesses naturelles de passer en revue les critères de désignation des terres humides, en collaboration avec le personnel de la Ville d’Ottawa, à la lumière des recommandations découlant du processus de consultation sur les terres humides du secteur de Goulbourn;

de demander au personnel de soumettre au Comité consultatif sur les questions rurales et au Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales un rapport d’étape comprenant toutes les recommandations.

Documentation

1. Acting Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth Management report dated 15 June 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-POL-0056).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes 29, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of June 22, 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

15 June 2006 / le 15 juin 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par : John L. Moser,

Acting Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint par intérim,

Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Dennis Jacobs, Director

Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy/

Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x25521, Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca

Bell-South Nepean (3), Kanata (4), West Carleton (5), Goulbourn (6), Gloucester-Southgate (10), Cumberland (19), Osgoode (20), Rideau (21)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PGM-POL-0056

POL

SUBJECT:	INTERIM REPORT - WETLANDS RESOLUTION WORKPLAN

OBJET :	RAPPORT PROVISOIRE - PLAN DE TRAVAIL POUR LA RÉSOLUTION DES PROBLÈMES LIÉS AUX TERRES HUMIDES

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve the following:

2. As part of the process to declare Flowing Creek a Municipal Drain which is subject to a separate report to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on June 22, 2006, direct staff to:

a. Monitor environmental changes as a result of these actions by establishing a baseline in advance and annual monitoring after the corrective works are undertaken;

b. Report annually to Committee and Council on the monitoring results or when significant landscape changes in vegetation, creek health or surface drainage are observed.

3. Direct staff to continue to provide feedback to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) through:

b. participation in the targeted consultation later in 2006 as a direct participant and through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

c. For those lands within existing designated Limestone Resource Areas, they shall remain as limestone resource through the 2008 Official Plan review.

9. Communicate the results of this wetland resolution process and the report outcome to all landowners within the subject lands and adjacent lands of the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil municipal :

3. de charger le personnel de continuer à participer à la révision de l’Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) effectuée par le ministère des Richesses naturelles par les moyens suivants :

a. en envoyant au ministre une lettre (voir document 6 ci‑joint) recommandant que la mise à jour de l’OWES précise clairement les espèces habitant en milieu humide, réexamine les critères pour le regroupement des terres humides, distingue les milieux humides naturels de ceux créés par l’homme, reconsidère la valeur pondérale accordée aux terrains en fonction des facteurs sociaux, tienne davantage compte des facteurs sociaux tels que le régime foncier, la densité de la population et la durée de résidence, et que la mise à jour de la valeur sociale des terres humides reflète l’utilisation et la valeur actuelles des terres humides dans la société;

b. en participant directement et par l’entremise de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario (AMO) à la séance de consultation ciblée qui aura lieu plus tard en 2006.

c. pour les terres situées dans le secteur actuellement désigné zone de ressources calcaires, qu’elles demeurent des ressources calcaires jusqu’à la révision de 2008 du Plan officiel.

6. de charger le personnel d’améliorer le processus par lequel les propriétaires seront avisés des terrains qui auront été désignés aires environnementales dans le cadre de la révision de 2008 du Plan officiel et seront invités à participer à la détermination et à la mise en œuvre de mesures de conservation à leur égard, de manière à ce que les intervenants soient intéressés au processus dès le début, et à ce que celui‑ci tienne compte des facteurs sociaux et environnementaux ainsi que de l’applicabilité de la série de mesures de conservation résumées dans le présent rapport.

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the City was made aware of the potential for unevaluated wetlands in Goulbourn Ward through a development application for a rural residential subdivision at 6851 Flewellyn Road. Further work through a contracted wetland evaluator indicated the presence of Provincially Significant Wetlands in the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward. This finding was confirmed through the Provinicial Ministry of Natural Resources.

As discussions proceeded with affected landowners in the newly identified wetland areas, concerns arose regarding the impact to landowners should the designation of their lands change to significant wetland from the current designations of either General Rural, Rural Natural Feature or Limestone Resource Area. The wetlands topic featured prominently in the community-led Rural Summit in late 2005 that led to a commitment from the City to balance landowner needs with environmental protection/goals for the greater community good.

The situation in Ottawa is unique – only a few other jurisdictions have newly identified significant wetlands in settlement areas. Within southwestern Ontario, the majority if not all of existing wetlands have been identified and protected.

A workplan to implement a resolution process for wetlands issues was approved by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) on March 9, 2006 and Council on April 12, 2006. The approved workplan was to address the following:

· drainage issues that have developed over time within the Flewellyn Road area;

· concerns with the wetland identification, evaluation and notification processes;

· options, as alternatives to Official Plan designation, for environmental lands protection in the City; and

· a resolution for the landowners within the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn.

This report provides an interim status update and recommendations for completed workplan items and next steps required to achieve an approach to wetlands protection that balances meeting this objective for the greater community good with landowner needs.

DISCUSSION

Following approval of the wetlands resolution workplan by ARAC, City staff established a Wetland Stakeholder Group comprised of representatives from landowner, environmental and mineral aggregate groups, relevant agencies, Councillors' offices and City staff. Document 1 provides the Terms of Reference established for this group.

Overview of Wetlands Resolution Process

Between early April and June, the Wetland Stakeholder group met on a bi-weekly basis to share information and to review City staff progress on the workplan components. Topics covered through the group's six meetings included extensive discussions on the changes in surface water drainage that have occurred north of Flewellyn Road over the past 20 to 30 years and possible solutions for correcting this situation, a presentation from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) on the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES), discussion of concerns with this evaluation system and the City's process for wetlands protection, a presentation on various conservation measure alternatives for environmental lands protection and clarification of the MNR's current review of the OWES and respective roles of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the City in wetlands protection.

For the Wetland Stakeholder Group's last two meetings in June, the group worked through to an agreement on the recommendations included in this report. The basis for these recommendations is presented through the following sections with a summary of the workplan status provided in Document 2.

Drainage

Landowners in the vicinity of the intersection of Conley and Flewellyn Roads have noted significant changes in the surface water drainage of this area over the past 20 to 30 years. In particular, nearby residents have observed an increase in the local beaver population that has led to the blocking of water that previously flowed to Flowing Creek. In addition, a combination of unmaintained and newly established private ditches have further prevented the natural flow of water to Flowing Creek. The landowners in this area noted that this re-direction of surface water flows has resulted in larger quantities of water flowing to the Hobbs Municipal Drain that sometimes floods onto private property. This situation had also appeared to be worsening in recent years.

Through 2005 to the present, the Ward Councillor's office has been working with Drainage Services staff in the Public Works and Services Department to review the effectiveness of the local municipal drains and to respond to the increased number of beaver in the area. The City retained a trapper to remove the beavers in this area and the trapper worked through the spring of 2006 to remove beavers and discourage any potential new residents. Staff will also initiate maintenance works along the Hobbs Drain in 2006 to further improve the water flow through this municipal drain.

In addition to the surface drainage improvements being undertaken, the City retained Robinson Consultants Inc. to review the potential impacts of development on the surface water drainage changes reported by residents. This work included a review of drainage reports, subwatershed boundaries and area development over the past 30 years along with field reconnaissance and modelling of the expected flows within the Conley Road area. Robinson Consultants concluded that the Conely/Flewellyn Road area had previously seen less water flow through the Hobbs Drain Extension than at present mainly due to an increase in drainage area of approximately 570 ha, from an original 75 ha to a current 720 ha, in the area upstream or north of Flewellyn Road. Further details on this review are within the engineering report prepared by Robinson Consultants, Drainage Investigation - Hobbs Drain Extension, Conley Branch, provided as Document 3.

The main recommendation of this report is to return the drainage area to the pre-existing conditions described in this report, believed to have been in place 20 to 25 years ago. Restoring to these conditions will involve a series of actions to re-direct the drainage from the 570 ha currently flowing to the Hobbs Drain (see Figure 1.1 of Document 3) back to Flowing Creek. The objective is to return the drainage area for the Hobbs Drain Extension to the situation depicted on Figure 2.3 of the Drainage Investigation report in Document 3.

While the work was underway these past few months to review drainage changes in the Flewellyn Road area, Mr. Mike Westley, a Flewellyn Road resident, undertook to speak to all his neighbours along Flowing Creek to gain their agreement to petition to establish Flowing Creek as a Municipal Drain. Mr. Westley obtained 100% of the required signatures and has submitted the residents request to the Public Works and Services Department. Staff will present a separate report to Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on June 22, 2006 to request approval to proceed with contracting for an Engineer's Report, according to the requirements of the Drainage Act, to declare Flowing Creek as a Municipal Drain. Part of the review for this process will include an assessment of the environmental implications by Marshall Macklin Monaghan, the consultants retained by the Planning and Growth Management Department to conduct a subwatershed plan for Reach 2 of the Jock River (Flowing Creek). Preliminary expectations are for a potential positive outcome of the environmental review of declaring Flowing Creek as a Municipal Drain because environmental impacts are experienced downstream of this area due to low watercourse flows during summer months.

Should Flowing Creek be declared a Municipal Drain, the expected maintenance works to correct surface drainage to Flowing Creek would likely occur in 2007. In concert with the subwatershed plan work and recommendations, City staff propose to monitor the environmental impacts of the drainage corrections and report annually on the results to Committee and Council.

Options for Environmental Lands Protection within the City

In addition to concerns with wetland evaluation and protection processes, participants in the Rural Summit and many Goulbourn landowners emphasized that they value and wish to protect wetlands, but would like to see more flexibility through alternatives to Official Plan designation as potential conservation measures along with some form of compensation for retention of their lands in a natural state. As part of this workplan, City staff undertook a review of available conservation measures for environmental lands protection. The range of measures in use within mainly Ontario and Canada is summarized in Document 4 - Available Conservation Measures for Environmental Lands Protection.

A number of organizations at all levels of government as well as non-government organizations provide a range of incentives or programs for environmental lands protection. Although there are several variations documented, the types of conservation measures fall into two main categories that involve either land acquisition by an agency or landowner retention of the identified environmental lands combined with an agreement or incentive for maintaining lands in a natural state. This document was prepared for discussion by the Wetland Stakeholder Group through its meetings in April and May of 2006. Given the unique situation within Goulbourn Ward in regard to landowner concerns with drainage issues, the wetland evaluation system and the current review of this system by the MNR, the conservation options identified in this report are not applicable to the Goulbourn situation at this time. However, they will provide a strong foundation for proceeding with development of a revised environmental lands protection policy, recommended through this report and anticipated to be part of the City's 2008 Official Plan review.

As staff and the Wetland Stakeholder Group proceeded through the approved wetlands resolution workplan, the information review revealed that City staff, residents and others could benefit from enhanced information on processes and respective responsibilities in the areas of surface drainage, groundwater and wetlands. For example, a combination of drainage action and inaction has led to an increased volume of water directed to the Hobbs Drain Extension with occasional flooding impacts on nearby landowners. Responsibilities for drain maintenance varies, resting with either the municipality or the landowner, depending on whether water is flowing through a Municipal Drain or a private one. In addition, any drain maintenance activities must be conducted without causing environmental impacts. On the benefits of wetlands, it would be helpful for all to understand the value of the ecological functions that wetlands provide to our quality of life through cleaning of our air and water, provision of diverse animal and vegetation habitat and water quantity control as well as allowable land use activities within wetlands.

To assist with building materials for education on drainage, groundwater and wetlands, Document 5 provides examples of existing materials on wetlands and municipal drains and a summary of environmental considerations and approach for drain maintenance. City staff will build on these materials to develop this report's recommended education program.

Wetlands Identification, Evaluation and Notification Processes

Through the Rural Summit proceedings and through the current work on the wetlands resolution workplan, Goulbourn landowners have expressed a number of concerns with the identification, evaluation and notification processes for wetlands. Through these discussions, it has become evident that the current process for City protection of wetlands through Official Plan designation results in notification that is too late for landowners to participate or have a say in the process and understand the implications. Through discussions on the approach that the City undertook for the newly identified wetland areas in Goulbourn ward, staff agree with landowners that any potentially affected landowners should have been notified of the wetland evaluation as soon as feasible within the process. Much angst and concern could have been averted through an early discussion of the proposed work and potential results. The City will undertake to initiate any future environmental lands protection processes according to the principle of early notification and consultation with potentially affected landowners and inclusion of landowner involvement throughout the process.

The past year of landowner, Rural Summit and wetland stakeholder discussions has also brought forward a number of landowner concerns with the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES). Many of these have been explored in detail with representatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources. As well, senior staff from the City and the Ministries of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing participated in a teleconference on April 21st to allow the City to present community suggestions for enhanced consideration of social factors within the wetland evaluation system and to explore potential options in application of the wetlands policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. A review of the OWES is currently underway that is mainly an update of the system to incorporate any recent scientific knowledge advances and with a focus to confirm the validity of the criteria applied to complex additional wetlands with existing significant wetlands.

This report proposes that the City further document community concerns with the OWES to the Minister of Natural Resources. The proposed letter, outlining further suggestions for consideration within the OWES in the areas of social impact assessment, assignment of points to social factors, clarification of wetland indicator species and re-examination of the criteria used for complexing of additional lands to Provincially Significant Wetlands is provided as Document 6.

In addition, City staff propose to forward a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, attached as Document 7, to encourage the Province to incorporate social impact factors when applying wetlands protection policies within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Their assistance will also be requested for the City's development of a compensation policy to encourage private landowners to maintain wetlands and other environmentally significant lands in a natural state. Finally, assistance is also being sought in interpretation of the PPS when addressing conflicting resource protection policies, such as mineral aggregates and wetlands.

Resolution for Landowners in Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward

The City initiated an Official Plan Amendment process in April 2005 to designate additional lands in Goulbourn Ward as significant wetlands, as a result of a wetland evaluation undertaken in the Flewellyn Road area. This process started in 2004 with City review of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that accompanied an application for a rural residential subdivision proposed for a designated Rural Natural Feature at 6851 Flewellyn Road. The EIS indicated presence of a wetland on this property and a file review by MNR suggested the potential for more wetlands nearby. The resulting wetland evaluation concluded that 262 hectares of land, owned by 60 different landowners, met the criteria to complex 20 additional land areas with the existing Provincially Significant Goulbourn Wetland Complex.

Since April 2005, the City has been in discussions with the potentially affected landowners on various aspects of the wetland evaluation and protection and landowner notification processes. Many of the landowner concerns that formed the basis of these discussions and of the workplan that is the subject of this report, are being addressed through this report’s proposed recommendations. The resolutions are a mix of short term and longer-term actions, as follows:

· Immediate correction is underway to re-direct surface water flows away from the Hobbs Drain Extension and associated properties by removing beavers that have blocked the natural course of water flow to Flowing Creek; as well, this summer will see drain maintenance within the Hobbs Drain;

· Medium-term drainage solutions include work to declare Flowing Creek a Municipal Drain to prevent future drainage re-alignments and property flooding due to a lack of drainage maintenance;

· Medium-term results from the MNR’s review of their Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, including the criteria for complexing wetlands, scheduled for public comment towards the end of 2006;

· Medium to longer-term policy changes within the City, and hopefully the Province, in the processes for identifying and protecting environmental lands;

· Short to longer-term education program to enhance our collective understanding of surface water drainage, groundwater management and wetlands protection and to support any new or revised policy considerations in the area of compensation and environmental lands protection.

Two main aspects of these recommendations, being the drainage corrections and the outcome of the MNR’s OWES evaluation, will likely impact upon the status of lands for Goulbourn landowners. As well, over the next few years the City’s has committed to revise its environmental lands protection policies to incorporate conservation measures as alternatives to Official Plan (OP) designation with associated compensation consideration. As a result, the wetland resolution process conducted over the past few months with the Wetland Stakeholder Group has led staff to conclude that cancelling the OP wetland designation process and associated wetland evaluation study best fits the situation for landowners within the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn ward. The results of the proposed drainage changes, the review underway of the wetland evaluation system and development of a revised environmental lands protection policy must occur prior to any re-evaluation of the Goulbourn lands.

The City will continue to represent social concerns and impacts for consideration by the MNR in the wetland evaluation process and by the MMAH in interpretation and implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement. The impacts of drainage changes will be monitored annually. No re-examination of the status of these lands will occur prior to five years after the drainage corrections. This time period will allow any changes in vegetation type, such as wetland to more upland species, to occur. For those land areas which include both mineral aggregate resource and potential wetland areas, staff recommend that the existing designation of Limestone Resource Area be maintained in the upcoming 2008 Official Plan review.

The Wetland Stakeholder Group achieved unanimous agreement with all recommendations in this report, except Recommendation 5 which proposed that the City cancel and withdraw the wetland designation process and supporting wetland study. Members of the Friends of the Jock River and of the Environmental and Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committees expressed concern that the City would not be able to meet its obligation to protect wetlands as directed by the Provincial Policy Statement. There is the risk that development applications will be submitted for properties in the Goulbourn area and these will be addressed by staff according to the existing OP designations of either General Rural, Rural Natural Feature or Limestone Resource Area that comprise the subject lands. Staff have concluded that the outstanding questions and policy changes need to be addressed for Goulbourn residents in this area. Further, the full set of recommendations in this report consists of actions that demonstrate the City’s ongoing commitment to fulfill its wetland protection responsibilities under the Provincial Policy Statement while being responsive to evolving community issues.

The proposed action for the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn does not impact upon other wetland areas that may be identified for protection. The City will continue to address new significant wetland areas as they come forward, incorporating enhanced landowner involvement in the identification and protection processes, according to the lessons gained within Goulbourn.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The workplan progress, that is the subject of this report, explored community concerns that arose with the combined City and Provincial process for evaluating and protecting wetlands. The objective of this existing approach, as directed in the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and the City's Official Plan (2003), is to maintain identified ecologically significant lands in their natural state so as to protect the natural features and functions of these lands. For example, wetland functions include provision of habitat for diverse wildlife and plant species (specific features), cleaning of water that passes through to our surface and groundwaters, surface water runoff control, cleaning of air and retention of carbon dioxide. The City maintains its objective to protect wetlands. The result, however, of this workplan is to seek changes at both the Provincial and municipal levels to protect wetlands in such a way that private landowners are not unduly impacted and do not bear the entire burden of protecting newly identified ecologically significant areas that benefit the community as a whole.

This report recommends that the City develop an incentive and compensation policy to encourage private landowners to maintain environment lands in a natural state and that the City encourage the Province to address an appropriate compensation policy. This will be undertaken in 2007 with the retention of a consultant and a budget implication of $50,000. The City's policy will aim to link compensation to the adequate valuing of ecological goods and services provided by identified natural lands. In addition to providing a relevant basis for the provision of incentives or compensation (such as water treatment, quantity control, sequestering of carbon or provision of habitat), this approach will have an additional benefit. It will encourage the consideration of the value of natural lands according to their inherent characteristics and the benefits they provide rather than just the economic value that is often given through the assessment of the "highest and best use of lands" in a development context.

The work proposed in this report is expected to lead towards broader community acceptance of the value, need and approach for environmental lands protection. By changing its own approach to environmental lands identification and protection, as well as by encouraging the Province to review its own relevant processes and policies, the City will be better situated to adequately protect ecologically significant lands and local natural systems processes upon which we depend for our quality of life. Developing and implementing the proposed changes to our processes will in turn meet our Environmental Strategy (2003) commitments to incorporate environmental factors and to take an ecosystem management approach in the development and implementation of City policies and programs.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The wetlands resolution workplan and resulting recommendations address rural concerns impacts upon private landowners as a result of environmental lands protection. These issues arose through 2005 when the City initiated an Official Plan Amendment process to designate newly identified Provincially Significant Wetlands within the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward.

This workplan was completed through a close working relationship with an established Wetland Stakeholder group that included rural representation from the Goulbourn Landowners Group, the Rural Council of Ottawa-Carleton, the Carleton Landowners Association and the City's Rural Affairs Office. In addition, City staff and a few Goulbourn landowners presented the draft recommendations of this report to the Rural Issues Advisory Committee on June 6, 2006. This Committee received the interim report on the wetlands resolution workplan progress and endorsed the recommendations, pending agreement amongst the stakeholder group on the wording of the recommendations, in particular for the current Recommendation 5 that directly impacts the Goulbourn landowners. This agreement was achieved at the Wetland Stakeholder Group meeting of June 9, 2006.

CONSULTATION

The interim wetlands resolution workplan results and recommended next steps were conducted through a workgroup with representatives from groups of rural landowners, local and City-wide community environmental interests, the mineral aggregate industry, City staff as well as from relevant agencies. Representatives from the City's Environmental and Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committees were members of the Wetland Stakeholder Group. In addition, City staff presented the workplan progress to the newly formed Rural Issues Advisory Committee.

The Wetland Stakeholder Group met bi-weekly to discuss progress on the wetlands resolution workplan and worked together to reach an agreement for a set of interim recommendations as presented in this report. These recommendations resolve drainage and wetlands concerns for Goulbourn landowners and set a direction for establishing an approach for environmental lands protection that is both consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and will not unduly impact upon private landowners.

City staff have also shared community concerns on the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and application of the Provincial Policy Statement with senior and professional staff within the Ministries of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing. Staff representatives from these Ministries have also been apprised of workplan progress over the past three months. This report includes recommendations for further formal documentation of issue areas to address regarding wetlands evaluation and environmental lands protection. This will result in an ongoing conversation with these agencies to resolve wetlands concerns.

A public meeting with Goulbourn landowners within the identified wetland and adjacent lands has been scheduled for June 19, 2006, to update them on the recommendations of this report, and to primarily advise landowners of the cancellation of the Official Plan Amendment wetland designation process that the City initiated in 2005.

For the work that will continue on resolving wetlands protection and landowner needs, all members of the stakeholder workgroup indicated their wish to continue to be involved. Regular communication and consultation is expected with these members as well as with an expanded representation of broader stakeholder interests as the City's wetland protection policy is revised.

The process employed to arrive at the proposed interim recommendations for wetlands resolution has resulted in the development of a comprehensive approach within a relatively short period of time. The proposed approach is understood by a broad range of interests and is one with which most participants can agree or, where there is disagreement, understand the rationale. It is believed that the resolution process will result in a successful change to City, and hopefully Provincial, policies that addresses all aspects of our community's needs.

This situation also demonstrates the close relationship that exists between municipalities and their communities and provides an example of how the City can respond to evolving community needs. Given that the future for the protection of wetlands and other environmentally significant lands will increasingly rely on landowner cooperation, the City strongly encourages the Provincial government to consider the lessons learned within Ottawa and work with the City of Ottawa to refine associated Provincial processes and policies.

Although the wetlands designation process and wetland evaluation study are cancelled and withdrawn for the affected Goulbourn landowners, this recommendation is specific to the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn, to allow for the additional drainage and policy works to be conducted to address landowner concerns. Other evaluated wetland areas will be subject to the enhanced process to be developed as a result of the Goulbourn experience, however, steps to meet municipal obligations for the protection of these lands will proceed. For the Goulbourn area, there is the potential for new development applications to be submitted prior to completion of the works proposed in Recommendations 5, 6 and 7. Staff will be obligated to apply the policies of the existing land use designation for these lands when reviewing these applications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Much of the tasks for the next steps in the wetlands resolution workplan will be conducted through existing resources within the Planning and Growth Management Department. This includes tasks such as the preparation and delivery of education materials, participation in the MNR's review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and ongoing communications with an expanded group of wetland stakeholders. As well, the environmental review of the proposed engineer's report for changing Flowing Creek to a Municipal Drain, and the recommended monitoring to follow the conduct of the drainage corrections, are proposed to be completed through the completion of the subwatershed plan for Flowing Creek, being prepared by the consulting firm of Marshall Macklin Monaghan.

Some financial impacts are expected from the recommended works for refinement of the City's environmental lands protection policy to include consideration of the conservation measures outlined in this report along with incentives and appropriate compensation for private landowners. This work is estimated to require a consulting contract of approximately $50,000 and will be submitted for consideration in the City's 2007 budget process.

Any additional costs expected through the Drainage Act process for Flowing Creek will be addressed in the separate report for this subject.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Wetland Stakeholder Group Terms of Reference

Document 2 – Status of Work Program for Resolution of Wetland Concerns

Document 3 – Drainage Review Report from Robinson Consultants

Document 4 – Summary of Available Conservation Measures for Environmental Lands Protection

Document 5 – Preliminary Education Materials for Wetlands and Drainage

Document 6 – Proposed Letter to Minister of Natural Resources

Document 7 – Proposed Letter to Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

DISPOSITION

Drainage Services staff within Public Works and Services will lead all the surface drainage and Municipal Drain works referenced in this report, with support from the Environmental Sustainability Division in Planning and Growth Management for the environmental impact assessment and environmental monitoring of any drainage changes. Environmental Sustainability Division will coordinate all the communications, education and policy development activities within this report, in cooperation with the Provincial Ministries of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing, the local Conservation Authorities and other City programs, as appropriate.

WETLAND STAKEHOLDER GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE DOCUMENT 1

May 2006

Mandate

To work with City staff to provide input, feedback and recommendations as activities progress according to the workplan to resolve wetlands issues, as approved by Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on March 9, 2006. The term of this group will extend until approximately mid-June, with end of term established with submission of report to Agricultural & Rural Affairs on June 22, 2006.

Responsibilities

Information will be exchanged amongst the group, including reports from City staff, through bi-weekly meetings as well as through e-mail, as the work proceeds. The group will discuss and evaluate potential options addressing the following items from the workplan:

Assessment of drainage issues within Goulbourn ward, including review of development impacts and integration of surface and groundwater considerations of observed impacts or for any recommended changes;
Clarification of wetland evaluation and identification process;
Options for addressing environmental lands protection in Goulbourn;
Options for broader environmental lands protection within the City;
Options for landowner incentives/compensation re: environmental lands protection; and
Consideration of the socio-economic impacts of wetland protection.

The results of this evaluation, including recommendations, will be documented in the report to Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee in June.

Representation

The Wetland Stakeholder Group will include representation from the following organizations and community groups:

· the Rural Task Force;

· Goulbourn Landowners Group;

· Ottawa-Carleton Rural Council;

· Environmental/Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committees;

· local Conservation Authorities;

· Ministry of Natural Resources;

· Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing;

· Councillor Stavinga's Office;

· Councillor Glenn Brooks’ Office;

· Carleton Landowners Association;

· Friends of the Jock; and

· Ontario Stone Sand and Gravel Association.

City Staff Support

The Planning & Growth Management Department has lead responsibility for completing the wetlands resolution workplan through this stakeholder group. Support will be provided, as needed, from the City Manager’s Office, Public Works and Services (Drainage Services), Legal Services, Real Estate Services.

Wetland Stakeholder Group Deliverable

A report to Agricultural & Rural Affairs Committee in June, 2006, providing recommendations for addressing identified drainage issues, wetland identification and protection measures, an approach for addressing the Goulbourn landowner concerns regarding wetlands and options for broader City policies regarding environmental lands protection.

Proposed Workplan Schedule

April 5, 2006 Meeting

Initial meeting of Wetland Stakeholder Group
Detailed review of Goulbourn wetland and drainage issues

April 26, 2006 Meeting

Update on workplan progress – drainage, alternative conservation measures
Scoping of group work and likely report to Committee

May 5, 2006 Meeting

Review options for conservation, including pros & cons (alternatives to Official Plan designation)
Discuss preliminary report outline

May 19, 2006 Meeting

Discuss Results of Drainage Review with Frank Hendriksen / include obtaining information from/Invite MTO representative to discuss Highway 7 construction / drainage plans
Detailed review of wetland evaluation and identification process
Draft report on property value impact of environmental designations

May 26, 2006 – circulate draft report for comment

June 2, 2006 Meeting

Finalize report content
Address any outstanding issues
Discussion of Socioeconomic impact assessment

June 8, 2006 – Final Report

June 22, 2006 – Report at the Agricultural & Rural Affairs Committee

*Workplan Action*	*Status*	*Next steps*
Clarify understanding of proposed Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and submit relevant City issues for consideration in the review	Telephone conversations with relevant MNR staff and conduct of a teleconference on April 21^st with senior staff from City, MNR & Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing (MMAH) · Overall, there was a positive commitment to work together and a promise from the Provincial representatives that they would review and consider the results from our work for the potential of use in other areas of the Province. This statement was qualified by the fact that all agencies are bound to meeting the Provincial Policy Statement; · MNR presentation of the project scope for the 2006 review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) - it is mainly focused on complexing criteria, update of the evaluation approach with current scientific knowledge and a few housekeeping items. MNR noted that it is difficult for them to build social impacts such as property value, restricted use, into what they term is a scientific evaluation system. The wetland evaluation system currently includes hunting, fishing & plant economic benefits of wetlands. · MMAH will look into landowner concerns regarding wetlands/environmental lands designation elsewhere in Ont. · City of Ottawa will share results of research re: impact of environmental designations on property value; · MNR will consider City as potential consultative member for the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System review results once available later this year; · MNR and MMAH will consider any conservation options identified by the City as alternatives to OP designation.	· City to continue exchange of information with MNR & MMAH representatives, working towards resolution of achieving a balance between environmental protection and landowner needs in land use planning · City to provide further comments on concerns with factors within the wetland evaluation system and input to MNR’s OWES review results during anticipated fall targeted consultation, either directly as a consultative member or through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
Discuss likely direction and timing of MNR review with stakeholders	City staff reported the above noted teleconference results to the Wetland Stakeholder Group through the meeting of April 26^th; Provincial staff remained connected to the groups activities through e-mail and telephone communications, attending the stakeholder group meetings when feasible.	Share future developments of this review with interested stakeholders through appropriate communication methods.
Explore broad range of options for wetland conservation and identify alternatives to Official Plan designation; alternatives include range of approaches to land conservation and landowner compensation	City staff have reviewed available literature and contacted relevant agencies to explore the range of conservation measures in practice and applicable to Ontario. These measures are described in a separate document, Landowner Options for Wetland Protection and incorporated into potential options for the City’s approach to wetland protection.	The City to continue to share this information with landowners and relevant agencies. The City to advocate adoption of enhanced incentives by provincial and federal governments towards the objective of shared burden of environmental lands protection by the entire community.

*Action*	*Status*	*Next Steps*
Complete beaver and dam removal to restore natural drainage movement of water	The City contracted a trapper to remove beavers and break up the dams in the problem area north of Flewellyn Road. The trapper worked through the spring of 2006 to remove existing beavers and discourage new residents.	City staff will continue to monitor the beaver situation in this area, with the continued assistance of local residents that has been very helpful to date.
Confirm that development over the last 10-20 years in the area to the north of the potential wetlands in the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn ward has not resulted in increased water to the Conley Road vicinity	The City contracted Robinson Consultants to conduct a review of the field conditions and impact of recent development on the surface drainage within this area. The completed report is attached to this document.	Implement the appropriate actions to restore pre-existing surface drainage to Flowing Creek. Review the identified actions for their environmental benefits by the City’s contractor conducting the Subwatershed Study for this area.
Explanation of known aspects of wetland development, progress on wetlands research and MNR review	Shaun Thompson, MNR biologist, presented selected aspects of the OWES to the Wetland Stakeholder Group on May 19^th. The topics covered included a review of the criteria within the four factors (Biological, Hydrological, Social and Special Features) that comprise the scoring system and a review of upland and lowland indicator species.	The City will continue to facilitate understanding of wetlands by distributing relevant information and responding to questions that arise through relevant experts. Education will also be undertaken to explain respective landowner and agency drainage responsibilities and clarification of allowable land uses for environmental designations, zoning.
Develop approach for evaluation of cumulative effects from development and water-taking	This item still needs to be developed, projected to be conducted in 2006/7; the timing depends upon finalization of Provincial Clean Water Act and associated regulations for source water protection legislation	City to maintain liaison with Conservation Authorities and Ministry of the Environment re: progress on source protection planning and legislation status. Begin development of process for cumulative effects evaluation.

*Action*	*Status*	*Next steps*
Prepare materials that outline benefits of wetlands to groundwater and surface water quality and quantity (also emerged as concern at Rural Summit)	The City has collected relevant wetlands factsheets from other jurisdictions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ducks Unlimited, MNR) and has undertaken limited distribution of these to date.	Develop additional fact sheets to address any gaps in wetlands information, particularly in regard to existing and proposed City wetland policies. Establish a communications strategy on wetlands.
Communicate likely impact of Clean Water Act, source water protection planning, to rural community, and rest of the City	Comments on the proposed Clean Water Act and 1^st set of regulations were presented to Planning & Environment and Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committees in January and March/April to finalize City comments on the draft legislation. Additional associated regulations are expected for circulation soon in 2006, along with the 3^rd reading of the Clean Water Act	City staff will continue to keep Council apprised of developments with the Clean Water Act & regulations, submitting comments on potential impacts on residents. Communications with the public will continue to be coordinated with the Conservation Authorities.
Ensure integrated communication & consultation efforts with rural community on related planning initiatives –Greenspace Master Plan, Forest Strategy, Good Forestry Practices By-Law, Provincial Policy Statement	Meetings will be held within the rural community on these subjects, as they arise as well as through conduct of regular consultation with the City’s newly formed Rural Issues Advisory Committee.	Most of these are likely to occur through 2007/2008, pending Council adoption of a revised wetlands policy and through work for the 2008 Official Plan review. The OP review will include policy alignment with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement.

*Action*	*Status*	*Next Steps*
Compile/Summarize results of Legal Services’ review of the approach of other jurisdictions in the area of wetlands protection and application of the Provincial Policy Statement	Contact with other municipalities by both Legal Services and Environmental Sustainability staff revealed that very few jurisdictions have a similar situation to Ottawa, that being the identification of new significant wetlands. Ottawa appears to be taking the closest look at the concern of identifying new environmental lands that were previously thought to have different characteristics by their landowners and community due to existing Official Plan designation.	The City will share information with interested agencies and municipalities in regard to the progress in balancing environmental protection and landowner needs.
Conduct research on impacts of environmental designations on property value; identify options for mitigation; build into environmental areas acquisition policy or other policies, as appropriate	The City contracted Juteau Johnson Comba Inc. to conduct a comprehensive review of the impact upon property values should the Official Plan designation and zoning become more restrictive. A report on this work is pending in early June 2006.	Share the review results with the stakeholder group and incorporate into wetland policy options where feasible.
Develop overall policy for wetland protection, including options for landowner compensation and assessment of how this policy’s context might apply to within urban area and to other Official Plan environmental designations	A preliminary policy approach for addressing the potential wetlands is proposed that responds specifically to the Goulbourn landowners. Some aspects of this approach are recommended for a broader City wetlands policy along with additional work to refine this policy through the 2008 Official Plan review process. Policy considerations include assessment of a combination of social and environmental factors such as existing land use, landowner needs and plans, tenure, population density, environmental feature size, ecosystem function and type of environmental feature.	Conduct of additional work on wetlands policy for the 2008 OP review, with ongoing consultation with the advisory committees for environment, forests and greenspace and rural issues.

Introduction

The options below have been researched in response to concerns over landowner rites and environmental protection within Goulbourn. The following options reflect the most common ways lands are protected, as well as the most desirable outcomes for landowners. Please see this as a working document. As more information comes to bear on particular options, then it will be added to this document. The purpose of providing this to the group now is to get all options on the table at the earliest moment.

Initial research turns up two key strategies, ‘retention of ownership’ and ‘transfer of title’. Each strategy contains a number of options for consideration. For each of these options there is a table giving its name, the type of scheme it is, who administers it and where the information was sourced from. Below this there is a summary of the option which includes information from the website or from conversations with representatives of the respective organisation. Italicised information has come directly from the organisations website.

Where no information exists this would be a ‘made in Ottawa’ option.

1. Transfer of Title:

The outcome of any transfer of title would be based on the assessment value of the property. Work continues to determine if there would be a change in property value due to wetland designation and any subsequent adoption into the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan (OP). the following information does not speculate on values of property, rather it outlines the common ways in which properties transfer their title.

1.1. Acquisition
Type:	Acquisition
Administrator:	Agency with Specified Property Interests
Source:	TBC

Fee Simple

This involves a 3^rd party purchasing the property in the traditional sense and gaining outright ownership.

Right of First Refusal

This provides a 3^rd party with the first opportunity to buy the land if it is put up for sale, or the right to meet any other offer the landowner might receive for the property.

Option to Purchase

This involved a contract between the landowner and the purchasing party that states that the landowner agrees to sell the property to the purchaser at a predetermined price on or before a certain date. This option is useful in order to allow the purchaser time to raise necessary funds.

Instalment Sale

An instalment sale allows a purchaser to buy parts of the property over time, again making it easier for the purchaser to generate funds.

Purchase and Saleback

In this scenario the 3^rd party acquires a property, attaches restrictions to it (i.e. conservation easement), and then sells it back on the open market.

Lease

Under a leasing arrangement rent is paid in exchange for certain property rights / interests. This option may benefit landowners who are reluctant to give up all or part of their property in perpetuity or unwilling to sell their land to government. They also enable Land Trusts to get involved from a land management point of view. Leases are a well-understood and commonly used contract process, however they may only provide short-term solutions.

Lease to own

As above but a contract is agreed whereby the 3^rd Party acquires the property if they maintain payments over an agreed period of time. Like Instalments this option gives a 3^rd party the opportunity to generate the funds over time.

Expropriation

Similar approach to the NCC buying lands for the greenbelt back in the 1950’s. This approach would see the Agency buying land at fair market value, and in some cases leasing it back to the landowner.

1.2. Acquisition with 3^rd Party Support
Type:	Acquisition
Administrator:	See below
Source:	See below

The following funding programs should be considered if acquisition of properties is to be considered.

1.2.1. Natural Spaces Program – Acquisition
Type:	Acquisition / Retention of Ownership (with Conservation Easements)
Source:	Ontario Heritage Trust / Local Land Trust
Administrator:	http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/

On August 3, 2005, the provincial government a new program that included a $6-million allocation to the Ontario Heritage Trust for the acquisition and stewardship of provincially significant natural heritage lands.
$4.5 million is available for the acquisition of fee simple and conservation interests in privately owned natural heritage lands.
Interests in privately owned lands are being acquired in partnership with other conservation organizations, using the principle of "willing seller-willing buyer" at appraised market value; partners (Land Trusts) must contribute 50% of the acquisition cost.
Examples of natural heritage lands include a wildlife habitat area or corridor, a source water area, areas of ecological representation, large woodlands or wetlands and connecting linkages or key trails that have been identified in reports, databases or mapping published by the province. Other examples include lands that have been identified in provincial plans and lands that attract high recreational interest.
Title must be held by the Ontario Heritage Trust or another public agency, unless otherwise agreed to by the Trust and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Where the title of newly acquired land is not held by the Trust, it will be subject to a conservation easement held by the Trust. This is an important clause as it could in practice mean that a Land Trust spends a lot of resources to secure the protection of a parcel of land, only to lose to control of it to the OHT. Therefore some questions remain as to whether or not Land Trusts, and more specifically local Land Trusts, will take advantage of the Natural Spaces Program.
The program may also fund 100% of the stewardship management plans which must be included in the application for acquisitions.

1.2.2. Wetland Habitat Fund (See also Section 2.6)
Type:	Acquisition / Stewardship
Source:	Various
Administrator:	http://www.whc.org/wetlandfund/en/home/home.html

· The Wetland Habitat Fund provides private landowners with financial and technical assistance for projects that improve the ecological integrity of wetland habitats.

· Habitat projects that meet WHF criteria may be eligible for funds to a maximum of 50 per cent of the project cost or $5,000 (whichever is less). Projects of an exceptional nature, such as acquisitions, may be funded with different ceilings i.e. $50,000 (match funding required).

· Projects submitted for funding consideration should have a completed wetland conservation plan that focuses on specific improvements to wetland and neighbouring upland habitat on private land. Landowners with approved projects sign a Conservation Agreement ensuring the upkeep of the project site for a period of 10 years.

· Funding for wetland protection may increase next year, and the next call for proposal will be this autumn.

· WHF also provides free on-site advice to landowners about wildlife and habitat, and help landowners with project plans and proposals.

1.2.3. Ontario Land Trust Assistance Program (OLTAP) (See also Section 2.7)
Type:	Acquisition or Retention of Ownership (with Conservation Easement)
Administrator:	Local Land Trust
Source:	http://www.ontariolandtrustalliance.org/funding.htm

“A land trust is a non-government, non-profit organization established to preserve land and water resources for the benefit of the public. Most often, the resources being preserved have natural, recreational, scenic or historic value. When used in this manner, the term “trust” means the resource is made permanently safe against harmful uses. Land trusts can be local, regional or nationwide in focus and are funded largely through membership dues and donations. They vary in size from small land trusts operated by volunteers to organizations that employ professional staff to own and manage their lands. These organizations can own thousands of acres. Most land trusts have charitable status.”

Funding is available from the MNR and Environment Canada via members of the OLTA for assistance with securement costs of easements or title for ecologically sensitive properties.
In the last year alone, this program awarded $100,000 in grants to OLTA members, helping them secure 2346 acres of ecologically sensitive lands in their communities with a value of over $4,000,000.

· Grants are available for land securement costs for donations or purchase of title of conservation easements involving ecologically significant lands. Eligible securement costs include appraisal, survey, legal, planning approval fees and environmental audit costs. Land transfer taxes associated with the purchase of lands and conservation easements will also be eligible.

· Grants from $1,000 to $10,000 will be available through the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources funded program and an administration fee of 5% of the total grant will be invoiced to successful applicants. Grants from $1,000 to $6,000 will be available through the Environment Canada-Ontario Region program and there is no administrative fee for grants awarded under this program. Environment Canada-Ontario Region funded grants are limited to properties secured under the Ecogift program. The same application is to be used for both programs.

· Grants through the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources funded program are for securement costs of lands or conservation easements donated or purchased and completed between October 1, 2005 and the date of the application

· In cases where properties or easements have been donated, to comply with privacy issues, individual applicant organizations are asked to include proof that the donor has been made aware that information pertaining to their donation may be submitted to OLTAP in funding proposals.

Trusts in the Ottawa area include the following (see Appendix B for more information):

o Land Preservation Society of the Ottawa Valley

Mississippi Madawaska Land Trust Conservancy
Rideau Waterway Land Trust
Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation.

2. Retention of Ownership:

As the environmental, social and more recently economic value of wetlands has been realised, there has been an increasing number of options and incentives developed across the Province to conserve wetlands. The following options represent those that have been used successfully elsewhere, as well as other options that could be considered – namely expropriation and designation.

2.1. Compensation
Type:	Financial settlement
Administrator:	City of Ottawa
Source:

Under this option the City of Ottawa could consider paying landowners the difference between the value of the property, and the value of the property’s assessed development opportunity, assuming there is one. In return the City would designate the property as a Wetland in the Official Plan and / or consider other restrictions on the title of the land such as a conservation easement. Either way the property would be protected in perpetuity.

2.2. Designation in the Official Plan
Type:	Environmental Protection
Administrator:	City of Ottawa
Source:	Provincial Policy Statement

Under this option the City adopts the evaluated wetlands into the Official Plan by designating them as a “significant wetland”. This option has been included as it may be acceptable to some landowners, particularly if some of the other options in this document are implemented alongside it. It would help ensure the lands are managed responsibly by ensuring any development on the property follows the criteria included within the Official Plan and its Zoning By-Law.

2.3. Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program
Type:	Tax Incentive - Property Tax Exemption
Administrator:	Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
Source:	http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/cltip/

“The Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) is designed to recognize, encourage and support the long-term private stewardship of Ontario's provincially significant conservation lands by providing property tax relief to those landowners who agree to protect the natural heritage values of their property. The current tax relief offered is 100 % tax exemption on that eligible portion of the property.

The CLTIP is not a land acquisition program. Participating landowners retain full ownership and property rights. This program is also not associated with Conservation Authorities or Conservation Authority properties”

Landowners with property that has been designated as either ‘provincially significant wetland’ or ‘area of natural scientific interest’ by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) are eligible.
The Program is voluntary, individuals that qualify must have properties that are at least ½ acre, or 1 ½ acres if there is a building on it and landowners must apply every year. Applications are usually sent to interested landowners every year in early summer (usually June).

Tax exemption is on municipality property taxes, so municipalities pay for any relief given.
Landowners that participate do not sign a legal agreement, but simply confirm on their application that they will leave the site in its natural state. This agreement doesn’t preclude landowners for using their property, and appropriate usage can be discussed with the MNR Kemptville office.
Once interest is confirmed, the local MNR office will confirm / agree the mapping, confirm landowner details such as role numbers, etc with MNR Peterborough and then send out a letter stating the % of the property eligible for tax relief.
The program generally attracts those that are more interested in retaining their property than those interested in developing it. The land must be managed for conservation and if it’s not maintained the municipality can claim the money back for up to 5 years. If changes to the land happened during the year that the agreement was signed, then landowner would be asked to pay the tax relief back. The MNR has no powers to address landowners who remove vegetation unless it has impacts ‘other’ legislation, i.e. CA Act, Lake and Rivers Act, Fisheries Act.
Note on currently Goulbourn situation:

Sean Thompson from MNR Kemptville is currently holding onto all newly designated wetlands in the Goulbourn area and will not process them until the landowner issues are resolved.
If individual landowners want to participate in the CLTIP program however, they can approach Sean directly and he will consider getting the ball rolling on designating their properties in order to be eligible for the above program, depending on the size of the landowners property and the activity of its neighbouring landowners. Designated properties do NOT have to be in the official plan to be eligible to participate in this process

For more information about the program, or to request an application form, contact the local MNR office in Kemptville (613.258.8204) or the general enquiries line on 905.877.5191.

2.4. Tax Checkoff
Type:	Tax Incentive – Charitable Donation
Administrator:	Ontario Ministry of Finance
Source:

Used successfully in the US this provides the taxpaying public with an opportunity to donate a proportion of their income tax refunds specifically to wildlife / land management programs.

Tax Checkoffs are currently used by the Ontario government, who provide the public with the option to donate some of all of their tax refund to the Ontario Opportunities Fund. This fund goes towards reducing Ontario’s debt and can be found on page 4 of your return. Donors are given a receipt that can be used on the following year’s return.

2.5. Canada's Ecological Gifts Program
Type:	Tax Incentive - Acquisition or Retention of Ownership (& charitable donation)
Administrator:	Environment Canada
Source:	http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/egp-pde/

“Since 1995, Environment Canada's Ecological Gifts Program has enabled individual and corporate landowners to protect their cherished piece of nature forever by donating ecologically-sensitive land to an environmental charity or government body. An "ecogift" can be a donation of land or a partial interest in land - such as a conservation easement, covenant or servitude (for definitions see Appendix C). In addition to the peace of mind of knowing that the land will be managed by the recipient according to mutually agreed-upon conservation goals and objectives, donors are also eligible to receive income tax benefits for their donation.”

· Conservation easements, covenants and servitudes are legal agreements in which a landowner retains ownership of his/her property but conveys certain specifically identified rights to a land conservation organization or a public body. The owners, or future owners, agree not to make changes to the property that would detrimentally affect the natural features of the site, e.g. in-filling wetlands. These instruments place restrictions on the lands that are attached to the deed for the property.

· The organization holding the conservation easement/covenant/servitude is responsible for monitoring compliance with the terms of the agreement, and has the right to enforce the restrictions under provincial laws and to require restoration should the terms be broken.

· Eco-Gifts are gifts of the full title to a property, or of the value of conservation easement, covenant or servitude attached to that title as defined under the legislation of your province or territory. You may donate such land outright or choose to keep it, but with restricted long-term use or perhaps restricted access.

· Individuals or corporations can donate private land to the federal, provincial or territorial governments, Canadian municipalities, or one of about 136 approved charities.

· Individuals receive a federal tax credit (corporations receive a deduction), for the value of the land donated. The amount of the credit or deduction is 17% of the first $200 of land value and 29% of the remaining. Unlike other charitable donations, these credits and deductions can be used against up to 100% of their annual income. Unused portions of the tax credit or deduction can be carried forward for up to five additional years. The February 2000 federal Budget introduced further changes to the Income Tax Act that reduced by 50%, the amount that would otherwise be included as income on any capital gains associated with the gift.

Value of a gift is its fair market value. The value of a conservation easement or covenant is either its fair market value as a result of the gift or its loss of value due to the gift, whichever is greater.
Donors will be asked to submit independent appraisals of value. The Minister of the Environment must certify the fair market value of all Ecogifts.

· Should the recipient of donated lands decide to sell, transfer or modify the land use of the property, the advice and approval of a designated Certification Authority is required. A tax penalty equal to 50 percent of the value of the land at the time of disposition may have to be paid to the federal government without such approval. Although this does not "guarantee" the protection of Ecogifts in perpetuity, it provides a substantial deterrent to changes in land use. Gifts of easements, covenants and servitudes are regulated under provincial and territorial law and are usually given in perpetuity.

2.6. Wetland Habitat Fund (See also Section 1.2.2)
Type:	Acquisition / Stewardship
Source:	Various
Administrator:	http://www.whc.org/wetlandfund/en/home/home.html

· The Wetland Habitat Fund provides private landowners with financial and technical assistance for projects that improve the ecological integrity of wetland habitats.

· Funding for wetland protection may increase next year, and the next call for proposal will be this autumn.

· WHF also provides free on-site advice to landowners about wildlife and habitat, and help landowners with project plans and proposals.

2.7. Ontario Land Trust Assistance Program (OLTAP) (See also Section 1.2.3)
Type:	Acquisition or Retention of Ownership (with Conservation Easement)
Administrator:	Local Land Trust
Source:	http://www.ontariolandtrustalliance.org/funding.htm

Funding is available from the MNR and Environment Canada via members of the OLTA for assistance with securement costs of easements or title for ecologically sensitive properties.
In the last year alone, this program awarded $100,000 in grants to OLTA members, helping them secure 2346 acres of ecologically sensitive lands in their communities with a value of over $4,000,000.

2.8. Natural Spaces Program – Stewardship
Type:	Stewardship
Source:	Ottawa Stewardship Council
Administrator:	http://www.naturalspaces.mnr.gov.on.ca, www.ontariostewardship.org/ottawa or http://www.easternontariostewardship.org/ottawa/english/welcome/index.html.

“The Natural Spaces Program provides tools and resources so that landowners can voluntarily contribute to the good stewardship of Ontario's rich natural heritage. The program will cover an area south of a line from Midland through Peterborough to Ottawa, which is home to the province's greatest diversity of plants and animals. See Appendix xxxxxx for more information.

· Joffre Cotte is the Ottawa Stewardship Coordinator and is based at the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. He is responsible for coordinating the stewardship aspect of the Natural Spaces Program Much of his role is about coordinating many of the programs already available to landowners.

· According to Joffre Ontario Stewardship has been very successful. Staffed by volunteers they take largely a proactive role working with landowners to offer the following support:

o Providing public awareness / education resources

o Wetland protection advice to landowners

o Advising on the development of a strategy / policy to work with landowners

· Ottawa Stewardship works with both organisations that are involved in the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program as well as other landowners that wish to protect / restore their land.

· Depending on the property they may involve partners such as Wildlife Habitat Canada (Ontario Wetland Habitat Fund) or Ducks Unlimited. Where one or more of these organisations makes investments in a property, it is likely that they will require a management agreement, even if they are involved in the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program.

· For more information call Joffre Cote on 1.800.267.3504 ext 119 or visit

2.9. Farm Plans
Type:	Stewardship
Source:	The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA)
Administrator:	http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/cms/en/Programs/ProgramsAboutEFP.aspx?menuid=24

The Greencover Canada program is a five-year, $110-million Government of Canada initiative to help landowners improve grassland-management practices, protect water quality, reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat. A national program, Greencover Canada focuses on four components:

Land conversion - converting environmentally sensitive land to perennial cover;
Critical areas - managing agricultural land near water;
Technical assistance - helping producers adopt beneficial management practices; Watershed Evaluation
Of BMPs (WEBs); and
Shelterbelts - planting trees on agricultural land.

The Agriculture Policy Framework has an implementation agreement with Ontario for farms that have developed ‘plans’. Ontario farms that produce an Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) which is deemed appropriate through peer review may be eligible to apply for cost-sharing to implement environmental actions identified in their farm plans. For more information see Appendix D.

2.10. Education & Awareness Programs
Type:	Various
Source:	Various
Administrator:

A number of 3^rd party organisations have offered to support this work and help work with promote options to landowners to encourage environmental protection. These organisations include the Rideau Waterway Land Trust, Wetland Habitat Fund and the Ottawa Stewardship Council. These organisations would likely establish better relationships with the landowners than the City of Ottawa, and could be used in one of the following ways.

Landowner Contact

By developing a personal 2-way relationship with the landowner, this approach can help determine how amenable a landowner is towards the various options available. Face to face visits may determine which strategy should be employed, as well as providing the opportunity to educate the landowner on the importance of their land. This approach has been used successfully in the past by the Natural Heritage Stewardship Program and may increase opportunities to engage landowners in more permanent strategies once a trusting relationship is developed.

Registration / Stewardship Programs

These recognise the landowners that are contributing to the protection of the wetlands by including their name on websites and / or providing awards. Good educational opportunity with associated publicity. See http://www.whc.org/stewardship_awards.htm for one such Awards scheme run by Wildlife Habitat Canada.

Educational Programs. Whatever methods chosen above, an educational program of some sort should be considered to help make landowners and the general public aware of why the MNR and others are keen to protect and conserve these lands.

2.11. Grants and Technical Assistance
Type:	Various
Source:	Various
Administrator:	http://www.ec.gc.ca/ecoaction/grnsrc/index_e.cfm

Grants / Funding

There is a range of programs that support community / landowner wetland rehabilitation and wildlife management projects. Support ranges from technical advice to funding. The following organizations are a few examples of the type of support available. Note that technical assistance is also part of many of the programs listed above.

Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program (CFWIP)

“Let's Help,” from the Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program (CFWIP) provides an opportunity to participate in hands-on fish and wildlife management and conservation activities. Projects must improve fish and wildlife in the province, and improve opportunities for outdoor recreation.
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) provides financial help, expertise, equipment and materials for approved CFWIP projects. See http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/fishing/cfwip.html for more information.
This funding would best suit landowners that are already interested in wetland / wildlife conservation
Projects must meet three basic objectives; they must benefit the resource; they must involve the public and; they must benefit the general public
Possible projects include habitat restoration; wildlife census; and building nesting platforms, among others
Projects that are approved receive funding to help cover the cost of equipment and materials used by volunteer workers. To be eligible for funding, your project must meet the CFWIP objectives, comply with the local MNR district's fish and wildlife management plans and benefit fish and/or wildlife, directly or indirectly
The project must also involve the public as volunteers in implementation.

EcoAction

· EcoAction is an Environment Canada funding program that helps groups carry out projects that protect or improve the environment and/or increase environmental awareness and capacity in their community.

EcoAction projects must benefit the natural environment and/or enhance the capacity of communities to take action on priority environmental issues. The results of the project must be measurable to show how the environment and the community will benefit.

· At least half of the total value of your project needs to come from sources other than the federal government. Contributions from other sources can be in the form of cash, in-kind support, or a combination of both. In-kind support can include donations of:

Equipment, materials, and/or office space;
Volunteer time for: project activities, coordination, or professional services;
Expertise from consultants, elders, or academics; and/or
Discounts offered on purchased items and services.

· Examples of eligible groups include environment groups; community groups; and Representative Aboriginal organizations or associations

· Funding is available up to a maximum of $100 000; however, the average amount is $30 000. It is provided on February 1^stand October 1^st annually.

· Before you begin, please contact the EcoAction office representing your province or territory to discuss your project idea.

· See http://www.ec.gc.ca/ecoaction/applicants_guide_e.html for more information

Canadian Wildlife Service

If relevant, there is funding available for species at risk through the Endangered Species Recovery Fund and the Habitat Stewardship Program

· http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/support/esrf_frep/default_e.cfm

· http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hsp-pih/

Trillium Foundation

· The trillium Foundation primarily funds community projects, however they also support “initiatives that protect and restore the environment or that increase awareness our vital relationship with the ecosystem. We fund activities that help communities take a leadership role in protecting their natural environments and habitats and that promote healthy living. We support environmental organizations in their efforts to become more efficient and to use their volunteers more effectively.”

· For more information visit http://www.trilliumfoundation.org/cms/en/eligible_Sectors.aspx.

Appendix A - The Natural Spaces Program [1]

· The Natural Spaces program’s working vision is:

“To provide sustainable greenspaces for healthy & diverse ecosystems, clean air and water, provide recreation and enhance the quality of life for Ontario residents”.

· The Natural Spaces program will complement and support a full range of related Provincial initiatives, including:

o Ontario Biodiversity Strategy and Species at Risk (through natural heritage systems approach)

o Ontario Trails Strategy (with MTR)

o Source-water Protection (utilizing planning processes and resources)

o Rural Plan and Agricultural Viability (supporting MMAH and OMAF)

o Tax incentive programs with Ministry of Finance (CLTIP & MFTIP)

o Renewable Energy initiative

o Places to Grow (protecting what’s “valuable” in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan)

o Greenbelt Plan (system delineation; conservation/reforestation)

o Niagara Escarpment Plan

o Planning Reform (PPS natural heritage policies)

o Environmental Farm Plan initiatives

· The Natural Spaces program will cover that part of Ontario south of a line between Midland, Peterborough and Ottawa. Ninety per cent of the land in this area of the province is privately owned. Protecting and restoring natural areas and conserving greenspace can only be achieved with the participation of landowners.

Key Program Components

· Natural Spaces Leadership Alliance: A stakeholder group of representatives from environmental organizations, municipal government and industry has been named by the Minister as an advisory body and collaborative partners to develop the Natural Spaces program. Alliance meetings began in September.

· Identifying natural heritage systems: Working with conservation and municipal partners, the Ministry will identify natural heritage systems to sustain healthy and diverse ecosystems in southern Ontario. This initiative will take a building block approach, starting with the Greenbelt and Growth Plan and providing guidance across the rest of Southern Ontario as municipalities work to implement the new provincial policy standard for natural heritage systems.

· Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS):

SOLRIS is one of the tools that will be offered to help identify conservation priorities and restoration potential for landowners and conservation organizations, by producing maps of land cover such as forests, wetlands and urban areas. SOLRIS will also allow for the tracking of changes in land cover and land use over time.

· Stewardship: The Natural Spaces program will develop new strategies for cooperation and collaboration with conservation groups. It will respond to stakeholder requests for enhanced communications and strategic direction on natural heritage system priorities. As well, the Natural Spaces program will develop new materials and approaches to support work with private landowners.

· Land securement and acquisition: The Natural Spaces program will work with the Ontario Heritage Trust, in partnership with the Ministry of Culture, to acquire and permanently secure significant natural heritage properties across southern Ontario. The Heritage Trust received a $6 million grant for securement and stewardship of natural heritage lands. The program will also provide an ongoing forum for identification of common securement goals, partnerships and innovative approaches among stakeholders.

· Native tree seed program: The Natural Spaces program will help restore the lands and forests of southern Ontario through a partnership with the Trees Ontario Foundation. This includes a $2-million grant to Trees Ontario to increase the future availability of native tree seedlings. The Southern Ontario forestry strategy will be reviewed, and Ministry and stakeholder forestry initiatives will be discussed with the Alliance to identify opportunities for collaboration.

· Tax incentives: The Natural Spaces program will promote voluntary programs to encourage southern Ontario landowners to conserve and restore natural areas on their property. Existing land tax incentive programs, recently improved as a result of MNR diligence, include the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) and the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP).

· Socio-economics of Natural Heritage: Together with the Canadian Urban Institute, the Natural Spaces program will prepare a review of the socio-economics benefits of conserving natural heritage, for example the identification of additional sources of income for landowners through natural heritage protection and the economic value to municipalities of careful planning to maintain a healthy rural landscape.

· Natural Spaces Report Card: A report card will be developed as part of MNR's State of Resources Reporting (SORR) to monitor and measure the effectiveness of the Natural Spaces program.

Frequently Asked Questions from Ontario Heritage Foundation – Natural Spaces Program[2]

1. How is the $6-million allocation being utilized?

$4.5 million is available for the acquisition of fee simple and conservation interests in privately owned natural heritage lands. Additionally, $1.2 million is available for land stewardship activities on newly acquired lands.

2. How are interests in privately owned natural heritage lands being acquired?

Interests in privately owned lands are being acquired in partnership with other conservation organizations, using the principle of "willing seller-willing buyer" at appraised market value.

3. What organizations can participate in the Ontario Heritage Trust’s Natural Spaces Land Acquisition and Stewardship Program?

Conservation bodies as defined in the Conservation Land Act can participate. Examples include:

· The Crown

· A conservation authority

· A municipality

· An incorporated corporation that is a registered charity

· A trustee of a charitable foundation.

Please refer to Section 3.(1) of the Conservation Land Act for a complete definition of "conservation body."

4. Does the Program have geographic limitations?

Yes. To be considered under the program, a property must be located in southern Ontario (as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Eco-Regions 6E and 7E – roughly the area south of the Precambrian Shield).

5. What kinds of natural heritage lands are considered to be provincially significant?

Examples of natural heritage lands include:

· a wildlife habitat area or corridor

· source water area

· areas of ecological representation

· large woodlands or wetlands and connecting linkages

· key trails that have been identified in reports, databases or mapping published by the province.

Other examples include lands that have been identified in provincial plans and lands that attract high recreational interest.

6. What organizations can hold title to newly acquired properties?

Title must be held by the Ontario Heritage Trust or another public agency, unless otherwise agreed to by the Trust and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Where the title of newly acquired land is not held by the Trust, it will be subject to a conservation easement held by the Trust.

7. Are partners expected to contribute financially to the acquisition and stewardship costs?

Yes, partners are expected to contribute at the 50 per cent level.

8. How will funding applications be reviewed? Who makes the decisions on funding?

Each application will be subject to an eligibility review by the Trust's Land Acquisition and Stewardship Committee, comprised of staff from the Ontario Heritage Trust and the Ministry of Natural resources. Decisions on funding will be made by the Trust's Board of Directors.

9. Will the program refund expenditures for recently acquired properties or conservation easements?

No. Properties or conservation easements that have already been acquired are not eligible for reimbursement through this program. Also, acquisitions that are nearly completed (e.g., completed appraisal, completed agreement of purchase and sale) will not be considered by the program.

10. What kind of stewardship projects will the program consider for funding?

The program will consider funding stewardship projects related to newly acquired lands. Eligible costs include:

· Preparation of stewardship plans

· Costs to inventory, enhance, restore or protect important natural or cultural resources

· Costs to further public understanding of the natural and cultural resources through the use of outdoor interpretive and educational signs and displays

· Costs to improve public access, safety, use and enjoyment of these lands

· Production costs for approved signs, displays and interpretive media

11. Where can I find more details on the program and funding eligibility?

The Ontario Heritage Trust's Coordinator for the Natural Spaces Land Acquisition and Stewardship Program can answer your questions and provide additional information. Please contact:

Tony Buszynski
Coordinator, Natural Spaces Land Acquisition and Stewardship Program
Ontario Heritage Trust
10 Adelaide Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 1J3
Telephone: 416-325-5033
Fax: 416-325-5071
E-mail: tony.buszynski@heritagefdn.on.ca

Land Trust	Contact Name and number	Email	Website	Priorities
Land Preservation Society of the Ottawa Valley	Mark Stabb (former director)		none	Mark has moved to Toronto and it appears no one has yet to replace him. No contact details of the Society could be found, but from others it appears they focus their work in the Arnprior area.
Mississippi Madawaska Land Trust Conservancy	Ted Mosquin on 613.267.4899	mosquin@superaje.com	None	Determining priorities at the moment, but happy to sit down the City and RWLT to discuss opportunities.
Rideau Waterway Land Trust (RWLT)	Sharon Walker on 1.800.588.9887	sharonw@rwlt.org	www.rwlt.org	PSW a priority. Work within Rideau corridor and would be interested in holding title to properties or managing easements.
Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation (RVCF)			http://www.rideauvalley.on.ca/foundation/index.html	Properties include the Rideau Valley watershed, including one in central Ottawa. Have largely accepted donations over past 10 yrs.

Appendix E - Websites and Sources of information

*note that more websites are contained in the report above.

Funding

Environment Canada – Eco Action Fund - http://www.ec.gc.ca/ecoaction/checklist_e.html

Wetland Habitat Fund - http://www.whc.org/wetlandfund/

Wet Kit – Ontario Funding Programs - http://www.wetkit.net/modules/1/sub_category_search_results.php?parent_cat_id=29&cat_id=42&aux_cat_id=&region_id=9

Environment Canada – Species at Risk - http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/support/esrf_frep/default_e.cfm

MNR – Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program - http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/cltip/

MNR – Natural Spaces Program - http://www.naturalspaces.mnr.gov.on.ca/

Wetland education resources

US EPA - http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

Ducks Unlimited - http://www.ducks.ca/resource/general/wetland/pdf/water.pdf

MNR (A Guide to Stewardship Planning for Natural Areas) -

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/forests/public/guide/stewardship_planning/06/stewardship_guide.pdf

Living Planet – The Economic Value of the World’s Wetlands (PDF document) - http://www.livingplanet.org/downloads/freshwater/wetlandsbrochurefinal.pdf

Ducks Unlimited - http://www.ducks.ca/resource/general/wetland/facts.html

US EPA - http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/WetlandsFunctions.pdf

International Institute of Sustainable Development - http://www.iisd.org/wetlands/

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/wetlands/images/securementmap04-lrg-e.gif

General Links

Canadian Wildlife Service (Ontario Division) - http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife_e.html

Ministry of Environment (Ontario) - http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/cwa.htm

Ducks Unlimited - http://www.ducks.ca/resource/landowner/easement.html

Canadian Wildlife Society - http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/egp-pde/

Landowners Resource Centre – Rideau Valley CA - http://www.lrconline.com/

http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/User/Docs/EFPInfosheets/PEG%20-COFSP%20GC%20COWSEP.pdf

Ontario Heritage Foundation - http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/scripts/home.asp?action=31&P_ID=1&N_ID=1&U_ID=0&OP_ID=2

Ottawa Duck Club - http://odc.ncf.ca/links.html

Ottawa Field Naturalists Club - http://www.ofnc.ca/index.html

Nature Conservancy Canada - http://www.natureconservancy.ca/files/frame.asp?lang=e_&region=4&sec=on_welcome

Wildlife Habitat Canada - http://www.whc.org/home.htm

U of Guelph - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~claws/

Ontario Land Trust Alliance - http://www.ontariolandtrustalliance.org/

Findlay Creek Community (Tartan Homes) - http://findlaycreekcommunity.com/

PRELIMINARY EDUCATION MATERIALS FOR WETLANDS

AND DRAINAGE DOCUMENT 5

Overview of How Drain Maintenance Activities Adhere to Environmental Requirements

Drainage in rural areas is accomplished by a system of natural watercourses and municipal drains. In some areas natural watercourses may have municipal drain status, pursuant to the Drainage Act. Regardless of whether or not the drainage feature is a municipal drain or a natural watercourse, they are both considered “watercourses” within the definition provided in Section 28 (25) of the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C. 27), and are therefore subject to the Conservation Authority’s “Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” regulation (Ontario Regulation 174/06).

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority policy is that maintenance activities on municipal drains that may be required to restore the drains to their original profile, as set out in an approved drainage report, are not subject to the regulation. Typically this scope of work is referred to as “clean out”. Conservation Authorities, in accordance with a memorandum of agreement with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), screens all applications for potential impacts on fish habitat, including proposed works under the Drainage Act. Streamlining the approvals process for such works has been accomplished by implementation of the “Class Authorization System”. This system classifies municipal drains according to physical characteristics and fish species present. This system is applicable only to municipal drains (i.e. not natural watercourses, private drains, mutual agreement drains and award drains). It allows for quick approvals on routine drain clean out projects on the less sensitive drains and it also identifies those drains that may require more detailed assessment prior to maintenance work. Works typically proceed on the basis of a “letter of advice” that specifies mitigative measures (timing, access, erosion and sediment control etc.).

Alterations to the channels of municipal drains (typically referred to as “improvements) and natural watercourses that will result in the straightening, changing, diverting, deepening or interfering with the drainage feature is subject to the regulation and requires the written approval of the Conservation Authority. Potential impacts to fish habitat are considered at that time. The regulation is permissive, in that the prohibition is against doing works without a letter of permission. It is the Authority’s objective to ensure that if such works are necessary, that they will be undertaken in an environmentally appropriate manner and without negative impact on the control of flooding, pollution or the conservation of land.

Landowners should contact the City’s Drainage Superintendent if they have determined that maintenance activities or any other changes (culverts, bridges etc.) are required on a municipal drain, or to determine whether or not a watercourse is a municipal drain. The City will consult with the Conservation Authority in accordance with established procedures. Landowners should contact the Conservation Authority prior to undertaking any works on a watercourse that is not a municipal drain in order to determine what approvals are required.

	Agdex#:	752	Publication Date:	08/01
	Order#:	01-059	Last Reviewed:	08/01

Title: So, What's A Municipal Drain?

Division:	Agriculture and Rural
History:	Original Factsheet
Written by:	S. Vander Veen - Drainage Coordinator/OMAF

Introduction Perhaps you’ve just purchased property, and been told by your municipality that you are assessed into a municipal drain. Perhaps you have owned a property for a couple of years and have recently discovered that you are located in the watershed of a municipal drain. You’re probably wondering, what does this mean? How does it affect me? What will it cost?

Physically, What is a Municipal Drain?

Physically, a municipal drain is simply a drainage system. Most municipal drains are either ditches or closed systems such as pipes or tiles buried in the ground. They can also include structures such as dykes or berms, pumping stations, buffer strips, grassed waterways, storm water detention ponds, culverts and bridges. Even some creeks and small rivers are now considered to be municipal drains. Municipal drains are primarily located in rural agricultural areas of the province.

The Purpose of Municipal Drains

Municipal drains have been a fixture of rural Ontario's infrastructure since the 1800’s. Most municipal drains were constructed to improve the drainage of agricultural land by serving as the discharge point for private agricultural tile drainage systems. However, they also remove excess water collected by roadside ditches, residential lots, churches, schools, industrial lands, commercial lands and any other properties in rural areas. They are a vital component of the local infrastructure. Without them, many areas of the province would be subjected to regular flooding, reduced production from agricultural land and increased public health risks.

Why is it Called a "Municipal Drain"?

There are many, many drainage ditches and buried pipes in the province, but not all of them are "municipal drains". So what distinguishes a municipal drain?

Municipal drains are created under the authority of the Drainage Act. There are 3 key elements of a municipal drain:

Community Project — Landowners who need to solve a drainage problem may submit a prescribed petition under the Drainage Act to their local municipality, requesting the establishment of a municipal drain. If certain criteria are met, the municipality appoints an engineer who prepares a report, identifying the proposed solution to the problem and how the costs will be shared. There are various meetings where landowners in the watershed of the municipal drain can voice their desires and concerns. There are also several appeal stages where they can voice their objections. So, the end result of the process is a "communally accepted" project.
Legal Existence — After all appeals have been heard and dealt with, the municipality passes a by-law, adopting the engineer’s report. The municipality then has the authority and the responsibility to construct the project. The cost of the work is assessed to the lands in the watershed in the same ratios as contained within the engineer’s report. So for a ditch or a pipe to be a municipal drain, there must be a by-law adopting an engineer’s report.
Municipal Infrastructure — Once a municipal drain has been constructed under the authority of a by-law, it becomes part of that municipality’s infrastructure. The local municipality, through its drainage superintendent, is responsible for repairing and maintaining the municipal drain. In certain circumstances, the municipality can be held liable for damages for not maintaining these drains.

Do's and Don'ts for Property Owners

You should:

· Find out the name of your local municipality’s drainage superintendent.

· If you don’t have any information on the municipal drains that affect your property, make arrangements with your municipality to get copies. Please note you may have to pay for the photocopies.

· Find out how the municipal drain affects your property. How much is your property assessed? Are there any buried municipal drains that cross beneath your land? Is there a municipal working space along or above a municipal drain on your property?

· Remove debris from any catchbasins that may be located on your property or the adjoining road. This type of ongoing preventative work can reduce the possibility of property damage during storm events

· As an involved landowner, you have a responsibility for the drains located on your property, so observe them. If you notice any problems, immediately notify the drainage superintendent or the local municipality.

· Before purchasing a property, investigate how municipal drains may affect the property.

You can expect:

· Municipalities must maintain their municipal drains. Therefore, if you have a municipal drain located on your property, you can expect that your municipality will periodically arrange to enter onto your property and perform the necessary work. After it is completed, you will be billed for your share of the cost.

· For a period of time while the work is being completed, you can expect the working space along the drain to be accessed by the maintenance equipment and the land to be disrupted to some degree. Because this working space is a form of an easement, you will not be paid for any damages that occur on this land.

· Municipalities have the right to accumulate the cost of maintaining a drain for up to five years or $5,000. Therefore, it is possible that you may be billed for work that occurred before you owned a property.

You should NOT:

· Along every municipal drain is an unregistered working space that the municipality has the right to use to maintain or repair the drain. Keep this working space accessible and do not plant trees or build structures in this area. If you do, and it results in an obstruction to the maintenance equipment, you may have to pay the cost of removing that obstruction.

· Don’t store materials such as brush, lumber or other floatable material near the drain, because during storm events, it could float away and block the drain.

· The local municipality is responsible for maintaining municipal drains on behalf of the community of landowners involved in a drain. If you want to install a culvert or bridge on an open ditch municipal drain, or if a municipal drain requires maintenance, don’t perform the work yourself; instead notify your municipality. If you do unauthorized work on a drain and that work results in damages to the drain or to other landowners, you could be responsible for paying the cost of repairing the damages.

· Although they are "man-made", all municipal drains eventually connect with the many beautiful lakes, rivers and streams located in Ontario. Do not direct septic system waste, milkhouse wastes, barnyard and manure storage runoff or other pollutants directly to these drains.

Mr. M. Westley, Vice-President of the Goulbourn Landowner’s Group, stated he did not have wetlands; he has land that has been flooded or soaked because of poor drainage. He then briefly discussed some of the factors that had led to the flowing of lands in the Goulbourn area. He stressed that he was tired of other groups stealing his property by either flooding it or taking it for gravel. He expressed the Stakeholders’ group’s support for the staff recommendations and he urged Committee to approve them. In closing, Mr. Westley thanked Councillor Stavinga and City staff for their work on this issue.

Responding to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Westley indicated he had not been aware of the Environmental Advisory Committee’s revised recommendations prior to Ms. Hegan’s presentation. Councillor Stavinga noted that there was not unanimous support for the recommendations at the working group, though there had been strong support.

Mr. M. Erland began by stating, for the record, that he had not been aware of the EAC’s recommendations in advance. He referenced the MNR and Robinson Consultants’ reports and he discussed the issue of soil quality, noting that the soil in the Goulbourn area had very poor drainage, which affects seepage into the water table. He suggested that staff look at soil quality in 2008.

In response to questions from Chair Jellet, Ms. Levesque confirmed that staff would look at soil quality in 2008. However, she clarified that poor soil quality and poor drainage simply meant that the water would move through the soil at a slower rate.

Responding to a question from Chair Jellett, Mr. Erland expressed his support for the report recommendations.

Ms. I. Price, Chair of the Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, spoke specifically to recommendation 5 of the report. She was concerned that the words “cancelled” and “withdrawn” would lead to an “open season” on wetlands. She wondered how the City would resist the calls for re-evaluation of currently designated wetlands and how it would respond in areas needing evaluation and possible designation. She believed recommendation 5 should be amended to put some kind of limit on the process. She feared that possible wetlands in the Goulbourn area would not be protected until 2013 and that, in the interim, landowners would be able to move forward with development applications. She urged Committee to make it absolutely clear that recommendations 5, 5a), 5b) and 5c) would only apply to lands in the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward. A copy of her submission is held on file.

Mr. Jacobs provided the following clarification in response to questions from Councillor Stavinga:

• Staff does not view this as “open season” insofar as the development of wetlands. Should development applications come forward, staff would evaluation them pursuant to all pertinent policies currently contained in the Official Plan, including Rural Natural Features and other environmental designations.

• Should an application come forward for wetland evaluation and possible designation, staff would use the lessons learned in this process with respect to involving property owners and the community.

• Recommendation 5 and its subsections, clearly pertain specifically to lands in the “Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn Ward”.

Mr. N. Tilgner, Member of the Ontario Forestry Association, believed the report solidly addressed the drainage and wetland concerns of the landowners and gave them options to preserve the lands in their current state. He encouraged Committee to approve the staff report as well as Councillor Stavinga’s motions. He felt the report set a good precedence in that it was an example of the City’s willingness to work with rural landowners and stakeholders.

Mr. B. Finch, President of the Friends of the Jock River, noted that there had been agreement amongst the stakeholders for all the recommendations except for number 5. He referenced recommendation 1 and expressed concerns with respect to the impact on the Jock River. Therefore, he urged the City to evaluate the options on a science-based watershed basis. He expressed a preference for having water go to the upper part of the watershed and down the Hobbs Drain. With respect to recommendation 5a, he believed the earliest that lands could be considered for designation would be during the 2013 Official Plan review. He was concerned that such lands may be developed in the interim. He wondered if the City would be able to protect the 120-meter set-back for these wetlands and he concluded his presentation for thanking Ms. Levesque for her dedication, honesty and sensitivity to the many different, and often heated, positions expressed by the stakeholders.

Chair Jellett asked staff to comment on the suggestion that lands would not be protected until 2013. Ms. Levesque noted that there was not a history of a lot of development applications in the area and that, based on an assessment of potential development pressures, staff did not expect a flood of applications to come forward. Furthermore, she explained that much of the area had rural natural features. Therefore, any development application would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement that was acceptable to the City and the Conservation Authority. In addition, other Official Plan policies would impact potential development applications coming forward for the area.

Mr. B. McKinley, Chair of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee, indicated he was pleased to see that individuals concerned with property rights and individuals concerned with environmental conservation were starting to say the same thing. He reported that the Rural Issues Advisory Committee had endorsed the recommendations and asked that they go forward as written. With respect to the Compensation Strategy, he believed this needed further review and he expressed a willingness to work with the other Advisory Committee Chairs on a collaborative basis.

Mr. K. McRae indicated he disagreed with the staff report because he felt it did not provide a suitable balance between protecting Provincially Significant Wetlands and recognizing property rights. With respect to earlier notification and consultation, he submitted that the City had sent out letters before April 2005 to all landowners with respect to the Jock River Reach 2 Sub-Watershed Study and that the landowners had responded by denying City staff access to their properties. The speaker outlined some of his concerns with respect to recommendation 1 of the report. He referenced the Robinson Consultants’ report, which he felt did not give any consideration to the environmental impacts of the proposed drainage diversion. Furthermore, he believed the consultant’s report contained many flaws and gaps of information. Mr. McRae concluded by stated that he was not opposed to the removal of beavers and beaver dams so as to allow the natural free flow of water into both the Flowing Creek and Hobbs Drain subwatersheds.

Councillor Brooks asked Mr. McRae to elaborate on his comment with respect to gaps of information in the consultants’ report. Mr. McRae submitted that the report did not discuss the impacts of directing water into the Flowing Creek Subwatershed as opposed to letting it naturally divide into the 2 watersheds. Furthermore, he believed the report did not accurately report the flow figures.

Councillor Brooks asked the consultant to comment on this issue. Mr. Robinson noted that the consultant’s role, in preparing the referenced report, had been to look at water flow going to the Hobbs Drain and the Flowing Creek Drain.

A written submission was received from Mr. G. A. Ritchie, Kemptville District, Ministry of Natural Resources, and is held on file.

Chair Jellett read three motions into the record, two from Councillor Stavinga, which Councillor Chiarelli had agreed to move on her behalf, and one from Councillor Brooks.

Moved by Councillor Chiarelli:

Extend the role of the Wetland Stakeholders’ Group and continue to engage the Group in actions arising from the recommendations, such as in the establishment of a baseline for the purpose of monitoring environmental changes, the monitoring itself, the development of the compensation policy and the establishment of the education program.

CARRIED

Moved by Councillor Chiarelli:

WHEREAS the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee has recommended that Council direct staff to include a 2007 budget pressure of $50,000 in order to develop a compensation policy to accompany the relevant conservation measures available to the City or its agency partners in the conservation of environmental lands (per Recommendation 7); and

CARRIED

With respect to Councillor Brooks’ motion, Councillor Stavinga asked that it be amended to ask that staff prepare a “progress report encompassing all the recommendations”. Councillor Brooks agreed to amend his motion accordingly.

Moved by Councillor Brooks:

That staff be directed to request the Ministry of Natural Resources to review Wetland Designation Criteria in concert with City of Ottawa staff in light of the recommendations coming out of the Goulbourn Wetland consultation process;

CARRIED

In closing, Councillor Stavinga acknowledged the efforts of the landowners, the Advisory Committees, the Friends of the Jock River and Mr. McRae. She also thanked Ms. Levesque for her creativity and her spirit of cooperation, and Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Moser for allowing Ms. Levesque the authority to work with the community in a constructive and creative manner.

The Committee then voted on the report as amended.

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve the following, as amended:

2. As part of the process to declare Flowing Creek a Municipal Drain which is subject to a separate report to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on June 22, 2006, direct staff to:

a. Monitor environmental changes as a result of these actions by establishing a baseline in advance and annual monitoring after the corrective works are undertaken;

b. Report annually to Committee and Council on the monitoring results or when significant landscape changes in vegetation, creek health or surface drainage are observed.

3. Direct staff to continue to provide feedback to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ review of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) through:

b. Participation in the targeted consultation later in 2006 as a direct participant and through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

c. For those lands within existing designated Limestone Resource Areas, they shall remain as limestone resource through the 2008 Official Plan review.

9. Communicate the results of this wetland resolution process and the report outcome to all landowners within the subject lands and adjacent lands of the Flewellyn Road area of Goulbourn.

CARRIED as amended

[1] From Joffre Cote, MNR / Ottawa Stewardship Coordinator

1. INTERIM REPORT – WETLANDS RESOLUTION WORKPLAN

RAPPORT PROVISOIRE – PLAN DE TRAVAIL POUR LA RÉSOLUTION DES PROBLÈMES LIÉS AUX TERRES HUMIDES

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

Documentation

Mandate

Representation

City Staff Support

Wetland Stakeholder Group Deliverable

Proposed Workplan Schedule

April 5, 2006 Meeting

June 7, 2006

Definition of Wetlands / Methodology for their identification and evaluation (including complexing)

Municipal Drainage Issues

Wetlands within Rural Context

Impact of Wetland Designation (and other more restrictive designations) on property value

2. Retention of Ownership:

The Purpose of Municipal Drains

Why is it Called a "Municipal Drain"?

Do's and Don'ts for Property Owners

You should:

You can expect:

You should NOT: