White Paper
Ottawa’s Natural Environment System: How Well is it Working?

Overview
Background
A. Criteria to Define “Significant” Woodlands
B. Woodlands not Included in an Environmental Designation
C. Linking the Official Plan to the Provincial Policy Statement
How to Provide Input
Annex 1

Overview

Ottawa’s Official Plan is required to implement provincial policies regarding natural heritage features, such as woodlands and wetlands, that together function as a natural heritage system. The Official Plan identifies many natural features and limits development in these areas. While some features are not mapped or “designated” in the Official Plan, they are still subject to city-wide policies.

The Official Plan Review is an opportunity for the community and Council to discuss options to improve both the City’s policies and the ways they are implemented. Landowner compensation has already been flagged as an issue and a separate discussion paper has been prepared that looks at it in more depth.

This discussion paper will review three key issues relevant to the designation and protection of the natural environment:

Readers should note that the White Paper “Compensation Options for Wetlands and Other Environmental Lands” also deals with issues related to this paper.

[ top ]

Background

The City protects woodlands, wetlands and other natural heritage features in its Official Plan in several ways. The Plan designates features on maps in the Plan and attaches policies to each type of land about how it can be used. The natural environment designations in the Plan are for Natural Environment Areas and provincially significant wetlands¹, where no development is permitted; Rural Natural Features, where an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to support development; and Urban Natural Features, which are owned by the City. In addition to designations, citywide policies in the Plan guide development in terms of the kinds of studies that are required and the measures to be taken to protect surface and groundwater, fish habitat, and the habitat of endangered and threatened species.

The former Region of Ottawa-Carleton identified or confirmed the significant natural areas citywide in the mid-1990s as part of the Natural Environment Systems Strategy (NESS). The NESS evaluated the significance of features with respect to several criteria: the characteristics of the landscape within which the natural area is located; representation of common and rare vegetation and landform units and diversity of these units; significant species; seasonal concentrations of wildlife species; hydrological features; and, the condition of the natural area. Both the NESS and the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement² share the same objectives: to protect biodiversity, significant natural features, and ecological functions.

In Ottawa, the tool typically used to assess the effect of development during the development review process is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For many environmental lands in the city, the need to complete an EIS (and use it to guide development) is the primary difference between environmental lands and other lands, in terms of how they are considered in the development review process.

Surface water, including fish habitat, and groundwater are also part of the natural heritage system. Development in fish habitat and on adjacent lands is only permitted according to provincial and federal legislation (i.e., regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act on Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, the Lakes and Rivers Improvements Act and the Fisheries Act administered by the Conservation Authorities). Generally, the Provincial Policy Statement charges municipalities with protecting, improving and restoring the quality and quantity of water.

When an official plan review is done, the municipality must demonstrate that its plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The Official Plan protects the natural heritage system as required by the Provincial Policy Statement if it meets two tests. The Plan meets the policy if it prohibits development and site alteration in provincially significant wetlands and the habitat of endangered species; and if it requires an Environmental Impact Statement to demonstrate no negative effect on significant woodlands, valleylands, wildlife habitat, ANSIs and their adjacent lands before development is permitted.

The language of the Official Plan is different than the language of the Provincial Policy Statement, in that it does not refer to “significant” woodlands, valleylands, and wildlife habitat. In order to assess whether the Plan protects these features and others within a Natural Heritage System, as required by the Provincial Policy, available information about Ottawa’s natural features was used to map a draft Natural Heritage System. For discussion purposes, the following elements were included in the system:

• Provincially Significant Wetlands – as identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and designated in the Official Plan.
• Significant Woodlands – contiguous woodland patches that contain mature stands (i.e, currently over 80 years old) and interior forest (i.e., forest habitat located over 100 m inside the edge of a forest patch) and that are within 5 m of a surface water feature such as a river, creek, drain, pond or wetland.
• Significant Valleylands –valleys with slopes exceeding 30%, excluding non-natural features such as pits and quarries. In Ottawa, significant valleylands are largely found in the urban area and many are publicly owned because they cannot be developed. In the rural area, the valleys that are the most noticeable on the landscape are the Cody Creek Valley in the west end and several creek valleys in the former Cumberland area.
• Significant Wildlife Habitat3 – Escarpments are significant wildlife habitat, due to their potential to provide over-wintering sites (hibernacula) for bats and various snakes, as well as to support rare vegetation communities. Apart from escarpments, significant habitat was not defined separately because wetlands and significant woodlands include most of the city’s significant wildlife habitat. No additional measures, such as designations or policies in the Plan, are proposed here to protect significant wildlife habitat because the protections for significant woodlands and wetlands serve that purpose.
• Surface Water Features and Fish Habitat – the inclusion of surface water features (i.e., rivers and creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands) in the natural environment system incorporates key hydrological and ecological functions. All surface water features within the city are generally considered to provide potential fish habitat, subject to verification through site-specific studies if development is proposed.
• Other Designated Features – Landform features now identified in the Official Plan include several Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest.

Using these definitions, a total of 23% of the City’s land area could be considered as the core of a draft natural heritage system of significant features linked by watercourses. Considering that 29% of the city’s total area contains forest cover (sometimes over wetlands), the natural heritage system by any definition includes a great deal of the existing forest.

The features in this draft natural heritage system – the significant woodlands, wetlands and valleylands, along with the wildlife habitat they provide - are largely contained in environmental designations in the Official Plan. Annex 2 shows the significant woodlands and the significant wetlands in Ottawa in the context of the Official Plan. Significant valleylands are too small to show on the map. About 80% of the features defined as significant are on land designated in the Plan as Natural Environment Area, provincially significant wetland, Rural Natural Feature, or Agricultural Resource. The Plan either prohibits development in these areas or requires an EIS to determine and mitigate impacts of development. In this respect, the Official Plan meets the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Of the remaining 20% of the system defined as significant—mostly woodlands and woodlands that contain wet areas – about 4% are on lands that will be used for mineral extraction. The Provincial Policy Statement also requires protection of mineral aggregates and the most commercially viable deposits are designated in the Plan. Future applications for licenses will consider whether and how to preserve or mitigate impacts on these features. The remaining features are in General Rural Areas where residential and other development is permitted and has already occurred in some instances.

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest are identified by symbols or are included in environmental designations in the Official Plan.

In addition to the designations, some of the components of the natural heritage system are not designated in the Plan, but rather are protected by citywide policies. These include:

• Significant Habitat for Endangered/Threatened Species - Section 4.7.4 Protection of Endangered Species)
• Significant Valleylands - Section 4.7.3 Erosion Prevention and Protection of Surface Water
• Fish habitat – Section 4.7.3 Erosion Prevention and the Protection of Surface Water
• Surface Water & Groundwater – Section 2.4.3 Watershed and Subwatershed Plans; Section 4.7.3 Erosion Prevention and Protection of Surface Water; 4.7.5 Protection of Groundwater Resources

[ top ]

A. Criteria to Define “Significant” Woodlands

Many significant features are defined by the provincial or federal governments, while others are open to interpretation at the municipal level. The local definition can be more specific than the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement, but never more permissive. The features defined by the provincial and federal government are:

• wetlands and habitat of endangered and threatened species;
• Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs); and,
• fish habitat.

The three features that require greater definition at the municipal level are:

• significant valleylands;
• significant wildlife habitat;
• significant woodlands.

Ottawa and adjacent municipalities have handled these features in different ways. Some municipalities, such as the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and Renfrew County, closely follow the Provincial Policy Statement in terms of the types of features identified in the policy and the definitions used. Other municipalities, such as Montague, may not refer to “significant woodlands” or “significant wildlife habitat” but include these types of features within a larger area such as “sensitive areas”. These three municipalities plus others (e.g., Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Mississippi Mills, and Lanark) either designate significant features in the Official Plan or use an overlay to identify them. An Environmental Impact Statement is required where development is proposed within or adjacent to the features.

Valleylands are defined in the Provincial Policy Statement as natural areas occurring in valleys or depressions containing water for some part of the year. Ottawa and most adjacent municipalities have Official Plan policies that protect setbacks from watercourses and identify steep slopes and other lands where development is constrained by soil conditions or flooding.

The definition of significant woodlands is the most variable and has greatest impact on the extent and distribution of the natural heritage system. Some municipalities, including several in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry, use the Eastern Ontario Model Forest’s valuation system that considers such characteristics as size of the forest patch, the amount of interior forest, slope, proximity to other woodlands, and proximity to water, and then ranks the value of forests from “most valuable” to “least valuable”. Other municipalities, such as York, Halton, and Hamilton, set several criteria and identify significant forests as any forest that meets any one or two of the criteria.

Other criteria in use in Ontario municipalities include age (Halton, Hamilton, Durham); slope (City of London); potential for connection to an escarpment, valley, river corridor or other feature (York, Halton, Norfolk County, Middlesex County, City of London); species diversity (Durham Region, City of London); or presence of rare species (York, Hamilton, Norfolk, City of London). In general, the definitions vary in terms of whether they yield a ranking of the relative value of a feature (i.e., “high”, “moderate” or “low”) or whether they operate more simply to indicate whether a feature is significant or not.

The Natural Environment System Strategy in the mid-1990s evaluated woodlands within the context of larger natural areas so that significance was assigned to the combination of natural habitats and vegetation communities rather than just to the woodland.

Question for Discussion

1. What criteria should the City use to define significant woodlands?

[ top ]

B. Woodlands not Included in an Environmental Designation

Based on the criteria used to identify significant woodlands and the available data, some significant woodlands are not in an environmental designation in the Official Plan or are not the subject of an EIS if development is proposed. More specifically, the following gaps were found where significant natural features likely exist on the ground but are not afforded any explicit natural environment consideration in the Plan:

• Significant woodlands in agriculture areas – Non-agricultural development of woodlands and other lands within Agricultural Resource Areas is generally not permitted, given the agricultural value of the land. Development may be proposed in the General Rural Area adjacent to some of these woodlands and no EIS would be required to assess impacts on the woodland. Also, if the designation of the woodland is changed from Agricultural Resource to General Rural to permit development, there would be no requirement to consider impacts on the woodland.
• Significant features in villages - Woodlands that extend into villages (Metcalfe, Vars, and Vernon) are not protected in village plans or in the Official Plan and adjacent lands could be developed without assessing impacts on the features.
• Significant features in the General Rural Area – Several woodlands that would be described as significant could be developed without consideration of the effect on the woodland.
• Development on land adjacent to significant features – The Plan requires an EIS when development is proposed adjacent to provincially significant wetlands and Natural Environment Areas but an EIS may not be required for development adjacent to features contained within Rural Natural Features.

These gaps could be addressed by designating these significant woodlands as Rural Natural Features in the Official Plan and reviewing and revising requirements for an EIS for land adjacent to these features. Alternatively, a policy requiring an EIS for any development proposal in or adjacent to “significant woodlands” as defined above (or in another manner) would catch most if not all of these situations when development is proposed. Tree preservation and protection plans could also be used more effectively, to trigger an Environmental Impact Statement in areas where an EIS is not currently required.

If the EIS indicated the presence of wetland, an evaluation to determine its significance could be triggered. Some municipalities require wetlands to be evaluated for their provincial significance when development is proposed. It is likely that there are wetlands in Ottawa that would be considered as significant if they were evaluated. The data from EIS documents could also be used to begin to build a systematic database on wildlife habitats.

Questions for Discussion

1. Which strategy should the City adopt to protect woodlands not included in an environmental designation?

[ top ]

C. Linking the Official Plan to the Provincial Policy Statement

At times in the review of development applications, the provincial policy and the Official Plan are referenced as separate rather than complementary legislation. Introduction of terms such as “significant woodland” in the Plan and references in supporting documents, such as EIS guidelines, could create a clearer and more consistent framework for development review from the initial application through to appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Requirements for Environmental Impact Statements also need to be redesigned to better meet the tests set in the provincial policy for assessing negative impacts.

Questions for Discussion

1. How can we address cumulative effects? Do we permit a percentage loss from an individual feature? Why?
2. Should we consider the effect of any loss on the total landscape? Why?
3. Can we set more complex requirements for the assessment, depending on the nature of the application (e.g., a large subdivision) or the sensitivity of the feature? What could those requirements be?

[ top ]

How to Provide Input

Send comments by phone, regular mail, e-mail or by visiting the City’s Web site before December 9, 2007.

Contact the author by phone, in writing or by e-mail:

Judy Flavin
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
613-580-2424 ext. 27886
judy.flavin@ottawa.ca

Go to: ottawa.ca/beyondottawa2020 and register your comments using the on-line discussion tool Ottawa Talks. Register your e-mail address at the same time to receive notification of upcoming public consultation events.

Send your comments to: plan@ottawa.ca

[ top ]

Annex 1

Excerpt from the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)
Full text is available at http://www.gov.on.ca

2.0 – Wise Use and Management of Resources

Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits.

Accordingly:

2.1 Natural Heritage

2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.

2.1.3 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

1. significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species;
2. significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and
3. significant coastal wetlands.

2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

1. significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1;
2. significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield2 ;
3. significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield2;
4. significant wildlife habitat; and
5. significant areas of natural and scientific interest

unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

2.1.7 Nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue.

2.2 Water

2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by:

2.2.2 Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored.

Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface water features, sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions.

[ top ]

White Paper Endnotes for: Ottawa’s Natural Environment System: How Well is it Working

The designation in the 2003 Official Plan is “Significant Wetland South and East of the Canadian Shield”, which reflects the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement. The 1996 policies distinguished between significant wetlands on the Canadian Shield, where development was permitted if there were no negative impacts, and significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, where no development is permitted. The 2005 Provincial Policy statement removed the Shield distinction in Ottawa and all significant wetlands in Ottawa are subject to the no development or site alteration policy. The change affects wetlands in the Carp Hills and Morris Island, which are designated as Natural Environment Area in the 2003 Official Plan, a designation where no development is permitted.

² See Annex 1 for the Provincial Policy Statement policies for Natural Heritage and Water.

³ The provincial policy for significant wildlife habitat is less restrictive than the policy for significant habitat of endangered and threatened species, where no development is permitted.