EXCERPT FROM DRAINAGE REVIEW REPORT FROM ROBINSON CONSULTANTS DOCUMENT 3
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
POL
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
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:
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.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'agriculture et
des questions rurales recommande au Conseil municipal :
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.
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.
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
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:
The results of this evaluation, including recommendations, will be documented in the report to Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee in June.
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.
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.
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.
April 26, 2006 Meeting
May 5, 2006 Meeting
May 19, 2006 Meeting
May 26, 2006 – circulate draft report for comment
June 2, 2006 Meeting
June 8, 2006 – Final Report
June 22, 2006 – Report at the Agricultural & Rural Affairs Committee
STATUS OF WORK PROGRAM FOR RESOLUTION OF WETLAND CONCERNS DOCUMENT 2
|
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 21st with senior staff from City, MNR & Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing (MMAH) |
· 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 26th; 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 19th. 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 1st 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 3rd 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. |
EXCERPT FROM DRAINAGE REVIEW REPORT FROM ROBINSON CONSULTANTS DOCUMENT 3
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS DOCUMENT
4
Table of
Contents
1.2. Acquisition with 3rd Party
Support
1.2.1. Natural
Spaces Program – Acquisition
1.2.2. Wetland
Habitat Fund (See also Section 2.6)
1.2.3. Ontario
Land Trust Assistance Program (OLTAP) (See also Section 2.7)
2.2. Designation in the Official Plan
2.3. Conservation Land Tax Incentive
Program
2.5. Canada's Ecological Gifts Program
2.6. Wetland Habitat Fund (See also Section
1.2.2)
2.7. Ontario Land Trust Assistance Program
(OLTAP) (See also Section 1.2.3)
2.8. Natural Spaces Program – Stewardship
2.10. Education & Awareness Programs
2.11. Grants and Technical Assistance
Appendix A - The Natural Spaces Program
Appendix B – Local Land Trust Details
Appendix
D – Green Cover Program Press Release
Appendix E - Websites and Sources of information
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.
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 3rd party purchasing the property in the traditional
sense and gaining outright ownership.
Right of First Refusal
This
provides a 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd Party acquires the
property if they maintain payments over an agreed period of time. Like
Instalments this option gives a 3rd 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 3rd 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: |
|
1.2.2.
Wetland
Habitat Fund (See also Section 2.6)
|
|
|
Type: |
Acquisition
/ Stewardship |
|
Source: |
Various
|
|
Administrator: |
|
·
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: |
|
“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.”
·
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.
o
Land Preservation Society of the Ottawa Valley
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”
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: |
|
“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.
·
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: |
|
·
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.
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: |
|
“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.”
·
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.
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:
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 3rd 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: |
|
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)
·
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.
·
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:
·
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 1st
and October 1st 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
·
http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/support/esrf_frep/default_e.cfm
·
http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hsp-pih/
·
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.
·
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. |
Definitions from the Canadian
Wildlife Service (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/egp-pde/cov)
and from the Ontario Land Trust Alliance
(http://www.ontariolandtrustalliance.org)
Conservation Easements: are legal documents that
place restrictions on the use and development of land. These are registered in
perpetuity on the title of the property and are therefore legally binding on
subsequent landowners. Landowners in effect sell certain rights to their land,
often in return for tax benefits of some sort. Enhanced tax benefits encourage
landowners to attach easements, servitudes and covenants (all legal agreements)
to title deeds. Land Trusts are logical recipients, although some government
agencies can accept land as well
Covenant:
An agreement between parties whereby one party has rights to the land of the
other. For the purposes of the Ecological Gifts Program, covenants function to
protect and conserve natural features, wildlife habitats or other heritage
values. In addition to restrictions on land use, covenants are usually
accompanied by a right of access for monitoring and enforcing compliance. All
covenants donated through the Ecological Gifts Program must be registered on
the title to the land, and bind future owners to the terms of agreement.
Servitude:
In conservation terms, a legally binding agreement made between a landowner and
a conservation organization or government agency for the purposes of protecting
and conserving natural features, wildlife habitats, or other heritage values.
The definition of total ecological gifts in Canada’s Income Tax Act
includes servitudes “for the use and benefit of dominant land”. Consequently,
the recipient of the donated servitude must own land that borders on the land
to which the donated servitude applies in order for the servitude to qualify as
an ecological gift under the Act. Only a real servitude can qualify as Ecogift.
All servitudes donated through the Ecological Gifts Program must be registered
on the title to the land, and bind future owners to the terms of agreement.
Covenants, easements and servitudes are similar in
nature. Definitions within provincial and territorial legislation may vary, so
always consult the appropriate legislation for exact information
MEDIA
RELEASE
For
Immediate Release
September
21, 2005
Creative
partnership struck to give boost to Greencover Canada
A
promising partnership has been struck to improve the availability of on-farm
technical and financial assistance for some environmental beneficial management
practices (BMPs). The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA)
selected Conservation Ontario (CO), which represents 36 watershed-based
Conservation Authorities (CAs) across the province, to help deliver the
Greencover Canada program to producers.
OSCIA has
been chosen by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to deliver the Ontario
portion of the Greencover Canada (GC) program which offers technical and
financial assistance to agricultural producers wishing to adopt BMPs aimed at
improving soil productivity, protecting water quality, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and enhancing biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
Eligible
projects include: buffer strips and livestock fencing projects alongside
watercourses, structural erosion control work next to creeks, and tree
shelterbelt plantings. The program offers up to 50 percent cost-share to a
maximum of $20,000 per registered farm business to establish eligible BMPs.
Through
the special arrangement, Conservation Authorities will provide on-farm
technical assistance when requested by the producer, for work involving
eligible GC practices. In return, CAs will receive modest compensation for each
completed project, directly from OSCIA, to help cover a portion of the
incremental costs associated with the service provided. The funding to support
the OSCIA-CO arrangement comes through the $15 million agreement that OSCIA has
with AAFC.
OSCIA
President, Kevin Ferguson, says the arrangement with CO will result in more
BMPs being implemented on the ground where they are needed. “Environmental work
along watercourses has been a tough sell to many Ontario producers as compared
to in-field practices that offer the farmer a promise of return on investment.
Having skilled specialists from the watershed authorities available to offer
ideas and advice onsite, at no direct charge to the farmer, will result in more
producers taking advantage of what GC offers.”
Peter
Krause, Chair of Conservation Ontario, is excited with the prospect of 36
Conservation Authorities being involved in province-wide delivery of this
program to the agricultural community. “We have a solid team of professional
and technical staff that are eager to complement the delivery expertise that
OSCIA is known for.
Offering
environmental assistance to farmers has been an important activity for many Authorities
over the years.”
For more
information contact:
Andrew
Graham, OSCIA, Guelph
Tel:
519-826-4216 Email:
andrew.graham@ontariosoilcrop.org
OR
Richard
Hunter, Conservation Ontario,
Newmarket
Tel: 905-895-0716 Email:
dhunter@Conservation-Ontario.on.ca
*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=®ion_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
US EPA - http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/WetlandsFunctions.pdf
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_®ion=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.
Title: So, What's A Municipal Drain? |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
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:
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. Related Links For more
in Information: |
|||||||||
|
|
PROPOSED
LETTER TO MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES DOCUMENT 6
The
Honourable David Ramsay
Minister of Natural Resources
Whitney Block
6th Floor, Room 6630
99 Wellesley St West
Toronto ON M7A 1W3
Re: Request to Consider Social Factors in the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System
Through a recent initiative within the Goulbourn Ward of the City of Ottawa to designate significant wetlands through our Official Plan Amendment process, our community has raised concerns regarding the combined municipal and Provincial approaches to evaluating and protecting wetlands. The City has worked to address these concerns through 2005 to the present and will be continuing these efforts. To date, we have greatly appreciated the assistance from your Ministry’s staff in the Kemptville and Peterborough offices. This letter requests your assistance in continued support from the Ministry of Natural Resources in clarifying specific aspects of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES)and to further consider the potential to include social factors in this system.
To respond to Goulbourn landowner concerns with regard to the impact of designation, the City will be cancelling the wetland designation process until the following has been undertaken:
· Improved municipal drain maintenance and alteration to correct situations that have arisen over the past 20 to 30 years as a result of high beaver activity, limited drain maintenance and inappropriate ditching to re-direct surface waters;
· Revise the City’s notification and involvement procedures for environmental lands protection;
· Revise our environmental lands protection policies to include appropriate incentives and compensation to encourage private landowners to maintain significant ecological lands in their natural state; and
· Work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to encourage inclusion of social impact considerations and development of a compensation policy in applying the environmental lands protection policies within the Provincial Policy Statement.
As the City works through these recommendations, approved by our Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on June 22, 2006, and City Council on July 12, 2006, the assistance of your Ministry is requested. In particular, the City wishes to reiterate the following community concerns for consideration in your current review of the OWES, expressed to Ministry staff through a teleconference held on April 21, 2006:
· Further consider expanding the social value aspects within the Social Factor of the OWES in such areas as origin of the wetland (e.g. formed through natural or human processes); existing residence characteristics (e.g. land tenure, population density, length of residency); updating the social valuing of wetlands to align with current societal use and value of wetland products and functions; and re-examining the allocation of points within the Social Factor;
· Clarification of how plant species are used in determining wetlands and specification of wetland indicator species;
· Careful rationalization of the criteria used for complexing new areas to existing Provincially Significant Wetlands.
In addition, the City looks forward to participating in your targeted consultation on the OWES review results once they are available later this year.
A copy of the staff report documenting the City’s progress and future direction on resolving our community wetlands issues is attached for your consideration.
We very much look forward to your assistance in our continued resolution of wetlands protection in balance with community needs. Should you have any questions at all regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, at (613) 580-2424, extension 25521, or by e-mail at Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca.
Mayor
|
cc: |
Janet Stavinga, Councillor – Goulbourn Ward Dennis Jacobs, Director – Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy |
PROPOSED LETTER TO MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS
AND HOUSING DOCUMENT
7
File Number
12 July 2006
The
Honourable John Gerretsen.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17th Floor
777 Bay Street
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Dear Minister:
Re: Request for Assistance to Incorporate Social Factors in Interpretation of Wetlands Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)
Through a recent initiative within the Goulbourn Ward of the City of Ottawa to designate significant wetlands through our Official Plan Amendment process, our community has raised concerns regarding the combined municipal and Provincial approaches to evaluating and protecting wetlands. The City has worked to address these concerns through 2005 to the present and will be continuing these efforts. To date, we have greatly appreciated the assistance from your Ministry’s staff in the Kingston office. This letter requests your assistance in continued support from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in clarifying specific aspects of the Provincial Policy Statement and to consider working with the City to develop enhanced incentives for private landowners in environmental lands protection.
To respond to Goulbourn landowner concerns with regard to the impact of designation, the City will be cancelling the wetland designation process until the following has been undertaken:
· Improved municipal drain maintenance and alteration to correct situations that have arisen over the past 20 to 30 years as a result of high beaver activity, limited drain maintenance and inappropriate ditching to re-direct surface waters;
· Work with the Ministry of Natural Resources to encourage inclusion of enhanced social impact considerations in their Ontario Wetland Evaluation System;
· Revise the City’s notification and involvement procedures for environmental lands protection; and
· Revise our environmental lands protection policies to include appropriate incentives and compensation to encourage private landowners to maintain significant ecological lands in their natural state.
As the City works through these recommendations, approved by our Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee on June 22, 2006, and City Council on July 12, 2006, the assistance of your Ministry is requested. In particular, City staff have concluded that the concern raised in our community is not unique – since the protection of the features and functions of environmental lands benefits the greater community good, the burden of their protection and maintenance in a natural state should not be carried by individual landowners without appropriate compensation. A copy of the staff report documenting the City’s progress and future direction on resolving our community wetlands issues is attached for your consideration.
In addition to the larger question of compensation policy in environmental lands protection, the City also requests assistance in how best to interpret the Provincial Policy Statement in the areas of wetland and mineral aggregate resource protection. When both resources occur in the same location on the landscape, it is not clear which policy should take precedence.
We very much look forward to your assistance in our continued resolution of wetlands protection in balance with community needs. Should you have any questions at all regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact Dennis Jacobs, Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy, at (613) 580-2424, extension 25521, or by e-mail at Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca.
Sincerely
Bob Chiarelli
Mayor
|
cc: |
Janet Stavinga, Councillor – Goulbourn Ward Dennis Jacobs, Director – Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy |
