1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide details on the public consultation program undertaken for the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. It is one of the appendices to the final Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation study report that documents the study objectives, process, methodology and findings (Muncaster, Brunton, March 2005). The reporting structure of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study consists of a main study report and two separate appendices that are described below.

Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study Final Report

This report describes the scope and objectives of the study and the overall methodology developed to identify, evaluate and assess natural areas within the urban portion of the City of Ottawa based on their environmental features and functions. The methodology includes the site selection process, landowner notification, the evaluation criteria and framework, field assessments, and evaluation of the urban natural areas. The second portion of the report describes the results of the evaluation process, including ratings of the urban natural areas and ecological, recreational and stewardship management recommendations, and highlights trends and interesting findings of the field inventories.

Annex A of this report provides on CD the site summary reports and ratings for each of the 114 evaluated sites. For each evaluated site, the following information is provided:

1) Site Description including details on size, ownership, the ecological features and functions of the natural area, including connectivity, interior habitat, disturbance and condition, adjacent land use, invasive plants, vegetation communities and habitats, representative flora and fauna and significant features and species.

2) Environmental Rating Matrix identifying the overall rating attributed to the urban natural area, along with ratings for each of the nine evaluation criteria.

3) List of Native Flora and Fauna.

4) Site Boundary Mapping at a scale of 1:3,000, on a 2002 colour aerial photography base, of the urban natural area.

5) Management Recommendations, including passive (low impact) recreation opportunities.

6) Site References.

Appendix A - Vascular Plants of the City of Ottawa, with Identification of Significant Species by D.F. Brunton

A major deliverable from the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study is an expansion and update to the 1998 “Significant Vascular Plants list” published by the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton. This database is the best available assessment tool for determining floristic rarity in the City of Ottawa, including both urban and rural areas. The update, however, contains several hundred changes, such as new occurrence records, nomenclatural changes and locality clarifications, resulting from fieldwork undertaken in this and other field investigations since 1998.

This update plant list by Daniel Brunton has the additional benefit of including all vascular plants species, not just rare native species. This provides not only an indication of special features values (rare/ exceptional vascular plant species) but can aid in ecological determinations such as ecological integrity (proportion of non-native species), overall floristic diversity (total number of native species), and floristic representation (proportion of significant versus common species).

Final changes to the Significant Vascular Plants list resulting from field findings were incorporated into a comprehensive revision of the plant list. This significant, value-added aspect of the study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date reference on environmental significance that can be used with any environmental assessment or similar study within the City of Ottawa. This is the first time all plants documented in Ottawa (rare, common, native, non-native) have been compiled in one checklist.

Appendix B - Public Consultation Details (this report)

Appendix B provides a record of the public consultation activities held during the course of the study, including the establishment of a public advisory committee, production of study bulletins and holding of public open houses. At each step in the study, there was a significant opportunity for the public to provide value input to the process and methodology. Important public comments were received and incorporated into the study as part of the site selection, evaluation criteria and site boundary components in particular. Minutes from the Public Advisory Committee meetings, e-mails and other correspondence from individuals, summaries of comments at the public open houses and dozens of completed comment sheets from the open houses are the primary records for public comments.

For information pertaining to study methodology and findings, please consult the final report. This appendix to the main report documents the public consultation program, objectives, input and events that contributed to the study which are described in following sections below.

2.0 OBJECTIVES of PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The purpose of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study was to identify natural areas across the entire urban area of the City, and to assess their value in order to establish environmental protection priorities for the City.

Consultation with the public and key stakeholders was an important part of the study. While the study team reviewed all available studies and data on known natural sites in the urban area, it was essential to tap into the knowledge of community members and stakeholders. Their familiarity with their own community could not be duplicated or replaced by existing material. There were two types of information that the study needed: identification of sites that were not on the site list built from existing information; and details of quality, use, and character of sites, whether on the list or not.

The first objective of consultation was to facilitate public feedback on urban natural areas: first, to find all urban natural areas; and second to collect information on their characteristics, use, and value.

In addition, the study presented an important opportunity to inform the public, stakeholders, and landowners about urban nature, and urban natural areas. It was recognized that information is in itself an important source of protection for natural spaces.

With adequate information, landowners can exercise stewardship of natural areas they themselves own. Developers, architects, landscape architects and planners can consider the natural characteristics of sites before beginning plans for development, when the possibilities of creative protection are most open. Informed community groups and businesses can be future sponsors or non-profit partners for site stewardship and management. Community members can be the “eyes on the area” as a first line of protection for natural spaces, in the same way that “eyes on the street” are the best defence of other public spaces.

As well, the more familiar key stakeholders became with the study, the more quickly and successfully it could be implemented. Because key stakeholders were introduced to the study as it progressed, there should be limited need for a familiarization period after the study is complete. We wanted people to be looking for and asking for the results as the study was wrapping up. We also wanted as many stakeholders as possible to understand the purpose and the methods of the study by the time the study was over.

The second objective of consultation was to inform key stakeholders and the public about urban natural areas, and to facilitate the understanding and use of the study results.

3.0 CO-ORDINATION of PUBLIC CONSULTATION and STUDY NEEDS

Sometimes the main objective of consultation is to let people know what is happening, and to get their input in a general way. However, in this study, we needed input on specific items throughout the study. Figure 1 – Study Process illustrates the consultation events at key points in the study. Table 1 shows the contribution of consultation to particular project areas.

Table 1. Contribution of Communication Activities

Date	Consultation activity	Provided input on these items
2003
Jan	Steering Committee	Communication plan
April	Public Advisory Committee	Communications plan
May	Open House #1	Study goals & objectives Preliminary selection of sites Field investigations methodology
June	Public Advisory Committee	Site selection
Sept	Meeting and site tour for Public Advisory and Steering Committees	Site selection and evaluation
2004
Jan	Steering Committee	Site evaluation framework
April	Open House #2	Draft site boundaries Evaluation framework Use of study results
Nov	Joint Steering Committee and Public Advisory Committee	Site evaluation results Management recommendations Next step/Link to Greenspace Master Plan
Dec	Open House #3	Site evaluation results Management recommendations Next steps - implementation

The study was successful in getting input on key items in a timely way. It was therefore possible to integrate this input as the study progressed.

Study Process – Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES)

Oval: Fall 2002

Consultant retained by the City’s Environmental Management staff to undertake study

Double Wave: Open House
May 2003

Site Selection Process

Development of Evaluation Criteria

Field Surveys

Oval: June – October
2003

Double Wave: Open House
April 2004

Site Boundaries Determined

Site Summaries

Site Evaluations

Double Wave: Open House
December 2004 Oval: March 2005

Double Wave: Public Consultation
June 2005

Implementation Plan

(Developed by City Staff through the

Greenspace Master Plan)

4.0 COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

A communications plan was prepared to guide all consultation activities throughout the study. This required identification of key audiences, a review of communications challenges and opportunities, the creation of key messages, and the development of a strategy for contacts.

Given the objectives of facilitating public feedback and building understanding of urban natural areas among the public and key stakeholders, four target audiences were identified:

1. Owners of identified urban natural areas;

2. People with knowledge of urban natural areas, for example, neighbours of natural areas, environmental interest groups, educators, or outdoor recreation groups and businesses;

3. People involved in property development, such as planners, landscapers, foresters, engineers, architects, and appraisers; and,

4. Those involved in the approvals and implementation of development projects and in the stewardship of open and natural spaces in the City, from development applications staff to park maintenance staff to City Councillors and their staff.

4.1 Anticipated Challenges and Opportunities

Some of the communication challenges were common to other studies in the City of Ottawa: for example, the large geographic area to be covered; the varied target audiences; the need to work in both French and English; consultation fatigue due to on-going City consultation on other studies and the Official Plan; and the need to maintain interests over a relatively long study period.

Other challenges were specific to this study. Key concepts such as “ecological function”, “comparative environmental value”; and “urban natural area” were either abstract, new terms created by this study, or subject to several different meanings. The study did not include the development of policy responses to protect urban natural areas, but rather the creation of a base of information for a number of different uses, including policy development. The evaluation framework was expected to be quite complex. Some stakeholders would have had negative experiences, either with earlier studies of natural areas or with development applications.

On the other hand, the public environment in Ottawa has been consistently positive to a “green city”. This was seen, for example, in consultations on the Ottawa-Carleton Community Vision (1995). More recently, principles arising from the Ottawa 20/20 - Charting a Course consultations were endorsed by City Council in 2002. One of the six principles intended to guide the city to the year 2020 was A Green and Environmentally Responsible City, and A Green City was one of three components of the Official Plan Vision (2002). And, in the Official Plan adopted by City Council in May 2003, Maintaining Environmental Integrity is one of four strategic directions for the Plan and the City for the next 20 years.

In addition, the longer study period offered a valuable opportunity to build ideas and understanding as the study progressed. This offered particular advantages in preparing stakeholders for implementation as the study progressed, rather than waiting until after it was completed.

In response to these challenges, a communications strategy was developed with the following elements:

1. Focus consultation geographically, recognizing that people are likely to know their own geographic areas best;

2. Use an Open House or drop in format to accommodate varied audiences;

3. Use a transparent and well-documented process, especially for adding or deleting sites from the study, to build trust in the study and its results;

4. Use concrete examples, photos, sketches, site visits, and plain language to convey key concepts;

5. Create an atmosphere of building on previous work, such as the City’s Natural and Open Spaces Study, without relying uncritically on it; and,

6. Acknowledge the positive and important place that Green City has in community visions and plans.

4.2 Property Owners

The first identified audience for the study was owners of properties identified as candidate urban natural areas. City staff was responsible for reaching landowners, getting their permission for team members to access their properties for fieldwork, and providing a personal point of contact about the study. Section 3.2 of final report provides details of contacts with landowners.

All landowners, of course, had the opportunity to attend any of the project Open Houses. However, in recognition of the importance of these stakeholders, an additional evening was set aside in June 2003. Property owners were invited by letter to attend the session to learn more about the project, speak with staff and consultants, and provide their comments and suggestions.

5.0 TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

At the initiation of the study, two technical committees were established, a Project Steering Committee and a Public Advisory Committee. The Steering Committee was the main means of reaching our fourth identified audience, those involved in approvals and implementation of development projects and in the stewardship of open and natural spaces in the City. The Public Advisory Committee was one of several means of reaching our second and third identified audiences, people with knowledge of urban areas and people involved in property development.

5.1 Steering Committee

The Steering Committee met at key decision points in the study to provide their input and advice, and also to stay up-to-date on the study on behalf of their respective sections and agencies. A total of five meetings were held during the study, two of them joint meetings with the Public Advisory Committee.

The mandate of the Steering Committee was as follows:

· To provide input on technical issues;

· To provide guidance at key decision points;

· To bring to the study insights from members’ wide experience and different perspectives;

· To become familiar with the study to ease policy implementation and to maximize use of study results;

· To liaise with respective departments/agencies/committees; and,

· To take part in public consultation as required.

The Steering Committee was composed of City staff and staff of other agencies. The project team sought out members from all parts of the City who were involved with urban natural areas in any way. This involvement ranged from park and green space maintenance to the City Forester to Development Applications to park planning to the Official Plan. In addition two Advisory Committees were represented: the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Forest Advisory Committee. Table 2 provides a list of Steering Committee members and their affiliations.

As indicated in Table 1, the Steering Committee provided valuable input on all key features of the project as work progressed. As well, throughout the project, members were able to identify areas of mutual interest, or areas where co-ordination would be helpful. They provided information on other reports that identified or described natural areas. They also provided very helpful leads to people and groups that would be interested in the study. They shared their knowledge of mapping and data that the City or other agencies had available. Members also kept their respective agencies, committees, or work groups informed about the study. In addition, some members were able to assist the study by attending Open Houses.

One example of strengths added through the Steering Committee relates to green space planning at the City. The Greenspace Master Plan was initiated and pursued almost in parallel with the UNAEES. Staff responsible for the Master Plan participated on the Steering Committee. In addition, several meetings were held between the Study team and the Greenspace Master Plan team to deal in detail with issues important to both studies and their implementation. Urban Natural Areas were to be included in the Greenspace Master Plan. We coined the phrase “natural spaces” to make the connection and relationship clear, and this was very helpful in working with both staff and the public. Natural spaces were understood to be a subset of green spaces.

Table 2. Steering Committee Members

Member	Affiliation	Expertise
Alan Cameron	City of Ottawa, Parks and Recreation Development, Community and Protective Services	Park Planner Parks and Recreation
Christie Curley	Kemptville Office, Ministry of Natural Resources	Biologist
Nelson Edwards	City of Ottawa, Community Planning and Design, Planning and Growth Management	Landscape architect Urban Design
Bruce Finlay	City of Ottawa, Community Planning and Design, Planning and Growth Management	Policy Planner Greenspace Master Plan
Barb Gray	City of Ottawa, Environmental Management, Planning and Growth Management	Environmental Planner Project Manager
Craig Huff	City of Ottawa, Parks and Forestry City Wide, Public Works and Services	Forester
Cynthia Levesque	City of Ottawa, Environmental Management, Planning and Growth Management	Geography Program Manager
Don Maciver	Rideau Valley Conservation Authority	Planner Director, Planning and Regulations
Myles Mahon	City of Ottawa, Community Planning and Design, Planning and Growth Management	Planner Policy/Community Planning
Marilyn Muleski	City of Ottawa, Community Planning and Design, Planning and Growth Management	Planner Program Manager
Susan Murphy	City of Ottawa, Environmental Management, Planning and Growth Management	Physical Geography Project manager
Iola Price	Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee	Biologist
Richard Scott	National Capital Commission	Planner
Sally Switzer	City of Ottawa, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, Planning and Growth Management	Planner Development Approvals
Gerhard VanderLinden	Environmental Advisory Committee	Farmer

Steering Committee Minutes are on file with the City.

5.2 Public Advisory Committee

The Public Advisory Committee also met at key decision points in the study to provide their input and advice. A total of four meetings were held during the study, two of them joint meetings with the Steering Committee.

The mandate of the Public Advisory Committee was as follows:

· To provide ongoing input to the study;

· To bring to the study insights from members’ wide experience and different perspectives;

· To become familiar with the study so that it will be better known and better implemented; and,

· To take part in public consultation as required.

The membership of the Public Advisory Committee was developed by looking for representatives from two identified audiences: people with knowledge of urban natural areas such as environmental groups, educators, or outdoor recreation groups and businesses; and people involved in property development, such as engineers, landscaping companies, or planners. We reviewed City lists of groups, asked Steering Committee members for ideas, sought out professional and trade organizations that might have an impact on natural areas in the City, and used the team’s knowledge of the community. We also added several members from the community ‘at large” to make sure we had some input from “ordinary residents” of the City. Not all organizations invited to participate responded, but the great majority were enthusiastic, and provided members to the Committee throughout the study.

Table 3 provides a list of Public Advisory Committee members.

Table 3. Public Advisory Committee Members

Name	Affiliation
Lynn Winters	Kanata Environmental Network
Barbara Barr	Greenspace Alliance
Andrew Boyd	Ontario Professional Foresters’ Association
Anne Breau	Centre for Biodiversity, Canadian Museum of Nature
Nancy Doubleday	Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University
Brian Finch	Friends of the Jock River
Doug Fountain	Ontario Association of Landscape Architects
Mary-Sue Haliburton	Resident at large
Michael Lascelles	Environment Committee, Ottawa South Community Association
Ron Maybury	Rideau Trail Association
Richard Rogers	Landscape Ontario (Ottawa Chapter)
Mark Rowsell	Eastern Ontario Model Forest
Adrienne Sinclair	Ottawa Field Naturalists

The Public Advisory Committee provided input at all key points in the study, as outlined previously in Table 1. They brought their varied and complementary expertise to these discussions. In addition, members provided other valuable insights, for example, into the different ways in which natural areas were important to different parts of the community. Some members were able to attend Open Houses to assist the team. Members were also an excellent link to their respective organizations. On several occasions, team members attended meetings of specific groups to present information on the project, or to address some issue of particular concern to the organization. Their participation has resulted in the project being familiar to many important stakeholder groups well before the study was completed.

Minutes of Public Advisory Committee meetings are on file with the City.

6.0 STRATEGY for NOTIFICATION

Because of the very large geographic area of the study, a combination of general and focussed notification was planned.

For Open Houses, a standard notice on the City page of the Citizen and Le Droit was used. In addition, for the first Open House, a flyer-type notice was distributed to Client Service Centres, libraries, and other City buildings. The notice was designed to be used as a take-away and to be easily duplicated by anyone wanting to post or distribute the information to others.

In addition, for the first Open House, notices were placed in a selection of community newspapers. This was very effective, and was the most frequently cited source of information by people that attended those Open Houses. Budget constraints prevented the use of community papers for subsequent Open Houses. However, community papers should definitely be considered for future studies, especially where local information and/or interest is important.

All notices were also posted on the City’s website, under public consultation and environment.

To help identify the study, a consistent design for Bulletins and posters was adopted, as well as the phrase Natural Spaces in Urban Places. Copies of the two Bulletins, plus other notices, are attached to this appendix in Attachment 1.

6.1 Building a Mailing and E-mailing List

To reach specific audiences, with particular interest in natural areas, a number of steps were taken to build a project specific mailing and e-mailing list.

The team originally planned to use the City’s Master Contact List for an initial mailing to groups with an identified interest in the environment and natural areas. Unfortunately, at that time, the Master Contact List was under revision post-amalgamation. It seemed that all groups had asked to be contacted about all topics, from the environment to recreation to property taxes. The list thus did not assist in identifying subsets of groups that might be more interested in natural areas than other groups. Instead, the list was used as a starting point, and was culled intuitively by hand for mailings.

Given this situation, we shifted over to what can be referred to as a “snowball” approach. Each time a mailing or e-mailing was done, or an Open House held, the form asked if people wished to be contacted with further information, if they could be contacted by e-mail, and if they could suggest anyone else that should be added to the project contact list. In the absence of a list organized in advance by interests, we would start this way from the beginning another time, as it was both successful and cost-effective.

As well, steering committee and public advisory committee members were asked to suggest individuals and groups who should be added to the project list. Many excellent suggestions were received, and this continued throughout the study.

By the end of the study, the project mailing and e-mailing list contained approximately 650 names of individuals, landowners, and groups, many of whom had agreed to be contacted by e-mail.

The cost-effectiveness of e-mail was recognized. To make it easy to reach the study, project specific e-mail boxes were set up (naturalspaces@ottawa.ca and espacesnaturelles@ottawa.ca). This e-mail was active throughout the study. It was easy for people to remember, and had the additional advantage from the City’s point of view of grouping all project e-mail together, separate from other e-mail addressed to the project manager. However, a contact phone number, name, and address were always provided in addition to the e-mail.

Given the 18 to 24 month time line for the study, we developed two project Bulletins. These were designed to keep the project visible, and to take advantage of the extended time frame to repeat key ideas about the study. The first Bulletin was distributed well in advance of the first Open House, with a general invitation to participate. This was followed by a second mailing of the Open House flyer. For the second Open Houses, notice of the upcoming Open House was included in the Bulletin itself, and the two mailings were combined into one. For the third Open House, a notice/flyer was sent by mail and e-mail to the mailing lists.

Privacy policy was respected throughout the study, and people were not e-mailed without their permission. As well, there was also always an option to be removed from a list, to provide for errors or misunderstandings.

Project notification activities are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Project Notification

Date	Item	Comment
March 2003	Bulletin #1	Mailed, website
March 2003	Study announcement	Mailed, website
April 2003	Flyer re Open House #1	Mailed, website
April 2003	Newspaper ad for Open House #1	Le Droit, Citizen, selected community papers
March 2004	Bulletin #2, containing notice of Open House	Mailed, e-mail, website
March 2004	News paper ad for Open House #2	Le Droit, Citizen
November 2004	Flyer re Open House #3	Mailed, e-mailed, website
November 2004	Newspaper ad re Open House #3	Le Droit, Citizen

7.0 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES

Three Open Houses were held, timed to coincide with key points in the study.

Table 5. Open Houses and study needs

Date	Open House	Input needed on these items
May 2003	Open House #1	Site selection Evaluation criteria
April 2004	Open House #2	Evaluation framework Use of study results
Dec. 2005	Open House #3	Site ratings Implementation issues

7.1 Open House No. 1, May 2003

The first Open House, held in May 2003, was held in three locations on successive afternoon/evenings: at City Hall on May 21^st (central), at Cumberland Branch Library on May 13^th (east) and at John Mlacak Centre in Kanata on May 14^th (west). Open House #1 had the following objectives:

· To introduce the study and create interest and discussion;

· To start building an audience for the study;

· To review the existing information;

· To get input on site selection, description, and boundaries;

· To present preliminary mapping of candidate sites;

· To introduce the evaluation framework;

· To give an overview of the study and its key parts; and,

· To provide an idea of how study results could be used.

The major focus in terms of public input was on site selection. The team wanted to pick up any sites that might have been missed so far, based on the review of other studies and professional knowledge of team members. This was important so that any missed sites could be included in the fieldwork during summer 2003. It was also a key step in building credibility for the study.

The site selection display was made up of four area-specific aerial photos (central, east, west, south), with sites indicated by rough polygons, and each site numbered for easy reference. Participants were asked to mark any areas they thought should be added with a pre-numbered red dot, and to include that number on their site comment sheet. If they wished to comment on a site already included on the map, then they keyed their comment sheet to the already-assigned site number. Red dots were left on the maps through the three sessions of the Open House.

This approach had several advantages. First, the site location could be indicated in a very straightforward way. The location did not have to be described in words, a difficult task at best, and very time-consuming for the team to verify. Second, the site and the comments could be easily associated. Third, members of the public had the satisfaction of seeing the impact of their comments by the very visible red dots on the map.

As the Open House progressed through its three sessions, the number of red dots multiplied. The end map was an excellent reflection of the comments and sites received. It was directly interpretable by team members. It also indicated graphically that the team was receiving and recording comments, and helped to build credibility for the study.

To introduce the study, and some key concepts, the team prepared a three-minute PowerPoint presentation. This was set to run continuously, alternating between English and French, throughout the Open House, but without sound. Some people chose to look at the PowerPoint before viewing the displays, others chose to take it in at the end, or even to view it a second time.

The presentation repeated the design elements used in Bulletins, ads, and flyers. It used Ottawa-area photos, taken by team and staff members, to illustrate the range and beauty of urban natural areas within Ottawa. The content was carefully designed to introduce key facts about the study, and key concepts important to the study. A copy of the PowerPoint Presentation is found in Attachment 2.

The presentation was watched by almost all those who attended the Open House sessions, and attracted positive comments. As well, it was used in several on-request presentations to environmental and staff groups, and was equally well received. With minor modifications to update the content, the presentation was also used for the second Open House, a year later.

The PowerPoint used in this way had several advantages. It allowed for key messages about the study to be thought out in detail ahead of the Open House, and to be reviewed and commented on by team members and staff. At the Open Houses, it meant that key ideas were consistently presented, in a carefully considered way, at the convenience of the public, regardless of what time they came or what language they preferred. Team members were freed from explaining “the basics” and able to spend more time on site-specific discussions, assisting people with their comments, or answering questions.

What were keys to the success of the presentation? It was professionally prepared, with high quality production, in colour. It was short: three minutes is probably the outer limit for people dropping in to an Open House. It involved the whole project team, because it was prepared ahead of time, with input from everyone. It featured Ottawa photos, taken by people that the viewer could then meet. It did not have sound, which meant that it could be run unobtrusively throughout the afternoon and evening. It provided variety in the displays used, and a pleasant change from typical display boards or talking heads.

We found the presentation cost-effective, especially as it could be put to use for other purposes, and for the second Open House. We would recommend that this type of presentation be considered for similar studies, particularly where new ideas or abstract concepts have to be introduced to a varied audience, and the study runs for a relatively long time period.

Taking the three sessions of Open House #1 together, plus the special evening for landowners held in June with the same material, a total of 80 people registered. Fifty-two site-specific comment sheets were received. Fifteen new sites were identified by members of the public. The maps were also reviewed by the Steering Committee and the Public Advisory Committee, and presented to several environmental interest groups. From these comments, eight completely new sites were added to the list of candidate areas. Six other sites were added as expansions of natural areas already on the working list. There was also some merging and splitting of sites as recommend by comments and the study team.

People who attended the Open House sessions stayed a remarkably long period of time, many of them up to a full hour. This is one indicator of the level of interest and expertise of those who attended. This interest was also reflected in the number and quality of comments received.

Attachment 3 contains copies of open house notification and display boards. All comment sheets for Open House #1 have been retained by the City.

7.2 Open House No. 2, April 2004

The second Open House was held in April 2004, again in three locations across the City, at City Hall on April 21^st (central), at Cumberland Branch Library on April 15^th (east) and at Kanata Recreational Centre on April 14^th (west). Open House #2 had the following objectives:

· To reiterate the key features of the study, to provide a base for understanding new information;

· To share the excitement of fieldwork findings, both to build the study audience and to reward participants for their help;

· To present the draft natural area boundaries;

· To get input on the evaluation framework; and,

· To create an understanding of next steps, and how study results could be used.

The major focus in terms of public input was the site evaluation framework, and the possible use of study results. The major focus in terms of information to be conveyed was the fieldwork observations.

It is worth noting that actual ratings of the identified sites were not provided at this Open House. Although delaying the Open House until the site ratings were complete was considered, the project team was anxious to get input on the evaluation factors and ratings and the use of study information separate from views on individual sites. The team also hoped to continue to build an understanding of and respect for the methodology to establish comparative evaluations of urban natural areas.

The PowerPoint presentation used successfully in Open House #1 was updated and used again, with similar positive results. It particularly served as a simple and quick way to remind people of basic concepts of the study, a year later, and to introduce the study to people who had not attended previously.

Taking the three sessions of Open House #2 together, approximately 50 people dropped in and filled out a registration/comment sheet. Half came to the central City Hall location, with about one quarter to each of the east end and west end sessions. This compares to a registration of about 80 people for the project Open House held in spring of 2003 at three similar locations.

Several factors probably account for the somewhat lower turnout. In 2003, an ad in a community paper was the most commonly cited source of information about the Open House. Because of budget constraints, ads were not placed in community papers for the 2004 Open House. As well, in 2003 people received two mailed notices about the project and Open House, a Bulletin followed by a specific invitation to the Open House. In 2004, the two were combined in the Bulletin. Two notices may have been better than one. Finally, the 2003 Open Houses occurred at the same time as several controversial developments involving natural areas, and this definitely increased interest in the study of natural areas. This was not an obvious factor in 2004.

However, as in 2003, many attendees stayed a very long time at the Open House (up to an hour). This is reflected in the number and detail of comments received.

About half of the attendees provided us with comments, most of them quite detailed.

The comment sheet asked two questions, one about evaluation factors and ratings; and the other about ways in which study information could be used:

· Any comments on the evaluation factors and ratings? and,

· Can you suggest ways in which information gathered in this study can be used to help protect urban natural areas?

The relevant displays were highlighted to bring them to attendees’ attention for comments. We received a total of 39 comments. Table 6 shows the distribution of these comments.

Table 6. Comments, Open House #2.

Subject of comment	Total
Evaluation factors & ratings	9
Use of study information	18
Other	12
Total comments	39

All comment sheets have been retained by the City.

Selected comments: evaluation criteria and ratings

1. Wildlife habitat and connectivity are particularly important.

2. Add social criteria.

3. Add forest canopy cover.

4. Add adaptability of flora and fauna to urban environment.

5. Consider signs of encroaching contaminants in groundwater.

6. Want to see the detailed ratings so can “quibble”.

7. Add geological factors to ratings (mostly related to Canadian Shield, rare in this area, but of concern in one specific development dispute).

8. Add the impact of noise and light pollution to criteria, plus impact of new development.

9. Consider weighting the factors (but didn’t say on what basis or which factors were most important).

Selected comments: uses of study information to protect urban natural areas

1. Designate areas, like national parks.

2. Incorporate adequate information about the natural qualities of sites in staff reports that go to Council Committees.

3. Communicate the information internally among planning staff – must be improved, especially to protect privately owned sites.

4. Prepare policies, ensure they re followed.

5. Use to help purchase the land for everyone’s benefit.

6. Charge a fee – lots of nature lovers out there.

7. Use the information to help owners know how to protect features

8. Use signage to identify areas.

9. Restrict some activities in the most sensitive areas.

10. Look at how to deal with encroachments. (Should be dealt with in subdivision agreements.)

11. Concentrate effort on areas that can be saved.

12. Acquire the land.

13. Use the information to publicize the areas, educate public at every opportunity. The better known areas are, the better for appreciation and preservation. Use community groups to help do the promotion.

14. Modify Official Plan to protect these areas.

15. Work with a Land Trust.

16. Provide the information to schools for use in science classes.

Selected comments: Other

1. Non-mowed areas, while not “natural meadows” may be worth considering as they may have been undisturbed for years.

2. Add a buffer area around site boundaries – once identified, the site boundaries. should not become the limit for new development to take place, right up to this edge.

3. Protect lower rated areas to allow them to recover and be moved up on the list.

4. Extend the study beyond the urban boundary as soon as possible.

A quote of note

Like awards and movie ratings, the top rated areas will become recognized better and therefore easier to protect. To be at the bottom won’t help. Any kind of rating attracts controversy and the better known the areas are, the better [it is] for appreciation and preservation.

Attachment 4 contains copies of open house notification and display boards. All comment sheets for Open House #2 have been retained by the City.

7.3 Open House No. 3, December 2004

A third Open House was held by the City at City Hall on December 7^th, 2004. This Open House had the following objectives:

· To present and get comments on the final site ratings, management recommendations and next steps;

· To convey how the urban natural areas would be integrated with the Greenspace Master Plan process and to obtain initial feedback on implementation considerations; and,

· To provide a wrap up of the study for the public.

The final Open House was held in one central location only, rather than in three locations as for the first two Open Houses. About 26 people registered; comments were received from nine people.

Here are some sample comments:

Value of the study:

· Identifies ecologically valuable areas so City can start a rational acquisition process.

· Provides a scientific basis for decision-making.

· Provides data citizens can use in protecting local natural areas.

· Value depends on what follows from the study.

· Up-to-date information for many sites.

Value to me of urban natural areas:

· Experiencing green areas, especially if close enough to walk or cycle to.

· Connect us with the global ecosystem.

· Trees and shrubs reduce storm water run off.

Some challenges for protection of natural areas:

· Lack of policy on acquisition of greenspace.

· Development

· Lack of funds

· Lack of political will

Possible roles for community groups:

· Management of local natural areas – volunteer labour is essential.

· Work under defined management plans.

· Organize stewardship activities.

· Very little role in terms of protecting natural areas.

Interestingly, every person who provided comments also already participates in a “greening” activity of some kind, such as Friends of the [Experimental] Farm, annual park clean-up, Fletcher Wildlife Garden, or local tree planting.

Attachment 5 contains copies of open house notification and display boards. All comment sheets for Open House #3 have been retained by the City.

8.0 REPORTING

The draft final report was circulated to the Steering and Public Advisory Committees in early February 2005 for review and comment. A total of five representatives submitted comments on the study report. Generally, the comments pertained to:

· Accessibility of the report by the public

· Inclusion of the individual site summary and evaluations in the main report

· Revise “Disturbance” criterion to “Absence of Disturbance” to better reflect intent

· Editorial, spelling, formatting changes

· Clarification on overall rating determination.

· Clarification on how major roadways were dealt with in boundary delineation.

· Implementation of the management recommendations associated with each evaluated natural area

· Implications of past planning decisions on ability to protect valuable urban natural areas

· Bigger picture in terms of how the urban natural areas fit within the larger greenspace system and their contribution to open space and amenity values.

· How the study findings will transform into environmental policy and protection priorities.

The study team reviewed the comments and changes were made to the final report to provide better clarity with regards to boundary determination, evaluation framework, and overall rating determination. The report structure was also changed to include the site summary reports and maps for individual sites in the main report. Comments pertaining to implementation will be discussed and addressed as part of the consultation and finalization of the Greenspace Master Plan, as implementation is outside the scope of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study.

The final study report is available on the City’s website. In addition, the final study report and appendices are available at library branches and other public venues. The final report and two appendices have been placed on a CD and distributed to interested parties. The CD will also facilitate public requests for this information.

The 114 completed site summaries and evaluations have been subdivided into one of four geographical binders: Ottawa West, South, Central and East. A hard copy of the individual site summaries, evaluation results, and site map are stored and maintained by the City’s Environmental Management Division of Planning and Growth Management.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

The public consultation component of the study had a number of successes. We were able to obtain input as the study progressed, and to integrate that input into the next phase of the study. From the point of view of the study team, we received excellent feedback on natural areas, including site boundaries, characteristics, and use. A number of sites were added or merged, and boundaries amended on the basis of public input. Equally interesting, a large number of sites identified by the team from existing material and knowledge were confirmed.

The first objective of the public consultation program was to facilitate public feedback in order to find all urban natural areas and to collect information on their characteristics, use and value. This objective has been well met, and we can be reasonably confident that not too much has been missed.

The study was also successful in engaging representatives of public stakeholder groups in the Public Advisory Committee. This has contributed to making these groups knowledgeable about the study, and should facilitate understanding and use of the study results. The walking tour of selected natural areas half way through the project was particularly helpful.

The Steering Committee also engaged a good cross-section of stakeholders from the City and other agencies. City staff was provided informally with documents and maps as the study progressed, through the project manager, so that the information could be integrated into their work as well. This approach seems more likely to facilitate the use of the study than waiting until the end of the study to introduce it to staff who need the information on an ongoing basis.

On a broader basis, members of the public who attended various Open Houses stayed an unusually long time, and were actively engaged in the displays, the PowerPoint presentation, and with staff and team members. Many others received Bulletins and other information about the study by mail or e-mail. The best turn out came from advertising in community papers and from multiple “reminders” of the Open Houses.

The second objective of the public consultation program was to inform key stakeholders and the public about urban natural areas, and to facilitate understanding and use of the results. We are comfortable that good progress has been made, particularly with key stakeholder groups, and that this will have a positive impact on the use of the study results. There is also an opportunity for the Greenspace Master Plan process to build on the efforts for the Urban Natural Areas Study, with cumulative results that should be more positive than starting from scratch.

CITY OF OTTAWA

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION STUDY

APPENDIX B – PUBLIC CONSULTATION DETAILS

Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study Final Report

Appendix A - Vascular Plants of the City of Ottawa, with Identification of Significant Species by D.F. Brunton

Appendix B - Public Consultation Details (this report)

Table 2. Steering Committee Members

Biologist