EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Under the Ottawa 20/20 initiative, “A Green and Environmentally-Sensitive City” was identified as one of seven principles that will be used to guide the City when making day-to-day decisions. As the City’s population is projected to grow 50% over the next 20 years, the growth will need to be managed in a sustainable way, one that reinforces the importance of the natural areas that are so highly valued by City residents.

Ottawa seeks to preserve its natural diversity by planning on the basis of natural systems whereby natural processes and ecological functions are protected and enhanced. This principle was incorporated into the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan and a number of environmental strategic directions were developed to meet this objective. The Greenspace Master Plan was identified as one of these strategic initiatives that would identify all of the greenspace opportunities in the City and provide a means to secure them. Within this context, the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES) was mandated to identify woodlands, wetlands and ravines throughout the urban area that are worthy of protection. The purpose of the study was to identify and to assess the relative environmental value of these natural areas across the entire urban area, and make recommendations for management of these lands aimed at their long-term sustainability.

The consultant team of Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc. and Daniel Brunton Consulting Services with Nancy Smith, Planner and Mediator, were commissioned in December of 2002 to undertake the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES). The key objectives of the Study are to:

1. Establish a relative environmental evaluation of remnant natural areas within the urban boundary of the City of Ottawa; and

2. Propose ecological, recreational and stewardship management recommendations for individual natural areas aimed at their long-term sustainability, including how passive (low-impact) recreational uses may be better programmed to sustain and enhance natural features on site.

As the next phase of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, City staff will be developing an implementation strategy for urban natural features as part of the Greenspace Master Plan.

Background

The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study provides a consistent science based approach to determine the relative environmental value of remnant areas of woodlands, wetlands and ravine lands within the urban area of the City. The study area for Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study is defined by the urban boundary as depicted on Schedule B of the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan. The assessment of the environmental condition and the impacts on natural lands within the urban context is uniquely different to conditions and impacts that occur in the less developed rural context. The natural features contained within Villages and rural areas were therefore excluded from this exercise. Natural areas within Villages and rural areas will be assessed through other planning initiatives such as subwatershed studies and Community Design Plans or have already been addressed by the former Region’s Natural Environmental System Strategy Study (NESS).

Approximately 2,660 hectares of natural areas fall within the definition of woodlands, wetlands and creek/ravine lands within the urban boundary of the amalgamated City of Ottawa. These lands are an important element of the urban landscape. They contribute significantly to public health, community enjoyment, property values, and many areas sustain regionally and even provincially important natural features and values.

The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study developed a comprehensive process for defining and assessing the environmental values and attributes of urban natural areas. The main steps are:

Identification of candidate sites;
Assessment and description of each candidate site;

· Evaluation of sites applying environmental criteria to determine high, moderate or low ecological value; and,

· Development of management recommendations (ecological and recreational) for each natural area.

A summary of key study steps and findings is provided below.

Identification of candidate Urban Natural Areas

Natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, ravine systems and creek corridors were all identified for consideration under the study. Neither land ownership, zoning nor development status were factors in determining candidate urban natural areas. If the candidate natural area physically existed in the spring of 2003, it was considered eligible for inclusion in the study unless a building permit had been issued for the site. A minimum size requirement of 0.8 hectares was used to establish the list of candidate sites for evaluation. An initial list of 180 candidate urban natural areas was presented at the first set of public open houses held in the spring of 2003.

Refinements to the candidate site list were made based on input received from the public, various environmental groups, the project Steering Committee and the Public Advisory Committee. These refinements included additional sites, expansion of identified sites, merging and splitting of sites, and deleting sites due to major site alterations. A final list of 187 urban natural areas was compiled which includes new areas previously unevaluated and areas that have already been designated Urban Natural Features in the City’s Official Plan.

Evaluation Framework

An evaluation framework was developed for the study that provides a comparative environmental evaluation consistent for all sites. Nine evaluation criteria were selected to rate the ecological value of urban natural areas:

· Connectivity

· Absence of Disturbance

· Habitat Maturity

· Natural Communities

· Regeneration

· Representative Flora

· Significant Flora and Fauna

· Size and Shape

· Wildlife Habitat

The evaluation framework provides a clear definition of each criterion that is then further broken down into five threshold levels. Each threshold is assigned a rating of one through five, with a rating of 5 being the most ecologically valued or least disturbed. The rating assigned to each of the nine individual criteria was then combined to give an overall rating for the natural area. This overall rating was used to generally group the natural areas into three levels:

Low Ecological Rating – an overall rating of less than two,
Moderate Ecological Rating - an overall rating from two to less than three;
High Ecological Rating - an overall rating of three or greater.

The evaluation framework (evaluation criteria and scoring system) was developed in consultation with the Steering Committee, Public Advisory Committee and the general public.

Fieldwork Component

Once the candidate natural area sites were selected and the evaluation criteria developed, the fieldwork component commenced in June of 2003. The objective of the fieldwork program was to ensure that sufficient ecological information was gathered to provide a relative environmental evaluation of each site within the system of Ottawa’s urban natural areas. For many sites, especially within the former City of Ottawa, an extensive amount of information was already available through past studies such as the Natural and Open Spaces Study. For these sites the validity of the existing information was verified with a field review of the site in 2003. The data was updated with a description of the current state of ecological disturbance, notes of any significant changes in the features and functions of the natural area since the last evaluation, and the boundary of each natural area was refined.

For sites where less ecological information existed, a more detailed field survey was undertaken. This more detailed site assessment included an examination of representative portions of the different vegetation communities and landforms of the natural area to identify the ecological functions of the site. The field investigations collected information on forest stand ages, natural area size, number and rarity of community types, flora and fauna species, disturbance levels, ecological functions, geological landforms, other unique attributes, linkages to other natural areas, wildlife habitat, wildlife usage and corridors and existing recreational uses. Site disturbances such as non-native species, trail use, dumping and vandalism were recorded.

Recreational Component

The terms of reference for the study also required the consultants to evaluate the passive recreational value of the site. This was accomplished by an assessment of the capacity of the site to accommodate human uses such as recreation activities, with the focus on assessing existing and potential threats to environmental features and functions by various levels of human activity. Evidence of existing unstructured recreational activity, such as trails, was documented along with an indication of how formal the activity appears. The level of detail for the recreational component is not extensive, for example recommendations for specific trail routes is not defined, although portions of the natural areas to avoid are described. Identification of stewardship opportunities is another part of the recreational component included in the description of natural areas.

The primary objective of the recreational component is to protect the important natural features and functions of the natural areas by taking a look at whether sites could also support low impact recreation and which would be likely to benefit from stewardship opportunities. This component did not aim to be a recreational planning exercise, but will add information to each site to help the recreational planners and operations staff in managing existing and future recreational activities without compromising the integrity of the natural features.

Evaluation of Candidate Urban Natural Areas

A total of 114 sites of the 187 sites were assessed through the review of existing information and field visits. These sites were carried forward for evaluation. The nine evaluation criteria were applied to each of these sites resulting in an overall environmental rating of low, moderate or high being assigned to each area. A further review of the individual evaluations was undertaken to confirm that the overall rating assigned to each natural area was appropriate. One hundred and fourteen (114) urban natural areas are considered complete and have been evaluated and rated using the evaluation framework described in Section 3.1.

A total of seventy-three (73) sites were not evaluated either because access to the sites was not granted by the landowner (no response or refusal) or due to time limitations imposed by the field season requirements. A significant amount of existing ecological information is available for twenty-four (24) of the remaining natural areas. These areas require only an ecological condition check in order for the evaluation criteria to be applied, but access to the site is required. The remaining forty-nine (49) natural areas require a full field assessment prior to proceeding with the evaluation component.

The boundaries of all candidate urban natural areas have been digitized and are illustrated on a citywide aerial photo mosaic map along with the overall environmental rating (Figure 3). For those sites not evaluated, the required level of field assessment: 1) Full ecological assessment; or, 2) Ecological condition check, is indicated on the map.

Summary of Findings

The 187 natural areas cover approximately 2,660 hectares of the City’s urban area, or 7.7 percent of total land surface area within the urban boundary (not including significant water bodies). A total of 114 sites representing about 1,497 hectares have been evaluated representing four percent of the urban area. For discussion purposes, the City has been divided into four geographical sub-areas: West, Central, South and East. A summary of the overall ratings for the evaluated natural areas is provided in the following table:

Table 2. Summary of Overall Natural Area Ratings by Urban Sub-Area. Percent is the percent of sites evaluated to date
Sub-Area within City of Ottawa’s Urban Area	Sites High Overall		Sites Moderate Overall		Sites Low Overall		Total Sites Evaluated to Date	Sites to be Evaluated
Sub-Area within City of Ottawa’s Urban Area	No.	Percent	No.	Percent	No.	Percent	Total Sites Evaluated to Date	Sites to be Evaluated
West	6	26	10	44	7	30	23	12
Central	16	22	24	33	32	45	72	24
South	3	38	3	38	2	25	8	24
East	4	36	4	36	3	28	11	13
Totals	29	25	41	36	44	39	114	73

The forty-four sites rating the lowest represent 39 percent of the sites with a completed evaluation, while the twenty-nine high rated sites represent 25 percent of the sites evaluated. The twenty-nine natural areas rating high cover 860 hectares, with the moderate and low sites representing 450 and 129 hectares, respectively.

Site specific ecological, recreation and stewardship management recommendations will be provided for each candidate urban natural area. The management recommendations include operational measures with an emphasis on mitigating observed disturbances or other existing negative impacts. Measures for rehabilitating or enhancing the ecological features and functions of the natural areas are also provided, including control of non-native plant populations, removal of garden waste and debris, trail alignments, naturalization, and placement of interpretative signs.

New and significant ecological features were found in many urban natural areas of the City of Ottawa. The features included plants of interest at a local, regional and provincial level. Relatively undocumented natural areas with significant natural assets were found, such as Forestglen Park in the east and Hazeldean Woods Park in the west. Both of these sites have been rated high overall and, until this study, had been very poorly documented, or not at all. Other sites such as Heart's Desire Forest, Mud Lake and Trillium Woods that received high overall ratings were well documented by existing studies and are well known by the community.

Strong healthy functioning ecosystems continue to exist despite relatively small size and intense urban pressure in most areas. However, the ecological functions of many natural areas are being impaired by human activities and disturbances. The adoption and implementation of the management recommendations for natural areas are critical to sustaining a healthy natural system within the urban area.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Scope and Study Objectives...................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Structure........................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Study Process........................................................................................................... 4

2.0 SITE SELECTION............................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Review of Similar Studies........................................................................................... 7

2.2 Approach to Site Selection........................................................................................ 8

2.3 Identification of Candidate Sites................................................................................. 9

2.4 Candidate Site Results............................................................................................. 11

3.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Development of Evaluation Framework.................................................................... 12

3.2 Landowner Permission............................................................................................. 24

3.3 Fieldwork Program.................................................................................................. 25

3.4 Data Collection and Field Surveys............................................................................ 25

3.5 Recreational Component.......................................................................................... 29

3.6 Database Production............................................................................................... 30

4.0 EVALUATION RESULTS................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Urban Natural Area Boundaries and Mapping.......................................................... 31

4.2 Site Ratings............................................................................................................. 32

4.3 Management Recommendations............................................................................... 36

4.3.1 Ecological Management Measures............................................................... 37

4.3.2 Recreational Management Measures ........................................................... 40

4.3.3 Stewardship Opportunities........................................................................... 42

5.0 ANALYSIS of SITE RESULTS......................................................................................... 44

5.1 Interesting Findings and City-wide Trends................................................................ 44

5.2 West Sub-Area....................................................................................................... 45

5.3 South Sub-Area...................................................................................................... 46

5.4 Central Sub-Area.................................................................................................... 47

5.5 East Sub-Area......................................................................................................... 48

6.0 DATA STORAGE and MAPPING..................................................................................... 49

7.0 NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................... 50

8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 52

FIGURES

Figure 1 Study Process........................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 Site Selection Methodology..................................................................................... 10

Figure 3 Site Evaluation Results Map .............................................................................. at rear

TABLES

1 Comparison of Municipal Natural Area Studies...................................................................... 8

2 UNAEES Field Site Sheet................................................................................................... 28

3 Summary of Overall Natural Area Ratings by Urban Sub-Area............................................. 34

ANNEX

Annex A Individual Site Summary Reports and Mapping (CD)

APPENDICES (under separate cover)

APPENDIX A - Vascular Plants of the City of Ottawa, Ontario, with Identification of

Significant Species by D. F. Brunton

APPENDIX B Public Consultation Details by Nancy Smith Planning and Mediation

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the constant and valuable support of the Environmental Management Staff of the City of Ottawa, with special thanks to Barbara Gray, Susan Murphy, Deborah Irwin and Cynthia Levesque. The Mapping and Surveys Unit of the City, in particular Michael Willison and Stephen Perkins, was outstanding in developing maps for the open houses and producing the final individual site maps.

The Steering Committee and Public Advisory Committee should also be acknowledged for their dedicated participation throughout the study process. Committee members provided valuable advice at key milestone stages of this project.

Nancy Smith of Nancy Smith Planning and Mediation looked after the communication component of the project, including organization of the open houses, chairing the Steering and Public Advisory Committee Meetings, and production of the backgrounder mail outs and Appendix B – Public Consultation Details. Nancy also led the way on the recreational component of the natural area summaries and was a much-appreciated influence through the entire study.

Isosceles Information Solutions Inc. of Manotick generated the initial site maps and digitized the site boundaries.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Study Objectives

Over the next 20 years the City of Ottawa’s population is projected to grow by up to 50 percent, surpassing the one million mark (City of Ottawa, 2003). Although this level of growth will open many new opportunities for residents, the growth will need to be managed in a sustainable way, one that reinforces the importance of the natural feature areas that are so highly valued by City residents.

Under the Ottawa 20/20 initiative, “A Green and Environmentally-Sensitive City” was identified as one of seven principles that will be used to guide the City when making day-to-day decisions. Ottawa seeks to preserve its natural diversity by planning on the basis of natural systems, to protect and enhance natural processes and ecological functions. This principle was incorporated into the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan (City of Ottawa, 2003) and a number of environmental strategic directions were developed to meet this objective. One of the major deliverables is the Greenspace Master Plan (Policy 2.5.4). This plan is to identify and characterize all of the greenspaces in the City, evaluate greenspaces in terms of their value in the city, and develop a Greenspace Network. A key component of the Greenspace Master Plan is the identification and evaluation of urban natural features. As stated in Section 3.2.3, Urban Natural Features, of the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan, a comprehensive study that identifies all significant natural features and functions and assesses their relative environmental value across the entire urban area is required in order to establish environmental protection priorities for the City. The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES) was commissioned in 2002 to fulfill this OP direction and provide an important contribution to the Greenspace Master Plan.

The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study (UNAEES) provides a relative environmental evaluation of the remnant urban natural areas in the City. Although functioning at a different scale to rural natural areas, urban areas provide natural environmental benefits as well as recreational and educational opportunities at a local, community level. The natural features contained within Villages and rural areas are studied at a detailed level through mechanisms such as subwatershed studies and community design plans building upon the Natural Environment System Strategy (NESS) database. The study area for UNAEES is defined by the urban boundary as depicted on Schedule B of the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan. Municipal amalgamation provides an opportunity for a Citywide approach to a comprehensive, relative, science-based, environmental evaluation for the over 180 identified remnant urban natural areas.

The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study identifies features such as woodlands, wetlands, vegetated ravine systems and creek corridors throughout the City’s urban area. The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study evaluates the urban natural areas in both public and private ownership in the urban and urbanizing areas of the former municipalities of Ottawa, Nepean, Kanata, Goulbourn, Rockcliffe, Vanier, Cumberland and Gloucester.

There are approximately 2,660 hectares of natural area within the urban area of the amalgamated City of Ottawa. Urban natural areas are an important element of the urban landscape. They contribute significantly to public health, community enjoyment, property values, and many areas sustain regionally and even provincially important natural features and values.

The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study includes an extensive process for defining and assessing the environmental value of urban natural areas. The main study steps are:

Identification and selection of candidate urban natural areas;
Assessment and description of each candidate site based on field investigations;
Evaluation of the site applying the evaluation criteria to assign a high, moderate or low ecological value; and,
Development of management recommendations (ecological, stewardship and recreational) for each evaluated site.

The result is an integrated framework and consistent level of analysis for urban natural areas within the whole amalgamated City of Ottawa to assist in the development of a uniform policy direction. The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study provides a toolbox of technical information. City staff can draw from these tools to prepare a comprehensive urban natural areas strategy. The information will also be useful in the preparation of area planning studies, community design studies, environmental management plans and watershed and sub-watershed planning studies. In addition, the information obtained through this Study will assist in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for urban natural areas.

In developing a strategy for the protection of natural areas, other factors such as past and emerging development decisions, links to other greenspaces, accessibility, equitable distribution, recreational attributes and aesthetics will need to be considered. However, this analysis is beyond the scope of this Study. Through the development of the Greenspace Master Plan, an implementation strategy will be prepared by City staff which will determine the protection recommendations and securement tools applicable for each natural area. The identification of management recommendations and recreational opportunities for each area, through UNAEES, will provide further insight into the assessment of these factors. The information in this Study will also contribute to the public’s understanding of the value and role of natural areas in the City.

In summary, the key objectives of the UNAEES are to:

Establish a relative environmental evaluation of remnant natural areas within the urban boundary of the City of Ottawa; and
Propose management recommendations for individual natural areas aimed at their long-term sustainability, including how passive (low-impact) recreational uses may be better programmed to sustain and enhance natural features on site.

The public has had an important role in the Study by providing valuable knowledge of the natural area sites, including their characteristics, value and use. The UNAEES has given the public the opportunity to learn more about their urban natural areas, and to have input into the site selection process and development of the evaluation framework through two sets of open houses and distribution of study bulletins. A third open house was held in order for the public to review the results of the overall environmental rating assigned to each evaluated area and to learn more about the next steps involved in implementing the study findings.

For details on the public consultation program, please consult Appendix B.

1.2 Report Structure

The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study consists of this report with 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

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.

1.3 Study Process

The development of the 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan identified the need for evaluation of urban natural areas among the amalgamated areas of the expanded City. A number of remnant natural areas both in private and public ownership are found within the more urban and urbanizing centres for the former cities of Nepean, Kanata, Goulbourn, Ottawa, Vanier, Rockcliffe, Cumberland and Gloucester. These remnant areas have, however, received inconsistent levels of evaluation and policy direction in the former municipalities Official Plans. Municipal amalgamation provided an opportunity for a Citywide approach to a comprehensive, relative environmental values evaluation for remnant urban natural areas.

The City’s Environmental Management Staff developed the Terms of Reference for the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study and completed the consultant selection process in late 2002. Staff then formed the Public Advisory and Steering Committees to support the study. The Public Advisory Committee supplied community perspective, insights, and information. It also provided an initial line of communication to the larger community about the study. Members included representatives from the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee, expert non-governmental organizations such as the Ottawa Field-Naturalists and other environmental professionals, and community groups with an interest in urban natural areas. Members of the Steering Committee included representatives with expertise in natural environment from the City, Conservation Authorities, National Capital Commission (NCC), City’s Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, and Ministry of Natural Resources. Staff and the project consultant worked together to finalize the work plan. A communications plan was then developed.

Public consultation included the two sets of Open Houses in three different geographic locations in the west, east and central area with a third open house in the central location. The communications plan also used interactive tools such as e-mail, the City web site, as well as distributing study bulletins and public announcements in French and English newspapers.

Figure 1 illustrates the study process undertaken for the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. Each step of the process is described in the following sections of this report:

· Section 2.0 - Site Selection Process

· Section 3.0 - Methodology

· Section 4.0 - Evaluation Results

· Section 5.0 - Analysis of Site Results

· Section 6.0 - Data Storage and Mapping

· Section 7.0 - Next Steps

2.0 SITE SELECTION

2.1 Review of Similar Studies

Several studies of municipal natural areas have been completed in Ontario and other parts of the Country. With an emphasis on the Ontario municipalities, the review examined the methodology, findings and conclusions of these studies, including studies of natural areas in Edmonton (Westworth, 2001), Halton Region (Geomatics, 1993), Markham (Gore & Storrie, 1992), London (Bergsma, 1999), Waterloo (CCL, 1993), and York Region (Gartner Lee, 1994). Table 1 compares some of these other studies with the Natural and Open Spaces Study (NOSS) completed in 1998 for the former City of Ottawa, the Natural Environment Systems Strategy (NESS) of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (1997), and the current Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study.

These studies from other municipalities were most useful in establishing the evaluation criteria used in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study and the corresponding draft thresholds for the ratings within each criterion.

Including all urban natural areas in Ottawa in the study made the site selection process more straightforward than in some other studies. Instead of rating the sites at this initial stage, all sites with any notable natural feature or function potential were carried forward for study. Some other municipal studies examined only the potentially most significant of the total list of candidate urban natural areas (Westworth, 2001), or examined only remnant natural areas that were not protected by existing policies (CCL, 1993; Bergsma, 1999).

Other municipal studies examined both urban and rural areas (CCL, 1993; RMOC, 1997, Westworth, 2001) but rural natural areas were not included in the mandate of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. Other studies did not examine the natural areas in the level of detail completed in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study or completed analysis of far fewer sites. In contrast to the 187 urban natural areas carried forward in this Study, CCL (1993) examined 21 woodlands in the City of Waterloo and Westworth (2001) evaluated 66 sites in the City of Edmonton.

Looking at the earlier Ottawa NOSS, there are several important differences. The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study evaluates only natural features and functions and restricts the recreational component to implications for maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment. The NOSS, however, examined several types of open spaces in addition to natural areas, including parks, schools, open spaces and manicured green spaces. The NOSS also examined watercourses and their aquatic habitat. An analysis of the feasibility of retaining natural areas and open spaces was also conducted as part of the main study.

Many studies incorporated policy applications and an implementation strategy (City of Ottawa, 1998; Westworth, 2001). As discussed in Section 7 of this report, policy and implementation of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study will be completed as part of the City of Ottawa’s Greenspace Master Plan.

Table 1. Comparison of Municipal Natural Area Studies
Theme	Natural and Open Spaces Study	Natural Environment Systems Strategy	Edmonton	Waterloo Woodlot Study	UNAEES
Municipal area covered	City of Ottawa [former]	Region of Ottawa-Carleton [former]	City of Edmonton	City of Waterloo	City of Ottawa [amalgamated]
Type of area covered	Urban	Urban and rural	Urban and rural	Urban and rural	Urban
Purpose of study	Facts and policy	Facts and policy	Facts and policy	Facts only	Facts only
Nature of data	Ecological and social	Ecological	Ecological	Ecological and social	Ecological
Level of analysis	Fine	Coarse	Fine	Fine	Fine
Type of evaluation	Comparative	Comparative	Comparative	Comparative	Comparative

2.2 Approach to Site Selection

The study area is delineated by the boundary of the Urban Area as identified Schedule B of the 2003 Ottawa Official Plan (adopted 2003). Neither the National Capital Greenbelt nor rural areas in the City of Ottawa were included in this study. The natural system operating in the rural area of the City of Ottawa have been studied at a detailed level through such means as Greenbelt Master Planning, subwatershed studies and the Natural Environment System Strategy (RMOC, 1997). As well, the Greenbelt and many of the rural portions of the City include large and diverse natural areas such as Shirley’s Bay, Stony Swamp, Marlborough Forest, Richmond Fen and Mer Bleue. These areas constitute significant natural landscapes with more comprehensive systems of natural features and functions than those in the urban area. Comparisons among such a spectrum of rural and urban natural areas in a single study would have been unbalanced.

Land ownership, zoning and development status were not factors in determining candidate urban natural areas. If the candidate natural feature existed in the spring of 2003, it was considered eligible for inclusion in the study unless a building permit removing the feature had been issued for the site.

Terrestrial natural features such as woodlands, ravine systems, and wetlands were all considered in the Study. Although watercourses themselves were not explicitly studied, the vegetated portion(s) of the riparian corridors along the watercourses were included as candidate areas. Lands that provide an important associated function for the core natural area, such as adjacent early successional meadow habitat, were also included for consideration within the candidate areas. For example, the Britannia Conservation Area, Navan Road at Page Road, Conroy Swamp and Petrie Island also include adjacent meadow habitat. The meadow habitat would likely not be considered an urban natural area site on its own, but is included as part of the urban natural area site because it adds to the features and functions of the natural area.

A minimum size of 0.8 hectares was set for candidate urban natural areas. This was based on the methodology of other similar technical studies in Canadian municipalities and the recognition that significant self-sustaining ecological function is unlikely to occur in an area smaller than 0.8 hectares (Westworth, 2001). If a natural feature, such as a specialized wetland habitat, of less than 0.8 hectares was noted, however, it also was eligible for inclusion in the candidate site list. These smaller areas were considered on a case-by-case basis.

2.3 Identification of Candidate Sites

As an initial step, 1999 colour aerial photography was used to identify candidate urban natural areas. This was augmented by existing environmental inventory reports and personal knowledge of the City’s natural areas. The existing information included natural environment inventories and assessments completed as part of the Natural and Open Spaces Study, Natural Environment Systems Strategy, sub-watershed studies, master drainage plans, environmental assessments and screenings, and Official Plan reviews, as well as site specific environmental impact statements and tree preservation plans. The 2003 Ottawa Official Plan was also reviewed to ensure that all lands designated Urban Natural Feature on Schedule B had been included in the candidate site list. Input on candidate areas was also received from the Steering and Public Advisory Committees and the general public.

The candidate urban natural areas were roughly marked on the aerial maps. A “windshield check” of the areas in the spring of 2003 provided a field truthing for the initial screening. The “windshield check” provided confirmation that the candidate urban natural area still existed. Some sites were deleted if major site alterations had recently occurred which eliminated the potential natural environment feature and functions on the site, or if the site clearly did not contain natural environment attributes to merit consideration as a candidate urban natural area. As well, during the “windshield check” some areas that were not picked up in the initial review of aerial maps were added as candidate sites based on initial observations of potential ecological features.

Because of this screening, none of the sites retained for further study were completely lacking in natural features or value. Regardless of their final evaluation, all sites studied were included on the list because of apparent natural value.

“Windshield Survey”

to confirm presence of feature/function

2.4 Candidate Site Results

An initial list of 180 candidate urban natural areas was presented at the first set of public open houses held in the spring of 2003. For presentation purposes, the urban area was divided into 4 geographical sub-areas; west, south, central and east. Aerial photography maps of each sub-area illustrated the identified candidate urban natural areas with a crude polygon boundary. These maps were also reviewed by the project Steering Committee and Public Advisory Committee, and were presented on request to several environmental groups.

From the comments received from the public, various environmental groups, and the project Steering and Public Advisory Committees, eight new sites were added to the list of candidate areas. Six sites suggested by the public were added as expansions of natural areas already on the working list. There was also some merging and splitting of sites, as recommended by the public and the study team.

Sixteen sites recommended by the public were not considered to have natural values, and were referred to the Greenspace Master Plan project team. Each of these suggested sites was considered with a field check and/or review of existing background information. Small site size and poor site conditions were two key factors in not carrying a site forward as a candidate urban natural area.

A final list of 187 urban natural areas was compiled and is provided on Figure 3 and in Annex A of this report.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Development of Evaluation Framework

The evaluation criteria are the means for assessing the comparative ecological features and functions among the urban natural areas. The criteria provide the vehicle for transforming the field observations of a natural area into a rating system. The site summaries describe the characteristics of a site, for example, how old are the trees, how large is the site, what are the disturbances. The criteria take these observations and apply an evaluation framework to provide a comparative rating for each natural area. This approach allowed for a consistent, comparative, science-based assessment of the urban natural areas of Ottawa in one field season.

We describe this evaluation framework as indicators-based. Each of the nine criteria is an indicator of an aspect of the natural area associated with ecological value. The links between the indicator and ecological value is described in the definition of each criterion. For example, within the definition of Connectivity (Criterion 1) is the following statement:

Linkages to other urban natural areas such as woodlots, watercourse corridors and wetlands provide corridors for movement and assist in maintaining the health of natural communities including diversity and genetic health.

In other words, more connectivity provides communities with greater diversity and genetic health, factors in a healthier and more sustainable natural area.

For a second example, within the definition of Absence of Disturbance (Criterion 2) is the following statement:

Physical disturbance within habitats significantly reduces native biodiversity, the quality of ecological functions, and ecological integrity within natural habitats. The physical condition of the area is a good indicator of overall natural quality and significance.

The degree of disturbance, in other words, is a good indicator of the natural quality of an area.

We also call this framework an indicators-based approach because we are collecting observations of aspects of the natural areas that go beyond description. A description would say “The site is 4 ha in area.” An indicator says “This site has an excellent size, because it is greater than 20 ha in area, and we know that the larger the natural area, the greater the diversity and quality of ecological functions the area can support.” Evaluation criteria include both landscape and site level variables (Bergsma, 1999). Examples of site level criteria include rare species, absence of disturbance and regeneration while connectivity and wildlife habitat relate more to the landscape level.

To develop the framework, we reviewed other municipal natural area studies (Bergsma, 1999; CCL, 1993; Westworth, 2001), and particularly the NOSS (City of Ottawa, 1998) and NESS (Region of Ottawa-Carleton, 1997).

Because of the difference in scope between the NOSS (City of Ottawa, 1998) and the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, many of the evaluation criteria used in the NOSS were not applicable. These included criteria pertaining to social values, recreational linkages, watercourses and protection feasibility. The evaluation criteria for woodlands and wetlands were quite similar in both studies, although they were separated in NOSS, while they were combined in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study.

The main differences between NOSS and the Urban Natural Environmental Evaluation Areas Study exist in the application of the criteria and the thresholds used. For example, in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, the representative flora criteria examines degree of naturalness and species diversity in a more quantitative manner than the species diversity criteria for woodlands in the NOSS. On the other hand, the absence of disturbance criterion was handled less quantitatively in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study than the NOSS. In the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, ecological functions were addressed under separate criteria such as wildlife habitat, connectivity and habitat maturity while in the NOSS ecological function was a stand-alone criterion. Connectivity is one of the nine evaluation criteria in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, while in the NOSS there is a separate specific analysis of ecological corridor criteria. The size criterion in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study also includes an analysis of the shape of the natural area. The rarity of woodland community types was not a separate evaluation criterion in the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study as it was in the NOSS.

The UNAEES criteria utilize the NESS principles such as ecological condition, habitat representation, special features values and wildlife corridor capacity, but have been adapted to accommodate sites that may potentially be found in a more urban setting. Similar criteria were used by CCL (1993) for an evaluation of City of Waterloo’s woodlands. Their five criteria were size, ecological age, habitat diversity, species (floral) richness and significant species.

Once the evaluation criteria were selected, there were several key decisions to make including the measuring and scoring thresholds of each criteria, how many different points there would be for each criterion, and whether to weight criteria in determining an overall rating for each urban natural area. The NOSS used three levels for each criterion in their evaluation framework. However, based on the team’s field experience and knowledge of natural areas within Ottawa, it was thought that it would be possible to discriminate more finely in this study. It was therefore decided that the evaluation framework would include five points for each criterion. These ranged from 5 for high (or most positive) to 1 for low (or most negative).

We recognize that not all ecological criteria are equal in importance. However, we also recognize that it is difficult to quantify these differences in any meaningful way. We have thus not attempted to weight the criteria.

Prior to beginning the fieldwork component, the draft evaluation framework was presented to the Steering Committee, Public Advisory Committee and at the public open house sessions in the spring of 2004. Several helpful comments on the individual evaluation criterion were received and incorporated into the evaluation framework for the field season.

The nine evaluation criteria are described below, including a definition of the criterion and the thresholds used to give a 1 through 5 rating for each. In many cases the thresholds were altered based on the actual fieldwork findings in order to capture the full range of quality found in the urban area. For example, the thresholds for the size and shape criterion were modified to cover a broader range of natural area sizes. Instead of the highest score assigned to a natural area with a size greater than ten hectares, based on initial review of the findings, the threshold to receive the highest score was increased to greater than twenty hectares. For the representative flora criterion, the threshold to achieve the highest score was decreased to 4.25 from 4.5 after a review of the initial data.

The challenge for the UNAEES was to provide a comparative environmental evaluation that was standard for all sites, which rated each site on the basis of facts from fieldwork that was reliable, and produced results that can be replicated. The evaluation approach adopted by this study is easily repeatable, transparent and permits re-evaluation under different scenarios such as a change in the scoring threshold for an evaluation criterion or site alterations in the urban natural area. However, it is designed to be used by experienced professional investigators with expertise in ecology.

Evaluation Criterion 1 - Connectivity

Definition: Linkages to other urban natural areas such as woodlots, watercourse corridors and wetlands provide corridors for movement and assist in maintaining the health of natural communities including diversity and genetic health. The connectivity rating also considers restoration potential and opportunities for site and feature renewal and enhancement. Connectivity is not solely addressing the physical connection between natural areas, but also evaluates the value of the ecological function active between the natural areas. This criterion is an example of the evaluation considering the ecological functions at a landscape level (Bergsma, 1999). When scoring the connectivity criterion the features and functions of the natural areas that are connected were considered along with the type of habitat within the linkage itself and the character of the surrounding land.

Rating		Connectivity Criterion
5	Excellent	Other natural features, such as UNAs, greenbelt and waterway corridors, are found in proximity to the evaluated urban natural area and the other natural features possess a variety of positive functions. The connecting corridors are generally in a natural, undisturbed state
4	Good	Other natural features, such as UNAs, greenbelt and waterway corridors, have a diverse, sustainable character, however the corridors have some disturbance and/or the natural features are further from the evaluated urban natural area
3	Moderate	Some natural features, such as UNAs, greenbelt and waterway corridors, in proximity to the evaluated urban natural area, but corridors show a higher level of disturbance or natural features are limited in function
2	Isolated	Natural features in the vicinity of the urban natural area are limited and linkages to these features are highly disturbed
1	Severely Isolated	No other natural features of note within one kilometre of the urban natural area

Evaluation Criterion 2 – Absence of Disturbance

Definition: Physical disturbance within habitats significantly reduces native biodiversity, the quality of ecological functions and ecological integrity within natural habitats. The physical condition of the area is a good indicator of overall natural quality and significance. Examples of serious disturbances in urban natural areas include the invasion of non-native plants (herbaceous and woody), the fragmentation of woodland canopies by silvicultural tree removal, power line right-of-way and roadways, tree forts and fire pits, trails, dumping of organic yard waste and/or inorganic garbage, direct encroachment into the natural area by adjacent landowners, and alterations to surface or ground water functions. The impact of invasive plants was found to be a major ecological challenge for many urban natural areas. The evaluation of this factor differentiates between the simple presence of invasives and a condition when the invasive species significantly affect natural functions of the area.

Rating		Absence of Disturbance Criterion
5	Excellent	No notable disturbances observed in the urban natural area and potential for affects from adjacent land uses are limited
4	Good	Only disturbances noted are minor and likely of short duration; few invasive species, none of which dominate.
3	Moderate	Some disturbances are present but the ecological functions of the urban natural area are not noticeably affected by the on-site and adjacent disturbances; few invasive species with only local impact on native vegetation
2	Limited	The disturbances are notable either in the area of the disturbance or the severity of the impact on the ecological functions of the urban natural area; invasive species common and/or with major impact in the majority of the area
1	Poor	Both the area of disturbances and the severity of the impact are significant; invasive species common and having substantial impact throughout the site

Evaluation Criterion 3 - Habitat Maturity

Definition: Although optimal conditions include a good distribution and mixture of habitats at various ages, more mature habitats are generally less common, less disturbed, much more difficult to replace due to their time dependence (CCL, 1993), and contain a greater number of more valuable functions. The age structure of the natural area is a reflection of the land use pattern and history. This factor also considers that some species and ecological functions are maintained only in mature habitats. This criterion is an example of the evaluation considering the ecological functions at a community level (Bergsma, 1999).

Rating		Habitat Maturity Criterion
5	Excellent	Urban natural area contains woodlots greater than 100 years old or other habitats such wetlands, alvars and prairie habitat in an undisturbed, mature condition
4	Good	Urban natural area contains a good representation of tree stands greater than 100 years old or other habitats in an undisturbed, mature condition, but notable portions of the urban natural area are less mature
3	Moderate	Urban natural area contains woodlots between 50 and 100 years old or other habitats in an intermediate successional condition
2	Limited	Urban natural area contains a good representation of tree stands between 50 and 100 years old or other habitats in an intermediate successional condition, but notable portions of the urban natural area are reflective of early successional habitat
1	Poor	Woodlots within the urban natural area are less than 50 years old and/or other habitats are highly disturbed and at an early successional stage

Evaluation Criterion 4 - Natural Communities

Definition: A greater number of natural community types and habitats should result in more diverse and ecologically important natural heritage functions. A greater number of communities provide the environment for more and different species within the ecosystem (CCL, 1993). Examples of the potential types include four wetland habitats (swamp, marsh, fen and bog), and combinations of upland and lowland forest habitat with deciduous, mixed and coniferous communities. More disturbed habitat such as cultural meadows and thickets were not included in the analysis of this factor.

Rating		Natural Communities Criterion
5	Excellent	Urban natural areas with greater than nine natural communities
4	Good	Urban natural areas with between seven and nine natural communities
3	Moderate	Urban natural areas with between four and six natural communities
2	Limited	Urban natural areas with two or three natural communities
1	Poor	Urban natural areas with one natural community

Evaluation Criterion 5 - Regeneration

Definition: The extent of natural regeneration of canopy trees is indicative of a healthy, self-sustaining urban natural area. A number of factors can negatively affect regeneration, including presence of invasive non-native species or prevalence of species typical of open/edge conditions, soil compaction, and changes in soil moisture and light regime (City of Ottawa, 1998). This criterion is an example of the evaluation considering the ecological functions at a community level (Bergsma, 1999).

Rating		Regeneration Criterion
5	Excellent	Regeneration of canopy tree species is high, as indicated by the dominance and high density of seedlings and saplings of canopy tree species in the understorey
4	Good	Seedlings and saplings of canopy tree species are not dominant in the understorey, but are well established.
3	Moderate	Fair regeneration of canopy tree species, as indicated by some coverage of seedlings and saplings of canopy tree species in the understorey, but the density of regenerating stems is lower
2	Limited	Wooded areas with limited regeneration of canopy tree species and soil conditions would suggest greater regeneration should be present. Non-native shrub species may dominate the understorey
1	Poor	No notable regeneration or factor not applied to urban natural areas without wooded areas

Evaluation Criterion 6 - Representative Flora

Definition: Species of higher coefficient of conservation and a lower tolerance to disturbances are generally good indicators of areas with less disturbance, greater biodiversity and more ecological functions. Richness and diversity are valued as indicators of ecological persistence and stability (CCL, 1993). The coefficient of conservation identifies southern Ontario plants requiring a high degree of naturalness. Plants with a coefficient of conservation value greater than 6 generally indicate a high level of naturalness associated with the area and therefore it is likely that species of significance are present. At least thirty-five native plant species must be documented from a site to produce a meaningful mean coefficient of conservation value. This criterion is an example of the evaluation considering the ecological functions at a species level (Bergsma, 1999).

Rating		Representative Flora Criterion
5	Excellent	Mean coefficient of conservation is greater than 4.25 or 25 percent of the native species with a coefficient of conservation greater than 6
4	Good	Mean coefficient of conservation is between 3.75 and 4.25 or 20 percent of the native species with a coefficient of conservation greater than 6
3	Moderate	Mean coefficient of conservation is between 3.5 and 3.75 or 15 percent of the native species with a coefficient of conservation greater than 6
2	Limited	Mean coefficient of conservation is between 3 and 3.5 or 10 percent of the native species with a coefficient of conservation greater than 6
1	Poor	Mean coefficient of conservation is less than 3

Evaluation Criterion 7 - Significant Flora and Fauna

Definition: Such species are rare in occurrence (ten or fewer contemporary populations documented within the City of Ottawa) and/or ecologically important species are generally found in less disturbed urban natural areas or those areas with greater rehabilitation potential. These species are excellent indicators of a high level of naturalness and natural diversity. The species used in this factor are native flora and fauna, and usually need relatively pristine conditions. The updated treatment of the regionally rare native plant list constitutes Appendix A of this study. The preliminary list of Brownell and Larson (1995) was employed to identify regionally rare fauna.

Provincially rare species were those identified by the Natural Heritage Information Centre with a SRANK of SH, SX, S1, S1S2, S2, S2S3, S3 or S3S4, including any species endangered in Ontario as per the Endangered Species Act and species noted as provincially significant in the 3^rd Edition of the Wetland Evaluation Manual (OMNR, 1993). Nationally rare species are those listed as rare in Canada by Argus and Pryer (1990) or listed as vulnerable, threatened or endangered in Canada by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

The Species At Risk Act (SARA) which came into effect early in 2004 requires that protection consideration be given where federal lands and waters are involved for any floral or faunal taxa listed [see: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm]. There are, however, no floral or faunal species, be they regulated SARA taxa (Schedule 1) or COSEWIC-designated candidates for SARA protection (Schedules 2 and 3), observed on the federal land examined during this study.

Rating		Significant Flora and Fauna Criterion
5	Excellent	A nationally rare species or two provincially rare species or more than five regionally rare species
4	Good	A provincially rare species or four or five regionally rare species
3	Moderate	Two or three regionally rare species, but no nationally or provincially rare species
2	Limited	No nationally or provincially rare species found and one regionally rare species
1	None	No nationally, provincially or regionally rare species found

Evaluation Criterion 8 - Size and Shape

Definition: The area of the urban natural area often affects the diversity and value of the ecological functions that the urban natural area can support. For example, larger woodlands provide more interior habitat than small stands. In the moderately sized sites, the shape of the urban natural area is also considered in this factor, as shape determines the extent of wooded edge relative to the overall ecological performance. Ecological persistence and stability tends to increase with size (CCL, 1993). A greater amount of edge habitat in a linear natural area, although potentially increasing the diversity of available habitat also increases the opportunities for disturbance (CCL, 1993). Small areas, in the range of 1 hectare can support common mammals such as muskrats, some forest birds (e.g. black-capped chickadee and eastern wood pewee) and common amphibians such as green frog and painted turtle (OMNR, 1999). At four hectares common edge birds such as downy woodpecker and great crested flycatcher can be supported, while at ten hectares there is potential for small areas of forest interior habitat. Four hectares is often used as the minimal size for functional woodlands (Riley and Mohr, 1994).

Rating		Size and Shape Criterion
5	Excellent	Urban natural area is greater than twenty hectares in area
4	Good	Urban natural area is between ten and twenty hectares in area
3	Moderate	Urban natural area is between six and ten hectares in area
2	Limited	Urban natural area is between two and six hectares in area, or less than ten hectares but with a linear shape
1	Poor	Urban natural area is less than two hectares in area

Evaluation Criterion 9 - Wildlife Habitat

Definition: This ecological function considers high quality habitat and exceptional faunal characteristics such as interior habitat and seasonal wildlife concentrations. Interior habitat is less disturbed and supports disturbance-intolerant ecological features and assets, including rare species and edge sensitive woodland species that are not tolerant of the conditions found along the edges of woods. One hundred metres from a natural habitat edge such as a forest edge or undisturbed wetland was considered a more realistic characterization of the interior habitat given the generally urban nature of the study area. (In studies with larger scale landscapes, such as the Carp River Watershed Subwatershed Study, a factor of two hundred metres was used). Areas supporting exceptional numbers of particular wildlife species or function, such as breeding waterfowl, migratory bird staging areas, or winter roosting and feeding areas for raptors (hawks and owls), constitute rare natural features within urban landscapes and provide an important ecological contribution. Similarly, areas functioning as components of wildlife corridors contribute to both a greater degree of internal and external natural rehabilitation, restoration and recruitment potential. They thus provide greater ecological durability for both on-site and connected natural habitats. This criterion is an example of the evaluation considering the ecological functions at the landscape, community and species level (Bergsma, 1999).

Rating		Wildlife Habitat Criterion
5	Excellent	Contains more than ten hectares of interior habitat or is critical habitat for seasonal wildlife concentration
4	Good	Contains some interior habitat or provides important habitat for seasonal wildlife concentrations or rare or uncommon wildlife, or contains significant wildlife corridors
3	Moderate	Provides some seasonal wildlife habitat such as wintering raptors, waterfowl nesting, bird migration, unique breeding areas including raptor habitat, cavity nesters or minor denning sites, or provide some wildlife corridor function
2	Limited	Potential for some notable wildlife habitat
1	Poor	No particular wildlife habitat attributes

3.2 Landowner Permission

In early 2003, the City’s Surveys and Mapping Unit provided a database of information to the Project Team, linking property ownership of candidate natural feature areas and the property boundary mapping work. Of the 187 urban natural areas, fifty-seven are City owned, fifty-one are privately owned, and twenty-seven are owned by other public agencies including the Provincial and Federal Governments and the NCC. The final fifty-two areas have mixed ownership, with some parcels owned privately and other parcels owned by public agencies.

Using this information, both public and private landowners were initially contacted about the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. Property owners were sent a letter in early May 2003 from the City, notifying them that their property had been identified as having a natural area of interest. Also through this letter, the City requested permission to access their property in order that the field biologist could visit and record observations on the identified natural feature. A separate permission form accompanied the letter and owners were asked to sign off on whether they would grant or deny property access. This mail-out package also included the first Study Bulletin, which provided an overview of the study, its objectives, and a request for public participation.

Efforts were made to send only one letter and permission form to individuals or organizations that owned more than one parcel of land that was being considered for evaluation (e.g., NCC, school boards, developers).

In the weeks that followed, signed permission forms were sent back to City of Ottawa staff for processing. The access information was matched up with the natural area of interest and provided to the biologist so he know which areas he had permission to visit and for which ones permission to access had been denied. Special instructions received from the landowners, such as to call ahead of the field survey, were passed along to the biologist as well. In some cases, no permission form was returned to the City, or the letter was returned because the property owner had changed. In these cases, special attention was given to areas where little or no natural feature information existed. Extra efforts were then made to identify and contact the owner, and get permission for access.

As well, where a natural area had several parcels with different owners, access to some of the parcels was adequate to evaluate the natural area.

Insufficient access was obtained for twenty-seven of the 187 candidate sites. For these natural areas, fieldwork could not be conducted. However, refusal of access was not reason to delete a site from the list of candidate sites. The site was carried forward in the study and included on the mapping. However, the site was not evaluated in detail and no overall rating was assigned.

The opportunity existed for landowners to attend one of the Open House sessions in May 2003. However, an additional evening session was held in June 2003 specifically for landowners. They were invited by letter to attend and learn more about the objectives and intent of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, speak with the consulting team and City staff, ask questions and provide comments.

3.3 Fieldwork Program

Once the candidate natural area sites were selected and the draft evaluation criteria developed, the fieldwork component was initiated in June of 2003. With the large number of sites and the higher level of evaluation, it was not possible to produce detailed vegetation community mapping or comprehensive flora and fauna inventory for each urban natural area. The objective of the fieldwork program was to ensure that sufficient ecological information was gathered to provide a relative environmental evaluation of each site within the all of Ottawa’s urban natural areas.

For many sites, especially within the original City of Ottawa, an extensive amount of information was already available through NOSS and other studies. For these sites an ecological condition check was conducted. This meant that the validity of the existing information was verified with a field review of the site in 2003. The data were updated with a description of the current state of ecological integrity, notes of any significant changes in the features and functions of the natural area, and reconsideration of the boundary of each natural area. This was done while taking into consideration, for example, disturbances from non-native plants or site alterations.

On sites for which less ecological information was available, a more detailed field survey was undertaken. This more detailed site assessment included an examination of representative portions of the different vegetation communities and landforms of the natural area to identify the ecological functions of the site.

As described in Section 3.1, the level of detail for the fieldwork and evaluation of urban natural areas focused on indicators of ecological values. Environmental evaluation criteria were selected that provided a good indicator of environmental value and functions. For example, natural condition, or the degree to which the natural area is physically disturbed or in its natural state, is a good indicator of ecological integrity. The presence of rare or ecologically significant species is an indicator of habitat richness and natural diversity.

To ensure consistency and continuity, Daniel Brunton conducted the vast majority of the fieldwork.

3.4 Data Collection and Field Surveys

Detailed aerial photography, using high-resolution 2001 black and white images, was produced for each urban natural area at a scale of 1:3,000. These images were of assistance in the field to undertake site descriptions and delineate the natural feature boundary for the site.

Field investigations of the urban natural areas occurred in the late spring, summer and early autumn of 2003. The full field assessment season ended in early October. Ecological condition checks were conducted until late November.

The surveys not only identified the flora and fauna present and evident, but also documented the ecological conditions under which each ecosystem is operating (CCL, 1993). The field investigations collected information on forest stand ages, natural area size, number and rarity of community types, flora and fauna species, disturbance levels, ecological functions, geological landforms, other unique attributes, linkages to other natural areas, wildlife habitat, wildlife usage and corridors, and existing recreational uses. Site disturbances such as non-native species, trail use, dumping, and vandalism were recorded. Physical characteristics assessed included topography, soils and moisture regime. The floristic records included both representative and distributionally significant species.

Vegetation communities were described based on dominant species, locations of standing water and other drainage observations, health, age, topography and soil conditions. The vegetation communities were identified using the terminology recommended by the Ecological Land Classification system (Lee et al., 1998), although the habitats were classified at a higher level than that completed for a detailed site assessment. For example, wetland habitat may be described as meadow marsh habitat for the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. For a detailed site assessment, a specific type of meadow marsh such as a reed canary grass, sedge, jewelweed or bluejoint organic or mineral meadow marsh would be described.

The species list presented as part of the site summaries focuses on native flora species. The list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all native vegetation in a site. Rather, the flora species lists provide an excellent indicator of the floral composition of the natural area. Although not included in the species list, the distribution of non-native species was noted and the information used in the evaluation criteria and presented in the site summaries. The Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study provides important and useful information on habitat biodiversity, while providing the framework for more detailed site-specific studies if required in the future.

The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database was utilized to provide characteristics of the vegetation species identified with respect to naturalness (coefficient of conservation), wetland affinity, weediness, introduced plants, potential impact on native flora, and level of disturbance. Potential habitat for amphibians and reptiles was examined, including the underside of logs and other woody debris.

Fauna data require considerably more effort to gather, are typically more seasonally constrained, and individually often present less valuable analytical information than vascular plant data. Accordingly, in this study faunal data, as is typical of such inventory and assessment programs, were largely gathered incidentally during vegetation, floristic and ecological function investigations. All incidental mammal, amphibian, reptile and bird occurrences noted during field surveys were incorporated into the information compiled for each site.

GPS readings were taken of significant findings, such as areas of rare flora. In addition, voucher specimens and photos were taken to ensure verification of uncommon plant species. Other information such as existing access points and other disturbances was collected to assist in the evaluation of management recommendations and potential passive recreational opportunities. Digital photographs were taken of many features, including topics related to management recommendations.

For each natural area, the major components of the documentation resulting from the field investigations and background reviews are:

· A brief biophysical description;

· Identification of ecological conditions;

· Vegetation community descriptions;

· Identification of special features and significant ecological functions;

· Annotated lists of floral and faunal field observations (including coefficient of conservation values); and,

· Ecological and recreational management recommendations.

TABLE 2 - UNAEES SITE SHEET

Description:

Site details:

a) Size: b) Ownership:

Ecological Functions:

a) Connectivity (distance to other natural area(s) and type (woodland, stream corridor, meadow):

b) Interior habitat:

c) Disturbance (degree and duration) and condition:

d) Adjacent land use impacts:

e) Invasive plants (species & status – present, established, problematic):

Native Biodiversity:

a) Habitats (type and dominants):

b) Representative flora/ fauna (appended list of native flora and fauna):

c) Significant features and species (species and designation):

Ecological comments:

a) Management (opportunities for enhancement of natural environment assets):

b) Recommendations:

Research:

Low impact recreation opportunities:

Site investigation details:

Date(s) and conditions:

Investigator(s):

Other comments: (field conditions, photographs taken, etc.)

References:

3.5 Recreational Component

Natural areas often provide opportunities for unstructured recreational uses such as walking and can offer an alternative to developed urban parks and corridors. While these sites may not have an official “park” status they are often highly valued by nearby residents. There is often a significant interest in preserving these natural areas and ensuring that whatever recreational activities take place, are compatible with the natural values.

Natural areas exist within the larger context of green spaces in the City. Natural features and functions are paramount. However, where those features and functions no longer exist, or cannot be restored, sites may have other values that can make a contribution to community well being as part of the larger consideration of green spaces in the City.

Developing a sense of stewardship in the geographic community surrounding a natural area is one of the best ways of protecting a site and its features and functions. A community of interest (e.g. community associations) can also provide important protection. Sense of stewardship and responsibility can be fostered by information and education about the site, for example, through schools, nature groups, youth groups, senior’s groups, and community fairs. Signage can also play an important role in building community awareness and involvement.

Site use can also enhance security of the site (eyes on the site, like eyes on the street). However, some security measures would be damaging and inappropriate in all or some natural areas (example: trimming bottom branches of trees up to 6 feet from the ground to improve visibility and reduce hiding places along a pathway).

The recreational component of the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study did not aim to conduct a recreational planning exercise. Rather, the study maintained an ecological focus. The fieldwork identified and assessed any threats to environmental features and functions from recreational activities. In addition, the study identified opportunities to provide or enhance low impact recreational activities without compromising the integrity of the natural features.

Fieldwork documented evidence of existing activities, such as pathways or trails. Where appropriate, management recommendations for individual sites include measures necessary to protect the natural features. For example, fieldwork may have identified numerous pathways through a wooded or wetland area. The management recommendation might be to consolidate all the pathways into one more formal stone dust path, with an indication of where it might be located, or which locations should be avoided. In addition, the recreational recommendations might suggest signage along the pathway interpreting particular natural features. The signage would encourage use of the formal pathway (instead of continuing to make random paths) at the same time as it provided valuable information about the natural features of the area to recreational users.

3.6 Database Production

The data collected have all been synthesized into electronic files. The site summaries for each urban natural area, including the significant and representative species, description of vegetation communities, existing and potential disturbances, linkages, management recommendations, rating evaluation matrix and native flora species list are in Microsoft Word documents, one per natural area. The urban natural area mapping is available as a pdf file and has also been included in the City’s ArcView GIS database.

The initial site mapping was developed by Isosceles Information Solutions Inc. from electronic files received from the City including orthorectified imagery along with any ancillary vector layers (OBM digital files). The imagery, along with the vector layers was brought into ArcView 8.1 where the urban natural areas were plotted on paper sheets for use in the field. After the natural area boundaries were added to the paper sheets, Isosceles then scanned and georeferenced the natural area boundaries into Micro station. A unique ID value was attached to the polygons that corresponded to a record of information in a tabular database. The polygon data layer was then converted to a shape file format for input to the City’s GIS database.

The electronic copies of the site summaries, site ratings and individual site maps are found in Annex A of this report.
4.0 EVALUATION RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-seven (187) natural areas were brought forward from the site selection component of the Study. The sites are shown on the citywide map at the end of this report. Figure 3 - Site Evaluation Results Map shows the overall environmental rating of a site, where it was evaluated. Where a site was not evaluated, this is shown instead of a rating. The environmental rating and site boundary do not consider past or present planning decisions, ownership or landowner intent for the area. The map represents the physical boundary of the natural area and the environmental value of the natural area based on 2003 field assessment. Planning and policy decisions on urban natural areas will be determined through the Greenspace Master Plan process. The purpose of this section is to summarize the evaluation results based solely on environmental values.

The 187 natural areas cover approximately 2,660 hectares of the City’s urban area, or 7.7 percent of total land surface area within official urban boundary (minus the surface areas for the Rideau and Jock Rivers, Dows Lake and the Rideau Canal). The work on one hundred and fourteen (114) urban natural areas are considered complete. These sites have been evaluated and rated using the Study methodology. Evaluations were not completed for seventy-three (73) sites. For twenty-four (24) of the remaining natural areas, a significant amount of ecological information exists: These areas require only an ecological condition review in order for the evaluation criteria to be applied and a rating assigned. The remaining forty-nine (49) natural areas require a field assessment prior to proceeding with evaluation and rating. Adequate access was not obtained for twenty-seven (27) of these natural areas. Evaluations for the balance of forty-six (46) sites were not completed due to time limitations imposed by the field conditions.

4.1 Urban Natural Area Boundaries and Mapping

After each field investigation, detailed site boundaries were established on the 1:3,000 aerial photography (2001) for each natural area. Boundaries were chosen to encompass the habitats, vegetation communities and species that combine to constitute an approximate ecologically unified area (RMOC, 1997). Boundaries were stopped at notable roads and major disturbances that clearly divide the natural area attributes. The division of these attributes is not so clear with mature habitats and the impacts of roads were not as significant in these examples. Areas of high human impact and human-dominated landscapes, such as mowed fields and farmland, were excluded where they were not considered important for maintaining the ecological value of an area. However, the natural area may include components on either side of a disturbance such as a road if the components appear to be historically related. In some cases, additional environmental investigations may result in boundary refinements. The present investigation identifies boundaries that enclose all of the significant natural ecological features and values identified by site investigations.

Most if not all meadows in the urban portion of the City of Ottawa are cultural meadows of artificial origin and thus of limited intrinsic natural environment value. Nonetheless, these can provide valuable ecological resources for adjacent natural features by offering potential for the establishment of ecological buffers and transition zones between natural habitats and ‘outside’ influences. They can also provide useful habitat (feeding, shelter, etc.) for wildlife species utilizing adjacent natural areas and can contribute to ecological functions such as the protection of groundwater sources. Accordingly, areas of regenerating meadow habitat that offer significant wildlife habitat or contribute to the ecological functions of adjacent natural areas have been included within the boundaries of urban natural areas defined in this study. For example, the meadow habitat adjacent to McCarthy Woods provides feeding habitat for raptors and other wildlife found in the forested core of the natural area. The rationale is developed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the actual or potential contribution of the regenerating meadow area to natural environment features and functions.

The boundaries for each natural area were determined with the following additional guidelines:

the initial site identification was based on the size criteria of 0.8 hectares or larger;

the natural area represents a contiguous natural site;
the boundaries of natural areas do not include major disturbances such as residences, manicured areas, agricultural lands or major roads, however the natural area may include components on either side of a disturbance such as a road if the components appear to be historically related;
although watercourses are not directly evaluated in this study, a natural area could include the riparian vegetation along a watercourse and the wetland habitat within the river or lake;
the natural area boundaries were delineated on 2001 black and white photography at a scale of 1:3,000 and then digitized into GIS;
property lines were not considered in the development of the natural area boundaries;
planning decisions and property ownership were not factors in determining the natural area boundary; and,
the boundaries of the natural areas terminated at the urban area boundary as defined in the 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan. However natural features on adjacent lands outside the urban area are considered in the evaluation (e.g. connectivity).

Some of the urban natural areas boundaries in this study may differ from the boundaries determined in NOSS for natural features in the former City of Ottawa. Boundary changes could be attributed to succession, removal of natural areas, ice storm damage, and other changes in land use over the past seven years since NOSS fieldwork was conducted.

4.2 Site Ratings

Establishing firm thresholds of ecological significance is no more or less a numerically hard and fast process than are the ecological parameters themselves. The determination of ecological thresholds and significance is not an engineering exercise. In other words, when reviewing the significance of candidate urban natural area sites we are addressing a variety of interconnected but also distinct variables. When considered in combination, however, these criteria collectively differentiate higher or lower levels of significance. By assigning measurable value ranges (numerical or otherwise) within each of the ecological significance criteria we are evaluating, we can defensibly identify overall patterns of importance on a Low to High scale.

As discussed in Section 3.6, each natural area was evaluated under nine criteria, and each criterion was rated 1 through 5, with a rating of 5 being the most ecologically valued or least disturbed. These nine individual ratings were then combined to give an average rating for the natural area. This rating was used to generally group the natural areas into three levels; a rating of less than two (Low), a rating from two to less than three (Moderate) and a rating of three or greater (High). The overall rating of the nine evaluation criteria for each urban natural area ranged from 1.11 to 4.67.

Once all the evaluated natural areas were assigned an overall rating, the list of low, moderate and high sites was further reviewed to confirm that each natural area was properly rated. Preliminary sensitivity testing of the methodology indicates that the numerical evaluation of criteria has been very accurate in identifying relative levels of ecological significance among the evaluated urban natural areas. Nonetheless, the ultimate assessment of each site has been ratified or qualified on the basis of our field-based professional experience of the ecological features and functions of the natural areas and regional landscape, and judgement in assessing ecological system thresholds and values. This enables the findings to better reflect the full range of ecological values and benefits each particular site has to offer.

We have avoided attempting to formally weight the degree of these evaluator differences, however it is recognized that particular attention should be paid to a subset of especially important ecological evaluators for confirming the overall site ratings. These four criteria, size and shape, absence of disturbance, representative flora, and significant flora and fauna, are particularly powerful tools in determining overall site value. Approximately ten percent of the overall site ratings were adjusted to reflect the importance of these criteria.

The overall site ratings were presented to joint meeting of the Steering Committee and Public Advisory Committee in November 2004. In addition, the ratings of each evaluated site was depicted on a Citywide, urban map and sub-area maps (east, west, central and south) during the third open house for this study (December, 2004). This was the first opportunity for members of the public to review the results of the environmental evaluations that were completed on 114 urban natural areas. Members of the consulting team were available at the open house to discuss the evaluation process and provide explanations for the final ratings.

Table 3 summarizes the overall rating of each evaluated site by geographical sub-area as well as representation citywide.

Table 3. Summary of Overall Natural Area Ratings by Urban Sub-Area. Percent = the percentage of all sites evaluated to date
Sub-Area within City of Ottawa’s Urban Area	Sites High Overall		Sites Moderate Overall		Sites Low Overall		Total Sites Evaluated to Date	Sites to be Evaluated
Sub-Area within City of Ottawa’s Urban Area	No.	Percent	No.	Percent	No.	Percent	Total Sites Evaluated to Date	Sites to be Evaluated
West	6	26	10	44	7	30	23	12
Central	16	22	24	33	32	45	72	24
South	3	38	3	38	2	25	8	24
East	4	36	4	36	3	28	11	13
Totals	29	25	41	36	44	39	114	73

Twenty-nine (29) natural areas were rated high overall, forty-one (41) rated moderate and forty-four (44) rated as low overall. The forty-four low overall rated sites represent 39 percent of the sites with evaluations completed, while the twenty-nine high rated sites represent 25 percent. The twenty-nine natural areas rated high overall cover 860 hectares, with the moderate and low sites representing 450 and 129 hectares, respectively. All of the sites that were proposed as an Environmentally Significant Area (Brunton, 1993) or a life science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (Brunton, 1992) were ranked high overall.

The distribution of high, moderate and low overall rated natural areas was generally consistent over the four sub-areas of Ottawa’s urban area (Table 3). Although the central area contained the greatest number of high overall sites, it also had more than twice as many total sites evaluated to date. The percentage of sites rated high overall (22 percent) in the central sub-area was actually the lowest among the four sub-areas. Correspondingly, the central sub-area had the highest percentage of natural areas rated low overall. Caution is required in this component of the analysis due to the low total number of sites evaluated in the south and east sub-areas.

Sites Rated Low Overall

· The low overall rated sites generally scored three or higher only for the connectivity and habitat maturity evaluation criteria.

· There were no ‘5’s assigned to an individual evaluation criterion for a site rated low overall.

· A few low overall rated sites scored ‘4’ for regeneration (Abbott/Iber Woodlot, Cedarview Woodlot and Assaly Woods).

· Disturbance, natural communities, representative flora, significant flora and fauna, wildlife habitat and size and shape were the individual criteria generally resulting in the low overall rating.

· Of the natural areas rated low overall, only Abbott/Iber Woodlot and Chaudiere Rapids scored higher than a ‘2’ for disturbance and representative flora, respectively (both ‘3’s) and only Pinecrest Cemetery, West Hunt Club, Conroy Woods and Aviation Parkway South scored higher than a ‘2’ for size and shape (all ‘3’s). Pinecrest Cemetery and Riverside Park Woods scored a ‘3’ for wildlife habitat, all of the other low overall rated sites scored ‘1’ or ‘2’ for the wildlife habitat criterion. None of the natural areas rated low overall scored higher than a ‘2’ for the natural communities or significant flora and fauna evaluation criteria.

Sites Rated Moderate Overall

· The distributions of ratings for individual criteria for the natural areas rated moderate overall were generally lower for the disturbance, natural communities and significant flora criteria, and generally higher for the connectivity, size and shape, habitat maturity and representative flora criteria.

· Notable high scores for natural areas rated moderate overall included ratings of ‘5’ for the connectivity criterion for the Jock River Landing and Rockcliffe Parkway natural areas, ratings of ‘5’ or ‘4’ for the regeneration criterion for the Cornation Park, Leopold Woodlot and Pine Glen Park sites, a ‘5’ for the size and shape criterion for NRC Woods South, Aviation Parkway North, Kanata South Business Park and CNR line natural areas, a ‘4’ assigned to Kindlecourt Park for significant flora and a ‘4’ given NRC Woods South for wildlife habitat.

· One natural area (Pine Glen Park) rated moderate overall received a ‘1’ for connectivity, while three (Hog’s Back Woods, Ski Hill Park and Poole Creek Corridor) received a ‘1’ for the regeneration criterion and another three natural areas (CNR Line, Rockcliffe Parkway and Nepean Creek Corridor) received a ‘1’ for size and shape.

· Only two natural areas rated moderate overall, Hog’s Back Woods – East and Hospital Woods – East, received a ‘1’ for the wildlife habitat criterion.

Sites Rated High Overall

· The natural areas rated high overall scored very well for most evaluation criteria. Two exceptions were the disturbance and natural communities criteria.

· Only five natural areas, all rated high overall, received a ‘4’ or ‘5’ for the disturbance or natural communities criteria, Trillium Woods, Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A, Memorial Gardens Woods, Upper Duck Island and Britannia Conservation Area.

· Two natural areas rated high overall (Vincent Massey Woods and Des Chênes Lookout) received a score of ‘1’ for the disturbance rating, while one site rated high overall (NRC Woods North) scored ‘1’ for the significant flora criterion. Des Chênes Lookout also received a ‘1’ for the size and shape criterion.

· The only ‘5’s assigned for the habitat maturity, significant flora and wildlife habitat evaluation criteria were given to sites rated high overall.

The distributions of criteria ratings were examined to determine the range of scores for each criterion. Connectivity was the most normally distributed criteria, with as many ‘5’ scores as ‘1’, and the middle score representing the most frequently assigned rating, with approximately forty percent of the sites receiving a value of ‘3’. Values for the size and shape, representative flora and fauna, habitat maturity and wildlife habitat were also fairly well distributed among all the possible scores. Significant flora and fauna and regeneration criteria were also generally well distributed although many more natural areas scored less than ‘3’ than greater than ‘3’ for these criteria. Over half of the sites scored a ‘1’ for significant flora and fauna, and approximately seventy percent of the sites were assigned either a ‘1’ or a ‘2’ for the regeneration criteria. As discussed above, very few higher scores, ‘4’ or ‘5’, were given for the other evaluation criteria, disturbance and natural communities. This seemed consistent with a generally urban environment, where disturbance is prevalent among natural areas and diversity of natural communities is generally lower.

The urban natural areas ranged in size from 0.36 hectares to 134.2 hectares. Once the detailed site boundaries were established, five of the evaluated natural areas were less than 0.8 hectares. Since these natural areas were all rated low overall, there would appear to be no special characteristics that would merit further inclusion of these sites in the Study, but because these sites at the onset of the study were considered to be greater than 0.8 hectares, they will be maintained due to the value of the information provided. The reduction in natural area size from the initial review was in some cases due to recent development on part of the site, or for others a more detailed examination refined the natural area boundary to less than 0.8 hectares.

The average Coefficient of Conservation value for the natural areas ranged from 4.81 (Britannia Conservation Area) to less than 2.5 for many of the sites rated low overall. The greatest number of significant flora and fauna amongst the completed evaluations was 44, also at the Britannia Conservation Area, followed by Trillium Woods (21 significant flora) and Champlain Bridge Islands (18). Petrie Island, currently with an incomplete evaluation, is another natural area that will likely score very well for many of these criteria.

4.3 Management Recommendations

The site summary for each evaluated urban natural area (found in Annex A) identifies management recommendations for the rehabilitation, protection and enhancement of each natural area. The recommendations may be operational in nature, with the emphasis on mitigating observed disturbances or other existing negative impacts. Or the recommendations may suggest tools for rehabilitating or enhancing the ecological and recreational features and functions of the natural areas. Examples of ways to mitigate disturbances include control of non-native plant populations or realignment of an informal trail away from more sensitive portions of a natural area. Regeneration of the forest canopy, naturalization of vegetated buffers between adjacent developments and natural areas, and greater awareness through interpretative panels are examples of potential enhancement measures.

The recommendations are to be treated as guidelines only, and subject to landowner approval. The management recommendations were developed principally from observations during the field surveys and knowledge of the types of enhancements warranted along with recommendations in existing studies, notably the original City of Ottawa’s NOSS (City of Ottawa, 1998) and the NESS (RMOC, 1997).

Provisions must be in place for maintaining urban natural areas into the future if the urban natural area is to ultimately sustain itself over the long term. The old belief that urban natural areas do not need management because they are “natural” is no longer an adequate management option in a predominately developed landscape (Westworth, 2001).

Site-specific recommendations are provided in each site summary. However, some examples are described here to provide an understanding of the type of measures that have been recommended.

4.3.1 Ecological Management Measures

The management recommendations from an ecological perspective can generally be broken down into two categories; mitigation of existing disturbances, and maintenance and enhancement of existing positive features and functions.

Mitigation of Existing Disturbances

Restoration recommendations, such as vegetating exposed soil, removing invasive species, regrading and vegetating gully erosion and eliminating grazing in natural areas, are examples of ecological management recommendations applied to the urban natural areas. Natural re-vegetation of creek-side ground vegetation is required to control erosion and add to the natural functions at Katimivik Park and Cattail Creek Park Woods, for example.

Alice Wilson Park in the west end is an example where physical removal of the most serious invasive flora (black swallow-wort and celandine) is required to prevent these populations from becoming fully established. A similar theme exists for the immediate eradication of spotted knapweed at the periphery of Airbase Woods. Buckthorn control is needed in many areas, including Hazeldean Woods Park, Hospital Woods East, Conroy Swamp, Vincent Massey Woods, Champlain Bridge Islands, NRC Woods South, Carson Grove Woods, Terry Fox School Woods, Rockcliffe Park West, McCarthy Woods and Lower Bilberry Creek Valley. Garlic mustard is a serious problem at Hazeldean and Katimivik Park Woods and the Britannia Conservation Area, with Norway maple and tartarian honeysuckle also a severe problem at Britannia Conservation Area. Pioneering growth of garden invasives should also be controlled at the Half Moon Bay natural area.

Population control of aggressive and non-endemic Canada Geese is recommended for the Britannia Conservation Area to prevent increasing loss of breeding habitat for native waterfowl. The exceptional aquatic floristic association at Des Chênes Lookout requires protection from heavy recreational abuse of shoreline vegetation and subsequent impact on water quality, including prevention of feeding of waterfowl. The rehabilitation and naturalization of the shoreline vegetation is required to enhance protection of shoreline and shallow-water wetland communities.

Re-vegetation of abandoned pathways and service corridors is important as these disturbances are removed from service. An example is the relocation of Goulbourn Forced Road out of the centre of Trillium Woods, and rehabilitation of several informal tracks and pathways. Natural rehabilitation should also be encouraged adjacent to the long sewer line right-of-way in Heart’s Desire Forest. Re-vegetation with diverse native species will assist in reducing the spread of invasive flora.

Removal of garden waste and composters are important for several of the urban natural areas to reduce the ease which invasive plant species can spread into, and become established in the natural areas. This was noted, for example, at Morgan’s Grant Woods, Hazeldean Woods Park, Britannia Conservation Area, Airbase Woods, Lower Stillwater Creek, Bilberry Creek Valley, Chapel Hill Park and Ski Hill Park natural areas.

Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecological Functions

Urban natural areas can be enhanced through increasing the amount of natural habitat by naturalizing service corridors, planting the periphery of the natural areas with native woody vegetation and ground flora, or adding to the natural heritage features and functions on adjacent lands.

Retention of a continuous canopy cover within existing forests is crucial in maintaining integrity, including retarding the spread of invasive flora. This recommendation is given for many sites with good forest cover including Trillium Woods, South Richardson Forest, Whelan Park, Lower Stillwater Creek, Tallwood Woods, Hazeldean Woods Park, Pine Glen Park, Ski Hill Park, Remer Property, Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A, Airbase Woods, Nivens Woods, Memorial Gardens Woods, Jockvale Road Woods, Britannia Conservation Area, Chapel Hill Park, Vincent Massey Woods, Champlain Bridge Islands, McCarthy Woods, Conroy Swamp, Rockcliffe Parkway, Elmhurst Street Woods, Rockcliffe Park West, Forestglen Park, Bypass Woods, Church Woods at Innes, Morgan’s Grant Woods and Louis Perrault Park.

Restoration with native species is required in the existing canopy clearings of Katimivik Park Woods to retard further spread of non-native flora. Maintenance of forest canopy is required to sustain the wooded slopes at Escarpment Park Woods. Opportunities exist for slope naturalization, centred on the maple forest fragment, along the north side of Graham Creek within the Monterey Ravine natural area. In some of the smaller forest urban natural areas such as Manordale Woods, it is especially important to protect mature trees to maintain the natural significance of the woodlands.

A vegetated buffer between adjacent development and woodland areas is required to reduce edge effect. Recreation of a stable woodland edge prevents wind throw or sun-scald of trees that have grown in the sheltered conditions of woodland interiors, and decreases the potential for invasion of edge or field species into the forest interior (City of Ottawa, 1998). This management recommendation applies to many areas, including Trillium Woods, Alice Wilson Park, Ski Hill Park, Nivens Woods, South Richardson Forest, Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A, Vincent Massey Woods, Rockcliffe Park West, McCarthy Woods, Tallwood Woods, Forestglen Park, Church Woods at Innes, Jockvale Road Woods and Memorial Gardens Woods. At Hazeldean Woods Park and Arlington Woods Park, such buffers are required between the recreational fields and the wooded areas.

Plantings within and adjacent to urban natural areas should be native species only. It is also critical to use rodent guards on trees and to monitor the plantings for at least two years to optimize potential for survival. Rodent guards and stakes must be removed as the trees take hold, and all vegetation that dies should be replaced. A maintenance free area is necessary around the base of the plantings. As opposed to natural succession, plantings provide the opportunity to emphasize the desired native species to promote natural diversity and to discourage domination by non-indigenous trees and shrubs. For example, buckthorn shrubs or poplar trees now dominate many areas in the Ottawa area that were left to succession. In addition to new plantings, transplanting of existing desirable species, acclimated to the local conditions, is a natural enhancement that is cost-effective and could be used much more often.

At Escarpment Park Woods, reduction of maintenance in proximity to the natural area, such as a ‘no-mow’ buffer on the top edge of the escarpment, should reduce slope erosion and encourage natural vegetation regeneration. A similar buffer would be beneficial at Hope Cloutier and Stittsville Arena Parks, between the adjacent development and manicured park and the watercourse and riparian vegetation within the natural areas. A naturalized buffer is needed between manicured lawns and the riparian corridor along the Poole Creek Corridor natural area, as well as along the Monterey Ravine and Graham Creek, and portions of the Nepean Creek Corridor. Enhancement of the protective natural shoreline vegetation buffer is also required at Half Moon Bay natural area on the Jock River. Rehabilitation of the natural areas will of course benefit the associated watercourses for the above natural areas.

Many other natural areas have mowed lawns right to their boundary and would benefit from a naturalized buffer. Examples include Bell Memorial Park, Lower Stillwater Creek, Chapel Hill Park and Leslie Park Ravine. The latter natural area would benefit from the naturalization of slopes (including removal of obstructing fencing) to encourage sustainability of protective vegetation.

Plantations were not common in the urban natural areas, but where they exist, such as within the Jock River Landing natural area and a small portion of Heart’s Desire Forest, efforts should be made to complete a significant thinning of plantation cover to encourage natural regeneration. Another example is in the Elmhurst Street Woods natural area, where conifer and honey locust plantation trees by Frank Ryan Park should be removed.to permit the restoration of native vegetation.

The maintenance of the existing water table elevation and other components of the moisture regime is important for the sustaining health of wetland habitat. This is often quite challenging in areas of predominantly existing or anticipated urban development such as adjacent to Hazeldean Woods Park, Church Woods at Innes, Remer Property, Louis Perrault Park, NRC Woods South, Conroy Swamp and Bell Memorial Park. Closure of drainage channels in the Bypass Woods is recommended to maximize water table storage. Long-term viability of ephemeral woodland pools in the Bridlewood Core Park natural area south of Kakula Road is important for significant species (red-shouldered hawk) and habitat integrity.

4.3.2 Recreational Management Measures

Mitigation of Existing Disturbances

A major recommendation associated with recreational use within and adjacent to an urban natural area is restriction of access to a designated trail network. It is recognized that the total exclusion of people from an urban natural area is not warranted or desirable. However there are examples of portions of an urban natural area where access should be restricted. For example, in Trillium Woods provision of a single rock-crush footpath in the western portion of the site would reduce the overall disturbance and has considerable interpretive potential. The rehabilitated roadways in Trillium Woods provide opportunities for bicycle trails. Exceptional potential for pedestrian pathways and associated representation of Provincially Rare Canadian Shield habitat exists in the Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A. No pathways are recommended for Upper Duck Island, with the existing water-based access considered appropriate for the fragile landscape values.

A number of natural areas included wide pathways or several informal pathways that could negatively impact habitat continuity. Directing pedestrian activity to the periphery of the urban natural area is recommended for natural areas such as Trillium Woods, Britannia Conservation Area, Forestglen Park, Chapel Hill Park and Alice Wilson Park, while rationalizing informal trails at natural areas such as Pine Glen Park, Ski Hill Park, McCarthy Woods, NRC Woods South, Elmhurst Street Woods and Queensway Park. This mitigation measure will reduce the overall disturbances caused by trampling, vandalism and physical impact on vegetation.

Diverting traffic from locations of significant species was recommended for natural areas with populations of unique plants in areas such as Morgan’s Grant Woods and Bypass Woods. Footpaths at Katimivik Park, Escarpment Park, Poole Creek Corridor, Bell Memorial Park, Barrhaven Escarpment, Rockcliffe Park West, Leslie Park Ravine and Cattail Creek Park Woods appear to be at capacity, and users should be given suitable alternatives at the edge or outside of these relatively small urban natural areas. At Escarpment Park Woods and Monterey Ravine, the pathways along the eroding slopes should be rehabilitated or redirected to more stable areas.

Pedestrian-friendly barriers at trail access points are important to avoid illegal dumping and reduce use of motorized vehicles in urban natural areas. However, no areas were observed where it was considered necessary to establish permanent fencing to exclude access from a particular portion of an urban natural area.

Maintenance and Enhancement of Natural Area Functions

In many cases the existing footpaths with no formal construction and material are sufficient. However, in areas of existing erosion or high use, woodchips or stonedust should be used. For example, in Alice Wilson Park and NRC Woods South centralization and deployment of stonedust surface of existing trails will improve recreational opportunities and reduce site erosion. Similar areas of erosion were noted along the informal pathways in Hazeldean Woods Park and Carson Grove Woods. Asphalt is generally discouraged due to its unnatural features, cost including sub-base preparation, and potential impacts on surface runoff, treatment and infiltration. Woodchips may be preferred over stonedust where it is desirable to discourage motorized vehicles and mountain bikes. Impacts of mountain bikes was noted as a potential serious concern at Forestglen Park, Chapel Hill Park and Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A natural areas. In low-lying areas, sections of boardwalk will increase all-season trail accessibility and limit the area of disturbance.

Some treatment on recreational pathways is also recommended in other sensitive habitats noted in the urban natural areas. For example, at the Kanata Town Centre natural area there appears to be the need for a low impact footpath, using material such as stonedust, in the woodland and sensitive outcrop habitat to manage pedestrian traffic and reduce the impact on slopes and the fragile outcrop vegetation. In Young’s Pond Park, there is the need to upgrade the existing informal trail to protect roots of the larger trees from increasing erosion. A stone dust footpath in the woodland habitat of Heart’s Desire Forest, especially near the river is required to manage pedestrian traffic and reduce impact on slopes.

Such formalized pathways also provide excellent potential for interpretative panels on natural heritage themes, for example the natural biodiveristy, hydrological contribution, microclimatic influence and ecological corridor functions of Hazeldean Woods Park, Conroy Swamp, Memorial Gardens Woods, Britannia Conservation Area, Vincent Massey Woods, Jock River Landing, Rockcliffe Parkway, Bilberry Creek Valley and the Nepean Creek Corridor. At Stittsville Arena Park and the Poole Creek Corridor natural areas, there is excellent interpretive potential for the footpaths along Poole Creek and through mature maple forest in the southwest portion of the natural area. The footpaths need to be upgraded to reduce soil compaction, tree root damage and bank erosion along the creek.

Signage is important to provide the public with not only increasing awareness of the urban natural area and associated natural heritage interpretation, but also to identify site-specific disturbance issues and corresponding remedial measures.

In some urban natural areas, such as Morgan’s Grant Woods, active recreational facilities such as basketball courts or ball diamond outfields have encroached into the natural area. Research is recommended to identify options for reducing the impacts of such recreational developments on the ecological integrity of the natural area, including perhaps the removal or reduction in size of the facilities, modifications to the lighting, and use of stonedust or woodchip pathways rather than asphalt.

In many urban natural areas, there is the potential for creation of new trails linking existing adjacent facilities such as schools and active parks. For example, there is good potential for an east-west recreational footpath across the Whelan Park natural area, avoiding the regionally rare and uncommon flora. Similarly, an east-west pathway could be constructed through the less sensitive northern portions of Aviation Parkway North to link the relatively new Whiterock Park with the residential communities and existing parks west of Aviation Parkway. A new linkage between recreational facilities would also be helpful at Young’s Pond Park, as would additional pathways at Bypass Woods. Excellent hiking trail potential exists in Airbase Woods.

Recreational pathways within the edges and adjacent to natural areas will provide an excellent interpretive opportunity for addressing ecology of wetlands, significance of ground water source protection and ecological connectivity within urban landscapes. Excellent interpretative opportunities exist along ‘The Cowpath’ in Elmhurst Street Woods, the Albion wetland associated with the Remer Property, and in Airbase Woods regarding the river formation phenomena and post-glacial Champlain Sea impacts.

4.3.3 Stewardship Opportunities

It is critical that stewardship initiatives in urban natural areas be science-based and ecologically defensible. Well intentioned but ecologically uninformed or inappropriate initiatives can and do have negative impact on natural environment features and values, leading to the degradation of habitats, a reduction in native biodiversity and the loss of ecological function. This constraint is particularly important when considering facilities to permit or encourage landscape appreciation and interpretation or when facilitating low impact recreational activity in natural areas. Guarding against the potential of ‘loving a place to death’ must be a stated and important consideration in all stewardship initiatives.

To provide long-term protection for the urban natural areas, an environmental impact statement should be undertaken for any proposed land-use change that could impact the more significant urban natural areas. The environmental impact statement should provide the rationale, methodology and implementation strategy for rehabilitation and enhancement of the urban natural area.

Encouraging motivated citizen volunteers to take stewardship over their natural areas is an important protective measure and management recommendation. In some urban natural areas, such as McKay Lake, Britannia Conservation Area, Pleasant Park Woods, Heart’s Desire Forest and Conroy Woods, the positive impact of individuals and community associations is clearly evident. Schools should be encouraged to become involved.

There are many ways in which individuals and associations can assist natural areas. Some examples of appropriate tasks for community volunteers include the following:

· delineate trails with wood chips to minimize the extent of the natural area disturbed and to avoid sensitive areas;

· maintenance items such as collecting debris and removal of unauthorized forts and fire pits, done in co-operation with fort and fire users;

· post information on t interesting features and functions of the natural area, threats to the area, and positive steps that can be taken to enhance the natural area; and,

control of non-native species, such as buckthorn.

In addition, the public can play a key role in development of a stewardship, or environmental management plan for an urban natural area. A site-specific stewardship plan would include such things as the natural heritage, social and economic values or attributes of the natural area, the land use history, relationship to other natural areas and linkages, development opportunities and constraints, site goals and objectives, conservation and management requirements, potential stakeholder support and partnership opportunities, communications requirements, monitoring requirements and a long-term conservation strategy (Westworth, 2001). Arlington Woods Park and associated Graham’s Creek, and Chapel Hill Park are examples of natural areas that would benefit greatly from hands-on stewardship and an environmental management plan.

Improper uses and disturbances that lead to encroachment and deterioration of the features and functions of the natural areas must be minimized. Some examples include expansions of the trail network, composters, dumping of yard waste and other debris, and uncontrolled pets. Adjacent landowners, perhaps through homeowner pamphlets, need to be made aware of the negative impacts associated with dumping of yard waste and encroachments into the natural areas. Simple and entertaining explanations are important tools for public education (CCL, 1993). Pamphlets could also be placed on car windshields of users of the natural areas.

Removal of litter and graffiti is required to enhance the physical condition and appreciation of some natural areas, including the Barrhaven Escarpment site.

Lawn cutting should not be undertaken within urban natural areas, and should be kept to a minimum adjacent to the natural areas, with a natural buffer provided. Urban natural areas do not benefit from increased landscaping other than plantings of native trees and shrubs in areas of enhancement. Maintenance of the natural understorey and ground vegetation in an undisturbed - condition is important. The urge to tidy up or rake a natural area should be discouraged.

For selected natural areas, consideration should also be given to acquisition. With an understanding and recognition of the ecological needs and functions of the areas, it may be possible to acquire parcels that will complete, enhance, or protect the natural area.

Critical components of the management recommendations are monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the recommendations and the need to update and modify the recommendations. As applicable, the monitoring should include analysis of recreational usage, condition of trails including boardwalk structures and areas of wash-out, distribution of invasive plants and other site disturbances, updating the biological inventories and description of ecological functions, and noting land use changes within and adjacent to the natural area. Compliance monitoring is required to determine if recommendations within an environmental impact statement or other condition of approval have been properly installed and maintained as per specifications. Monitoring should also indicate if maintenance or a repeat of the management activity is required, and the frequency and magnitude of the follow-up work.

Public education is required concerning the wildlife hazard associated with unprotected swimming pools.

There is good potential for establishment of bird feeders for hospital residents and staff along the periphery of the Hospital Woods East natural area.

5.0 ANALYSIS of SITE RESULTS

5.1 Interesting Findings and City-wide Trends

Although urban natural areas were generally considered well documented in the City of Ottawa, new and significant ecological features were found in many natural areas. The features included plants of interest on the local, regional and provincial level. Such flora are indicators of small areas of relatively undisturbed habitat or in some cases the tenacity of these plants. For example, two populations of regionally significant plant species were located in postage stamp sized sites in Kanata in one morning of fieldwork. A provincially rare fern was found in the backyard of a private residence in Rothwell Heights. This is the first record for Ottawa and it is otherwise known in Ontario only from a single site along the St. Lawrence near Gananoque and a couple of sites in Algonquin Park.

Relatively undocumented whole landscapes with fabulous natural assets were found, such as Forestglen Park in the east and Hazeldean Woods Park in the west. Both of these sites have been rated high overall and until this study had been very poorly documented, or not at all. Other sites such as Heart's Desire Forest and Trillium Woods received high overall ratings and are well documented by existing studies and well known by the community.

Despite relatively small size and enormous pressure in most areas, strong healthy functioning ecosystems continue to exist. However the ecological functions of many natural areas are being impaired by invasive non-native plant species. These plants, such as garlic mustard, dog strangling vine (black swallow-wort), European highbush-cranberry, Manitoba maple and glossy and black buckthorn, displace native vegetation and interfere with the ecological functions of the natural habitat. Their impact was more severe than anticipated at the onset of the study. Common urban trees such as Norway maple are displacing the native forest canopy in some areas. Many of the natural areas that are heavily impacted by invasive flora scored low for both the degradation and regeneration criteria. Upper Duck Island was one of the few natural areas where invasive plants were not a concern. As it is much more isolated from potential disturbances than the other urban natural areas, the features and functions of Upper Duck Island will likely rely less on active management for long-term sustainability.

Garden waste is a prime source of invasive species in our urban natural areas. Problem garden plants include goutweed, periwinkle, day lily and common lilac. The field survey results clearly show the importance of composting garden waste directly at residences or participating in the City of Ottawa’s yard waste collection program. In addition to dumping of garden wastes and grass clippings, other encroachment activities including extending manicured lawns and active recreational facilities are a problem in some of the natural areas such as Morgan’s Grant Woods. Although this natural area retains exceptional natural diversity (including the only known Ottawa location for one plant species) for its size, the long-term prognosis for maintaining natural integrity is not good if these encroachments are not dealt with.

In addition to invasive plants and encroachment, major threats to the urban natural areas are habitat loss and fragmentation, informal trails and debris dumping. The impact of fragmentation is compounded because invasive flora spreads much more readily in natural areas lacking an intact forest canopy. Trails are helpful in channeling use, but they may be located in ecologically sensitive locations. Broken concrete blocks, scrap lumber and left over mixed concrete are typical of the debris found in many natural areas.

The relatively small size of most urban natural areas resulted in few forest interior habitat or encounters with area-sensitive wildlife. However such wildlife was observed in many of the larger, less-disturbed sites, including Trillium Woods, Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A, Bilberry Creek Valley, McCarthy Woods, Heart's Desire Forest and Remer Property (Albion Wetland). Forest interior habitat was a primary factor for sites rated highly for the wildlife value criterion. In addition, large mammals were observed in more than a few areas, including coyote and black bear in addition to the ubiquitous white-tailed deer.

5.2 West Sub-Area

The west portion of the urban area contains Kanata and Stittsville. Six natural areas in the west sub-area rated high overall (Trillium Woods, Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A, South Richardson Lands, Bridlewood Core Park, Hazeldean Woods Park and Kanata Town Centre Core Park). Trillium Woods and Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A were the only natural areas (except for Petrie Island in the east sub-area) to exceed 100 hectares in size. These two natural areas also ranked in the top ten for average Coefficient of Conservation value and significant flora and fauna, with Trillium Woods containing the second highest number of significant flora and fauna (21). A third site rated high overall, South Richardson Lands, also was tied for tenth overall with four significant flora and fauna. Trillium Woods and Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A had the most number of vegetation communities (7), with the South Richardson Lands natural area also doing well for this criterion. These four sites scored within the top seven in the City for the number of vegetation communities, indicating community diversity is relatively high in the larger west end natural areas.

Extensive areas of mature deciduous habitat are found in Trillium Woods and Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A. Ninety-six (96) and fifty-seven (57) hectares of interior habitat within Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A and Trillium Woods respectively were the greatest extents of such habitat among all evaluated natural areas in the City. Trillium Woods is one of the most significant and least disturbed natural areas in the urban lands of Ottawa. Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A has open granite bedrock outcrop barrens uncommonly scattered on drier ridges of the urban natural area. Such habitat is also present in the South Richardson Lands and Kanata Town Centre natural areas.

Both Trillium Woods Marchwood/Lakeside NEA A contain extensive marsh and swamp habitat, and swamp habitat is common at Hazeldean Woods Park. Small riparian wetland habitat is found along the lower elevation portions of Katimivik Park, Hope Cloutier Park and Cattail Creek Park Woods, with greater riparian wetland habitat along Stittsville Arena Park and Poole Creek Corridor natural areas. Bell Memorial Park and the North of Maple Grove natural areas also have swamp and marsh wetland habitat. Horned pondweed (Zaanichellia palustris) was recorded in the open water habitat of Hope Cloutier Park, only the second record for the Ottawa area. Although a relatively disturbed site that rated low overall, this sighting underscores the natural heritage potential of even such largely transformed areas. However, a brick retaining wall has added further encroachment into this natural area.

Bridlewood Core Park contains ephemeral woodland pools in sub-mature to mature maple forests. These pools support amphibian breeding and possibly red-shouldered hawk nesting. The adjacent sub-mature pine groves offer potential raptor nesting and shelter sites.

Hazeldean Woods Park is a relatively large area, 17 hectares, of continuous habitat surrounded by urbanization that offers considerable potential for the long-term maintenance of significant natural features and functions, including provincially rare sedge species, swamp forest habitat, area-sensitive bird species such as black-throated green warbler and observation of black bear. Yard waste dumping and garlic mustard and glossy buckthorn presence were disturbances noted in the natural area. Loss of groundwater discharge would threaten the integrity of this natural area over the long term.

The North of Maple Grove natural area contains a locally unique white pine grove and a potentially ancient eastern hemlock tree.

In some west end natural areas, such as Morgan’s Grant Woods, active recreational uses encroached into the natural area. Composters and dumping of yard waste were other disturbances in this relatively small (2.4 hectare) natural area. Even with such encroachment, the only known City of Ottawa population of a regionally rare flora (Brachyelytrum erectum (s.str.)) was observed, along with four regionally uncommon plant species.

At Stittsville Arena Park an aesthetically impressive mature, tall sugar maple forest highlights the natural area. Although the quality of the cool-water portion of Poole Creek is challenged by on-going development pressures, the riparian habitat is still high in this area and there is excellent interpretive potential for this site.

5.3 South Sub-Area

Of the eight natural areas that were evaluated in the south sub-area, three natural areas, Remer Property, Heart's Desire Forest and Memorial Gardens Woods, were rated high overall. The Remer Property had the second highest average Coefficient of Conservation value overall and the fourth greatest number of rare species (10).

Mature deciduous and mixed forests are found in Memorial Gardens Woods and Heart’s Desire Forest, along with small areas of forest interior habitat. Heart’s Desire Forest has the only population of the regionally rare two-lined salamander (Eurycea bilineata) off the Ottawa River. The mature deciduous habitat in Heart’s Desire Forest is among the largest examples of such habitat in the urban area of the City of Ottawa.

Wetland emergent marsh habitat is present in the Half Moon Bay natural area, while Memorial Gardens Woods contains deciduous swamp forests and mineral marshes. The Remer Property contains a diversity of young to mature coniferous, mixed and deciduous swamp forests, with disturbances generally limited to the buckthorn invasion in the deciduous swamps.

Other unique habitat is found in some natural areas such as the mature upland deciduous forest with mature bitternut hickory along the rock escarpment of the Barrhaven Escarpment site.

5.4 Central Sub-Area

Sixteen (16) natural areas within the central sub-area were rated high overall. Britannia Conservation Area was the highest rated natural area for average Coefficient of Conservation value, number of vegetation communities and significant flora and fauna, with an amazing total of 44 rare flora and fauna overall. It has the highest known level of native biodiversity in the urban area and contains historically important populations of the uncommon hackberry (Celtis

occidentalis) tree. A relatively large population of the regionally significant Blanding’s turtle occurs at Britannia Conservation Area. It is also the premier migratory bird staging site in Ottawa and a breeding site for several regionally rare raptors including coopers hawk, screech owl and merlin. For the first time in 35 years, great horned owls successfully bred in the Britannia Conservation Area in 2004.

Champlain Bridge Islands, Lemieux Island, Vincent Massey Woods, Des Chênes Lookout and Rockcliffe Park West were other natural areas in the central sub-area that were in the top ten of evaluated natural areas for significant flora and fauna. The Des Chênes Lookout natural area had the third overall ranked average Coefficient of Conservation value.

Significant expanses of mature forest habitat are found at Airbase Woods, Rockcliffe Park West, Vincent Massey Woods and McCarthy Woods, with remnant mature habitat in Nivens Woods. Forest interior habitat is not common in the central sub-area but exists in the core of the Airbase Woods, Britannia Conservation Area and McCarthy Woods natural areas, with smaller interior habitat at the NRC Woods South natural area.

Wetland habitat is scattered through the central sub-area. Some highlights are mature deciduous swamp forests in the Lower Stillwater Creek natural area, the deciduous riparian swamp forest, marsh meadow and deep-water aquatics of the Britannia Conservation Area, the extensive swamp forests and thicket swamps of Conroy Swamp, the shallow open water river bottom habitat, shore marsh and swamp forests of Des Chênes Lookout, and the deciduous swamp forest, mineral meadow marsh and shallow water aquatics of Upper Duck Island, including a Provincially rare hackberry ‘Savannah’ swamp forest. The Nepean Creek corridor contains a good representation of meadow marsh habitat, although it is disturbed by invasive vegetation such as reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. Elmhurst Street Woods, Carson Grove Woods and NRC Woods South contain remnant deciduous swamp forest and thicket swamp habitat, with mineral marsh and thicket swamp habitat in the Vincent Massey Woods natural area.

Kindlecourt Park is only 1.5 hectares in size, but supports the only known City of Ottawa population of a provincially rare species, Appalachian Polypody (Polypodium appalachianum) in a sandstone escarpment habitat, which in itself is considered regionally rare.

5.5 East Sub-Area

Four natural areas, Forestglen Park, Chapel Hill Park, Bilberry Creek Valley and By-Pass Woods, in the south sub-area were rated high overall, although this small number is misleading as only eleven sites have been fully evaluated to date. All of the highly rated natural areas, except Bilberry Creek Valley were among the top seven of all natural areas evaluated for their average Coefficient of Conservation value. Bilberry Creek Valley, along with Forestglen Park, was among the top seven natural areas for the vegetation community evaluation criterion. Rare species were relatively lacking in the east sub-area as none of the sites rated in the top twelve for this criterion.

Forestglen Park is an extensive, rugged, continuously forested landscape in clay substrate in deep ravines along the western branch of Bilberry Creek. The natural area demonstrates a high level of ecological integrity throughout mature, conifer-dominated woodlands and along a naturally functioning creek corridor. Many mature eastern hemlock trees are present. Forestglen Park ranked fourth in number of vegetation communities (6). Mature deciduous and coniferous ravine forests are also present in the Chapel Hill Park and Bilberry Creek Valley natural areas. Forestglen Park and Bilberry Creek Valley contain small areas of forest interior habitat, with larger interior area in the Bypass Woods.

Wetland habitat is relatively common in natural areas evaluated in the east sub-area. Church Woods at Innes, Terry Fox School Woods, Lower Bilberry Creek Valley and Louis Perrault Park contain smaller deciduous or mixed swamp forests, with much larger mixed and deciduous swamp forests in Forestglen Park, Bypass Woods and Chapel Hill Park. A large Provincially significant wetland is located at Petrie Island. The only sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) population known in the urban area of Ottawa was reported in Louis Perrault Park, along with other acid sand species rare within the urban area (Spiranthes cernua, Gentiana andrewsii and Hypericum majus).

6.0 DATA STORAGE and MAPPING

A CD copy of the site summaries and site maps is contained in Annex A of this report. A hard copy of the site summaries and site boundary maps will be kept in the Planning and Growth Management Department of the City of Ottawa, currently located on the 4^th Floor of 110 Laurier Avenue West (City Hall). This information has been organized into four geographic sub-areas, West, South, Central and East, with one large binder for each sub-area. The site summaries include:

· Site map.

· Completed data sheets (as described in Section 3.3).

· Completed evaluation summary matrix indicating the ratings for each evaluation criteria and the overall rating for the site.

· Description of ecological functions and native biodiversity, such as adjacent natural areas and other land uses, disturbances including encroachment and invasive species and the vegetation communities and rare species present.

· Site-specific management recommendations.

· List of native plant species for the site including the Conservation of Coefficients for each species following the standardized lists produced by the Natural Heritage Information Centre.

The entire site summary, including the plant species list, was produced in Microsoft Word for ease of software compatibility and data storage and retrieval. The maps with natural area boundaries are in pdf format from the City’s ArcView GIS.

7.0 NEXT STEPS

The next phase of this project consists of City staff developing an implementation strategy for the urban natural areas based on the results of the study to date. This strategy will form part of the City’s Greenspace Master Plan. The following main themes will need to be considered in this strategy: 1) Protection of Natural Areas; 2) Protection Tools for Natural Areas; 3) Management and Maintenance of Natural Areas.

While the environmental rating will guide the recommended level of protection, other factors such as links to other greenspace, accessibility, equitable distribution, recreational attributes, and aesthetics will be considered. There are challenges that need to be considered which include: current planning status, existing development rights, and landowner intentions. A range of securement tools will be identified in the Greenspace Master Plan and the appropriate tool will be assigned to each evaluated site. These securement tools could include Official Plan Amendments (policy and/or designations) and zoning by-law amendments supported by implementation mechanisms such as acquisition, land swaps, development bonusing, special levy, and public-private partnerships. In support of the securement policy, acquisition funds may need to be established in the City's budget.

Once secured, management and maintenance of natural areas is required to sustain environmental values and functions over the long term. The notion that urban natural areas do not need management because they are "natural" is not an adequate option in a predominately developed landscape. Management recommendations that balance environmental value and recreational activities will be required. Management priorities will need to be established along with an adequate implementation budget. Opportunities for community stewardship should be explored. The Greenspace Master Plan will develop a management framework for city-owned greenspace.

Other attributes of the natural areas such as proximity to users, linkage to other greenspaces, and accessibility will be addressed in the Greenspace Master Plan. The potential for integration into the City’s proposed Greenspace Network and the identification of management recommendations and recreational opportunities for each area will provide further insight into the assessment of these factors.

A number of natural areas have not been evaluated. The implementation strategy that will form part of the Greenspace Master Plan will provide appropriate planning direction on these sites until such time as an environmental evaluation can be completed. Currently, the Official Plan provides a provision for an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared for development proposals that contain wetlands, forests, fields in complexes of greater than 0.8 hectares in size or greater in the urban area. This policy applies to all candidate urban natural areas not currently designated in the Official Plan.

Funding has been approved to complete the fieldwork and evaluation in the summer of 2005 on the remaining sites where property permission is granted. The evaluation criteria will then be applied to rate the overall environmental significance of these natural areas. The rating results will be integrated into the securement and protection priority process established in the Greenspace Master Plan. The evaluation results and protection recommendations will be presented to City Council.

A joint meeting of the Steering Committee and Public Advisory Committee took place in November 2004 to present the overall environmental ratings for evaluated sites, next steps and the upcoming final public open house for the study. The Site Evaluation Results map (Figure 3) was provided to members of both committees. The consultant team demonstrated the application of the evaluation criteria and assignment of the overall environmental rating for low, moderate and high rated site. The next steps of the study were discussed which focused on the need to develop an implementation strategy for the protection of urban natural features through the Greenspace Master Plan.

At the third open house for Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, held in December 2004 at City Hall, members of the public had the opportunity to view display panels that presented the overall environmental ratings for the 114 evaluated sites. It also illustrated which sites were not evaluated due to field investigation limitations. The overall rating of each evaluated site was depicted on a Citywide, urban map and sub-area maps (east, west, central and south). This was the first opportunity for members of the public to review the results of the environmental evaluations that were completed on 114 urban natural areas.

Members of the consulting team were available at the open house to discuss the evaluation process and provide explanations of the final ratings. The open house also presented the next steps in the study, completion of the consultant report, and development of an implementation strategy for urban natural features, which would include appropriate planning direction for the remaining unevaluated sites. An initial list of challenges and opportunities to protect urban natural features was presented. Both members of the committees and the public expressed an overwhelming interest in seeing the City’s urban natural areas being managed and protected.

8.0 REFERENCES

Bergsma, B. 2002. City of London Woodlands – Evaluation of Significant Woodlands. Version 2, October 10, 2002. 22 pp.

Billington, C. and E. W. Tozer. 1977. Ecological Inventory of NCC Urban Corridors. Interpretation Section, National Capital Commission. 101 pp.

Brownell, V.R. and B.M.H. Larson. 1995. An Evaluation Framework for Natural Areas in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. 2 Vol.

Brownell, V.R. and C.S. Blaney. 1997. Summary: Natural Area Reports for Natural Areas East of the Rideau River. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Planning and Development Approvals Department. 324 pp.

Brunton, D.F. 1992. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 6-12. Unpublished Manuscript. 225 pp.

Brunton, D. F. 1993. Ecologically Significant Areas (ESAs) within the City of Ottawa, Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario. State of the Environment Reporting Program, City of Ottawa. 109 pp.

Brunton, D.F. 1997. Summary: Natural Area Reports for Natural Areas West of Rideau River (500 series). Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Planning and Development Approvals Department. 164 pp.

City of Ottawa. 1998. Natural and Open Spaces Study. Summary Descriptions and Natural and Open Spaces; Four Volumes

City of Ottawa. 2003. City of Ottawa Official Plan. As adopted by City Council, May, 2003. Publication: 1-28. 227 pp & Sched.

Cumming Cockburn Limited. 1993. City-Wide Remnant Woodlot Inventory Study. Prepared for the City of Waterloo. November 1993. 44 pp & append.

Gartner Lee Limited and Berridge, Lewinberg, Greenburg. 1994. A Greenlands System for York Region. Prepared for the Planning Department, Regional Municipality of York.

Geomatics International Inc. 1993. Environmentally Sensitive Area Study. Prepared for the Planning Department, Regional Municipality of Halton.

Gillett, J. M. and D.J. White. 1978. Checklist of Vascular Plants of the Ottawa-Hull Region, Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences.

Gore & Storrie Limited in association with Hough Stansbury Woodland Limited, Lehman & Associates and Garrod Associated. 1992. Town of Markham Natural Features Study, Phase 1. Prepared for the Town of Markham.

Keddy, C.J. 1997. Summary: Natural Area Reports for Natural Areas West of the Rideau River (300 Series). Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Planning and Development Approvals Department. Report #28-08b. 83 pp.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Natural History Information Centre. 2004. List of Ontario Species. Vascular Plants. www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/querries/listont

Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 68 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1994. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern Manual. 3^rd Edition with updates. 172 pp & append.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. June 1999. 127 pp.

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. 1998a. Environmental Impact Statement Guideline. DRAFT. 66 p.

Riley, J. L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario’s Settled Landscape. A Review of Conservation and Restoration Ecology for Land-Use and Landscape Planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report TR-001. 78 pp.

Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd., The Dagny Partnership, IPS Consulting Ltd., The Land Stewardship, Centre of Canada Environmental Law Centre. 2001. Conserving Edmonton's Natural Areas: A Framework for Urban Conservation. Technical Report, Alberta Environmental Network, Community Services, City of Edmonton, February 2001. 126 pp. & append.

Wilhelm, G.S. and L.A. Masters. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment in the Chicago Region and Application Computer Programs. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. 65 pp.

CITY OF OTTAWA

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Evaluation Framework

Fieldwork Component

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

Figure 2: Site Selection Methodology

Review of Existing Information

Aerial Photography Review

Evaluation Criterion 2 – Absence of Disturbance

Mitigation of Existing Disturbances

Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecological Functions

Mitigation of Existing Disturbances

Maintenance and Enhancement of Natural Area Functions

CITY OF OTTAWA

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Evaluation Framework

Fieldwork Component

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

Figure 2: Site Selection Methodology Review of Existing Information Aerial Photography Review

Evaluation Criterion 2 – Absence of Disturbance

Mitigation of Existing Disturbances

Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecological Functions

Mitigation of Existing Disturbances

Maintenance and Enhancement of Natural Area Functions

Figure 2: Site Selection Methodology

Review of Existing Information

Aerial Photography Review