As requested by Councillor Hofland, I am providing a copy of comments presented to Council on May 20, 2010.
Sierra Club Canada makes the following comments with respect to the Official Plan amendment. These comments will primarily focus on the Natural Heritage Strategy section of the Official Plan.
Seek additional input. It is our understanding that staff considers this to be the statutory public meeting for the entire OP. We would certainly encourage additional opportunities be made available for the public to provide input to the rest of the OP.
Provide additional options. With respect to the Natural Heritage Strategy, the proposed system is not all that it should be, it eliminates too many natural features and is too flexible in allowing development. We base this concern on the following statement in the document, “The NHS policies aim to strike a balance between protection of the Natural Heritage System while providing for growth and development in accordance with the Planning Complete and Healthy Communities Section of this Plan.” This statement implies that the policies in the NHS are not as strong as they could be, because growth will be given priority.
But even the Places to Grow Act gives priority to protecting significant natural features. It states that if there is a conflict between Places to Grow and environmental plans or policies “the direction that provides more protection to the natural environment or human health prevails.” at 14(4)
Council and the public would be well-served if more than one option for a natural heritage system were presented. When the 1993 Hanlon Creek Watershed Plan was presented to council, three options were given. The “good” natural heritage system option protected 8 identified areas within the watershed. The “better” option protected 13 areas. The “ideal” option protected 21 areas. The council of the day supported the “ideal system” of 21 protected areas. The process of developing an overall NHS for the entire city should also provide such options. This would give council the option to choose, and it would give the public a clear and concise way to express a preference, rather than being forced to scrutinize the entire document and comment on particular policies.
Many of you may remember the CUFF report prepared for the City in 2005. George Cuff is a well-known consultant who has written over 200 articles and 2 books on local government and governance. In his report he stated, “Our review of [staff reports to council] . . .reflects the fact that most reports do not reflect any available options for Council’s consideration . . . The absence of clear, defined options results in less than a full picture for Council’s consideration, and reduces the quality of its decision-making. Whenever the administration, through the senior management team, presents but one choice . . .it can be presumed that there are no other useful options from which Council can choose. Such is not the case however, and Council is thereby limited in terms of the quality of its decisions. Council is aware that the administration may have a preferred course of action. This is what they are expected to present. Unfortunately, when a report does not reference other potential options, there is a presumption by senior management that it somehow knows what is best for the City, thereby bringing into question any value to be gained from the influence of the Council.” at page 71
There should be more than one option for the NHS presented to council and the public. Preparation of the options should be relatively straightforward since various natural features which were dropped from the system in later drafts could simply be reinstated to provide more options.
Provide additional clarification and mapping. I had hoped to speak intelligently tonight about the size of the NHS and its various components. Unfortunately, I can’t do that. In February I asked 5 questions to help me understand the plan better. I only received a response today at 6:00 p.m. One of the issues I will be seeking to clarify is why in July 2009 protecting 20% slopes of the moraine area was estimated to protect 23% of the moraine, yet now it is estimated to protect 42% of the moraine.
I believe Ms. Plaunt indicated that this NHS will result in a 25 ha reduction when compared to the existing core and non-core greenlands area in the OP. A map indicating the losses of core and non-core greenlands should be provided.
Focus development. The NHS should include a policy of siting development away from the NHS and to areas where infrastructure already exists, thus minimizing impacts on natural features. This concept is found in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual: “By focusing development in areas where infrastructure already exists (See PPS Policy 1.1 Efficient Cost-effective Development and Land Use Patterns–Developing Strong Communities), impacts on natural values can be minimized.” NHRM p 40
Put environment first. There should be a policy supporting the priority of environmental protection. For example, in 1991, the City of Waterloo adopted an “environment first” policy in which the City agreed to consider environmental impacts in all City services and programs before making decisions.
The City of Oakville has in its General Objectives for Environment and Open Space “To establish as a first priority of the Town a natural heritage/open space system to protect, preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the natural environment.” This policy was a key factor in the Town’s successful defence of its Natural Heritage System before the OMB.
We believe it would be proper and prudent for Guelph to adopt “environment first” language into its Official Plan.
Value natural capital. The NHS and the OP should recognize the importance of quantifying and protecting the natural capital and ecosystem services provided by natural areas in the City. In the book “Ontario’s Wealth Canada’s Future”, the Suzuki foundation states that “The importance and value of natural capital must be an essential part of land-use planning and policy decisions by . . . municipal governments. The Foundation found wetlands and forests to be most valuable. Wetlands were valued at $14,153 per hectare per year and forests at $5,414 per year.
Strengthen Environmental Impact Studies. The policy referring to Environmental Impact Studies should be strengthened so that, in order to proceed with a development, it must be “. . .demonstrated through an EIS, EA or subwatershed study, based upon objective scientific evidence and taking into account the precautionary principle, that there will be no negative impacts . . .”
The Hanlon Creek State of the Watershed study recognized the fact that site-specific EIS’s usually resulted in affording less protection to natural features. As recently as last week, Guelph’s Environmental Advisory Committee discussed the fact that EIS’s generally do not provide enough detail to make a determination as to whether a development will have an impact on natural features on the site. This should be dealt with in the OP.
Strengthen wetland protections. The NHS should establish a policy of no net loss of wetland area, functions or values. No net loss of wetlands is endorsed by Ducks Unlimited Canada.
Increase buffers. The NHS should articulate a policy that buffers to natural areas should be increased where sensitivity is high or where impacts are likely to be high. Carolinian Canada’s Draft Guide for Determination of Setbacks and Buffers contains a table summarizing the sensitivity of various features and their sensitivity to various forms of development.
The NHS should explain that the proposed minimum wetland buffers are primarily for water quality protection. Scientific literature is clear that these narrow buffers will not protect other wetland values such as wildlife habitat. This view is supported in documents from the GRCA and Environment Canada.
As Councillor Beard and I heard at a presentation by Environment Canada last night, as a general rule, 100 metre buffers are considered necessary to protect a range of values around wetlands. This recommendation should be incorporated into the OP.
Storm water management and infrastructure should not be allowed in wetland buffers. The GRCA’s EIS Guidelines for Wetlands supports this view. “Though sometimes designed to function like a wetland, these facilities do not provide suitable habitat for wildlife, and as such should remain physically separated as much as possible from natural wetlands.”
Strengthen woodland protections. The NHS should establish a policy of no net loss of woodland area, functions or values.
Increase ecological linkages All linkages should be a minimum of 100 metres. Scientific literature shows narrower linkages to be ineffective.
Increase Moraine protections. Because of the importance of the moraine for high quality recharge to the aquifer, arbitrarily protecting only 20% slopes and above is inadequate.
Protect urban woodlands and trees It will be difficult, if not impossible, to increase tree canopy to 40% by 2031, as envisioned in this plan, unless stronger efforts are made to protect mature trees in the City. Therefore, we suggest a policy that states: “In order to maintain and enhance canopy, urban woodlands, trees and hedgerows must be retained and integrated into proposed developments unless no other alternative exists.
Establish performance indicators. The OP should direct that a list of performance indicators be developed to monitor effectiveness of environmental policies. The PPS encourages this.
Protect the full range of natural features. Areas of meadows and other common features should be protected within the NHS. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states: “A fundamental step in natural heritage system planning is to consider the protection of the full range of natural features that occur in an area, including both rare and common features. NHRM p 97
Revise definition of “Essential.” We appreciate the intention to require enhanced oversight of plans to locate infrastructure in extremely sensitive ecological areas. However, for this to succeed, we suggest that “essential” be redefined to read: That which is considered, based upon a specific Council resolution to that effect, to be necessary and in the public interest after all feasible alternatives have been considered.
We appreciate the challenge of formulating natural heritage policies in the context of development pressures; and we commend the authors of this report for their efforts. Our suggestions for strengthening the report are based upon the clear and compelling evidence that a more robust plan provides greater assurances that the natural system will remain viable over the long term. Continued vigilance will be required to ensure successful adoption and implementation of the Strategy, and we hope to be a constructive partner in that effort. JM