Summary
The Goulbourn
Landowners Group represents rural landowners in the Goulbourn Ward
of the City of Ottawa.
The issue addressed
in this report is the designation of properties as Provincially
Significant Wetlands by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) and the City of Ottawa. This designation directly
affects approximately 60 landowners in rural Goulbourn. A
number of additional landowners are also affected as their
property lies in the wetland buffer area. To date, the
Province and City have not notified these landowners in the buffer
area of the impending restrictions that will have a negative
impact on their property values and property rights.
We would like to make
it clear that the Goulbourn Landowners Group are supporters of the
environment and the preservation of wetlands.
Our concerns and
objections are with the procedures, methodology and regulatory
aspects of wetlands designation.
The Problem
The present
regulatory environment has four major problems:
o
No consultation. Landowners were not informed
of the process until their property had been designated by the
Province. No opportunity for input in the City’s process.
o
It over-designates. Properties are designated
as wetlands that bear no resemblance to the normal concept of
wetland.
o
It ignores property rights. Designated
properties are devalued. Wetlands are a communal good, and
are of no particular value to the individual owner, yet the owner
is expected to absorb the cost when his / her land is devalued.
o
Designated properties and the buffer areas become a
regulatory nightmare for the landowner.
Due to the above, the
landowner is forced to choose between destroying his wetland and
seeing his life savings destroyed. The landowner is
therefore forced to become an opponent of the process.
The Solution
The solution is to
create an environment that no longer pits the landowner’s
financial security against his / her environmental interests, and
to create a process that does not force landowners into an
adversarial role.
Province of Ontario
Require
consultation with the landowners throughout the process.
Require the province to explain to landowners the possible
consequences of a wetlands study at the outset, and to inform them
of their rights.
Review the
evaluation procedures for wetlands to ensure that only real
wetlands get designated.
Remove the
‘complexing’ provisions that allow the bureaucracy to designate
property without doing a full Provincially Significant Wetland
evaluation.
Require
municipalities to provide full and fair compensation when
properties are devalued, or to buy them at a fair market price
(and with the owner’s consent).
Review and simplify
the mass of wetland regulations from multiple ministries (see
Appendix A) and
o
Remove unnecessary regulation.
o
Provide a single access point where property owners
can get a fast and simple answer and / or permit to make changes.
o
Require a 120 metre buffer zone around all
residences, that would exclude wetlands (and other) designations
and their buffer zones.
Provide a process
whereby landowners can appeal the designation simply and easily.
Alternatively, require a landowner’s permission before his / her
property can be rezoned as wetland.
A moratorium on
all existing and future designations until the above problems are
resolved.
City of Ottawa
Require real
consultation with the landowners throughout the process.
Develop a process
that is fair to landowners and does not create an adversarial
relationship between the city and the landowners.
Provide full and
fair compensation when properties are devalued, or to buy them at
a fair market price (with the owner’s consent). If the City
cannot afford to provide compensation, it is completely unethical
(but, sadly, not illegal) for the City to proceed with wetland
designations.
Provide real
incentives for landowners to maintain their wetlands.
Apply wetlands
regulation equally to rural and suburban properties.
Move to a system
where all aspects of a property are considered at the time of a
rezoning application, so that pre-emptive wetland designations are
not necessary.
A moratorium on
all existing and future designations until the above problems are
resolved.
Problems
In the current
attempt to redesignate Goulbourn properties, the problems fall
into four main areas that can be summarized as follows:
- Procedural
issues:
- The land was
redesignated by MNR before the landowners were even aware of
the process.
- The City has
informed the landowners of MNR’s designation and the City’s
intent to revise their Official Plan to reflect the new
designations. There is no room for negotiation in this
matter; the only points for discussion are the exact
boundaries of the wetland areas.
- The motivation
for this process appears to be the desire to designate new
wetlands to replace existing wetlands in the suburban areas of
the city, which the city is failing to protect by allowing
development. Designating new wetlands does not create
new wetland – it was already there – whereas allowing
development of existing wetland will permanently destroy it.
- Methodological
and regulatory problems:
- The wetlands
classification depends solely on the plants growing on the
properties at the time of the evaluation (ref. 1 and Appendix
B). It does not take into account any other factors.
Nor does it require that the properties even remotely resemble
a wetland. The ‘indicator species’ for wetlands that the
evaluation uses are not limited to wetlands.
- The existing
evaluation was done by flying over the properties at 1000’,
and by roadside observation. Only a tiny fraction of the
area is visible from the roadside, and the detail visible from
1000 feet is limited, so the result is arbitrary at best.
- The great
majority of the affected properties are not Provincially
Significant Wetlands in their own right. They are being
designated Provincially Significant using a method known as
complexing that allows properties to be designated
Provincially Significant if they are within 750 metres of an
existing Provincially Significant Wetland, using much less
demanding criteria. These properties can then be used to
complex further properties, and so on. The result is
that an existing Provincially Significant Wetland can be used
to designate large areas without ever having to justify the
Provincially Significant Wetland criteria. The
complexing regulation is of doubtful justice in any
circumstances, but this use of it is a clear abuse of the
concept.
- The wetlands
classification system ignores the reasons properties are wet.
Many properties in the affected area are growing wetland
plants because of spring flooding that is caused by the City’s
failure to provide and maintain adequate drainage. The
City has a clear legal liability not to allow water from City
property (particularly roadside ditches) to flood resident’s
property. The City has clearly been negligent and
could be sued for the loss of property values.
- A violation of
Property Rights:
- A designation
of Provincially Significant Wetland results in a drastic
devaluation of the affected properties. The value of
general rural land falls from about $2500 per acre to about
$200 per acre. Farms and properties with homes built on
them can be much more drastically affected. Neither the
City nor the Province is prepared to compensate the landowners
for the loss of value. Since wetlands are a communal
good, and of no intrinsic value to the landowner, this is
inexcusable.
- A regulatory
nightmare:
- Once
designated, the owners of Provincially Significant Wetlands,
and of all property in a 120 metre (400 foot) buffer zone,
enter a bureaucratic nightmare where an environmental impact
study may be required for any change to the
property, no matter how trivial. This can involve the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment,
Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of Agriculture, and
possibly others (see Appendix A). The costs can easily
run into tens of thousands of dollars and take years to
complete.
Finally, we should
point out that the good intentions of the city and provincial
bureaucrats are likely to result in exactly the opposite of what
they are trying to achieve.
Rural landowners
were, and are, good stewards of their properties. Rural
landowners are, on the whole, very much environmentalists, albeit
of the practical rather than the armchair variety. We have a
direct interest in the welfare of our properties. We have to
drink our own water, dispose of our own sewage, and therefore
cannot afford to abuse our environment. In fact, rural
landowners have a much better record of protecting wetlands than
does the City and Province, which allow wetlands near suburban
areas to be developed wholesale.
Unfortunately, the
consequences of a Provincially Significant Wetland designation are
nothing short of draconian. Landowners are so concerned
about the restrictions that some are prepared to destroy their
designated ‘wetlands’ rather than allow their life savings to be
destroyed and their rights to enjoyment and management of their
own properties to be usurped.
Procedural Issues
The Goulbourn
Landowners Group has not determined the ultimate motivation for
the investigation that resulted in the present properties being
designated. The application to the City of Ottawa to permit
development of the property at 6851 Flewellyn Road has caused the
City on behalf of the Province to initiate a study of wetlands in
the area.
The area in
question is about 5 km from the suburban area of Stittsville, and
has many smaller 2 – 10 acre lots containing residences, as well
as larger lots and a few farms. For a rural area, it has a
relatively dense population. Several residents have had
their whole properties, including their homes, designated as
wetland.
MNR Designation
In 2004, MNR and
the City of Ottawa initiated a study “to identify wetlands and
determine their potential to complex with the Goulbourn Wetland
Complex.” (ref. 2).
A letter was sent
to the affected landowners indicating a study was underway and
requesting permission to come onto their properties to evaluate
their wetland status. The letter did not discuss the
process, warn of the potential for designation as a Provincially
Significant Wetland or of the effects on property value, etc.
Most landowners figured nothing good could come of this and
ignored the letter.
The city then used
aerial photographs from 2002 to identify potential wetlands.
In September 2004, the City’s biologist flew over the target
properties at 1000 feet to identify wetland plants and
supplemented this with roadside surveys.
In February 2005,
the City of Ottawa sent the completed study to MNR, which
designated the wetland areas as Provincially Significant Wetland
based on their proximity to the existing Goulbourn Wetland Complex
and the complexing regulations. Altogether 262 hectares
(about 650 acres) were designated. At this point the
landowners knew nothing of this and had had no chance to object or
comment.
So far as we
have been able to ascertain, there is no way to appeal this
decision.
These processes
must be public and require the input and permission of the
landowner.
The regulations
should require a 120 metre buffer zone around all residences, that
would exclude wetlands (and other) designations and their buffer
zones. People need their own environment too!
City of Ottawa Official Plan
In April 2005, the
City of Ottawa informed the landowners that their land had been
designated by MNR, and of the City’s intent to update its official
plan to re-zone the affected properties as wetlands. This
was an information meeting; landowners were permitted to ask
questions but their input was not required or requested. The
city outlined the history and their ongoing plans to re-zone the
affected properties. At no point in the process do the
landowners have an opportunity to have their concerns addressed or
to object to what is taking place. The landowners can only
appeal the Official Plan Amendment to the OMB, but this will not
affect the provincial designation.
Following the
meeting, the affected landowners have held two meetings to discuss
the situation and have voted to incorporate an organization, the
Goulbourn Landowners Group, to look after the interests or rural
landowners and, specifically, to fight the wetlands designation.
Motivation
The motivation for
the wetlands study is unclear. According to reference 2, the
motivation for the study came from four factors:
o
An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted for
a property along Flewellyn Road that identified the presence of
wetlands that were unknown until this submission.
o
MNR deemed that the evaluation of the wetland was
necessary in order to determine its significance.
o
Further examination by MNR identified several other
unevaluated wetland areas adjacent to the development proposal and
in the surrounding area.
o
Members of the public had submitted documentation to
the MNR also identifying new wetland areas that were not currently
mapped.
However, it also
appears that the City of Ottawa is motivated to designate wetlands
to cover its own failings. The City has been allowing
development in many wetland areas in the suburban core. In
Goulbourn alone, there has been, and is ongoing, wholesale
development of wetlands in the village of Stittsville. The
City is also proposing to allow development of the Carp River
floodplain in Hazeldean. This has resulted in protests from
several environmental groups.
In Stittsville,
Brown’s Supermarket and the adjoining strip mall, at the junction
of Main Street and Hazeldean Road, is built on wetland, as is the
housing development directly east of it. There is currently
development of wetland north of this area, across the Hazeldean
Road. We could point out several other developments within
the village of Stittsville.
There is no reason
that wetland within suburban areas should be treated any
differently than wetland in rural areas. In theory, this is
already the case but, in practice, wetland within suburban areas
gets developed. The City must then find wetland in rural
areas to designate in order to satisfy the environmental
lobbyists. As we have pointed out, designating more wetland
does not create new wetland whereas developing wetland destroys it
permanently.
In fact, the new
wetlands that the city is ‘creating’ to compensate for development
are contrived, rather than real, wetlands. The complexing
rules allow any land growing wetland plants to be designated
without a full Provincially Significant Wetland evaluation.
Using these rules, it would probably be possible to extend the
current wetlands to stretch from one side of Ontario to the other
without ever needing to do a Provincially Significant Wetland
evaluation. All that’s necessary is to find a few wetland
plants within 750m of existing designated areas, designate that
area, and repeat.
The City needs to
revise its procedures to include the affected landowners and
proceed with their permission and cooperation instead of trying to
coerce them.
Equal Application of the Wetlands Regulations
As mentioned above,
the City is allowing development of suburban real wetlands while
proceeding to designate contrived wetlands in rural areas.
The village of Stittsville has seen enormous growth since it
received municipal water and sewer services about twenty years
ago. Almost all that growth has been developed on wetlands
and is still being developed on wetlands. We are not picking
on Stittsville particularly – it’s just the nearest suburban area.
Similar examples could be found throughout the City of Ottawa.
There is a definite
dual standard here. Urban residents and councilors are
permitting the destruction of wetlands for suburban development.
Then they turn around and tell the rural residents that ‘we’ need
to preserve our environment. Perhaps the urban residents and
councilors should look in the mirror and in their own backyards
before preaching to others about the environment.
Of course, these
people have ample excuses: “the land was never designated as
wetland”, or “the OMB made us do it”. Nevertheless, real
wetland is being destroyed. And many of these same people
are condoning and encouraging such development by living in houses
built on wetland. We have never heard of an urban resident
campaigning to do the environmentally responsible thing and
boycott such housing.
Given the record of
the City and the Province in protecting wetlands, we have to
conclude that wetlands are no safer in the hands of the City than
they are currently. It appears that the City and Province
only protect wetlands that no-one wants to develop.
Until the City is
prepared to protect existing wetlands in suburban areas, it should
cease and desist from harassing rural residents.
Methodological and Regulatory problems
A Bizarre Definition of Wetlands
MNR’s Ontario Wetland
Evaluation System, Southern Manual (OWES manual, ref. 1) provides
guidance for the biologists whose job is to evaluate wetlands.
This is a 200 page document that provides guidance on two topics:
- What is a
wetland?
- What is a
Provincially Significant Wetland?
On the first
question, the manual appears to be designed to allow the evaluator
maximum discretion in determining that an area is wetland.
For instance, the manual talks about four types of wetland (see
Appendix B). However, the technical definition is much more
general (Appendix B again) and leads to nonsense such as the
statement by Susan Murphy, the City’s coordinator for this
project, that “land does not need to be wet to be wetland”
(interview with Dave Stevens on Ottawa Morning, CBC Radio One,
June 8th, 2005).
The designation of a
wetland is based on the plant population alone. The
evaluation system doesn’t care if property is wet; doesn’t care
why property is wet - e.g. city drainage policies; doesn’t care
what was there yesterday or will be there tomorrow. The sole
criteria is that 50% of the plants must be wetland plants (or,
more specifically, plants in the OWES manual’s list of indicator
species for wetland plants, most of which will happily grow in
non-wetland environments).
Causes of Wetland Plants
In fact, problems on
some of the designated properties are caused by spring flooding
and, more specifically, by the City’s failure to provide adequate
drainage. The City is draining areas to north of the designated
area, but making no provision for the increased water flow to pass
through the area. The City has a clear legal
responsibility to provide such drainage.
So the process goes
like this:
- City fails to
provide drainage
- Causes spring
flooding on landowners’ properties
- Causes wetland
plants to grow
- City sees
wetland plants
- City designates
property
Another example:
In the late 80’s, tree planting was in vogue and MNR had a Managed
Forest Program to advise landowners on what trees to plant and
provide assistance in planting them. Some landowners have
areas of tamaraks, recommended by MNR and planted under the
Managed Forest Program. Guess what? Tamaraks are an
indicator species for wetlands. So:
- Province
recommends tamaraks
- Landowner plants
tamaraks
- City sees
tamaraks
- City designates
property
Wetland Types
There are two
wetlands designations. Basic wetland is defined by the plant
species present, as indicated above. However it is the
Provincially Significant designation that causes problems, limits
the landowner’s rights and devalues properties. The
Provincially Significant designation is desirable from the City’s
perspective precisely because it limits the landowner’s rights to
make changes to the wetland.
Complexing
In the current case,
the vast majority of the designated properties not Provincially
Significant in their own right; at best they are very marginal
wetlands. The City and Province have got around this
inconvenience using the ‘complexing’ rules. As noted above,
complexing allows a basic wetland to be deemed Provincially
Significant if it is within 750 metres of an existing Provincially
Significant wetland. The new Provincially Significant
Wetland can then be used to complex further wetlands, using the
same rules.
Complexing allows the
City and Province to designate properties as Provincially
Significant, without the inconvenience or cost of having to meet
Provincially Significant Wetlands standards.
Complexing allows the
City and Province to designate marginal wetland as Provincially
Significant – wetland that would never meet Provincially
Significant Wetlands standards on its own merits.
Complexing is
fundamentally unjust and must be disallowed.
Property Rights
Devaluation
Landowners were
told by the City representatives at the April 21st
meeting that redesignation would not affect property values.
Then they said that the landowners need not pay property taxes on
the designated areas (acreage only, not home value) provided they
agree to maintain the wetland.
According to real
estate agents, redesignating land as Provincially Significant
Wetland reduces its market value. The property as a whole is
also devalued.
One agent estimates
that, on average, land designated as Provincially Significant
Wetland has its value reduced from about $2500/acre to $200/acre.
The reduction in property taxes works out to at most $10 - $20
/acre/year. So landowners only need to stay on their
properties for around 120 to 250 years to recoup the loss.
Farmers, who pay less tax on their acreage, will need to live on
their property for several thousands of years to recoup their
losses. Selling up before the recovery period is up results
in the landowner receiving the reduced price for his / her
property and the buyer getting the tax credits.
Some landowners have
had their property value reduced by $250,000 or more. The
affected landowners can no more absorb these losses than can urban
property owners. For many of them, their property represents
a large part, if not all of their savings.
Restricted Rights
Once designated,
landowners are severely restricted in what they can do with their
properties. Appendix A lists some of the bureaucracies a
landowner is expected to consult before making changes to his /
her property. In all likelihood, an environmental impact
assessment will be required that could easily cost in the tens of
thousands of dollars and take years to complete. In other
words, the landowner’s property is effectively frozen.
If wetlands
designations are to be acceptable to landowners, the City and
Province must remove this over-regulation of
property owners. The bureaucrats’ assumption is that
landowners will destroy their wetlands unless minutely supervised.
Yet the existence of undesignated wetlands contradicts this
assumption, and the major forces on landowners to destroy their
wetlands are precisely the over-regulation that comes with
designation. In fact, the only major destruction of wetlands
is happening in suburban areas with the collusion of the City and
Province.
Violation of Property Rights
This is a gross
violation of property rights. The City and Province should
either provide adequate compensation and minimize the bureaucratic
interference, or stop designating properties as Provincially
Significant Wetland.
If the City does not
have the funds to compensate landowners, perhaps a tax on
development of urban wetlands could be implemented to provide such
funding. Or perhaps a tax on suburban homeowners whose homes
were built on wetlands? However, it’s difficult to
understand how a city with an annual budget in the two billion
dollar range cannot find two or three million dollars for a
one-time requirement as fundamental as property rights while
proposing to spend almost thirty millions annually on cultural
programs.
The Provincial
government must remove the onerous restrictions, simplify the
procedures for getting information on what changes require
permits, and provide the means to obtain permits in a cost
effective and timely manner.
References
1.
Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 1993,
updated 2002, MNR.
2.
Presentation by Susan Murphy, City of Ottawa, Environmental
Management, at the Information Meeting held on 2005-04-21 at 7:00
pm at the Goulbourn Municipal Building, 2135 Huntley Road,
Stittsville.
Contacts
For more
information, contact the Goulbourn Landowners Group:
President:
Tony Walker
613 831 1248
Media Contact:
Mike Westley
613 831 2716
Acknowledgements
The author would
like to thank several people who have reviewed this document and
contributed valuable comments and suggestions.
Janet Bernard
An affected landowner
Richard Bendall
Rural Council of Ottawa-Carleton
All errors and
omissions are the responsibility of the author, Tony Walker, of
the Goulbourn Landowners Group.
Appendix A: Wetlands Legislation
The text below is taken directly from the
Government of Ontario’s web site.
From http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/sources-e.html
Sources of Further Assistance
Depending on the type of
project, you may wish to contact one or more of the following
agencies.
Landowner Resource Centre (LRC)
Information on
resource management, referrals to other agencies. In 613 area
1-800-387-5304, elsewhere 613-692-2390.
Local Stewardship Councils
Promote the wise
use of soil, water, woodlands and other natural resources through
partnerships between landowners, community, and resource
organizations. Check your local phone book.
Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC)
Advice and
financial support for restoration of wetlands with significant
waterfowl value. 705-721-4444.
Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC)
Landowner contact
representatives, wetlands restoration planning assistance,
conservation agreements, wetland securement. 613-722-2090.
Eastern Habitat Joint Venture (EHJV)
Support and
funding for wetland protection and restoration in partnership with
federal and provincial governments, DUC, WHC, and the Nature
Conservancy of Canada.
The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)
Information,
educational materials on habitat enhancement and recreational
activities in wetlands. 705-748-6324. Invading Species Awareness
Program in partnership with OMNR 1-800-563-7711
Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON)
Educational
materials on wetland conservation, nuisance species. 416-444-8419.
Environment Canada (DOE)
Information on
habitat restoration techniques and federal tax credits for
donations of ecologically sensitive lands. Check the blue pages of
your local phone book.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
Work permits,
wetland evaluation, information on fish, wildlife, and wetland
habitat protection and management. Check the blue pages of your
local phone book.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
Farm drainage,
best management practices. Check the blue pages of your local
phone book.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (OMOEE)
Permits for water
taking and chemical weed removal, information on ground water
impacts, environmental assessment (EA) process. Check the blue
pages of your local phone book.
Local Municipality
Local municipal
planning and bylaws, natural heritage policies including wetlands
policy, and environmental protection policies. Check the blue
pages of your local phone book.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH)
Planning Act,
natural heritage policies including wetlands policy. Check the
blue pages of your local phone book.
Local Conservation Authority (CA)
Water supply and
flood control, dredge and fill rules. Support for some habitat
improvement projects. Check the blue pages of your local phone
book.
From
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/red-tape-e.html
(The title has to be a joke!)
Unravelling the Red Tape
Many activities that are
beneficial to wetlands do not require approval or permits.
However, there are a number of laws and policies that may
potentially apply to work in wetland areas (see below).
Unfortunately, the complexity of laws and policies, levels of
government, and different types of activities, make it impossible
to give specific advice that will apply in all situations. Also,
regulations and policies are continually reviewed and revised.
Landowners planning work in or around wetlands in Ontario are
encouraged to ask first whether their project will require
approval or permits. Remember to check on any requirements before
beginning any work around wetlands to avoid possible penalties and
to ensure conservation of the resource. One or more of the many
agencies previously listed under "Sources" will help you to
determine what requirements currently apply.
From http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/legislation-e.html
Some Relevant Legislation
|
Law/Policy |
Contact |
Protects or Regulates |
|
Canada Fisheries
Act |
OMNR / Fisheries
& Oceans Canada |
Fish and fish
habitat. Prohibits work that results in harmful alteration or
destruction of fish habitat. |
|
Conservation
Authorities Act |
Local
Conservation Authority / OMNR |
Flood plain
areas. Work in watersheds and flow of floodwaters. |
|
Drainage Act |
OMAFRA / OMNR |
Land drainage and
drain maintenance. Work on drains must not result in harmful
alteration of fish habitat nor destroy fish or fish eggs. |
|
Endangered
Species Act |
OMNR |
Endangered
plants, and wildlife. |
|
Environmental
Protection Act |
OMOEE |
Discharge of
contaminants and emissions. |
|
Game and Fish Act |
OMNR |
Fish and
wildlife. Regulates access to fish and wildlife resources
through licensing. |
|
Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act |
OMNR |
Alterations to
lakes and rivers. Requires approvals for any work that
forwards, holds back or diverts water, such as channelization,
pond creation/by-pass, dams, weirs, and locks. |
|
Migratory Birds
Convention Act |
Environment
Canada |
Migratory birds
through prevention of destruction of nests and habitat, and
regulating hunting. Allows control of certain nuisance
species. |
|
Ontario Water
Resources Act |
OMOEE |
Quality and
quantity of surface and ground water resources. |
|
Planning Act |
Local
Municipality / OMMAH |
Prime
agricultural lands, natural heritage features (including
provincially significant wetlands), surface and groundwater.
Provincial policies are to be considered when land use changes
are proposed. |
|
Public Lands Act |
OMNR |
Public (Crown)
lands (which includes beds of most navigable lakes, rivers and
streams) and shore lands (including areas seasonally inundated
with water adjacent to navigable waters). |
|
Trees Act |
Local
Municipality |
Woodlands.
Requires permits for tree clearing under certain
circumstances. Only applies in municipalities where bylaw
enacted. |
|
Natural Heritage
Policy, including Wetlands Policy |
OMMAH / OMNR |
Provincially
significant wetlands through provisions of the Planning Act. |
Appendix B: OWES Definitions of Wetlands
Wetlands definitions
The OWES manual (ref. 1, p 41) recognizes four types of wetland
that most people would agree with:
BOGS
Bogs are
peat-covered areas or peat-filled depressions with a high water
table and a surface carpet of mosses, chiefly Sphagnum. The
water table is at or near the surface in the spring, and slightly
below during the remainder of the year. The mosses often form
raised hummocks, separated by low, wet interstices. The bog
surface is often raised, or, if flat or level with the surrounding
wetlands, it is virtually isolated from mineral soil waters.
Hence, the surface bog waters and peat are strongly acid and upper
peat layers are extremely deficient in mineral nutrients. Peat is
usually formed in situ under closed drainage and oxygen
saturation is very low. Although bogs are usually covered with
Sphagnum, sedges may grow on them. They may be treed or
treeless but tree cover does not exceed 25%. Bogs are frequently
characterized by a layer of ericaceous shrubs.
According to
a definition by Damman and French (1987) the term "bog" refers to
nutrient-poor, acid peatlands with a vegetation in which peat
mosses (Sphagnum species), ericaceous shrubs and sedges (Cyperaceae)
play a prominent role. Black spruce (Picea mariana) can
dominate the vegetation of some peat bogs. Tamarack (Larix
laricina) may be present but only in small numbers and usually
only near the edge.
FENS
Fens are
peatlands characterized by surface layers of poorly to moderately
decomposed peat, often with well-decomposed peat near the base.
They are covered by a dominant component of sedges, although
grasses and reeds may be associated in local pools. Several moss
species with narrow pH tolerances are common in fens and, if the
evaluator is able to identify them, can be used as indicators of
fen. Sphagnum may be present or absent. Often there is much
low to medium height shrub cover, and sometimes a sparse layer of
trees. The waters and peats are less acid than in bogs, and often
are relatively nutrient rich and minerotrophic since they receive
water through groundwater discharge from adjacent uplands.
Fens usually
develop in situations of restricted drainage where oxygen
saturation is relatively low and mineral supply is restricted.
Usually very slow internal drainage occurs through seepage down
very low gradient slopes, although sheet surface flow may occur
during spring melt or periods of heavy precipitation or if a major
local or regional aquifer discharges into the wetland. Some fen
wetlands develop directly on limestone rock where minerotrophic
waters are emerging through constant groundwater discharge.
Fen peats
generally consist of mosses and sedges. Sphagnum, if
present, is usually composed of different Sphagnum species
than occur in bogs. Trees typical of fens are white cedar or
tamarack.
SWAMPS
Swamps are
wooded wetlands with 25% cover or more of trees or tall shrubs.
Occasionally, swamp communities have a strong component of low
shrubs. In this case the tall shrub component must be dominant for
the community to be considered a swamp (see marsh/swamp ecotone,
below). In swamps, standing to gently flowing waters occur
seasonally or persist for long periods on the surface. Frequently
there is an abundance of pools and channels indicating subsurface
water flow. The substrate is usually continuously waterlogged.
Waters are circumneutral to moderately acid in reaction, and show
little deficiency in oxygen or in mineral nutrients. The
vegetation cover may consist of coniferous trees, tall shrubs,
herbs and mosses. Many swamps are characteristically flooded in
spring, with dry relict pools apparent later in the season. There
is usually no deep accumulation of peat.
Swamps
include both forest swamps (having mature trees) and thicket
swamps (or shrub carrs). Thicket swamps are characterized by thick
growths of tall shrubs such as willow, dogwood and alder. Both
forest and thicket swamps have similar characteristics of water
levels and chemistry. Both are assessed as "swamp" wetland type,
but can be distinguished by the predominance of either "tree" or
"shrub" form. Silver maple, elm, black ash and yellow birch are
among the best indicators of a hardwood forest swamp while white
cedar, tamarack and black spruce indicate conifer swamps. White
cedar, however, also grows well in upland sites.
MARSHES
Marshes are
wet areas periodically inundated with standing or slowly moving
water, and/or permanently inundated areas characterized by robust
emergents, and to a lesser extent, anchored floating plants and
submergents. Surface water levels may fluctuate seasonally, with
declining levels exposing drawdown zones of matted vegetation or
mud flats. Water remains within the rooting zone of plants during
at least part of the growing season. The substratum usually
consists of mineral or organic soils with a high mineral content,
but in some marshes there may be as much as 2 m of peat
accumulation. Waters are usually circumneutral to slightly
alkaline and there is relatively high oxygen saturation.
Marshes
characteristically show zones or mosaics of vegetation, frequently
interspersed with channels or pools of deep or shallow open water.
They include open expanses of standing or flowing water which are
variously called ponds, shallow lakes, oxbows, reaches or
impoundments. Marshes may be bordered by peripheral bands of trees
and shrubs but the predominant vegetation consists of a variety of
emergent nonSouthern woody plants such as rushes, reeds, reed
grasses, and sedges. Low shrubs such as sweetgale, red osier, and
winterberry may also occur. Where open water areas occur, a
variety of submerged or floating plants flourish.
However, the
technical definition of a wetland is much more generic and opens
the way for designation of a much wider range of properties (OWES,
p5):
In this evaluation system wetlands are defined as:
"Lands that are seasonally or permanently flooded by shallow
water as well as lands where the water table is close to the
surface; in either case the presence of abundant water has caused
the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of
either hydrophytic or water tolerant plants".
In fact, however, the
manual finally uses criteria based solely on the plant population
of an area. This is stated in several slightly different and
sometimes contradictory ways in various parts of the manual.
A typical statement occurs on page 13:
The wetland boundary is drawn where 50% of the plant community
consists of upland species.
From statements by
the City’s staff, it appears that the plant population is the only
criteria used by the current study.
This leads to
nonsense such as the statement by Susan Murphy, the City’s
coordinator for this project, that “land does not need to be wet
to be wetland” (interview with Dave Stevens on Ottawa Morning, CBC
Radio One, June 8th, 2005).
Basic and Provincially Significant Wetlands
The OWES manual distinguishes between wetland and Provincially
Significant Wetland. The OWES manual defines the limits of
wetland in several places, for example, the definition on page 13
quoted above.
To be Provincially Significant, a wetland needs to meet many
additional requirements, and the evaluation includes “Biological,
Social, Hydrological, and Special Features” (OWES, p5).
However, the complexing rules allow basic wetlands to be deemed
Provincially Significant on the basis that they are within 750
metres of an existing Provincially Significant Wetland. This
provides a convenient shortcut that the Province and City are
using to designate marginally wet properties that would never
qualify for the Provincially Significant Wetland designation in
their own right.
Complexing is described on page 17 and following of the OWES
manual. It contains several loopholes that allow the
bureaucracy to extend an existing Provincially Significant wetland
to wetland of dubious value. The 750 metre rule has already
been described. In addition, complexed wetlands do not need to
meet the minimum 2 ha. size of other wetlands. In fact no minimum
size is specified. By combining these rules, it should not
be hard to find tiny ‘wetland’ areas within 750 metres of each
other that will allow the bureaucrats to extend an existing
wetland indefinitely and to link an existing wetland to almost any
desired area.
Indicator Species
The OWES manual
lists indicator species for wetland and upland in its Appendix 5,
page 130:
INDICATOR
PLANT SPECIES OF WETLANDS AND UPLANDS
_______________________________________________________________________________
Definitions
TREES -
Woody vegetation greater than 6 metres in height
TALL SHRUBS
- Woody vegetation 1 to 6 metres in height, often with distinct
trunk. Includes stunted and sapling trees species.
LOW SHRUBS -
Woody vegetation less than 1 m in height, with dense foliage and
several to many stems.
NARROW-LEAVED EMERGENTS - erect, rooted, herbaceous monocots which
maybe temporarily or permanently flooded at the base but are
exposed at the upper portion.
BROAD-LEAVED
EMERGENTS - broad-leaved plants less than 1 metre in height.
ROBUST
EMERGENTS - stout, erect emergents from 1.5 to 3 metres in height.
FLOATING
PLANTS - rooted, vascular hydrophytes with leaves floating
horizontally on the water surface.
FREE-FLOATING PLANTS - non-rooted, free-moving, vascular
hydrophytes floating on the water surface.
HERBS
(GROUND COVER -- gc) - Erect non-woody (herbaceous) plants growing
in moist but exposed soil or, occasionally, very shallow water.
Includes ferns. * Tree and shrub species marked with an asterisk
grow only in wetlands. Other species listed are often found in
wetlands but may also occur in moist upland locations.
PART I.
COMMON WETLAND SPECIES
Note that
plant species are listed under the wetland type where they are
most common. Many species occur in more than one wetland type. A
few species can be used to identify wetland type, particularly for
bog and fen. These species are marked as indicators.
- SWAMP -
Trees
* Silver Maple Acer saccharinum
Red Maple Acer rubrum
* Black Ash Fraxinus nigra
* Black Willow Salix nigra
Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor
American Elm Ulmus americanus
Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera
Eastern White Cedar Thuja
occidentalis
* Tamarack Larix laricina
* Black Spruce Picea mariana
Tall Shrubs
* Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa
Willow Salix spp. (various)
Red-osier Dogwood Cornus
stolonifera
* Poison (swamp) Sumac Rhus
vernix
* Buttonbush Cephalanthus
occidentalis
* Winterberry Ilex verticillata
Low Shrubs
* Swamp Rose Rosa palustris
* Water Willow Decodon
verticillatus
Spiraea Spiraea alba and
tomentosa
Sweet Gale Myrica gale
Snowberry Gaultheria hispidula
Herbs
Jewelweed Impatiens capensis
Water Hore-hound Lycopus
americanus
Royal Fern Osmunda regalis
Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis
Beggarticks Bidens spp.
- BOG -
Trees
* Black Spruce2 Picea mariana
* Tamarack Larix laricina
Gray Birch Betula populifolia
Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus
(occasional, mature bogs)
Tall Shrubs
* Mountain Holly2 Nemopanthus
mucronatus
* Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa
* Dwarf Birch Betula pumila
Northern Wild Raisin Viburnum
cassinoides
* Winterberry Ilex verticillata
Low Shrubs
Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne
calyculata
Sheep Laurel2 Kalmia angustifolia
* Bog Laurel2 Kalmia polifolia
* Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa
Swamp Blueberry2 Vaccinium
corymbosum
Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum
Bilberry2 Vaccinium myrtilloides
Black Huckleberry Gaylussacia
baccata
* Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon
or oxycoccus
Narrow-leaved Emergents
Carex Carex oligosperma2
Cottongrass Eriophorum spissum2
Cottongrass Eriophorum virginicum2
Herbs
Pitcher Plant Sarracenia purpurea
Sundews Drosera spp.
Three-leaved False Solomon's Seal
Smilacina trifolia
Marsh St. John's-wort Triadenum
fraseri
Royal Fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Virginia Chain Fern2 Woodwardia
virginica
Mosses
Sphagnum Sphagnum spp.
2 Bog indicator, i.e. rarely occurs
in fens.
- FEN -
Trees
* Tamarack
Larix laricina
Tall Shrubs
* Hoary Willow Salix candida
Silky Dogwood Cornus obliqua
·
Dwarf Birch Betula pumila
·
Low Shrubs
Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne
calyculata
* Bog Willow3 Salix pedicellaris
Sweet Gale Myrica gale
* Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa
Labrador Tea (occasional) Ledum
groenlandicum
* Bog Rosemary3 Andromeda
glaucophylla
* Alder-leaved Buckthorn Rhamnus
alnifolia
Shrubby Cinquefoil Potentilla
fruiticosa
Herbs
Pitcher Plant Sarracenia purpurea
Sundews Drosera spp.
Buckbean3 Menyanthes trifoliata
Three-leaved False Solomon's Seal
Smilacina trifolia
Marsh St. John's-wort Triadenum
fraseri
Royal Fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia
glauca
Narrow-leaved Emergents
Carex Carex chordorrhiza3
Carex Carex lasiocarpa3
Carex Carex limosa3
Mosses
Sphagnum Sphagnum spp.
"Brown Mosses" Campylium
stellatum
Drepanocladus revolvens
Tomenthypnum nitens
Scorpidium scorpioides
3 Indicator species for fen, i.e.
rarely occurs in bog.
- MARSH -
No or only
scattered living or dead trees and shrubs.
Herbs
Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris
Water Hore-hound Lycopus
uniflorus
Marsh Speedwell Veronica
scutellata
Bedstraw Galium spp.
Narrow-leaved Emergents
Wild Rice Zizania spp.
Burreed Sparganium spp.
Cordgrass Spartina pectinata
Reed Canary Grass Phalaris
arundinacea
Bluejoint Calamagrostis
canadensis
Rice Cut Grass Leersia oryzoides
Sedges (many species) Carex
spp.
Rushes (many species) Juncus
spp.
Robust
Emergents
Cattails Typha spp.
Bulrushes Scirpus spp.
Common Reed Grass Phragmites
communis
Broad-leaved Emergents
Pickerel-weed Pontederia cordata
Water Arum Calla palustris
Arrowheads Sagittaria spp.
Water Plantains Alisma spp.
Smartweeds Polygonum spp.
Free-floating Plants
Big Duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza
Lesser Duckweed Lemna minor
Star Duckweed Lemna trisulca
Watermeal Wolffia spp.
Frog's-bit Hydrocharus
morsus-ranae
Floating
Plants
White Water-lily Nymphaea odorata
Yellow Water-lily Nuphar
variegatum
Pondweeds Potamogeton spp.
Water Smartweed Polygonum
amphibium
Floating-heart Nymphoides cordata
Water-shield Brasenia schreberi
Submergents
Pondweed Potamogeton spp.
Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum
Water-milfoils Myriophyllum
spp.
American Eel-grass Vallisneria
americana
Waterweeds Elodea spp.
Bladderworts Utricularia spp.
Muskgrasses (an algae)
Stoneworts Chara spp.
PART 2.
UPLAND SPECIES
Tree Species
- found in Upland, or in Wetland Margins
Sugar Maple Acer saccharum
American Beech Fagus grandifolia
Bitternut Hickory Carya
cordiformis
White Ash Fraxinus americana
Red oak Quercus rubra
Ironwood Ostrya virginiana
Basswood Tilia Americana
Upland
Shrubs - tall or low
Buffaloberry Shepherdia
canadensis
Leatherwood Dirca palustris
Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus
Black Raspberry Rubus
occidentalis
Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus
Beaked Hazel Corylus cornuta
Herbs
Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum
Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare
Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota
Trilliums Trillium spp.
Wild Ginger Asarum canadense
Devil's Paintbrush Hieracium
aurantiacum
Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta
Burdock Arctium minus
_______________________________________________________________________________
The astute reader may
have noticed a slight preponderance of wetland plants, and may be
wondering if the evaluation is biased towards finding wetlands.
The reader may also
have noticed that most of the species listed as wetland indicator
species are not confined to wetlands and can grow in a variety of
locations. This makes the accuracy and validity of the
evaluation highly suspect.