6. Bergsma

0-7203

FROM: R. W. PANZER GENERALMANAGEROFPLANNINGANDDEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT BY THE CITY OF LONDON WOODLAND THRESHOLD of SIGNIFICANCE

City-Wide PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING ON

September 11,2006 at 8:OO p.m.

I1 RECOMMENDATION

-

That, on the recommendation of the General Manager of Planning and Development, based on the application of the City of London, the attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on September 18, 2006 to amend the Official Plan to add a policy in Section 15.4.5 that establishes the threshold for determining a significant woodland as meeting a minimum of one High or five Medium criteria according to the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands (March 2006); it being noted that the revised threshold of significance will not be retroactively applied to woodlands that have been previously evaluated and designated for land uses other than open space.

1 PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

May 8,2006 Planning Committee - Tree Cover Statistics - A report that detailed the approximate area of tree and forest cover in the City.

Planning Committee - Revisions to the Sianificant Woodlands Guideline Document - Meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum.

Planning Committee - Revisions to the Siqnificant Woodlands Guideline Document - Revised Guideline Document approved. The issue of "Threshold of Significance for Woodlands" was RECEIVED AND DIRECTED to be CIRCULATED for review and to initiate an Official Plan Amendment.

June 14,2006

June 19,2006

The Provincial Policy Statement requires that municipalities identify and protect for the long term all Significant Woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield. The City of London Official Plan Policy 15.4.5 sets out criteria for the identification of Significant Woodlands. In October of 2000 a Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands was adopted by Municipal Council and has been used to assess woodlands since that time.

On June 26, 2006, a revised Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands was adopted by Municipal Council and will be used to complete the technical study of lands designated as Environmental Review (ER Lands Study) in the agricultural portion of the City. The findings of the ER Lands Study will be used to determine the ecological significance of all vegetation patches outside the Urban Growth Boundary and will result in recommendations to amend the Official Plan to identify vegetation patches as "Significant Woodland", if warranted or to remove the patch from Official Plan mapping. The proposed policy to establish a "threshold of significance" will be critical in confirming Council's commitment to the protection of our forests.

1

B. Eergsma

0-7203

BACKGROUND I The outstanding issue is one that addresses the threshold of significance (previously within the Summary Score Sheet in the Woodland Evaluation Guideline Document) in applying the technical information obtained through the ecological criteria evaluation. As part of the previous Guideline, the threshold of significance was thoroughly debated using the science and planning context of the day (1999/2000), and was set to require 3 High Guideline Criteria or various combinations of High and Medium criteria to be met for a woodland to be designated Significant.

Since the Guideline Document is not a component part of the Official Plan, there has been no appeal mechanism available to parties who may take issue with the Guideline, particularly as it relates to the determination of a suitable threshold of significance. Comments have been received requesting that this issue be addressed so that relative significance can be established within a policy framework that is “appealable”. The recommended action to remove the Threshold of Significance determination from the Guideline and place it into the Official Plan as a policy, will address this issue. Until the new threshold has been approved, the current standard from the October 2000 Guideline will continue to be used, and is: 3 High, or 2 High and 4 Medium, or I high and 6 Medium, or 7 Medium scorings.

Provincial Policv Statement for Sianificant Woodlands

Section 2 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) addresses the “Wise Use and Management of Resources” in Ontario and includes all Natural Heritage features, including Significant Woodlands. A Significant Woodland is defined as:

“An area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition; age of trees and stand history; functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in the planning area; or economically important due to its site quality, species composition or past management history.”

Implementation of the PPS rests with various levels of planning approval authorities, but all municipal policies and approvals “shall be consistent“ with the Provincial Policy Statement. Comments were received from the Province in response to our circulation were included in our previous report, but the provincial position is clear - “The Guidelines should be updated to the standards of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS, 2005) ...“.

The updated Woodland Evaluation Guideline Document will address the PPS as far as the “ecological features”, but the broader context of the value of woodlands within a landscape and within a greater planning area should be dealt with by a Official Pian policy to establish the “Threshold of Significance”. In updating the PPS and modifying the policy related to woodlands, the new PPS has clearly identified that the “amount of forest cover in the planning area” is an important issue and must be addressed.

As part of the broader Conserving Southern Woodlands Project, The Federation of Ontario Naturalists (Ontario Nature) has engaged a broad coalition of partners in bringing together workable and ecologically defensible guidelines for the identification of significant woodlands. The guidelines have been reviewed by a multi-stakeholder technical review panel, represented by planners, ecologists, biologists, foresters, OMNR staff, Conservation Authority staff, and consultants, and are supported by a glossary of terms, and literature review of scientifically- defensible support for the criteria. The Suqqested Guidelines for the Identification of Sianificant Woodlands in Southern Ontario were issued in February, 2004.

These suggested guidelines include a number of ecological criteria and thresholds and recommend that any woodland satisfying one criterion is to be considered “Significant”.

The City of London was a participant in this technical review panel, and the ecological criteria and factors evaluated in the City of London Guideline Document are consistent with Ontario Nature - Federation of Ontario Naturalists Sianificant Woodland Guideline. The outstanding

2

B. Bergsma

0-7203

difference is that the City of London currently requires three criteria to be satisfied in order to be considered significant, which is not consistent with the recommended provincial standard.

Middlesex Countv Guideline for Significant Woodlands

The Middlesex Natural Heritaoe Study (MNHS) to identify Significant Woodlands in Middlesex County was prepared by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study Steering Committee in July 2003. The City of London was a participant on the Steering Committee. The MNHS was a pilot project for the Carolinian Canada Big Picture Project and the Ministry of Natural Resources Ecological Land Classification System (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et. al. 1998) as well as landowner outreach and stewardship approaches.

Incorporating the three key concepts of Riley and Mohr (1994), as well as the results from the review of scientific literature, input from the Steering Committee and the significant correlations from regressional analysis between the independent landscape parameters and the dependent site specific forest health indicators collected in the field, six "landscape level" criteria were identified to assess candidate woodland patches in Middlesex County.

A woodland patch meeting one of the criteria was recommended as a candidate for significance in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement 2.3 for Middlesex County.

The application of the landscape level analysis component was applied to the entire geographic County of Middlesex including the City of London, although the results for the City of London were not presented or mapped in the County's Official Plan.

As required by the PPS, a standard has been established within the greater "planning area" of Middlesex County. London is not consistent with the recommended provincial standard by requiring three criteria to be satisfied in order for a woodland to be considered significant.

Thames River Watershed

Within the even larger Thames River Watershed, the issue of forest cover has received more attention and is being studied in more detail. Other Thames watershed counties and communities have completed or are initiating woodland significance studies. The standard of "1 High has been endorsed and will be recommended to Oxford County Council.

Woodstock is currently studying the significance of existing woodlands and the draft recommendation is that all remaining woodland patches be retained due to the low forest cover within their planning context.

Citv of London Guideline for Sianificant Woodlands

The City of London Guideline for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands was approved by Municipal Council in October 2000. It went through a rigorous review by the MNR, UTRCA, EEPAC, the Nature Conservancy, Mcllwraith Field Naturalists, foresters, biologists and BioLogic on behalf of the LDI. At that time it had been agreed upon that three high criteria were required to be met in order to be designated significant woodland. This high threshold of significance discriminates only the very highest quality woodlands and will generally account for only the upper 25% to 35% of woodlands, leaving the other 65% to 75% of existing woodlands to be designated for purposes other than Open Space and unprotected from their physical removal. The recently approved Guideline removed the "threshold" component.

As reported to Planning Committee on May 8, 2006, the current percentage of woodland cover in the City is approximately 7.8%, well below any recommended target for a planning area. Retaining the current standard of 3 High evaluation scores will result in a significant reduction in official woodland cover - from 7.8% to approximately 6.3%, equal to 635Ha of woodland. This would not be consistent with the directives of the 2005 PPS, nor reflect the growing community interest and appreciation of trees and forests in our City.

3

8. Bergsma

0-7203

The Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) provided their rationale as to why the City should change the threshold of significance so one HIGH criterion would be sufficient to designate Significant Woodlands in the City of London in the context of the2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Their comments were provided in our previous report, but their summary of London’s current standard compared to other Cities is as follows:

London’s scoring requirement of three out of eight @e. 37.5%) compares very poorly to many surrounding municiiJalities:

a) b) c) d) e) f)

The City of Hamilton uses a scoring of 25% (two out of eight) Federation of Ontario Naturalists suggest a scoring of 20% (one out of five) Region of York uses a scoring of 20% (one out of five) Regional Municipality of Halton uses a scoring of 14% (one out of seven) Middlesex County uses a scoring of 17% (one out of six) City Of Ottawa uses a SCOnI7g of 11% (one out of nine, with the other eight being

Clearly other municipalities have seen the value of retaining existing green cover and have shown successful evaluation methods for achieving that protection.

In adopting the recommended standard of meeting 1 High Guideline criterion (or 5 Medium) to determine a “significant woodland, approximately 67 Ha (4%) of existing vegetation patches outside of the Urban Growth Boundary would not meet the test as being “significant” and would be removed from our Official Plan mapping. While this represents approximately 2% of existing vegetation patches across the total City, this should meet the test of the new Provincial Policy, support related City initiatives (below) and satisfy community expectations. Total Woodland cover in the City would be reduced from 7.8% to 7.6%.

A “2 High” standard would result in approximately 251 Ha of existing vegetation patches lost and would fall short of the current Middlesex County standard and the standards of other municipalities within our “planning area” and across the Province. Total Woodland cover in the City would be reduced from 7.8% to 7.2%.

Retaining the current “3 High standard would result in the loss of approximately 635 Ha of existing vegetation, and would clearly not meet community expectations or Provincial Policy. Total Woodland cover in the City would be reduced from 7.8% to 6.3%.

Completing the ER Lands Study process with a “1 High standard will still result in a minor decrease of existing forest cover, as not all existing vegetation patches will meet 1 High ecological criterion. This reduction can be partially off-set by on-going reforestation projects, which total about 4 Ha per year. Staff will report back on the outcome of the ER Lands Study later this year, after the new threshold has been established and applied to all ER vegetation patches.

medium)

I RELEVANT CITY INITIATIVES I 1 Within the last two to three years, many City initiatives have focused on the value of trees and woodlands in our City. Community interest in replanting our parks and open space areas has grown significantly, and Council has increased funding for street tree planting and recently established a specific committee to address tree related issues. Specific initiatives that will benefit from a “1 High” standard include:

Creative City task Force -April ,2005

Several of the recommendations from the Creative City Task Force Report refer to “The Forest City” and improving our efforts in the areas of tree protection and planting:

82. Tourism London and other organizations will be encouraged to promote London as the centre of Canada’s Carolinian Forest.

4

8. Bergsma

0-7203

87. The CCTF urges City Council to provide sufficient funding for enhanced tree planting and protection of our urban forests to enhance London's reputation as the "Forest City".

Support for the recommended threshold of significance will greatly assist Council in meeting the intent of these recommendations.

London 150th Celebrations - 2005

Last year London had its 150th anniversary as a City and a big part of the celebrations where community and corporate planting days. These events were huge successes and brought renewed attention to the value of trees and forest in the Forest City. Substantial efforts were made to naturalize City lands and private lands through initiatives spear headed by such groups as:

ReForest London Friends of Stoney Creek London Home Builders Association Many Rate Payers Associations London Development Institute Boy Scouts

Support for the recommended threshold of significance signifies to these groups, London's appreciation of their efforts in increasing forest cover in the City and our commitment to retaining existing woodlands.

Corporate Strategy - 2006

In 2006, the Corporation rolled out its new Strategic Plan to focus our efforts on meeting community needs and improving corporate governance. The Plan has several Strategic Priorities that relate directly to natural heritage protection.

ECONOMIC PROSPERIN- "Cultivating a robust and diversified economy"

From attracting new businesses or highly skilled employees, to Tourism potential and basic civic pride, the quality of life in a City is critical. One proven factor is environmental awareness and a community that values their natural heritage features.

Retaining our woodlands and working with our corporate partners to grow them is good for business.

CORE INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINABILITY - "Building and sustaining an efficient, effective municipal foundation"

Woodlands, tree cover and natural areas help to clean our air, absorb, filter and slow storm water run-off and reduce temperatures (saving us energy) - basic infrastructure roles at a minimal capital and operational cost.

COMMUNIN VITALIN- "Growing a strong and caring community"

A recent publication identified key areas that the community believed were critical to making London one of the best places to "live, work and play". One of eleven themes was "Green and Healthy Environment" and the outcome of this consultation was four objectives:

Improved air quality and improved water quality More Londoners are actively participating and promoting a green and healthy environment More green space is preserved Improved preservation of our watershed system

i ii

iii iv

Retaining existing woodlands helps to satisfy all of these objectives.

5

6. Bergsma 0-7203

ENVlRONMENTAL natural resources”

RESPONSlBlLITY - “Promoting the care and protection of our

Natural resources include a variety of features and functions that occur in the Urban Area and in our more rural lands. These resources are critical to the health of our environment and to the quality life in our City.

Protection of these features and functions also supports the other Priorities.

ENRlCHED CULTURAL /DENTIP/ - “Developing and broadening our distinctive identity”

The intent of the priority is far-reaching in dealing with many community cultural issues and objectives, but our “identity” is intimately tied to trees in London - a tree is our logo and “Forest City” is our moniker.

Support for the recommended threshold of significance will demonstrate that Council is taking steps to address stated community values and meet the priorities in our Strategic Plan.

Trees 8 Forests Advisory Committee - 2006

Council endorsed the creation of a permanent committee to provide advice and direction to the City in our efforts to manage our trees and forests. Three specific areas will be targeted:

Planning & Protection Planting & Renewal Management & Maintenance

Support for the recommended threshold of significance will indicate Council’s commitment to the Planning & Protection of our existing forests.

OM61 I MPMP -Yearly

The Ontario Municipal Benchmark Initiative and the Municipal Performance Monitoring Program track key factors that represent a wide cross-section of standards and services in Cities. Both have criteria that measure a municipality’s natural open space area relative to other jurisdictions:

PKRS103

PKRS210

Support for the recommended threshold of significance will support Council in their discussions among Municipal leaders that we are striving to meet maintain and increase these measures.

Percentage of Open Space Area

Hectares of Natural Parkland I Population

Retention of the current “3 High” threshold will clearly not support any of these community or Council lead initiatives. Adoption of a “2 High threshold and the “Ioss’~ of 251 Ha of vegetation would be extremely difficult to overcome given the goals identified above that suggest an enhancement of current levels of forest cover.

SIGNIFICANT DEPARTMENTlAGENCY and PUBLIC COMMENTS

6

6. Bergsma

0-7203

PUBLIC LIAISON:

July 17,2006 - 328 letters sent to all Landowners of Environmental Review Lands outside the Urban Growth Boundary (attached as Appendix A) July 22, 2006 - Notice of Intent to Hold a Public Meeting in Living in the City

July 25, 2006 - Letter to agencies, committees and organizations within the City of London (Attached as Appendix B)

August 26, 2006 - Public Meeting Notice in Living in the City

13 written and telephone replies were received

~ ~ ~~

Responses: Most of the responses were inquiries to clarify what lands were being considered.

Some responses were to correct names and ownership changes,

One respondent indicated that the designation of significant woodland would be a liabilit) as it would not sell as OS5 in the condition it is in.

Two respondents indicated that they were in favour of changing the criteria and asked would the significant woodland designation result in a reduction of taxes? Another had ER lands that were part of a proposed plan of subdivision. He was willing to meet for a site visit with the Ecologist.

I COMMENT ANALYSIS I) There were very few negative responses to the staff recommendation to change the threshold for significance. Most people who were not supportive, requested a fair evaluation of their property. The Evaluation Guidelines provide that level of certainty, as each criterion is scored as low, medium or high, and only the top 25% of all woodlands will meet “high” for any given criterion. Given the thorough process to develop the original Woodland Evaluation Guideline, a recent OMB hearing upholding our Guideline and the detailed review and technical update recently approved by Council, London’s evaluation procedure is a sound technically-based process.

LDI provided comments on June 14, 2006 in response to the proposed revisions to the Evaluation Guideline document where they requested several “process” related items be considered. Their two key recommendations were incorporated into the process -the “threshold of significance” was removed from the Guideline and is being put forward as a policy in the OP and all land owners who have a vegetation patch on their lands (328) were sent a specific letter advising them of the potential change in the “threshold of significance” and advising them of the upcoming public meeting.

Mr. Jack Winkler, RPF, provided a detailed set of comments that were specifically related to the recently approved Woodland Evaluation Guideline. Staff have reviewed his comments and have spoken with Mr. Winkler. Several of his points could be considered for inclusion into any future update of the Guideline Document, within a broader circulation and review process.

Regarding the inquiry about municipal taxes, the City’s Finance - Revenue Division has advised that the Province, through the Assessment Act as managed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) makes all decisions on property assessments. MPAC has advised that assessments are based on many factors, including the actual use of the land and are therefore completed on a site-by-site basis. Upon completion of the ER Lands Study,

7

S. Bergsma

0-7203

vegetation patches outside the Urban Growth Boundary may be recommended for redesignation as Open Space to reflect the significance of the woodland. On certified farm operations (by OMAFRA), this Open Space designation would not likely change the valuation of the land, as the Farming Class (Class FT) is the lowest assessment class available. For rural residential lands where the use is not "agricultural", there may be an opportunity for the land owner to enter into a managed forest agreement (Class TT @ 25% of the Reside.ntial Class) for the OS lands.

Within the scope of the ER Lands Study, we have already established that a component will focus on assisting landowners in managing their woodland to protect its ecological significance, while allowing on-going productive use - ie: trails and reforestation, sugar-bush operations and sustenance logging. To assist this implementation step, we have established links with the Middlesex Stewardship Committee, MNR, MPAC, Ducks Unlimited and the Ontario Forestry Association and will provide more detail on this subject when we report on the ER Lands Study.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority reviewed the revised significant woodland guideline document and agreed with the recommendation that any woodland patch meeting 1 High criterion should be ranked as "significant".

I CONCLUSION

In recognition of the importance of the "threshold of significance" within planning processes, the determination of significance will be will be addressed by Council-adopted Official Plan policy. The policy is therefore subject to all of the public notice and appeal provisions set out in the Planning Act.

To meet the test of Provincial Policy and to recognize the huge degree of community interest and support for trees and woodlands in London, staff are proposing that the threshold of significance to identify Significant Woodlands be established at meeting a minimum of 1 High or 5 Medium criteria.

This proposal is based on current provincial and "planning area" standards. In the context of more recent provincial and regional reviews of significant woodland thresholds that have been developed and implemented to meet the Provincial Policy Statement, London's new threshold would conform to Provincial Policy and be consistent with standards established elsewhere in the Province.

Adoption of the "1 High threshold of significance will clearly demonstrate a commitment to addressing the growing community interest in, and an appreciation of the benefits of trees and forest cover in the City of London and support the numerous related City initiatives currently under way.

11 GENERAL MANAGER OFPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT August 31, 2006

B. Bergsma

0-7203

Telephone

Responses to Public Liaison Letter and Publication in “Living in the City”

Written

Frank Ambrosio for Arcangelo Rea/ 3944 Southwinds Drive

Wilf Bradnockl Lambeth

Friends of Dingman Creek

Jack Winkler R.P.F./London

Don Bilyea1Southwinds Mcllwraith Field Naturalists of London Ontario Incorporated

Steve BakedLondon international Airport

Maraaret Ross 1 Darvick Enterorises

1 UTRCA

Gama1 SadeW193 Commissioners Road 1 Virginia Chevalier 17537 Kilbourne Road

Jessie Beattie 1 London

Jonas Nelson I4535 Colonel Talbot Road

David Hanrody1LaFarge Canada

9

W B. Bergsma

0-7203

APPENDIX A

July 17,2006

Re: Environmental Review ER’l Lands Study

Dear Landowner:

We would like to provide you with some important information about the potential results of the evaluation of your woodland which we will be completing over the summer. We apologize for the delay in finishing the ER Lands Study, but midway through the process, the Provincial Policy guiding our work was modified. In addition, it was recommendedthat we make technical updates to the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Significant Woodlands. The proposed changes were circulated for review and the final version was adopted by Council on June 26,2006. We have provided the revised guidelines to the consultant for this study, and they will begin to score the woodlands.

City Council has also requested that we review the “Threshold of Significance” -the measure used to determine what is a significant woodland in London after the technical evaluation has been completed. Relative to the new Provincial Policy, it would appear that London’s current measure is set too high. We have done some preliminary scoring of the woodlands based on the current threshold for significance. In this scenario, about % of woodlands would meet the threshold for significance. This was alarming, as the City currently has only 10% woodland cover, including all of the ER Lands, which is far below the recommended woodland cover of 30%. Review of other municipalities indicated that they use lower thresholds (one criterion ranking High) in their scoring systems. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists recommends one criterion ranked as High to determine significance in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. Therefore, The City of London is considering a change to the threshold or measure of significance kom the current 3 High, to lHigh or 5 Mediums. This would mean that approximately ’A of woodlands would be considered significant, rather than %using the current threshold.

If your woodland is evaluated as significant, we would be recommending that it be designated as Open Space on Schedule A (Land Use Plan) to the City of London Official Plan, and Significant Woodland on Schedule B (Flood Plain and Environmental Features).This designation would not prevent you from undertaking woodland management activities, such as cutting fuewood, making trails for recreational enjoyment, or harvesting sawlogs. For the latter activity, a permit fbm the City of London is required with a prescription prepared by a qualified forester using good foreshy practices.

On September 11, 2006, we will be boldmg a public partkipation meeting at Planning Committee to allow the public an opportunity to speak about the staff proposal that the Threshold of Significance for a Woodland be changed to 1 High or 5 Medium criteria, and that this “Threshold” be included in Policy 15.4.5 of the Official Plan as an amendment to the Official Plan. The time of the meeting will be announced in the London Free Press in the Civic Comer on a Saturday in August. Until Council makes its decision regarding the threshold of significance, Le. to either leave it as is or to reduce it as proposed by City staff, we will not be able to finalize the ER Lands study.

If you would like further information or want to comment on the proposal please call me at 519-661-2500 ext 4865.

Yours truly,

Bonnie Bergsma, M.Sc. Ecologist Plannner - Parks Planning and Design

BBIAMIRPIGBIbb

C: London Development Institute Urban League of London

10

B. Bergsma

0-7203

APPENDIX B July 27,2006

Re: Woodland Threshold for Simificance

Dear SirlMadam:

City Council has requested that staff review the “Threshold of Significance” -the measure used to determine what is a significant woodland in London after the technical evaluation of a woodland has been completed. Relative to the new Provincial Policy, it would appear that London’s current measme is set too high. We have done some preliminary scoring of the woodlands based on the current threshold for significance. In this scenario, about 1/4 of woodlands would meet the threshold for significance. The City currently has only 10% woodland cover, including all of the ER Lands, which is far below the recommended woodland cover of 30%. The current threshold for significance would not result in the City meeting this target. Review of other municipalities indicated that they use lower thresholds (one criterion ranking High) in their scoring systems. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists recommends one criterion ranked as High to determine significance in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement. The City of London is therefore considering a change to the threshold or measure of significance from the current 3 High or various combinations of Highs and Mediums, to lHigh or 5 Mediums. This would mean that approximately ’h of woodlands would be considered significant, rather than 5 using the current threshold.

On September 11,2006, we will be holding a public participation meeting at Planning Committee to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the recommendation that the Threshold of Significance for a Woodland be changed to 1 High or 5 Medium criteria as scored in the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands (March 2006) and that this “Threshold” be included in Policy 15.4.5 of the Official Plan as an amendment to the OEcial Plan. The time of the meeting will be announced in the London Free Press in the “Living in the City” notices on a Saturday in mid to late August.

In adopting the recommended standard of meeting one High or 5 Medium criteria to determine a “Significant Woodland”, up to 90% of existing woodland patches would rank as Significant. This would meet the test of the new Provincial Policy Statement and will clearly demonstrate a commitment to addressing the growing community interest in, and an appreciation of the benefits of tree and forest cover in the City of London.

We invite you to attend this meeting to comment on this recommended policy. Please call me at 661-2500 ext 4865 if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

Bonnie Bergsma, MSc. Ecologist Planner - Parks Planning and Design

BB/hb

R.Panzer, General Manager Planning and Development A. Macpherson, Manager Parks Planning and Design G. Bane& Manager Land Use Planning, Policy Earth Tech Canada Inc. Stantec Consulting Ltd. BioLogic ReForest London Ministry of Natural Resources McIlwraith Field Naturalists Carolinian Canada Thames Talbot land Tmst London Development Institute Urban League of London Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Environmental and Ecological Planning

Advisory Committee on the Environment Agricultural Advisory Committee North-South Environmental Inc. Ecostrat Communications Friends of the Coves Subwatershed Jnc. Friends of Dingman Creek Ontario Professional Foresters Association Branching Out Tree andLandscaping Service Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Shenvood Fox Arboretum Dillon Consulting Ltd.

4dvisory Committee

11

8. Bergsma

0-7203

Bill NO. (number to be inserted by Clerk's Office) 2006

By-law No. C.P.-1284--

A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989, relating to lands City- Wide.

The Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of London enacts as follows:

1. Amendment No. (to be inserted by Clerk's Office) to the Official Plan for the City of London Planning Area - 1989, as contained in the text attached hereto and forming part of this by-law, is adopted.

2. This by-law shall come into effect in accordance with subsection 17(38) of the Planning Act, R.S. 0. 1990, c.P. 13.

PASSED in Open Council on September 18,2006.

Anne Marie DeCicco Mayor

Kevin Bain City Clerk

First Reading - September 18, 2006 Second Reading - September 18,2006 Third Reading - September 18, 2006

12

B. Bergsma 0-7203

AMENDMENT NO.

to the

OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LONDON

A. PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT

The purpose of this Amendment is:

To add a policy to the Official Plan that establishes the threshold of significance of a woodland as meeting a minimum of one High or five Medium criteria as scored in the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands (March 2006).

B. LOCATION OF THIS AMENDMENT

1. This Amendment applies to lands located City-Wide in the City of London.

C. BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT

Adding the threshold of significance into the Official Plan as a policy places the establishment of relative significance within a policy framework that is subject to public review and appeal under the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed threshold of significance is also consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005).

D. THE AMENDMENT

The Official Plan for the City of London is hereby amended as follows:

15.4.5.1. A woodland will be considered "Significant" if it achieves a minimum of one High or five Medium criteria scores as determined by application of the Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands (March 2006) as listed in Section 19.2.2. A Significant Woodland will be designated as Open Space on Schedule A and delineated as a Significant Woodland on Schedule B.

13

c

-

E 0

0

PL W

C (112 a

a, cu 0 0

c,

.- a, 0 S a, v) a, Q L

2 L 0 0

- CIS S cu 7

L

c,

0 Y-

-b S cu

v) a, 0 a, Q cn

.- U t cu

1 h Y (112 .- cu -

Q) I U

a, - c

L

I (112 > L

Ff >s

0) a,

CI L .-

c, - W U

S a, Q cu c

0 -w S cu S

3 a,- >

~

0 0 a, P

.- CI

CI

5 a, cn CI .-

L - U a, a,

Q 6 > 0 S

v)

.- c,

.- CI

.- a

L U S cu

a, cn ([I 0 v) U S cu -l

U S cu

v) a, 0 a, Q v,

.- v) L Q, I

cu U a,

N v, .-

a, > .- a a, v, CI .- a,

2 .. .- n t)

. . . .. .~

0 c v) a, c t- U a, a 0 Q 0

L

&

U 0 c - v) a, c t- L - S a, L L

0’

Iz 0 I .- 7

I

Iz 0 I m I

.-

E 3 U .I

r” m I

E

2

3 U a

d= 73 C m c 0 I cv I

.-

.-

E 3 U .-

r” cz> U S m Iz 0 I

I

.- 7

U S - U 0 0 3 . S

e

3 0

0, m .- L

0 s

e

. . . . . . .. , ...~... .....

31

v) '0: C a I

a, 51

WI

rn m 0 L

m

0 S .I

s 6 0 m .I

L

CI

a, c 0 S 0 cn 0

CI

I.

.I

.I

f5 0

c'> 0 0 N m S CI

E S 0 > S W c 3 0 c/>

r 0 z

L .I

CI

k

0

a, U cn 3 0 v) a, c 0 m Q S 0 m a, 23) a, > cn U S m U 0

.I

CI

CI

.I

CI

CI

\

-

z - 3

2 m U S 3 0 Io c

0 23) S m a 3 a, c

3 L

L

CI

U 3 cn 0 G S a, 0 cn c

CI

.I

CI

.I

LI

Q a, U

I r -

I. 0 m .I

& 5 CI .I

CI S

E cn v) a, cn cn m 0 G= S a, 0 cn a, c v)

.I

CI

.I

CI

CI

c 0 0 0

CI S

E z

s 2

3 0

a, S

a, U

.I -

.I

U a, cn > .I

a, c CI

-c m I .I

v) U m

v) m I c a, E

E S a,

S U a, S

a, U a, m c,

cn m 0 s U a,

U cn S 0 0

& .-

U a, m c,

Y- O E .I i S .- E a

m a, E T

.- S m v) a, m

.- a, U U S s a m s ?

U cn m

a, - 0 c .- G n 0 v)

a, 0 0 v)

L a a, d

a, d <

a, 3 U a, z 0 UI

- S

U .- cn

a, > 0 .I

c 0 'is m

0 - 0 n

U U I= m U 0 -

s S m U 0 0

-

3

0 0 0 W

a w .- v) m

n U c-

rc .I a, cn

b 0 Y-

O S 0 m S

.- c,

(0 0 0

a, 0 m

.- < U a, 2

S 0 Q

L 0 .- Y

m 0 cv Q

UI c 0 L

2 W

a, > G

6 0 &

C a,

0" cn " Y w

c

0 0

s cn Q) Q)

1. 0 Q)

a, 0 0

L L x cn m I- %

L

U

0 a, > m a,

.I *

6 0

a, a, + c, .I

E E

2 6 0 cn > W

cn cn a,

L L U S m cn a, a,

'I

a

5 c,

P 0

- .I

d tn S 0 a tn a,

a S

.I

L - IC,

z S 0 > S W

L .I

>r IC, .- &

&

Q tn 0

0

0 S O 0 W

.- E

I I I I I 0

0 L a, I- Y

Y

. . .- .- , .

> L1:

* r (3 I cv

- s K cv

s K 00 0

e e

m td z

' 0 CCl

p.r c,

rd d CCl Tb 0 0

3

W

E

Td d

0

4 c,

m .d

2 c, 8

g %

m 6) 'rl

d

s n 4 c-, 'rl 2 +-,

0 c-, d

h d s E m

6) 'rl * h c, .rl

d k Y

6)

A c, b z Eil

d m .d *4

6) 0 m 4 c-, m .d

6)

d 0 r;: d bl)

2 -4

E u w .4 a m

6) k z 2 c,

c\

m 6)

0

d a 4-r 0 2 c-, 'rl m 0 H

k

r d

h 0

L ' c, d

c, D4 6)

0 0

8 m

m 8 'rl > Td d

w .rl

0

d d

4 rl

c-(

.d

t; d c-,

8 'a

a- 0 .4 u

U

m a, 0 o a m

..rl

m cd

b

3 Td cd 0

2 Y

rcl 0 Y

5

cd 8 2 Y

.k m 0

0 0

3

c,

A Y

3 0 c, m ?a m

k 0

0 2

a,

0 2 E

c, z a,

M .I+ a 3

c,

c, ce a,

8 8 cd a, M

4 2

3 0 wl

c,

A c, 8 a,

0 m

n

0 A d

8 'E W

0 0

c, cd a, wl

5 2 0

Q) c,

E

. .

A v cd Q) 3

2 W c s M

8 'C a, c c, .d

a,

!? 8 0 0 cd

4--1 0

ccc 0

6 8 4-(

0 E 0 ln

E 0 0

E 0 v1 e

cd c .I+ d

3 c, F 0

M .d m m

Fil z 0

0 c4

0 H L '

d

m

0 u

Y

Y

2 Y

0 k 6

Tb d 6

r 0

E E 6

a E c'3

0 8

;

.rl a a :

4..1 0 a

E cd

& i3 2 c, 0 c,

rm

W ' ' 3 a cbd E c d

0 3 3

E

€ 2 -- cb * m

m a

.

c,

E 0 blD .rl

2 E 0

ed c, m

x

E 0

E 0 blD .rl

2 i? E 1

5 ir 0 z

E 0 c, m .d

4..1 0

b E c,

1 0

h s a 3 W

E 0 blD .e(

2 0 0 L Q)

a

m

c,

. . , ..... , . .-

Presentation to Planning Committee 2006 September 11 re Official Plan Amendment for the Woodland Evaluation Criteria Threshold

In 2005 ReForest London, working with community groups, planted about 1300 trees and 1800 shrubs. Adding together all the plantmgs at the 15-20 sites amounts to about 6 ha that has been dedicated for naturalization. If we were able to sustain that effort over the next 40 years we would not equal the loss of a single 6 ha patch of woodland in terms of its net contribution to the environment over that same 40 year period. The contributions of woodlands to the environment are substantial: intrinsic values include providing refugia for native plant and animal species and wildlife habitat; extrinsic values include releasing oxygen, sequestering carbon, moderation of temperatures, protection of groundwater resources, and trapping airborne pollutants. Woodlands, then, should be secured for their irreplaceable net contributions to the environment measured as ecological services to the natural environment, as ecological services as green infrastructure, and as cultural services to the social milieu.

To secure a viable natural heritage system is an essential duty of the municipal government and has been recognized since the pre-annexation days of the Brant Commission. Since that time the language has been formalized and to protect, maintain and enhance the natural heritage system to achieve a net gain in environmental quality is an Official Plan commitment.

The natural heritage system includes significant woodlands and significance is defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. The identification of a woodland that is a significant woodland in a manner consistent with the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement is assigned to ecologists knowledgeable about woodlands, generally; and about woodlands in the City, specifically. Significance is measured by ecologists using a comparative evaluation framework that is explicit, robust, free of double-counting or bias, and is methodologically sound for both qualitative and quantitative variables.

The evaluation criteria are scalable to the scale of the bioregion of the Carolinian Life Zone or of the County or at the scale of the City of London. The threshold for significance is adjusted to identify those vegetation patches that are ecologically important in the City of London in terms of form, feature or function.

Ecologists tell us that a woodland that satisfies one of the criteria in this evaluation framework for attributes about landscape connectivity, hydrology, representation, unusual features or quality is a significant woodland. I believe them when they say that a vegetation patch is a significant woodland when it satisfies one criterion at the high threshold. I hope that you believe them too and support this Official Plan Amendment.

Bill DeYoung Technical Advisor, ReForest London 314 Cromwell Street, London ON N6A 126

I am here to support the staff recommendation.

The staff recommendation puts London in line with the Provinci? Policy Statemer S.

You are voting tonight either to be consistent with provincial policy or against it. You

are either for protecting London's natural heritage or you are not. And you are voting

to make London more like Calgary, a city many members of Council have spoken

about as a model for London.

Calgary's unique developments have appealed to Council's imagination. The

Downtown Parking Working Group invoked Calgary's transportation plan when it

recommended the formation of a new working group to look at LTC's growth plan.

But no mention has come up about Calgary's plan to acquire a continuous ribbon of

almost 1,000 hectares of land to create one of the most extensive waterway park

systems on the continent. Nothing has been mentioned of Calgary's Fish Creek

Park, Prince's Island Park, and other ecological treasures that the city and province

have made a point of saving from development. And nothing has been said about

how Calgary has set aside nearly $50-million in a special parks-legacy fund with

some of the proceeds from the city-owned electrical company Enmax to further

protect natural areas from development. In comparison, London is using London

Hydro as a cash cow for general revenues.

It's no secret Calgarians, like Londoners; love their roads, their cars, and their new

subdivisions. But they love escaping from them just as much. In Calgary, within a

20-minute walk of the gleaming oil towers, you can be walking through a heavily

wooded bird sanctuary along the Bow River. Calgarians like the majority of

Londoners, understand the importance of conserving ecologically important land. It's

good for the environment, it's good for people, and not least of all, it's good for the

economy. According to Todd Hirsch, the chief economist for the non-partisan,

Calgary-based Canada West Foundation, the reason for Calgary's surprising green

thumb is that it just makes good economic sense.

W

Writing in the Globe and Mail recently, Hirsch maintains it's a great marketing tool for

a city like Calgary that is desperately trying to attract more workers. The economics

of protecting green spaces can also be seen in real estate values. Hirsch refers to

research showing property values of Calgary houses immediately adjacent to green

space are at least 20 per cent higher than similar homes that don't have the same

green space amenity. Similar results have been found in London. Hampton Group

run by local entrepreneur Dave Tennent, decided to protect a woodlot that was

significant to the neighbourhood although not deemed significant under the

woodland guidelines. Dave noted that lots adjacent to the woods sold faster and for

a higher price. It doesn't take a tax accountant to realize the impact this has on the

amount of cash the city collects in property taxes.

"

Our provincial government understands the importance of protection. It is protecting

a green belt around the GTA. There is no requirement for the province to buy the

land - in Canada, the government has the ability to say no to development of private

land. Our provincial government has also passed Provincial Policy statements that

all municipalities must follow. The staff report puts you in compliance with the

Provincial Policy Statements passed by the current Provincial government. This

government is very likely going to be the next government as well. Unlike 1995

when strong environment policies were gutted by a new government, you can be

reasonably certain these policies will be in place for some time. Therefore, you have

a choice. And it is a black or white choice. You are either for protecting London's

natural heritage or you are not. You are either voting to be consistent with provincial

policy or against it. And you are voting to have your staff with you or against you at

the OMB. It's likely either way you decide: there will be an OMB appeal. Pass this

recommendation, and have your staff and legal staff on side when Council's decision

is appealed, probably by the LDI. Or, hire outside planners, at some cost to

taxpayers, to argue against your own staff, when I appeal the decision. The latter

option will cost you more of taxpayer's money, which will sound particularly strange

when some of you are running against making such decisions.

Sandy Levin 59 Longbow Road 472-9576

Y

Woodland Threshold of Significance Friends of the Coves comments September 11,2006

The Carolinian Zone occupies only one percent of Canada's land area, but is home to 25% of its people. This makes it Ontario's most threatened ecological region, and one of Canada's most threatened (Carolinian Canada Web Site). In such a populated area, we cannot look to wilderness or park areas to protect the 125 at-risk and 400 rare species of the Carolinian Zone. Every effort must be made to protect habitat right here at home in London.

According to Environment Canada, habitat loss is the single leading cause of loss to biodiversity. This is particularly true for the Carolinian Zone. The Friends of the Coves commends the Mayor and Council for taking action to meet the recommended target of 30% forest cover.

In order to meet the 30% target and to protect against further loss of biodiversity, we cannot afford to remove any further woodlands within the City of London.

The Friends of the Coves supports the staff-recommended Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands that recognizes a woodland as significant if it meets one high criterion or 5 medium criteria.

In addition to considering current ecological significance there is a need to recognize the future ecological significance of young woodland areas. The Friends of the Coves has coordinated the planting of almost 3000 trees and shrubs. These newly planted areas may not be considered significant under the proposed Guidelines, but may easily meet the criteria in a decade's time. That may be too late for some woodlots. The proposed guidelines should take into account the future ecological potential of a growing forest.

We encourage council to also consider the contribution that woodlands make to the community, the economy, air quality, energy efficiency and the health of the Citizens of London.

Examples:

Air Qualitv and Health The cooler air temperatures created by tree canopies reduce smog levels approximately 5% and mature trees can each absorb about 200 pounds of particulate pollution! (Sierra Legal Defense web site)

Energy Efficiencv Trees Reduce Energy Costs - Effective windbreaks can reduce heating costs by 10 to 25 per cent in winter. In summer, properly located trees can reduce air conditioning costs up to 50 per cent (Moll 1989)7.

Economic Benefit (City of Regina Web site).

Trees Enhance Property Values - Public trees and trees on private property substantially increase property values and sales. Studies indicate that trees can enhance the marketability of a home and add 5 to 10 per cent to its market value.6 The economic retum to the City in the form of property, sales and taxes is substantial.

Trees Are A Community Asset - A properly maintained urban forest is an investment that appreciates in value. A 1985 study by the American Forestry Association (now called American Forests) estimated the annual economic value of a fifty-year old urban tree as follows:

i. Reduction in air conditioning use: $73 ii. Soil erosion and storm water control: $75 iii. Wildlife shelter: $75 iv. Air pollution control: $50 v. Total value in 1985 dollars: $273 vi. Total value compounded at 5 per cent interest for 50 years: $57,1518

To: Planning Committee Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Significant Woodlands From: Stephen Turner - 463 Tecumseh Ave E.

Chair - Advisory Committee on the Environment Member - Envir. And Ecol. Planning Advisory Committee

I’d like to take a brief couple of minutes to voice support for the proposed amendments to the Guidelines for Evaluating Significant Woodlands. While I recognize the ways of calculating woodland cover vary widely from municipality to municipality, nonetheless, London’s woodland cover has dropped below 50% of the provincial average for cities. Municipal woodland cover ranges from 3% in Chatham to 30% in Ottawa. London sits at 7.8% - a position that seems to place our ‘Forest City’ nickname in jeopardy. Environment Canada has recommended that cities have woodland coverage of at least 30% to ensure carbon cycling, city cooling, and oxygen production to decrease the frequency of smog advisories and impacts on climate change.

What is more concerning is the rate at which we are losing our trees. In only seven years, London has lost 16.6% of its coverage from trees and forests. There are a few contributors to this decline, including the fact that the trees in the central regions of the city are reaching the age of maturity and are beginning to die. However, one of the largest factors is one of policy. London has been fairly liberal in this realm resulting in a substantial loss of woodlots to development. This is not to place the blame for our dwindling woodlands at the feet of development. They will develop where they are allowed to in order to maximize the return on investment of a given parcel of land. However, we must ensure we have policy strong enough to help preserve what remaining forests exist.

When compared to the significant woodlot designation criteria for 5 other representative municipalities and those of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, London’s policies at present are not adequate to reasonably protect our woodlands. London currently has 8 criteria on which woodlands are measured, of which 3 must rank in the ‘high’ category in order to achieve significance. Of the 6 reviewed policies from outside London, 5 require only a ‘high’ ranking in one category to achieve this significance. The City of Hamilton requires 2. It’s often said by council that London should rank with other cities across the province. I don’t agree with that and think we should look further than what other cities are doing, but even in this instance, London is far behind the norm.

Plantings and tree replacements are not adequate to address the loss of woodlots. A street tree stands alone, a woodlot lost is an entire ecosystem lost. Mature trees have exponential value in functionality compared to saplings. When a 100 yr old beech tree dies, 2700 trees with a crown of 1 metre would have to be planted to replace the oxygen it produced.

We need to stem the erosion of London’s remaining woodlots and these guidelines will go a long way towards this end. I would urge the committee to adopt the proposed revisions to the criteria as put forward by the planning department.

Barrv R. Card

September 1 1,2006

VIA FAX - 519-661-4892

Chairman and Members oEPlanning Comdtee Corporation of the City of London c/o City Clerk City Hall, Room 3 14 300 Dufferin Avenue London, Ontario N6A 4L9

Dear SirsMadams:

Be: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Woodland Threshold of Significance Item No. 18, September 11,2006 LDT Comments

Further to the oral submissions which the Committec will receive at this evening’s public participation meeting, I offer the following comments on behalf of the London Development Institute (the ‘ZDT”):

1 .

2.

The LDL agrecs that the Official Plan should reflect community values regarding woodlots.

The Official Plan, Section 15.4.5., now sets out the attributes of woodlands which give rise to a determination of “signi6cance”. If the attribute3 require amendment, they should be put forward in a proposed Official Plan amendment.

The use of a “guideline document” to establish standards [or significance is not appropriate. The purpose of a guideline document is to assist with methodology. It should not establish criteria.

3 ,

4. The use ofa “checklist” format for the determination of significance is an inappropriate substitute for scientific investigation and analytical thought.

- 2 -

September 1 1,2006

5 , A scoring system which purports to identify a woodland as “significant” on the basis of “one high or five medium criteria scores as determined by application of the Guideline Document ...” is arbitrary and unreasonable.

The proposed Official Plan amendment itself contains no objective standards.

In summary, the approach being recommended by staff is the reverse ofwhat the industry

6 .

considers appropriate: the Official Plan should contain the standards. The Guideline should set out the methodology. The proposed OPA contains the methodology and not the standards,

Please remit the proposed OPA back to staff, so that additional objective standards for woodlands (if any) can be included .in the Official Plan.

“Scoring” details can be dealt with by the Guideline Document, to the extent these will be of assistance to those who conduct evaluations.

Yours very truly, fi.

RRCjmh

??%- Barry R. C

ee: London Development Institute

Presentation to Planning Committee September 11,2006

At the risk of being labelled as trying to destroy our natural environment, I am here to explain why the proposed "one high" ranking system should not be adopted at this time.

In a recent OMB decision, the Board member ruled that he agreed with two City witnesses in that the use of three high rankings for significance was reasonable.

Actual wording: "The board finds that the City's adoption of three high rankings as significant as a reasonable interpretation and weighing of the criteria in section 15.4.5, based upon the testimony of Mr. Tegler and Mr. Parker." (Attach copy of ruling.)

The woodland guidelines used in the recent Hyde Park OMB hearing were the basis for the guidelines that were just passed by Council.

The original guidelines and the recently passed guidelines are both based on the exact same 5 criteria in Section 15.4.5 of the Official Plan. The City did not change the 5 criteria in Section 15.4.5 with the coming of the new Provincial Policy Statement.

Therefore, the existing rating system is also reasonable for the new guidelines.

I have already given you a list of problems that I see with these new guidelines and I am concerned that any one of 22 items, many of which are flawed or incomplete, can make a woodland significant.

Under the proposed system, there is no room to absorb the weaknesses that exist in these new guidelines.

Two examples:

Example 1 Section 2 of the guidelines has 11 items that are supposed to compare several woodland features - based on their uncommonness in all of London's

woodlands. The problem is that the data gathering process for 10 of those 11 items is far from being complete. Data used to make the guidelines had not been collected from some of the woodlands within the City's Urban Growth Area, or from almost all of the woodlands outside of the Urban Growth Area.

How can you determine what is uncommon if you do not know what is common? This question affects 10 of the 22 items in the guidelines.

Example 2 Item 1.1 of the new guidelines includes non-woodland area in its size evaluation.

The new guidelines are supposed to determine the significance of a woodland and not other land types. Using the guidelines to test ER lands is ok, but including the presence non-woodland land as a requirement to be a significant woodland is not ok.

Non-woodland areas will become significant woodlands without actually being a woodland.

Item 1.1 will probably be the most important item used to determine woodland significance.

Conclusion I am concerned that my tax money will be diverted from other more important uses to fight challenges to zoning changes caused by these new guidelines.

The existing rating system can absorb some of these shortcomings and has the blessing of the Board and the City's key witness at the Board.

Therefore, I am asking that the proposal before you not be approved at this time and that the existing rating system that is already accepted be used until all of London woodlands have been adequately assessed and the guidelines are brought in line.

Jack A. Winkler R.P.F.

Threshold of Significance Public Meeting, September 11,2006

Good evening,

My name is Dean Sheppard. I am representing EEPAC, the Ecological and

Environmental Planning Advisory Committee.

I would like to start out with what I personally believe, is one of the most important

facts we will hear tonight. And that is, despite all the hard work being done by the City

and by all the other motivated organizations in town, our Woodland Cover is shrinking

every year. We have lots of policies, lots of programs and thankfully lots and lots of

volunteers planting trees across the City, but its not enough. The current system is

taking us in the wrong direction.

With London’s Woodland Cover at just 7.8%, and a generally accepted target of 30%,

we need new policy which takes us forward. Councilors, tonight is your chance to take

us forward. Best of all, it’s a change that’s relatively easy to make and will have

immediate positive results. What more could a City Council want?

Staff have detailed how much of our Woodland Cover we will lose under Thresholds of

one, two and three HIGH scores. I have prepared a visual to clearly illustrate.

1

Effect on Woodland Cover %

Current 1 High 2 High 3 High Target Replanting

Our current cover is 7.8% and it decreases as the threshold increases.

The point here is that when we evaluate woodlands to determine their significance, we

are not only deciding which woodlands to preserve but by the very nature of the

process, we are also deciding which woodlands we can afford to lose. All options still

result in a loss of woodlands. I hope you agree that the loses we face under a two or

three high threshold are too great to accept.

One might argument that every single existing woodland is invaluable when you have a

Woodland Cover of only 7.8% and the target is 30. In this context, adopting a

Threshold of ONE HIGH seems conservative even.

For context, I have included in the graph the effect of annual naturalization efforts. The

losses experienced in each threshold scenario are far greater than the small amount of

2

areas re-naturalized each year. To make any progress on our Woodland Cover, we need this Threshold changed.

EEPAC has benchmarked London’s current Threshold of Significance against other

municipalities. I must tell you, that of the communities contacted, all of them had a

more protective Threshold than London does. This means all these communities are all

preserving a greater percentage of their woodlands than London is.

I have a graph of the benchmarking results.

Threshold of Significance BENCHMARKING

Higher LOSES more woodlands

Lower SAVES more woodlands

I

Ottawa Halton Middlesex FON ‘fork Hamilton London Region County Region

You can see that London’s current Threshold is drumuricully higher than most others.

Most municipalities contacted utilize a Threshold of only ONE HIGH.

Even expressed as a percent of the total criteria used in the evaluation, London

compares similarly poorly.

3

I- 10 z W 0 ct W n o

Threshold of Significance BENCHMARKING (% basis)

Higher LOSES more woodlands

Ottawa Halton Middlesex FON York Hamilton London Region County Region

I I

Ottawa’s Threshold of one high (out of nine criteria) gives them 11 % while London’s

Threshold of three high (out of eight criteria) results in 37.5%

I hope this benchmarking exercise helps to convince you that changing London’s

Threshold to ONE HIGH is not progressive in the extreme, but in fact only moves

London into the average.

Finally, I want to address a concern of EEPAC which, in our opinion is not sufficiently

addressed in the proposal before you tonight.

Woodlands and cities have life spans far outreaching that of you or I. And over this

time, even the lowliest woodlot has the potential to become a beautiful forest, a diverse

habitat and a important part of the region’s ecological functioning.

4

It is this future potential that is not adequately recognized in tonight’s proposal. Take

the case of a woodland which may score only MEDIUM on tree size and age. Yet in as

little as 5 or 10 years that same woodland could rate HIGH. Suddenly that woodland

would be considered a significant part of our natural heritage system, but sadly, too

late since it was already cleared for development before reaching its potential. A 5-10

year period is a very short time in the life of a woodland, or of a city, and certainly a fraction of the time it would take for lands newly naturalized by volunteers, to reach

the same size and age.

The same example holds true for other evaluation criteria such as diversity or human

disturbance

To morefully recognize the future potential of our woodlands, EEPAC recommends

that the new Threshold of Significance be FOUR MEDIUM scores instead of the staff

proposed five.

It is logical that change made to the MEDIUM scores be proportional to the change in

the HIGH scores. Unfortunately, the proposed changes are disproportionate and do not

value the future potential of a woodland.

5

. .

8 0 High Scores 7

-

7

6

m 5 e! 0

g 4 r 0 # 3

2

1

0

Medium Scores

Current Staff Proposed EEPAC Proposed

My last graph shows the proportional changes in the HIGH and MEDIUM Thresholds.

Moving from 3 HIGH to 1 HIGH is a 213 reduction but moving from 7 MEDIUM to 5

MEDIUM is only a 25 % reduction. The staff recommended change in the MEDIUM

Threshold is too modest and is out of step with the change in the HIGH Threshold.

A Threshold of FOUR MEDIUM still represents a modest change compared to the

change in HIGH scoring. So, a threshold of FOUR MEDIUM can still be considered a

modest and conservative recommendation. Furthermore, a score result of FOUR

MEDIUM, out of eight criteria, would be 50%. Last time I looked, 50% was a still

pass in most tests and should be for a woodland as well.

A FOUR MEDIUM threshold would clearly allow the evaluation process to better

consider and better value the future potential of our woodlands.

6

To make any significant progress toward 30% woodland cover, we will need to employ

an wide array of tools and practices. Discarding the future potential of woodlands that

we already have will only move us backward. I ask you to support the staff

recommendation of ONE HIGH and EEPAC’s recommendation of FOUR MEDIUMS.

I hope each of you finds the case for changing the Threshold for Significance clear and

compelling and that you proudly take this change forward to Council.

Thank you.

7