Comments on proposed updates…

Comments on proposed updates to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System

*pages refer to Proposed updates document

• General: If MNRF is taken out of the OWES process, clarity will be required on who will provide training (which is already backlogged) and certification (both of which must continue to be standardized)?
Page 3, first paragraph (existing text, not a proposed change, but affected by proposed changes):
Current text, “one of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (MNRF) mandates is the protection and sustainable management of the province’s natural heritage features, including wetlands.”
• As wetlands (including units of current PSW complexes) are re-evaluated and submitted to local decision makers rather than to the MNRF (for review/approval and for record keeping in a centralized location), the Ministry will either lack information or collecting this information for the purposes of protecting and managing wetlands at a provincial scale will be an inefficient, time-consuming endeavour
• Information on provincially significant wetlands is essential to this mandate

Page 4 – Text removed:
• Land use planning decisions should not be made in the absence of information on the presence of rare species and about hydrological functions
Page 4 (last paragraph) and 5:
• Page 4 – reference to protection under the PPS removed, CA Act
• Text removed includes how the wetland evaluation system is essential to the wetland policies of the PPS and Planning Act and CA Act, all currently under review
• The cumulative negative impact proposed changes to the CA Act, Planning Act, and PPS, in addition to OWES, will have on wetland protection in Ontario is unclear but is expected to be wide-ranging and significant.

Page 6 - Text removed and added:
• An evaluator should be able to access the ministry that has administered and been the repository for wetland evaluations for decades. They should have access to historic reports.

Page 7 – text removed :
• If evaluations no longer being sent to MNRF, who will be the repository of this information and what access will there be to the information? If a consultant evaluates a wetland on behalf of an applicant, does the evaluation become a public document when submitted to a decision maker, or is it private? Who can see the document? Will there be a wetland evaluation file?
• This information should be kept on file, by municipalities if not by MNRF, such that it is accessible to decision makers and the public
• Lack of contact with organizations and agencies who may have information relevant or essential to evaluation of the wetland may affect the credibility/validity of the evaluation

Page 7 – Text added, Wetland Re-evaluations and Mapping:
• Allows for wetland units that are part of PSW complexes, to be evaluated as stand-alone wetlands without consideration of their function as part of a larger wetland ecosystem. This would allow for wetland complexes to be chipped away at over time, likely eroding the significance of the remaining wetlands in the former complex.
• allowing for the re-evaluation of individual wetland units without consideration of their function as part of a larger ecosystem leaves vast amounts of wetland without strong protections, rendering them at risk of removal from the landscape.
• There are currently 66 provincially significant wetlands in the LSRCA watershed. Of these, 41 are wetland complexes. The removal of wetland complexes would put 62% of our provincially significant wetlands at risk.
• lack of clarity about meaning of “mapping update” – if it is to include wetland boundary delineation for the purpose of establishing sufficient buffers to wetlands, risk of leaving this up to one person hired by applicant means that there is motivation to obtain most favourable outcome for client
• unclear if there would be any oversight, agency/municipal involvement in any mapping update. Mapping updates should be documented and kept on file with evaluation and in a central database with public access
• If there is no file and no documented mapping updates, valuable information about wetlands will be lost and not accessible to agencies or organizations that steward, manage or protect wetlands in Ontario

Page 8 – new section “Complete Evaluation”
• suggests that an existing PSW can be re-evaluated at any time, without agency involvement or oversight, relying on the evaluation undertaken by consultant without peer review by any agency:
o Evaluations should not be considered complete when received by a decision maker if critical information is missing or the system was erroneously applied
o Who is decision maker? Needs clarity
o Means that the significance of a wetland is determined by a single individual, regardless of the quality of the evaluation. If any portion of the evaluation is done incorrectly, or missing available information, there is no opportunity for it to be peer reviewed and amended.
o It is prudent also to consider that a client hires a consultant to undertake a wetland re-evaluation as part of the development application process. This relationship puts, as a priority, the most favourable outcome of an evaluation for the applicant and represents a conflict of interest.
o Peer review (currently through submission of evaluations to MNRF for approval) serves as quality control. The protection of critical habitats and ecological functions hangs on this quality control

Page 9, text removed:
• In addition to a decision maker having to accept an evaluation, re-evaluation or mapping update as complete, the list of items that make up a complete wetland evaluation file is completely removed from the document (i.e., no guidance is provided on what is to be included). These removed items include important pieces of documentation, including data and scoring record, catchment mapping, wetland boundary and vegetation mapping, air photos, field notes.

Page 11, text removed:
• “Contact with appropriate organizations and agencies, outlined below, is vital to the credibility of the evaluation and of the Special Features component in particular.” Remains valid and should be left in
• Why have important information sources been removed from the manual? No Information Available can be entered in the WEDSR without any oversight on whether information was indeed available/requested

Page 15, Field Visits, text added:
• The wording is not clear whether all field work can be conducted by an untrained assistant and then reviewed by a certified OWES evaluator, or if the evaluator would be on site. The evaluator needs to attend the site.

Page 20, text added:
Wetland Edges Bordering on Lakes and Rivers
• should use meters rather than feet

Page 22, text removed:
• Updates to reflect changes in technology (e.g. removing mention of disks) is supported

Page 23, Catchment Basin Map, text removed:
• how will hydrology be scored without this map?
• supportive of update based on change in technology (i.e. tablets/phones may be used in field rather than print outs), but the data listed should be used in the field and additional information recorded

Page 24, Completing the Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record, everything removed apart from wetland size (moved to its own section):
• will there be a wetland record? What will be included? Clarity is needed here.

Page 26, Wetland Complexes, all text removed
• the previous version of the manual text stated, “Much of the wildlife in the area of the complex is variously dependent upon the presence of the entire complex of wetlands”. The proposed version removes the concept of complexes and with each wetland unit contributing to the whole. How can this be reconciled? The dependency of Wildlife is still dependent on the complex whether these are recognized or not has not changed, only the text, and impacts to wildlife can be expected if these individual wetland units are evaluated in isolation and thus receive less protection than if they were recognized as part of a complex
• Protection for small wetlands that provide “important ecological benefits” as described in the current manual is weakened by the proposed changes

Page 46, 4.1.2 Species:
-not a comment on a proposed change but suggest adding community science databases (i.e., eBird, iNaturalist) as alternative sources of information

Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2 - complete removal of scoring for Endangered/Threatened species, though these would be scored as tracked species (which would receive fewer points)
• Devalues the importance of wetland habitat for essential lifecycle processes of species at risk species
• Protection of wetland as PSW vs. protection of habitat under ESA
o Example Least Bittern – no habitat regulation yet, critical habitat only defined in recovery strategy for breeding habitat, not post-breeding dispersal, foraging, or migration stopover habitat. Removal of Migration, Feeding or Hibernation Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species in scoring could put wetland habitat for these lifecycle processes at risk. Wetland destruction and degradation is identified as being a high threat to Least Bittern in the recovery strategy.

Page 62 Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record:
• Proposed changes to the Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record section should be provided for comment. Currently there is only a note saying that the section will be “edited to reflect many of the above changes”.

Page 63, text removed, Locally Important Wetland:
• The removal of the text, “The wetland evaluation system for northern and southern Ontario is designed to identify important wetlands on a provincial scale. However, all wetlands have value, both to society and intrinsically” does not change the worth and importance of these wetlands at the local scale. This section should remain in the manual.
• Removed text includes reference to municipalities deciding to protect locally important wetlands. As municipalities have been identified in the added text as being generally responsible for implement Ontario’s planning process in the introduction (page 3), there doesn’t appear to be rationale for removing this section.