Re: EOR Posting #019-6160…

Re: EOR Posting #019-6160 Proposed Changes to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System

To Whom It May Concern

I have a university degree in Conservation Biology and been working as a professional planner and ecologist for twenty years, I am also a certified OWES evaluator. In those years I have assisted other professionals in the development of provincial policies including the natural heritage strategy and Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, reviewed hundreds of Planning Act applications, evaluated wetlands AND peer-reviewed OWES records, as well as coordinated several development monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of SWM infrastructure, wetland/watercourse setbacks, and offsetting to mitigate impacts to wetland hydrologic and ecological functions. I’d say with my experience, I am qualified to offer my opinion to the proposed changes to OWES.

1. Removing ‘Complexing’ Principle and Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species

All evaluators know that wetland size (contiguous or complex) and species at risk are key scoring factors that make a wetland significant and are often the triggers to determine whether a wetland should be evaluated in support of a Planning Act application. By removing these two scoring components, coupled with the proposed deconstruction of existing complexes through the re-evaluation of individual wetland units, appears to diminish the power of Provincial Policy Statement policy 2.1.4 a) and contravene complimentary provincial policies to maintain or enhance biodiversity, manage water resources, and protect people and property from natural hazards, including changes to wetlands.

Scientific literature concludes that wetland hydrology is a key driver supporting wetland ecological functions, i.e., disturbance to wetland water balance/hydroperiod elicits a biological/ecological response. Re-evaluating complexes unit by unit or ignoring the watershed context by removing wetland complexing, leads to a poor understanding of wetland hydrology and associated impacts to natural hazards. If the proposed changes are based on science, rather than a red-lining exercise by politicians, shouldn’t the hydrology component of the protocol also be updated? What about updating the entire protocol to include eco-hydrology science, feature-based water balance methodologies, headwater drainage feature protocols, etc.?

In case the changes to OWES were not based on science, wetlands provide the province with a number of cost effective benefits including flood and drought control, clean water, groundwater recharge, carbon sequestering, and shoreline stabilization. In lieu of unpredictable climate hazards, wetlands are this province’s only natural (and free) asset to mitigate impacts of flooding, erosion and drought, which minimizes risk to people, property and infrastructure – engineered solutions will not be able to replicate all the services already provided by natural wetlands.

2. Removing MNRF as OWES Approval Authority and OWES Files

The existing provincial process includes ministry appointed staff with OWES certification to review OWES record submission. OWES evaluators are currently required to be registered with the province so that peer-reviewers can verify their status. In the absence of provincial review, planning authorities will have no way of confirming OWES certification unless the province makes this information public. Based on my experience with OWES, it is a subjective protocol that is biased towards the evaluators skill set and quality of training, i.e., inexperienced OWES evaluators typically have several errors and omissions in their submission, and the new requirements for collecting evidence/sources of information previously provided by local experts (MNRF District Office, Conservation Officers, Conservation Authorities, Field Naturalists, NHIC, others) may require skills that go beyond OWES. By removing MNRF as the approval authority and giving autonomy to OWES evaluators increases the risk of inaccuracies and perpetuating the current issue of incomplete or poor-quality Planning Act application submissions.

The open file principle of OWES supported periodic updates, e.g., changes to species at risk provincial ranks and subwatershed plans that affected wetland status and boundary adjustments; it was a repository/record or source of information to validate findings. The new updates create a point in time evaluation referred to as the Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record (WEDSR) – will this database be public or circulated to regulatory agencies?

Changing OWES, which does not appear to be conducted from a science-based perspective, has a direct implication to natural hazards. By evaluating wetlands on a site by site basis (not evaluating the wetland beyond property boundaries or fulsome drainage basin, which is the current practice by developers applying for approvals under the Planning Act) or a unit by unit basis (not evaluating the fulsome drainage basin or considering watershed context/connectivity) to support wetland removal, runs the risk that functionality of individual wetlands or watersheds are misunderstood, and therefore mismanaged or poorly replicated. Mismanaging wetland hydrology equals to a complete disregard for associated hazards, which will only be further aggravated by climate hazards, resulting in aggravated or new hazards and increased risk to infrastructure, offset plans, and asset management costs.

To minimize risk to people and property, and to protect healthy futures for our children, I ask the province to continue to recognize the importance of wetlands and to continue to uphold policies that protect hydrologic functions by keeping hydrologic features in situ. While OWES is not the only method to evaluate critical or significant wetland function, i.e., functions that cannot be replicated, it is important to maintain a provincially-recognized standard for identifying and protecting hydrologic/hazard features like wetlands from unaffordable housing development projects. So, either update OWES entirely based on good science or stakeholder input, not politics, or leave it alone!