Here is the final wording arrived at regarding protection of locally significant wetland resources in Mississippi Mills, which was submitted on Friday September 13, 2002 to the Mississippi Mills Official Plan Steering Committee.Thank you to the dozen or so members who sent in comments and suggestions.
Recommendations from Preliminary Issues Report from MVFN.
This report was arrived at through a group meeting with representative from Ducks Unlimited, follow-up requests for comments from group members, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Canadian Environmental Law Association, OMNR officials and members of MVFN plus research of relevant documents and publications. (See references below)
Issue 3.1 statement 1
…………should we protect locally significant wetlands (LSW’s)?
1) It was a unanimous “yes”. MM should establish a policy of precaution-protection until adequate and informed data and science is available to better understand the function and value of wetlands locally and within a watershed context.
2) The group felt we should make the first entry in the OP not too detailed but to build in triggers or flags that would show up in site-specific cases concerning LSW’ s.
3) Consultation, connectivity and education should be the main process used in protection of our wetlands.
4) Locally Significant Wetlands (LSW’s) should be identified, through a classification process. The most significant ones should be on an initial list in the OP, with provision for additions at later dates though amendment to the OP.
5) Most locally significant wetlands (4-7) have already been identified by MNR. These should be our initial list entered in the OP.
6) Stewardship Council, field naturalists, Ducks Unlimited, local Fish and Game Clubs, landowners and EAC should be involved in the education process.
7) A buffer zone should be mentioned but not defined except in definition section. Buffer requirements should be site specific as each case arises.
8 ) At least initially, only permanent LSWs should be considered for listing.
9) Strong recognition of land owners as stewards should be registered in the OP.
10) References must be made to other relevant Acts i.e.: Drainage, Riparian Rights etc.
11) We should steer clear of the beavers issue and also temporary wetlands.
12) Paramount is recognition of importance of all wetlands in their role of protecting and enhancing the ground water.
13) Private landowners impacted by enforcement of regulations concerning LSWs should be considered for compensation where applicable
14) As the natural heritage policy, as set forth in the PPS, allows for varying degrees of protection at the municipal level, MM should take a progressive approach and strive for the Pathfinder Policies level.
15) As MM is divided almost in half between the Canadian Shield and St.Lawrence/Great Lakes Lowland significant areas, it is the recommendation of this report that the PPS concerning Canadian Shield wetlands be adopted for all of MM.
16) Issues involving LSWs should be discussed with land owner groups on a continuing basis.
17) MM must strive for broad public support on wetland policies implementation. Â Â
References
Ducks Unlimited-Scott Muir, Jamie Fortune (Ducks Unlimited is conducting a pilot project to test new technologies for wetland identification and delineation. Results should be available by year’s end.)
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Linda Pimm.
Canadian Environmental Law Society-Theresa McLenaghan
OMNR-Shaun Thompson
Natural Heritage Planning Policy in Ontario-A Review of County and Regional Plans Aug. 1999
Natural Heritage Reference Manual for PPS 2.3Â Â Â OMNR June, 1999
Rural Wetlands in Ontario-A Guide to Landowners-Ducks Unlimited
Caring For Your Land-A Stewardship Handbook-University of Guelph 1998
Environmental Commissioner’s Reports-All issues
Submitted by Cliff Bennett on behalf of MVFN Â Â |
