September 17, 2012 Overview 2012 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Management Strategy Prepared by the Policy Planning, City of Richmond
September 17, 2012-2 - Origin Overview In October 2009, Council endorsed the 2041 OCP Update work program and terms of reference for the main 2041 OCP studies (e.g., 2041 Demographic and Employment Study, 2041 Employment Lands Strategy, an Environmentally Sensitive Areas Management Strategy). In October 2010, Council endorsed a report entitled The Methodology to Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas and authorized staff to proceed with the ESA Strategy update. Glossary For the purposes of the report, the following terms are used: AAC: the City s Agricultural Advisory Committee ACE: the City s Advisory Committee on the Environment ALC: the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission DP (for an ESA): a City issued Development Permit which enables the City to designate areas for the protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity (The) Environment: generally refers to a location and/ or a condition of an important area (e.g., a fish or bird habitat) and tends to change over time, but a snapshot' of it may be taken at any time for reference and management purposes Ecological: refers more to the interdependent relationships among assets (e.g., fish, birds) and their necessary environments and are often dynamic (e.g., sustaining or degrading) and may be difficult to capture at any one time. Like environmental areas, an ecological snapshot' of it may be taken at any time for reference and management purposes EN: the City s Ecological Network ESA(s): the City s Official Community Plan designated Environmentally Sensitive Area(s) GIS: Geographical Integrated (mapping) System OCP: the City s Official Community Plan Port Metro: Port Metro Vancouver SD: the Richmond School District No 38 YVR: the Vancouver International Airport Authority. The intent of the draft ESA Management Strategy (Strategy) is to enable Council to: Better manage ecological assets based on an Ecological Network Concept, new research, an updated inventory and improved GIS mapping Establish: A New Ecological Network Concept and policies, and within this context Enhanced OCP ESA policies and Development Permit Guidelines. These objectives have been achieved.
September 17, 2012-3 - The purpose of this report is to propose an updated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Management Strategy regarding which staff consulted with Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), affected land owners and the public in June 2012. The ESA Strategy Update addresses or supports the following Council Term Goals: Council Term Goal #3: Ensure the effective growth management for the city through updating of the OCP (and sub area plans) to reflect current realities and future needs. Council Term Goal #7: Demonstrate leadership in and significant advancement of the City s agenda for sustainability through the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategy that among other objectives includes the initiation and incorporation of sustainability into our City policies and bylaws. Background Why Update The City s 1999 OCP ESA Policies and DP Guidelines? The City s 1999 OCP ESA policies and DP guidelines require updating because they are based on outdated data and Richmond wishes to move forward with updated ecologically based policies and guidelines. General Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Management Under the Local Government Act, the City through its Official Community Plan (OCP) may include policies and guidelines to preserve, protect, restore and enhance the City s natural environment, ecosystems and biological diversity (e.g., ESAs). To achieve this objective, the City may designate ESAs and require Development Permits (DPs) for development proposals on urban and agricultural lands, to ensure that the City s natural environment, ecosystems and biological diversity are better managed (e.g., either better protected, maintained, not altered, subject to requirements, or restored to various degrees, as Council may determine). However, in doing so, the City cannot vary land use or density, without rezoning. The City can also identify exemptions to the ESA DP requirements (e.g., for farm cultivation). In this manner, the proposed ESA Management Strategy continues to improve and balance ecological protection and development with enhanced management tools (e.g., information, policies, guidelines). It is important to note that the City has long been active in protecting environmental areas as, for example: in the early 1960s, it acquired its first 300 acres of bog and bog forest comprising the Richmond Nature Park, and in 1991, it established its first OCP ESA Bylaw No. 5741 to regulate development in certain important ESA areas, to ensure that appropriate conservation balanced with urban and agricultural development all of which are necessary to a well managed City.
September 17, 2012-4 - Findings of Fact The Ecological Network (EN) Concept The Ecological Network Concept is a new, broader approach by which to update the existing ESA policies and guidelines, as it better recognizes the wide range of aquatic (fresh water and marine) and terrestrial ecosystems within Richmond, and the many ecological services and benefits that they provide (e.g., clean air, purification, support for food production). Richmond is defined by its natural setting at the mouth of the Fraser River and the edge of the Strait of Georgia. Its Ecological Network system is a key component of Richmond s identity and is composed of island foreshore, bog forests, freshwater marshes, old fields, tidal sloughs, open meadows and parks. The Ecological Network supports birds, fish, and other wildlife, including migrating shorebirds, waterfowl, salmon mudflats and tidal marshes in the estuary of the Fraser River. The Ecological Network also provides a range of ecosystem services, such as storing and filtering water during flooding, supporting food production (e.g., clean soils; insect pollination), filtering particulates from air, and capturing and storing carbon from the atmosphere - all essential for maintaining the ecological health of the City. In addition, natural ecosystems enrich the health and livability of the City by providing access to nature within Richmond s increasingly urban neighbourhoods. The Ecological Network Concept helps overcome two frequent problems among the many jurisdictions involved in protecting and enhancing ecological and environmental areas, services and benefits, namely that they: 1. sometimes do not sufficiently co-ordinate their efforts, and 2. have different and often uncoordinated regulatory tools, which can result in fragmented protection and lost opportunities for maintaining and improving ecological functions (e.g., habitat quality and connectivity). The Ecological Network Concept helps overcome these problems by providing a more comprehensive framework to better co-ordinate and achieve effective ecological area protection, connectivity and enhancement results. This approach positions Richmond to be innovative in ecological area management. Ecological Network Vision The proposed Ecological Network Vision is: The City of Richmond supports an Ecological Network of natural areas that provide critical ecological services, including protecting biodiversity, storing and filtering water, sequestering and storing carbon from the atmosphere, and enriching the lives of the city s residents. The Network encompasses a range of land uses such as wildlife management areas, municipal parks, agricultural areas, utility corridors and industrial lands. The City of Richmond provides a critical role in managing a portion of the Ecological Network through the use of ESA Development Permit Areas, Riparian Management Areas, (RMAs), municipal parks, and other approaches.
September 17, 2012-5 - Ecological Network Goals Preserve a connected Network of natural and semi-natural areas Maintain and enhance the value of ecosystems and ecosystem services Strategically connect and restore the ecological value of key parks and public lands where possible Integrate the management of the Ecological Network with other City responsibilities (e.g., park operations, flood protection) and with other jurisdiction s responsibilities (e.g., DFO, FREMP) Reconnect people with nature. Existing 1999 OCP ESA DP Areas For reference, the existing 1999 OCP ESA areas are shown in Strategy Map 1. Study Methodology Preparing the ESA Management Strategy involved an incremental study approach, as follows: (1) An Initial Scientific Review: Why: It is important to know what is ecologically there and how best to manage it (e.g., apply the Ecological Network Model) This involved: an extensive scientific based review and analysis of relevant City and other authorities recent and current environmental and ecological policies, studies, maps and orthophotos, including the existing 1999 OCP ESA areas and guidelines consultations with stakeholders (e.g., City divisions, DFO, FREMP, ALC) selected field work to verify what s there analysing preliminary findings (e.g., areas along the West Dike) reviewing relevant environmental management models selecting a best practices model (i.e., the Ecological Network Model) based on the Ecological Network Model, applying and evaluating ecological assets identifying possible Ecological Network and ESA areas (e.g., bog, marsh, trees, wildlife), their ecological values (e.g., biodiversity, habitat, recreation) and their suggested relative importance (e.g., from High to Lower: Intertidal Areas, Shorelines, Upland Forests, Old Fields and Shrublands, Freshwater Wetlands) was done Integrating the above to identify a preliminary Ecological Network Model (e.g., Hubs, Corridors, Sites). (2) Making the ESA Management Strategy Relevant and Current As some of the past environmental studies reviewed are out of date with respect to more recent City approved planning policies which superseded them (e.g., the 2006 West Cambie Area Plan, 2006 City Riparian Management Area Approach, 2009 City Centre
September 17, 2012-6 - Area Plan, more recent City Centre approved and pending rezonings), it was necessary to adjust the draft Ecological Network to reflect these realities. (3) Minimizing Ecological Network Management Redundancy As well, the proposed ESA Strategy was adjusted to reflect the principle of minimizing regulatory redundancy which means that the City will not manage all of the Ecological Network by one approach, but through a combination of approaches, including: applying City OCP ESA DP area policies and guidelines applying the City s Riparian Management Approach applying, via City Park policies, in certain City parks, enhanced ecological management applying, for areas such as Woodwards/Lee and Bath sloughs, City s Riparian Management and ESA DP approach. utilizing only authorities jurisdictions for example utilizing: the BC Ministry of Environment s authority along much of the West Dike the Nature Conservancy of Canada s authority for Swishwash Island Metro Vancouver s authority for Iona Park, and Dion and Lion Islands utilizing both City and other authorities jurisdictions (City: ESA with FREMP; possible federal DND land management and City ESAs; for much of the West Dike seaward from the shoreline, that it be managed by the City as an ESA DP area, and as a FREMP area, and by BC Environment as a BC Wildlife Management Area) (4) City Expectations Of Others Where other jurisdictions have an ecological management role, the City expects them to fully meet their responsibilities. The City s Garden City Lands The City s Garden City Lands are not subject to this Study, as more detail planning is required. The Proposed ESA Management Strategy Result The result is the proposed ESA Management Strategy which includes the proposed Ecological Network policies and Strategy Map 2, and ESA policies, guidelines and Strategy Map 3. General The Benefits The benefits of this approach include: the latest scientific information is used, jurisdictional roles are better clarified, a more effective City Ecological Network is established, all stakeholders (e.g., FREMP) continue to enhance and protect each identified Ecological Network and ESA area, as appropriate to their authority, as all areas have ecological values, services and benefits. This approach results in a more comprehensive approach to managing the City s ecological and environmental interests, as they are better balanced with current urban development policies and proposals (e.g., rezonings) and agricultural interests
September 17, 2012-7 - Proposed Ecological Network and ESA DP Areas Mapped The proposed Ecological Network (EN) comprises all the lands and foreshore areas that were identified, inventoried and mapped in the 2012 ESA Management Strategy as having ecological importance (Strategy Map 2). This includes the proposed ESA DP Areas. Management Responsibilities For The Ecological Network (and ESA DPs) The City s Ecological Network includes a broad range of land uses, ownership and management activities. Table 1 (next page) shows that the City is only one of several government and other agencies which have a role in managing the Ecological Network (e.g., the Federal, Provincial, Metro Vancouver and City governments, Nature Conservancy of Canada, YVR). It is suggested that this proposed Strategy management approach is appropriate because the City has limited resources and often no authority over other jurisdictions ecological protection management roles. At the same time, the proposed Ecological Network policies aim to improve the current deficiencies of the complex and somewhat uncoordinated multi-jurisdictional approach to protecting ecological areas by enabling more opportunities to maximize ecological connectivity and function at a landscape level. City staff suggest that this approach better promotes jurisdictional responsibility, cooperation, co-ordination and effective ecological area management. See Table 1 on Next Page
September 17, 2012-8 - EN Components (1) CITY MANAGED (1) OCP ESA DPAs Table 1 Overview of Management Responsibilities For The Ecological Network see Attachment 1 Strategy Map 2 EN Management Approaches and Tools The portion of Hubs and Sites and functioning ecological corridors which are outside of City and Metro Vancouver Parks, Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and RMAs. They include mostly privately owned lands (including agricultural); include some City-owned lands that are not park, the DND lands and Shady (Steveston) Island. Notes: Hubs and Sites, and some Because of its large size and prominent location adjacent to the Richmond Nature Park, functioning corridors* the Department of National Defense (DND) lands, if they were to come under the City s authority, they will be subject to an ESA DP. Also, the DND lands are designated: City OCP Conservation, and MV Regional Growth Strategy: Conservation and Recreation. (2) OCP ESA DPAs (with other jurisdictions, FREMP, DFO): To Maximize Ecological Interests The intertidal zone within 30 metres (seaward) of the high water mark is managed as an ESA DP. Intertidal Zone The zone is also managed as fish habitat by Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO) through FREMP and Port Metro Vancouver. Shoreline areas within 30 metres (landward) of the high water mark are managed as ESA DPAs. Trees are also protected by City s Tree Protection Bylaw Shoreline Zone Portions of the shoreline zone (e.g., fish habitat) are under the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (through FREMP and Port Metro Vancouver). (3) Parks and Greenways (Not OCP DP ESAs) All parks mapped as hubs, sites, or corridors will be managed by the City of Richmond Parks. The Parks Division is to assess its parks inventory for possible sites for enhanced ecological restoration. The Richmond School District will be consulted during the process. Hubs and Corridors Greenway design (using the 2010 Trail Strategy) should incorporate enhanced ecological functions wherever possible, integrating planting design with rainwater management, adjacency buffers, shade trees, etc. Note: The Terra Nova Nature Park and the Richmond Nature Park are managed with environmental policies and are designated by the City as OCP Conservation and by the MV as RGS as Conservation and Recreation. (4) Riparian Management Area Policies (Not OCP DP ESAs) Sloughs and canals are managed through the City s 2006 Riparian-Specific Management Approach. RMAs encompass 5m or 15m zones adjacent to important ecological watercourses. RMAs fulfill Richmond s requirements under the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) Ecologically important Notes: watercourses (sloughs and canals) The City has the ability to restrict development in RMAs through the DP process but does not currently have a City bylaw or DPA to require enhancements or compensation for loss. The City process for preparing these additional tools is underway. There will be some duplication with ESA DP areas (e.g., Woodwards/Lee Slough, Finn and Bath Sloughs) to ensure ecological protection. (2) MANAGED BY OTHER AGENCIES (NOT ESA) Areas further than 30 metres (seaward) of the high water mark and subtidal areas including portions of the Fraser River and Strait of Georgia are protected as fish habitat by Fisheries and Additional intertidal and Oceans Canada. subtidal areas Other laws and regulations apply to these areas. Some are part of BC Parks Wildlife Management Areas and the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans management areas. (3) MANAGED BY OTHER AGENCIES AND DESIGNATED OCP CONSERVATION (NOT OCP DP ESA) Iona Beach Regional Park, Don and Lion Islands are managed by Metro Vancouver Parks. The Sea Island Conservation Reserve (SICA) is owned by the Government of Canada and managed Hubs and Centres by the Canadian Wildlife Service to maintain bird habitat. Swishwash Island is owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy of Canada Note: As the initial assessment for the Strategy identified possible opportunities to ecologically revive non-functioning and impaired ecological corridors, overtime more study can be done to explore such opportunities.
September 17, 2012-9 - Ecological Network Implementation Components General OCP ESA Management The ESAs are a smaller component of the Ecological Network and are those lands (mostly privately owned) that will be managed through OCP ESA Development Permit policies and guidelines. The ESA areas are identified in the Strategy. The objective of OCP ESA DP management is to preserve the spatial extent, condition, and function of natural areas as development occurs resulting in a no-net-loss or an improvement of ESAs. The proposed OCP ESA Development Permit policies and guidelines: (1) enable ESA DP exemptions (e.g., farm cultivation and accessory farm buildings) (2) unless exempt, the OCP ESA designation on a property will require an ESA Development Permit review to minimize the impacts of the proposed development on the ESA. (3) Otherwise, OCP ESA DP requirements apply to all ESA areas (e.g., intertidal, shoreline, upland forest, old fields and shrublands, freshwater wetlands). To Start - First Seek City Staff Advice All property owners who have an ESA designation on their lands are encouraged to first talk to City staff before subdividing or developing to: verify that there is an ESA designation on their lands determine if they are exempt from obtaining an ESA Development Permit, determine if they are a legitimate farmer (e.g., are actually generating or will be actually generating farm income from their property) determine that, if with some modifications to their proposal, they can avoid affecting and ESA and thus not need an ESA DP. If an ESA DP is not required, staff will so advise on what is required to proceed. If an ESA DP is required, staff will advise on the process, requirements and next steps. 1. Proposed ESA DP Guideline Exemptions The following activities are exemptions from obtaining an ESA Development Permit (DP): (1) First Nations Owned Lands (e.g., currently on Sea Island) near the Metro Vancouver Iona Sewage Treatment Plant and if more occur, they too are to be exempt (2) Agricultural Activities: To take advantage of an ESA DP exemption for the agricultural activities identified below, property owners must provide, to the satisfaction of Council or its designated staff, information to demonstrate that they are legitimately farming: For Existing Farmers: For example, that they have generated on the affected site, legitimate agricultural income (e.g., from government tax records), and this information is to be supplemented by other sources (e.g., a government a Farm Number, BC Assessment information, City tax or assessment information),
September 17, 2012-10 - For New Farmers: For example, written information from a government source that they have been granted a period to time (e.g., two years) to demonstrate that they will and can generate legitimate agricultural income and this information is to be supplemented by other sources (e.g., a government a Farm Number, BC Assessment information, City tax or assessment information). Where this permission has been granted and not achieved, the City may require the owner to restore and rehabilitate the modified environmental asset and services. For clarity: property owners who are proven farmers are entitled to the agricultural exemption without applying for an ESA DP, property owners who are proven farmers and lease their land to legitimate farmers are entitled to the agricultural exemption without applying for an ESA DP, property owners who are not proven farmers and lease their land to legitimate farmers are not entitled to the agricultural exemption and the property owner is required to apply for an ESA DP, property owners who are not proven farmers and lease their land to not proven farmers are not entitled to the agricultural exemption and the property owner is required to apply for an ESA DP, Where the above criteria are met, the following agricultural actives are exempt from obtaining an ESA DP: Accessory farm buildings (e.g., agricultural barns, sheds, accessory accommodation for seasonal farm workers, greenhouses), excluding the principal accessory farm residence, Agricultural farm cultivation including land clearing, field drainage, irrigation, ALC and City approved farm soil filling, growing crops, fencing, raising animals and bee keeping. For clarity, all owners of proposed residences in the ALR and City designated and zoned agricultural areas are to applying for and receive an ESA DP, (3) Renovations to interiors (4) Exterior renovations and construction activities which do not impact upon, or extend into, designated ESAs (e.g., within the existing footprint of buildings or paved areas) (5) Maintenance activities on existing structures which can be reasonably shown to not result in damage to trees, shrubs, or fish habitat. (The City may specify a qualified professional review of such proposed works) (6) Regular and emergency City maintenance and upgrade activities for drainage control and diking (environmental best management practices will be followed) (7) Subdivision and development operations (which include but are not limited to demolition/clearing, fill placement, crossing replacement upgrade and building) on City owned lands which are within 30 m (98.4 ft.) landward of the high water mark and within 5 m (16.4 ft.) and 15 m (49.2 ft.) of the Riparian Management Area (e.g., West Dike). Such operations will be subject to the Riparian Management Area (RMA) protection requirements (see Bulletin Infor-23) (8) Activities (e.g., construction of fences) on privately owned lands along the West Kike which are within 30 m (98.4 ft.) landward of the high water mark and within 5 m (16.4 ft.) and 15 m
September 17, 2012-11 - (49.2 ft.) of the Riparian Management Area. Such operations will be subjection to the Riparian Management Area (RMA protection requirements (see Bulletin Info-23) (9) Construction and maintenance activities carried out by, or on behalf of the City, and designed to enhance and protect natural habitat and public trails (10) Where an ESA covenant satisfactory to and in favour of the City has already been registered for the protection of an ESA (11) Streamside enhancement and fish and wildlife habitat restoration works (e.g., planting riparian species, removing invasive species) that have obtained the required senior government approvals (12) The removal of trees deemed hazardous by a qualified arborist that threaten the immediate safety of life and buildings (13) City parks which are below the high water mark and extend seaward 30 m. Other Federal and Provincial Agriculturally Related Policies Agricultural activities in Riparian Management Areas are subject to the Fisheries Act Non-agricultural buildings and infrastructure on ALR lands are subject to the conditions of the Provincial Riparian Area Regulations. Proposed Strategy OCP ESA Development Permit Areas and Guidelines The proposed Strategy ESA DP Map (Strategy Map 3) proposes that the following types of ecological areas will be subject to OCP ESA DP guidelines, namely: Intertidal: - Coastal areas within 30 m (seaward) of the high water mark Shoreline: - Coastal areas within 30 m (landward) of the high water mark with environmental values related to their association to the Fraser River and Strait of Georgia Upland Forest: - Treed areas (woody vegetation > 5m tall) not including forested wetlands (swamps and bog forests) or forested riparian zones adjacent to streams, rivers and other watercourses Old Fields and Shrublands: - Old field and shrublands are temporarily (> 2 years) or permanently abandoned agriculture or cleared lands that support mixed grass, flora, and shrub vegetation Freshwater Wetland: - Areas with vegetation and soils influenced by the presence of freshwater in the rooting zone for plants (includes open, forested and shrub bogs, swamps, marshes, wet meadows, seasonally flooded fields, and shallow ponds and ditches). Managing ESAs on Agricultural Lands Richmond s privately owned agricultural lands play a critical role in maintaining ecological values and functions. Not only are they essential for food production and provide most of the City s green space, but almost 52% (813 ha / 2009 ac) of ESAs identified in the proposed Strategy are found within the Agricultural Lands Reserve. These areas include uncultivated wetlands and bog forest, remnant forest patches, and old fields. While some of these ecosystems are remnant natural areas (e.g., Ecological Network Hubs), most (e.g., Ecological Network Sites) are the result of previous or current agricultural practices associated more intensively cultivated areas.
September 17, 2012-12 - Examples of farming operations that protect and respect ecological areas and their beneficial ecosystem services include: the non-cultivation of headland and fence lines to protect habitat, apiculture (bee hives for honey and pollination purposes), the preservation of riparian setbacks on agricultural watercourses and the implementation of ecological conservation practices. Farmers often understand the ecological benefits of sound farming practices, as they too benefit from clean water, unpolluted soils and clean air. The current City policy on ESAs does not limit agricultural cultivation and farmers can clear ESA areas for farm cultivation purposes, as they need to cultivate their lands, have many obstacles to achieving economical viability, and may have few options to forgo farming on ESA lands. The Strategy proposes that: Farm cultivation and accessory farm buildings are exempt from ESA DP requirements (not the farm house) The BC Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA: also called the Right to Farm Act) provides farmers with the right to farm provided that they use normal farm practices and adhere to applicable land use regulations as defined in the FPPA. Longer Term Ecological Network Management Initiatives The Strategy proposes long term actions which may be explored and if practical implemented, improve Ecological Network management, including: Incorporate more ecosystem services into the City ESA Development Permit review process and other City processes (e.g., City Parks planning, Tree Bylaw implementation) Strategically restore environmental values in key urban parks Assist farmers in protecting ecological network values on agricultural lands Improve the ecological function of key locations in the Ecological Network by adding to and strengthening the Ecological Network Prepare better performance-based standards for managing the environmental impacts of development Promote the Ecological Network and its health Enhance habitat compensation funds Consider improved ecological fundraising approaches. Analysis Comparing The 1999 OCP ESA DP Areas & Proposed 2012 Strategy ESA DP and Ecological Network Areas The Ecological Network better enables the City to manage ecological assets and ESAs by basing it on improved scientific information and applying multi-jurisdictional approach while minimizing regulatory duplication. Tables 2 and 3 below compare the 1999 OCP ESA DP areas with the proposed 2012 ESA DP areas.
September 17, 2012-13 - Table 2 OCP DP ESA Area Changes Between 1999 and 2012 1999 OCP DP ESA 2,908 ha (7,186 ac) Proposed 2012 OCP DP ESAs 1. No longer requires ESA DP Managed by another jurisdiction (e.g., Provincial Wild Life Management Areas, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Metro Vancouver Parks). 2. Remains as ESA DP in 2012 OCP DP ESA 3. ESA values: no longer present due to: farm cultivation not there Total 1,930 ha (4,770 ac) 66% 741 ha (1,832 ac) 25% 260 ha (642 ac) 2,903 ha (7,173 ac) 9% 100% Total 1,430 ha (3,535 ac) 1. NA, as managed By Other Ecological Network Jurisdictions 1,930 ha (4,770 ac) 2. From 1999 ESA DP Amt in ALR - 312 ha (770 ac) Amt Not in ALR - 437 ha (1,080 ac) 3. New ESAs (e.g., new ecological values & habitat found) 749 ha (1,850 ac) 681 ha (1,685 ac) 1,430 ha (3,535 ac) 52% 48% 100% Within the ALR Outside the ALR Total Table 3 OCP ESA DP Areas Within and Outside the ALR Changes between 1999 and 2012 1999 OCP DP ESA Proposed 2012 OCP DP ESA 831 ha (2,054 ac) 2,077 ha (5,132 ha) 2,903 ha) (7,173 ac) 30% Within the ALR 70% Outside the ALR 100% Total 694 ha (1,715 ac) Note: Frm 1999, 20 ha converted to farm cultivation 736 ha (1,820 ac) 1,430 ha (3,535 ha) 49% 51% 100% The good news is that of the 1999 OCP ESAs, 91% (6,602 ac) are still ecologically well managed through the Ecological Network, as follows: 66% have been transferred to other Ecological Network approaches - (4,770 ac) 25% have been retained as ESA DP areas - (1,832 ac) 91% are still protected (6,602 ac) So, together it is proposed to protect existing and new ESAs through various Ecological Network approaches (8,577ac). Note: 9% of the 1999 ESA have been either converted to farm cultivation or no longer had ecological value - (642 ac)
September 17, 2012-14 - The total amount of ESA DP area within the ALR in 1999 and 2012 has remained about the same; however there has been a significant turnover in actual ESA DP areas with the ALR, as: Out of the ESA DP approach: several large City Parks (e.g., Richmond Nature Park and the NE Bog Forest) are proposed to be transferred out of the requirement for an ESA DP, be managed as Parks and remain under the OCP Conservation Designation, New ESA Areas: new ESA areas have been identified in the ALR (e.g., east of the Massey Tunnel, east of Blundell Rd & No 6 Rd, along the North Arm east and west of No 8 Rd, east of No 9 Rd, west of Hamilton). Most of these newly added ESA DP Areas within the ALR are of two habitat types: young regenerating bog forest and old fields. Regarding the Proposed Ecological Network (Table 4) The Strategy proposes a total Ecological Network of 16,222 ha (40,085 ac). It is and will continue to be managed by many stakeholders. The list below illustrates the relative amount of Ecological Network which each jurisdiction regulates. Note that because some jurisdictions have responsibilities that overlap with other jurisdictions in the management of the Ecological Network (e.g., FREMP areas below the high water mark with Provincial WMAs), amounts and percentages covered by each management approach do not add up to 100% of the Ecological Network total. 1. FREMP Areas (fish habitat below high water mark) - 86% 2. Provincial Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) - 52% 3. YVR Sea Island Conservation Area (SICA) - 0.9% 4. City - OCP ESA DP Areas - 9.6% Includes overlap with some areas listed here: Shady (Steveston) Island 15 ha (36 ac) Selected RMAs (Bath Slough, Woodward Slough) - 52 ha (127 ac) City parkland below high water mark - 60 ha (148 ac) WMA, Regional Park, SICA, FREMP areas within 30 m seaward buffer from shore 327 ha (809 ac) Other OCP Conservation lands - 69 ha (171 ac) (e.g., non-wma areas on Sturgeon Banks) Solely and only as City ESA DP Areas - 0.67% 5. Metro Vancouver Regional Parks - 0.6%: 6. Nature Conservancy Of Canada (Swishwash Island) - 0.04% 7. City Riparian Management Area (RMAs) - 2.5% 8. City OCP Conservation Designation: City Parks 0.9%. In summary, the Strategy proposes to manage the Ecological Network with a range of approaches and the City s ESA DP policies and guidelines in a more effective, streamlined manner.
September 17, 2012-15 - Table 4 Proposed 2012 Ecological Network Areas (including ESA DP Areas and Lands Managed Through Other Management Approaches) Management Approach Amount in hectares (acres) 1 % of Ecological Network 1 % of City Area 2 1. Riparian Management Area (RMAs) 400 ha (990 ac) 2.5% 1.5% 2. OCP Conservation Designation: (1) Provincial Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs): Sturgeon Banks WMA 7,737 ha (19,119 ac) 8,440 ha (20,855 ac) 52% 32% South Arm Islands WMA 703 ha (1736 ac) (2) Metro Vancouver Regional Parks: Iona Beach RP 69 ha (171 ac) 93 ha (230 ac) 0.6% 0.4% Don & Lion Islands RP 24 ha (59 ac) (3) YVR Sea Island Conservation Area (SICA) 142 ha (352 ac) 0.9% 0.5% (4) Swishwash Island 6 ha (15 ac) 0.04% 0.02% (Nature Conservancy of Canada) (5) OCP Conservation City Parks: Richmond Nature Park 43 ha (106 ac) Richmond Nature Park East 43 ha (106 ac) Northeast Bog Forest 14 ha (34 ac) 151 ha (373 ac) 0.9% 0.6% Terra Nova Rural Park 27 ha (67 ac) Terra Nova Natural Park - 14 ha (34 ac) Garry Point Park 10 ha (26 ac) (5) Other OCP Conservation Areas: for example: Marshes around Swishwash Island - 55 ha (137 ac) 376 ha (930 ac) 2.3% 1.4% Hwy 99 between Richmond Nature Park 36 ha (88 ac) 3. FREMP Areas (fish habitat below high water mark) 13,924 ha (34,408 acres) 86% 52% 4. OCP ESA DP Areas Includes overlap with some areas listed above: Shady (Steveston) Island East 15 ha (36 ac) Selected RMAs (Bath Slough, Woodward Slough) - 52 ha (127 ac) City parkland below high water mark 60 ha (148 ac) 1,430 ha (3,535 acres) 8.9% 5.3% WMA, Regional Park, SICA, FREMP areas within 30 m seaward buffer from shore 327 ha (809 ac) Other OCP Conservation lands 69 ha (171 ac) (e.g., non-wma areas on Sturgeon Banks) Solely City ESA DP Areas = 1,091 ha (2,697 ac) Total Area of Ecological Network 3 16,100 ha (39,783 ac). - 61% 1 Due to the overlap of some management approaches (e.g., Provincial WMAs overlap with FREMP jurisdiction over fish habitat below the high water mark; higher value sloughs with RMAs have also been designated as ESA DP Areas), amounts and percentages covered by each management approach do not add to 100% of the ecological network total. 2 Total City area includes both land and water portions. 3 The total area of the ecological network includes all lands within the City of Richmond under at least one management approach. Areas under multiple management approaches are not double-counted. Parks EN and ESA Enhancement Policies In addition to the City Parks Division s current Terra Nova, Richmond Nature Park and North East Bog ecological efforts, as part of the Parks and Open Space Strategy, they will establish policies to better protect, restore, enhance and expand ecological assets in key strategically identified parks.
September 17, 2012-16 - The Benefits Of The New Ecological Network (including ESAs) Management Approach The benefits of the new EN and ESA management approaches include: Better shifts current ESA management to the more effective Ecological Network approach Fosters better management among Ecological Network components (e.g., better connects large tracts of habitat and long continuous corridors, avoids fragmenting natural areas, creates more EN benefits than the current ESA approach) Provides more EN management certainty and direction for what to protect Better clarifies the priorities for EN (e.g., from High to Low priority: Intertidal, Shoreline, Freshwater Wetland, Upland Forest, Old Fields, Shrublands) Reduces jurisdictional duplication Builds awareness to protect City EN and ESA ecological areas and services Establishes more comprehensive ESA Development Permit guidelines and requirements Provides better GIS EN and ESA maps Supports agriculture by exempting farm cultivation from requiring an ESA DP. How The ESA Management Strategy Is To Be Implemented It is proposed that the ESA Management Strategy is to be implemented over time, as follows: Once approved, the City will so advise all stakeholders and request their co-operation in implementing the Strategy Affected City divisions implement their respective parts, for example: Re: the Ecological Network: Parks: over time will strategically achieve provide in certain parks, ecological areas and services, as practical (TBD) Environmental Sustainability: will implement the City s Riparian Areas Management Approach and, over time, study how to enhance Ecological Network corridors. Re: ESAs: Policy Planning: will ensure that the ESA policies, guidelines and map are followed Development Applications: will work with developers to implement the ESA guidelines flexibly, as intended With ESAs, developers will be required to undertake site specific ESA studies to determine how to best manage the ESAs. After Approval, Making the ESA Management Strategy Accessible Once the ESA Management Strategy is approved City staff will ensure that it is made accessible in a user-friendly manner to the public, developers and NGOs, by putting it on the City s Web site and Geographic Information System (GIS).