Nature London's Questions

Q1. In terms of your enjoyment of nature in London, what do you see as the difference between a park and an environmentally significant area?”

A- A park is a green space that is set up for people to play or gather in (playgrounds, soccer fields, baseball diamonds,  splash pads, etc.). 

An ESA is an area that is determined to have environmental significance (plants, animals, waterways) and needs to be protected from development and human impacts. These include woodlands, fields, ponds, rivers and other bodies of water. These areas may have paths for hiking, or may not. 

2. For new developments adjacent to the city's Natural Heritage System, an Environmental Management Plan is a requirement for the developer. Has this proven to be a useful process? What improvements would you recommend?

A- The Guidelines are new so it's hard to say, but they do provide some clear outlines of what is permitted/mandated to be kept, and what can be touched or destroyed for development. 
I would like to see the following improvements, larger areas protected. The plan focuses heavily on the waterways, this isolates protections to a few areas, where there should be more natural areas throughout the city.  Better connections between existing woodlots maintained where possible through naturalization. The guideline focuses on wetlands, woods, valleyfield, and endangered animals and has a 30m buffer set. The buffer should be 100m or greater, and if there are destroyed areas within that distance, we should aim to fix and rehabilitate/naturalize the environment. I didn't notice any  punitive measures, there are prohibitions, mandatory studies, and denial of development approvals, but those can be challenged at the OMB, and it only relies on fines from the province or Federal Government, who are not overseeing this project. 

Q3. Have the Environmental Management Guidelines served their

purpose? What improvements would you recommend?

A- The Guidelines serve the purpose of setting clear parameters for developers and protecting our environment. However, from my cursory glance, I feel they fall short as their consultant screening tools miss categories,  important habitats including prairies, and woodlands with temporary water (ephemeral or vernal ponds) are not on the screening tool. 

For improvements, I would like to see stronger regulations than what are currently there to include larger buffers from the water or forest, 100m minimum (currently set at 30m).  I would also make these assessments repeated multiple times a year as many plant species  and migratory species are not present year round and can appear off schedule depending on an early or late spring. The way we develop cuts the connections between natural areas for wildlife, we should place more emphasis on creating connections between natural areas. As well, the screening tool is focused on endangered wildlife, and doesn't take into account other wildlife like, skunks, racoons, deer, bears, and birds.