Presentation to the Planning and Environment Committee
December 14, 2004
Agenda item 26:

Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan

ACS2004-DEV-POL-0063
Iola Price, Chair

The Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee supports the intent of the Air Quality and Climate Change Plan - these are two very serious issues, the climate change issue possibly being the most serious ecological threat to the world today. There are many good ideas in Document 1 and I will refer to them later.

However, we have a number of concerns about the content of both the Staff Report (page 330 - 349) and the longer 107 page Plan. We are therefore taking the unusual step of asking you to

Defer acceptance of the staff report and plan and to further request that staff consult with us on the content of both documents.

We are concerned that the Staff Report (which was the only document available on the City's website as part of the PEC agenda) does not mention the positive role that trees can have in reducing air pollution and energy consumption and their longer term benefits as agents to sequester carbon and ameliorate the impacts of climate change. We believe that the Staff Report should be revised to promote the increased planting of trees, not only to meet Official Plan target of 30% canopy cover but as a means of achieving our Kyoto targets.

The report does note (as part of the discussion on the public consultation) that someone did suggest increasing tree and shrub planting by 50% in order to combat climate change and heat island effect.

OFGAC recommends that this suggestion be moved to the front of the Report (pages 330 and 331 in the PEC Agenda) and be fully accepted and implemented by the City (the staff response that the Plan promotes greening to combat the heat island effect could be strengthened).

Trees as Producers of Pollen

One of our concerns in the 107-page Plan is the suggestion (page 62) that sterile trees might be planted as a means of reducing pollen in the air and in office buildings. Elsewhere, the Plan describes the role that Ottawa Valley topography plays in air circulation in Ottawa. On occasions, the air mass circulates internally within the City, moving particulate matter around in the air above us. Is it useful to restrict the kind of trees grown in front of office buildings when air from other parts of the City will move in? If pollen creeps into office buildings and causes a 2% reduction in worker efficiency as stated in the Plan, other particulate matter is also getting in and may also be causing problems. Rather than having city staff suggesting that office building owners plant sterile trees, it might be better to promote the use of better air filters for HVAC systems to remove more particulate matter from office buildings. Better cleaning of fabric office dividers might also help solve the problem. And, as we often tell you, tree leaves trap and remove particulate matter from the air, so planting more of them would help.

We are unable, in the short period of time we have had to review the Plan, to determine if sterile trees are even available.

OFGAC recommends that such a suggestion be rejected.

OFGAC commented on an earlier suggestion that only female trees (which don't produce pollen) be planted in Ottawa. In a sense, such trees might be considered "sterile". But most trees have flowers of both sexes on the same tree. To plant only female trees would mean that the City would not longer plant many of our native deciduous trees such as American beech, all of the birches and alders, the oaks, some ashes and all of the maples (except Manitoba Maple [alone in the maple group as producing allergenic pollen]). As pines produce pollen, they too would be "out" as would the other conifers such as spruce and tamarack. To be effective, would you not have to apply the same stricture to the thousands of trees planted by private citizens?

Acceptance of that recommendation from the background Plan would mean a drastic cut to our ability to maintain native tree biodiversity. What would such a move mean to the as-yet-unwritten Biodiversity Strategy?

OFGAC recommends that you direct this question to staff and ask for a response.

At several points in the background Plan, mention is made of trees as sources of pollen and therefore as causes of allergenicity. However, the tree pollen production season is short-lived -- 1-2 weeks. But there are many sources of pollen and allergens in the air - ragweed is one such culprit and cutbacks to roadside mowing have meant that this species now flowers in abundance.

Water Conservation

The Plan mentions the potential to save water via an "Outdoor Water Use Strategy" that aims to reduce lawn watering. However, there is a need to inform City residents that while it is a good idea not to water the lawn during the critical water-shortage periods in the summer, it is still necessary to water trees. An adequate supply of water can lengthen a tree's lifespan and maintain a mature trees' ability to provide shade in the summer. A properly-situated shade tree can reduce the cooling requirement, thereby reducing energy consumption. No mention is made of the potential for a graded water-use rate - to increase the rate charged for water as consumption increases (i.e. residents who use a lot of water pay higher rates).

OFGAC recomends that any water conservation document specifically note the need to maintain an adequate watering regime for both city and private trees.

What we like in the Plan

We acknowledge, the many good ideas in the Plan (mention is made of only a few)

• Encouraging green roofs
• Changing the way storm water management ponds are constructed by reducing the amount of hard surfaces and through greater use of bioengineering
• Sustainable land use planning and community greening by compact development and mixed zoning. We hope this means leaving greenspace intact and, instead of many small parks scattered throughout new developments, the promotion of the concept of larger leaving forested tracts or greenspaces intact and adding value to them by linking corridors
• Tree growing programs
• Developing the Greenspace Master Plan and the Forest Strategy. In the case of the Greenspace Master Plan, we think that the staff should be given as much time as is necessary to get it right. Don't rush and have something forgotten
• Passing the Good Forestry Practices in Sensitive Natural Areas bylaw
• Requiring all subdivision and site plans to be supported by tree retention and planting plans.

Transportation

We normally don't comment on issues relating to transportation, but new roads often cut into and destroy forests and greenspace. We note that the Plan documents that sector as the largest and year-round source of air emissions. We would therefore have expected to see a greater emphasis placed on ways the municipality, acting alone, could to reduce those emissions.

The problems of urban sprawl have been well documented in regard to the loss of greenspace and forests. When added to the problems of poor air quality and climate change, we have a mix that requires Council to focus on deterring sprawl and improving rapid transit. We also draw your attention to Tables 2 and 3 in the Plan and what appears to us to be an inconsistency. Table 2, using data from 1995, indicates that the transportation sector is responsible for 2,366 tonnes of particulate matter. Table 3 (data collection year unspecified but presumed to be close to 2003) indicates that the transportation sector is now responsible for 270,966 tonnes of particulate matter. To go from just over 2,000 tonnes to almost 280 thousand tonnes in just 7 years should require some explanation but there is none. Is this an error in transcription?

Two Different Plans and Strategies Offer Divergent Views

There are contradictions between the various plans being developed by the City and its staff. The Capital Standards Review (page 48) quoting data from the Long Range Financial Plan shows ten year expenditures on roads of about $1.3 B with only $30M for pedestrians and cyclists. More roads means more cars, particulate matter, NOx, VOCs and other pollutants in the air. We would have expected some kind of comment on those kinds of data.

The same Capital Standards Review (page 55) notes "Opportunities exist to reduce tree planting in subdivisions using the contiguous green space shared by two houses to plant one rather than two trees. Tree spacing on arterials could be increased ...". While the sharing of a tree may relate to townhouses where there is not space for two trees, the words are quoted as written. We would expect the City to provide for the usual number of trees to be planted but be flexible in the locations where they go. That would then lead to the desired increase in the canopy cover for Ottawa.

Budgets 2004 and 2005

We want to remind you that the 2004 budget cut the funding for tree planting. The 2005 budget impact on the number of trees is unknown at this time but further cuts to the tree planting budget could happen.

In summary, although there is much to be commended in this Plan, we are asking you to defer its acceptance until we, and possibly other Advisory Committees have had an opportunity to examine it more closely and to consult with Staff on some of the wording.