This Position Paper has two major objectives: (1) to provide
input to the National Capital Commission’s (NCC) Greenbelt Master Plan Review
process from the 15 environmental and community organizations that comprise the
Greenbelt Coalition (see Appendix 1); and, (2) to inform the public on what we
see as the major current and future issues regarding the National Capital
Greenbelt. We seek to encourage public support for the preservation and enhancement
of the Greenbelt and for our vision for the Greenbelt.
To put things in perspective, this initial Position Paper of
the Greenbelt Coalition is a work-in-progress that was developed in relation to
the various phases of the NCC Master Plan Review Process. The next phase, and
perhaps the most critical part of this process relating to land uses within the
Greenbelt, will take place in the fall of 2010. This process will culminate in
the production by the NCC in 2011 of a new Master Plan for the Greenbelt
with a time horizon of 50 years. While the Coalition’s overall vision for the
Greenbelt, its objective, and its goals are unlikely to change significantly
during the course of this process, with new information there may very well
need to be additions or other changes to this document as the review process
unfolds.
Many years after it was first proposed, the National Capital
Greenbelt was created in 1958 by a decision of the federal government. The Greenbelt
comprises many assets in the National Capital Region, with a diversity of
significant natural forest, field and wetland ecosystems, and agricultural and
heritage land areas and landscapes. These assets will increasingly contribute
not only to the image and quality of life of Canada’s
capital region but also to the City of Ottawa’s
declared policy, “to create a green and environmentally sensitive city.” Under
successive federal governments, the Greenbelt
has so far remained almost entirely federally-owned. However, there is
presently no effective framework of legal protection, and some land that was
acquired as Greenbelt has been sold
primarily for infrastructure development (roads etc.) or, as in the case of
Nortel, leased for an R&D campus facility.
During 2008, proposals for assigning parts of the Greenbelt
to residential and other development were publicly advanced, first in an
apparently casual remark by the NCC Chairperson, and shortly afterwards, by the
City of Ottawa in a White Paper (WP) with the title, “Development in the
Greenbelt.” Although City staff claimed that this WP merely examined some
options, the presentation was biased, giving prominence to arguments for
development, while presenting only a token examination of reasons for not doing
this. Although the NCC is not bound by the City’s position, it does have a duty
to consult widely, including with the City. Consequently, and bearing in mind
the prior comment by the NCC Chairperson, this paper includes certain critiques
of the WP. Please refer to the Coalition’s Position Paper on the WP for more
information.
The National Capital Greenbelt was created on the basis of
recommendations in the Gréber Report,
commissioned by Prime Minister Mackenzie King in 1936. This report, long in the
making and interrupted by World War II, was completed and submitted to the
Mackenzie King government in November 1949. But it was not until June 18, 1958,
that Prime Minister John Diefenbaker rose in the House of Commons and announced
that his government would make funds available to the Federal District
Commission (the NCC’s predecessor) to purchase land in the National Capital
Region for the creation of a Greenbelt.
Thus began a painful expropriation of hundreds of local farms and other
properties which, although acquired at what were deemed to be fair market
prices, nevertheless ended the farming careers of many families and their
descendants. Federal court challenges were initiated by some of the farmers,
but all cases were lost because the Crown had – and continues to have – absolute
authority in the area of land expropriation. As a result, the Greenbelt
is almost entirely federally-owned, unlike some other designated Greenbelts
such as the Greater Toronto Area’s Greenbelt,
where the designation did not change the land ownership.
Until 1988, successive federal governments steadfastly
maintained the sanctity of the Greenbelt,
insofar as it was not treated as a land bank for local municipalities or
commercial interests. The National Capital Act placed restrictions on the NCC’s
ability to make land transactions, requiring Governor-in-Council approval for
disposals above $10,000, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act
and Regulations. Also, proceeds from any sale of lands were turned over to the
Receiver General of Canada.
In 1988 however, the National Capital Act was amended, allowing the NCC to keep
the proceeds of land sales. In addition, the NCC’s budget was cut, forcing the
NCC to sell some federal lands to help make up its budgetary shortfalls. (See
Appendix 2 for the current and proposed legal framework.)
Following construction of the Hunt Club Road Extension in Nepean,
the NCC developed plans for residential and commercial development on the
severed Greenbelt lands between the
new roadway and adjoining residential communities. These communities fought
back, with the result that the severed lands were sold to the City of Ottawa
as recreational lands, now referred to as Ben Franklin Park.
The NCC’s 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan defines three major
roles for the Greenbelt, each with
an accompanying set of land designations (p. 35). There is firstly a
“Continuous Natural Environment” role, with land designations of “Core Natural
Area,” “Natural Buffer” and “Natural Area Link.” The second Greenbelt
role is defined as “Vibrant Rural Community,” with “Cultivated Landscape” and
“Rural Landscape” as land designations. The third role is entitled “Compatible
Built Facilities,” with land designations of “Buildable Site Area” and
“Infrastructure Corridor.”
This division into three major roles needs to be re-examined
in light of the many environmental, economic and social changes that have
occurred since the 1996 Master Plan. In Section 3, we address this by examining
the aesthetic, public ownership, environmental, agricultural and lifestyle
benefits (values) that the Greenbelt
provides. In Section 4, we examine a number of actual or potential problems
(issues): built facilities, intensification, infrastructure, long-term issues,
legal protection, education and stewardship, and partnerships. These issues
could impair the identified values if they are neglected, or addressed
unwisely.
2
THE GREENBELT COALITION’S VISION AND GOALS
Before launching into a discussion of what we see as the
major Greenbelt values, and issues relating to the current
and future Greenbelt, it is
important to understand the context that underlies our thinking. The Greenbelt Coalition was formed
in the fall of 2008 to provide a strong community-based voice in relation to
the NCC’s review of the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan. The Coalition comprises
virtually all the major environmental organizations in the National Capital
Region and the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton (FCA).
One of the
Coalition’s first tasks was to develop a vision for the future of the Greenbelt over the next 50 years, the time
frame being used by the NCC in their review. The Coalition has proposed the following Greenbelt vision:
“We see the
National Capital Greenbelt as part of our national heritage
and an essential component of the national capital's “emerald necklace” that makes Canada’s
capital a truly unique green city to live in and visit. This “necklace” also
encompasses and links Gatineau Park,
the other National Interest
Land Mass (NILM) lands such as Leamy
Lake, the Poets’ Pathway, other NCC
greenspaces such as the parkways, as well as, the Central Experimental Farm. We
see the Greenbelt as a “natural
oasis” with expansive views of the Capital, significant natural forest, field,
and wetland ecosystems, and agricultural, and heritage landscapes – a model of biodiversity in an urban setting.
This “green structure” will enable a diversity of activities within a city
aiming to be part of a sustainable ecosystem.”
The Coalition’s
overall objective is to promote our vision and the preservation and enhancement
of the National Capital Greenbelt.
More specifically, the
Coalition has developed the following set of proposed goals for the Greenbelt:
•
legally protecting the Greenbelt and keeping it in
public ownership;
•
protecting the Greenbelt functions and boundaries as a
biodiversity reserve;
•
ensuring that the principles of maintaining the
Greenbelt’s ecological and territorial integrity and sustainable uses are
followed;
•
maintaining and restoring biodiversity connections
within the Greenbelt, as well as links to other natural areas in Ottawa,
Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec;
•
enhancing natural areas within the Greenbelt and
expanding the Greenbelt to complementary areas, such as the South March Highlands
and Leitrim Wetlands to complete the Emerald Necklace;
•
ensuring that planning within and around the Greenbelt
is consistent with the protection of the Greenbelt and its functions;
•
preserving and protecting the Greenbelt’s wild species;
•
maintaining wildlife corridors and restoring those that
are now fragmented;
•
providing a more informed understanding and respect for
wild species through policy, practice and education, in order to mitigate
human-wildlife conflicts;
•
supporting the preservation and enhancement of
agricultural lands;
•
creating and implementing a shared vision among the
stakeholders and the NCC for the integrated management of the natural
environment and agriculture lands;
•
ensuring that there are no new transportation corridors
through the Greenbelt;
•
ensuring that there are no new residential, commercial
or institutional buildings in the Greenbelt;
•
promoting public awareness of the value of the
Greenbelt and encouraging public participation in the NCC Greenbelt Master Plan Review.
Comments
on the NCC’s New Vision Statement and Associated Mission, Premises, Roles and
Goals
On June 29, 2010 the NCC’s Board of Directors approved in
principle the following long term (to 2060) Vision for the Greenbelt:
“The Greenbelt
of the future will forever sustain dynamic natural systems of living and
interconnected lands and waters that enrich life in Canada's
Capital Region and reflect Canadians' timeless appreciation of our natural
environment.”
This is clearly a very “green” vision for the Greenbelt,
which indicates that the NCC has been responsive to what the public has been
calling for during the Greenbelt
consultation process. Nevertheless, members of the Greenbelt Coalition would
have preferred to have the term “biodiversity” imbedded in the vision, a term
that is prominent in the NCC’s own 2009 Environmental Strategy which states
that the NCC will implement plans to preserve and protect biodiversity on its
lands. The term biodiversity was also referred to frequently at both the
Greenbelt Public Advisory Committee meeting in October 2009 and the National
Visioning Forum in November 2009. We
therefore urge the NCC to fully and explicitly integrate the biodiversity
concept (see Appendix 3 of this paper) into its mission, roles and goals for
the Greenbelt in the next step of its Master Plan planning process.
However, while there are many positive references to the
natural environment in the various roles proposed by the NCC for the Greenbelt,
there is also, in our view, a major dissonance, related to the “built
facilities and transportation infrastructure” roles. The fact that the terms
“environmentally sound”, “context-sensitive design” and “sustainable” are
positioned next to these roles is in no way reassuring and does not diminish
what we see as potential serious threats to the Greenbelt.
In this connection, the Coalition’s position, as stated in our goals is very
clear: we strongly oppose any new
residential, commercial or institutional buildings in the Greenbelt, as well as
any new transportation corridors that further fragment these lands. This
position not only represents the view of the Coalition member organizations,
but also reflects the strong opinions expressed at the National Visioning
Workshop in November 2009, as well, as by the general public in their feedback
to the NCC. As one federal cabinet minister so aptly expressed it, “Hands off
the Greenbelt”.
Additional comments on built facilities can be found in
Sections 4.1 to 4.3 of this paper.
3
GREENBELT
VALUES
In his 1958 speech to the House of Commons, Prime Minister
Diefenbaker stated: “I should like to emphasize that this is a long-term
project undertaken in the national interest, that is necessary and essential if
the capital of Canada is to be preserved and developed so that it will be a
capital city of which this generation and succeeding generations can and will
be proud.”
The Greenbelt, together with Gatineau
Park and other natural lands, and including the
three major rivers, comprise the National Capital Region’s “Emerald Necklace”, a showcase demonstrating to the world Canada’s
commitment to biodiversity conservation in and around its capital city. Many
cities now have a Greenbelt, but the National Capital
Greenbelt, lying between the central city and the satellite communities, and
having almost no residential areas within it, is one of the assets that makes Ottawa
special. Its green continuity brings prestige, proclaiming: “We are a nation
that values its ecological past, and we are actively planning for a sustainable
future.” If there is any lack of appreciation elsewhere in Canada
for these major assets of the nation’s capital, this is because, unlike in
other nations, little has been done to inform Canadians about this part of
their heritage. With modest effort, Canadians could be brought to regard their
own capital city with as much pride as Americans regard Washington, and the
citizens of other nations respectively regard Berlin, Brasilia, Canberra, Paris
or Stockholm.
Most residents of the national capital region know about
some elements of the Greenbelt, but
many are not aware of its full extent. This is understandable because there is
no signage along roads and there are no handy maps of the Greenbelt
as a whole. In short, both the local community and the rest of Canada
and the world could benefit from better promotion and education about the Greenbelt.
A major difference between our Greenbelt
and that of many other cities, such as the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), is that
most of the land is in public ownership, acquired by expropriation. The GTA’s
Southern Ontario Greenbelt legislation sets limits on development, but most of
the land remains in private ownership. Any proposal to change the uses of those
lands for public benefit would require landowner cooperation, or expropriation.
The NCC Greenbelt is virtually free from any such encumbrance. To disperse more
of this land back into private ownership would still further betray the
sacrifices that were forced upon so many farmers and other residents.
Environmental values
revolve around ecological continuity. Continuity provides migration
corridors, which allow native flora and fauna to flourish, or regenerate after
population decline, whether caused by natural effects such as seasonal changes
or by disease, or by human actions, or combinations of these.
The Greenbelt includes two nationally
important ecosystems: Mer Bleue (a Ramsar site) and the Medeola Woods, and
several other major natural areas, notably Stony
Swamp, Green’s Creek and Shirley’s
Bay. These areas of highest value are ecologically linked together by
undeveloped greenspace, including wetlands. Such lands are referred to by some,
who may have development designs on them, as 'scrub lands’, but they should not
be considered to have lower ecological value merely because they lack the
biological richness of the major identified lands. The ecological integrity
provided by a large unbroken area of undeveloped land is just as important as
the intrinsic value of the most important areas considered in isolation. In
sum, the phrase “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” best
characterizes the value of the entire Greenbelt.
A more detailed description of the Greenbelt’s
natural environment values is provided in Appendix 3. The ecological benefits
of the Greenbelt extend well beyond
its boundaries, particularly where wildlife corridors connect with other
regional natural areas. The benefits for pollination, for example, are further
discussed under agriculture in Section 3.4. Also discussed there are practical
measures that would allow the agricultural lands to contribute better to
environmental values, an opportunity which is at present not well reflected in
NCC tenant policies.
In terms of human health, the fact that the Greenbelt
spaces out the communities of amalgamated Ottawa
provides air quality benefits. Clean air is carried to the city by the
continental winds. During temperature inversions with no convection and little
wind, air quality deteriorates, but the Greenbelt provides
a reservoir of clean air, helping to preserve Ottawa’s
air quality during adverse conditions. This benefit is nowhere mentioned in the
discussion in the City’s WP, which states only that pollution is generated by
motor traffic in the Greenbelt’s
road corridors. The implication that Ottawa’s air quality
is actually degraded by having a Greenbelt
is not credible.
Recent NCC policy has been that natural lands disturbed by
previous farming, tree planting or other uses should be allowed to revert to
nature without intervention. However, much of this land is being adversely
affected by the spread of invasive alien plant species such as Pale Swallowwort
or Dog-strangling Vine (Cynanchum rossicum), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria
petiolata), and Buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.). The result has been major
displacement of native shrubs such as Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), Chokecherry (Prunus
Virginianus) and Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina). In the June 2009 document entitled
“NCC Environmental Strategy -
A framework for environmental leadership in Canada’s Capital,” the NCC
lists as an objective: “Amount
of NCC urban land infested by aggressive invasive plant species will be reduced
by 10% against a baseline by 2014.”
We agree that programs to control invasive species should be introduced. To be
practical and effective, such programs will need to elicit help from
volunteers, which has not been favoured in past NCC policy. However, there are
precedents for engaging volunteers to control invasive plants. For example, in
2008, volunteers assisted in an Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources program
for the control of Water Chestnut (Trapa natans) on the Ottawa River in Voyageur
Provincial Park.
Another parallel (involving cutting of trees greater in size than Buckthorn
trees) is the use of volunteers to maintain canoe portages in Algonquin
Provincial Park.
And, following the major ice storm in 1998, the NCC had help from volunteers in
clearing Gatineau Park
ski trails. Clearly, the legal and other issues involving volunteers in this
type of activity have been successfully addressed before. (The NCC also makes
ample use of volunteers in its non-environmental programming activities.)
The National Capital Greenbelt runs as a 'ribbon' through
the entire city. There is likely no other large city in the world that has such
a diversity of wildlife within its borders. Wildlife can serve as an important
'entry' point for people to learn about the importance of protecting
biodiversity. It represents a very tangible cultural and spiritual element for
many.
The importance of wildlife to the public is reflected by the
City of Ottawa's recent commitment
to develop a comprehensive Wildlife Strategy in collaboration with the NCC,
other government agencies and community organizations, including representation
from the Greenbelt Coalition. The strategy will be centred on
wildlife-sensitive planning with a focus on public education and awareness
programs. Other cities across Canada and the United States have adopted “Living
with Wildlife” programs which can provide valuable models for Ottawa.
There has been a tendency to attempt to manage wildlife on
the basis of individual species as opposed to considering broader
ecosystem principles. Not only is this passé from an environmental
perspective, but there is a growing body of research that demonstrates that a
variety of species within forest, field and wetland ecosystems make
important contributions to these habitats and need to be considered.
Protecting, restoring and expanding the Greenbelt
would support Canada’s ratification of
the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 1995 Canadian
Biodiversity Strategy, and the City of Ottawa’s
ecological sustainability goals. In addition, the Greenbelt
could be the beginning of a network of trans-boundary ecological preserves and
biosphere reserves to demonstrate Canada’s
commitment to the CBD, and also to support Countdown 2010, an international
initiative to halt biodiversity loss. What better place for such an initiative
than the nation’s capital? Indeed, one of the Coalition’s members, the Ottawa
Valley chapter of CPAWS, some years
ago initiated the Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Program which aims to
maintain and restore ecological linkages between Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario and Adirondack State
Park in New York State. The
Greenbelt and rural lands in the Ottawa area form a critical part of this
vision as they provide vital linkages to large wilderness areas north of Ottawa
and beyond.
The
preservation of the South March Highlands and Leitrim Wetlands and the
incorporation of their unique qualities into the Greenbelt fit very well with this expansive
view of the Greenbelt. This and other opportunities will be detailed
in Appendix 5 of this paper.
Present agricultural practices in the Greenbelt
are, generally speaking, commercially successful and appropriate by existing
standards, providing food, employment and income. However, for some time there
have been trends towards reforming agricultural practices throughout Ontario,
and in fact, world-wide. Reforms are happening as a result of various pressures
and stresses, including ecological factors such as soil degradation,
pollination issues, climate change and extreme weather events, energy and water
shortages, and other threats. A revitalized Greenbelt Master Plan can position
farming as a positive influence in this process. Comments from farm tenants
include suggestions supporting our own views on creating a better future for Greenbelt
agriculture. Obviously, farming tenants need market conditions that allow them
to stay in business. Longer leases would help, but these should be coupled with
requirements for some changes, as we indicate below.
Much of the world’s farmland has been described as an
“ecological desert” as a consequence of monoculture crop production based on
heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides. While this trend expanded world-wide
over the last several decades, and was praised as the “green revolution” that
would (but did not) end world hunger, its damaging ecological effects and
long-term negative economic impacts were slow to be acknowledged. In the short
and medium term, farmers made a better living, even while food prices came down
in real terms. However, negative effects such as declining populations of wild
bees and other insect pollinators are a warning to the farming community that
all is not well in agriculture. So far as we know, populations of wild bees and
other pollinators appear to remain healthy in natural land areas of the Greenbelt
and continue to pollinate adjacent food crops that need them. In contrast, over
much of North America, farm crops are beginning to
suffer from catastrophic declines in domestic (mechanically transported) bee
populations on which they have become reliant. Maintaining healthy pollinator
populations through habitat protection and minimal use of pesticides is one way
that the NCC can set a good example in the Greenbelt
and point a way towards a sustainable future.
Maintaining habitat for ground-nesting birds, including
those protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, is becoming a more
urgent issue as grassland in the Greenbelt
reverts to natural forest. Prior to human settlement, the grassland birds
utilized habitat such as burnt forest land, wet meadows and long-grass prairie.
As the extensive forested areas and other habitats were replaced by
agriculture, the grassland birds adapted and continued to flourish, nesting in
pasture lands and hayfields. This was possible in hayfields because hay cutting
was traditionally done just once a year, allowing birds to raise broods before
or after the cut. Present practice, however, is to make two or even three cuts
a year. Early cutting of hayfields, while providing higher nutritive value in
the hay, also destroys nests, eggs or young of many grassland bird species,
including Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, Grasshopper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow,
Northern Harrier, Horned Lark, Upland Sandpiper and Common Snipe. The results
are catastrophic because these birds are attracted to nest in hayfields, but
then fail to reproduce. Many of these migratory birds, and others, are in
serious decline for many reasons, but there is no doubt that the ground-nesting
birds are seriously impacted by present-day hay cutting practices.
Not cutting hayfields until ground-nesting species have
produced a first brood would be very helpful, but we realise that this would
have significant implications for farmers. Indeed there may be no way to fully
protect these bird species without impacting agricultural practices. However,
declines in migratory bird populations have become so serious that strong
efforts must be made. This should be viewed as another opportunity to reform
farm practices to permit coexistence with nature, using expert advice from both
wildlife specialists and farmers.
The underlying principle for the Greenbelt
must be that leaving the protection of ground-nesting birds at the individual
discretion of tenants is insufficient for their protection. Ultimately, the NCC
as a federal agency is responsible for the protection of migratory birds on
federal land. Some ideas to protect ground-nesting birds in Greenbelt
farming are listed in Appendix 4 of this paper.
We understand that NCC farming tenants are being encouraged
to manage land sustainably, but more can be done, including dissemination of
best practices. As many farm tenants have suggested, the NCC should encourage
increased food production for local markets, requiring less transportation
energy, and as a result, creating less pollution. Greenbelt
agriculture could set examples that farm operations elsewhere can adopt.
We note that many Greenbelt farm tenants expressed
appreciation for their relatively privileged situation, by which some family
members work in the city, while other family members work the land. In these
tenants’ own words, “farming near a large population centre has its benefits.”
The Greenbelt’s
agricultural land can be far more than just a place for food production as
such. For a society that has come to think of food as growing on supermarket
shelves, Greenbelt agriculture
could be made more relevant by promoting agri-tourism, including school and
educational tours. Again, these are suggestions made by farm tenants, with
which we agree. The relative lack of such opportunities at present is in
contrast to the vision conveyed in the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan. It is stated
there that it might take until the year 2020 to accomplish this vision, but
presumably this was not intended to mean doing nothing until that arbitrary
target date becomes imminent.
We comment here on equestrian operations, since the NCC
public consultation process groups these together with agriculture, even though
the end purpose is recreation. We have no objection to suggestions made by tenants
for extending equestrian trails between Marlborough
Forest, the Greenbelt, and Larose
Forest, for a total length of 76 km or more. Also suggested was the
construction of an all-season (covered) equestrian arena. Tenants anticipated
that a Greenbelt arena would be
costly owing to the NCC’s requirement to conform to heritage styling. However,
an arena could be located outside the Greenbelt.
This would still allow a heritage structure to be an option, but would more
easily allow private investment, without ruling out public funding support. It
would also avoid creating additional infrastructure (access road, services and
parking) within the Greenbelt.
There are opportunities for introducing allotment and
community gardens. While allotment gardens faded away after a brief
reappearance in the 1970s, new economic and environmental realities could bring
them back. Participation in National
Capital Region allotment and community gardens has been steadily increasing for
the past five years. This trend has been noticed by Ottawa City Council, which in April 2009 made the
policy decision "that community gardening is a valuable community
activity that can contribute to community development, civic participation,
neighbourhood revitalization, environmental awareness and a healthier lifestyle." It is clear that allotment and community
gardening not only address agricultural values but also touch on aesthetics,
biodiversity, recreation and sustainable lifestyles. This is an opportunity to
be explored further.
Some farm tenants propose alternative energy production
(wind, solar, ethanol) in the Greenbelt
for economic benefit. Other tenants evidently oppose this, declaring that
agricultural lands should not be perceived as a better location for alternative
energy than conservation lands. We note that, while there is a need for
alternative energy, at the same time all forms of energy production, including
the relatively green kinds, can have negative environmental effects. In the
case of wind energy, effects of large turbines on wildlife are still in the
early stages of being assessed. For example, bats (which are valuable
insectivores, but are in decline) have suffered increased mortality rates near
wind turbines, thought to be due to violent air pressure changes near the rotor
tips. Resolving these conflicts is proving to be difficult, but they must be
addressed.
Agriculture is further addressed in Section 3.5 and in a
more detailed analysis in Appendix 4.
At present, a substantial proportion of Ottawa
residents outside their work hours (evenings and weekends), travel moderate and
long distances to lakes and other compelling destinations for recreational
purposes. With increasing energy concerns, and decreased opportunity if Ottawa’s
population continues to grow, Canadian traditions such as “getting away to the
cottage” will be less affordable, and out of reach for many residents who
presently still have such options.
So, how much should the future Greenbelt
contribute to quality of life, including health benefits, and recreation?
Currently, the Greenbelt's major
contribution to recreational opportunities consists of gravel pathways through
non-agricultural lands. These are justifiably intended for non-motorized travel
only. Should additional trails be created? Clearly, there needs to be a balance
between recreational demands and the protection of biodiversity, especially
wildlife habitat. Some sensitive natural open areas should be accessible for
educational purposes only, under responsible supervision.
One area that deserves attention is the interface between
agricultural production and recreational activities. Negative comments
expressed by some agricultural tenants recently also need to be addressed. Examples
include, “urbanites don’t understand the value of agricultural land,” “the NCC
spends too much money building trails instead of maintaining farm assets,” and
“some cross-country skiers, hikers and 4-wheelers routinely trespass.” In this
regard, it is worth noting that neither the NCC, nor the tenants, presently
offers satisfactory ways for members of the public to discover how farming is
done. It is in fact difficult for a member of the public to see what a farm
looks like, except for the little that can be seen from fields bordering highways.
The NCC’s “Log Farm” is focussed on displaying traditional farming rather than
modern farming. Both old and new aspects of farming should be better known by
the general public.
The present separation between agriculture and the public is
largely unnecessary -- farm tenants themselves have said that there are
opportunities for agro-tourism and youth education, and generally a need to
help urban dwellers understand agriculture better. In addition, there are clear
precedents for having trails alongside private farmlands with few conflicts.
For example, the Waskahegan Trail (commenced in 1967 and managed by a volunteer
board) extends for 309Km through and around Edmonton,
Alberta, through a mix of public and
private land, including much farmland. Landowners are paid nothing. They permit
access on the understanding that permission can be withdrawn at any time for
any reason. On a similar basis, the Rideau Trail from Kingston
to Ottawa was initially built in 1971, and, in the
Association’s own words, “crosses terrain ranging from placid farmland to the
rugged Canadian Shield. It is only intended for walking (hiking), snowshoeing,
and cross-country skiing. …the continuity of the trail is made possible by the
generous permission of both private and public landowners and is enhanced by
the existence of a special fund called the Rideau Trail Preservation Fund.”
Both trail systems are maintained entirely by unpaid volunteers, except for
some sections of trail that traverse public land such as parks. (The Rideau
Trail traverses the Greenbelt in the Stony
Swamp conservation area, but
traverses through farmland further south.)
A much earlier example of agriculture operating alongside
public use and recreation is the traditional Public Footpath (Rights of Way)
network of Great Britain.
Appearing in largely unplanned fashion over the centuries and surviving under
English Common Law, this network initially provided travel routes more than
recreation. The English laws were amended by more formal arrangements during
the 1960s; however, in Canada
the original English Common Law sections remain valid, but are mostly in
abeyance owing to provincial laws of trespass.
On all these trail systems, where farm property is
travelled, there is a clear understanding to ‘do no damage’ and to ‘close the
gate after you.’ This is apparently well honoured by hikers, otherwise the
private sections of Canadian trails would have disappeared long ago. It would
actually help in public understanding if recreational trails were extended into
closer proximity with agriculture where people would see modern farming at
work.
4
GREENBELT
ISSUES
The “Buildable Site Area” land designation is not acceptable
if the Greenbelt is to meet
increasing needs for open space continuity. Not only is this the position of
the Coalition but it also reflects the input provided by the NCC’s Public
Advisory Committee, the conclusions of the National Visioning Forum, as well as
comments from the public regarding the Built Environment land designation. For
example, the results of the public consultations clearly indicate there is overwhelming opposition to a number of
statements from the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan regarding built facilities
including, “Built facilities should be expanded where possible because the
Greenbelt provides a good location for additional public institutions.” (97%)
We find the objectives of this land use designation in the
1996 Greenbelt Master Plan to be vague, and presented as though their
justifications are obvious. The declared aim was to “... accommodate
organizations of capital importance with specialized land needs, such as
seclusion or large operational areas …” (p. 44). This evidently means
campus-type research facilities. The idea that “R&D” should be located in
seclusion had two components, both of which were current in 1959-61 when land
for the original R&D campus in Nepean
was leased and built on by Nortel.
The first component was that corporate prestige, as well as
a need to attract key research personnel, required campus-like surroundings
with trees and open greenspaces. That idea was inspired by, and attempted to
improve upon, corporate facilities such as AT&T’s Bell Labs at Murray Hill
in New Jersey. Similar R&D
campuses sprang up in California, and at Research
Triangle Park in North
Carolina. But R&D personnel while at work are
usually too busy to derive a lot of benefit from those green surroundings. The
second component was that research and high-tech industry requires “freedom
from dust, noise and vibration.” Yet the fledgling Nortel R&D department in
Montreal was located in part of a sheet metal factory, with an entrance door
across the railway shunting tracks, plagued with diesel smoke and huge
particulates! In reality, while dust, noise and vibration are not conducive to
almost any kind of work, most research and high-tech manufacturing today, even
when using delicate or precision apparatus, is conducted with the aid of
localized air cleaning, sound absorption and/or anti-vibration mountings as
required for the particular equipment and function. Without having to resort to
shunting yards, there are many cost-effective alternatives for locating
research facilities, whether private or government owned that do not entail
destroying greenspace.
During the early 1990s, while lavish spending was still an
option, Nortel greatly expanded its Carling Avenue
campus onto an additional 110 acres
of Greenbelt. Securing a 99-year
lease by a one-time payment to the NCC of $11M, or $100,000 per acre, Nortel
was able to assist NCC funding. The result was destruction of prime greenspace
for the sake of secluded buildings, long wasteful access roads and hidden
asphalted parking lots. Describing these as “Compatible Built Facilities” is
simply to hide greenspace destruction behind self-serving bafflegab. The
inefficiencies extended to public transit - buses follow winding routes that
are longer than they need to be, causing service to be slow, costly to local
government, and adding to pollution.
Recent calls in the City’s WP for assigning parts of the Greenbelt
to development apparently represent a change in thinking from “campus-style”
extravaganzas to relatively intensive provision of housing and employment. Our
objections to these more prosaic ideas are of a different nature, and will be
addressed in the next section.
Of course, the future status of existing built facilities
needs to be considered. The overall consideration for any facility should be
whether retaining it is in the public interest, taking into account its uses,
or potential uses, as well as financial and other factors.
Provincial policies require that cities prepare targets for
increasing their population density. This process is referred to as
intensification, and it is one that, in principle, the Greenbelt Coalition
supports. Intensification, done properly, should produce a city better able to
support public transit and urban amenities without encroaching on the natural
areas and other green spaces in the urban area.
However, it is sometimes argued that the existence of the Greenbelt
is contrary to a policy of intensification. For example, the City’s WP
(released toward the end of the public consultation period for the most recent
revision of the City of Ottawa's
Official Plan) argued this position. It suggested that “at least one quarter
(approximately 5,560 hectares)
might be eligible for development consideration”. These arguments are countered
in a separate paper available on our web site.
The most basic question is whether more land should be added
to the urban area, and thus become available for development. The revised
Official Plan for the City of Ottawa limits the growth of the urban area,
within which most development takes place (currently 35,265 ha), to just an additional 222 hectares. That is judged to
be sufficient additional development land until at least 2031. This limit on
the growth of the urban area is aimed at promoting intensification of the
existing urban area. Taking land from the Greenbelt
for development would be akin to increasing the size of the urban area, and
thus contrary to a policy of intensification.
Another argument made for developing part of the Greenbelt
is that the Greenbelt increases
transportation costs for commuters and businesses, and increases City
infrastructure costs for sewers, water mains and transit. We refute those
arguments in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 below. Another argument is that forcing
development to leapfrog the Greenbelt
increases urban sprawl. On the contrary, opening the Greenbelt
to development would have the perverse effect of reducing density in the urban
area, by permitting yet more low-density housing there.
Cities need a high population density to function well, but
they also need natural areas as a respite from buildings and roads. The
existence of the Greenbelt helps
achieve intensification because it provides a nearby place for citizens to
enjoy natural surroundings that are readily accessible.
The “Infrastructure Corridor” land designation in the 1996
Greenbelt Master Plan is defendable in that it seeks to “minimize
infrastructure intrusion in the Greenbelt by grouping major infrastructure in
shared corridors … and to improve public access to, and through, the Greenbelt”
(p. 44).
The City’s WP argues that extra cost, energy usage and
pollution are caused by infrastructure and transportation corridors having to
pass through the Greenbelt in the
process of connecting the inner city with the satellite communities. However,
while there are components of cost associated with this, the existing
infrastructure within these corridors consists of trunk facilities (highways,
pipes, wires, conduits). Even if these trunks have sufficient capacity to
support additional burdens of Greenbelt
development, this would still require major local construction (side roads,
branch pipes and lines). One tendency that connives to make Greenbelt
development look like an economic opportunity is the unwise preference that Ottawa
has shown for choosing centralized, “big pipe” infrastructure. For example, a
local sewage treatment system was an option for Munster
Township, but ignored by Ottawa’s
decision makers despite reliable economic data supporting the local option.
If, after taking all factors into account, there are indeed
somewhat higher net costs associated with having a Greenbelt (and that remains
unproven) there are many compensating advantages, such as we describe
elsewhere.
As usual, the future hides behind obscuring clouds, through
which we try to discern the shapes of things to come. Although the 1996
Greenbelt Master Plan was expected to take a long-term view, and the City’s WP
implies similar intentions, both of these exercises seem to assume that
economic and lifestyle factors will be much the same as when the documents were
written. In particular, they imply that most of the working population will
continue a pattern of living in satellite communities and commuting daily
towards the centre. However, pressured by future energy scarcity and high costs
(but assisted by modern electronic communications), more employment could over
time be decentralized. More people will then be able to live near their work or
in a satellite community if that is what they prefer.
Suggestions that the Greenbelt
causes diminished air quality were refuted in Section 3.3. This will be even
less of a concern if, in the future, more people are living closer to their
place of work, use more public transit, and travel through the Greenbelt
corridors with fewer, smaller, non-polluting private vehicles such as electric
or even hydrogen-powered cars.
While crystal-ball gazing of this type carries many
uncertainties, the least likely future is that the present pattern remains
unchanged. Planning for an unknown future is best approached by keeping one's
options open, which means retaining public ownership of all Greenbelt land, and
refraining from erecting built facilities upon it. Maintaining land in a
natural state is also the least expensive since Nature does the work for us.
There is plenty of land outside the Greenbelt for generating financial wealth,
while at the same time, the fundamental wealth represented by, for example, an
ability to grow food, can continue to exist within the Greenbelt.
Considering the centrality of the Greenbelt
in the Gréber Report, the fanfare with which it was introduced, the enormous
financial and social costs it took to create, its environmental, social, and
planning significance, its world-renowned reputation, and all the ongoing
accolades heaped upon it, it is astonishing that the Greenbelt
is not referred to in any federal statute. Only at the municipal level, in the
City of Ottawa's Official Plan, is there reference to the Greenbelt,
and then only for the planning of lands surrounding it. It is long overdue that
this extra-legal, de facto status be rectified by proper legislation. Greenbelt
land should have clearly-defined boundaries protected by federal statute,
preventing commercial and residential development and other incompatible
activities. A more detailed rationale and options for legal protection will be
given in a separate paper.
The future of greenbelts will depend on citizens recognizing
and appreciating their value. This is particularly true of children. In just
one generation, children have lost their connection to the natural world. Educators,
health officials and authors like Richard Louv whose book, “Last Child in the
Woods,” comments on ‘nature deficit disorder,’ are sounding the alarm about the
broad implications for our society. This concern has become an international
one.
Here in Canada,
the Royal Botanical Gardens hosted a major conference in 2008, “Back to Nature:
Towards an Ontario Strategy for Bringing Children and Nature Together.” The
Ontario Government, in announcing plans to introduce a comprehensive framework
for environmental education in schools, reported that “outdoor education is
seen as a distinct and critical component of environmental education in
fostering a connection to local places and in developing a greater
understanding of ecosystems.”
Adequate protection of the Greenbelt
must involve the concept of ecological stewardship, which promotes long-term
health and sustainability, and sets an example for other Canadian cities. Unfortunately,
it is not clear whether such a notion has been thoroughly embraced by the NCC,
despite the introduction of its 2009 Environmental Strategy. An example of the
lack of stewardship is the NCC’s apparent acquiescence to an application to
discharge water from a Lafarge quarry into Stony
Swamp, which may cause adverse
effects to this important ecosystem.
Recent events involving clear-cutting in Greenbelt
wetlands and forests, and the partial draining and removal of beavers in other
Transport Canada wetlands leased to the Ottawa Airport Authority raise serious
jurisdictional issues and questions about the NCC’s ability and willingness to
protect these lands. Furthermore, Ottawa City Council in June approved the
construction of a 220,000 sq.
ft. Exposition Hall with parking for 2,000 cars in an
area of the Greenbelt that is part of the Leitrim Wetland complex which houses
species at risk. To its credit, up to now, the NCC has been consistent in
rejecting proposals from the City of Ottawa that would
impact on the Greenbelt until the
completion of the Greenbelt Master Plan.
François Lapointe, Executive Director of Planning at the
NCC, wrapped up the November 25-26, 2009, Visioning Workshop by highlighting
“five main points,” among them: utilizing partners to get people into the Greenbelt
and encourage exposure to non-traditional users; encouraging citizen
participation and stewardship – extending reach; and building partnerships – with
city, volunteer community, and agriculture tenants.
If the National Capital Greenbelt is to flourish, it will
need to enlist a broad base of community partners, similar to the Friends of
the Greenbelt Foundation in Toronto,
and not just for the purpose of public consultations during Master Plan
reviews. Having local citizens and community groups as part of an on-going
mechanism to advise and assist with Greenbelt planning, policy and operations
will do a great deal to increase awareness among a wider constituency, build a
foundation of stronger community support, and provide a base of committed
volunteers for a variety of programming needs.
Another opportunity for partnership is to cooperatively
leverage land trusts, private parks funded by corporations, and City of Ottawa
green space reserves to implement Greenbelt expansion opportunities.
a. The
NCC Greenbelt is a prime asset of
the nation’s capital. A Tourism Marketing Plan should be developed to promote
this asset and to assure that the opportunity for economic benefit, prestige
and leadership values are duly maximized as befits the nation’s capital. Additional
resources should be assigned to informing Canadians and visitors to Ottawa
on the environmental and cultural reasons for preserving the Greenbelt
of which they are co-owners. Extensive signage should be installed and maps
produced with an emphasis on a variety of thematic tours within the Greenbelt.
b. One
of the greatest threats to the Greenbelt is poorly planned
growth by the City of Ottawa –
density is low and continues to decline. The NCC should be unequivocal in
asserting the policy that Greenbelt
lands are permanently off-limits for residential and commercial development.
a.
The Greenbelt should be defined in federal statutes,
with its boundaries clearly delineated, in approximation to the legal
provisions currently afforded Canada’s National Parks under the National Parks
Act.
b. The
NCC should be given the authority to ensure the protection of all federal lands
within the Greenbelt, including
those lands leased or under the jurisdiction of other federal departments and
agencies.
c. The
Compatible Built Facilities role and the Buildable Site Area land designations
should no longer exist in the revised Master Plan. This would exclude not only
commercial and residential development, but also government buildings, and
institutional uses such as hospitals and arenas. The fact of existing built
facilities should be recognized, allowing for preservation where this is in the
public interest.
a.
The Transport Canada lands, removed in 1996 from the
Greenbelt south of the Ottawa International Airport, which include about 30% of
the Provincially Significant Leitrim Wetlands, should be reintegrated into the
Greenbelt.
b. Additional
lands that could further contribute to the Greenbelt’s biodiversity and other
functions, and are contiguous, or could become contiguous with it, should be
purchased. Best-practice criteria for contiguity includes “alterations to
existing hydrological or hydrogeological regimes” such as, for example, the
South March Highlands, which are not only integral to the hydrology of Shirley’s
Bay in the Greenbelt, but also would enhance the distinctive setting of the
Greenbelt by providing additional wildlife and natural corridors, as well as
unique ecological, geological and cultural heritage features not otherwise
found in the Greenbelt.
c. Wildlife
corridors, riparian buffers and other natural links are vulnerable to environmental
stress and development pressures, and need to be protected and rehabilitated. These
corridors allow for the movement of species and provide for the exchange of
genetic material between populations. These corridors are often used by
wildlife to convey themselves from one significant ecological area to another. These
origins and destinations can be thought of as ecological reservoirs, important
natural areas that also need to be protected. An effective way to protect and
rehabilitate the linkages is to establish a system of corridors interconnecting
a network of ecological reservoirs. The existing Greenbelt
provides a natural basis for the design of such a network, as illustrated below,
and can play a critical role in preserving the ecological integrity of the Ottawa
area. This should be a priority for the NCC Greenbelt Vision.
The Emerald Necklace
The Emerald Necklace is a system of eleven eco-corridors
linking eight ecological reservoirs: South March Highlands, Shirley’s Bay, Gatineau
Park, Ottawa River
Islands, Leamy Lake
Park, Mer Bleue, Leitrim Area Wetlands, Stony
Swamp, and the Marlborough
Forest. The location of these
eco-corridors is based on existing wildlife corridors and Greenbelt
linkages. Embedded in the Emerald Necklace are two corridors that form a
Shepherd’s Hook which represents a national symbol of stewardship. The
Shepherd’s Hook connects Stony Swamp,
Shirley’s Bay, and the South March
Highlands.
The Emerald Necklace is described in more detail in Appendix
5.
a.
Biodiversity should be the key element in planning for
and managing the Greenbelt. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity requires
action well beyond the officially
identified ecologically valuable sites. A comprehensive understanding of all of the natural
components of the Greenbelt, and their interconnections and interdependencies,
needs to be developed. Species at Risk habitats within, and adjacent to,
Greenbelt lands must be protected. Common habitats, including scrubland and
unmowed meadows, must also be protected.
b. Undeveloped
land should remain undeveloped to provide ecological continuity over the whole
area of the Greenbelt and allow core areas to expand.
c. The
Greenbelt’s contribution to the region's ecological functions should be explicitly
recognized -- e.g. air quality, wildlife protection, water quality, flood
control, wetland and dryland habitat that enable biodiversity, groundwater
recharge, genetic barriers to invasive species, crop pollination and aesthetics
-- and reflected in policy, practice and educational activities.
d. Certain
areas should be restored to their native state. Programs for combating invasive
plant species such as Swallowwort, Garlic Mustard and Buckthorn should be
developed and implemented.
e. A
Native Plants Strategy should be developed and implemented to document existing
native plant species and preserve them and their habitat, and to monitor and prevent
invasive non-native plants, which are often harmful to existing ecosystems.
f.
The diverse wildlife species within the Greenbelt
should be recognized, valued and protected. This holds in particular for the
‘non-rare’ species, as they have shown resilience and adaptability. They are
part of the mosaic that accounts for the complexity and inter-connections
within the Greenbelt’s natural areas.
g. The
importance of wetlands and the role of beavers as a keystone species in
creating and maintaining these critical areas needs to be better understood and
promoted. Wetlands provide important ecological services for humans, as well as
support an extensive community of aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Likewise, the role of deer with
respect to forest ecosystems, and coyotes as a top predator need to be better
understood.
h. There
should be no new motor vehicular transportation corridors within the Greenbelt.
i.
Mineral and aggregate extraction should be prohibited
within the Greenbelt or adjacent to it.
a.
A comprehensive Wildlife Strategy for the Greenbelt
should be developed and implemented, in consultation with community stakeholder
organizations and relevant agencies. A Wildlife Strategy for the Greenbelt
should be centred on wildlife-sensitive planning. It should be based on an
ecosystem approach, taking into consideration the most current research on
protecting and enhancing biodiversity,
and focus on the prevention of human-wildlife conflicts, as well as public
education and awareness programs to mitigate such conflicts. It should be a key
element in developing and implementing a shared vision between the agriculture
and natural environment areas. Such a vision is required to make the Greenbelt
“a model of biodiversity in an urban setting.”
a.
The
ecological integrity and viability of the Greenbelt’s agricultural and rural
lands should be preserved, protected and enhanced. Farmers should be given
incentives to operate Greenbelt farms, and surrounding residential communities
should be educated about the benefits and requirements of farming.
b.
A
shared vision should be developed among stakeholders and the NCC for the
integrated management of the natural environment and agriculture lands.
c.
Agricultural
and rural areas currently not fully utilized should be rehabilitated (wherever
possible) to increase soil efficiency and productivity, and improvements should
be made to existing farmed land.
d.
Natural
features should be maintained or created, such as hedgerows between fields that
reduce soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat and corridor linkages.
e.
Wildlife-friendly
management practices should be introduced, e.g., hay cutting should be avoided,
if possible, at times or in such a manner as not to interfere with the nests,
eggs or unfledged young of ground-nesting bird species.
f.
There
should be on-going monitoring to protect species against toxic chemical
pollution (herbicides, pesticides). A gradual reduction in the use of chemical
agents (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) should be instituted through
regulatory and motivational measures, and buffer zones introduced between
chemically treated agricultural land and sensitive wildlife areas, especially
watercourses.
g.
Wetlands
and water bodies should be protected from farm effluents, nutrient run-off and
erosion and buffer zones should be created between active farms and sensitive
wetlands.
h.
New
forms of farming (horticulture, organic, vegetable, allotment gardens) should
be re-introduced to complement existing operations (guided by the benefits
of growing food close to home).
i.
The
economic viability of farm operations should be improved and enhanced. Farmers
need the assurance that they will be able to earn a reasonable return on their
labour and investment that encourages the current, as well as future
generations to continue farming.
j.
Agricultural
leases should be coupled with requirements for sustainability, including
protection of soil quality, natural features, and natural pollinators.
k.
Forestry
and tree growing operations should be encouraged.
l.
Proposals
for extending equestrian trails between Marlborough Forest, the Greenbelt, and
Larose Forest are acceptable, but any related infrastructure such as a covered
arena should be located outside the Greenbelt.
a.
The
NCC should establish a Public Participation Policy with respect to the
Greenbelt, making a commitment to citizens that administrative and policy
processes are open and accessible, respectful of the public’s right to be
involved, and responsive to the public’s need for information. It should also
provide the foundation for encouraging citizen participation and stewardship,
extending reach to non-traditional users and forging partnerships with a
variety of constituencies -- major points identified at the November 2009
National Visioning Workshop.
b.
In
protecting the future of the Greenbelt, the NCC should work with community
partners to foster stewardship, provide education to mitigate human-wildlife
interactions and promote living in harmony with nature. The NCC should make a
concerted effort to build a broad base of community partners and a permanent Greenbelt
Advisory Committee as part of ongoing advice and assistance with Greenbelt
planning, policy and operations.
c.
The
NCC should exert closer oversight of environmental evaluations and of
provincial applications such as for water-taking or discharging involving
Greenbelt lands.
Appendix 1 – Greenbelt Coalition Member Organizations
Alliance
to Save Our Greenbelt (ATSOG)
Canadian
Biodiversity Institute
Canadian
Parks and Wilderness Society
(CPAWS)
City of Ottawa
Biodiversity Task Force
City of Ottawa
Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC)
Coalition to
Protect the South March Highlands
Conseil régional de l’environnement
et du développement durable de l’Outaouais (CREDDO)
Ecology Ottawa
Federation of
Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton (FCA)
Greenspace
Alliance of Canada’s Capital
Ottawa-Carleton
Wildlife Centre (OCWC)
Ottawa
Field-Naturalists’ Club (OFNC)
Save Our
Greenspace
Sierra Club
Canada
Appendix 2 – The NCC's Legal Framework for the Purchase
and Disposal of Land
Current regime
The NCC’s authority to acquire real property or dispose of
surplus land is derived from the National
Capital Act (NCA) and the Financial
Administration Act (FAA) and its Regulations:
•
subsection
15(1) of the NCA requires Governor-in-Council approval for acquisitions above
$25,000;
•
subsection 15(2) of the NCA requires
Governor-in-Council approval for disposals above $10,000, in accordance with
subsection 99(2) of the FAA.
There appear to be no FAA provisions regarding the
acquisition of real property.
Under subsection 99(2) of the FAA, an agent Crown
corporation may dispose of property and use the proceeds but only in accordance
with regulations or the authority of the Governor in Council.
The Crown Corporation General Regulations were issued in
1995. We could not find regulations pertaining to the acquisition of real property. Sections 5 and 6 of these regulations
apply to the disposal of property
pursuant to subsection 99(2) of the FAA. They allow corporations like the NCC
to sell real property at fair market value as follows:
a. properties with a fair market
value of $200,000 or less; and
b. properties valued over $200,000
where the transaction is consistent with the most recently approved corporate
plan.
The NCC includes a list of potential property disposals
valued over $200,000 in its annual Corporate Plan that is submitted to the
Governor-in-Council for approval. The list is not included in the Summary of
the Plan which is made public.
Section 6 of the regulations allows the NCC to use the
proceeds from sale in a manner that is consistent with its approved corporate
plan.
Amendments
introduced in Bill C-20 (successor to Bill C-37)
According to the Legislative Summary, the two Bills are
“virtually identical” save for an additional clause coordinating the provisions
of Bill C‑20 with those of the government's proposed Jobs and Economic
Growth Act. Bill C‑20 would delete section 15 of the NCA and with it the
reference to subsection 99(2) of the FAA. NCC staff has not been forthcoming in
explaining what restrictions, if any, it would then face regarding the
acquisition or disposal of land.
Note that the NCA, in section 10 (2) (a) and (b), gives the
NCC general authority to “acquire” or “sell, grant, convey, lease or otherwise
dispose of or make available to any person any property,” subject to any
conditions it may impose. Bill C-20 (§8) adds the words “concede, transfer” and
“easement or real servitude” to the list of options, but does not diminish this
general authority.
Bill C‑37 received First Reading approval on June 9,
2009, and was referred to the Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Standing Committee. The Committee received submissions and heard delegations,
but had not reported out when the Bill was nullified with the prorogation of
Parliament in December 2009. Bill C‑20 received First Reading on April
30, 2010.
Appendix 3 – The Natural Environment – More
Detailed Analysis and Recommendations
|
|
“Ecology and
economy are both derived from the Greek word oikos - a house or
dwelling. Our survival depends upon the rational management of this home:
the space in which life can be sustained.” George Monbiot.
|
|
The Greenbelt is
undoubtedly one of the greatest assets of our nation's capital. While many
cities are investing in restoring lost natural areas to improve urban
sustainability and quality of life, we are very fortunate in already having a
well-established “green structure” in Ottawa.
Our Greenbelt has a diversity of significant natural area - field, wetland, forest
- and agricultural, and heritage landscapes that make a substantial
contribution to ecosystem sustainability goals within the National Capital
Region, and also support the City of Ottawa’s objectives to work “in harmony
with nature” and “to create a green and environmentally sensitive city”.
The Greenbelt provides: a wide range of passive and active
recreational opportunities; farmlands; several nationally important ecosystems,
such as Mer Bleue and the Medeola Woods; many community-valued natural areas
such as Stony Swamp, Green’s Creek and Shirleys Bay; a diversity of habitats,
including habitat for species at risk; a variety of ecosystems including
rivers, wetlands, various kinds and ages of woodlands, and old fields that are
home to meadow bird species. The Greenbelt
also performs many largely unseen ecological services such as nutrient
recycling, pollination and seed dispersal, climate control, air and water
purification, and soil formation. These are vital natural services, without
which life on Earth would soon collapse.
|
|
“Biodiversity means: the
diversity of all life on Earth including genetic diversity, species,
ecosystems, and the natural cycles and processes essential to life on Earth
such as oxygen production, soil formation, and air and water purification”. Ottawa Region Biodiversity Task Force
Report, 2007: City of Ottawa Biodiversity Strategy, 2007
|
|
The internationally recognized objectives of greenbelt
policy include closely tying greenbelt policy with ‘sustainable cities’
policies to improve air and water quality in urban areas, protect ecological
functions, habitats and wildlife corridors, and safeguard rural towns and
landscapes from urban sprawl by encouraging the regeneration of derelict and
under-utilized urban lands (intensification).
The Greenbelt
remains largely intact today thanks to the National Capital Commission (NCC).
The degradation of certain areas and the interruption of wildlife corridors has
been largely due to the negative impacts of roads and pressures from new
residential subdivisions.
In accordance with the IUCN and Canada’s
Biodiversity Strategy the NCC has the ability to protect and restore the Greenbelt
as a “biodiversity preserve” as part of the National Capital Region’s “Emerald
Necklace”, and to showcase to the world Canada’s
commitment to biodiversity conservation in its capital city.
Protecting, restoring and expanding Ottawa’s
Greenbelt supports Canada’s
ratification of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 1995
Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, and the City of Ottawa’s
biodiversity strategy and ecological sustainability goals. The Greenbelt
could be the beginning of a network of trans-boundary ecological preserves and
biosphere reserves to demonstrate Canada’s
commitment to the CBD, and also to support Countdown 2010, an international
initiative to halt biodiversity loss. What better place for such an initiative
than the nation’s capital?
The 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan states that it seeks to
safeguard the continuity and diversity of the Greenbelt’s natural environment,
and protect its natural areas by buffer zones, with natural links connecting
them to each other and to natural areas beyond the Greenbelt to allow the free
movement of animals and the continuity of plant life, and to enhance the
ecological health and resilience of individual areas and the region as a whole.
This remains key.
The Greenbelt includes two nationally important ecosystems:
Mer Bleue (a RAMSAR site) and the Medeola Woods (a rare example of an old
growth Red Maple, Beech, Hemlock forest), and several other major natural
areas, notably Stony Swamp, Green’s Creek, and Shirleys Bay. These areas of
highest ecological value are often ecologically linked together by undeveloped
greenspace, including wetlands. Such lands are referred to by some, who may
have development designs on them, as 'scrub lands’, but they should not be
considered to have lower ecological value merely because they lack the
biological richness of the major identified lands. In fact, these lands often
provide a diverse range of habitats that support a variety of ecosystems. The
ecological integrity provided by a large unbroken area of land is just as
important as the intrinsic value of the most recognized areas considered in
isolation. In sum, the phrase “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”
best characterizes the value of the entire Greenbelt.
Although Ottawa can be justifiably
proud of the diversity of the Greenbelt’s
rural landscapes, much needs to be done to protect, restore and expand its
natural areas and protect wildlife. The Greenbelt
deserves to be permanently protected, and it is in need of a legal designation
to prevent it from being viewed as a federal land reserve for urban development
or for government facilities. Stewardship and biodiversity concerns should be central.
They include the reversal of ecological degradation and destruction, and the
protection of ecological diversity and biological integrity that allows for the
evolution of natural processes. The Greenbelt
is the capital’s largest and most significant natural area. In managing it and
the diverse conservation and agricultural lands that it includes, the NCC must
ensure that these uses are made compatible. For example, it must ensure that
the goal, over time, is to manage farmlands in the Greenbelt organically, and
that buffer zones are established between natural areas and farmlands in, and
adjacent to, the Greenbelt to protect them from harmful agricultural chemicals,
just as buffers are required along rivers to protect aquatic life from harmful
contaminants in run-off from roads, golf courses, etc.
Adequate protection of the Greenbelt
must involve the concept of ecological stewardship, which promotes long term
health and sustainability. and sets an example for other Canadian cities.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether such a notion has been thoroughly embraced
by the NCC, or whether it lacks the mandate to act as an effective steward,
particularly for those lands that “belong” to other federal departments and
agencies. Also, at issue is whether the NCC is responsible for ensuring the
restoration of those Greenbelt
lands and wildlife that have already been adversely affected. What does seem
clear is that there appears to be a lack of active responses by the NCC to
reported environmental issues, nor does the NCC appear to be proactive in
preventing these problems.
The Coalition recommends that policies for
the Greenbelt include:
Stewardship and Protection
1.
Acknowledging that the NCC is the steward of the
Greenbelt, with a primary duty to protect and preserve its natural state, and
not a facilitator or enabler for land developments;
2.
Legally protecting the Greenbelt’s functions and
boundaries as a biodiversity reserve;
3.
Developing a comprehensive understanding of all of the
components of the Greenbelt, and their interconnections and interdependencies;
4.
Ensuring that the principles of maintaining ecological
and territorial integrity and sustainable use and Continuous Natural
Environment Greenbelt Master Plan goals are strictly followed to protect the
lands, features and ecological processes necessary to sustain a healthy and
diverse natural environment;
5.
Ensuring that planning within and around the Greenbelt
is consistent with the protection of the Greenbelt and its functions.
Ownership, Sustainability and Education
6.
Ensuring that federal ownership will remain the primary
mechanism for achieving Greenbelt objectives under the stewardship control of
the NCC, and that the Greenbelt remains in the public domain as a “national
treasure” comprising a large, rural open space running in a continuous belt
that is planned and managed for the broad public good;
7.
Expanding naturalized and other important Greenbelt
areas over time to enhance ecological integrity of both the Greenbelt
and the region as a whole;
8.
Promoting the importance of the Greenbelt
for the national capital’s health and sustainability;
9.
Using revenue generated from the Greenbelt
to continually offset operational costs, invest in ecosystem protection,
restoration, and enhancement to provide a haven for wildlife, and develop
promotional and public educational programming.
Biodiversity Enhancement, Maintenance and
Protection
10. Protecting
all Species at Risk habitats within, and adjacent to, Greenbelt lands;
11. Recognizing,
valuing and protecting the diverse species of flora and fauna within the
Greenbelt, including the ‘non-rare’ species, as they have shown resilience and
adaptability. They are part of the mosaic that accounts for ecosystem
complexity and the interconnections between species and ecosystems within the
Greenbelt’s natural areas;
12. Restoring
broken wildlife corridors and ensuring that all wildlife corridors within the
Greenbelt and beyond to other natural areas are protected and maintained;
13. Prohibiting
the trapping/killing of beaver and other animals that are necessary for the
maintenance of healthy ecosystems. (For example, beavers should not have been
removed in 2008 and 2010 from the important SAR Lester Road Wetland);
14. Allowing
for the evolution of natural processes;
15. Managing
wildlife on broader ecosystem principles, and not on the basis of individual
species. Not only is attempting to manage individual species passé from an
environmental perspective, but there is a growing body of research and new
findings that pertain to forest and wetland ecosystems and the contribution
made by various species within these habitats that needs to be considered;
16. Responding
to human-wildlife issues with education and prevention strategies that promote
coexistence and compatible use between agricultural lands and natural areas;
17. Preserving
large areas of meadow bird habitat for North American meadow bird populations,
which have suffered a huge decline in numbers due to habitat loss. There are a
number of prime locales in the Greenbelt such as the Airport lands south of
Leitrim Road, and areas adjacent to the Airport Parkway. (Other such areas
include the NCC-owned Southern Corridor.) Other plant and animal species are
also dependent on old meadows, and need protection.
18. Preserving
scrubland (large shrubby thickets) because they are an intermediate stage
between open fields and forests and add to the biodiversity of an area.
(Transition zones often have a very rich biodiversity);
19. Preserving
and enhancing agricultural lands and, if required, providing incentives to
lessees to encourage ecologically sound management of the land;
20. Conducting
soil biodiversity inventories in natural areas bordering farmland and in
abutting 30-metre wide areas of farmland where pesticides were used prior to
the implementation of our recommendation on buffer zones (see bullet 29). Over the
following five years, conduct annual soil biodiversity inventories to determine
the rate of migration of soil biodiversity from natural areas into the buffer
zones and the speed at which chemically-dependant soils can be restored to
health;
21. Ensuring
that all cultivated agricultural and forestry land uses are compatible with
sustainability principles.
Prohibitions and Restrictions
22. Prohibiting
any new roads which, in themselves, cause extensive, long-term, environmental
damage, including major threats to biodiversity;
23. Continuing
to prohibit ATVs and other environmentally destructive recreational vehicles
from the Greenbelt, and enforcing
the ban. (The ruination in 2008 of an old farmer’s lane south of Medeola Woods
is a prime example of the damage that can be done by these vehicles);
24. Properly
designing and locating new pathways and bicycle paths to avoid damaging
sensitive environmental areas and to protect wildlife, ensuring that local
communities are consulted, and making available to them educational resources
on the protection of natural areas adjacent to recreational pathways;
25. Providing
adequate educational signage to indicate environmentally sensitive areas that
should not be disturbed, such as species at risk habitat, and, in some cases
prohibiting access to these areas to ensure their protection;
26. Prohibiting
mineral or aggregate extraction within the Greenbelt;
27. Commenting
on, and taking action against proposed developments along the boundary of the
Greenbelt which could negatively impact ecosystems within the Greenbelt; for
example, some urban development along the boundary has caused severe
degradation of wetland areas within the Greenbelt, such as
the areas south of Trapper's Park and Windsor
Park Village.
(Another example is the discharge from a Lafarge quarry into Stony
Swamp, which should have been
prevented or mitigated);
28. Creating
a pesticide-free buffer zone around natural areas within the Greenbelt
and also around the outer boundaries of the Greenbelt
to protect biodiversity;
29. Over
time, banning the use of pesticides on farmland in the Greenbelt
as farm leases are renewed, perhaps by 10% of the total acreage a year for 10
years (organic growers have determined the viability of this rate of soil
restoration). Restore the health of chemically-dependant soils and protect biodiversity.
(Farms and golf courses can be managed organically);
30. Mowing
old meadows on land that is not leased as Greenbelt farmland once a year only
in October after meadow plant species have re-seeded) to discourage woody
species from taking over the meadows, and to protect this habitat type for the
declining meadow bird populations, as well as other animal and plant species
that are dependent upon meadows;
31. Abandoning,
where possible, the re-digging of old municipal drains because they can cause
considerable environmental damage such as that which occurred along Conroy Road
in 2006;
32. Disallowing
the construction of storm water ponds in the Greenbelt
should any future development take place adjacent to the Greenbelt
boundary.
Appendix 4 – Agricultural and Rural Lands – More Detailed
Analysis, and Options, Best Practices and Additional Recommendations
Introduction
Agriculture means different things to different social
groups or individuals. For the consumers it is a source of food (fresh, healthy
and palatable) providing for sustainable living. Governments perceive
agriculture as a vital industry. Environmentalists are concerned with
agricultural pollution (fertilizer and pesticides runoffs), intense land use,
(irrigation, tillage) and crops expansion threatening wetlands and wildlife.
Yet, they also see agriculture as a source of new green technologies, reducing
carbon emissions and improving air quality. Finally, to the farmers it is a
business, a style of living and their livelihood. A farmer's business acumen
requires focusing on consumer preferences and production quotas, managing farm
outputs and environmental concerns and yet continue to earn income and sustain
their business. Diverging visions and expectations toward agriculture had to be
viewed through the context of the National Capital Greenbelt with its unique
public ownership and management.
The preliminary findings from public consultations and
commissioned papers indicate that all stakeholders agree that the agriculture
function needs to be protected and expanded and to "become a role model
for the rest of the country on how to do this is an urban setting". This
paper will further attempt to merge concerns and expectations to provide a
coherent, environmentally sound vision of the Greenbelt
agriculture in the future, while being sensitive to the role and business
constraints of farmers.
Greenbelt Agriculture
The Agricultural and Rural land designation (also referred
to in the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan as “Vibrant Rural Community”) is one of
the three major NCC land designations. The current master plan seems to make
the Agricultural and Rural designation a centerpiece of attention. Thus,
the policy section emphasizes protecting agricultural lands, supporting farm
communities and strengthening agricultural production. The current review
foresees “an opportunity to strengthen agricultural production to meet
sustainable agricultural practices and to foster pride in the provision of
local food products to the City of Ottawa”.
The 1996 plan further recommends “fostering a wide range of
viable and well-managed farms as a way to conserve large, open and diverse
rural areas in the Greenbelt” and “enhancing the Greenbelt’s
contributions to the regional farm economy and agricultural research”. The
present day Greenbelt contains about 90 agricultural units, leased to some
62 private operators. Farming operations include about 30 farms producing
cash/row crops, 3 dairy farms, 6 beef, 14 horse farms, 4 greenhouse operations
and approximately 20 operations for fruit, vegetables, and flowers. There are
four pick-your-own operations and nine produce stands adjacent to the City’s
urban area. Three of the Greenbelt
farms are certified organic and of those, one (Riverglen) was certified
biodynamic.
"The Greenbelt
consists of mainly prime agricultural lands with highly productive soils, and
approximately 30% (6300 hectares) of it is dedicated to agriculture".
A comparison by classes shows that Greenbelt prime
agricultural land (classes 1, 2 and 3) accounts for only 9% less area than do agricultural
lands outside the Greenbelt (in
Ottawa-Carleton). When class 4 land is included, the difference drops to 6%.
With over 50% of the agricultural land in the Greenbelt rated in classes 1 to 4,
there is no basis for arguing that Greenbelt agricultural land is of poor
quality. However, agricultural land quality may have been downgraded by
inappropriate land practices or abandonment. On the other hand, appropriate
soil conservation practices and rehabilitation can improve land
quality. The 1996 Master Plan recognizes the problem and provides strong
direction to conserve soil and preserve its long-term suitability for
agriculture.
Studies commissioned by the NCC and meetings with
farmers-tenants describe agricultural challenges faced by Greenbelt
farming. In addition to the global trends and environmental change, Greenbelt agriculture faces
unique set of constraints stemming from the public ownership and public
expectations.
The Challenges
A. Market demand and emerging trends
Climate change, energy crisis, threat of natural or man made
disasters brought up new challenges underlying the need for stronger
protection of agricultural land. The growing crisis highlights the importance
of environmentally sustainable agriculture and the benefits of growing healthy
food close to the consumer to lessen the dependence on imported foods and
reduce transportation-related pollution (carbon footprint). The 21st century
urbanites are increasingly demanding organic grown foods close to home. The “think
globally, act locally” philosophy spawned a variety of schemes supporting local
food (patriotic food, 100-mile challenge, local living economies).
The local joint initiative “Choosing our Future” stressed that "sustainable
food systems are not simply about farming; they are about resiliency of the
farm system in the context of the major trends such as the energy crisis, food
security, and development pressure on farm land". Agricultural
policy reforms highlighting diverse and locally-based agriculture utilizing
innovative strategies (e.g. organic and solar-based agriculture) dominate the
agenda.
It is anticipated that “the (new) Master Plan will be updated with
sustainability, food security and resiliency considerations”.
B. Developmental pressure, infrastructure
corridors, institutional use
Developmental challenges are widely recognized by both
planners, politicians and residents. The NCC-commissioned study indicated that the
“Master Plan is meant to support and enhance the agricultural sector in the Greenbelt,
the policy is quite general and allows for a number of interpretations of its
intentions, making decision making more complicated and providing less
consistency in terms of planning for farming in the future. The result is a
lack of a clear vision for the future of Greenbelt
agriculture on the part of the National Capital Commission, as well as a lack
of a common identity for the farm sector”.
It was also noted that, “appropriate valuing of agricultural land is needed to
prevent it from being seen as the solution for development need”. Factors
such as trespassing, dumping, encroachment, infrastructure allowances (road
widening, sewer expansion) are degrading, fragmenting and decreasing farmland.
The City of Ottawa “White Paper on Development in the Greenbelt” focused on the
unresolved demand for transportation corridors and residential development and
suggested encroachment on the Greenbelt to satisfy future needs.
C. Green Economy pressures and ecosystems
Energy crisis, the demand for a clean green economy,
anti-fossil fuel concerns and the pursuit of bio-fuels, (especially corn-based
ethanol) altered the crop diversity giving rise to a large increase in corn
production. Demand for more usable land and the need to increase production
triggered other unfavourable environmental impacts. “Due to economic and
political pressures, the agricultural industry has also become a major cause of
environmental degradation. Farmers have been forced to use modes of production
that are unsustainable in the long term. Industrial agriculture is dependent on
the maximization of output, meaning an increased need for petrochemical-based
inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides, as well as monoculture crops and
destructive soil management practices”.
UNEP 2010 focuses entirely on green economies and emphasizes fossil fuel and agriculture as having the greatest
environmental impacts.
It recommends dramatically reforming, re-thinking and redesigning the energy
and agriculture sectors to generate significant environmental, social and
economic returns.
D. Environmental Challenges
According to the UNEP 2007 predictions, global environmental problems (soil erosion,
nutrient depletion, water scarcity etc.) will worsen in the coming years.
Global warming, extreme weather may result in decreased yield. Ontario is seen
to become warmer, and to experience more extreme weather, including longer dry
spells. Soil erosion is also a major concern.
However, agriculture is a source of problems to other
ecosystems. Modern day farming practices, land expansion and increased demand
for agricultural produce are affecting not only wetlands but also wildlife and
migratory birds, in particular. Decline in some species of migratory birds
(bobolink etc.) could be ascribed to changes in land use, grazing cattle and
agricultural practices (irrigation, tilling, mowing, harvesting). Finally, one
cannot forget that Greenbelt agricultural land also
provides environmental benefits improving air quality and the health of Ottawa
population.
E. Farmers’ challenge
Greenbelt
farmers have to deal with a host of “regular issues” (weather conditions,
market demand, price fluctuations and legislative and regulatory demands), and new
and emerging trends such as alternative farming and a declining and aging farm
population. The NCC study stressed that “both the diversity of farms and number
of full-time resident farmers has decreased. Farm assets are deteriorating and
farm population is aging".
Tenant farmers have compiled a long list of issues that need
to be addressed in order to have a “vibrant and sustainable agricultural
landscape”. Many issues are related to NCC land ownership, the Greenbelt’s
location and the terms of farm leases that are seen as a constraint to long-term
investment, stability of the business and productivity. Although the current
plan provides direction and protection for long-term agricultural uses,
changing conditions may require stronger protection for farmers, improved
marketing opportunities and more incentives. Strong policies along with
appropriate valuing of agricultural land will also deflect development
pressures seeing the Greenbelt as
an easy target. Many studies and public comments focused on a need to
strengthen public knowledge about the role and importance of Greenbelt
farming.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
It seems that the proximity of Greenbelt
farming to the urban area is ideal for the promotion of modified and model
farming practices (e.g. adding horticultural operations, organic farming,
vegetable farms and allotment gardens). Encouraging and enhancing farming
practices will also ensure that Greenbelt
lands can continue to provide fresh produce for the nearby urban areas.
Increased productivity of Greenbelt
agricultural lands and its wider utilization would in turn improve overall
biodiversity. Organic growers, allotment gardening associations and many
interested individuals are closely monitoring the progress of the Master Plan Review.
The NCC is already stressing Greenbelt
potentials such as an agri-tourism destination used to teach people about sustainable
farming".
Although farming tenants are encouraged to manage leased
land sensitively, the Master Plan Review offers a unique opportunity to improve
terms for tenants, such as offer incentives, extend leases, and stimulate
long-term investment. These are worth considering to make Greenbelt
agricultural production a showcase of modern, innovative and environmentally
sound practices. This should be done gradually, sensitively and in
consultations with all stakeholders. As the Greenbelt
remains a public domain, there is a unique opportunity to negotiate and
implement best practices to alleviate some environmental problems and improve
biodiversity. Issues like chemical use, fossil fuel dependency and wildlife
impact are challenging yet the review offers an opportunity to find a suitable
solution that would allow farmers to conduct their business efficiently without
polluting the environment, allowing wildlife to nest, and wetlands to be
protected.
The suggested measures may include legislation (conservation
areas, habitat preservation, environmental stewardship), and research and
education, as well as modified farming practices (minimizing tilling, modified
haying, etc.; the farming community may provide additional suggestions). Various
grant programs should be further reviewed to assist farmers wishing to develop
habitats on Greenbelt lands (e.g. the
Landbird Habitat Program,
Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk)
or new funding provided for farmers interested in new modes of farming.
Marketing opportunities stressing proximity of the produce to consumers and strong
support and protection from all levels of government might be needed to develop
sustainable Greenbelt agriculture.
Main
Recommendations
a.
The
ecological integrity and viability of the Greenbelt’s agricultural and rural
lands should be preserved, protected and enhanced. Farmers should be given
incentives to operate Greenbelt farms, and surrounding residential communities
should be educated about the benefits and requirements of farming.
b.
A
shared vision should be developed among stakeholders and the NCC for the
integrated management of the natural environment and agriculture lands.
c.
Agricultural
and rural areas currently not fully utilized should be rehabilitated (wherever
possible) to increase soil efficiency and productivity, and improvements should
be made to existing farmed land.
d.
Natural
features should be maintained or created, such as hedgerows between fields to
reduce soil erosion and to provide wildlife habitat and corridor linkages.
e.
If
possible, hay cutting should be timed and/or done in such manner as to avoid
interference with the nests, eggs or fledglings of ground-nesting bird species.
f.
New
forms of farming (horticulture, organic, vegetable, allotment gardens) should
be re-introduced to complement existing operations (guided by the benefits
of growing food close to home).
g.
The
economic viability of farm operations should be improved and enhanced. Farmers
need the assurance that they will be able to earn a reasonable return on their
labour and investment that encourages the current, as well as future
generations to continue farming.
h.
Agricultural
leases should be coupled with requirements for sustainability, including
protection of soil quality, natural features, and natural pollinators.
i.
Forestry
and tree growing operations should be encouraged.
j.
Proposals
for extending equestrian trails between Marlborough Forest, the Greenbelt, and Larose Forest are acceptable, but any related
infrastructure such as a covered arena should be located outside the Greenbelt.
The Greenbelt Coalition further recommends that Agricultural policies
and practices for the Greenbelt include:
A. Wildlife, Migratory Birds
The Greenbelt Master Plan review affords opportunities to
explore the feasibility and efficacy of agricultural practices aiming at
protection of wildlife and migratory and nesting birds in particular. The
underlying principle for the Greenbelt
must be that leaving the protection of wildlife and ground-nesting birds at the
individual discretion of tenants is insufficient for their protection.
Ultimately, the NCC as a federal agency is responsible for the protection of
migratory birds and other protected species on federal land. The review
provides an excellent opportunity to initiate modern agri-techniques and
showcase environmentally sound practices.
Habitat
Loss and Nesting Protection
1.
Improving/diversifying land use (aiming for balance
between hayfields, pasture and animals that can use either hay or pasture).
Alternating between uses (pasture for livestock during May and June, hay
cutting later).
2.
Introducing wildlife friendly management practices (e.g.
dividing land into smaller fields, using rotational or prescribed mowing, moving
hay from centre-field outward to allow fledglings to escape, utilizing flushing
bars to allow parent birds to escape, leaving strip cover (buffer) areas
undisturbed during the nesting season, utilizing prescribed grazing and
burning, using noise cannons to deter nesting in any hayfields that are going
to be cut early).
3.
Diversifying crops, utilizing hedgerows.
Chemical
Impacts
4. On-going
monitoring and protection of species against toxic chemical pollution
(herbicides, pesticides). Gradual reduction in use of chemical agents
(fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) through regulatory and motivational
measures. Introducing buffer zones between chemically treated agricultural land
and sensitive wildlife areas.
Wildlife
Strategic Management
5. Preparing
a comprehensive wildlife strategy providing balance and harmony between species
and addressing existing imbalances. Implementing native plants strategy to
prevent invasion of non-native plants often harmful to the existing wildlife.
B. Wetlands,
Clean Water and Farming
6.
Protecting wetlands and water bodies from farm
effluents, nutrient run-off and erosion. Providing buffer zones between active
farms and sensitive wetlands. Using hedgerows, native plants to prevent
run-offs.
7.
Encouraging "appropriate evolution of Greenbelt"
by introducing environmentally sound practices, organic and alternate farming,
reducing/replacing pesticides and fertilizers by alternatives that are
friendlier to biodiversity.
C. Diversifying
Greenbelt Crops and Farms
8.
Introducing new forms of farming, diversify existing crops
to reduce the need to defend crops against diseases and pests.
9. “Branding"
Greenbelt produce, develop farmers
markets.
10. Developing
a marketing campaign (exclusive for the Greenbelt).
Appendix 5 – Initial Proposals for Greenbelt Expansion
Introduction
Since its creation in 1958, the National Capital Greenbelt
has maintained its general shape and size. Some lands have been sold, mainly
for infrastructure projects, and other lands have been severed, e.g. lands
south of the Ottawa Airport, for reasons that are clearly unrelated to their
ecological and other values. Also, some lands have been added, particularly in
the Mer Bleue area. With a 50-year time horizon, the Greenbelt Coalition has
begun to use this opportunity to see how the Greenbelt could be enhanced, all
within the general context of the Emerald Necklace around the National Capital
Region.
In our initial discussions, inspired by Dr. Paul Keddy’s
presentation at the National Visioning Workshop, we identified two large,
biodiverse, high-priority areas, using a set of criteria we developed (see
below). One area is adjacent to the current southern boundaries of the
Greenbelt (the Leitrim Wetlands), the other area, although not currently
bordering on the Greenbelt, could be made contiguous to it through strategic
acquisitions and partnerships with the City of Ottawa and others (the South
March Highlands).
We emphasize that the Coalition plans to continue to
identify other potential areas for Greenbelt expansion and to issue further
updates to this Appendix over the coming months.
Criteria for
Expansion of the Greenbelt
Expansion should be considered where such expansion:
a. re-incorporates ecologically
significant areas such as the lands around the Airport that were removed from
the Greenbelt in 1995;
b. incorporates all of a
significant ecosystem of which parts are already in the Greenbelt, whether
federally or privately owned;
c. incorporates nearby
environmentally significant natural areas;
d. protects nearby geologic or other
scientific or important historic features, e.g. ANSIs and PSWs;
e. provides and improve
eco-connections/linkages for wildlife or restores broken links;
f.
improves
recreational trails to nearby significant protected natural areas;
g. protects significant waterways,
e.g. cool to cold water streams such as Findlay Creek;
h. protects adjacent/nearby habitat
of Species At Risk; and
i.
protects
adjacent farmland from urban sprawl.
The two priority areas for expansion are the Leitrim Wetland
and the South March Highlands.
The remainder of this Appendix discusses these two priority
areas in turn.
A. Leitrim Wetland, a Crown Jewel of the Greenbelt
A.1 Overview
Studies
have demonstrated that the Leitrim Wetland ecosystem is much larger than the
recognized Provincially Significant Leitrim Wetland. A conservative
reconstruction of the wetland circa 1830 shows that it covered an area ranging
from Blossom Park in the north to the Rideau-Carleton raceway in the south and
from the NCC lands east of Conroy Road to the Airport lands west
of Uplands Drive.
Three
waterways - Findlay Creek, Sawmill Creek and a major tributary of Bear Brook -
originate in this ecosystem. About 75% of the Pine Grove (as depicted in the
1991 Ecological Analysis of the Greenbelt), a significant natural area in the
Greenbelt, lies within the boundaries of the original Leitrim Wetland and is,
in fact, part of this wetland.
The
Leitrim Wetland is undeniably a hotspot of biodiversity with at least 541
species of vascular plants, 142 species of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts),
92 species of breeding birds, 15 species of mammals, etc. Three species of
Species At Risk turtles – Blanding's, Spiny Softshell and Snapping – have been
observed within its boundaries.
Although
the wetland area has been modified and decreased due to the effects of
agriculture and urbanization, much of it still survives. The federal government
owns the greatest part of the wetland including 30% of the Provincially
Significant Wetland.
To
ensure the connectivity and long term protection of this important ecosystem,
the NCC should re-incorporate those pieces of the wetland and
adjacent lands south of Leitrim Road as well as the extant section straddling
Bank Street north of Lester Road that was removed in 1996 and acquire, by
various means, those parts of the wetland the federal government doesn't own,
along with a sufficient buffer. It should also ensure that the portion of the
wetland west of the old C.P.R. right-of-way on Transport Canada lands is not developed because of its ecological
significance.
Although
it is not possible to restore the whole wetland to its former pre-European
glory, there is ample opportunity to enhance/restore large sections which
includes allowing certain areas to regenerate naturally.
A.2 Introduction
Over
the last 21 years, Albert Dugal, a botanist now retired from the Canadian
Museum of Nature, has spent a substantial amount of time studying the
historic/original Leitrim Wetland ecosystem. He has written three scientific
articles and co-authored a fourth on this important wetland. He also has prepared
reports on various components of the ecosystem. His latest work, completed in
the spring of 2010, focused on the delimitation of wetland areas in the
Greenbelt between the old C.P.R. right-of-way and Uplands Drive. That report was
prepared for the Greenbelt Coalition.
A.3 Methodology
The following methodology has been employed in preparing
this Appendix.
•
studying of topographic and surficial geology maps, soils
maps, aerial photographs using a stereoscope and recent Google satellite
images;
•
performing extensive field work, noting plant communities,
observing, identifying and/or collecting vascular plant species;
•
preparing diagrams based on the study of various documents
and/or field work; and
•
seeking sources of information on other life forms, wetland
functions and peat wastage.
A.4 Observations
The
1863 Walling Map of Carleton County (Figure 1) and the 1879 Illustrated
Historical Atlas of the County of Carleton (Figure 2) clearly demonstrate that
the Leitrim Wetland was much larger than the wetland area that was declared to
be a Class 1, Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) by the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources in 1989. These maps indicate that the wetland originated
south of the Blais Road right-of-way and extended northward to Blossom Park.
The Walling Map also indicated that the wetland ranged west of the old C.P.R.
tracks north of the present-day Lester Road.
Figure 1.
Part of the 1863 Walling Map of Carleton County showing the Leitrim
Wetland.
Figure 2. Part of the 1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas
of the County of Carleton showing the Leitrim Wetland
Note: the Leitrim Wetland and
Stoney Swamp are the only two Greenbelt wetlands that appear in the Belden
Atlas. As the Belden Atlas only shows seven of the numerous wetlands that occur
in Carleton County, these must have been quite extraordinary. (All seven of
these wetlands are PSWs today.)
The
1917 Geology map of the Ottawa area shows an extensive peat deposit that
followed Sawmill Creek deep into Blossom Park in the north and extended almost
to Uplands Drive in the west. (See Figure 3). As peat can only be formed under
wetland conditions, this indicates that the wetland was larger than that
depicted in either the Walling or Belden maps.
Figure 3.
Part of the 1917 Ottawa Surface Geology map showing peat deposits (the
dark brown - S12 area) which were formed in the Leitrim Wetland.
The
1917 Geology map also shows peat deposits in the Trappers Park Woods and in an
area north of Hunt Club Road about half a kilometre west of Uplands Drive.
These organic deposits are also illustrated in an old soils map (circa 1930's).
However, in this later map, the deposits are connected. (See Figure 4.)
Figure 4. Old Soils map (circa 1930s) of Carleton
County showing peat deposits (M) which were formed under wetland conditions.
This delimitation is supported in part by the 1982
Surficial Geology map 1506A. (See Figure 5.)
Figure 5.
Part of the 1982 Surficial Geology Map 1506A, Ottawa, showing peat
deposits (blue spots - 7) which were formed under wetland conditions.
Map
1506A also indicated that the Trappers Park Woods deposit ranged to the east
side of Albion Road and was narrowly separated from another peat deposit to the
south, which extended into wetland area depicted in the Walling and Belden
maps. These maps suggest that the Leitrim Wetland extended north-westward into
the present day Hunt Club Golf Club.
The
old soils map also shows a peat deposit bordering the east side of Bank Street,
south of Lester Road and north of the Conroy Road - Bank Street junction.
Considering the nature of the terrain and the moisture-loving vegetation, it is
highly likely that this area is part of the Leitrim Wetland ecosystem.
The
1917 Geology map shows that the main branch of Sawmill Creek originates west of
Uplands Drive suggesting the presence of a seepage area or wetland. This would
be expected due to the topography - i.e. the land rising to the west. Aerial
photograph A13637-36 indicates a high level of moisture in the soil of this
area and field observation of the land around Uplands Drive supports the
information conveyed by the photograph.
Field
work and aerial photographs of the area between the old C.P.R. right-of-way and
Uplands Drive indicate that much of this area is wetland. Therefore, the
original Leitrim Wetland ecosystem, below Hunt Club Road, extended westward
beyond Uplands Drive.
Figure
6 shows an approximate and conservative reconstruction of the Leitrim Wetland
using the information obtained from the sources listed above.
Figure 6.
Reconstruction (approximate) of the original Leitrim Wetland Ecosystem.
As depicted in Figure 7, the federal government owns
the largest part of this wetland ecosystem.
Figure 7.
Federally-owned sections of the Leitrim Wetland Ecosystem are shown in
orange.
The
1945 and early 1950's aerial photographs show the maximum incursion of
agricultural practices in the wetland ecosystem. Following purchase of much of
the historic/original Leitrim Wetland for the Greenbelt, farming ceased in a
significant portion and the process of wetland regeneration began which
continues to this day. Approximate present-day wetland areas are shown in
Figures 8, 9 and 10.
Figure 8.
Shows the existing wetland area (old and regenerating) within the 1830
Leitrim Wetland boundary.
Other
parts of the original wetland not owned by the federal government were less
fortunate and were/are being destroyed by housing developments and industrial
parks.
In
1996, the NCC surprisingly removed many acres of ecologically
significant land south of Leitrim Road from the Greenbelt. Included in this
removal were the federally-owned part of the Provincially Significant Leitrim
Wetland and the piece of the Leitrim Wetland between Delzotto and Quinn. At the
same time, the NCC also removed two other parcels of land containing
parts of the wetland – one straddling Bank Street north of Lester Road; the
other between the old C.P.R. right-of-way and the Airport Parkway south of Hunt
Club Road.
Fieldwork
has indicated that the PSW part of the wetland is the most complex and has the
greatest biodiversity with respect to plant life - 500 species of vascular
plants and 142 species of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts). There is one
Species At Risk (SAR) plant: Butternut; one provincially rare plant; Marsh
Valerian; and 56 species of Regionally Significant vascular plants including 7
species found nowhere else in the City of Ottawa.
Figure 9.
Wetland areas between the old CPR right of way and Uplands Drive south
of the spur line. The black circles represent where fish were found to exist.
Figure 10.
Wetland areas between the old CPR right-of-way and Uplands Drive north
of the spur line
Note: The PSW part of the wetland
has three times as many bryophytes as the Mer Bleue Wetland.
The
PSW also harbours SAR turtles - Spiny Softshell and Snapping Turtles have been
observed and, it is highly likely, that Blanding's Turtles are also present.
The
other parts of the Leitrim Wetland contain a good diversity of vascular plants
- 160+ species in the Rideau-Carleton Raceway part, 193+ species in the
federally-owned wetland area between Delzotto Avenue and Quinn Road, and 296+
species have been noted to date in the Greenbelt wetland areas north of Leitrim
Road.
Additional
vascular plant species are expected to be found north of Leitrim Road because
many of the wetland areas have only had a preliminary botanical inventory.
There
are at least 41 species of vascular plants in other parts of the wetland which
were not observed in the PSW portion, thus bringing the overall total (to date)
for the entire Leitrim Wetland ecosystem to 541.
Species
At Risk have also been observed within the boundary of the wetland ecosystem
north of Leitrim Road. These include Butternut, Blanding's Turtle and Snapping
Turtle.
Scattered
throughout the wetland are patches of old growth where trees ranging from 150
to 200 or more years old can be found. Examples can be found in the PSW, the
wetland between Delzotto Avenue and Quinn Road and the Windsor Park Woods.
Due
to past drainage schemes and urban development within the boundaries of the
Leitrim Wetland ecosystem, there has been extensive peat wastage resulting in
the release of "greenhouse "gases into the atmosphere.
According
to topographic map 31G/5 Ottawa, the Leitrim Wetland is the headwater area for
three waterways - Sawmill Creek, Findlay Creek and a major tributary of Bear
Brook.
The
Leitrim Wetland is quite different
from the Mer Bleue Wetland. The former is primarily a treed fen (with some
marsh, bog and swamp components) while the latter is mostly a bog.
The
Leitrim Wetland is at least 2000 years
older than the Mer Bleue Bog, having originated around 9,800 years ago. It
could harbour invertebrate species that are new to science.
A.5 Maintenance, Enhancement/Restoration
The
Leitrim Wetland must have been quite awesome prior to the arrival of European
settlers. Unfortunately, agricultural practices -land clearing, ditch digging
and modifying waterways- and urbanization negatively impacted much of the
wetland.
Although
it is not possible to restore all of the original wetland to a pre-European settlement
state, there is an opportunity to maintain, enhance or even restore that which
remains. Prohibition of additional development within the wetland should be a
given.
Not
all areas can be restored. Trappers Park Woods wetland is one such example. Another
is the section of the woodland wetland immediately south of the bypass ditch
bordering Windsor Park Village. In these areas probably the best that can done
is maintenance. In the case of the wetland woods south of Windsor Park,
preventing any massive cleaning or deepening of the bypass ditch would be
efficacious.
Enhancing
or restoring parts of the wetland involves raising the water table.
In
areas of the wetland where housing developments would not be affected by
raising water tables, old drainage ditches could be blocked or allowed to fill
in naturally with debris and plant growth. Beavers could provide assistance in
water retention with their damming activities.
The
ditches along roadways that cut through the wetland should not be allowed to be
deepened, as this will negatively impact adjacent wetland areas by lowering the
water table.
Agreement
with the City of Ottawa to abandon Municipal drains or parts of these ditches
should be obtained if there will be no effects on urbanized areas. This will
allow for long-term enhancement of the wetland along these drainage channels.
To
speed up the enhancement/restoration of regenerating parts of the wetland
ecosystem, plant species from older, less disturbed sections of the wetland
could be introduced - either seeds, spores or living plants.
Stewardship
projects with students are excellent for teaching children about the
environment, threats to the ecosystem, and a chance to explore the inherent
beauty found within the Greenbelt - which unfortunately is largely unknown to
so many children. One such project involved four High School Students from
Merivale High School, and a few parents. The project took place on April 6 and
April 19th 2009 and the goal was to restore the Trappers Woods wetland. The
wetland restoration project was a huge success, in that the flow of water was
partially (50%) redirected into the woods – providing new habitat opportunities
for aquatic species and plant vegetation. Unfortunately this was later
destroyed because the tools used (a new bridge for dog walkers) was not seen as
a permanent structure. Sadly, after two attempts, we concluded that without the
backing of the National Capital Commission these projects will never be
successful. Another such project was initiated as a result of a 17 year old dam
being removed by the city of Ottawa in October 2008, unfortunately the NCC later dropped the idea, and
the long standing wetland and vegetation have yet to recover.
Some
of the best areas for enhancement/restoration work include the areas on both
sides of the Airport Parkway, the area south of Lester Road, the area on both
sides of Bank Street south of Blossom Park, and much of the area south of the
Medeola Woods.
A.6 Conclusions
•
The Leitrim Wetland ecosystem is more extensive than the
Provincially Significant Leitrim Wetland.
•
Much of the significant Pine Grove area of the Greenbelt is
part of the Leitrim Wetland.
•
The Leitrim Wetland ecosystem is undeniably a hotspot of
biodiversity.
•
A significant portion of the wetland that was previously
cleared for agricultural purposes has regenerated or is regenerating back into
wetland. There will be a further increase in wetland as old drains gradually
fill with debris and the local water table is elevated.
•
As this wetland is the headwater area for three waterways and
habitat for Species At Risk, it should be rigorously protected.
•
Steps should be taken to reduce and halt peat wastage in the
wetland. There are methods of augmenting the peat layer in some parts of the
wetland - i.e. allowing beavers to dam up old drainage ditches.
•
The portions of the wetland south of Leitrim Road, (about 30%
of the PSW and the section between Delzotto Avenue and Quinn Road) as well as
the adjacent federal lands should be re-incorporated into the Greenbelt. The extant
section of the wetland straddling Bank Street north of Lester Road should also
be put back into the Greenbelt.
As
the federal government owns the greatest part of the wetland, under the
leadership of the NCC, it should acquire:
a) remaining non-federally-owned portions of the
wetland east of Albion Road and a buffer zone to protect the wetland's
hydrology; and
b) previously removed parcel of land between the
old C.P.R. tracks and the Airport Parkway south of hunt Club Road. These
acquisitions would help to ensure long term protection of this significant
wetland and its biodiversity. (See Figure 11).
Figure 11. Proposed Greenbelt expansion to protect the
remaining parts of the Leitrim Wetland south of Leitrim Road
Much
of this suggested expansion area has already been recognized by the NCC in 1991 as being a
significant natural area (ref: “Ecological Analysis of the Greenbelt”).
•
It should be noted that about 50% of the PSW east of Albion
Road is or will be in the public domain (to be donated to South Nation
Conservation Authority).
•
Although it is not feasible to restore all the wetland to its
former glory, much of this ecosystem can be maintained or enhanced/restored, by
following some common-sense guidelines.
A.7 References
ARDA. 1967. Soil Capability
for Agriculture, Canada Land Inventory, Ottawa 31G
Brunton, D.F. 2005. Urban
Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study, Appendix A - Vascular Plants of
the City of Ottawa, with Identification of Significant Species
Consaul, L., R. Boles and
A.W. Dugal. 2001. Leitrim Albion Road Wetlands: Its Biodiversity and its
Bioblitz. Trail & Landscape 35 (1):16‑65
Dugal, A.W. 1990. Albion
Road Wetlands Part 1.Trail & Landscape 24 (2): 56‑78
Dugal, A.W. 1992. Leitrim
Albion Road Wetlands Part 2. Trail & Landscape 26 (3): 64‑94
Dugal, A.W. 1993. Leitrim
Albion Road Wetlands Part 3. Trail & Landscape 27 (4): 118‑139
Hough, Stansbury and
Woodland Ltd. 1991. Ecological Analysis of the Greenbelt. National Capital
Commission. Ottawa.
Google Maps, satellite
images accessed 2010 <maps.google.com>
Illustrated Historical Atlas
of the County of Carleton, 1879. H. Belden & Co. Second reprint edition, 1976.
Cumming Atlas Reprints, Stratford, Ontario
Johnston, W.A., 1917.
Ottawa, Carleton and Ottawa Counties, Surface geology, Ontario and Quebec,
Geological Survey of Canada Multicoloured map No. 01662
National Air Photo Library
(Aerial Photos):
Roll No. A9556 Frames 21-26
Roll No. A9557 Frames 14, 16,
18, 20, 22, 24
Roll No. A9558 Frames 16, 18
Roll No. A9609 Frames 42, 43,
44, 87, 88, 89
Roll No. A9610 Frames 51, 52
Roll No. A13102 Frame 29
Roll No. A13510 Frame 441
Roll No. A13365 Frame 34
Roll No. A13637 Frame 36
Roll No. A14570 Frames 8, 9
Roll No. A14755 Frame 88
Roll No. A19864 Frames 119,
120
Roll No. A23612 Frame 11
Roll No. A27398 Frames 47,
48, 49, 58
Roll No. A28361 Frames 142,
143
Roll No. A28465 Frames 200, 201
Roll No. A31326 Frame 135
Roll No. A31398 Frame 32
Roll No. A31489 Frames 34,
35
Roll No. A31732 Frame 145
Roll No. A31788 Frames 156, 157
Richard, S.H., 1982.
Surficial Geology, Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec, Geological Survey of Canada, Map
1506A
Soils map of Carleton County
circa 1930's
Topographic Maps 31G/5
OTTAWA, Ontario Quebec, from 1906 to 1998
Walling, H.F. 1863. Map of
Carleton County, surveyed by O.W. Gray
B. The South March Highlands in West Ottawa
B.1 Introduction
The South March Highlands (SMH) have been described as a “wild island”
of natural landscape within the City of Ottawa. Until recently they remained
largely in their original natural state largely because the rugged landscape
was unsuitable for agriculture or urban development. The SMH is a distinctive
setting in the National Capital from five major perspectives:
a. Visual
Distinctiveness
b. Natural
Ecosystem
c. Geomorphology
& Geology
d. Cultural
Heritage
e. Linkages
The SMH also has a proven capability for enhancing the
prestige of the National Capital Region as evidenced by a video featuring the
SMH being used in the Canadian pavilion at the World’s Fair, and by
international sporting events such as the Canadian Orienteering Championships
attracting international press attention to the National Capital Region.
Figure 1. Map of SMH [Brunton 2007]
B.2 Visual Distinctiveness
The SMH provides many diverse, unique, and distinctive
visuals that enhance the National Capital Region. The aerial photograph below
shows some of the visual diversity that can be found in the SMH ranging from
lakes, forests, meadows, rocky ridges, and farmland.
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of the western side of the
SMH
The Beaver Pond at the southernmost tip of the SMH
illustrates a natural beauty representative of the Canadian landscape that has
been iconified by the Group of Seven.
Figure 3. Beaver Pond
The mountain meadows along the Richardson Ridge are
unique in the City.
Figure 4 – Meadows along
Richardson Ridge
The
Carp River valley extends beyond the SMH and brings the agricultural aspect of
the National Capital Region into view.
Figure 5 – View of Carp
River Valley from Richardson Ridge
B.3 The Natural Ecosystem
No other major city in the world includes within its
borders a vigorous old growth forest with endangered species such as the SMH. The
closest is perhaps Vancouver’s Stanley Park which is 1/3 the size, contains
half the variety of vascular plants, and no species-at-risk (SAR) compared to
the SMH.
Figure 6. Old Growth in the SMH
The SMH is rated as a Candidate Provincially Significant
Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) for both its Life Science
value (895 hectares) and for its unique Wetland Complex (114 hectares). The
area has been valued by scientists as the “most important reservoir of ecological potential” in the
City of Ottawa because it has the densest biodiversity and 30 eco-types of
vegetation which provide a wide variety of resources for the renewal of
depleted natural areas elsewhere. Dr. Jeremy Kerr, a professor of Macroecology
at the University of Ottawa has even speculated that the SMH may possibly
represent one of the densest bio-diverse areas in Canada.
Diana Beresford-Kroeger, an internationally known and widely
respected expert in medical biochemistry and botany has extolled the genetic
potential and unique qualities of the SMH:
“The collective genome of this forest is
singular. A trunk bole height of 60 –70 feet is common to almost all species
[in the SMH]. The boles are straight and true to a covering canopy. This in
itself indicates a gene pool of a very ancient source of perhaps 400 million
years of development. In the forest itself, there is a 25 foot in circumference
fingerprint stool of Fagus grandiflora, the American Beech, just
one of many. The White Ash, Fraxinus alba, are the largest in
diameter, approximately 5 feet, in the area, if not in Eastern Canada. A
natural graft twin between F. alba and Carya cordiformis, the butternut hickory is a scientific first
and demands of itself research and investigation. There is also a melding of
the Carolinean forest system in these woods, carpinus caroliniana,
American hornbeam or bluebeech, stands out as an important medicinal tree of
the Birch family. In addition, the increasingly rare Betula Intea, yellow birch,
is seen holding its own for height. This tree, too, is medicinal for men.”
There are 10 distinct habitats within the SMH that are home
to 18 SAR and one of the largest deer wintering yards (925 hectares) in the
City. In addition, the SMH are home to 18 more species that are identified by
the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
as priorities for SAR candidates. Table 1 summaries the SAR observed in the SMH
and Table 2 summarizes the species believed to be extirpated from the SMH.
The SMH are ecologically unique in the City of Ottawa,
supporting over 440 native species of vascular plants, including: 64
Regionally Significant, 50 Locally Significant, 6 Provincially Rare, and 2
Nationally Endangered species. It has the highest floristic diversity of any
natural area in the City. Of this vascular flora, the Coalition to Protect the
South March Highlands has to-date identified 30 native plants that have been
traditionally employed for medicine by First Nations.
This habitat is home to 75 species of Mammals, Fish,
Amphibians, and Reptiles including 5 species-at-risk and 2 locally uncommon
species. The habitat is crucial for 164 species of birds, including 136 species
that are known to breed in this area, 9 SAR, and 30 Regionally Significant
species that inhabit this ecosystem. The area is also home to the Monarch
Butterfly, another species at risk, and possibly other interesting insects,
however no study of insect, fungi, or bryophyte (non-vascular plant) species
has ever been performed. Ms. Beresford-Kroeger estimates that approximately 40
species of insects can be anticipated for each species of tree found in the
SMH.
In 2008, a scientific study of the conservation forest
conducted by Daniel Brunton found that
“The [current]
ecological integrity of the flora and vegetation in the Conservation Forest is
also exceptionally high, as measured by the ‘naturalness’ of the native flora.
The native flora of the study area demonstrates an average Coefficient of
Conservation (CC) rating of 5.08 – higher
than any City of Ottawa Urban Natural Area... The Coefficient of
Conservation provides a rating of the ‘naturalness’ of native plant species
(i.e. the degree to which each species requires relatively pristine conditions)
on a zero to 10 scale, where 0 indicates species having no requirement for
natural habitat and 10 indicating taxa which require pristine habitat. Ottawa
and eastern Ontario urban natural areas typically average under 4.0.”
However, the same study also warned that “The Conservation Forest is clearly in a
fragile state and facing serious challenges to its long term ecological
integrity… the Conservation Forest is presently too small to fully represent
South March Highlands’ natural features and functions.” Time is of the
essence to preserve the remainder of this astounding ecosystem that we are so
lucky to have in the City.
|
The following 3 species
are Endangered both provincially and nationally:
|
|
|
American
Ginseng - danger of extirpation
|
|
|
Butternut Tree
|
|
|
Loggerhead
Shrike - possibly extirpated
|
|
The following species are
Threatened in the jurisdictions noted in parenthesis:
|
|
|
Blanding’s
Turtle (Ontario & Quebec)
|
|
|
Whip-poor-will
(All provinces east of Alberta)
|
|
|
Golden Winged
Warbler (Ontario & Quebec)
|
|
|
Western Chorus
Frog (listed Federally for Ontario & Quebec but not yet listed under SARO)
|
|
|
Eastern Musk
Turtle (Ontario & Quebec) - possibly extirpated
|
|
|
Olive Sided
Flycatcher (All Provinces)
|
|
The following species are
of Special Concern:
|
|
|
Bridle Shiner
- possibly extirpated
|
|
|
Short Eared
Owl
|
|
|
Black Tern
|
|
|
Common
Nighthawk
|
|
|
Snapping
Turtle
|
|
|
Eastern
Milksnake
|
|
|
Monarch
Butterfly
|
|
|
Bald Eagle
|
|
|
Red Headed Woodpecker
|
|
These additional species
are on the COSEWIC Candidate List for Ontario (priority shown in
parenthesis):
|
|
|
Evening
Grosbeak (high-priority)
|
|
|
Eastern Wood
Peewee (high-priority)
|
|
|
Wood Thrush
(high-priority)
|
|
|
Bank Swallow
(high-priority)
|
|
|
American
Bullfrog (mid-priority)
|
|
|
American
Kestrel (mid-priority)
|
|
|
Belted-Kingfisher
(mid-priority)
|
|
|
Eastern
Red-Backed Salamander (mid-priority)
|
|
|
Field Sparrow
(mid-priority)
|
|
|
Blue-Spotted
Salamander (low priority)
|
|
|
American Toad
(low priority)
|
|
|
Bluntnose
Minnow (low priority)
|
|
|
Boreal
Chickadee (low priority)
|
|
|
Killdeer (low
priority)
|
|
|
Midland
Painted Turtle (low priority)
|
|
|
Northern
Two-Lined Salamander (low priority)
|
|
|
Green Frog (low
priority)
|
|
|
Wood Frog (low
priority)
|
Table 1. SAR previously observed in the SMH
|
The following species are believed to be extirpated (previously
observed in the SMH):
|
|
|
Cathcart’s Woodsia
|
|
|
Oregon Woodsia
|
|
|
Spiny Coon-tail
|
|
|
Adder’s-tongue Fern
|
|
|
Back’s Sedge
|
|
|
Large Duckweed
|
|
|
Long-spurred Violet
|
|
|
Showy Orchis
|
|
|
Southern Arrow-wood
|
|
|
Strawberry-blight
|
|
|
Virginia Spring Beauty
|
Table 2. Species previously observed in the SMH and
believed extirpated
Some of the SMH are protected through City ownership via a
“Conservation Forest” that does not prevent the City from attempting to build a
4-lane highway through the middle of it. The urban natural features inventory
conducted for the City’s Greenspace Master Plan identifies the SMH as
containing some of the most significant natural areas of the City (Trillium
Wood, Beaver Pond, Richardson Forest, and the lands surrounding the SMH
Conservation Forest).
B.4 Cultural Heritage
The cultural heritage value of the SMH accrues from both
pre- and post- European settlement in the National Capital Region.
Grandfather William Commanda (the most senior Elder of the
Algonquin First Nation and a member of the Order of Canada) has declared the
SMH to be “an ancient and sacred site [that] is of great archaeological
importance to the Indigenous Peoples of the Kichisippi, the Ottawa River
Watershed.”
In a recent report, Dr. Robert McGee (a Fellow of the Royal
Society of Canada, former Curator at the Museum of Civilization and former
President of the Canadian Archaeological Society) outlines the unique
archeological value of the SMH, not just for the Ottawa area, but for Eastern
Ontario. His report substantiates the traditional knowledge of the Algonquin
and is another compelling dimension for the case for preserving of what is left
of the South March Highlands, and for their inclusion in an expanded Emerald
Necklace. Dr. McGee’s description is as follows:
“In the early
postglacial period, between approximately 11,000 and 9000 years ago, this area
formed the shore of the Champlain Sea. This was a productive mid-latitude
version of a seasonally frozen Subarctic sea, probably combining some of the
characteristics of the present Hudson Bay and the northern portion of the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. Champlain Sea sediments in gravel pits have yielded the bones
of a full range of ice-adapted sea mammals including bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus), beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), together with ringed,
bearded and harp seals (Phoca hispida, Eringnathus
barbatus, Phoca groenlandica).
During this period the Carp Ridge emerged as a series of rocky
islands paralleling the southern shore of the sea. These islands were
separated from one another and from the shore by narrow channels through which
tidal currents, together with those of melt water flowing from the nearby mouth
of the Ottawa River, would have produced turbulent mixing of fresh and salt
water as well as inhibiting the formation of winter ice. Polynia conditions
such as these are very productive locales in Arctic waters, attracting both sea
mammals and their human predators.
When the level of
the Champlain Sea dropped below an elevation of about 90 metres above current
sea level the islands coalesced to form
the Carp Ridge, and this was attached to the mainland at the head of a
narrow and shallow bay that now forms the floodplain of the Carp River. This
new configuration, which took form at some time between 10,000 and 9,000 BP,
removed the conditions that would have made the local area an exceptional
hunting locality during early postglacial times.
Figure 7. Location of the Beaver Ponds [Southern Tip of
SMH] relative to Champlain Sea height of 110m [light grey is under water],
approximately 11-10,000 years ago
When this fact is
taken into account, the rocky upland areas can be considered to be of high potential for occupation by early
postglacial sea mammal hunters along subsequent shorelines as local sea
levels dropped from about 120 m above current sea level at around 11,000
radiocarbon years ago, to 90 meters above sea level at some time around 9,000
years ago. The apparent presence of quartz veins in the groundmass of these
highland areas would have provided another attraction to early hunters of the
time, as quartz was the primary tool-stone used by the early Archaic period
occupants of the maritime regions to the east (Gulf of St. Lawrence) and south
(Gulf of Maine).
On the nearby
Broughton Lands, Swayze (2005, 2009) recovered convincing evidence of a
significant Early Archaic occupation along shorelines of the recessional
Champlain Sea. This is, in fact, the
earliest known evidence of occupation in Eastern Ontario. In fact, a basic
knowledge of the physiographic history of the local region makes it apparent
that these are the regions most likely to have archaeological potential for preservation
of important sites related to the earliest postglacial occupations of the
Ottawa Valley area.”
Dr. McGee’s assessment is also supported by Marcel Laliberté’s
assessment for the NCC of the Archaeological Resource Potential of the National
Capital Region (1998) which emphasizes the importance of sites, such as the
SMH, known to be on the ancient shores of the Champlain Sea.
“Although the
current portrait of archaeological discoveries in the Ottawa Valley itself
indicates relatively late settlement, hardly more than 6,000 years, there is
every reason to believe that groups ventured into the NCR much earlier, even
when the sea flooded the newly exposed land .... Fluted projectile heads
typical or the Early Paleo-Indian period have also been reported as far as the
Rideau Lakes region, barely 80 km south of the of the Ottawa River. Furthermore,
the vast majority of Early Paleo-Indian sites in Ontario are located near the
shores of the Champlain Sea.”
The archaeological sites discovered in the SMH by Ken Swazye
were also assessed in-person by Dr. Hansjurgen Muller-Beck (an internationally
recognized expert on archaeology and a Professor Emeritus of Paleohistory and
Archaeology of Hunting Cultures at the University of Tübingen):
“Those stone
fragments are really very scattered remains from raw material stone tool
quarries of pre-historic times, sometimes forming clusters of more intense
work. The dating of that waste material was open but might go back quite
well into Paleo-Indian times.”
The Coalition to Protect The South March Highlands also has recently
discovered another site in the SMH that is at the same elevation and very
similar in layout to the ones found by Ken Swayze. Artifacts were found that
are believed to be similar to the stone fragments assessed by Dr. Muller-Beck. These
are currently being considered by the City which has requested assistance from
the NCC in evaluating it.
In addition to significant pre-contact cultural heritage,
the SMH also contains unique post-contact cultural heritage that is not
otherwise found in the Greenbelt. Euro-Canadian settlement of March township
began about 1819 and the Richardson Farm area was established in 1820 (the
stone house shown in Walling’s 1863 map of the area still stands). When the
great fire of 1870 swept across the Ottawa Valley, the SMH wetlands presented a
fire resistant barrier that prevented the destruction of Lewisville (now known
as South March).
There are several registered archaeological sites in the SMH
and some of the more interesting of these include:
•
a Feldspar Mine dating approximately to 1919-1921
(unique in the City);
•
several 19th Century homesteads dating back
to 1820 (as old as Pinhey’s Point);
•
Richardson Stone House dating back to approx. 1860 (as
old as the Log Farm); and
•
McMurtry’s Tannery built in the 1860s still stands on 2nd
Line Road (unique in the City).
Figure 8. McMurtry’s Tannery in the SMH
B.5 Geomorphology, Hydrology, & Geology
The SMH are at the southern tip of the Precambrian Shield
bedrock outcrop known as the Carp Ridge which is 500 million to 4 billion years
old and represents the only presentation
of the Canadian Shield on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region.
The SMH are geologically located along the edge of the
Hazeldean Fault and exhibit many examples of glacial scouring and lacustrine
activity. Their geology is uniquely complex and the combination with wetland-rich
land has been described in the City’s Natural Environment Assessment (done for
the City’s Greenspace Master Plan inventory) as “an island of rugged, heavily-glaciated, rocky, Gatineau Hills-like
habitat”.
The SMH is approximately 3,500 – 4,000 years older than low
lying areas in Ottawa such as Stoney Swamp and Mer Bleue. Adding the SMH to the
Greenbelt would incorporate an area higher in elevation to (and therefore much
older than) the existing Greenbelt.
The hydrology of the SMH is integral to both the Carp River
as well as to the Shirley’s Bay wetland complex in the existing Greenbelt. According
to the Shirley’s Brook/Watt’s Creek Subwatershed Study, the SMH supplies
approximately half of the basewater flow for the Shirley’s Bay wetland complex.
The SMH is also a unique occurrence of a significant
Sandstone Pavement Barren that displays many sedimentary and glacial features
as illustrated below. This unique geological feature is approximately 500m in
length by 150m wide and once would have once resembled a polished mirror-like
surface.
Figure 9. Sandstone Pavement Barren
Notable sedimentary structures, formed during deposition some 500
million years ago, include trough cross bedding, ripples and what may be eroded
algal mounds.
Figure 10. Ancient Sea on Display in the SMH
Other signs of fossilization are also readily found in the
SMH:
Figure 11. Ancient Fossil on Display in SMH
As rock-studded glaciers advanced southwards over the Carp
Ridge over 13,000 years ago, they left chatter marks, striations, and crescent
gouges that are visible today.
Figure 12. Glaciation on Display in SMH
B.6 Linkages
The SMH are linked by air (bird flyways), water
(hydrologically), and land (wildlife corridor) to the existing Greenbelt at
Shirley’s Bay.
The following map shows the documented wildlife corridors
running between the SMH and the Constance Lake-Mud Pond wetland area. This
links to a corridor already documented for the NCC by Dave Seburn (Blanding’s Turtle Habitat Mapping, 2008)
between the Constance Lake-Mud Pond wetland area and Shirley’s Bay wetlands.
Figure 13. Wildlife Corridors from Shirley’s Brook /
Watt’s Creek Subwatershed Study
B.7 Summary
During Part 1A for the Greenbelt Master Plan process the NCC
heard 10 key messages from the public consultation. Incorporating the SMH into
the Greenbelt as part of the Emerald Necklace supports all of these objectives:
•
Protect the
Greenbelt – by protecting key wildlife linkages and the upstream water
source for Shirley’s Bay wetland complex;
•
Greenbelt as
Sustainability Showcase – by protecting the many SAR in the SMH;
•
Communicate
Greenbelt Values – by initiating a visible expression of these values
through a high-profile initiate to protect the SMH;
•
Keep Greenbelt
Publically Owned – by collaborating with the City who has existing public
ownership of part of the SMH and expanding public ownership over privately held
SMH lands;
•
No Net Loss
Policy – by tapping into the bio-resources of the SMH and other ecological
reservoirs to replenish the stress on the existing Greenbelt;
•
Add More Land to
the Greenbelt - by augmenting the Greenbelt with additional land purchases
in the SMH;
•
Recognize
Greenbelt as part of Survival – by recognizing the importance of
macro-ecosystem values to survival and that eco-corridors and eco-reservoirs
such as the SMH are key to the implementation of those values;
•
Limited Smart
Growth – by ensuring that the Emerald Necklace balances growth and by
preventing unsustainable growth in the SMH;
•
Greenbelt
Appreciated by Public – by incorporating the SMH that is well appreciated
by thousands of citizens; and
•
Creatively
Revisit the “Belt” in Greenbelt –
by incorporating a “Shepherd’s Hook” linking the existing Greenbelt to SMH and
creating a national symbol of stewardship.
