THE PLAN
Draft Plan included under Fair Dealings copyright for the purpose of criticism and review; copyright holder, Annis O’Sullivan, Vollebekk Ltd, in Novatech “Planning Rationale & Integrated Environmental Review Statement (IERS) in Support of Applications For Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-Law Amendment"
approx.
35%
will be cut
The developers say they will retain 2.12 ha of the 3.6 ha woods. If Lalande Park is approximately 7% of the woodland, the developers will retain around another 58%. That means they will be destroying approximately 35% of the Notting Hill woods. However, after seeing their staked area, it looks closer to 50%.
rating of
less than
2
given a low
ecological
rating
“The woodlot portion…received an overall rating of ‘Low Ecological Rating – an average of less than two.’” (From the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study out of 5.) This number is based on a couple of short surveys that overlooked a number of species (barred owl, pileated woodpecker). And we all know woodlands are invaluable.
Laws
& hYpocrisy
The City of Ottawa is in the process of accepting a rezoning application for the area of the Notting Hill Woods to allow for a subdivision with single family homes, townhouses, a transitway and 4 enormous apartment buildings—6 storeys in height.
In the developer’s proposal, they say “The requirement for parkland will be addressed through the dedication of the woodlot as a woodland park. It should be noted that the dedication of the woodlot as a future parkland on the Subject Site as well as previous parkland dedications in the area have resulted in over-dedication of total parkland required for the development.
The Environmental Impact Statement and Tree Conservation Report they quote describes our woods as a “small, isolated, very dry woodland fragment with minimal potential to support significant natural environmental values.”
The developers also say, “This area of land represents a significant portion of developable land that will instead go to serving the greater good of the City rather than the immediate needs of the community.”
Greater good? How is that greater good measured?
For some reason, the developers seem to think they’ve given us too much parkland. FYI, parkland includes soccer fields with manicured lawns, tennis courts and jungle gyms. These are not the SAME as woodland that has been here for hundreds of years.
According to the Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study for this area (Muncaster Environmental Planning) the little brown myotis, northern long-eared bat, and tri-colored bat are a species at risk. "Large cavity trees that may be used by bats for summer maternal colonies were observed in the Nantes Street Woods Urban Natural Area in the central portion of the Phase 6 lands. Five potential cavity trees were observed, less than the ten per hectare required for additional bat studies following MNRF protocol." So not enough to save them. "The north potential cavity tree will not be retained...."
Butternut are also a species at risk, but we only have a hybrid. "A few mature sugar maple trees are proposed for removal." Mature meaning 150 to 484 years old?
"No stick nests or other evidence of raptor use were observed." What about actual barred owls? Do they count?
One more thing, the woods they propose retaining is anything over 60 years old (determined by a 1960 aerial photograph). However the tree measurements submitted by the biologist place several trees between 75 and 250 years old in the younger forest. They also say, without remorse: "The younger eastern portion of the forest will be removed, with an associated loss of local wildlife habitat."
THE ENVIRONMENT
Now let’s discuss the environment.
The Notting Hill woods is currently designated EP, meaning it is under environmental protection. This proposal is to change that zoning, or “protection,” and make it R3YY(2582) Residential Third Density and R5Z Residential Fifth Density, crowding into the woodlot and removing the entire east end of it, The interior woodlot will be rezoned to O1, Open Space, which sounds like an underhanded way of removing the protection and allowing them to destroy even more. In the woods we have several species of flora and fauna. We have white trilliums, which we don't see very often in the area. Perhaps they enjoy the unique “dry” habitat of our woods. But they will no longer be protected, especially if endangered bats aren't. We also have migratory Monarch and painted lady butterflies along the school side of the eastern portion that obtain food from the asters and milkweeds. This area will also be erased.
A woodlot benefits the environment in many ways, Oxygen production, transference of carbon to wood, cycling of nutrients, a protective microclimate for wildlife and plant species, water table maintenance, and reduction of soil and water runoff.
A “dry” woodland supports drought-tolerant trees and plants that are crucial to our warming planet. But for its survival, it requires buffer zones from urbanization. Clear-cutting impacts the water cycle of a forest. The impact would be even greater in a drier woodland. Wildlife need protected corridors of permanent vegetation of varying widths to move from place to place. Without these corridors, animals are forced to travel unprotected between large open areas or remain isolated within smaller ones. Smaller natural areas increase the chances for disease and predation.
Basically, this proposal will crowd this woodland/natural ecosystem out of existence.
Didn’t the city declare a climate emergency?
The City directly links our floods and tornadoes to climate change and proposed spending $250K to meet greenhouse gas targets. They also recently proposed amendments to the already in place Tree Protection Bylaw.
In the proposal they state the need to “develop Official Plan policies to support (an) integrated approach; retain, replace and renew Ottawa’s urban forest.” Retain should be the first part of the plan. At what point is it acceptable to destroy huge sections of woodland, and then, (here I’m quoting from the proposal) “Implement tree planting strategies”?
This one is equally disturbing:
“As part of the proposed development, the majority of the existing woodlot will be preserved (for some reason this is repeated several times throughout the document) and dedicated to the City of Ottawa as a woodland park with some tree removal to the east and along the peripheries of the current woodlot. As noted in the City of Ottawa Park Development Manual 2nd Edition, woodland parks are ‘unique classification where an established woodland is preserved within a development area and integrated into the park network as a recreational amenity.’ The woodland park will provide for future opportunities to create pathway and nature trails, small seating areas with fitness stations (excuse me, what are those?), signage, rehabilitation planting and fencing where appropriate.”
The problem is nature, and natural forest, within urban settings is so often reduced to “How can we use this and incorporate it into our own vision?” That vision? An urban sanitized parkland, rather than a pre-existing woodland that has inherent value in its own right, and will survive only if we treat it properly. The planet depends on us changing this mindset.
We have come to learn the true value of trees and the forest ecosystem, but we still can’t see past our own needs, which has already played out in disasters worldwide, and in our own city.
The city can’t just pay lip service to protecting trees and woodlands. We do have to think of the greater good.
Benefits of Nature
The Notting Hill woodland improves and supports our community in so many ways...
It’s been proven that interaction with nature is good for your mental health. Having nature trails within walkable distance makes these interactions more accessible. Ontario Parks talks about vitamin N, Nature. They state people are calmer, more relaxed and more focused after spending time in nature.
A July 2019 study in Science Advances--Nature and mental health: An Ecosystem service perspective--says “human well being is linked to the natural environment…”.
A particular finding in the study was this: “The proximity of people to nature is likely to be a large determinant of exposure. A watershed located 50 km outside a city might generate considerable ecosystem services in provision of clean water to the city but not much opportunity for everyday interaction with the landscape. Conversely, the presence of a small city park may result in extensive nature exposure for neighborhood residents and commuters.”
Our woodland is much more valuable than a small city park. It is a natural part of the environment and it provides daily exposure for our community to wildlife, trees, wildflowers and other plant life. Orleans has very few natural woodlands left. Most of them have been cut down and paved over. Our woodland stands on raised bedrock, which made it unsuitable for farming. This allowed it to survive unmolested while crops were planted around it. It was already an old woods in 1960, and it has grown since then.
Dogs love our woodland too. If you’re a dogwalker/dog owner, you’ve inevitably spent time in the woods. Dogs are naturally curious, and their health, both physical and mental is important for a healthy community. Dr. Pam Reid, a certified applied animal behaviorist (CAAB) and vice president of the ASPCA Anti-Cruelty Behavior Team says, “Most dogs enjoy seeing different things, smelling new smells, feeling novel substrates under their feet and hearing unfamiliar sounds.”
Dogs will be less likely to become frustrated, and bark frequently or engage in repetitive behaviour, if their curiosity is satisfied, leading to a quieter and calmer neighbourhood as well.
Besides health benefits, and beauty, and calm pets, there’s the very air we breath. Have you ever noticed how easy it is to breathe in a forest? Have you ever stopped, and just taken a deep breath? Smelled the freshness of the air? Even if you’ve never noticed, your body has. In China, they sometimes wear masks because of the air pollution. Think of woodlands as air filters. For every woodland we eliminate we’re taking one step closer to slapping a suffocating mask on our face. Yes, we have plenty of woods in Canada. But we may not forever. And they certainly aren’t always next door.