Red Pine Forest deserves protected status
Back in 2021, OSEAN submitted this letter to register our dismay at a BMW dealership’s proposal to pave the Red Pine Forest and put in a parking lot. Sadly, it is newly relevant now that the Airport intends to clear-cut to make way for development.
We are raising our voice to support the support of Save Hunt Club Forest to disagree with the Ottawa Airport Authority’s claim that this forest has little value. We encourage you to contact your local MP and city councillor. While this area may have been planted to be harvested, in the 60+ years since this area has been naturalized and provides habitat for a wide diversity of plants and animals.
The best tree is the tree that is already alive and providing habitat.
Letter from 2021:
I am writing to you as a member of Ottawa South Eco Action Network, a group of neighbours representing the three wards in Ottawa South (River Ward, Alta Vista Ward and Gloucester-Southgate).
We would like to express our concern for this proposal. Specially, we would like to recommend that the city rejects this application and moves to rezone this area to ensure protection from future development this point forward.
Two years ago, the City of Ottawa declared a climate emergency. Over the last few months we have seen how our world is very quickly hurtling towards a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis. We ask the city that all future development applications and zoning amendments be viewed under a climate and biodiversity lens. When using such a frame of reference, this proposed development would fail on both aspects. To be clear, we would disapprove of this development even if it was only for the “approved use” of a parking lot and did not require a zoning amendment. Our city needs to be building solutions that will mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, not accelerate these changes. Our city needs to be encouraging the use of sustainable transportation, for residents and employees, It is ironic then, to approve a development that wants to build more parking spaces for their employees. As well, the city needs to support developments and industries that will decrease our fossil fuel emissions, not expand them.
In addition to these more existential concerns, we have some specific issues with the proposal itself.
A. We are disappointed in the environmental assessment that was conducted by McKinley Environmental Solutions, dated May 2021.
1. In the executive summary, they state, "The Red Pine Plantation is not considered an ecologically significant feature, and therefore the tree clearing associated with the proposed development is not anticipated to result in significant negative impacts to the natural features and functions of the Site.”
Again, in the middle of a climate emergency, any forest (whether it is a plantation or a naturally occurring one), is ecologically significant. It is significant due to its carbon sequestration capacity in its soil and in the trees themselves, it is significant in the biodiversity it provides (regardless of whether that biodiversity consists of “common” species - we are losing ALL species at an alarming rate and need to vehemently protect habitat). It is obvious that clearing almost 4 acres of trees will negative impact the wildlife that use that forest as it’s habitat (birds, insects, etc) and the living trees and plants that thrive on that land. The interpretation of clear cutting a forest as not having a “significant negative impact", is not in line with a world that desperately trying to protect and plant trees as part of a global climate solution.
2. In reference to 2.0.1 Vegetation Survey and Tree Inventory Methodology (TCR) and 3.3 Vegetation Communities (TCR)
We are disappointed also in the Vegetation Survey and Tree Inventory Methodology (TCR). While the company states that groundcover was previously assessed during a site visit in June 18th, the inventory of plants completed by Dr. McKinley on December 3rd, 2020. It is not clear how plants that are not “ground cover” could have been accurately surveyed in December (since the report lists that ground cover was primarily dense mat of pine needles and has little to say about any other plants that were present). We know from our own walks and with a guided tour by Tree Educator, Owen Clarkin, that other plants grow and thrive in this forest.
Contrast McKinley’s Photograph 4 taken in December, with the recent photos residents took.
Figure 1: Figure taken from the McKinley Environmental Assessment (Photograph 4 in the report)
Figure 2: Photographs of the Red Pine Plantation taken by one of the local residents (July 4th, 2021)
3. In reference to the section 3.3.2 Significant Woodlot Assessment:
Given the significance of identifying a forest as a “mature” woodlot vs immature tree lot, we were also dismayed that the authors of the report did not actually measure the age of the trees using a core sample, but rather estimated their age from an aerial photo from 1965. The report estimates that the trees areapproximately 55 years old. This is an inaccurate estimate as demonstrated by the aerial photo from geoottawa from 1958 which shows that the trees had already been planted. Thus making them more than 60 years old. Given that the area is also large than 0.8 ha, this area fits both of the criteria for the city of Ottawa’s Significant Woodlot in an urban area.
Therefore the report’s statement that ”the Red Pine Plantation is approximately 55 years of age, and hence is too young to qualify as part of a Significant Woodlot under the City of Ottawa’s urban area criteria” is false. This area DOES qualify as a significant woodlot.
Figure 3: Historic Air Photo from 1958. The Site has already been planted with Red Pines at that time (Photo from GeoOttawa)
Figure 4: Figure taken from the McKinley Environmental Assessment
We also disagree with the interpretation of the Economic and Social criteria of this area. The report states that “The Red Pine Plantation occurs adjacent to Hunt Club Road and does not appear to provide any exceptional economic or social functions”. Indeed it provides a significant social function for the residents adjacent to this area, in particular military families who use this natural setting for recreation and relaxation. As well, in a climate emergency, ALL trees should be viewed as Capital assets, indeed, they are one of the only capital assets that increase in value over time. Therefore, a forest provides a significant economic value: contributing to climate change mitigation. And a forest at the site of an airport provides two additional values that should not be undervalued (but are by the environmental assessment): they reduce air pollution and they reduce noise pollution.
B. We disagree with many points of the Planning Rationale by Novatech. Specifically:
1. We disagree that the land use “efficiently use(s) land and resources” ( Policy 1.1.3.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement). “Land that is used “efficiently” would be land that has already been cleared or previously developed; cutting down trees is not an efficient use of land nor resources.
2. Also, we feel that Novatech was disingenuous when it stated that the proposed development would have negligible impact on the surrounding areas. Policy 2 in Section 3.6.5 of the Official Plan, clearly states “In Urban Employment Areas, the Zoning By-law will:
Distinguish uses with characteristics that are likely to impact negatively on surrounding areas (e.g., industrial uses that produce odours, dust, smoke, heavy equipment movement, large areas of outdoor storage, or noise) from those uses that are likely to have negligible such impacts (e.g., offices or research and development facilities);”
The proposed development would negatively impact surrounding areas in a variety of ways: increase air pollution due to the increase in vehicular traffic and their emissions; the proposal itself said that the development would allow for improved ease of Car Carriers to travel to and from the site (this surely should fit under the criteria of heavy equipment movement), and by definition it is asking for large areas of outdoor storage of vehicles (again assuming that 3.88 acres is “large”).
3. We also disagree with Novatech’s interpretation of Section 2.5.1 of the Official Plan: design objectives:
i) To enhance the sense of community by creating and maintaining places with their own distinct identity.
Novatech claims that the [newly planted] “trees will screen the proposed development from view contribute to maintaining the green identity of this stretch of Hunt Club Road.” In reality, these trees will merely attempt to hide the destruction of the green identity that was the red pine plantation. In addition, a large proportion of the neighbouring community is against this development, as evidenced by the statements of the adjacent community associations and the numerous communications received by both Diane Deans and Riley Brockington (who represent the wards that would be impacted by this development).
ii) To ensure that new development respects the character of existing areas. The existing area is a forest, this new development does not respect the character of the existing area. If the development were to be completely adjacent to the building in a previously developed land or a truly vacant building, that would respect the character of existing areas. It is grossly inappropriate to claim that the trees and shrubs that are planted will be in character with the “vacant” airport lands. The “vacant” airport lands are a diverse forest of 60+ yr Red Pine Trees with a biodiverse understory. New trees that will take 50-60 years to grow to provide the same height and tree canopy that currently exists with the Red Pine Plantation are not an equivalent replacement.
iii) To consider adaptability and diversity by creating places that can adapt and evolve easily over time and that are characterized by variety and choice.
During a climate emergency, we need to be looking at BIOdiversity and preserving tree canopy. Once a forest is lost, it cannot “evolve easily” and cannot be easily redeveloped into anything that will mitigate climate change like a forest can, it can only be further degraded and the land exploited.
iv) To maximize energy-efficiency and promote sustainable design to reduce the resource consumption, energy use, and carbon footprint of the built environment.
With all due respect, there is nothing that has been maximized in terms of sustainable design or reducing the carbon footprint of the build environment, they are literally cutting down a forest for parking.
In summary, we request that the City of Ottawa reject this application and move to rezone the red pine plantation to be a protected forest in Ottawa so that it can continue to serve its important role of providing a natural cooling centre for local residents, sequestering carbon to reduce our emissions, reducing air and noise pollution and providing habitat for our local flora and fauna.
Thank you for reading this far! If you’d like to learn more or get involved in efforts to save the forest, visit our friends at Save Hunt Club Forest.