Who is responsible? Besides the elder Nicol, mostly the politicians we elected.
In 1988, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC) received an application for a zoning change for the area, from 'hazard land' (peat, unsuitable for supporting buildings or for agriculture, hence of almost no value) to development status (high value). The required sign went up on the site to notify the public. Albert Dugal, a botanist with the Canadian Museum of Nature, drove past the site on his way to work, and went in to take a look. He came out with his jaw hanging down to his ankles, and started phoning fellow botanists. To the best of my knowledge, Dugal's report was the first to note anything unusual about the area.
The RMOC Council's reaction was that the new information on the site was just last-minute obstructionism. They approved the zoning change in full, overruling their own planning department staff and even overriding further public notice requirements in the process. The happy land owners promptly dug a drainage ditch right through the middle of the most sensitive part of the wetland, the fen (as shown in the aerial view above). Politically, the RMOC, and it's successor, the amalgamated City of Ottawa, have continued active support of the developers ever since, with plans to provide servicing sufficient to cover the whole area with housing, and to wipe out the southern section of the wetland with a road.
After hearing the botanists' protests, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources acknowledged in 1989 that the area was a true Class I wetland with one of the highest evaluation scores in eastern Ontario, and that it was both regionally and provincially significant. But, 2 months later, the Ontario government decided that it would ignore its own Wetlands Policy, which states
"It is the Policy of the Province of Ontario that: Where Provincially Significant Wetlands have been identified, all planning jurisdictions, including municipalities and planning boards, shall incorporate policies and protect Provincially Significant Wetlands in official plans, zoning by-laws, and other development decisions under the Planning Act."and let the developer know that Ontario would take no part in defending the area. In fact the OMNR, responsible for Ontario's parks, did appear at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in 1991, but so half heartedly that their comments were ignored by the Board. The Board treated all the proponents of development as professionals and the proponents of the wetland as biased - one was even declared hostile - then determined the wetland boundary to be that proposed by the developers. (This is all but inevitable with judicial bodies such as the OMB. A professional's job is to provide the answers the client wants, while scientists try to get things right no matter where they lead. Lawyers are professionals, and instinctively view true scientists, such as those who attempted to defend the wetland, as impractical, even disruptive. They can't count on us.)
The federal government has a Wetland Conservation Policy, that sets the goals of
"no net loss of wetland functions on all federal lands and waters; enhancement and rehabilitation of wetlands in areas where the continuing loss or degradation of wetlands or their functions have reached critical levels; securement of wetlands of significance to Canadians."A large portion of the wetland is owned by the federal government as a buffer zone around the Ottawa airport. And, in 1993, the federal Canadian Wildlife Service, for Environment Canada, reported [their capitals]
"The CWS considers the net environmental effects of the proposed development on the Leitrim Wetland are unacceptable ... A MAJOR PERMANENT NEGATIVE IMPACT ... In order to attempt to protect both the wetland area and function it is further recommended that 120 m of adjacent lands bordering the wetlands be secured."Although mid-level National Capital Commission (NCC) staff tried to find land within their control that might be swapped for the sensitive Leitrim land, they were unsuccessful - most federal land in the area is controlled by departments, not by the NCC, and none were forthcoming. The federal government then granted permission for drainage ditches and water supply pipes required for phase two of the development to cross federal land. Transport Canada installed an airport radar facility, complete with drainage, in the heart of the wetland. And, at a meeting 1 March 1995, the NCC pressured all federal government agencies into accepting the developers' plan. The NCC then adopted (in 1996) a Greenbelt Master Plan which provides that their conservation efforts are to be restricted to within the current boundaries of the Greenbelt, thus excluding Leitrim.
A new Ottawa Airport runway should be built (shown dashed in white) in the future so that two old runways can be closed to abate aircraft noise over residential areas. The airport will need end-of-runway control - block A, and a matching block off the west end of the new runway. (These blocks are currently in NCC hands as part of the Greenbelt.) The feds couldn't care less - they have now transferred airport management to the private sector so this will be someone else's problem.
The City of Gloucester, within which the site lay before amalgamation with Ottawa, was not of much assistance either. The City acknowledged that the area is a Class I Wetland, but that was all - in every other respect, they acted to facilitate the development, citing the necessity for Gloucester to keep growing in population forever so that taxes could be kept at an unsustainably low level. (As Cumming Cockburn Ltd. put it, "Both the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the City of Gloucester ... consider growth in the assessment base to be essential to moderating yearly tax increases, and to providing the means of providing the financial resources to maintain the level of services to residents.")
The new amalgamated City of Ottawa has given full approval for development. The signs are up - Findlay Creek Village. The basements are being dug and drainage sewers installed.
What can be done?
Nothing. It's a done deal.
Additional reading:
Trail & Landscape 24(3):56-78(1990); 26(3):64-94(1992); 27(4):118-139(1993)