July 30, 2009

There have been numerous statements over the past few months suggesting that the owners of CRC have the “legal right” to a 58-lot subdivision at Cape Roger Curtis. None of these statements can be attributed to a person with knowledge of municipal law, and appear to be simply a strategy to gain support for the CRC development. We now have a legal opinion on the matter.

Legal Opinion on CRC Subdivision Application (PDF)

Through a coalition of two Bowen organizations, the Bowen Island Eco-Alliance and the CRC Trust Society, a group of concerned citizens has come together to seek legal information about the subdivision process, specifically as it relates to CRC and the subdivision application that has been submitted by its owners.  We have, through our own internal resources, retained the services of Don Lidstone, Q.C. who is considered by many to be one of the preeminent municipal lawyers in BC. (His biography is available online.)  Mr. Lidstone has created a review of the subdivision application, which you can download as a PDF.

Mr. Lidstone’s review leads to some significant conclusions:

1.         There are good grounds for the rejection of the most recent subdivision application relating to the CRC lands, arising from the application itself and from the applicable law.

2.         If the approving officer does not reject the application, then opponents of this particular application would have good grounds on which to challenge his decision in court.

We think it is important for accurate legal information to be publicly available and we are are hoping that you will agree.  We would appreciate it if you could draw other people’s attention to this as soon as possible.

As most people on Bowen already know, the CRC Trust Society has worked tirelessly for over 5 years to preserve and protect the lands of Cape Roger Curtis as stated in the mandate of the Islands Trust.  The Trust Society is a group of people who would have preferred that the whole Cape be preserved as a park.  In reality, this now appears not to be a possibility.

There are people on the island who think that the Trust Society would sacrifice anything to have part of this land preserved as a park.  There are others who believe that the Trust Society is putting in jeopardy the possibility of any parkland at the Cape by taking a stand against the proposed “CRC Neighbourhood Plan”.  To all those who hold either of these views I would say the following:

A park at Cape Roger Curtis would be a wonderful gift for those of us living on this island and an important legacy for future generations but we are not willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the rest of Bowen to preserve a small portion of the south west corner of this beautiful, rural municipality.  As much as we care about the Cape lands, value the ecological uniqueness of it and recognize that compromise may be necessary, we also have a responsibility to consider the well-being of the island as a whole.  We are not willing to put our interest in the preservation of Cape Roger Curtis ahead of our concern for the rest of Bowen Island and the diversity that it represents:  its seniors; its low income residents; its business people; its commuters.  It is for all these reasons that every member of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society Board has endorsed the “100 for Bowen ad.”

Ellen Coburn, on behalf of the Directors of the Trust Society

 

Letter to Bowen Island Municipality, Attention:  Michael Rosen, 81 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island BC  V0N 1G0 dated February 11, 2009

Re:  Cape Roger Curtis – Neighbourhood Plan – September 2008

The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has been asked to comment on the development options for the 631-acre Cape Roger Curtis Lands (“CRC”) entitled Neighbourhood Plan (“NP”), dated September, 2008. 

CAVEAT:  The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has always worked in the hope of preserving all the CRC Lands from development in the belief that this is a unique, regionally significant coastal/marine area and that not preserving it as a park will have serious consequences for future generations on Bowen Island, and that its loss to development of any kind seriously compromises the “preserve and protect” mandate of this island.

Our overall goal continues to be to preserve as much of the CRC Lands in their current wild state as is possible.  In recognizing the determination of the current owners to put housing onto the CRC Lands, we continue to argue for preserving as much of the property in its wild state as is possible.  At a minimum, we look to retain 50% of the land as wild, contiguous, marine-based forest; this would most likely be in the form of a park and/or eco reserve. 

We consider that many of our ecological concerns and recommendations, put forward in our last referral response to council dated January 29, 2008, have still not been adequately addressed, leading us to repeat many of the same concerns that we expressed at that time.

Our main concerns are the following:

1.         Development Permit Area & Preserve and Protect Mandate

The Official Community Plan (“OCP”) has designated the CRC Lands as the CRC Development Permit Area (“CRC DPA”).  The special conditions, taken directly from the OCP (Section 6.1:  Special Conditions), that justify the designation of the CRC DPA are quoted below: 

”Cape Roger Curtis has special areas of wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation and other areas of fragile flora and fauna which require protection in order to maintain the natural environment.  Sensitive vegetation is most prominent along the rocky coastal fringe as well as on the inland steep rock and hummocky terrain.  Wildlife is varied with significant populations of deer and bird life.  There are also areas of water, resource value, both for aquatic habitat and for potable water supply that must be protected.  Cutthroat trout are found in area streams.  Sensitive terrain and steep slope characteristics in certain areas must also be managed to protect development from potential hazardous, such as flooding, erosion, and rock fall.” 

Considering these very clear warnings in the OCP about the potential for environmental degradation and destruction and considering, in addition, the very clear mandate that Council has under the Islands Trust Act (the “preserve and protect” mandate), Council should be extremely cautious when approving a development of this magnitude.  The possible impacts of even 200 residential units on the rest of the island, as well as on the immediately surrounding CRC terrestrial and marine habitat and its wildlife, will be huge. The impact on ferry capacity, the road system and the island’s overall potable water supply must be given due consideration.  Our concerns about the Cape water supply are: 

(a)        Given that there is an insufficient amount of water stored beneath the Cape lands and given the lighter rainfall in this part of the island, therefore, there is probably insufficient water for a project of this size.

(b)        Is the lens of water found under the Cape continually replenished over time from rainfall, or is it a closed system?

(c)        There is a possibility that blasting for construction could alter water courses resulting in less water reaching the fragile coastal flora in particular and may affect the replenishment of subterranean water.

(d)        The substandard nature of the water will require costly treatment to make it potable.

2.         Coastal Buffer Zone

Widening the coastal buffer zone is essential.  Now that we know where the current proposal sites the trails and houses, the narrowness of this buffer would result in human and canine impact on the easily disturbed marine wildlife, particularly in the winter months.  We note that no marine study was carried out which would have highlighted these harmful effects. 

Thinning and/or removing trees in this zone to create views is also unacceptable.  The corridors thus created would enable winds to gain access to the rising land immediately behind the coastal zone.  Wind accelerates when it encounters rising land and causes damage such as that seen in Stanley Park two years ago.  Therefore, the concept of keeping as much of the land as a contiguous whole (unfragmented), should also encompass the adjacent coastal waters. 

3.         The South Terrace 

We understand the developer’s intention is to commence building on the area known as the “south terrace”. 

If or when any development occurs, we would prefer that it start in the northwest corner (up to 35 houses) with access from Whitesails Drive (we understand that the people of Whitesails have said they could live with this amount of traffic) because we requested a covenant be placed on the South Terrace for 3 years which would give The Land Conservancy the time to help us raise the funds to buy it, thus reducing the footprint of the development by about 40 single family houses.  However, due to the downturn in the economy, we would like this covenant to be extended to at least 5 years. 

4.         There are still too many buildings/facilities proposed for this land. 

            Senior’s campus of care – The model used here depends on a pricey, high end purchase which would be beyond the reach of many of Bowen citizens.  We also question the location and continue to believe that this should be in the Cove. 

As the word “campus” evokes images of green well-kept lawns, flowerbeds and spaced well-pruned trees to let in the sunlight, was this the owner’s intent?  This type of green space, like a golf-green, would require a large amount of water to maintain which the island cannot spare.  Generally, daily water usage in care facilities needs to be extremely high. 

The distance from the Cove would be a problem for the island’s first responders, who would be 20 to 30 minutes away in ideal conditions but who could not respond at all on some adverse weather days, as was illustrated during the recent periods of heavy snow fall and icy roads.  This situation would strain our emergency services and put an aging population at risk. 

Other concerns of aging populations include mobility once the ability to drive a vehicle is lost.  We cannot recommend such a facility in this location, although we do acknowledge the need for suitable housing for Bowen seniors and affordable housing for all age groups on Bowen. 

Waterfront Inn – At 80 rooms this might be the largest inn in the Gulf Islands. There is no economic rationale for this scale of building.  We suggest elimination of this inn because it will result in even greater traffic to the area and a potential demand for a marina to accompany such a facility (which would be extremely detrimental to the coastal area) and also have negative consequences for the home-operated B&Bs on the island. 

5.         Density 

With regard to density, we feel that the addition of affordable housing units (presumably offered as an amenity) would be better located near Snug Cove for transportation reasons.  Otherwise, money saved on housing would then be spent on driving to and from Snug Cove.  Living in the Cove would mean that the all activities of daily living would be readily available without requiring the use of an automobile.

We believe that the issue of the density of this development should be addressed by the forthcoming OCP Review.  We also consider that accepting the NP before the forthcoming OCP Review would not only set a dangerous precedent for future development but could in fact unduly influence the outcome of the OCP Review itself. 

6.         Other Facilities 

Commercial Development – this subject (together with food growing) would also be better dealt with within the OCP Review and in light of Alderwood Farm and The Ruddy Café/vegetable garden already in existence at the foot of Sunset Drive. 

Food growing – A Bowen “master plan” (the revised OCP) would indicate the importance of this.  We support community gardening and food growing in principle but consider that too many trees would have to be removed from this sensitive area in order for there to be sufficient sun to accomplish food growing in a public garden.  Also, as this is the driest and warmest part of the island, water again becomes an issue. 

Composting centre – We see no rationale for this to be built on the furthest corner of the island.  The logical place for it would be adjacent to the Bowen Island Recycling Depot.  Like many of the amenities in the NP, we are not in favour of trees continuing to fall when there are other, preferable locations, elsewhere on the island, that would not require the clearing of more land. 

7.         Additional concerns 

We expect the municipality/council to take into consideration the following: 

(a)        the additional heavy impact and damage to our existing fragile heritage roads; 

(b)        that people will be forced to drive across the island for years to come until there is sufficient population to justify additional buses 

(c)        ferry service, which is considered by many to be inadequate now, will be further compromised; 

(d)        the need for an open and unbiased public process which has been lacking to date. 

We are appealing to Council to take a strong leadership role with all these concerns about CRC and adhere to the “preserve and protect” mandate of the Islands Trust.  We are convinced that this is possible without causing unreasonable delays for ownership.  We spoke publicly at council about these issues and were unhappy with the decision to move forward to first reading (yet another OCP amendment).  Along with the recent municipal election came the acknowledgement that the OCP is out of date and in need of review.  The lack of a current comprehensive “master plan” for the island, including both economic and ecological plans, makes it impossible to see how closely the proposed NP would match the results of an OCP Review.  We feel that to accept the NP in its entirety now, would set a dangerous precedent for other development and compromise a successful outcome for an OCP Review. 

We are disappointed that the previous municipal council chose, sometime in mid 2008, to let the closed-room planning sessions move forward well outside OCP guidelines, without delaying those negotiations and going to a public process for open consideration.  The series of owner-sponsored meetings that promoted the owner’s interests, have not presented the Bowen community with balanced information. 

Ownership would like the community to believe that the current choices are between moving forward with the current proposal or reverting back to a 58-lot subdivision which we know has not been withdrawn.  We wish to emphasize that there are still other options.  We are encouraged by the positives in the NP:  the large park areas, the large amount of waterfront preservation (although this has been reduced from the time of our last position paper in January 2008), and a decrease in density.  We see this as an indication that there is a willingness on the part of the owners to negotiate around certain facilities presently included in the NP. 

The Trust Society continues to see the ongoing process as being in mid-negotiation rather than at the end-stage of fine-tuning.  We also continue to see the situation as elastic and open to innovative change.  At this stage, the owners claim they have reached their limit concerning density and footprint and the amenities they can provide.  Now it is time to address the community of Bowen Island, inform them and ask them to respond.  This public discussion should occur soon.  Potential partners (The Land Conservancy, BC Parks and Metro Vancouver, who continued to be briefed) should be brought into the negotiations and heard publicly by the community.  The voices of those who understand the important ecological value of CRC to our collective future have not been heard.  These partners have indicated their willingness to be part of fundraising campaigns for targeted land purchases and park management partners who will have a significant impact on the footprint and density of any CRC development.  We must take time to ensure that all these options are exhausted before any final decision is made. 

We acknowledge the skill and effort that has gone into the NP.  Overall, it is a good plan but only if viewed in the context of redeveloping an urban area.  In the context of a small rural island, many elements of the NP are out of keeping and scale, especially on an island with 95% of its important facilities (ferry, library, post office, recycling depot, medical services, restaurants, gym, gas station, vet, cash machines, insurance agent or municipal hall, for example) on the opposite side of the island to the proposed development. 

We also acknowledge that many “green” elements have been proposed, however, to destroy interdependent ecosystems and then add back green elements does not compensate for the damage.  The way to do the least damage to this land would be to have as few buildings as possible and cluster them closely on the northern end of the property.  We continue to be in favour of something similar to the ”Mel Turner line” or the “Dave Witty plan” to minimize the impact and contain the footprint. 

We hope that the potential for developing a well thought out plan with minimum facilities and maximum preservation of the land, is still possible at CRC.  We consider that trading for density that is outside the OCP limit would not be acceptable to the people of Bowen Island, and was clearly stated as unacceptable by virtually all candidates for council during the recent election campaign. 

Sincerely,

 

Ellen Coburn, Pam Dicer, Jean Jamieson, Marion Moore, Stephen Foster, Jan Wells

Directors of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society

 

cc:        Mayor, Bob Turner and Councillors

            Bryan Kirk, Chief Administrative Officer

            Mel Turner, Parks Planning Consultant to BIM

            Sue Ellen Fast, Chair, Bowen Island Greenways Commission

            Peter Drake, Bowen Island Conservancy

 

Background

Last year the owners of the CRC lands decided to embark on a new direction in developing the property. Their initiative at the time, to create a 58 lot subdivision, was creating an increasingly acrimonious debate with the Bowen community and events were turning confrontational (locked gates erected to keep out local hikers, the brazen cutting of a gruesome ‘driveway’ off of Whitesails, etc.). The new direction came in response to the olive branch being offered by our municipal council: an invitation to a comprehensive rezoning process that would put all of the stakeholders at the table and create a more ‘community’ grounded solution to the Cape’s development. Ownership announced it had retained a new face to the negotiations (Mark Sager) and engaged the design and planning firm of Ekistics Town Planning Inc. They also successfully negotiated to keep their subdivision application in the queue, as a fallback position and to protect the CRC land from being down zoned in the future, in case the new public round of negotiations failed (though this is a rather unique situation and perhaps questionable from a legal point of view).

The Process

Before presenting the municipality with an official proposal, the owners decided to initiate a public campaign, to lay the groundwork for their plan and to consult with the community. In July 07 Bowen islanders had a first look at their new thinking. Ekistics and ownership held a public meeting where they unveiled a broad CRC land use plan.
Download Ekistics Land Use Plan (PDF)

Through that and 2 subsequent public meetings ownership and Ekistics built their case. Using their own research data (which was not made available at the time) they marketed a vision for the Cape that was a broad, ambitious and sophisticated town/village styled plan. Some of it was wonderful and appealing – 100 % waterfront protection, large park and green areas, community amenities including seniors housing, a community center, etc. Some of it was infuriating: it’s massive size and scale (the 80 room inn would be the largest in the Gulf Islands) requiring grand and expensive infrastructure costs and a 25 year build out, with pods of development spread throughout the property, limited and disconnected park areas, etc. And some of it just left many of us shaking our heads – the price for this grand plan was a density of 800 -1200 units (1100 being the purported request), many times above the OCP cap of 224 units.

The Response

After the 3 public showcases led by the Ekistics group, it was then time for a Bowen response and council directed the latest presentation to its various referral groups on the island. This included the CRC Trust Society, the APC, the Conservancy, the Sustainability Framework Working Group, Affordable Housing, etc. Responses came back earlier this year and have now been collected and summarized by the Bowen Island planning staff. This summary was then presented to council in a staff report.
Download staff report: Update on Cape Roger Curtis Comprehensive Planning Process

The feedback covered a lot of ground – that affordable housing be a component of the development, that any design be filtered through the new sustainability framework, etc. – but a few very consistent and clear messages emerged from the consultation process. Included on the list, much of which has now been publicly endorsed by Bowen council, is the need for a large, contiguous, marine based wilderness park (larger than shown on the Ekistics plans), with density that remains capped at the OCP ceiling of 224 units (though allowing for concessions for amenities like senior’s housing and affordable housing), a reduction in size of the development footprint, construction of a mix of housing styles and forms, etc. A new park boundary map has recently emerged that council recently endorsed (now called the ‘Community Conservation and Recreation Land Map – Vs. 2’, see enclosed). This map needs careful attention because it will very likely be critical to the negotiations ahead; it represents a meaningful saw-off between what the owners have been promoting (100% coastline protection, a large wild park area, a limited footprint for development on the Cape), and what council, green conservancy groups, the CRC Trust Society, planners and others in the community may be able to agree to as the basis for a final solution. The proposed park would incorporate the adjoining crown lands where Fairy Fen is sited and protect almost the entire Huszar Creek watershed. This would constitute the most significant new park of any being considered for the lower mainland. As well, recreation along the west coast right down to the lighthouse would be protected.

Also in this period two new voices were added to the Bowen negotiating team: Mel Turner, a retired BC Park planner, who has both volunteered his time and has been retained as a park creation consultant by the municipality (see accompanying article), and Jeff Herold, a highly regarded land economist, who has been retained to evaluate the financial numbers and the economic assumptions underpinning the owners’ density requests.

The Proposal

The owners of CRC put forward a formal proposal to the community on May 7, then resubmitted an amended plan a week later that now stands as their first official proposal for developing the Cape.

There is lots of material here with many maps. Some of the key elements to take note of include:

• The density request, which now amounts to 490 units
• There is no longer 100% waterfront protection.
• The lighthouse area and a large chunk of the south slope are now slated for rural residential housing.
• Only 30% of the land is wilderness park, in the southeast corner of the property.
• There is a concentrated development hub area (village) on the central west side.
• The development adds extra density in the form of an 80 room Inn with restaurant, a 150,000 sq. ft. seniors’ ‘Campus of Care’ facility, 5000 sq. ft. of commercial, a school, playgrounds, community center and amphitheater.
• The design includes a complex sanitary sewage grid, with a sewage treatment plant sitting on the park border right over the south slope.

Negotiations to Come

For many of us close to the negotiations, this proposal is a disappointment. It creates a wide gap between what our community representatives have been asking for and what the owners seem willing to give. Surprising really, because they have publicly stated that they want to close the deal with the current council and before the upcoming November elections (and several councilors have publicly stated their willingness to work to the wire, even through the fall campaign). The municipality’s message has been consistent and clear – smaller development, larger park, all within OCP density numbers – as a basis for accelerating the process.

But that’s definitely not where we’re at. The proposal seems to miss the critical importance to our community of protecting the Cape area itself. The owners have taken a big step backwards from their original concept, dating back to their first public meeting last September, which dangled the enticing prospect of 100% waterfront protection.

Developers in communities like ours always like to market their planning around the ‘neighbourhood’ moniker, and this plan is no different. But a closer look at this proposal, with its broad and fractured development footprint, its massively ambitious and expensive pre-building infrastructure, it’s consistently over-scale imagination, suggests that the underlying thinking still falters from what has hobbled the planning from the start: big ideas coloured by a ‘mainland’ context, imaginative planning perhaps for a city, town, or community in the Okanagan, but definitely not (or at least, not yet) a plan consistent with Bowen Island’s dreams for itself.

And still no wild, contiguous, marine based park representing a minimum of 50% of the CRC lands, the goal of so many of us who love that land and seek to preserve CRC’s extraordinary aesthetic and simple beauty.

The Struggle Ahead

Allot is about to come in to play as the now intensifying negotiations over the Cape heat up. First and foremost, any discussion about a development on Cape Roger Curtis has to reflect our concern for both the values the land has to offer and the quality and impact that any development will have on all Bowen Islanders. The immediate struggle looks like a battle over density and over a park boundary that will need to include the southwest corner/lighthouse area. Yes ownership has been generous to date, but they simply must be encouraged to go further. They have a unique opportunity to help create a significant park legacy.

But the park and the development are not yet what we want them to be. We must steel our resolve and bring to bear every opportunity at our disposal: use negotiating tools such as density transfer, eco gifting, amenity exchanges; bring to the table key players, such as BC Parks, The Land Conservancy, the GVRD (now Metro Vancouver), etc. who to date have only been circling the negotiations; and initiate a Bowen fundraising campaign, to start soon, that will demonstrate local determination for a successful, made-on-Bowen outcome.

There’s lots of work still to do, with much of it already underway. However, the mood amongst all the parties involved remains positive, and an inspired resolution feels tantalizingly closer.

By Stephen Foster
On behalf of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society

By Julie Andres – Bowen Island Undercurrent – April 11, 2008

Mayor Bob Turner gave a round of compliments to The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society at their AGM last Saturday. “You deserve credit for your professionalism and for seeking legal advice,” he said. (See ‘Fifty-eight-lot subdivision application for the Cape shouldn’t be on the table’, the Undercurrent, April 4, or go to www.bowenislandundercurrent.com and click on the Letters tab in the main menu.) “The outcome here depends on quality and respect, and I applaud the Trust Society for their approach,” the mayor added.

The Trust Society’s mandate is, in part, “To ensure that as much as possible of the the Cape Roger Curtis lands remain in their natural state”.

In audience handouts the Trust Society distributed a three-page, month-by-month list of their preservation activities for the Cape since January 2003, when they received a Certificate of Incorporation under the Society Act. Commenting on the list, Mayor Turner said, “Many more pages will be added to this list. Patience is everything, and the Trust Society will be an important player over the long haul.”

The CRC landowners’ plan for development currently proposes over 60 per cent – including all waterfront – as dedicated park, but a much higher number of units than allowed under current zoning. The starting number discussed at the AGM was 224 units, which, according to Community Planner Jason Smith, is the number envisioned for the property in the Official Community Plan.

Council has assigned the proposal to the Greenways Committee, the Civic Facilities Working Group, the Sustainability Framework Working Group, The Affordable Housing Working Group and the Advisory Planning Commission for review. Each group is charged with providing a report on the plan to council. In their minutes of Feb. 6, the APC passed a motion by unanimous consent that read: “The APC recommends that Council consider utilizing alternative approaches to calculating density in a creative manner, such as floor area limits and/or bed unit counts, recognizing that any alternative approach be cognizant of equating to a dwelling unit yield of 224 units.”

The other above-noted referral groups, which are appointed and funded by council, are either not represented on the www.bimbc.ca website, or their minutes are not up to date.

The owners of the Cape, (acquired by Don Ho, Edwin Lee, Wolfgang Duntz and others in August 2004) were represented by their project coordinator Mark Sager, who said they have a good working relationship with everybody involved. “We are optimistic that both sides are going to find middle ground. We expect to have another public information meeting in May and a formal public hearing in early September,” he said.

At their public information meeting in December 2007, the developer’s exhibits showed expectations that the process would move along much more quickly than it has. The timeline graphic presented then showed adoption of a rezoning bylaw by March 2008.

True to form, the Trust Society included a high quality educational component in their AGM. Research ecologist and Bowen Island resident Alejandro Frid gave a talk about predators and climate change as they pertain to CRC. Lindsay Coulter, a conservation policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation spoke about her work around the province “pleading the case for B.C.’s biodiversity and the need for change in policy to protect it”.

Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society’s website is www.caperogercurtis.org. Information on the Cape on Bowen Community Development (the developers) can be found at www.caperogercurtis.com.

April 4, 2008
Bowen Island Undercurrent

We urge council to exercise its authority to require the owners of the Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) lands to withdraw their application for a 58-lot subdivision for the following reasons:

The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society (CRCTS) has received legal advice that it is highly unusual for municipal councils to enter into a rezoning process while there is a subdivision application on the table. The public continues to perceive the subdivision application for 58 lots as a real threat if municipal council does not agree with the rezoning proposals of the CRC owners.

Community groups (including CRCTS) have spent considerable volunteer time attending meetings and reviewing and commenting on the CRC proposals, with a view to ensuring that the rezoning of these lands meets the goals and objectives of Bowen Islanders.

The subdivision of these lands into 58 ten-acre lots does not meet the goals and objectives of the Bowen Island community as expressed in the Official Community Plan (including the specific requirements set out for the CRC Development Permit Area), nor does it meet the stated public interest as expressed in the council’s resolution of February 2006 (Municipal Framework for Planning the Future Use of the CRC Lands).

The fact that the approving officer has neither approved nor rejected the 58 ten-acre lot subdivision does not relieve council of its responsibility to make it clear to the owners that a condition of entering the rezoning process is withdrawal of its subdivision application.

Given the length of time since the initial subdivision application (September 4, 2004) and the lack of any response from the CRC owners to the conditions set out in the July 7, 2006 letter from Michael Rosen, there is considerable doubt as to whether the application would be legally protected by the one year time period under section 943 of the Local Government Act, despite the extensions granted by the municipal planners.

Without demanding the withdrawal of the 58-lot subdivision application, council appears to be acting from a position of weakness, which inevitably affects its negotiation strategy. This is not serving the interests of the community.

If the current subdivision application is not legally valid (also based on good legal advice), then why not remove it from the table?

Pamela Dicer, Peter Drake, Stephen Foster, Jean Jamieson, Marion Moore, Nerys Poole, Jan Wells

Directors, Cape Roger Curtis Trust SocietyZZZ

by Alejandro Frid, alejandro_frid@alumni.sfu.ca, February 28, 2008

Introduction
Here I comment on the PGL (January 2008) report on CRC. To make the best use of the time I can allot to volunteer work, I will focus on ecological issues that complement the expertise and input of local naturalists (e.g. SE Fast, A Whitehead, B. Gowans and others). In essence, I have guessed what these other folks can address and stayed clear from it.

The PGL report is an inventory that maps and lists ecological attributes at CRC. According to its own introduction, it ‘is not a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the CRC project’, and EIAs are expect to follow later. While the inventory is a reasonable first step, the problem is that the PGL report steps beyond the scope of its current analyses by presenting a land use plan that, according to its own conclusion (page 23) will ‘ensure the protection of the Cape’s functional ecosystem’. That conclusion—which has the potential to influence public opinion and development approval—is currently unsupported due to the following issues.

Main issues
The recommendations and conclusions of the report implicitly assume that understanding biodiversity pattern— the spatial distribution of different species and habitats—is sufficient for long-term conservation planning. This is a fundamental flaw because biodiversity patterns are maintained through ecological processes: interactions between multiple species and habitats that affect the distribution, survival and reproduction of each organism (Pressey et al. 2007). Although the report gives token acknowledgements to some processes (i.e. describes disturbance history and mentions connectivity) for the most part it treats biodiversity patterns as static entities that can be protected by drawing a circle around them and excluding development within that circle. In the short term, that strategy alone might achieve some conservation goals. In the long term, it’s chances of failing are large because ‘[b]iodiversity is generated and maintained by processes and, unless we plan for them specifically, many processes will be disrupted or cease altogether’ (Pressey et al. 2007:583).

Consider predators, for instance, which indirectly influence the distribution and abundance of plants and other species at lower trophic by affecting the mortality rate and foraging behaviour of herbivores and other animals at mid-trophic levels. This general principle applies to myriad taxa, large and small (e.g. Werner & Peacor 2003; Ripple & Beschta 2006, 2007). Even invertebrate predators (e.g. spiders) can indirectly influence plant community composition and ecosystem processes (Schmitz 2008). If reserves are small (as the PGL report proposes) and predators readily cross permeable reserve boundaries, then human activities adjacent to reserves can continue to impact the distribution, reproductive success, and behaviour of predators (e.g. Sergio et al. 2005). What can potentially follow is the severe disruption of predator-driven ecological processes within reserve boundaries (Terborgh et al. 2001; Schmitz 2008). Given that settlers in the early 20th century eliminated wolves, the former top predator, from Bowen Island (Armitage 2001), in present-day CRC these concerns might be most applicable to human influences on the hunting distributions of owls, raptors and mustelids, but the list of expected predators at CRC (including small-bodied and invertebrate predators) would require further examination in this context.

Because ecological processes cannot be studied from scratch in a ‘land use planning’ situation like CRC, general principles available in the refereed literature are essential tools for conservation planning that must be integrated with the known natural history of the area. A recent paper, for instance, provides a synthesis of the concepts and methods for addressing three questions essential to conservation planning (Pressey et al. 2007:583): (i) which processes to plan for?; (ii) how to plan for processes?; and (iii) how to choose between processes when conservation resources are insufficient for all to persist? The PGL report, however, does not address these sorts of question. Thus, its proposed measures for conservation planning deserve little confidence.

This lack of confidence is exacerbated by the report’s second fundamental flaw: the implicit assumption that human threats to biodiversity are static (Pressey et al. 2007). In the face of climate change, this is naïve. There is growing literature on methods and concepts on how to make climate change predictions inherent to long-term conservation planning (Araujo et al. 2004; Hannah et al. 2007; Pressey et al. 2007). Climate change considerations are also inseparable from attempts to conserve natural systems, as recent experimental work demonstrates that multi-species interactions increase ecosystem resilience to climate change (Suttle et al. 2007). To be credible, any follow-up EIAs must rigorously apply these concepts.

Other issues
Here I briefly reiterate some points (not all) from my recent article in the Bowen Island Undercurrent (January 11, 2008, http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/bowenislandundercurrent/opinion/13713797.html). Arguments made there remain unchanged after my reading of the PGL report. The only brand new point here concerns fire management.

Invasive species
It is rather humorous that the PGL report speaks of invasive being present where campers and hikers have disturbed habitats at CRC, which is undoubtedly true, but then ignores how proposed development will exacerbate the invasive species problem to a much larger scale. To be credible, any follow-up EIAs must rigorously apply existing literature on this issue (e.g. Quian & Rickleffs 2006; Pressey et al. 2007).

Biodiversity impacts from dogs
Disturbance from dogs and other pets on birds and other wildlife must be inherent to any protected area management strategy, particularly in the context of the huge number of people that is proposed to be housed at CRC. The impacts from dogs can be severe and extend well beyond the killing of individual wild animals by affecting the habitat use and distribution of entire populations (Frid & Dill 2002; Banks & Bryant 2007). These impacts must be explicitly considered by any follow-up EIAs and park management plans.

Restoration and bioregional representation
The PGL report does not deal with the restoration potential of CRC. My position is quoted below (from the Undercurrent article):

Although much of CRC was disturbed by old logging, is the ecological restoration potential of the area being considered in a bioregional context? Existing disturbances should not be misconstrued as license for development. CRC, being located near major population centres with a long history of resource exploitation, is surrounded by areas where low-elevation coastal-fringe forests are very fragmented and degraded. Given this bioregional context, the unfragmented forest polygons in CRC that are maturing towards older stages used by habitat-specialist species represent a tremendous opportunity for first restoring and then preserving vanishing habitats.

Follow-up EIAs and reserve design plans should consider explicitly the restoration potential of CRC. They should also ensure that protected area design at CRC considers bioregional representation at the scale of the Georgia Depression ecoprovince (see Pressey et al. 2007).

Fire management appendix
As someone who spent 14 years in the boreal forest of the Yukon, I am aware of conflicts between fire hazard and rural living. The impacts of ‘fire smarting’ a rural community, however, must be included explicitly in estimates of the net impact of development. The more low density and spread out housing developments are, the greater the unintended environmental impacts of ‘fire-smarting’ will be. Further, under climate change the fire hazard situation could well worsen over time, which will lead to justifications for ‘fire smarting’ and expanding roads into what was originally intended to be protected forest polygons. Follow-up EIAs and land management plans should explicitly consider impacts ‘fire-smarting’ and related road building in areas that are purported to be protected. Analyses must consider both the climate regime that exists today and that predicted for the future.

Sensitive species
What will the follow-up EIAs actually do? For instance, Townsend’s big ear bat (blue list) and Keen’s longeared myotis (red list) are acknowledged by that report as potentially present but specialised surveys are lacking. Similar issues apply to other species of concern. For instance, will specialised surveys be conducted for marbled murrelet nests?)

Conclusion
Based on biodiversity patterns alone, the PGL report proposes spatial restrictions to development. Although that is a reasonable start, the report concludes that “these measures ensure the protection of the Cape’s functional natural systems”. Given the lack of consideration to ecological process and dynamic nature of future threats (e.g. climate change), as well as several lesser but important issues, that conclusion is untenable.

If EIAs are to follow, as PGL’s introduction states, then there is still an opportunity to attempt to address the issues I have outlined. Until then, there is little confidence that PGL’s proposed measures will achieve the longterm conservation of biodiversity at CRC.

As a next move, I strongly recommend that PGL lists, in explicit language, what the long-term conservation objectives are for CRC, and then uses these goals as the guide for all EIAs. If the goal is to address the shortterm conservation of some species and the maintenance of green spaces for recreation, then that should be spelled out and there should be no pretence of long-term biodiversity conservation.

Two principal founders of the discipline of conservation biology, Frankel & Soulé (cited in Pressey et al. 2007: 583), state the ‘the purpose of nature reserves is to maintain, hopefully for perpetuity, a highly complex set of ecological, genetic, behavioural, evolutionary and physical process and the coevolved, compatible populations which participate in those processes.’ Hopefully these are the goals that will be pursued at CRC. In which case, PGL and ownership have ‘miles to go before they sleep’.

References

Araujo, M., Cabeza, M., Thuiller, W., Hannah, L. and Williams, P. 2004. Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. – Global Change Biology 10: 1618-1626.

Armitage, D. 2001. Around the Sound: A History of Howe Sound-Whistler. – Harbour Publishing.

Banks, P. and Bryant, J. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. – Biology Letters 3.

Frid, A. and Dill, L. M. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. – Conservation Ecology 6: http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol6/iss1/art11/print.pdf.

Hannah, L., Midgley, G., Andelman, S., Araújo, M., Hughes, G., Martinez-Meyer, E., Pearson, P. and Williams, P. 2007. Protected area needs in a changing climate. – Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 131- 138.

Pressey, R., Cabeza, M., Watts, M., Cowling, R. and Wilson, K. 2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. – Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22: 583-592.

Quian, H. and Rickleffs, R. 2006. The role of exotic species in homogenizing the North American flora. – Ecology Letters 9.

Ripple, W. and Beschta, R. 2006. Linking a cougar decline, trophic cascade, and catastrophic regime shift in Zion National Park. – Biological Conservation 133: 397-408.

Ripple, W. and Beschta, R. 2007. Restoring Yellowstone’s aspen with wolves. – Biological Conservation 138: 514-519.

Schmitz, O. 2008. Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. – Science 319: 952-954.

Sergio, F., Blas, J., Forero, M., Fernández, N., Donázar, J. and Hiraldo, F. 2005. Preservation of wide-ranging top predators by site-protection: Black and red kites in Do_ana National Park. – Biological Conservation 125: 11-21.

Suttle, K., Thomsen, M. and Power, M. 2007. Species interactions reverse grassland responses to changing climate . – Science 315: 640-642.

Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nunez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R., Adler, G., Lambert, T. and Balbas, L. 2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. – Science 294: 1923-1926 .

Werner, E. E. and Peacor, S. D. 2003. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. – Ecology 84: 1083-1100.

Letter from the Directors of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society
to Bowen Island Municipality, Attention: Michael Rosen, 81 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island BC V0N 1G0

Re: Cape Roger Curtis — Preliminary Neighbourhood Plan and Implementation Options (dated January 3, 2008)

The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has been asked to comment on the three development options for the 631-acre Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) set out in maps on pages 22-23, 24-25 and 26­27 of the Ekistics brochure entitled Preliminary Neighbourhood Plan & Implementation Options, dated January 3, 2008.

CAVEAT: The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has always worked in the hope of preserving all the CRC lands from development in the belief that this is a unique, regionally significant coastal/marine area and that not preserving it as a park will have serious consequences for future generations on Bowen Island, and that its loss to development of any kind seriously compromises the “preserve and protect” mandate of this island.

The Trust Society recently launched its Wild Coast Plan 2 campaign (see map attached) to encourage the owner/developers to substantially widen the unfragmented sections of park in their proposals and limit development to a tightly clustered inland area. The comments below reiterate much of what is graphically represented in that Wild Coast Plan 2.

Specific Comments on Ekistics’ Plans. If we have to have development on these lands and if the parkland donation is sufficient enough to warrant it, the option from Ekistics’ January 3 brochure preferred by the Trust Society, with modifications, is the one at pages 22-23, the Phased Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan

Recommended modifications include:

All RC designated areas on map to be included in park area or, alternatively (and except as modified by #4 below),

All RC designated areas either to retain their current 10-acre parcel zoning or to be rezoned to 20-acre parcels, with one or two dwellings allowed on each parcel; requiring less elaborate infrastructure (i.e., gravel roads and, if necessary, septic systems); and including restrictive covenants that have a “no build” clause with sunset provision of not less than 10 years, that limit the location and size of the development footprint within each such parcel and place strict, perpetual conservation covenants on the remainder to be held (or co-held), monitored and enforced by a qualified land trust. There should also be a formal option to purchase the RC designated lands during the “no build” period in favour of the municipality, the Islands Trust Fund or a local or regional land trust. That option should be assignable (both in whole and in part) to permit the conservation community to acquire and protect as much of the Cape as possible.

Widening of the waterfront park strip along the western shore to at least 80 m-120 m to ensure greater protection of the coastal bluff habitat while also encompassing enough terrain for a workable, sufficiently green-buffered Wild Coast Trail along its entire length. It must be noted that the narrower the strip of forest retained between such a Wild Coast Trail and the most westerly development polygons, the more likely it is that the forest strip will be entirely blown down by strong winds, leaving the appearance of the CRC coast and the proposed trail “wild” in name only.

Conversion of the most southwesterly polygons of Rural Residential development to park (see those marked with an “X” on attached map). These areas are too integral to the core recreational areas on the property – Pebbly Beach and the Lighthouse.

Density to be reduced to 150 to 200 units maximum in the areas marked for amenities and residential, and to go that high only if the final plan includes a 60+% park/100% waterfront dedication, with possibly an increase to the OCP maximum of 224 only if reasonably priced multi-family units are included. (There are many reasons for holding the line on density, which we will discuss in greater detail below.)

A mechanism is put in place to ensure that some genuinely affordable housing will be provided within the units allowed.

Seniors campus of care facility – Cape Roger Curtis is not a suitable location for a seniors’ home. A seniors’ facility should be near the Cove, ferry and emergency medical services.

Waterfront inn – We suggest elimination of this, because an inn will result in greater traffic to the area and a potential demand for a marina to accompany such a facility (which would be extremely detrimental to the coastal area). Another inn on the island (in addition to the proposed hotel in Artisan Square and the proposed hotel at Cowan Point) would result in negative consequences for the home operated B&Bs on the island. Moreover, the location of the proposed inn appears to be atop some of the Ekistics-mapped significant coastal bluff habitat (see p. 11 of their brochure). If an inn is to be part of the final development, it should be relocated eastward enough to ensure protection of that fragile bluff.

Amphitheatre & Neighbourhood Commons – Again, increased traffic to this end of the island for cultural events does not make sense because the densest part of the island is around the Cove. A planned arts centre on the surplus lands in the Cove is sufficient for the needs of the artistic community. Also, we should not be converting precious natural habitat to unneeded lawn that requires maintenance. If there is to be a Neighbourhood Commons or neighbourhood park, we suggest it be located immediately southwest of Pebbly Beach near where the most intensive recreational use of the land is likely to be.

School and community garden – We feel that this would not be an appropriate site for a school, as it is not a central location. We do, however, support the idea of including a community garden in the plan.

Riparian & Watershed Protection – In the northeast corner of the property, the proposed extension of Cromie Road will run parallel and close to Burke Creek for most of its length and cross it multiple times. We suggest that the road be rerouted slightly to minimize its impact on Burke Creek and its tributaries.

Neighbourhood store – In order to reduce trips across island, this may make sense but only if it is a small mum-and-pop operation, like a convenience store.

Chapel and neighbourhood hall – Something along the lines of the Tunstall Bay clubhouse may make sense, again, to reduce cross-island traffic.

We feel that most of the amenities suggested by Ekistics:

(a) do not belong at the Cape;
(b) are “carrots” that are being used to buy the community’s support; and
(c) even if approved, may never become a reality.

The prospect of a major parkland donation is the only reason we see to justify a potential up-zoning of a portion of this property.

We consider that if the alternative plan on pages 24-25 of Ekistics’ brochure (the Partial Neighbourhood Plan) is pursued by the municipality, almost all of the above comments would still apply, except that the “remaining lands” should be rezoned to 40-acre lots subject to restrictive covenants and an option to purchase similar to those described in #2 above and the density permitted within the “partial neighbourhood” should be reduced to significantly below OCP to offset the “remainder” density and adjust for the significantly smaller parks donation.

We consider that the alternative plan on pages 26-27, the OCP+Subdivision Plan, although it includes a substantial park donation, is nevertheless completely unsatisfactory. Although the southern coastal bluffs might, conceivably, be protected through strict (and strictly monitored/enforced) conservation covenants on privately-owned land, the absence of a waterfront park along the whole western shore is too great a recreational loss to induce us to support this development. This option also includes housing in the headwaters of two watersheds in the most northeasterly corner of the property.

Development Permit Area & Preserve and Protect Mandate (i.e., reasons for most of the numbered comments above):

The OCP has designated the CRC lands as the CRC Development Permit Area. The special conditions (taken directly from the OCP) that justify the designation of the CRC DP area are:

Wildlife and bird habitat;
Sensitive vegetation (most prominent along the rocky coastal fringe as well as the inland steep rock and hummocky terrain);
Fragile flora and fauna which require protection in order to maintain the natural environment;
Protection of water resources, both for aquatic habitat and for potable water supply;
Potential to damage the cutthroat trout in the streams in the area;
Importance of managing the sensitive terrain and steep slope characteristics in certain areas in order to protect development from potential hazardous conditions such as flooding, erosion and rock fall.

Considering these very clear warnings in the OCP about the potential for environmental degradation and destruction and considering, in addition, the very clear mandate that Council has under the Islands Trust Act (the “preserve and protect” mandate), Council is obligated to be extremely cautious when approving a development of this magnitude. The possible impacts of even 200 residential units on the rest of the island, as well as on the immediately surrounding CRC terrestrial and marine habitat and its wildlife, will be huge, including the impact on ferry capacity, the impacts on the road system and the impacts on the island’s overall potable water supply.

Additional Comments:

Awaiting Additional Studies — Although laws are in place requiring ecological and other studies prior to development, those of us involved with the natural world and conservation consider that these laws do not go far enough, e.g. studies need to be of a longer duration in order to obtain more meaningful data, especially in this era of climate change. We have commented at length upon Ekistics’ brochure even without the benefit of the additional studies promised, but not yet provided, by the developer, and also without benefit of the January 19, 2008 walkabout having provided much help in the way of ground-truthing proposed locations. Without the owners’ disclosure and production of the long-promised environmental studies (water studies, wildlife surveys, vegetation surveys, fish and fish habitat assessments, archeological field reconnaissance, etc.), CRCTS emphasizes that the above are only preliminary recommendations. We must be able to review these studies carefully and analyze proposed development areas with a detailed topographical map or physical 3-D model showing watercourses, that indicates the areas that have been identified as environmentally sensitive and any proposals to minimize impacts.

The developers must also make good on their previous promises to flag the actual proposed boundaries of their development polygons on the property itself and then, once again, lead a walkabout demonstrating to the community which areas of the CRC lands are proposed for clearing and construction. Only then — after the vital ecological and geographical information we are still awaiting is produced and adequate time allowed after its production for it to be fully reviewed and considered — will it be possible for us and/or the public to comment fully on these proposals.

Ecological Concerns – Council must be mindful of the impacts that even 150 or 200 units will have on the surrounding fragile terrestrial and marine areas on these lands. To allow even that much in exchange for a park will undoubtedly have negative impacts on the ecology of the site. To allow more development than that, at any time, whether now or in the future, is to invite environmental degradation of this island and tragic loss of biodiversity that will never be recoverable.

Because he has expressed it so well and so succinctly, we attach, and hereby incorporate into this critique, the concerns raised by Alejandro Frid, Ph.D. in his January 11, 2008 letter to the Undercurrent.

In addition to emphasizing in our Wild Coast Plan 2 the importance of protecting coastal Douglas-fir and fragile coastal bluff habitats, we are also concerned that the current Ekistics’ plans will destroy the vast majority of the deciduous forest (red alder) on the CRC lands. This habitat type is also very important ecologically and is actually more important to the support of songbirds and small mammals than are the coniferous trees.

Disturbance to Humans and Wildlife — There is a need to consider the effects of noise and disturbance to humans and wildlife alike that will be caused by a 25 – 30 year project. The CRC lands are important winter range for black-tailed deer and the inshore area provides an essential food source for various wintering waterfowl species, including the at risk and extremely skittish surf scoters. While the developers will no doubt advertise their housing/amenities by extolling the beauty and peace of living at the Cape for up to 30 years, neither man nor beast will experience peace, apart from those brief hours when construction crews stop work. (And work on this island often continues into the evening and on weekends, particularly when the weather is favourable.)

More regarding “carrots.” Since the third public meeting held by Ekistics on November 27, 2007, the Members the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society Board have become increasingly concerned by Ekistics’ and the developers’ aggressive efforts to sell Council and the public their “sustainable” vision of unneeded and poorly sited housing and amenities, and other ideas which will degrade an ecological treasure without bringing benefit the island. Indeed, their “solutions” may only magnify existing problems by giving us more of what we already have.

Similar unrealistic visions for parts of this island have been sold to us in the past, ultimately leading to broken promises, e.g. Cowan Point. When push came to shove, many of the amenities that were offered to sway people to accept that development just evaporated after its approval either due to lack of funds or the impracticality of building what was proposed. Many of the same types of amenities that the CRC owners are seeking to use as incentives in the current case are already incorporated in the Cowan Point OCP amendment but not yet built (e.g., a school, a retreat centre, an inn). The one amenity offered by the CRC owners which is truly unique and potentially worth exchanging increased density for is publicly-owned parkland – but it must be a truly workable park whose design has been well thought out and thoroughly researched to maximize its ability to mitigate global warming and preserve biodiversity while also meeting many public recreation needs.

Sincerely,

Directors of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society

Nerys Poole Jean Jamieson Marion Moore Peter Drake
Pam Dicer Jan Wells Stephen Foster

cc: BIM Councillors
Bryan Kirk, BIM CAO
Mel Turner, Parks Planning Consultant
Sue Ellen Fast, Chair, Bowen Island Conservancy
Cathy Buchanan, Chair, BIM Trails Committee

by Nerys Poole
February 10, 2008, submitted for publication to Bowen Island Undercurrent

I have just reviewed the Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) Comprehensive Transportation Impact Study prepared by Opus Hamilton for the CRC owners, dated February 2008.

There are a few glaring errors that lead me to question the extent to which the authors analyzed our island situation. In addition, there is a blatant manipulation of numbers that results in a totally misleading calculation of the actual impact of any CRC development on the island roads and ferry.

The errors include the reference to a 50 kilometer posted speed limit on the island roads (instead of the 40) and then comments in a few places about “no posted speed limit” on some roads. The report refers to overloading conditions on the ferry being limited to the two morning sailings at 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (appears the writer is not a frequent traveler on our ferry system)

More disturbingly is the manipulation of the numbers resulting from a development of 224 units plus (initial phase only) at Cape Roger Curtis. The report states there is “a marginal increase of 89 and 137 two-way vehicle trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively.” In examining the report more closely, I find a table which shows how they reach this figure (at page 28). They calculate the trips that 224 units would generate (what they describe as “the OCP condition”, which is calculated at 172 and 228 two-way vehicle trips) and then deduct the “OCP condition” from their calculations for the initial phase of development (which includes traffic generated from additional 56 townhomes plus the traffic to and from the proposed neighbourhood facilities) to conclude the above “marginal increase.”

Further, the report makes completely unverifiable statements about the need for “a critical mass of Cape residents necessary to ‘kickstart’ carpooling, transit, or other transportation demand management measures” and the potential for “alternative travel mode usage” (such as bicycling and walking).

The report focuses on the initial phase of 224 plus units and then finishes with another disturbing conclusion about the Grafton-Adams Corridor – “At approximately 1,000 units (on the CRC lands), the Grafton-Adams Corridor will still operate at only 50 percent of the theoretical capacity of a rural road in one direction.” There is no mention of the impacts of the other developments that are happening on the west side of the island.

What this report emphasizes for me – once again – is the very pressing need for a complete review of our Official Community Plan (with full public input) – BEFORE any further developments are approved on our fragile island.

by Peter B. Banks and Jessica V. Bryant
Biology Letters (2007) 3, 611-613

Dog walking is among the world's most popular recreational activities, attracting millions of people to natural areas each year with diverse benefits to human and canine health. But conservation managers often ban dog walking from natural areas fearing that wildlife will see dogs as potential predators and abandon their natural habitats, resulting in outcry at the restricted access to public land. Arguments are passionate on both sides and debate has remained subjective and unresolved because experimental evidence of the ecological impacts of dog walking has been lacking. Here we show that dog walking in woodland leads to a 35% reduction in bird diversity and 41% reduction in abundance, both in areas where dog walking is common and where dogs are prohibited. These results argue against access by dog walkers to sensitive conservation areas.

DOWNLOAD PDF: Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas