Jess McDiarmid
Northern News Services
Published Friday, November 9, 2007
YELLOWKNIFE - A report on Yellowknife's ecological resources was sent back to city staff after a meeting in which members of the public and city council called the $130,000 study "flawed" and "biased."
Erica Janes walks her dog Odin on Tin Can Hill, one of 40 sites studied in the Ecological Resource Inventory Report. She said it's important for the city to have an inventory of Yellowknife's ecological resources. - Jess McDiarmid/NNSL Photo |
Council's Municipal Services Committee was to decide whether to send the Ecological Resource Inventory Report to a council vote for adoption, which city staff could then use as guidance for development and planning.
"I absolutely cannot support the idea of this report being used for guidance," said Coun. Shelagh Montgomery at a Municipal Services Committee meeting Nov. 5.
"I certainly don't want to see this thing used for making decisions or helping with decisions at this time."
The Ecological Resources Inventory conducted by Jacques Whitford Ltd, an environmental consulting firm, was commissioned by the previous council. It's goal was to assess and rank ecologically significant areas in and around Yellowknife and come up with possible ways to protect these areas.
It was one recommendation in the Integrated Parks, Trails and Open Space Development Study adopted in 2005.
The report identified 40 sites, encompassing roughly 30 per cent of city land, and ranked them in order of importance, using conservation value and land use pressure as criteria.
Highest ranked sites include Frame Lake, Fiddler's Lake Road area and Grace Lake. Some of the lowest priority sites are the fire hall outcrop, McAvoy Rock and the CBC outcrop.
Coun. David Wind spoke strongly against the report, calling its basic principles "flawed."
It compared small green areas within the city to large areas with water bodies - some outside city limits - which is unfair, said Wind.
Sites commonly visited by people were penalized in the report when they should be more valuable, said Wind.
"Of course from an ecological standpoint (larger sites) are going to exhibit wider variety and be more productive in terms of habitat," said Wind. "But the comparison is rather unfair ... The small bits are close to where people live and they are important to the people that live around them."
Montgomery agreed that proximity has to be a factor in evaluating the worth of green spaces.
Many of the top-ranked sites fall outside the downtown core where it's not likely the city would develop anyway, said Montgomery. "We really need to look at proximity as well because people are concerned about places downtown, like Tin Can Hill, for example," she said. "We don't want to have to drive every time you go and take your dog for a walk in the woods."
Biologist Vicky Johnston attended the meeting to urge council not to accept the inventory.
"If you're trying to use this for the development of a city where you have citizens who are going to want to be close to areas that are green ... it's not going to help you," said Johnston.
The long-time resident criticized conservation options in the report, which focused on zoning. She said other ways to protect green spaces should be considered because zoning can be easily changed.
Coun. Kevin Kennedy agreed that he wouldn't want the report used as guidance but suggested its information could be used as part of further study.
Wind disagreed.
"I feel because of this bias that the report is invalid," he said. "
The Monday meeting marks the second time the committee has sent the report back to administration before putting it before council. In September, members requested more information on the study and how it would be used.
City staff will examine input from the meeting and present another recommendation to the committee at a future date. The 2008 budget will also include cash for further study.
