Meech Lake Association Brief 2003

8/9/2019 Meech Lake Association Brief 2003

1/29

Brief submitted to

National Capital Commission

Master Plan Review

Gatineau Park

January, 2003


2/29

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Executive summary 3

Issues specific to Meech Lake 5

Community-based water quality quantity monitoring program 12

NCC proposed options - strategies A, B, C 19

Summary of recommendations 25

1 1


3/29

NCC Consultations

Master Plan Review

Gatineau Park

Meech Lake Association Brief

January 2003

Introduction

The Meech Lake Association represents 80 households at Meech Lake. We are

landowners, taxpayers and citizens of La Municipalite de Chelsea, Quebec.

We are pleased to offer in this brief our thoughts on how the natural and historic

heritage of Meech Lake and Gatineau Park can be protected and used, for the benefit of

park visitors and residents alike.

About half of us live at the lake year round and the rest are cottagers. Many of our

families have been here for generations, a few going back to the earliest days of

settlement when the forests were cleared and farms surrounded the lake. Some of the

current homeowners are descendents of families who have owned property at the lake

since the 1880's.

We love this lake and the beautiful park that surrounds it. We are steeped in the history

of human settlement in this part of Quebec. We seek to protect this heritage and to live

in harmony with our natural surroundings. We believe that preservation of this

marvelous natural and historical environment matters to all who enjoy Meech Lake,

whether residents or visitors.

Residents and visitors now get along and generally respect one another's use of the

lake and its surroundings. Nonetheless, as a result of increased public use, pressures

are building and must be dealt with, for everybody's sake:

1


4/29

• visits to the Lake have increased greatly in the past decade and take place now

in all seasons;

• most of the public facilities (paths, parking, the boat-launching place, and

beaches) are concentrated on the side of the lake where the road runs, even

though the shoreline on the other side is much longer and more attractive;

• the municipal road is breaking up under the volume of traffic;

• the unavoidable narrowness of the road puts walkers and cyclists at risk, while

the noise and dust of passing vehicles spoils their pleasure;

• poor signage and uncontrolled access to the lake road result in many people who

are looking for another destination, such as Lac Philippe or Autoroute 5, driving

aimlessly up the road and back;

• the road is a dead end but motorists are not' actively discouraged from using it;

• vehicles are allowed on to the road even when parking lots are full, resulting in

needless traffic, illegal parking and road rage;

• campfires are lit illegally, often left untended, and garbage uncollected;

• the number of people concentrated at the O'Brien and Blanchet beaches and at

the boat launching area nearthe P:-12 parking lot is affecting water quality in

those areas, and likely contributing to contaminating the lake;

• historic buildings such as the Mel Alexander house have disappeared and others,

such as the Hope cottage and O'Brien House, are deteriorating and at risk.

We recognize that visits to the Meech Lake area will continue to increase as the

populations of Gatineau and Ottawa expand. We do not feel that this part of the

Gatineau Park can be or should attempt to be, returned to its pristine state. The Park

must be open to human enjoyment and recreation, while retaining its historic character

and its essential wildness.

We believe that environmentally sustainable and cost-effective solutions can be found

to protect and rehabilitate the natural and historic heritage of this area. In this brief, we

offer our thoughts on how Meech Lake and the whole park can continue to be a joy for

visitors and residents alike.

John Coleman

President, Meech Lake Association

2


5/29

Executive Summary

The Meech Lake Association as a participant in the public consultations for the Master

Plan Review for Gatineau Park (2002-2003), is submitting a brief that:

• comments on issues that are specific to Meech lake and the Meech lake

road;

• comments on water quality and quantity monitoring and,

• comments on the specific options currently proposed by the NCC.

The brief explains the position of the Meech Lake Association on the orientation and

general direction for the future development of Gatineau Park:

'The natural and historic heritage

of

Meech Lake and Gatineau Park can be...

protected and used, for the benefit of park visitors and residents alike. Wedo not

feel that the southern part of the Gatineau Park can or should be returned to its

pristine state. ThePark must be open to human enjoyment and recreation, while

retaining its historic character and its essential wildness.

The brief identifies over-use of the park and un-controlled access to its recreational

destinations as core problems. It makes recommendations for some measures to at

least begin the control of use and access to the park.

The brief recommends an overall development plan that is feasible, practical,

realistic and balanced: the

Meech LakeAssociation

could not endorse proposals

that are extreme and un-necessary- such as expropriating private property, or

turning the park into an exclusive ecotourist destination.

Finally, the brief notes that the NCC proposals to date have very little to say about water

quality. To address this, we have included a proposal to set up a permanent, systematic

3


6/29

and scientific program for monitoring water quality and quantity for surface and ground

water in the municipality of Chelsea.

Recommendations appear throughout the document and they are also re-grouped for

reference, at the end of the document.

4


7/29

Issues Specific to Meech Lake

The Meech Lake area is picturesque and is enjoyed by Ottawa and Outaouais

residents, Meech Lake residents and cottagers, as well as visitors from across Canada.

The area offers a unique combination of features - access to skiing, hiking and biking

in the Gatineau Park, beaches with clean water and ruins of an old mill surrounded by

rolling hills.

Meech Lake and the surrounding area have been inhabited since the early part of the

19

th

century. Asa Meech first settled near Meech Lake in 1824. In 1875 William James

Tilley built the first cottage on the lake. In 1904 Thomas Wilson built his summer house

at the eastern end of the lake.

Though Meech Lake has always been a popular place, increased visibility and a

growing population in the region are resulting in a steadily increasing level of activity.

The Meech Lake Association has identified some factors that have a negative effect on

the natural environment and the quality of the experience for visitors and residents at

Meech Lake:

1. A badly located, poorly constructed road;

2. High traffic levels;

3. Over-use and inappropriate use by visitors;

4. Access along the road.

1. A badly located, poorly constructed road

The Meech Lake road has evolved from a walking trail, to a path for horse and buggies,

to a dirt road for cottages since1904, and finally to its present state. Unfortunately, the

road is located directly on the lakeshore for approximately 5 km. Around 1985, a large

portion of the road adjacent to the lake (approx. 2/5ths) was re-built to rural road

5


8/29

standards, with guardrails, a proper substrate and asphalt paving. This part of the road

is showing sighs of aging, but remains generally in fair condition.

The balance of the road is a generally poorly constructed dirt road with varying width,

minimal guardrails, ad-hoc ditching and drainage and for the most part, a somewhat

unstable substrate of earth and gravel. In 1999, the municipality and NCC collaborated

to improve this part of the road by applying recycled asphalt.

The recycled asphalt has improved the road stability somewhat, but is subject to

disintegration when saturated with water. As a result, it requires grading in the spring

and occasional cold patching during the summer, when traffic levels are highest. The

road is very rough and is virtually impossible to sweep in the spring, resulting in a

significant dust problem for residents and all road users.

2 High traffic levels

Since the development of NCC service areas such as beaches and a boat launch, and

as the popularity of the area has increased, Meech Lake has become exposed to very

high traffic levels. Along the unpaved portion of the road, heavy traffic has resulted in a

significant dust problem and a requirement for increased road maintenance. This

maintenance of the road along the lakeshore pushes foreign materials such as chunks

of recycled asphalt, calcium and residual bitumine from cold-patching into the lake.

In addition, the high traffic levels and excessive speeding make the road dangerous to

pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic levels are completely inappropriate for the road

infrastructure and during peak periods (hot summer days and fall colours), these traffic

levels are a severe impediment to quiet enjoyment of the lake environment by both

residents and visitors.

6


9/29

3

Over-use and inappropriate use

visitors

Largely uncontrolled current uses, over-use and growing levels of activity in the public

recreation areas, are seriously compromising the sustainability of the lake's ecosystem.

During peak summer use there is often significant spillover from O'Brien beach along

the northern shoreline, resulting in damage to the shoreline flora and increased erosion.

Refuse such as bottles, cans and other scraps are often left behind in these areas.

There is also refuse left behind by motorists

(Meech Lake Association

residents filled

many garbage bags during our fall clean-up along the road and lakeshore).There are

campfires that are lit illegally at various locations and on the northern shore of the lake,

and evening and late night parties are sometimes held at and near public facilities.

4. Access along the road

Meech Lake road is a public municipal road and does not belong to the N ee . There is

no compelling reason why this jurisdiction should change. However the uses of the lake

and the road which we have described above, are compelling reasons to secure the

active co-operation of the N ee in helping to control use, over-use and abuses, and to

be a constructive partner helping to sustain the ecosystem stability of the lake to the

enjoyment and benefit of everyone who uses the lake today and in the future.

Since the N ee is largely responsible for creating the amenities that attract an ever

growing number of users, our recommendations below are intended to encourage the

NCC to take the actions that are necessary to exercise controls in matters over which it

does have jurisdiction.

7


10/29

Recommendations

1. Reducing traffic along the lakeshore

Generally speaking, nothing would provide a more significant positive

impact on the natural environment, as well as on the quality of the

experience for lake users, cyclists, pedestrians and residents than to

substantially reduce and control vehicular traffic on the road adjacent to

the lake.

We recommend that if it is to continue, recreational water use be

concentrated at the eastern end of the lake and land adjacent to O'Brien

beach on the north shore, and the beach adjacent to the dam and the

bridge. The old mill area if it had appropriate facilities, could also be

considered for easier public access and use.

We recommend that signage in the village clearly indicate that the Meech

Lake road is a dead end, that it is not a continuation of highway 5 and that

the road does not lead to Lac Phillippe or to Lac Mousseau (Harrington).

2. Close Blanchet beach ~.

\

•

Visual inspection of the natural surroundings and water testing indicate

that public beaches are stressful to the lake's ecosystem. The

appropriateness of public beaches at Meech Lake is questionable.

However, if public swim facilities are considered appropriate, we would

recommend re-locating the Blanchet facility to a new location north of

O'Brien beach, where there is already substantial spill-over use; This

would provide a significant reduction in traffic along the lakeshore during

peak summer use, improving the experience for lake users as well as

reducing stress on the road and lakeshore.

8


11/29

3. Close the boat launch fac ili ty

The boat launch facility near Blanchet beach is a significant cause of

excessive road traffic. As well, its use also contributes major negative

impacts on the immediate land environment and further contributes to

deterioration of the lake's water. The boats, which are not inspected, could

become a source for introducing foreign species into the lake.

Furthermore, this launch area has become an unofficial third beach which

is used indiscriminately: it has become a habitual site for noisy evening

and late night parties in the summer.

If a boat launch is to be maintained at the lake, we recommend that the

existing facility be closed and re-located to the eastern end of the lake.

4. Better control of beach use·and effective patrols

If beaches are to remain, there must be better control of use. It is well-

known that the beaches are used beyond the maximum allowable number

of swimmers during peak periods. There is also significant damage to the

lakeshore environment from spill-over traffic beyond the beaches. For

example, if Blanchet beach is to remain in use, it should be limited

to

shuttle, bicycle and pedestrian access.

Although the NCC makes some attempt at lake patrols they could be

much more effective and used to stop unauthorized swimming, the

building of illegal fire pits, and night time revelers who use the shores at a

variety of locations. Patrols could assist in monitoring the number of boats

launched from the public facility and help promote awareness of safe

water practices that include the safety of long distance swimmers who use

the lake.

9


12/29

5

Controlled use of parking lots

If they are to be used, all three parking lots at Meech lake should be

closed after dark, and patrolled. Much more stringent entry controls should

be enforced at all of the lots, and at the Q'Brien lot gateway when the

other lots are full. The parking lots can be used much more effectively as a

measure to control use and access to the lake and its facilities.

6. Inspecting watercraf t

To avoid any transfer of non-native species into the lake, all watercraft

should be inspected prior to use on the lake.

Existing models of controlled access

National Parks use a number of tools to control use. None are perfectly analoqous to

the Meech Lake situation because private holdings do not exist in national parks, nor is

there a situation where a municipality owns the road. The examples listed below are

useful in showing how control can be exercised through reservations, parking lots and

shuttles.

1. Complete closure to public traffic and access only bv shuttle: this occurs in Pt. Pelee

national park where overall limits are set by the parking lot size. From the parking

lots there is a free shuttle up a roadway into the tip of the park. A second example is

Emerald lake in Yoho national park where access is restricted and must be reserved

ahead of time.

2. Seasonal closures: in Kejimkujik national park there are two roads closed on a

seasonal basis. The reason for this is that the narrow, dirt roads can only tolerate a

limited amount of traffic so they are closed during the high visitor use seasons.

Access to this part of the park during the summer is by canoe only.

1


13/29

3. Combined public access and shuttle: at Lake Louise there is an ongoing experiment

to allow access to both private vehicles while voluntarily encouraging shuttle use.

The shuttle takes people from parking lots.

Meech Lake - A place for walking and cycling

A vision for the future

Meech Lake should be a place where residents and visitors can co-exist peacefully and

where everyone can enjoy its beauty in harmony. Visitors are welcome, but vehicular

traffic is controlled, maki~g the road safer for walking and cycling, and generally

improving the quality of the experience for everyone.

11


14/29

Communi ty -based water qualit y quanti ty monitoring program,

Municipal ity of Chelsea

The source, the quality and the sustainability of surface and ground water is the life

blood of the entire ecosystem of the park. The Meech Lake Association believes that a

global approach to water management is needed for the park and the municipality of

Chelsea to ensure the long term health of this element of the ecosystem. We

recommend the creation of a permanent water monitoring program. We are including as

part of our brief a proposal for a possible water quality and quantity monitoring program.

1. Objectives

• To provide municipal decision-makers with current information on the state of

ground and surface-water quality and quantity in the municipality formation that

C?n be used directly to inform decision-making at the municipal and (potentially)

regional (MRC)level;

• To generate a spatially explicit baseline water quality/quantity electronic data-

base that can be used as the foundation for scientific research on the impacts of

human activities on ground/surface water quality within Chelsea and potentially

beyond, and which will permit seamless integration with existing water

quality/quantity monitoring networks at both provincial and federal levels;

• To provide citizens, public institutions and businesses with the opportunity to

participate in water monitoring and stewardship in their own community, that is,

to participate (pro)actively in a water civic science .

2. Structure of the monitoring program

The monitoring program represents a joint undertaking between the Municipality of

Chelsea, the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN), the University of

Ottawa (Institute of Environment), and the community of Chelsea. The monitoring

12


15/29

program will involve both surface and groundwater, and will include both biotic and

abiotic components.

2.1 Surface water monitoring

The proposed monitoring program will be concerned with quality/quantity of both

surface/subsurface and groundwater resources. For surface water, a set of permanent

sampling stations will be set up throughout the municipality using a spatial sampling

scheme designed to identify major spatial gradients in surface/subsurface quality and

quantity. As a first step, watersheds for all primary, secondary and tertiary surface

waters will be mapped using existing digital information and aerial photographs on

watercourses and topography. As most streams in the municipality have their origins-in

Gatineau Park and outflows into the Gatineau River, each major stream watershed (or

sub-watershed)

will

have several sampling stations: one at the headwaters in Gatineau

Park, one near the outflow to the Gatineau River, and several in between. Sampling

locations will also be located so as to examine the influence of land use on surface

water quality (e.g. residential development, industrial development, dumps, agriculture,

etc.)

The following criteria will be used to determine the set of variables that will be measured

in the surface water monitoring program: (1) the set of monitored variables should

include both biotic and abiotic elements, that is, characteristics of the physiochemical

properties of the water itself, as well as properties of aquatic organisms; (2) the set of

monitored variables should, as much as possible, overlap with those part of other

existing or planned surface water quality monitoring programs at the provincial or

federal levels; (3) all monitored variables must have well-defined sampling protocols

that do not require extensive technical skill; (4) the set of monitored variables should

include those which have been shown to respond to the types of stresses on water

quality that are either known to exist, or likely to exist, within the municipality; (5) the set

of monitored variables should allow testing of scientific hypotheses concerning the

impacts of human activity either within or outside the municipality on surface water

13


16/29

quality/quantity. Based on these criteria, a preliminary set of physiochemical monitoring

variables includes: total phosphorous (TP), soluble reactive phosphorous (SRP),

chlorophyll a (chla), total Kiejdhal nitrogen (TN), total dissolved solids (TDS), streamflow

(discharge), temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, dissolved organic

carbon (DOC), and totaIIfecaI coliform (CO).The preliminary set of biotic monitoring

variables has yet to be determined, but two possibilities are (a) characteristics of the

benthic macroinvertebrate community; and/or (b) characteristics of the fish

communities.

2 2 Groundwater monitoring

All residences, businesses and public institutions in the municipality rely on wells for

potable water. A subset of these wells will be selected for the monitoring program. The

selection of wells for monitoring will be based on a number of criteria. First, each

subwatershed identified in 2.1. will include a set of sample wells in both overburden and

bedrock. Within each watershed, existing wells will be assigned to one of three

categories: (a) highly recommended for monitoring; (b) moderately recommended; or

(c) optional, according to the criteria outlined in WCGW (2001):

• Highly recommended: wells considered highly susceptible to contamination

based on bedrock/overburden characteristics and location, and having at least

average water capacity.

• Moderately recommended: wells considered to have variable susceptibility to

contamination based on bedrock/overburden characteristics and location, and

having at least average water capacity

• Optional: wells where groundwater has variable susceptibility to contamination

and which have below average water capacity.

14


17/29

The water-yielding capacities of wells and their associated aquifers is best determined

by long-term pumping-tests from which one can calculate permeability (hydraulic

conductivity), transmissivity and storage capacity. But these data are rarely collected;

usually one measures final drawdowns associated with short-term (usually 24 hr) pump

tests, which can then be used to calculate specific capacities, which are used as an

indicator of water-yielding capability.

once an initial set of prospective wells has been identified, owners will be approached

for permission to register their well in the municipal monitoring network. This process

will continue until sufficient coveraqe is obtained.

For groundwater monitoring, either in bedrock or overburden, the following variables will

be measured: specific capacity (using 24-hr pump tests), pH, conductivity, DOC, TP,

TKN, nitrates/nitrites, TP, SRP, and CO. In addition, a subset of monitored wells will be

used toestablishbaseline levels of contaminants that might be expectedto be present

in Chelsea. These include some 'pesticides, metals, heavy metals and some PAHs.

The tables on the following pages lists the responsibility centers and the proposed

personnel.

15


18/29

3 Partnerships and responsibi l it ies

Table 1.1 summarizes the major partners and their responsibilities:

r

Partner

and

Municipality of Chelsea

Responsibilities

• Landowner, business

community group contacts

I

• Maintenance of water monitoring i

electronic data-base i

• Period reporting on monitoring I

I

program

• Non-specialized

equipment

• Financial oversight

. I

sampling

I

I

Institute of Environment/University of

Ottawa

and scientific

I

I

• Design of surface and I

groundwater sampling program

• Water analysis

• Data analysis

• Graduate and undergraduate

student research/data collection

• Technical training of community

volunteers

• Technical

oversight

Ecological Monitoring and Assessment

Network

• Technical assistance

(specifically regarding

complementarity of program and

sampling with EMAN protocols

Chelsea community groups, schools,

businesses, citizens

• Registration in groundwater

monitoring program

• Data collection

ACRE (Action Chelsea for Respect of

the Environment)

• Program coordination

• Technical expertise

16


19/29

~L~hD·~~ __ ~~

/

~ L ~ ~ b ~ ~ = = = = ~ ~ ~

Lrnldak,

Mee ch L N trII u / . e - l - - - .

IAMch L NWtrib

Meech L _ . h - . . • . . .

17


20/29

·.

Technical Personnel

Table 1.2. Lists the personnel at the University of Ottawa and affiliated institutions who

have agreed to assist in one or more aspects of the proposed monitoring program

Asterisks indicate residents of Chelsea, double asterisks residents of Gatineau or the

MRC

I Name

I

Rank

Faculty/Department Area of expert ise

I

I Blais, Jules

Assoc. Prof.

I Science/Biology

Aquatic ecotoxicology

I

Blouin-Demers,

Assistant Prof.

I Science/Biology

Conservation biology,

Gabriel*

herpetoloqy

Chapleau,

Professor

I

Science/Biology

Fish ecology

Francois**

Droste, Ron

Professor

Engineering/Civil Design of water treatment

Engineering systems

I

Science/Biology; Institute of Conservation biology;

Findlay, Scott*

Assoc. Prof.

Environment

Ecological risk assessment

Fortin, Oanielle**

Assoc. Prof. Science/Earth Sciences

Aquatic biogeochemistry

and nutrient cycling

Gillespie, Lynn*

Adjunct Professor;

Canadian Museum of

Systematics and ecology of

Museum of Nature Nature aquatic plants

Science/Geography

Remote sensing and

King, Doug*

Professor

(Carleton University)

geographic information

systems

Professor

Director, St.

Lean, David

Lawrence Institute

Science/Biology Aquatic ecotoxicology

of Enviromental

Studies (SLRIES)

Martel, Andre**

Adjunct Prof.

Canadian Museum of

Aquatic malacology

Nature

Morin, Antoine**

Assoc. Prof. Science/Biology

Stream ecology

Pick, Frances

Professor

I Science/Biology

Lirnnoloqy, wetland and

I

riverine ecophysiology

I

Robin, Michel

I

Assoc. Prof. Science/Earth Sciences Hydrogeology

Medicine/Biochemistry.

Sattar, Sayed

Professor

Microbiology and

PathogeniC microbiology

Immunology, Faculty of

and virology

Medicine

18


21/29

ee Master Plan Review

Gatineau Park

Comments and recommendations on

ee Proposed Options

General Observations

The Meech Lake Community Association sees the A, B,C approach to strategies as a

method that forces participants in the consultations to opt for pre-determined categories,

to opt for solutions that they may not fully endorse. Individually and together, the

strategies proposed are often problematic. They:

• are simultaneously too broad and too narrowly defined;

• are not always consistent between and among themselves.

• overlap in ways that would be difficult to reconcile in practice;

• frequently ignore the realities of the current and future uses of the park;

• do not realistically acknowledge the substantial urban growth of the region

projected over the next quarter century;

• do not adequately reflect the decisive role of other levels of government;

• aim for a legislative option intended to insulate the park from the

pressures surrounding it;

• are not consistently supportive of the vision ofthe Plan for Canada s

Capital, 1999;

• lead to making either or choices.

The Summary Document: Phase 1 admits that the proposed strategies and

methodology are problematic and states, With regard to the strategic solutions, some

participants were unable to make

a

choice using the proposed methodology.

11

19


22/29

Strategy A, in all instances, is especially difficult to deal with. It is too extreme a strategy

to stand the test of real-life application. The constraints that it would place on park

development, recreational use and public access make it incompatible with the 1999

vision. It is not a viable option in practice and appears to have been designed to be

rejected to tilt the decision toward the Band C strategies.

One consequence of its application would be to reserve the park for ecotourists to the

exclusion of the majority of all other users who engage in active recreational activities.

In the near future the park may be the only refuge for people who don't want to be

educated; those who simply want to be outdoors.

1. We recommend that strategy A be taken off the table altogether.

A national park

Under the strategic objective, R~gional integration: contribution to sustainable

development, the document, without any explanation, indicates that under all three

strategies the park will be a national park.

A possible change to the legal status of the park is a matter that is not yet under active

public discussion. The consultation on this has not been done and a decision has not

been made. Yet, in a document meant to provide options and solicit choices, under a

critical category, no options or choices are offered, but a course of action has been

announced.

The document makes the unsupportable assertion that the park can only be effectively

managed if it is given legal status as a national park.

Creating a new legal status as a national park could be the worst possible technical

solution: given the complexity of managing competing municipal, regional and rural

in te re sts a m o re fle xib le a nd su btle s ta tu s m ig ht b e m o re a pp ro pria te .

2


23/29

The status which the park already has does not inhibit the Commission in its

management and development of the park. The Commission already has the means to

administer the park. The Summary Document: Phase 1, states, The NCC s federal

lands are govemed by the National Capital Act. The Act does not grant special status to

the Park, although the NCC has the power to approve al/ uses and activities on its lands

via its land use approval mechanism.

We recommend that any change to the legal status of the

park be submitted to separate regional inter provincial and

national public consultat ion.

Plan for Canada s cap ital, 1999

The round of consultations now underway may be some help in evaluating current

public views, aspirations and opinions on the future development of the park. The

outcome may' provide a reading of public opinion at this time.

It seems unlikely however that in the brief period of time since1999 there are new, or

not anticipated developments, that would cause a significant reorientation to the

proposed management of the park set out in the Plan for Canada s capital, 1999.

The Plan, a document of strategic orientation and management, clearly sets out the

governing principles and guidelines for management of NCC lands including the park,

for the next fifty years.

T he s tra te gic o rie nta tio n fo r th e p ark is a lre ad y a de qu ate ly d es crib ed : th e

natural

qualities of Gatineau Park as part of the Canadian Shield will be protected. Recreational

activities, interpretation for conservetion topics and historical sites, commercial facilities

and events compatible with the preservetion of the Park will ensure that it is used

without losing its natural beauty.

21


24/29

To support this strategic orientation, the Plan enumerates the principal policy

statements which list in detail the management measures that need to be taken to deal

with the specific categories of issues affecting the park.

Thus, the Commission already has a strategic framework, in addition to much of the still

pertinent material in the 1990 Master Plan. In both these documents the problematic is

already well identified. We recommend:

3) That the Commission concentrate its efforts on developing

an imptementstion plan for dealing with the issues that have

already been identified;

4) That the Commission implement the 20 of the core

management objectives of the 1990Master Plan, which it says

it has not yet implemented and,

5) That the Commission focus its attention on implementing

the detailed list of actions already contained in the Plan for

Canada's Capital, 1999.

Specific comments on proposed strategies

In the section that follows we respond directly to your questions and choose among the

strategies that you have outlined.

The natural environment: ecosystem sustainability

We opt for strategy C as a general approach. We would add elements of strategy B that

allow some ecosystems to be targeted for special care, nurturing and preservation.

Water is an essential part of the natural environment, and yet the consultation document

has very little to say about it.

We recommend a scientific, systematic, continuous, long-term monitoring and management

program for surface and table water be a central and permanent feature of the Municipality of

22


25/29

Chelsea and the Commission's management of the natural environment. (NB: see our proposal

for a water monitoring program.)

Recreation: quality of the recreational experience

We opt for strategy C as a general approach. We would add elements of strategy B that

include controlled recreational and tourist experiences.

The central issues about recreation in the park involve over-use, uncontrolled entry and

noise pollution. We recommend:

6) That motorized recreational vehicles, motorcycles, motor-

equipped mountain bikes, all terrain vehicles and skidoos be

forbidden on park trails;

7) That the numbers of users allowed into the park at anyone

time be controlled;

8) That access into the park, and access throughout the park

be controlled.

Regional integration: contribution to sustainable development

We opt for strategy C, but at this stage do not endorse a national park. We would add

elements of strategy B which provide a balanced approach allowing for both

conservation and recreation. We recommend:

9) That more user fees be used to help finance the

maintenance

of

the park and as

a

method

of

controlling

access;

10) That the Commission work much more closely with the

private sector and local governments to complement its

sustainable development Objectives and

as a

means of

generating money for the local economy.

23

.• . . .

_


26/29


27/29

Summary of Recommendations

MeechLakeAssociation - General Recommendations

• The natural and historic heritage of Meech Lake and Gatineau Park can be

protected and used, for the benefit of park visitors and residents alike. We

do not feel that the southern part of the Gatineau Park can or should be

returned to its pristine state. The Park must be open to human enjoyment

and recreation, while retaining its historic character and its essential

wildness

• We recommend an overall development plan that is feasible, practical,

realistic and balanced

• The Meech Lake Association could not endorse proposals that are extreme

and un-necessary -such as expropriating private property, or turning the

park into an exclusive ecotourist destination

Issues specific to Meech Lake - Recommendations

*

1 Reducing traffic along the lakeshore

2. Close Blanchet beach

~ 3

Close the boat launch facility

4. Better control of beach use and effective patrols

5. Controlled use

of

parking lots

6. Inspect watercraft prior to use on the lake

Water quality Meech Lake and Municipality of Chelsea - Recommendation

7. We recommend a scientific, systematic, continuous, long-term monitoring

and management program for surface and table water be

a

central and

permanent feature of the Municipality of Chelsea and the Commission's

management

of

the natural environment.

5


28/29

NCC proposals - Recommendations

1. Werecommend that strategy A be taken off the table altogether

2. Werecommend that any change

to

the legal status

of

the park be

submitted to

a

separate regional, inter-provincial and national public

consultation

3. That the Commission concentrate its efforts on developing an

implementation plan for dealing with the issues that have already been

identified;

4. That the Commission implement the 20

of

the core management

objectives of the 1990Master Plan, which it says it has not yet implemented

5. Ttiet the Commission focus its attention on implementing the detailed list

.

ofactions already contained in the Plan for Canada's Capital, 1999

6. Thatmotorized recreational vehicles, motorcycles, motor-equipped

mountain bikes, all terrain vehicles and skidoos be forbidden from park

trails

7 That the numbers of users allowed into the park at anyone time be

controlled

8. That access into the park, and access throughout the park be controlled

9. That more user

fees

be used to help finance themaintenance

of

the park

and as amethod of controlling access

10.That the Commission work much more closely with the private sector and

local governments

to

complement its sustainable development objectives

and as ameans of generating money for the local economy

26


29/29

Heritage:

11.We recommend that best practices from around the world be studied and

adapted where appropriate

Management: a strategic tool:

12.

We recommend that the management practices for this section be

harmonized with the objectives listed above under the natural environment

where

some

ecosystems would be targeted for special attention

13. A

recommended approach

• We recognize the need

to

target some ecosystems for particular

conservation and preservation;

• However, our general recommendation is that the strategies that you

have listed (with the exception

of

strategy A) be combined to

produce an approach

to

the management

of

the park that is

balanced, flexible and realistic;

• We recommend against choices that are extreme and we favour

choices that blend

as

well

as

they can, the competing and

sometimes. contradictory

issues of a park situated in a large

urbanized area.

Meech Lake Association Brief 2003

Documents

Transcript of Meech Lake Association Brief 2003