Marlborough Forest

A summary of issues and special concerns pertaining to public safety and conservation of the natural habitat

1 December 2003

Note: This summary is *not* intended as an official statement from any one group. It is a summary of informal comments and suggestions received from concerned individuals, and has been assembled for the sole purpose of discussion.

This (*unofficial*) report was prepared by Bev Wigney, with the input of many friends and members of the NatureList listserv group who took the time to make their thoughts, ideas and suggestions known.

MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS

1. Public Safety

(i) Recognition of conflicting human activities

(ii) Safety and security issues.

(iii) Communication of safety issues.

2. Natural Habitat Preservation

(i) Identification of ecologically sensitive areas.

(ii) Limiting human impacts in certain areas of the forest.

(iii) Monitoring of human impacts on the forest.

(iv) Coordination of “habitat restoration” projects so that they do not result in destruction of other habitats.

(v) Education of public, forestry workers, etc.. to prevent accidental destruction of habitats, flora, and fauna.

3. Communication - and associated difficulties

(i) Access to information is frustrating and confusing.

(ii) Apparent lack of coordination between various stakeholders.

(iii) Complicated process for raising concerns about the forest.

(iv) Greater need for public awareness.

Summary of key points concerning each of the above issues:

1. Public safety issues

(i) Recognition of diverse human activities and possible conflicts.

In view of the diverse human activities occurring in Marlborough Forest, there needs to be some consideration given to the interaction and safety of the various participants. To name but a few of those using the forest, these include: hikers, walkers, birdwatchers, geocachers, Scout packs and other outdoor groups, hunters, trappers, ATVers, snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, 4x4 off-roaders, children playing, archery and rifle target-shooters, paint-ball gamers, etc. Some of these groups are organized, while others are informal groups or individual users. There could be other users which I’m not aware of. With all of these groups using the forest, there are bound to be some situations in which the activities of one group will conflict or create risk for members of another group.

Also, without trying to ban certain groups from all areas of the forest, there should, at the very least, be some coordination of use with an eye on safety issues.

Examples:

· Don’t allow hunting platforms to be built in trees over, or deer stands built along recognized ATV or hiking pathways. (Note: the building of certain kinds of stands and platforms is not permitted in many other public forests, so this is an activity that deserves careful examination.

• Trapping (if it is to be permitted) should be restricted to certain areas and those areas should be identified in some way so that people can avoid them.

• Activities such as bear-baiting for the purpose of hunting (if this is not permitted), should be discouraged, banned, etc...
• Establish some pedestrian use areas and do not develop these into motorized vehicle routes.

Suggestions for improvements: 

• Work with the public and with various stakeholders so that safety issues can be identified and addressed.
• Make it a lot easier and less frustrating for the public to contact those in charge of the Marlborough Forest -- and adopt some system that allows rapid action to rectify safety concerns. -- For example: There should be a special phone number posted on a sign at every trailhead entering Marlborough Forest with a brief note encouraging the public to call that number with any concerns. Then, if someone sees something like a hunting platform erected over a hiking trail, they can report it. And *be sure* to have this number directed to someone who will actually be effective in following up on each report -- and a record of each report made, along with action taken. A “case number” could easily be assigned to each report and that number given to the caller if he/she wishes to check back later to see what action was taken. This is how most police departments work, so it shouldn’t be all that difficult to institute a similar system that could be used for all of the forests in the City of Ottawa. In essence, what we need most is an end to the frustration that seems to occur when an individual tries to contact the City with a concern about goings-on in the forest -- all city-owned forests. In truth, this situation extends far beyond the “forest” issue, but let’s deal with this particular situation for the moment.

(ii) Safety and security issues:

As stated above, there are a number of safety concerns resulting from conflicts which might occur when diverse groups and individuals are in the forest for various recreational purposes. If Marlborough Forest is to be a place used by all residents of the City of Ottawa, then steps must be taken to make it as safe as is practically possible for those who wish to enter the forest. While acknowledging that hunters may wish to make use of the forest during certain seasons, there should be an evaluation of City policies concerning the discharge of firearms and the use of bows in the forest. There is a large percentage of the population -- potential users of Marlborough Forest -- who do not feel at ease with the knowledge that other forest users are walking around firing guns or shooting arrows.. This is a decidedly normal response to a situation, which can very well prove to be dangerous. Additionally, for some citizens of the City, particularly those who may have immigrated from countries where the presence of gunfire often has nothing to do with game hunting and everything to do with personal peril, the sound of gunfire in a public forest can be a source of fear. A review of the Ontario hunting regulations reveal that there is almost no time of the year when at least some kind of hunting could be in progress. Under the current situation in Marlborough Forest, all kinds of hunting may take place -- meaning, in essence, that one could expect to hear gunfire throughout most of the year ---- and, in fact this is exactly the case, as has been confirmed by residents who live adjacent to the forest. It seems hardly fair that the majority of the citizens of Ottawa should have to be continuously concerned about gunfire when they go into Marlborough Forest. It’s time to look at the City’s regulations concerning discharge of firearms in this forest, and perhaps other forests and parklands as well. If there is to be hunting, there needs to be some serious thought given to when and where it can take place. The goal should be to find a way, which will allow all citizens of the City of Ottawa to have a chance to visit Marlborough Forest under relaxed conditions when they need not have to worry about or be in fear of the presence of gunfire. This may require that the use of guns and bows be restricted to certain areas of the forest, or to certain dates. It’s time to examine this issue - now - as the number and type of recreational users of Marlborough Forest is rapidly changing.

(iv) Communication of safety issues:

There is little doubt that there are safety issues, which are creating some risk to users of Marlborough Forest. Recently, signs alerting the general public that hunting could be taking place in the forest have been erected at several trailheads. That’s a good first step. The next step should be to give serious thought to the identification of safety issues, and then an attempt to find ways to make people aware of possible risks so that they can either not enter the forests or practice common sense risk avoidance.

Examples:

· Recently, signs were erected at trailheads in order to let non-hunting users know that hunters are using the forests. Although this goes a long ways towards making one user group aware of another, there is still room for change. It would be useful to post additional hunting season information on a bulletin board at major trailheads so that the non-hunting public would know when there is increased likelihood of there being hunters in the forest -- such as during deer season when hunters may be more numerous than at other times of the year. Such bulletin boards need not be fancy. In many parks, there are simple wooden backing boards at trailheads which are used for stapling notices such as: Raccoon rabies information posters, trail closures, fire hazard warnings and no-burn notices, etc.

· There are no signs to warn people not to build fires in the forest. Furthermore, there are no signs in place, which would let people know when there is increased risk of forest fires. Such signs are routine in most parks and even along roadsides in order to discourage people from throwing cigarette butts on the ground, or starting party fires in the bush. Some users of Marlborough Forest have built fires in risky areas -- party fires built on earth containing a lot of organic material. Such fires could result in a catastrophe. If fires are banned within Marlborough Forest, this information should be well-posted along with info about any fines which might apply to act as a deterrent.

2. Natural Habitat Preservation

(i) Ientification of ecologically sensitive areas

It has been a number of years since any serious study of the ecology of Marlborough Forest. In this time, there have been some major impacts on the forest as a result of increased human activity -- activity which is accelerating with the rapid expansion of the city towards the Marlborough Forest areas. During this same period, there have been many advances in the way that habitat areas are identified and inventoried -- and the way in which they can be plotted using GIS technology. Before further erosion of the ecology of the forest takes place, there should be a serious attempt made to review recommendations from past studies concerning ecological issues, consult historical references, and if possible, to gather new information.

An effort should be made to identify ecologically sensitive areas of the Marlborough Forest region --- and then work to protect habitats needed for the continuance of various species of flora and fauna. As well, there should be an assessment of which human activities impact on these areas and, if necessary, the limiting of those activities. We have many biologists residing in our region -- some of whom are specialists in the study of certain species. We should be consulting with these people so that we can identify problem situations and look for solutions before further destruction occurs. (Note: It is NOT good enough to consult with people who do not have a sufficiently deep background in specific species).

If cost is a deterrent to the implementing the above steps, then this should be made known to the public with a request for input from interested persons. In all likelihood, there are those who would be willing to review past environmental reports, historical references, etc... and who have enough knowledge to be able to survey sections of the forest employing techniques such as walking transects while collecting species data. In this way, at least there would be some chance that rare and fragile species might be identified and consideration given to the best way to protect them from destruction now and in the future.

Examples or typical threats to natural habitat:

· Colonies of rare or fragile plants may be trodden upon by hikers, or driven over by vehicles.

· Vernal pools, bogs, etc. which are necessary for the reproduction of various reptiles and amphibians, can be altered by road and trail building activities, installation of culverts, etc. in such a way that it will wipe out entire populations of certain species.

(ii) Limiting human impacts in certain areas of the forest

There can be little doubt that, despite best intentions, there are human activities that can impact quite negatively on the flora and fauna of various habitat areas. Stepping on, or driving over certain plants can so damage them as to result in permanent destruction. Improper methods of trail building or maintenance can alter or destroy certain wildlife habitats or the favoured environments of certain plants, fungi, etc... Along with the identification of habitat areas, there has to be some thought given to how it would be possible to limit human impacts on certain areas of the forest -- and also with regard to how activity in one area of the forest will impact on habitats in other areas.

Examples:

· Loud noise in one area may discourage the nesting activities of certain bird species. The simple re-routing of a trail might be sufficient to eliminate disturbance.

· The widening of trails to allow vehicles into certain areas will destroy plants in ecologically sensitive areas. The limiting of trail widths would be enough to discourage vehicles from attempting to go into these areas.

· The routing of hiking trails through the forest can endanger plant colonies, but this is easily avoided by identifying fragile plants and routing trails in such a way as to bypass them.

Suggestion: Take a look at how other conservation areas, parks and recreational lands are protecting flora and fauna. In some places, certain activities such as ATV use are widely permitted in areas which have been logged, mined or quarried, and where restoration is not intended or impractical. Off-limit areas are well marked and barriers are placed in order to enforce these limits. The main point that should be made here, is that if we don’t act soon to sort out some kind of “use plan” we are going to witness more and more destruction of the natural character of Marlborough Forest until all that remains is a few miles of trees with an understory which has been trampled and criss-crossed with trails. Is that really what any of us want?

(iii) Monitoring of human impacts on the forest

Acknowledging that there are bound to be situations in which human activity will impact on the forest and its inhabitants, there should be some systematic approach in place which will allow periodic or on-going monitoring of human impacts. Such a thing need not be expensive, and could, perhaps, involve biology students from our two major universities, high school students, outdoor groups and youth groups, etc... There would be some need for some specialized training at the outset of these studies, but the legwork could be done by groups of interested participants. In terms of protection of habitats, species, etc... an increased knowledge of the entire forest system would be beneficial to everyone. Also, if groups become involved in the monitoring of species, knowledge of each species will be increased, and in all likelihood, there will be a greater sense of stewardship. For example, if an ATV user group were to become involved in a study of frogs and snakes within the forest, they might look for solutions to help prevent destruction of the many frogs which tend to congregate in wet ruts along ATV trails, etc...

(v) Coordination of “habitat restoration” projects so that they do not result in destruction of other habitats

In the probably well-meaning intention to create better habitats for one species, there can inadvertently be destruction of other species. In any forest, there exist populations of rare or uncommon shrubs, plants, etc... The chopping down and removal of plants in order to create an “ideal habitat” for one species can entirely destroy a plant population, or can alter the habitat of other mammals or birds that have different habitat requirements. There should be thoughtful coordination of every project so that alterations of habitats will not impact in some negative way on other flora and fauna, and that appropriate plant species can be selected (for example: avoidance of the use of certain invasive plant species which could eventually dominate habitat areas and invade other areas of the forest).

Again, this kind of planning need not be cumbersome or costly. There are people in our community who know -- and care -- about such things. Undoubtedly, there are several who could offer guidance without great cost to the city.

(v) Education of public, forestry workers, etc.. to prevent accidental destruction of habitats, flora, and fauna

When ecologically sensitive areas have been identified, there should be thought given to best ways to protect those areas. In some cases, the public should be made aware of the presence of species if their activities could create a negative impact. Those who are working in the forest should be aware that certain forms of trail maintenance, or the draining of wet spots, etc. could actually result in the inadvertent destruction of certain populations of flora and fauna.

Suggestion: It might be very helpful to establish an advisory committee of interested naturalists which might also include biologists -- preferably with specialists in certain species areas -- who could be called upon to visit and do a walk-through with forestry workers before a major maintenance project begins. Please note that I am talking about people with a *real* knowledge of certain species and not just someone from an environmental consulting service. Without trying to point any fingers, the truth is that there are many cases where the employees of some of these services simply don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of certain species to be giving out “expert advice” in situations where species populations can be wiped out by the wrong information. To get back to working with specialists, it might well mean that 2 or 3 advisors might have to meet with workers to do a walk-through of an area together, but at this time, sensitive areas could be identified and marked, and possible ways of doing the work without creating destruction could be discussed.

Example:

• The creation of boardwalks or small bridges can be very beneficial to preserving certain species in cases where human traffic cannot be diverted elsewhere. However, if it happens that the boardwalk is built right over the only 2 metre diameter habitat of a rare orchid which has been “missed” by planners, then a slightly different route could be suggested and that area identified so that workers don’t drive over it with construction equipment, etc....
• The recent example of the parking lot at Petrie Island where arrangements were made to fill in a pond at the time of year when pond-dwelling creatures are unable to be removed or naturally flee from the pond before bulldozers begin to destroy the habitat. Any herpetologist could have made a recommendation about best time of the year to conduct this work AND that person would, in all likelihood, been able to provide information on groups who might be willing and able to remove turtles, frogs, fish, etc... from the pond before work began.

We’ve got to stop doing things in such a hapless way if we are to preserve *anything* of our natural environment. Time to admit when we don’t know everything about everything and call upon people who possess specialized knowledge.

3. Communication -- and associated difficulties

(i) Access to information can be frustrating and confusing

Dates of deer hunting season, bow-hunting for deer season, etc. in Marlborough Forest are not readily available to hikers. The City has recently posted some signage making people aware that hunting could be taking place in the forest -- and that does, indeed, go a ways towards creating more awareness of “other activities” that are happening in the forest in case users wish to take certain precautions or defer hiking to some other time of the year. What would also be useful is some easy way for people to check on hunting dates or be notified of other safety concerns.. A noticeboard at trailheads is definitely one way to make people aware of public safety issues such as hunting dates, trail closures, rabid animal information, etc. Many parks have these and they need not be large or fancy... They can be as simple as a small notice board where notices can be stapled at trailheads. Sometimes they include a rough map of the trail system. Some even have a waterproof box containing a small flyer with trail maps. The main point is, we should have a good system for communication “on site” in the forest so that people can be made aware of safety concerns in a timely way.

(ii) Apparent lack of coordination between various stakeholders

As the hunting season date issue has also taught us, there appears to be rather poor communication between the City and MNR. Rather than trying to lay blame on one or the other, why not try to get to the bottom of this problem and figure out what can be done to make communication more streamlined so that the citizens of the city aren’t being sent back and forth from one place to the other when they attempt to raise concerns about forestry issues. This is, yet again, one of those situations where those “in charge” defer responsibility by saying “that’s not my jurisdiction” and send members of the public off frustrated by the inability of those staff members to answer a simple question.

(iii) Complicated process for raising concerns about the forest

As mentioned above, there exists no simple mechanism for reporting concerns about the Marlborough (or other) city forests. Let’s face it and not beat around the bush on this issue -- there are all kinds of bizarre things happening in the forests. Some of these things are becoming so weird as to be discouraging many city residents from even venturing into sections of the forest (things like inexplicable gunfire at close range along hiking trails in all months of the year -- not just deer or grouse season), individuals behaving in a suspicious, menacing or threatening way, people building fires in the forest, dumping of refuse, or hunting platforms in trees above main hiking and ATV trails, etc.... It’s time to acknowledge that there are some pretty serious problems, and try to establish some simple system whereby visitors to the forest(s) can report these kinds of questionable incidents and sightings, and then feel confident that someone is actually seriously listening and will take responsibility for following up on the report. There should also be some verification system so that the caller can check back later to see what action has been taken to resolve the problem.

(v) Greater need for public awareness

On all of the above issues, the public needs to have a greater awareness of what’s going on in the forests. It’s time to make it easier for the City and its residents to communicate with each other.

Signage is one very effective way -- used for the posting of contact phone numbers, simple maps of the area trail system, or warnings when they happen to be needed -- and set up at trailheads. Keep these things *simple*. Fancy, expensive kiosks are magnets for vandals. I’ve seen this with my own eyes on countless occasions. In a year or two, the kiosk has been vandalized to the point of being useless -- and these kinds of things cost money. Simple notice boards are rarely vandalized, or if they are, it’s easy enough to put up some new ones. I do a great deal of hiking in provincial parks, and most of the parks have excellent methods of communicating with the public through simple notice boards.

Yes, there is room for improvement, but things such as trail closures, information on allowable activities in areas of the parks, temporary hazards, etc.... are prominently posted in a timely fashion -- just stapled to a board at the trailhead. It might be worthwhile for the City to build some kind of communication link to some of the well-maintained Provincial Parks (Charleston Lake Provincial Park is one that immediately comes to mind), and seek to emulate some of the successful procedures which these parks use to communicate with the public such as holding workshops about species or habitats to educate the public, or put up either permanent and temporary nature (especially with regards to public safety issues), etc. There are a lot of good ideas that could be picked up just by taking a look at how other parks are doing things.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL CONCERN:

The above summary resulted in a great deal of feedback from a number of people. In addition to the general comments and recommendations, there were several comments of a more specific nature. This is a summary of those comments:

· Regarding the discharge of firearms: It appears that there is practically no time of the year which is entirely free of some kind of season on the hunting of some creature in Marlborough Forest. For this reason, it seems that there is a great likelihood that there could be someone hunting for something at just about any time of the year.

Persons living adjacent to the forest have told me that sounds of gunfire may be heard pretty much year round on any day of the week. In recognition of the fact that this forest is owned by the people of the City of Ottawa, perhaps it is time to establish some kind of policy concerning what is acceptable and not acceptable in regards to the discharge of firearms -- and also related to bow-hunting. Acknowledging that there are concerns about deer populations and involvement in highway collisions, as well as their impact on forest vegetation, the autumn deer hunt may prove to be a necessary annual event. However, a continuance in the hunting of coyote seems illogical as these predators help to limit deer populations too. What is the logic behind destruction of both predators and prey in the same range? These kinds of issues should be carefully reviewed from the point of view of wildlife conservation and from that of best practices for a forest that is owned by all of the citizens of the City of Ottawa -- many of whom would like to venture into the forest for the purpose of recreation, but who are deterred by the sounds of gunfire.

· Water levels in the beaver pond at the Cedar Grove Nature Trail: A major “clean-up” around the small dam at the beaver pond that lies in the center of the Cedar Grove Nature Trail was undertaken over a year ago. Unfortunately, in the process of clearing out sticks and other residue from beaver activity, the water level of the pond was allowed to drop very significantly. With water levels so low in winter 2002-3, the ice froze almost to the bottom of the pond. We visited the pond in winter and could see many tree stumps from the flooded forest sticking up through the ice, indicating that the water levels were perilously low under the ice.. At spring break-up, large numbers of dead frogs, fish, tadpoles, and what looked to be dead salamander, lay scattered all over the bottom of the pond as far as was visible from out vantage point at the dam. In recognition of this ecological catastrophe, I wish to (highly) recommend that the water level of the pond be kept deep enough that frogs and other creatures will not die from anoxia or freezing caused when ice freeze almost right through in winter. Blocking off the dam a foot or two could easily do this or two so that the level remains more like it was when the beaver-chewed sticks were in place before the clean up.

· Alvar areas of the Marlborough Forest: There are a number of alvar areas within the boundaries of Marlborough Forest. These flat areas look “inviting” to those on off-road vehicles -- however, they often contain fragile mosses, fungi, and lichens, and are also the habitat of land snails and other invertebrates. At present, there is no protection or even any identification of these significant ecological areas.

· Several of those who have sent in comments to this list have cited examples of colonies of rare or endangered plant species, which have been, or are threatened by, current human activity and/or management activities occurring in the forest. This is a brief summary containing a few examples:

1.) Fringed Gentians -- recent trail maintenance and clearing on the Cedar Grove Nature Trail have made it possible for ATVs to access a section of the trail where a colony of Fringed gentians has been for many years. These plants will not survive heavy foot traffic, and most definitely can’t survive ATV traffic. I expect they will be destroyed.

2.) Ladyslipper orchids grow along another section of the same trail and I expect they will suffer the same demise.

3.) A colony of Cypripedium arietinum (Ram’s head lady’s-slipper) were destroyed by activities undertaken when the Ruffed Grouse Society financed MNR to “improve” habitat along the Marlborough Forest Access Road.

4.) There is a note in one of the Forest Resource Inventory assessments, done in the early 1990’s, advising MNR to discontinue removal of timber from a particular area of Marlborough because it was found to have a colony of Panax quinquefolius (American ginseng) growing within it.

What is common in all of the above cases is that these colonies are known to at least some of us. There are summaries of past studies of Marlborough Forest plant inventories posted to MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) website that list these very species, so this information should be readily available to those involved in project and maintenance activities in Marlborough Forest. What is needed is that these studies be consulted before initiating projects. And, let’s not forget communication with people who are interested in such things. We have many groups and individuals living in the City who possess a wealth of knowledge on flora and fauna. Can’t we try to find a way to make use of this knowledge base in an effective way? Anyhow, at a time when the use of a GPS units makes it very easy to pinpoint and mark plant colonies, there’s really no excuse for not making some kind of effort to take steps to avoid needless destruction.

A FINAL COMMENT:

It’s my hope that at least some of the above comments, suggestions and recommendations will be considered and might be implemented in Marlborough Forest. I’ve been hiking and snowshoeing in a number of the areas of the forest for many years and have long thought that it is a wonderful area which encompasses a wide range of habitats. It would be a shame to let areas of it be destroyed through lack of interest or knowledge of their value. A couple of nights ago, “The Nature of Things” aired the episode, “Canada’s Amazon: a boreal forest journey”. One of the trip participants stated something to the effect that much of the rest of the world has already “blown it”, but here in Canada, we still have the chance to do things right. I think we have to, in the very least, apply this thinking to major wilderness areas, but also to identify important smaller areas which surround us in our communities -- relatively intact areas where we can “do things right”.. It seems to me that Marlborough Forest is one such natural area where there’s “enough left” to be able to take some fairly easy but determined steps to protect what’s there. I know that budget concerns are on everyone’s mind these days, especially in connection with the City of Ottawa.

However, I think that many of the above recommendations could be implemented at no great cost if interested citizens can be allowed to become involved in the management of their forest -- even up to and including hands-on involvement. Further, if necessary, it may be possible to generate small amounts of income when needed for special projects through the giving of workshops on nature, wilderness skills, etc... Such things are done in many parks these days and provide a great opportunity to generate a bit of project funding while also helping to create ways for the public to come to know and take responsibility for the natural environment. Also, create ways for the public to become involved in stewardship programs - as in some of the examples suggested in the summary. In any case, I think the main point is that there should be a greater effort made to involve the public in the planning and “goings-on” in connection with Marlborough Forest. It’s an unusual resource and one, which shouldn’t be squandered through lack of interest and involvement. The interest is “out there”, but people have to know that they are needed before they can respond.