GREENSPACE ALLIANCE OF CANADA’S CAPITAL
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2002
Revised – November 5, 2002
The Year in Review
(October 2001 – October 2002)
Repeating last year’s format, this review responds to three questions: Where have we been? What have we accomplished? What lies ahead? In brief:
-We have been involved in the continuing fight for the Leitrim Wetlands and in well over a dozen other developer-triggered issues. We have spoken up on the Budget, on the review of Development Charges, and on development of a new Official Plan for Ottawa.
-We now have twelve group members and over 30 individual members. Our mailing list has grown to over 80 addresses. Our web site currently holds over 80 MB of information. The Poets’ Pathway project is gaining momentum.
-New volunteers are working on internal/external communications, a newsletter, a photo contest, and redesign and enrichment of the web site. Many more volunteers are needed, and with new approaches we may find them.
-The City of Ottawa’s inability to finance extensive infrastructure will continue to put strong pressure on greenspaces inside the Greenbelt. The City’s public consultation practices are deteriorating, and there is an increasing risk of consequences that are endangering our quality of life.
The review concludes with a proposal for immediate action regarding the March 2003 deadline for a new Official Plan. On the last page, again as last year, we list who has made it all happen. There were again roughly two dozen lines of action, involving 23 members plus 22 friends, the latter a significant increase over last year.
Where we have been:
We have continued our involvement, or intervened in major new issues that were triggered by developer actions: the Leitrim Wetlands, Moffatt Farm, Quarry Forest, Fernbank Wetland and the Kanata Woods Massacre. We have seen our involvement in the Leamy Lake golf course issue come to a happy conclusion.
Other development issues where we have actively intervened are the construction of a Home Depot at Bank Street, the Heron/Walkley site plan, the Freiman Woodlot at Scott Street, and the concept plan for Longfields. Ten other development-related issues have been noted on our mailing list and some of them have led to an intervention.
We provided extensive comments on Budget 2002 and spoke out when changes to Development Charges were proposed. We offered comments on “Charting a Course”, the process leading to a new Official Plan for Ottawa, and its sequel, “The Next Steps”. We continued to speak out in support of the Environmental and Ottawa Forests Advisory Committees. One of our Directors first assisted in the writing of a Handbook on Ottawa’s development approvals process, but then withdrew in protest.
We had something to do with there being an overflow crowd at a public meeting called by the National Capital Commission regarding a zoning change for an acreage of Greenbelt in the Uplands area. (This instance made us aware that our mailing list is porous to The Citizen.)
Our watching briefs have included: the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment (where we have an Observer on the Public Advisory Committee), road widenings for the South Urban Community, plans for interprovincial bridges, and even rehabilitation of King Edward Avenue.
We registered with the City for notification of development applications, suggesting some criteria so we would not be inundated.
We wrote letters of support for grant applications to the Trillium Foundation for a Life Stream Watch project at Sawmill Creek and for the Ottawa Riverkeeper group’s project. We conveyed fund raising efforts by the Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ campaign for the purchase of Alfred Bog and by the Moffatt Farm Citizens’ Coalition for the cost of their appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
We are represented on the Sawmill Creek Subwatershed Update study’s Public Advisory Committee; the study is preparatory to construction of an artificial wetland. Our Maintenance Policies and Practices Committee, initiated just before the review period, has stayed at a low pitch; an offer by the NCC to discuss their 1-page Stewardship Guidelines was rejected; selected mailings from HDUUP’s co-chair Mike Christie were posted to the mailing list.
We made great strides in the realization of our Poets’ Pathway project, about which more below.
Two groups, Friends of the Jock River and Action Sandy Hill, joined our roster of group members, now numbering twelve. We accepted several new individual members, including a new Director, Divya Raman. Our mailing list now has over eighty addresses.
We finalized our bilingual brochure and came up with a new logo and letterhead. We sent self-made Holiday Greetings to all members of Ottawa and Gatineau Councils, all area MPs, MPPs, MLAs, and all members of the Board of Directors of the NCC. We placed Season’s Greetings in EnCompass, the Pembrina Institute’s magazine.
We participated again in the Run/Walk for Clean Air, bringing 11 volunteers to the task; presented our mandate and activities to the Sierra Club-Ottawa Group’s forum; participated in an OPIRG event in the Byward Market; and had a table during the Volunteer Fair at Ottawa U. For that Fair we developed a list of 22 Volunteer Opportunities, which were posted on our web site. In conjunction with the <2002 National Capital Wildlife Festival> [no longer exists], we participated in events at Carlingwood Mall. We had a table promoting the Poets’ Pathway at the EAC Environmental Workshop on March 23. (More on promotional events for the Pathway below.)
We held twelve monthly meetings which, in addition to guests, were on average attended by six to seven members.
In addition to postings related to the topics mentioned above, our mailing list conveyed: almost 30 postings from WildCanada.ca, 10 postings about the Richmond Conservation Area and the Tay or Jock Rivers, 12 notices of events and 11 other announcements or news items, 4 copies of reports or members’ submissions, 5 items of poetry or other exquisite writing, and discussions on 3 topics: on “Only the US is less Green,” on participating in Pollara’s focus groups for the new Official Plan, and on the NRTEE’s indicators project.
We looked into Jamie Laidlaw’s Natural Environment Treasure, and identified the US Trust for Public Land as a potential exemplar and Canada’s Evergreen as a potential partner.
What we have accomplished:
Our successes on development files are less heartening this year than those on positive action, so we start with the latter first. Then we review our achievements on development and planning issues, including the Leitrim case. We conclude with a summary of our organizational development.
The Ottawa Riverkeeper’s grant application was approved – hiring and equipping of a riverkeeper can now proceed and the project should begin to command a much larger public profile to ensure its long term survival. We understand that the Sawmill Creek Life Stream Watch project also will be approved.
Our contribution to the Sawmill Creek Subwatershed Update study has included data gathered by Albert Dugal to underscore the complexing of wetlands with Leitrim’s.
The Poets’ Pathway
Through a contact initiated much earlier, we have had the good fortune of attracting Steve Artelle to the Poets’ Pathway Committee; he formally became its chair in June. We had already decided to dedicate our presentation to the NCC (its consultation with “the local interest groups”) to the proposal and did so on May 2. (We also presented the proposal to the executive of the Rideau River Roundtable and were offered assistance in writing a grant proposal.) Steve enormously deepened the historical literary foundations of the project and also showed how a celebration of “Mouvement littéraire” participants fits in naturally. His promotional efforts resulted in a spot on the program of the 2002 Ottawa International Writers Festival – an excellent re-enactment on September 21 of the speech and writings of six Ottawa literary figures. In the process, a 16-page chapbook was produced describing the project and offering a collection of poems by key writers which the Pathway intends to celebrate. The Committee has now attracted seven dedicated volunteers who are detailing the route, following up with NCC staff, establishing contact with City planners, appearing at public consultations on 20/20 planning, and beginning to implement a broad-scaled campaign aimed at various constituencies to garner their support. The NCC has expressed interest in a commemoration project in the Southern Corridor – a key anchor of the Pathway – so this component is likely to rise to the priority list of to-dos in the coming year.
In the site plan approval process for a Home Depot at Bank Street, and again in the context of the Sawmill Creek Subwatershed Update study, we made planners and consultants aware of the importance of creating east-west connections there; they are part of the proposed Pathway. Opportunities to promote the project in the context of the new Official Plan and the Arts and Heritage Plan are also being exploited.
Development / Planning Issues
NCC: Following a public meeting on January 22, the NCC beat a hasty retreat on its proposal for a zoning change in a portion of the Greenbelt near the airport; Bill Royds was featured in all media on the occasion. On June 20, NCC partner Casiloc Inc. threw in the towel on its proposal to construct a golf course in Leamy Lake Park. Nicole DesRoches is now proposing to continue with a coalition focused on saving greenspace in the new Gatineau.
We followed the Moffatt Farm issue closely and spoke in support of the Citizens’ Coalition at both Planning and Development Committee and OMB proceedings; our intervention before Members Katari and Jackson on May 13 stated that the NCC’s success in having the Greenway System declared “conceptual” was not meant to result in massive loss of greenspace. It also noted that we had criticized the NOSS for not including grasslands. The interim Decision, rendered on September 24, gave the appellants six months to perform a proper secondary planning study and to come up with a revised plan of subdivision.
Amy Kempster (who spoke for the Greenspace Alliance at the Moffatt Farm hearing and has had long involvement with the city’s official plan and zoning history through the Federation of Citizens’ Associations), has prepared an overview of the NCC’s appeals of the Greenway System. She concludes that, above all, the NCC has acted to preserve all its rights as if it were a private property owner, and has largely succeeded. The document will soon be made available as input to the current discussion about a new Official Plan.
City: We appeared at OMB proceedings in support of the Quarry Forest Preservation Committee, urging deferral until the City-ordered safety studies have been completed. Sadly, the Decision by Member Jackson, released on October 3, gave short shrift to the Committee’s arguments and allowed the development to proceed, be it under a modified set of conditions; one of these conditions is that there must be a “permanent barrier” around the “transplanted species (Parlin’s Pussy Toes)”.
We supported adoption of the revised boundaries of Fernbank Wetland at Planning and Development Committee and participated in the ensuing OMB hearing on August 14.
In wake of the Kanata Woods Massacre in April, Councilor Munter was provided with some examples of tree-cutting by-laws.
Our proposal to be notified of selected development proposals has had no practical effect to date. The consultation process for the writing of “A Community Handbook for the City of Ottawa Development Approvals Process” and the resulting drafts were so deficient that Barbara Barr withdrew her name from the project. The Handbook has not yet seen the light of day.
We have no indication that any of our or anyone else’s comments in March on the Budget for 2002 (ours ran to three pages) have made any difference or were even heard – other than our special campaign related to Leitrim (see below). No sooner had Council approved the Budget or plans were revealed for the 2003 process. Consultations this time are supposed to take place just as supposedly major consultations on the “Smart” Plans are reaching a climax (this fall), thus guaranteeing highly diminished ability to provide input.
We repeated our skepticism regarding the City’s population projections when Council considered Terms of Reference for the Ward Boundaries Review Task Force in December. On April 15, in response to an inquiry by Councilor Munter, staff was able to demonstrate that the 2001 data used in the 20-year projections are consistent with the recently released 2001 Census data, after the latter are adjusted for undercounting (a whopping 3.42%). The focus of our skepticism is with regard to the 2001-2005 projections.
Smart Growth, 20/20, Official Plans
Along with other interveners, we succeeded in January in getting the supposedly major consultation period on the new Official plan delayed from July and August to September/November. But in other respects we were not heard when we pleaded for substance behind the rhetoric on community consultation. We noted the absence of a communication plan and the non-involvement of significant numbers of citizens to date. Soldiering on, several members participated in February workshops on “Charting a Course.”
If we were not heard, we were in good company. The Environmental Advisory Committee’s advisory in March had the following key recommendation: “That the City of Ottawa identify and develop -a comprehensive Sustainable Community Plan- that integrates the deliverables of various Plans for citizen quality of life and which makes more explicit the enhancement and protection of the environment within various City Plans.” (Emphasis added. In May, commenting on ‘The Next Step”, the EAC felt compelled to repeat this recommendation.)
We addressed Council when it sat as Committee of the Whole on May 22 to hear delegations on that “Next Step” report. We expressed support for the four vision elements under “A Green and Environmentally Sensitive City” and noted that, more generally, “The Next Step” compares well with the Community Vision approved by Regional Council in July 1995. We noted, however, the absence of any hard data on the February/March consultations, saying that this casts doubts on the credibility of the exercise. (To date, no such information has been revealed, with the exception of the results of an on-line Pollara survey which saw 1,336 participants.) We urged again that NCC staff work seamlessly with City staff, that the NCC be a full and visible partner in this community planning exercise. We decried the absence of plans for a “Natural Environment Master Plan” or even clear principles on environmental protection; the absence of plans to develop indicators and adopt hard targets; and the absence of any “second greenbelt” objectives as proposed by Mayor Chiarelli in his 2000 campaign platform. We plugged a Land Trust as a tool to preserve greenspace. We urged “planning to carrying capacity” and respect for the precautionary principle. On integrating Budget and Smart Plan consultations, we advised to explicitly “gear the annual Capital and Operating Budgets – their structure and the approval process – to showing how the Official Plan and other “Corporate” objectives are being advanced.”
A “Preliminary Draft” Official plan was released at the end of June. A joint committee drawn from the Conservation Committee of the Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club and the Greenspace Alliance is preparing commentary on the June draft.
Barbara Barr took over from Bill Royds as the liaison with the Friends of Leitrim Wetlands group in December. We wrote to the Minister of Fisheries & Oceans in December and again to four federal Ministers in April and received replies which in part confirmed the scope of federal concerns. We wrote to the District Ecologist of Ontario’s MNR, supporting Albert Dugal’s request for complexing certain wetlands with the Provincially Significant Wetland at Leitrim. We agreed to donate a symbolic sum to the Friends to help in the development of a newspaper insert for raising public awareness on the issue. In March, during consideration of Budget 2002, we provoked a debate among Councillors, at both Committee and Council level, about the wisdom of allocating $8.5 million in infrastructure to serve a residential development that had not yet received the necessary federal permits.
We were appalled to see the Mayor on the front page of the May 6 issue of New Homes, promoting “Findlay Creek Village,” even while planning staff was supposedly preparing objective advice to Council on the zoning application. The City’s EAC dealt with the zoning proposal twice (hearing from Albert Dugal as well as the developer) and formed a subcommittee that brought out strong advice to Council against approval of the proposed zoning. We too went on record with detailed objections to the proposed zoning and again, on June 27, had Councillors on Planning and Development Committee debate the risks associated with this development. (Councillor Deans did not reply to two requests, from the Greenspace Alliance and from an individual member, to un-delegate approval of the revised Plan of Subdivision.)
Committee’s report approving the zoning was rushed through the consent agenda at Council, followed, very late that same day, by the implementing zoning by-law. We were nonetheless readying ourselves to appeal this decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, believing it reasonable that at least the OMB may want to wait until the federal assessment process has run its course. Unfortunately, the presence of a key expert witness we sought to produce at the pre-hearing could not be ascertained and we therefore did not act by the August 20 deadline.
At that very same time, Tartan had begun dumping fill on its Phase I development area, as close as 10 metres from fish habitat; photographic documentation and an alert to the DFO Biologist brought swift, though minor, remedial action.
In early September we made Council aware, again, of the fish habitat implications of proposed intersection changes at Albion and Leitrim Roads, noting that there was no indication that Council’s directions given earlier in June are being followed up.
As we write, the Friends are studying a “final report” on a “Former Gloucester Landfill Supplemental Risk Assessment for Proposed Future Growth Area East of Albion Road.” The complete Area-Wide Risk Assessment has not yet been issued; it was ordered by Transport Canada to comply with provincial wishes and is expected later in the fall. This Supplemental Risk Assessment report, released mid-September, concludes that there are no environmental or health risks for Tartan’s proposed development emanating from the Gloucester Landfill.
The draft environmental screening report by DFO is now expected to be released by the end of November and will be followed by a 30-day consultation period. The Friends’ expectation remains that, if the report is another whitewash, its assumptions and methods will be sufficiently assailable, and there will be enough public concern expressed, that a full-fledged federal review will be called for.
Organizational accomplishments include Juan Pedro Unger’s development of a logo and new letterhead, a Communications Strategy and a media tree; on July 15 we issued our first News Release! JP also constructed a backdrop that can be taken to promotional events. He and Amanda Janes are developing a newsletter format, and a photo contest is planned for later in the spring.
On April 4, the Wildlife Festival honoured the Greenspace Alliance with its Group Award for Excellence in Environmental Conservation; the events, at the Canadian Museum of Nature, were MC’d by CBC Radio’s John Lacharity and featured Carleton University’s Michael Runtz, who handed out the awards.
This Chair has failed in his efforts to keep the monthly meetings to two hours and hopes the future will bring improvement. On the positive side, a format for Minutes has been developed which is intended to permit non-attendees to update themselves on developments. We have not often met, but will continue to strive for having the Minutes up on the web site within ten days of a meeting. Annotated mail and clippings files (begun in March 2001) have also continued; this is an experiment – a base of data at the disposal of the Communications Committee to see if it is useful “Newsfeed” for the web site.
How did we do relative to priorities set in November?
We managed to stay reasonably close to the priorities we identified in November, which included the Official Plan and our approach to the NCC. Still, a large amount of energy went again to developer-triggered activity. Pressures on greenspace are likely to continue (see below). We have made little progress on development of the Ottawa Land Trust concept. Resolutions on mailing list/web site and commercial/non-commercial hosting issues remain wanting.
After the demise of a previous Web Committee, there are indications that a new “Internet Committee” is coming together. Its mandate would be to redesign the web site and better integrate in it selected postings from the mailing list, such as final versions of letters and other comments and announcements. There are technical, protocol and privacy issues to be considered. Close cooperation is envisaged with an expanded Communications Committee, which would function as the editors. The urgency is that our current internal and external communications operations are too dependent on the enormous contribution of one person (Bill Royds). This is not sustainable, especially not when the organization seeks to grow.
The Greenspace Alliance is still an organization in the pre-takeoff stage. Our membership could number in the thousands, and to fulfill our mandate a core of active volunteers several times the present number is required. Our key organizational challenge therefore remains to attract volunteers with the commitment and staying power that is required for this kind of work. As of this month, Sara Gagné is taking over from Bryan Hawley in this task. Many volunteers came our way through Volunteer Ottawa but few stayed on. Our first foray into the university market was not successful, nor were our recruitment efforts in Carlingwood Mall. This writer nevertheless believes that it is among university/college students and among seniors that our core volunteers are most likely to be found.
National Capital Commission / Treasury Board:
The Moffatt Farm issue gained considerable political profile, including a Senate Committee hearing on April 23, where M. Beaudry was called to testify and face the ire of Senator Anne Cools, a Carleton Heights resident, among others. The events and associated media coverage have ensured that a wide public is now aware of Treasury Board’s directives to the NCC regarding land sales. The terrain is therefore ripe to go to the root of the problem by launching a campaign to have TB’s directives changed. (It is still unclear, however, how these rules play in other parts of the country and whether they have similarly nefarious effects there. This needs to be found out as it will greatly affect the nature of the argument that should be made and the key people that must be lobbied.)
The Province of Ontario:
The Provincial Policy Statement review may be the sleeper in the current Ontario planning scene. We are ignoring it at our peril, as the PPS, besides the Planning Act, is essentially a set of instructions to the Ontario Municipal Board. (The OMB is likely to be around for a while. There is unlikely to be unanimity soon, within the Greenspace Alliance or elsewhere, on the idea of a campaign to abolish it.)
A look back at City-related planning issues reveals two ominous threads: an astonishing disjointedness in planning at the city and provincial level; and deteriorating public consultation practices. Especially the latter could have disastrous consequences for environmental protection (and much else) if not reversed.
Over at the Smart Growth shop, they seem to be making it up as they go. To date, there is little substance to be found behind the flashy titles and display of cyber-media savvy. Other vacuums:
The Province has decided to widen the Queensway. – The Province has appointed no urban representatives to its Smart Growth Panel for Eastern Ontario. – The upcoming (2003) comprehensive review of the City’s application of the Development Charges Act is expected to move on its separate course. – As we write, a Debt Management and Capital Funding Strategy – part of the promised Long Range Financial Plan – is moving through Committee and Council without any significant consultation.
Little is more fundamental to the direction of this city than discussion and agreement on the long range financial plan. In last week’s (October 7) report, City Councillors are being told that growth must pay for itself and that we must minimize resorting to debt. Folding this imperative into the Official Plan can only mean that the key directive of the 1997 Regional Official Plan will be reinforced: «Grow In, Not Out.» (The alternative is free-for-all suburban sprawl – highly profitable for developers if they can get away with it, now proven to be in the long term a negative for an urban area as a whole, not to speak of the environment.) If that directive is somehow given teeth this time, then the shortest path to profits will continue to be the conversion of green spaces within the Greenbelt. (An early, strong, test of political will and financial prudence will be the fate of the Kanata West Concept Plan – for 730 ha of agricultural land around the Corel Centre, converted to “urban” by Regional Council in October 2000.)
An important basis for resisting this pressure would be strong language in the new Official Plan. A necessary further condition is that there be City capacity to implement and enforce the protection of natural areas and enhance the production of ecological goods and services throughout our area.
(There are parallel pressures on neighbourhood character and the need for protective language to keep developers at bay. And overlaying it all are transportation choices. Other layers – energy, air, food… – are not on the radar screen. Least of all, pace Lorne Peterson, is an ecology approach, where people would learn to live and plan as part of a land community.)
The language we have seen so far is in many places weak and coverage of areas to be protected is incomplete. Doing what we can to make the Official Plan stronger must have high priority in the coming year, despite the continuing experience that policies and plans on the books don’t matter much when a developer wants his way. Moreover, the forecast remains bleak regarding budget allocations towards building capacity for evidence-based environmental stewardship at City Hall.
On Public Consultation and the objective of having a new OP by March 2003:
Citizens or their organizations are increasingly unable to influence the decision making process. We noted the so-called Budget debate; if all goes according to plan, Budget 2003 will be the third annual Budget that will pass without any meaningful discussion between Councillors and constituents. The issue is even more poignant in the Smart Growth initiative, and most ominous here because of the large scope of the plans. When the consultation plans came forward in January, we said:
“A better communication plan is long overdue. Not only has the vast majority of the citizenry not been touched by this activity so far (including the June  summit), even identifiable groups have not been effectively informed…”
In addressing Council on May 22, we expressed
“our greatest fear with regard to this whole exercise. The current Official Plans, with all their faults, weaknesses and omissions, nonetheless constitute a body of specific policies that reflect a common will and that can be used to evaluate development proposals. Our fear is that, after this exercise is over, we will end up with a thin document of visions, principles and strategies, so vague as to be a weak bulwark against those scheming to turn a grassland, woodlot or cornfield into yet another business venture. We know Council shares this uneasiness because it directed staff to define what a “high level” plan was supposed to be. The question is, will we, by next March, have a sufficiently detailed Plan, proving that these fears are unwarranted?”
The EAC, in its May advisory on “The Next Step,” similarly said in its Main Recommendation “That the City of Ottawa examine all existing opportunities to encourage the exchange of information and ideas on these important issues with the public and interested partners to support all aspects of the Smart Growth Initiative in Ottawa,” otherwise it will be “difficult to ensure that there is broad-based community support for the path it adopts to make Ottawa a sustainable city.”
Reports of 20/20 workshops to date indicate either low attendance or discussion at the level of principles and strategies, not even at the “detailed” level of the June “Preliminary Draft,” while the veterans among us know that this Draft is far from what an Official Plan should look like! The next document (the “real” draft) is due by Christmas. This is madness. *Speaking out to demand that the objective of delivering a new Official Plan by March 2003 be abandoned should now rise to the top of the agenda of all concerned citizens and their advocates.* This writer recommends a joint approach to the Mayor soon, reminding him of the upcoming date with the electorate in November 2003.
I thank my fellow Directors, Amy Kempster, Bill Royds, Barbara Barr, Juan Pedro Unger and Divya Raman, for their hard work throughout the year, and the many members and friends for their support and involvement in our activities. With apologies for any omissions, all are recognized in the list of Greenspace Alliance Working Groups which concludes this report.
Bilingual Brochure: Erwin, Lorne, Bill, Amy, [Andrée1]
Run/Walk for Clean Air: Amy, Amanda, Mike1, Divya, JP, Bill, Barbara, Eric, [Mike2, Don, Gert], with the Sierra Club-Ottawa Group and the Friends of the Experimental Farm
Holiday Greetings: JP, Erwin, Bill +OPIRG: Bill, Erwin.
Volunteer Fair: Erwin, Amy +Carlingwood Mall
Wildlife Festival: JP, Amy, Mike1, Bill, Barbara, Carole
Minutes, and Mail and Clippings Files: Erwin, Divya
Volunteer Coordination: Bryan/Sara
Communications Committee: JP, Amanda, Chris
Web site and list moderator: Bill, Erwin
Internet Committee: Erwin, Bill, JP, Chris, Lorne, [Hakan, Ingo, Wenying, Segun, Yawei, Theresa, Michael, Russell]
Monitoring of City Council and Committee meetings: Barbara, Bill, Erwin
Leitrim Wetlands: Albert, Bill/Barbara, Erwin, Stan, Sol, Chris, [Gert], with the Friends of Leitrim Wetlands
Quarry Forest: Barb, JP, Albert, Amy, Barbara, with the Quarry Forest Preservation Committee
Moffatt Farm: Amy, Erwin, Mike1, Carole, with the Moffatt Farm Citizens’ Coalition
Leamy Lake: Erwin, David, Joseph, [Nicole], with the Coalition to Save Leamy Lake Park
Fernbank Wetlands/Upper Poole Creek Wetland: Albert, Bill, Stan, Barbara, with the Goulbourn Wetlands Group
Alta Vista Transportation Corridor: Quentin
Budget2002: Barbara, Erwin, Bill
Development Process Handbook: Barbara
Development Charges review: Erwin, Amy, Bill
Official Plan: Amy, Bill, Stan, Chris, Erwin, Barbara, Steve, [Connie], with the Conservation Committee of the Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club
NCC and the Greenway System: Amy, Erwin, [Janice]
Sawmill Creek Subwatershed Update: Bill, Erwin, Albert
Miscellaneous Development Files: Amy, Barbara, Bill, Erwin
Poets’ Pathway Committee: Steve, Bill, JP, Erwin, [Andrée2, Anita, Grant, Jane, Jennifer, Krisha, Megan]
Maintenance Policies and Practices Committee: Bryan, Carrie, Ron
Underlined names signifies lead person.
[Names in brackets] are Friends of the Alliance.