Western Common Wilderness Common Master Plan

Comments on the draft master plan

Comments received during the final public consultation phase of the master planning process (March 8 - May 9, 2010) will be posted to this page.

E-mail and street addresses wil not be shown however the names of respondents will be included with comments received.

Kathy Oakley

You have met the goals of your project very nicely.  Thank you all for the work you’ve done on this exciting (I think) project.  I’m looking forward to being able to use the trails and become better acquainted with the local area.

There’s just one request I have to make.  Would you please place lots of markers to point out areas of interest.  As I mentioned to staff, I’m not envisioning fancy, plasticized plaques.  I’d be quite happy with numbered stakes pointed into the ground at appropriate places, with the explanation posted at the Wilderness Common website.  

Please think of people like me when choosing locations.  I know next to nothing about this area, so you can’t insult my intelligence.  Name the lakes for example.  Indicate especially representative stands of Acadian forest, etc.  If money permits, a few benches and the occasional pit toilet would also be appreciated. 

As I wrote above, I’m looking forward to getting out on these trails.  How soon can you get started?

Response

Thank you for your support. The Plan could take up to 60 years to be fully implemented but in each phase attention will be paid to including the types of site amenities that you have suggested. Some trail work to connect Prospect Elementary School to the new Prospect Community Centre will start this year.

Graham Smith

Having looked at the draft plan for the Wilderness Common, I wish make a comment, since I may not be able to attend the public meeting.

My suggestion is simply that the area to be left in the natural state be maximized. There is continual pressure for all kinds of development, but once developed, an area can never be returned to its original wild state.

We have a rare opportunity here to protect a significant area for the benefit of our water supplies, wildlife habitat, and low-impact recreation. This is a wonderful legacy for the future. The area in question is particuarly valuable due to its proximity to metro Halifax, but also for its connectivity to other natural area in the region, allowing green corridors so important to wild species.

HRM may wish to consider handing the area over to the provincial Dept of Environment so that it could be protected under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Response

The Plan for the Wilderness Common is intended to preserve all of the environemtal values that you have noted. The trail and portage developments proposed in the Plan have been carefully designed to have minimal impacts on the natural environment. The Province has assisted in the development of the Master Plan and the protection of the Wilderness Common will be assured through its designation as a Regional Park.

Darrell Benoit

I have been an avid ATVer and snowmobiler for over three decades in three provinces. Nova Scotia, unfortunately has provided the most severe opposition to these outdoor activities. From the recent spiking of a multi-use trail, to appeals for property value reductions, a small but a vocal minority is making us out be monsters. Nothing could be further from the truth. My club - by virtue of its name - Safety Minded ATV Association- says it all for most of the NS OHV riders. We are responsible outdoor enthusiasts we cherish the wilderness areas - but chose to do it from our means of transportation.

I will agree that ATV's do cause an "impact" on the areas we travel over - however, if you wait a few years from non-use - mother nature will erase all evidence of there ever being an ATV track in place at all. We build bridges oversensitive waterways and wetlands - or simply go around them - many ATVers are also avid anglers and do not want to poison the very waterways that provide the means for their fishing pleasure. I also agree that there are some OHV/ATV users that fall into the "bad-apple" category, these are probably the same people that abuse their privilege to drive by speeding, texting/cell using while driving - you get the picture. We don't ban ALL drivers from using NS highways - you ticket the "bad apples" - and hopefully - they get the message and reform. We do the same within our small - but growing - community - through the trail warden system. Although we cannot catch all the "bad apples" by making our responsible presence known (and felt) it is hoped their numbers will dwindle - and hopefully so will the opposition to ATVs.

It must be remembered that members of the various ATV clubs throughout NS spend much of their own time and resources to maintain trails all over the province - we invite everyone to enjoy them - we have never posted a restrictive caveat to other outdoor enthusiasts - come one come all. I have used our trail systems - and only infrequently have I met anyone on the trail - when I do - I slow down and give them plenty of "leeway" - and a friendly wave - never once have I been confronted - or confronted another user. Furthermore, many of these members are also members of local Ground Search - their vast knowledge of the wilderness is critical in finding lost persons - do you really want to diminish that knowledge?

In closing, Sir, I humbly request the Western Common Wilderness Common be so designated a multi-use Common to include ATV/OHVs - with requisite speed limits - and potentially "no-go" areas - to simply blanket the area "out-of-bounds" to us is both undemocratic and unfair.

Response

Thank you for your comments. A new section has been added to the Master Plan (Section 6.2.2) in response to consultation with the Province and ATV users. The section sets out a way forward for all users (including ATV riders) of the Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road to responsibly develop, maintain and supervise these areas.

Corina Doary

I have a horse stabled in the Hatchet Lake area and would love to be able to use the trails of the Western Commons. It would be great if there were some
areas of the trails that had good footing that were for non-motorized use. Having an area to ride without ATV's would be safer for the more novice riders. I know of several other horse owners who would take advantage of the trails as well.

Response

The Plan does not currently include provisions for horse riding. Horse trails generally require extensive vertical pruning of vegetation and overhanging branches to accomodate the height of a horse and rider. The Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road have sufficient vertical and horizontal clearances to permit horse riding but there are issues to be resolved first around ATV uses of the roads. If these roads are eventually improved for shared use there could be opportunities for certain days or times of the day to be reserved for non-motorized uses.

Charlotte Keen

I am very strongly in favour of this plan. In the long term it will be of enormous benefit to future generations. I commend the city and the volunteer groups who have worked on this.

Response

Thank you for your support. Staff and volunteer groups have worked hard to produce the Plan.

Paul and Rose Dunlop

Please include all proposed ohv trails in this plan so that they are accessable right from the beginning ,not phased in over several years.Many of us are getting up in years and are very much enjoying our atvs as the only access we get to the wilds.Our membership at the Safety Minded ATV Association, is increasing strongly in the 50 plus folks,men and women,and many over 60.It is very important that these folks have access also.

Response

Thank you for your comments. A new section has been added to the Master Plan (Section 6.2.2) in response to consultation with the Province and ATV users. The section sets out a way forward for all users (including ATV riders) of the Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road to responsibly develop, maintain and supervise these areas.

Matt Bernard

I would like to go on record as requesting designated trials in the Western Common Wilderness Common for mountian bikers built to IMBA multi-use trails please visit http://www.imba.com/ please also note IMBA currently is working with parks Canada for sustainable trial development in our national parks.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. The work of the International Mountain Biclycling Association will be considered during upcoming design and construction of trails in the Park.

Wendy McDonald

After hearing more about the Western Common and draft Masterplan and examining some of the maps, I recommend that the Western Common be designated as Parkland so that the land is protected and the rights and privileges bestowed on a park are enacted, asap.

I was offended that there was no time allowed for questions from the assembled group; it must be recognized that we can learn from each other and form our own opinions based on the additional thoughts that are shared at a public forum. Why have an Open House if the people are not allowed to speak?

As a hiker and naturalist, I respect the measures that have been suggested to protect the watershed, riparian zones, bogs and lakes, viewplanes, light footprint philosophy that the project committee has supported all along the process. Although not a resident of the area, I have walked some of the trails along with others, for the appreciation of the natural environment.

The staged trail development looks practical and appropriate; build it, and the people will come. The phases may have to be fast forwarded if the pressure on the inititial phase is not adequate for popular use. The local population is used to being out in nature and will want to continue to be outdoors, all year round. With the two-stage trail system, the environment will have the minimum of disturbance while being developed.

My concern is the posted restriction of 4 wheelers and adequate supervision of this activity - this is a large area....it must be protected.

The Drysdale Bog, although privately owned, is a target property for purchase so that the sensitive habitat can be protected. This should be monitored so that the owner does not disturb the area, if this is appropriate. There are other parcels that should be watched for the same reasons, to expand the Park.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond and we look forward to next steps. In their deliberations, Council should have no difficulty in approving this Plan.

Response

Although some people are comfortable asking questions in front of a large group of people, many others are not. The open house format was intended to promote small group discussions. Six staff and advisory committee members were on hand lead these discussions.

A new section has been added to the Master Plan (Section 6.2.2) in response to consultation with the Province and ATV users. The section sets out a way forward for all users (including ATV riders) of the Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road to responsibly develop, maintain and supervise these areas.

Martin Willison

I have looked at the plan in outline though have not yet struggled through all the details. Nevertheless, I am ready to express concern that the name 'wilderness' may be misused and misleading.

With respect to wilderness protection, HRM's Western Common has a significant role to play in buffering the proposed provincial Five Bridge Lakes
Wilderness Area (by whatever name it is eventually called). The concept of HRM providing wilderness- style protection adjacent to the provincial wilderness area is good and deserves praise.

Nevertheless, in my view there is a sigificant problem regarding HRM's proposal. In the U.S., "wilderness" means that the area is wholly non-motorized. While U.S. law does not apply in Canada, this is nevertheless a good concept and I believe strongly that this meaning of the word should be respected.

Nova Scotia has a Wilderness Areas Protection Act. It is good legislation and while it does not fully adopt the U.S. definition of wilderness, the legislation comes close to this definition and can be considered effectively compatible with it.

The problem with HRM's Western Common Wilderness is that it threatens to seriously cheapen the meaning of the word 'wilderness' and therefore threatens a fundamental concept underlying wilderness protection. Once the idea is lost, then we will see true wilderness threatened everywhere. HRM is not proposing a non-motorized wilderness, though a non-motorized network within the protected area may be achieved. But a small patchy network cannot be a 'wilderness' because wilderness must be not only non-motorized but also large enough to maintain the ecological integrity of the large-scale natural system. Too many interventions are proposed within the various patches of the Commons for this to be achieved.

The detailed plan uses words like 'regional park' and 'park reserve'. These words are acceptable and compatible with existing provincial and municipal legislation regarding parks and park reserves.

Given the nature of the proposals for the western common, I do not think that it can become compatible with the concept of 'wilderness'. In light of that, I think all uses of this word in the name of the area (including its sub-divisions) should be dropped. The following general words are sufficient: common, commons, park, reserve, buffer zone, natural corridor, protected area, natural park, and natural area.

Response

Thank you for your observations concerning the use of the word "wilderness' in the Plan. In 1999 the name "Western Common Wilderness Common" was adopted by Regional Council. Although there are no immediate plans to rename the area it's existing name could be improved with a more descriptive title such as the "Propect River Regional Park" or another name providing place-based or commemorative significance. Your suggestion has merit and may be considered in the future.

With regard to motorized uses in wilderness areas it is likely that OHVs will be permitted by the Province in the Five Bridge Wilderness Area. Motorized uses are also permitted in the Ship Harbour Long Lake Wilderness Area.Some trails specifically permitted for ATV uses can pass through Wilderness Areas. The Province has enabled these activities by excluding these trails from the Wilderness Area designation. All other ATV uses in Wilderness Areas are prohibited. A new section has been added to the Master Plan (Section 6.2.2) in response to consultation with the Province and ATV users. The section sets out a way forward for all users (including ATV riders) of the Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road to responsibly develop, maintain and supervise these areas in order to maintain road connectivity and access from the HRM Wilderness Common into the Five Bridge Wilderness area.

Gale & Tom Esbaugh

Sounds very interesting and wonderful.

Response

Thank you for your encouragement.

Derek Cann

I am a resident of Lakeside NS, and I attended the Open House held recently, and would like to provide the following comments;

Comment

a.. I was disappointed to see that the "Master Plan" is moreso a plan which is focused essentially around the Prospect Community, and has little to offer communities to the north of this wide expanse of land. Any plan that does nothing to open the northern border of the area (along the 103 Hwy) for 20-30 yrs cannot be considered a Master Plan for this "Common Area".

Response

The Wilderness Common extends over 1600 hectares of HRM owned land. At roughly twenty times the size of Point Pleasant Park it will be necessary for the development of the Wilderness Common to extend over many decades. The Master Plan recognizes that a phased development and capital investment approach is the best way forward in the creation of a new park. The Master Plan starts with the development of the park in the Prospect area but it will eventually extend to the development of trails and park amenities in northern sections of the Park.

Comment

b.. The acceptance of the restrictions around the Recycling Depot limiting the use of the area, including a 2 km perimeter around it, is acceptance of a restrictive and unmanageable plan. Otter Lake offers extensive opportunities for a range of wilderness activities, and it is inconceivable to me that any Advisory Committee would allow such a restriction to stand without challenging it. I can only assume that the Committee, absent of any community members along the northern border of the wilderness area, had no regard for the restrictions and limitations this placed on the entire common area access.

Response

The HRM Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facility at Otter Lake is located on 75 hectares of the Western Common. On a daily basis hundred of vehicles travel to and from the facility. Potable water for over 100 employees is drawn from Otter Lake. The Master Plan includes provisions for the eventual decommissioning of the facility and conversion to parkland but for the next several decades it is hoped that this vital service to HRM citizens will continue to operate as one of the best facilities of its kind in the world. The Advisory Committe included members from Halifax, Lakeside, Dartmouth, Brookside, and Whites Lake.

Comment

c.. Trail-heads are the essential element to getting the public into the wilderness area, and starting to make use of these lands. Trail-heads should be in Phase 1 of this project with at least 2 locations put in at the start of the project as soon as the first funds are secured - one in the Community of Prospect, the other at the 103 Hwy Otter Lake Connector location. The 103 Hwy trailhead should commence by going east from the connector road towards the Greenhead Road trail.

Response

Eventually there will be a formal trailhead developed at Otter Lake. Currently there is an informal trailhead at the Hwy 103 Otter Lake Connector where canoeists can park vehicles and launch canoes. In today's economic climate it's unlikely that capital budgets for parkland development will increase rapidly to allow for the immediate and rapid pace of park development you propose.

Comment

d.. The designated residential development areas to the north and east of the area should not limit the access to the wilderness areas behind them, but rather have an integrated and planned means for access to go around/through these areas for the betterment of all.

Response

The Master Plan includes provisions for a continuous and interconnected trail system that will connect bordering communities to the park.

Comment

e.. The Plan makes no provisions for motorized vehicles, equestrian uses, mountain bike areas etc. Why would the "Park" designation be used to restrict general use in this area and deprive many members of the public from enjoying the common area? With the 5-Bridges Wilderness area being restrictive in its use, and the Park Reserve being left untouched as an additional buffer, we are unnecessarily restricting the public use of the common area. I am not an ATV or motorcycle user, but I believe in a multi-use common. There is plenty of room for all users.

Response

A new section has been added to the Master Plan (Section 6.2.2) in response to consultation with the Province and ATV users. The section sets out a way forward for all users (including ATV riders) of the Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road to responsibly develop, maintain and supervise these areas.

Comment

f.. Phasing of the project does very little for the entire HRM community, and can be easily interpretted to be a project For the Prospect area, by the People of the Prospect Area. We need the phasing to recognize the need for all people to gain access to this wonderful area.

Response

As discussed previously, a 1600 hectare park will require many decades to be completed. The park is not just for Prospect area residents and the Advisory Committee was comprised of citizens from many other communites in HRM.

Comment

g.. Hwy 103, with appropriate signage to invite the public, would quickly become a destination point for many of our community members - all we need to do is create a trail-head at this location. If an additional location in the Ragged Lake area is possible, this too would be another good location for community use.

Response

The Otter Lake Connector is intended primarily to provide access to trucks and other vehicles transporting materials to the Otter Lake Facility. The route is heavily used for this purpose. The immdediate development of a formal trailhead at Otter Lake could create safety issues between recreational and commercial users of the roadway. Additionally, large scale recreational activities at Otter Lake could negatively affect the water quality of Otter Lake which currently supplies potable water to Facility employees.

Comment

Recommendations:

This Master Plan needs to become much more inclusive and expansive in its vision. This can be achieved by:
a.. recognizing the establishment of multiple trailheads as an integral and immediate Phase 1 of the plan,
b.. clearly indicating, as was originally intended, that the common area is for multi-use of all HRM residents (provisions for ATVs, horses, motorcross, overnight camping, etc),
c.. Challenging the 30-yr lease implications of the Otter Lake Facility, and making a reasoned, negotiated plan that works for the community as well as the facility, and
d.. avoiding the restrictive designation as a "Park", and develop this area as a multi-use common area.
e.. More community input is required and should be sought. 2-3 public meetings over a 5-7 year period does little to seek community input. Meetings outside the Prospect area should be organized.
f.. Until some of the larger community concerns are addressed, I don't recommend finalization of this plan. The contractor has done much very good work to understand the wilderness area, but the Master Plan is very illogical in its Phasing and centralization of efforts around the Prospect area only at the expense of the rest of the peninsular community.
g.. Greater effort needs to be made to create an integrated master plan with the 5-Bridges area and the Wilderness Reserve area.
I am willing the join the Community Advisory Committee, but I am certain you believe their work is nearly complete and we are likely beyond a thorough reflection on this Master Plan. I appreciate your time and consideration.

Response

The Master Plan presents a rational and cost effective approach to the development of the Park over several decades. The Plan includes provisions for a range of activities but balances these activities with the need to preserve the natural environment and protect aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The Plan also includes provisions for the eventual decommissioning of the Otter Lake Facility and its conversion to parkland. Public consultation has been extensive throughout the development of the Plan. Many individuals and organizations have volunteered their time to review and comment on the Plan. Without their help and the hundreds of other citizens who have attended public meetings in Halifax, Lakeside and Brookside, the development of the Master Plan would not have been possible.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS)

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) is pleased to provide the following comments for the public consultation currently underway for the Western Common Wilderness Common Master Plan. Our organization is supportive, in principle, of the creation of the wilderness common and the regional park. Having wilderness close to Nova Scotia’s largest urban area is important, and will encourage citizens to explore the outdoors, appreciate nature, and enhance active lifestyles. The wilderness common also contains important natural areas deserving of protection, including a large expanse of forest and important lakes, rivers, and wetlands. CPAWS is supportive of a phased-approach to developing park infrastructure and concentrating the most intensive types of trails and park infrastructure to the edges of the regional park. We also welcome steps taken to ensure historic portage routes are maintained and canoeing/kayaking encouraged along the waterways of the park, particularly the Nine Mile River system.

Upon reviewing the draft final report, CPAWS believes the document is deficient in a number of areas and we look to the Halifax Regional Municipality to address these shortcomings in a revised final version of the master plan for the Western Common Wilderness Common.

Comment

• The timeline for the completion of the regional park is too long. A sixty-year timeframe to phase-in all of the various zones is unnecessarily long. We recognize challenges associated with the Otter Lake Solid Waste Management Facility, and a longer timeframe will be required for some aspects of implementing the master plan, but this need not slow the implementation of other aspects of the plan. For example, Phase 2 of the regional park is not scheduled to be initiated until the year 2015 and Phase 3 until the year 2020. This is too long. The timeline for rolling out the various phases of the master plan needs to be shortened.

Response

The HRM Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facility at Otter Lake could operate for another 10-15 years. After that time there will be a 30 year site monitoring period stipulated by the Province through the Environmental Assessment that took place prior to the facility's construction.

The Wilderness Common extends over 1600 hectares of HRM owned land. At roughly twenty times the size of Point Pleasant Park it will be necessary for the development of the Wilderness Common to extend over many decades. The Master Plan recognizes that a phased development and capital investment approach is the best way forward in the creation of a new park. In today's economic climate it's unlikely that capital budgets for parkland development will increase rapidly to allow for the immediate and rapid pace of park development however, if additional funds become available the pace of park development can be increased.

Comment

• A portion of the Western Common should be designated as a legally-protected wilderness area by the provincial government, particularly stretches of municipal land along the Nine Mile River adjacent to the Five Bridges Lake Candidate Wilderness Area. The Master Plan should support a provincial designation on some of these lands. A wilderness area designation would provide stronger protection to the natural areas of the wilderness common.

Response

HRM and the Province have worked cooperatively in the development of the Five Bridges Candidate Protected Area proposal as well as the Wilderness Common Master Plan. The HRM Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facility at Otter Lake is located on 75 hectares of the area that you have suggested for Wilderness Area designation. It's unlikely that the Province would be able to include this area however the suggestion to designate some areas of the Wilderness Common bordering the Five Bridges CPA has merit and will be persued.

Comment

• CPAWS is very concerned about the potential for forest harvesting within the boundaries of the wilderness common, as described in the section of the report entitled “forest management”. Our organization does not support active forest management inside the boundaries of wilderness parks and we respectfully urge the Municipality to abandon this proposal in the final version of the master plan. With the current wording of the master plan, CPAWS questions whether the wilderness common will indeed be a wilderness park. If forest management is carried out inside the boundaries of the wilderness common, this will set a very bad precedent for the management of other wilderness zones in Nova Scotia, particularly provincially-designated wilderness areas where commercial forest harvesting is not permitted. CPAWS recognizes that trail maintenance in the backcountry will require cutting trees that pose a safety risk, as mentioned in the report, but this is not forest management.

Response

There will be no forest harvesting in the Wilderness Common. The forest management plan (see Appendix: G of Appendix: FGH) was first developed for the Point Pleasant Park Plan. It is based on natural succession principles with planned future opportunities for replanting Acadian forest species in specific Oldfield areas of the Wilderness Common currently dominated by White Spruce.

Comment

• Pg. 25 , under Blue Mountain – Birch Cove Lakes section, the report states that the provincial government has adopted a “selective development” approach for the Blue Mountain – Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area, combining development and environmental protection. This is not true and needs to be revised.

Response

This statement refers only to park development however it could be misundersood. The sentence refering to "selective development" will be removed.

Comment

On page ix of the report, CPAWS is mentioned specifically as showing support for the concept plan. In principle, we support the creation of the wilderness common and managing for ecological integrity, but opening-up portions of the wilderness common to active forest management is not something we support and do not wish to be cited as being supportive of the master plan unless the final version corrects the deficiencies noted in this submission.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. If you would like to follow-up on any of the concerns mentioned in this submission, please do not hesitate to be in touch.

Response

CPAWS is to be commended for its ongoing support and assistance in the development of the Master Plan. CPAWS has provided valuable feedback and constructive criticism throughout this process.

Five Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust (FBWHT)

Comment

The Western Common Wilderness Plan is a complex document with lots of maps and appendices. It is almost impossible to read this document on line. Responding to the request for comments has been very difficult in the absence of readily available hard copies of the Plan.  Several weeks ago we were finally able to obtain a hard copy of this Plan which was essential for reading, reviewing the 24 maps and trying to make sense out of matters. Also complicating matters was the late revision to the Plan to include a new chapter 6.2.2 which replaces the chapter of the same numerical designation as it appears in the hard copy of the Plan. The short timelines given were impossible to meet given we are a group of volunteers with lots of other responsibilities in our lives. Given these considerable obstacles, most regrettably we do not have adequate time and personal resources as volunteers to give you a thorough response. A comprehensive response requires a minimum of two months to prepare.

We discussed this time and resources dilemma at our recent April Board meeting .On the recommendation of the Board of the Five Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust (FBWHT) we will aim for an overview of what is important in the Plan from our perspective and will focus on the necessity for and value in an interface between the two areas.

Response

Thank you for your comments. The consultation period lasted for approximately 2 months. The public consultation started on March 8. The original deadline for comments was April 14 which was later extended to May 9. You do not need to apologize for the quality of your comments. They are thoughtful and indicate a thorough reading of the document. Reading planning documents on line can be a challenge but in the interest of environmental sustainability we have recently been trying to limit the production of hardcopy drafts. The inclusion of Section 6.2.2 came about after discussions with the Province and at the request of the Wilderness Common Advisory Committee (WCAW) when it became apparent in April, 2010 that the Province was considering limited OHV uses on the Old Coach Road in the Five Bridge Lakes Candidate Protected Area (CPA). The Old Coach Road extends through the Wilderness Common and it was felt that a complementary response was necessary.

Comment

If we begin with the over arching principle in the HRM Region Plan adopted in 2006, that of Placing the Environment First, our response to the Western Common Wilderness Common Plan will focus on our observations, concerns and suggestions for addressing environmental concerns. The preservation of waterways, finding ways to mitigate degradation to wetlands, and to prevent new damage to sensitive areas, other landscapes and waterways,   making sure our old cemeteries (both pre contact where known and those of European settlers) and their campsites(where known) and homesteads need to be addressed now. Many of the  tenets of the plan  including connectivity between the Western Common Wilderness Common and the Five Bridge Lakes Candidate Wilderness area have garnered our attention as an organization.

One of our concerns is that the plan will evolve over a 25 year and in some parts a 60 year plan. What safeguards and bring forward systems will be in place to ensure the planning that takes place now will be reviewed and implemented. Most of us will be gone in 25 years time. Who in HRM corporate or in the community will have this knowledge and ability to activate the plan?? We suggest that prior to any further implementation for any of the future five year segments of the plan that a thorough review and citizen involvement takes place  at least one year prior to the implementation of each phase to be sure that the planning in whatever segment is being looked at still makes sense.

Response

The Master Plan recommends the creation of a citizen advisory committee to provide guidance throughout the evolution and implementation of the Plan. In addition the Regional Plan and its subsidiary Plans will be reviewed every five years.

Comment

Some HRM staff have been vocal about expressing their personal views about Active Transportation needing to be in place on all trails in HRM. Planning for trails in a rural area requires looking at different community values than may occur in an urban area. It is not possible in a more rural area to have most trails looking like those in Point Pleasant Park except at the front edge. Insisting that all trails must be Active Transportation only serves to cause unnecessary dissention among a wide array of trails users. These personal observations are most inappropriate given that HRM has no defined policy on these matters. Out side of peninsular Halifax much of HRM lies in rural communities where distances to get to areas often requires different modalities other than walking and bicycling. Vehicular traffic on some of our trails has been damaging in part because there are no designated areas for riding. In attempting to address land use issues in a number of rural areas community groups of many persuasions and goals have had to come together, learn to work together to sort out differences and reach consensus.

In the backdrop of the recently announced difficult financial straits of HRM we do not see that there is enough money to have large numbers of trails with varying uses. In rural areas we will need to share our trails resources. Having MOU’s between groups like the Safety Minded ATV Association and the Province/ HRM is viewed as a positive approach. Under such a system OHV traffic riders will need to be licensed to travel over such routes .With increasing education about the need to be respectful of environment over which trails pass ,both through public and over private lands by way of land use agreements it is our hope that damages to lands ,streams and wetlands will ease greatly. All trail users would benefit from having an improved trails system over time.

There seems to be a disconnect between HRM staff and provincial staff at NSE as far as how each group sees problem solving .We urge the two groups to come together for solid planning since the planning for the Five Bridge Lakes Candidate Wilderness Area and the Western Common Wilderness Common share a number of common goals as well as problems which will require solid teamwork among government levels as well as among community groups working with government at several levels to get resolved. It is important to involve community groups from all areas of Hwy 333 especially around access to existing K roads for residents from Peggy’s Cove around to White’s Lake and the communities in between. Hopefully the Safety Minded ATV Club will be able to engage these residents in some useful planning with HRM and the province.

At the Trust we have been avid moose watchers and been involved with DNR about the reporting of moose sightings in the candidate Wilderness area. Much discussion among our sister organizations has ensued about closing off the Fire Road during moose calving season, using the Wooden’s River road as an alternate route. Discussions among our organization and our sister organizations on this topic continue. There is not consensus at this time about temporary road closings.

Response

HRM will cooperate with any intiative by the Province or conservation groups to preserve Mainland Moose.

Comment

As a member group of the Chebucto Wilderness Coalition Steering Committee we took part in a consultation process with EDM around the review of the vision of the ring road. At the time of the consultation a year ago we gave measured support to the concept of a ring road with the proviso that a number of conditions needed to be in place. We will append this document entitled The CWC Position on the EDM “Vision”.

Response

Responses are as follows under the "Chebucto Wilderness Coalition" heading.

Comment

In the Western Common Plan we note that there is a trail using the Pipeline Road and then a winter trail on Big Indian Lake exiting near the dam. There needs to be another route found that does not leave travellers needing to traverse ice. Travelling on ice in proximity to a dam is dangerous as ice conditions can be unsettled at such a location. When this portion of the plan is put in place the disruption to the Pipe Line Road at Drysdale Bog needs to be repaired by placing large rock and then soil cover to allow water to flow from Drysdale Bog freely across the Pipeline Road at that juncture and to prevent further damage to the Bog.

Response

Winter OHV routes over lakes, wetlands and streams are problematic not only due to the danger to drivers but also due to the impacts of vehicles on sensitive shorelines and nearby fish habitat. There is a growing body of research concerning the impacts of OHVs on water quality in wilderness areas that appears to question the wisdom of permitting winter trails. The Pipeline trail would provide a good alternative to the winter use of Big Indian Lake. Upgrades to the trail would consider improvements to water flow throughout the Drysdale Bog.

Comment

With the view to repairing environmental damages and in the backdrop of Chapter 6.2.2 Greenhead Road and Old Coach Land Uses it could be helpful to have travelling routed away from extensive wet areas. Since the plan for the Landfill area is 14 years away it is reasonable to take action now to mitigate current damage caused by travel through wet areas and to prevent new damage from occurring. Finding a connecting route for hikers, bicyclists and OHV users from Nichols Lake needs to be reconsidered. If one looks at a route from Hwy 333 from Nichols Lake to the Old Coach Road west of Prospect River as it passes through the Old Coach Road there is an area that passes through extensive wet land at the northerly end. If an access route is not designated at this time it is our concern that further degradation will continue as riders will continue to cut new trails as current ones become impassable. By establishing a well planned, safe route several things could be accomplished. There is no bridge over the Prospect River as it leaves Little Indian Lake. This crossing is treacherous at high water. By giving OHV’s and cyclists an alternate route to the west of the Prospect River the waterway would be better protected and ongoing damage to the river bed at this juncture could be reduced. Walkers can usually get across this section of the river by using a heavy walking stick for support and stepping carefully.

Response

In some areas OHV uses have lowered the trail grades by up to 1 metre causing flooding of the trails. The development of new trails around the flooded sections would displace and compound environmental impacts rather than mitigating the long standing OHV impacts on the Old Coach. Funding to address this situation will be a challenge however HRM will work with established OHV groups and the Province to develop management plans for the Old Coach Road corridor that extends through the Five Bridge Lakes CPA and the Wilderness Common.

Comment

Planning among all levels of government for the contiguous areas of the Western Common and FBLCWA is very important for the managing for biodiversity as well as connectivity and provision of movement for all species.

Response

The maintenance of biodiversity was a key value in the development of the Master Plan. HRM will continue to work in cooperation with the Province to ensure that landscape connectivity for wildlife is maintained.

Comment

We support the use of waterways with well marked routes and location of portages for canoeing/kayaking . Since several of the routes located in the Western Common could take paddlers more than several hours consideration should be given to erecting camp sites for those wishing to stay overnight.

Response

Canoeists who have paddled these routes have confirmed that moderately experienced canoeists can easily complete the routes in one day. At this time the Master Plan does not include provisions for authorized campsites. Although campsites could be considered at some time in the future HRM does not currently have the operational capacity to develop or provide ongoing services to remote campsites.

Comment

The forests of the Western Common area are recovering from Hurricane Juan and from earlier fires of 40-50 years ago. The use of the same Forest Management Plan for Point Pleasant Park for this area is puzzling as the forested areas in these two locales have had such different histories of damages from fire, wind and insect infestations.

Response

The Forest Management Plan for Point Pleasant Park has been reviewed and approved for use in the Western Common by HRM's Municipal Arborist. Hurricane Juan and Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle impacts are common to both areas.

Comment

We support the preservation of old cemeteries, and homesteads.  Some of these have been documented in the recent Trust publication A Walking Guide to the Old St. Margaret’s Bay Road. We hope additional history of pre-settlement land use and other community histories will get recorded by others.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Western Common Wilderness Common Plan.

Response

Thank you for the publication of the Walking Guide. It is a valuable resource that provides extensive information on the cultural and natural history of the area. Thank you as well for the Five Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust's ongoing constructive criticism of and support for the Master Plan.

Note: The following comments concern Chapter Seven: Chebucto Peninsula Context of the Master Plan.

Chebucto Wilderness Coalition

Comment

The Chebucto Wilderness Coalition is clearly one of the principal stakeholders in the development of a Master Plan for the Western Common Wilderness Common as much of the western boundary of the designated area abuts the Five Bridge Lakes lands proposed for protection under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act. 

Procedures for Community Input

Of necessity, our response will be brief, in large measure because (1) the information contained in the proposed Master Plan is dense and requires careful and detailed review, and (2) access to the complete proposed plan and the time allowed for appropriate review and detailed response were insufficient.  These factors therefore generate our first response to the proposed Master Plan: the procedures for community input were flawed.  Flawed procedures for community input may very well lead either to outright mistakes in the plan or a plan that the community will fail to embrace.  This is most unfortunate, especially in view of nearly ten years of inactivity in the planning process. 

Response

The consultation period lasted for approximately 2 months. The public consultation started on March 8. The original deadline for comments was April 14 which was later extended to May 9.

Comment

The Substance of the Plan as it Relates to the Five Bridge Lakes Lands

The CWC was among the stakeholders that met twice with the EDM consultants during the early stages of the plan’s development. Following these meetings, the CWC developed a position statement as it related to the lands now designated as a candidate for legislated protection.  At the time, the EDM “vision” of a trail or series of trails generally surrounding the Five Bridge Lakes lands was a principal focus of our discussions.  Following these discussions, the CWC developed a position statement indicating that it could embrace the EDM “vision” (of a of a “ring” of trails surrounding a protected area) if the following six conditions were met:

The CWC could embrace the “vision” that EDM is proposing provided that the following six conditions are met:

1: That government at all levels embrace the vision.

2: That if the Old Coach Road were decommissioned,

a) an alternative “ring” trail or series of trails would be constructed in a location and built to standards that accommodate the needs of a diversity of users; The Safety Minded ATV Association and the BLT & St. Margaret’s Rails-to-Trails Associations would have to endorse any plan for establishing new, alternative trails.

b) the trail or trails would be acceptable to the communities through which they pass (especially the Bluff Wilderness Trail);  WRWEO would have to endorse any newly established trails that might impact on the Bluff Wilderness Trail; the Chebucto Wilderness Coalition would consult with relevant community organizations to determine the acceptability of any newly established trails that might pass through these communities; and

c) the trail or trails would be built before the Old Coach Road is decommissioned.

3: That the level of protection given to the land within the ring was that of the Wilderness Areas Protection Act.  The provisions of the Endangered Species Act would apply to those endangered species known to exist within the larger area protected under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act and its application could exclude human activity from specific areas to protect these species.

4) That connectivity for human and wildlife movement would be provided between the public lands inside the ring of trails and other protected lands on the Chebucto Peninsula outside the ring of trails.

5) That provisions for the future use of the landfill are established to avoid further stress on the natural environment and the recreational uses of the surrounding public lands.

6) That any proposed Master Plan for the Western Commons Wilderness Commons is consistent with the above conditions.

The CWC wishes to clarify that its support for the concept of a ring of trails surrounding a protected area was conditional upon these six conditions.  The CWC further wishes to register concern about eliminating an important east-west, multi-use thoroughfare through the center of the Five Bridge Lakes area that is to be preserved after these lands are legislatively protected.  Finally, the CWC expresses its concern that such a ring of trails would be prohibitively expensive, especially in a time of financial constraint. 

But most importantly, the CWC now shares this information to emphasize the six conditions that it would have insisted upon if the ring-trail concept had been advanced.  The six conditions have far-reaching implications and would apply to any Master Plan for the Western Common Wilderness Common including the one that has been proposed.

The CWC would have been pleased to provide more detailed input on a variety of the proposed plan’s specific features if more time had been provided for this purpose.

Response

Thank you for your response concerning the Chebucto Peninsula Concept contained in Chapter 7. This chapter is an expansion to the Master Plan presenting a vision for the Chebucto Peninsula that addresses some of the most pressing recreational and ecological issues on a significant portion of the Crown Lands on the Peninsula. Since it would require the Province’s leadership, it is separate from the Wilderness Common Master Plan and is included for discussion purposes only. The Chebucto Peninsula Concept Plan could provide HRM and the Province of Nova Scotia with a world-class multi-use trail experience for tourist and local residents, while also protecting the habitat of the Mainland Moose, an endangered species—all within an area less than 30 kilometers from downtown Halifax. The expansion outlines a wider vision for the Chebucto Peninsula as it relates to the Wilderness Common. This vision, which has been presented to HRM staff, Provincial departments and NGOs, defines a possible solution to the divergent issues of OHV use in the area and the presence of the endangered Mainland Moose.

John Cascadden

Comment

There exists a requirement to support a plan for the completion of the proposed OHV/ATV ring trail mentioned in the Chapter 7, and Appendix E (Chebucto Peninsula Concept) for the proposed WCMP.  Not only would the completed OHV/ATV ring trail lessen the traffic load on the Old Coach Road through the proposed Five Bridge Lakes Candidate Wilderness Protected Area, and the all ready heavily travelled BLT Rails to Trails route, but it would facilitate ecotourism traffic to flow towards the south western (Peggy's Cove) part of the peninsula.  Without HRM's stated support for the development of the proposed OHV/ATV ring road, it may never be developed, and an opportunity to create an important ecotourism passageway will be missed.

Response

Please see the response (shown above) to the Chebucto Wilderness Coalition. Chapter 7 is presented as a vision only.

Comment

The majority of trails detailed in the proposed Master Plan are designated as 'barrier free' trails which are 6ft wide, or 'back country hiking trails' which are 2ft wide.  None of these trails will safely support bicycles, which by the specifications contained in Figure LSK-2 of Appendix F (Trail Profiles) of the Master Plan states that such a shared use non-motorized trail should be 10ft wide.  There needs to be a connective route of trails that will support safe bicycle use within the proposed Regional Park.    In addition these trails should provide multiple connections to the proposed OHV/ATV ring trail.  This would provide a safe alternate route towards Peggy's Cove which presently does not exist.  It is well known that Route 333 (Prospect Road) is not considered a safe bicycle route to Peggy's Cove, and for a number of reasons it is highly doubtful that Route 333 could or would ever be modified to provide a truly safe bicycle route to this popular ecotourism region.   People on trail capable bicycles use the existing, less than adequate, Nichols Lake trails today; even if they are not considered safe for shared use by non-motorized users.  Ecotourism, and Active Transportation are considered to be prime activities to take place within the proposed Regional Park.  Unless the trail specifications are changed in the existing WCMP, bicycle use may not be considered safe for use on the majority of the proposed park's trails.

Response

The "ring trail" concept was included in Chapter 7 as a vision only. The scope of the Master Plan is to only consider trails in the Wilderness Common. Environmental impacts and construction costs were carefully considered. Backcountry hiking trails are not intended for bicycle use. The trails are limited in width and are to be surfaced with wood chips.

Comment

Over the past three plus weeks I have stopped, and queried "every" person I met on the trails in the Nichols Lake area (more than 70 people) .  The questions I asked are: "The back country hiking trails planned for the north side of Nichols Lake, as detailed in the Western Common Master Plan, are 2 feet wide.  Do you feel this width is appropriate?  If no, why not?".    ALL the people said NO, their reasons are summarized as follows:

• we walk the trails with our families, and many like their partner or children to walk beside them,
• 4-5 feet would seem safer,
• we cannot ride bicycles safely on a 2 foot wide trail,
• why 2 feet wide for a trail so close to a populated area,
• walking dogs on a leash on a 5 foot trail is hard enough to keep them from getting tangled in side brush, 2 ft impossible.
• the consensus was that a 2 foot trail width for the proposed trails north of Nichols Lake would be too narrow.

Response

Figure 23 "Phasing Strategy" shows only one trail section in Phase 1 designated "Back Country"- all other trails will be two metres in width. This type of low impact trail is intended for environmentally sensitive areas.

Comment

A significant number of the people I met while walking the trails support concept for the trails in the Nichols Lake area to be designated for off leash dog walking.  HRM already has guidelines for this activity, and many local residents seem to like walking their dogs off leash. I should not just say local residents because numerous vehicles arrive daily from outside our subdivision, and take their dogs for a walk & run on the Nichols Lake trails.

Response

The HRM Off Leash Parks Strategy generally does not consider off leash activities in areas that are sensitive to environmental impact. Nichols Lake is a pristine lake that provides essential habitat to a variety of wildlife. It is also a popular destination for swimming.

Comment

The proposed canoe route over the Prospect River system can not be completed in one day.  In fact someone on vacation might take a number of days to complete such a trip.  This means that nightly stops would be required, and thus designated safe campsites would need to be created.  HRM By-Law P600, which is proposed to detail the accepted activities within the proposed Regional Park, states that camping and over night access would require a permit.  Who, and where such a permit will be acquired is not detailed in the WCMP; also the creation of safe campsites is not detailed.  Even now some people are known to camp within the boundaries of the proposed Regional Park, often in areas not considered safe for a campfire.  Possible camping within the proposed Regional Park needs to be better defined in the WCMP, and By-Law P600.   This past Friday night (8 May 2010) a small group camped overnight adjacent to Nichols Lake, my wife saw them pack their camping gear into their car just before they drove away.  They had parked around the corner of McDonald Lake Drive on Forestglade Drive probably to avoid local resident detection.  Normally we call the RCMP for any vehicles that are still parked adjacent to our trailhead entrance after 10pm.  When we walked in view to their campsite near the lake, we saw that they had a campfire (well looked after & cold to the touch), but they or someone else left some beer bottles floating in the lake.  This is not the first time this has occurred, it will likely not be the last.  Enforcement of a "No Camping" by-law will likely be near impossible unless a nightly patrol takes place, and even then someone could camp back in the wilderness off the established trails, and never be detected ... that is truly a frightening prospect.  There will always be people who will break what they perceive to be unjust regulations.    If properly located & authorized campsites areas are not created, those that sneak in will likely always put the forest, and adjacent residents at risk with their campfires.

Response

Canoeists who have paddled this route have confirmed that moderately experienced canoeists can easily complete the route in one day. At this time the Master Plan does not include provisions for authorized campsites. Although campsites could be considered at some time in the future HRM does not currently have the operational capacity to develop or provide ongoing services to remote campsites.

Comment

Fishing within the proposed Regional Park is not detailed very well.  Is unrestricted fishing allowed?

Response

This activity is regulated by the Province. The Province does not permit unrestricted fishing in Nova Scotia.

Comment

HRM By-Law P600 (BY-LAW RESPECTING MUNICIPAL PARKS) was developed for controlling the activities within an urban municipal park.  This by-law will require a thorough review to ensure that all existing articles will apply to the proposed wilderness Regional Park.  Any conflicts will have to be resolved, else enforcement problems will be created.  Who is responsible for enforcement must also be detailed; RCMP, HRP, or who, and for what?

Response

P600 applies to all HRM parks and will be applied to the Wilderness Common as it is developed in the coming years. Enforcement will be provided by HRM Parks Patrol and the RCMP.

Comment

At the open house on 14 April 2010, I heard more than one person ask why the northern region of the proposed regional park is not going to be developed until Phase Four of the Western Common Master Plan.  That is 15-20 years plus in the future.  The northern area is close to the second most populated area of the proposed regional park.  There will be a lot of unrest when more of the people up there finally figure out how long they will have to wait for park upgrades to occur in their area.  It might be advisable to review the phasing philosophy, and accommodate some northern park area service improvements to be completed concurrent with the Phase One time period detailed in the WCMP.

Response

The Wilderness Common extends over 1600 hectares of HRM-owned land. At roughly twenty times the size of Point Pleasant Park it will be necessary for the development of the Wilderness Common to extend over many decades. The Master Plan recognizes that a phased development and capital investment approach is the best way forward in the creation of a new park. The Master Plan starts with the development of the park in the Prospect area but it will eventually extend to the development of trails and park amenities in northern sections of the Park.

Comment

The WCMP Article 6.2.5 for Phase Two states: "Since the Old Coach Road is to be at least partially phased out of use, only limited improvements to this access trail are recommended." Yet a problem arises with the revised Article 6.2.2 that states: "Significant improvements to the grading and surfacing of these routes are anticipated in the Master Plan (Section 6.2.5) however they will not be fully developed and consolidated within the regulations of the Regional Park until 2024. In the interim, the current land uses of these popular routes will continue."    If current uses of the Old Coach Road may now be contributing to environmental damage in that area (also stated in Article 6.2.2), then it would seem imperative that trail improvements are needed now.  This should be incorporated into Phase One activities.

Response

Section 6.2.2 sets out a way forward for OHV uses of the Old Coach Road and Greenhead Road. It requires the formation of a local OHV Club to responsibly develop, maintain and supervise these areas. If a local association is not formed it is likely that the current land uses of the Greenhead and Old Coach Roads will continue to lead to negative environmental impacts. Although the Master Plan will eventually address this issue an interim public education program should be developed for users of the Greenhead and Old Coach Roads. Signage should be placed at road entrances to indicate that trail users are expected to be stewards of the environment and to not cause undue damage to the trails or to adjacent areas. If trail users do not demonstrate compliance to these measures HRM should consider access restrictions.

Comment

It is not just the Province's or OHV/ATV users responsibility to provide safe OHV/ATV trail services, it is also HRM's responsibility as per the HRM Charter Bill No. 179.  I do not use or live near transit services, but I still have to pay taxes for them to be provided within HRM.  I seldom use sidewalks, but my taxes still pay for the construction & upkeep of those services.  I do not own or drive an OHV/ATV, but I do not see any reason why mine & everyone else's taxes should not also contribute to the provision of safe OHV/ATV trails.  Both the Province & HRM provide money to build, and maintain non-motorized trails ... why should it not be the same for motorized trails?  It is often heard that reason HRM does not do OHV/ATV trails support is because there are Provincial fees collected for ATV licenses of which a portion goes towards OHV/ATV trail development.  But the concept that this means that HRM does not have to support OHV/ATV trail building activities would seem to be based on a false premise; because if that were the truly the case then HRM should not provide money to build & maintain residential roads, since the province collects license fees from all motor vehicle owners.  Services are provided for HRM residents by HRM Council decree, there is nothing in the HRM Charter that dictates that residents who own OHV/ATV conveyances are to be denied HRM funding for safe trail services.

Response

HRM Regional Council has adopted policies promoting Active Transportation (AT). The HRM AT Functional Plan does not include provisions for motorized uses on HRM-owned trails. OHV trail policies and related practices are the responsibility of the Province.

Woodens River Watershed Environmental Organization (WRWEO)

Comment

As a founding member of the Chebucto Wilderness Coalition (CWC) and member of the Steering Committee for the CWC, the position of WRWEO is strongly support the position of CWC. In particular, WRWEO endorses, first, the objection that the procedure for community input is flawed because of lack of time for a thorough response and, second, WRWEO endorses the position taken by CWC regarding the proposed "ring road" for the Five Bridges Lakes Wilderness Area (FBLWA) which abuts the Western Commons area.

These two points are reiterated just below. WRWEO quotes the CWC position as stated by the CWC chair, Tom Musial:

"Procedures for Community Input "Of necessity, our response will be brief, in large measure because (1) the information contained in the proposed Master Plan is dense and requires careful and detailed review, and (2) access to the complete proposed plan and the time allowed for appropriate review and detailed response were insufficient. These factors therefore generate our first response to the proposed Master Plan: the procedures for community input were flawed. Flawed procedures for community input may very well lead either to outright mistakes in the plan or a plan that the community will fail to embrace. This is most unfortunate, especially in view of nearly ten years of inactivity in the planning process.

"The Substance of the Plan as it Relates to the Five Bridge Lakes Lands. "The CWC was among the stakeholders that met with the EDM consultants during the early stages of the plan?s development. Following these meetings, the CWC developed a position statement as it related to the lands nowdesignated as a candidate for legislated protection. At the time, the EDM ?vision? of a trail or series of trails generally surrounding the Five Bridge Lakes lands was the principal focus of our discussions. The CWC concluded that it could embrace the EDM "vision" (of a of a "ring" of trails surrounding a protected area) if the
following six conditions were met:

1. That government at all levels embrace the vision.

2. That if the Old Coach Road were decommissioned,

(a) an alternative "ring" trail or series of trails would be constructed in a location and built to standards that accommodate the needs of a diversity of users; The Safety Minded ATV Association and the BLT & St. Margaret?s Rails-to-Trails Associations would have to endorse any plan for establishing new, alternative trails.

(b) the trail or trails would be acceptable to the communities through which they pass (especially the Bluff Wilderness Trail); WRWEO would have to endorse any newly established trails that might impact on the Bluff Wilderness Trail; the Chebucto Wilderness Coalition would consult with relevant community organizations to determine the acceptability of any newly established trails that might pass through these communities; and

(c) the trail or trails would be built before the Old Coach Road is decommissioned.

3. That the level of protection given to the land within the ring was that of the Wilderness Areas Protection Act. The provisions of the Endangered Species Act would apply to those endangered species known to exist within the larger area protected under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act and its application could exclude human activity from specific areas to protect these species.

4. That connectivity for human and wildlife movement would be provided between the public lands inside the ring of trails and other protected lands on the Chebucto Peninsula outside the ring of trails.

5. That provisions for the future use of the landfill are established to avoid further stress on the natural environment and the recreational uses of the surrounding public lands.

6. That any proposed Master Plan for the Western Commons Wilderness Commons is consistent with the above conditions.

"I should make it clear that the CWC is not advancing the position of a ring of trails surrounding a protected area. In fact, we believe that such a plan would be prohibitively expensive in a time of financial constraint. Rather, the CWC shares this position statement with you because its six conditions have far-reaching implications that the CWC would insist on being honoured in any Master Plan for the Western Common Wilderness Common."

Response

The consultation period lasted for approximately 2 months. The public consultation started on March 8. The original deadline for comments was April 14 which was later extended to May 9.

Thank you for your comments concerning the Chebucto Peninsula Concept contained in Chapter 7 of the Master Plan. This chapter is an expansion to the Master Plan presenting a vision for the Chebucto Peninsula that addresses some of the most pressing recreational and ecological issues on a significant portion of the Crown Lands on the Peninsula. Since it would require the Province’s leadership, it is separate from the Wilderness Common Master Plan and is included for discussion purposes only. The Chebucto Peninsula Concept Plan could provide HRM and the Province of Nova Scotia with a world-class multi-use trail experience for tourist and local residents, while also protecting the habitat of the Mainland Moose, an endangered species—all within an area less than 30 kilometers from downtown Halifax. The expansion outlines a wider vision for the Chebucto Peninsula as it relates to the Wilderness Common. This vision, which has been presented to HRM staff, Provincial departments and NGOs, defines a possible solution to the divergent issues of OHV use in the area and the presence of the endangered Mainland Moose.

Comment

WRWEO makes the following comments regarding the material just quoted.

Besides endorsing the overall position of CWC, WRWEO stresses the importance of point #4 above regarding wildlife connectivity. It is essential that the plan for the Wilderness Commons be consistent with preserving the wildlife corridor between the FBLWA and the Wilderness Commons.

Response

The maintenance of biodiversity was a key value in the development of the Master Plan. HRM will continue to work in cooperation with the Province to ensure that landscape connectivity for wildlife is maintained.

Comment

It is also important that the limited corridors for multi-use trails, such as the Old St. Margaret's Bay Road (sometimes called the Old Coach Road), be maintained so that the important cooperation that has been established between OHV users and environmentalists for the sake of wilderness preservation not be undermined. Undermining this cooperation will have bad consequences for the environmental success of any legal protection of the land. We believe that recent revision of section 6.2.2 is a step in the right direction, though there is not sufficient time to review it in detail.

Response

HRM looks forward to working with organized OHV user groups and the Province on this important initiative.

Comment

Finally, WRWEO endores including in the plan provision to have the HRM lands that are west of the Nile Mile River legally protected, for the sake of the ecological integrity of the FBLWA.

Response

HRM and the Province have worked cooperatively in the development of the Five Bridges Candidate Protected Area proposal as well as the Wilderness Common Master Plan. The HRM Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facility at Otter Lake is located on 75 hectares of the area WRWEO has suggested for Wilderness Area designation. It's unlikely that the Province would be able to include this area however the suggestion to designate some areas of the Wilderness Common bordering the Five Bridges CPA has merit and will be persued.

Thank you to the many members of WRWEO who have actively participated in the development and review of the Wilderness Common Master Plan.