Peat: An Unmanaged Natural Resource?
Background
It’s estimated that Ontario has 26 million hectares of peatlands, which are wetlands with peat reserves over 40 centimetres deep. Unlike countries such as Ireland and Finland, which use peat as a fuel, exploitation of peatlands in Ontario is very limited, with forestry and cash crops – such as vegetables in Holland Marsh – the common commercial uses. Ontario also has a small but growing horticultural peat industry that sells locally and beyond. Despite having some of the largest peat reserves in the world, regulation of this natural resource and of horticultural peat harvesting activities is out of date and has gaps. This became very apparent when both the province and a municipality attempted to regulate peat harvesting activities that threatened the existence of one of the most significant bogs in Canada, the Alfred Bog near Ottawa. Harvesting of horticultural peat is a simple process. All trees are removed from the area to be harvested, and deep ditches are cut around the perimeter of the area. A series of shallow ditches, each about 30 centimetres deep, are then cut so that water will drain from the area to be harvested into the surrounding deeper ditches that then direct the drainage water to a waterbody. The partially dried peat is then vacuumed or scooped out by heavy equipment, dried some more, packaged and sold as a soil amendment. The process is repeated until the reserve is depleted, which can take many years.
The fight to save the Alfred Bog
The Alfred Bog, located 75 kilometres east of Ottawa in the municipality of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, is the largest high-quality bog in southern Ontario. It is home to many rare species, such as the bog elfin butterfly, which is found only in three other locations in the world, and the pink-flowering shrub, rhodora, which is found nowhere else in Ontario. In contrast, its moose population – the most southerly moose population in Ontario – is large enough to support hunting. In 1984 the Alfred Bog was declared an Area of Natural Scientific Interest (ANSI) and a Provincially Significant Wetland, and is expected to be declared a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention.
In the early 1800s, the Alfred Bog measured about 10,500 hectares (26,000 acres). By 1945, it had been reduced to 5,000 hectares (12,355 acres), mostly due to agricultural drainage, and most of the bog was privately owned and unused. In 1982 the South Nation Planning Board agreed to change the designation of some of the privately owned land from “conservation” to “agriculture” to allow peat harvesting. This decision caught the attention of local conservation groups and so began a 20-year-plus battle to protect the bog at a cost of millions of dollars.
In 1988, the Nature Conservancy of Canada purchased 1,500 hectares of the Alfred Bog for $725,000. In the late 1990s, peat harvesters expanded their operations in some of the remaining, unprotected areas of the bog. Fearing the loss of these areas of the bog, the municipality passed a bylaw in 1999 to curb peat harvesting in the bog, and in 2000, approved a new official plan that included changes to the zoning designation of the private lands within the bog from “rural-agricultural” to “wetlands,” thereby making the entire area of the Alfred Bog part of the municipality’s “Natural Heritage Policy Area.” Lands subject to the Natural Heritage Policy contain natural features that “shall be protected from negative impacts of development.” Further, the municipality specifically defines “development” as including “activities such as ….peat extraction or similar activities that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site.” The peat harvesters appealed the official plan to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). In May 2002, the Ministry of the Environment issued Provincial Officer’s orders that permits to take water and certificates of approval for sewage works were required for harvesting peat in and around the bog. The peat harvesters appealed the orders to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).
In 2004 both appeals were decided. The OMB agreed to change the boundary of the bog to remove lands that had been harvested and to ban harvesting within the bog. The Nature Conservancy, with contributions from the federal and provincial governments, agreed to purchase another 1,300 hectares of the bog for about $2.5 million. Peat harvesters also agreed to transfer ownership of their lands to the municipality when they ceased operations in 10 to 15 years. Over 80 per cent of the bog will then be in public ownership. Moreover, the municipality passed a site alteration bylaw regulating existing peat harvesting operations adjacent to the bog, requiring operators to implement measures to reduce their impact on the bog and mandating that development/site alteration within 120m of the wetland may be permitted only if it can be demonstrated that there is no impact on the wetland. (The ERT revoked the MOE Orders.)
Management of peat resources in Ontario
The ERT and OMB heard widely divergent views about how peat harvesting should be managed in the Alfred Bog. Some of these views and others are summarized below.
Is peat harvesting agriculture or mining?
Peat extraction is specifically exempt from regulation under Ontario’s Mining Act and Aggregate Resources Act. In contrast, the provincial governments of Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick regulate peat harvesting under mining or aggregate legislation. Testimony at the ERT hearing in 2002 suggested that peat harvesting is “an industrial activity, much like mining and aggregate harvesting, where natural resources are recovered for sale” and that “peat is not grown and cultivated by the operator.”
However, the ERT also heard that peat harvesting is agriculture since the operators intend to farm these lands after the peat is removed. While the ERT did not definitely pronounce on the issue as to whether peat harvesting should be classified as an agricultural or mining activity, the tribunal did note that “mining and aggregate extraction is an end unto itself, whereas, peat harvesting results in the land being converted to agricultural use.” Moreover, the OMB downgraded an area of the Alfred Bog zoned as wetland to an agricultural classification because it had been degraded by peat harvesting.
Does peat harvesting negatively affect adjacent wetlands?
Aerial photographs of the Alfred Bog clearly show that vegetation along deep drains such as those cut by the municipality in the 1800s and early 1900s and later by peat harvesters differs from undrained sections. Often more than a metre deep, these drains have lowered the water table in the bog sufficiently to allow stands of trees such as black spruce, tamarack and gray birch to grow. Vegetation changes are reversible over time if the drains are properly blocked, causing the water table to rise to original levels, but if the drains are not properly blocked, they will continue to drain water from adjacent wetlands, and vegetation changes will continue.
An analysis by the peat industry concluded that drainage water from peat harvesting operations can adversely affect the water quality of the receiving body. Suspended solids are of particular concern.
Can harvested sites be restored or rehabilitated?
Fully harvested sites are often rehabilitated for agriculture, recreation or forestry. However, efforts to restore these sites to their original state have generally not been successful. Current research indicates that if the water table can be re-established and the area is seeded, sphagnum moss populations can be re-established, but that it would take thousands of years to restore harvested sites to their original depth.
What planning processes apply to peatlands (wetlands) and peat harvesting activities?
Historically, bogs in Ontario, like other wetlands, were considered to be worthless and were drained for agriculture or development. The new Provincial Policy Statement (2005 PPS), which came into force in March of 2005, prohibits development and site alteration in or adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands in southern Ontario and eastern Ontario. In Central Ontario and designated parts of the north, the 2005 PPS prohibits development and site alteration in or adjacent to significant wetlands unless “it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified.” (For further information on the 2005 PPS, refer to pages 39-47.) However, the 2005 PPS does not specifically identify peat harvesting as a type of site alteration and there is ambiguity as to the scope of protection municipalities are required to provide to peatlands because many bogs and areas containing peat resources are not designated as PSWs in Official Plans.
It was partly to address this gap that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing amended the Municipal Act in 2001 to allow municipalities to regulate peat harvesting (and the removal of other types of top soil) by using site alteration bylaws. This amendment allows municipalities to impose conditions on peat harvesting operations and even to prohibit peat harvesting.
An additional planning-related change was made in 2004 when O. Reg. 97/04 under the Conservation Authorities Act was passed to prohibit any development on wetlands unless approved by a Conservation Authority.
What other legislation may apply to peat resources?
If peat is to be harvested on Crown land, land use and work permits from the Ministry of Natural Resources and progressive rehabilitation of harvested sites are required under the Public Lands Act and a related policy document. Although some peat initiatives may also be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, the ECO is unaware of any initiatives that have undergone an assessment.
Since the Alfred Bog was mostly privately owned, MOE attempted to regulate peat harvesters under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). Under the OWRA, a permit to take water may be required if more than 50,000 litres per day of water is taken. Although some agricultural activities are exempted from this OWRA requirement, irrigation of crops grown for sale is not. Some witnesses at the ERT contended that peat harvesters should be exempted since it is a water-taking for the purposes of agriculture. Under the OWRA, a certificate of approval for sewage works may also be required if works are built to collect or transmit drainage. Although agricultural drainage is exempt, mining drainage is not exempt under the OWRA. Some witnesses at the ERT argued that groundwater seeping into the drains is not sewage as defined under the OWRA. MOE noted that peat harvesters in northern Ontario are regulated under the OWRA, and the ERT observed that agricultural drains installed by the municipality and neighbouring cash croppers are exempted under the OWRA.
ECO Comment
Important questions about the adequacy of Ontario’s legislative and policy framework to protect provincially significant peatlands and peat resources were raised in the Alfred Bog case and, in the ECO’s view, remain unresolved. With the exception of the Municipal Act, legislation and policies specifically related to peat operations and peat resources have not been updated in over 20 years – or don’t exist. In addition, the OWRA has not been consistently applied to peat operations across the province.
However, before these issues can be addressed, the question as to whether peat harvesting is agriculture or mining must be decided. Determining land use based on its next use, in this instance, agriculture, is not standard practice. For example, aggregate operations are fully regulated under the Aggregate Resources Act, although it is common for the end use in the site plans to be agriculture. In addition, when water is removed for the purpose of permanently lowering the water table to extract resources such as minerals and aggregates, it is considered to be water-taking and is regulated under the OWRA. Water-taking can affect neighbouring properties.
Agricultural drainage, on the other hand, accelerates the movement of pore water out of normally unsaturated soils but does not affect neighbouring properties. Finally, agriculture involves the cultivation and harvesting of renewable resources. Not only is peat not cultivated, the ECO does not believe that peat is a renewable resource comparable to crops or trees, which can be regrown within months or years.
The ECO also notes that there are gaps in the existing legislative and policy framework. Although changes to the Planning Act and the 2005 PPS are designed to improve protection of Provincially Significant Wetlands if they are appropriately designated in official plans, these protections do not necessarily extend to peatlands, because not all peatlands are Provincially Significant Wetlands as defined in the 2005 PPS and peat harvesting is not included as a type of site alteration in the 2005 PPS. In addition, under the Municipal Act, while they have the power to do so, municipalities are not required to regulate peat harvesting operations, nor are they required to define measures to minimize damage to the natural heritage or to require site rehabilitation plans. Substantial work has been done in the forestry and mining sectors to define and implement measures that mitigate adverse effects on the environment and to rehabilitate sites, but the province has not defined its expectations in this regard for peat harvesting operations.
The battle to protect the Alfred Bog had an excellent outcome. Over 80 per cent of the bog will be protected for generations to come, and changes are being made to local peat harvesting practices that will improve protection of the bog. To ensure that this expensive battle isn’t repeated elsewhere, the ECO believes that the legislative and policy framework needs to be clarified and the gaps addressed to ensure that peat harvesting is conducted in an environmentally sound manner. It is important that peatlands and peat resources are adequately and consistently managed and, where necessary, their ecological and natural heritage values protected throughout Ontario.
| Recommendation 12:
The ECO recommends that MNR, in consultation with MOE and MAH, develop a law to ensure that peat harvesting is carried out with minimal ecosystem disturbance, and that appropriate rehabilitation is undertaken. |
| This is an article from the 2004/05 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2005. "Peat: An Unmanaged Natural Resource?." Planning our Landscape, ECO Annual Report, 2004-05. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 195-200.
