Nature groups speak out against Kettle Island bridge

The owner of Kettle Island has said it will do all it can to protect the forested island in the middle of the Ottawa River from the ravages a new bridge would bring. 

Nature Conservancy Canada was given 98% of the island as an ecological gift by the federal government, and also maintains it as a private nature reserve through a provincial program. 

According to the group, there are strong legal protections against disturbing the island in any way – including anything from building on it to draining it, altering the soil to building a simple wooden dock. 

Even water draining off a bridge that passed over the island could contravene the NCC’s legally binding commitment to protect this piece of natural habitat. 

“There are recognized exceptional forest ecosystems and threatened species on the island, recognized in the database of the federal government,” said Francisco Retamal Diaz, project manager at the Nature Conservancy Canada. “I don’t see how they could propose a project that would go against what they recognized.” 

However, Diaz identified two ways the government could get around the protections given to the island under two separate acts, at federal and provincial levels. They could design a bridge in such a way not to touch, disturb, or drain onto the island; or they could expropriate the land. 

“If there is an expropriation, the NCC (Nature Conservancy Canada) will try to protect the island because that is our mandate,” said Diaz. “We will do everything in our power to maintain the characteristics of the island.” 

More concerns

The Ottawa Riverkeeper, whose office occupies part of the newly refurbished New Edinburgh Boat House (River House) overlooking the site, also expressed concern. 

“We are concerned about the proposed crossing point due to the sensitive habitats in the area,” Riverkeeper spokesperson Matthew Brocklehurst told the Chronicle. 

“Large infrastructure projects like this can affect the river not just during construction but also through ongoing pollution from use. The full extent of these impacts on water, soil, air, and human health must be understood before we can form a clear position. 

Brocklehurst adds, “from our perspective, there are no benefits to the river from building a large infrastructure within it.”