A Trust Betrayed
Part 1: Areas of the proposed Ingram River wilderness area are slated for perpetual clearcutting, and it’s not what the government promised.
In July of this year, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announced it was going to open up areas totalling roughly 196 hectares (483 acres or the size of 366 football fields) within the St. Margarets Bay watershed to high production forestry, where extraction is maximized, meaning clearcut on short rotations in perpetuity. Of that total, 77.5 ha (191.5 acres) is located within the proposed Ingram River Wilderness Area (IRWA)—an area that contains the oldest documented forest in the Maritimes, is home to at least 17 species at risk, and 72 other species of concern. It also contains “core habitat” for the endangered mainland moose.1
In June 2019, then minister of Lands and Forestry, Iain Rankin put a moratorium on all clearcut harvesting in the Ingram River watershed area and promised to undertake a biodiversity assessment of the area, establishing a committee of scientists from the departments of Lands and Forestry, and Environment, to work with the St. Margarets Bay Stewardship Association (SMBSA)—who have campaigned for the land’s protection— and Westfor Forest Management.
But that report was never made public.
Conceptual map of proposed Ingram River Wilderness Area. St. Margarets Bay Stewardship Association. Since 2017 the organization has been trying to have the Ingram River area designated as a wilderness area.
A few weeks ago, I submitted a FOI request for the unpublished “biodiversity assessment,” and while I did receive 114 pages—with numerous redactions—the so-called biodiversity assessment appears to be missing.
You can download the pdf of the FOI package re: Ingram River Biodiversity Assessment received from the DNR here:
There is mention made in the emails and documents of the biodiversity assessment. For instance, on April 23, 2021, a one-page document titled, “Ingram River Protected Areas Assessment” lists Guiding Principles, and a Proposed Approach. It’s sent around by Bruce Stewart, the Acting Director of the Forestry Division of the then Department of Lands and Forestry.
Stewart writes that “the approach” was developed and agreed to by both departments (Lands and Forestry, and Environment), and that they planned “to bring preliminary findings/ options forward for the consideration of Deputies by April 30 [2021].”
The DRAFT plan—which is essentially a page of objectives—also appears in the documents. It seems to indicate an intent to protect the Ingram River area: “Consider the use of various conservation or protection mechanisms to achieve desired conservation and planning outcomes:” wilderness area, nature reserve, or provincial park.
But on April 6, 2021, a few days before Stewart sent out the one-page document, Advice to the Deputy Minister on the Ingram River Study Area (IRSA), written by Peter Bush, Manager Forest Research and Planning at DNR, is circulated which states that a “draft Biodiversity Assessment has been prepared by Lands and Forestry” but still needed to be finalized.
Bush writes: “Overall, the analyses suggest that the biodiversity value of the land within the IRSA does not have higher significance in relation to the biodiversity value across the St. Margarets Bay Ecodistrict and the South Mountain Rolling Plains Natural Landscape. However, the assessments identified pockets of areas that are unique to the rest including remnant patches of identified old growth, rare lichen habitat, valuable valley corridors for wildlife movement, and areas with high concentration of wetlands.”
In May, 2021, there’s a back and forth between Peter Bush and Bruce Stewart regarding the Ingram River forest inventory and its economic value, with subject line: “Ingram River Options 1a & 1b” and a forest inventory spreadsheet attached.
Four options are laid out, though it’s not apparent what each “option” represents:
7,210 ha – total economic impact $165.8 million (“Option 1 – only in study area”)
8,941 ha – total economic impact $201.3 million (“Option 1”)
1,896 ha – total economic impact $50.9 million (“Option 3”)
9,044 ha -- total economic impact $195.8 million (“base study area”)
In June of 2021 there still seems to be serious movement in the direction of protecting the Ingram River area. The department of Environment and Climate Change went so far as to add the area to its list of proposed protected areas slated for consultation, which was set to begin the week of July 12.
The government news release at the time reads in part:
The 5,000-hectare Ingram River area is three times larger than peninsular Halifax. It includes Island Lake and is near an existing nature reserve…The plan developed for this area is representative of our approach to ecological forestry, biodiversity conservation and land protection… There is a new land management model proposed for protecting the Ingram River area under both the Wilderness Areas Protection Act and Crown Lands Act. The approach will deliver recreation, conservation and economic benefits to the community and province, and will include a biodiversity assessment and public survey on area values.
ECC also says the government’s “proposed plan” is to “create a special management zone with no forest harvesting to conserve areas of biodiversity and enhance ecological connectivity in a corridor that surrounds and follows the Ingram River.”
On July 12, 2021, an email goes out stating that a draft Biodiversity Assessment Report is ready for ECC to review.
Mike Lancaster, Stewardship Coordinator of the St. Margarets Bay Stewardship Association (SMBSA) holds his increment board, an instrument to take a core sample to measure the tree’s age, his increment board was too small. Lancaster estimated this red spruce within the proposed Ingram River Wilderness Area to be between 250-350 years old. Courtesy: Mike Lancaster; Credit: Nick Horne.
The FOI documents also reveal that in February 2020, the department of Environment had put together an evaluation titled, “Ingram River Biodiversity Assessment – Protected Area Evaluation,” which states:
NSE conducted a preliminary protected area assessment of all former Bowater lands north of St. Margarets Bay in early 2013. That assessment identified over 21,000 ha for potential protection including a 9,000 ha potential core area centred on the Ingram River watershed. The core area, while not included in the Parks and Protected Areas Plan, was identified in recognition of its potential role as a critical node for bioregional connectivity where the Nova Scotia landmass narrows between the central and western parts of the province.
The assessment went on to identify areas within the Ingram River watershed that have “high value for protection,” based on their “biodiversity values.”
The areas listed as “high value potential protected area,” include Ingram River – Island Lake, Big Indian Lake, Scout Island, Rees Brook – Rafter Lake, Porcupine Brook, Ingramport, Northwest Lakes, and Panuke Lake/ South Panuke. The assessment goes on to explain the rationale for including these areas.
Descriptors include:
“critical for bioregional connectivity; high potential for restoration; pockets of remnant older forest and larger assemblages of mature forest; highly productive forest land; high potential to support the conservation of the endangered mainland moose; a major ecosystem type that is poorly represented in existing protected areas network; important bird habitat; uncommon wetland type; significant concentration of older forest (red spruce and hemlock); almost completely comprised of intact mature forest (no history of recent cutting); provincially significant hotspot for coral lichen (old growth indicator).”
Screen grab from DNR Harvest Plan Map Viewer indicating the proposed harvest blocks in the Ingram River area. July, 2025.
According to the St. Margarets Bay Stewardship Association, the provincial government committed to conducting a biodiversity assessment of the area, and assured “the area will either be protected or selectively managed, not HPF [high production forestry].” But instead, the recent announcement of HPF harvest blocks within the proposed IRWA signals an about face on this commitment.
Clearcutting the multi-aged, multi-species forest and replanting it with a single species, and then spraying it with toxic herbicides is the government breaking its own rules, says the SMBSA. High production forestry lands should “not include any land where conservation and non-timber values are prioritized. Therefore, designated and pending protected areas, old-growth forests, sensitive forest ecosystems or wildlife habitats and wildlife special management zones will not be considered.”2
The IRWA consists of all of these elements, and should therefore not be considered for this kind of forest operation, says the organization.
While it’s not possible to come to any definitive conclusions based on the FOI package, there are hints that then Lands and Forestry (L&F) was taking the lead on writing up the biodiversity assessment, and then passing it to the department of Environment for review. Was there a power struggle fuelled by differing opinions about what should be done about the area? There was a huge amount of public support for designating it a wilderness area—support that seemed to be echoed by the department of Environment— and yet, as the FOI revealed, “options” were being discussed within L&F about the economic value of the merchantable timber.
The other noteworthy thing that happens in February of 2021, is Iain Rankin, who made the initial promise to place a moratorium on clearcutting until the assessment was completed, becomes premier of the province and overplays his hand by calling a snap election, which he loses to Conservative Tim Houston on August 17, 2021.
What happens to Rankin’s promise after that is anyone’s guess.
[There will be more to come on this story in the coming weeks.]
Postscript: The first round of proposed HPF harvests have gone through the HPMV process, but the second round was given extra time due to the province’s woods travel ban. These close Oct. 13. If these cuts proceed, they could begin as soon as late autumn of this year or over the winter.
Information contained in this paragraph taken from Nova Scotia Forest Matters, and a statement put out by the Ecology Action Centre.
Quote taken from SMBSA Power Point presented at a public meeting held on August 13, 2025 at the Tantallon Public Library.
Additionally -- what happened to the Minister's Forest Advisory Committee (I believe that was what it was called). I think it was soon disbanded. Why? Likely because Rushton felt no need to listen to "advice" from anyone other than his circle of cronies.
The term "natural resources" is an interesting one. Everything in nature is considered a resource -- something that is available to be used for people's benefit, especially to be monetized.