Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved its position in favour of adding two sites to the Répertoire des milieux naturels protégés et contributifs à la biodiversité de l’agglomération de Montréal (the agglomeration’s register of natural areas protected or contributing to biodiversity). It also agreed to take note of the 2025 area report. City staff say the register helps track progress toward a goal of protecting 10% of the agglomeration’s land.
- The proposed additions are parc-nature des Sources (38.32 hectares, category B) and the Anse-à-l’Orme sector of the Grand parc de l’Ouest (429 hectares: 233 in category A and 196 in category B).
- The report records 3,650 hectares listed and 401 provisionally listed as of April 2026, or 4,051 hectares in total (8.1% of the agglomeration’s territory).
- This is Montréal city council’s position, not the final decision to list the sites. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The resolution does not directly change residents’ rights, access to the sites, or rules for using them.
- City administration: The Service des grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports continues to administer and track the register. The resolution also records council’s support for the additions and its receipt of the report.
Money#
The available material gives no cost estimate for the proposed additions.
- City staff say the service administers and tracks the register using its existing budget.
- Staff say ecological management expenses are charged to the operating budgets of the units responsible. The material does not say whether these two sites will require additional spending.
What is unclear#
- The category definitions and conservation plans mentioned by staff were not provided, so their specific requirements cannot be verified.
- The materials do not explain what legal or practical effects registration has for land management, access, or permitted activities.
- The resolution itself does not set out new management duties, funding, or timelines for the two sites.
Case for#
- Adding the sites would include 467.32 hectares in the register if the agglomeration council approves the additions.
- A possible argument for the decision is that listing sites and reporting their area gives the agglomeration a way to track progress toward its stated 10% protection goal.
- City staff say the annual report follows the register’s guidelines and tracks protected and biodiversity-contributing natural areas.
Case against#
- One concern is that the materials do not explain what protections or management changes registration itself brings.
- The reported total is 8.1%, below the 10% goal; the materials do not say when the goal is expected to be met or what further sites may be added.
- The ecological management costs are not quantified, and the materials do not say whether the proposed additions would increase them.