Saturday, September 04, 2004
Submission made to Provincial Environment Minister

The following is a submission made to Provincial Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky from Penelope Polyzou and David Wellhauser requesting a Part II Order for the proposed Columbia Street Extension Erbsville Road to the Wilmot Line in Waterloo, Ontario.

July 28, 2004

The Honourable Leona Dombrowsky
Minister of the Environment
12th Floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue West
M4V 1P5

Re: Request for Part II Order for the proposed Columbia Street Extension Erbsville Road to the Wilmot Line in Waterloo, Ontario.

Dear Minister Dombrowsky,

As concerned citizens living in Waterloo Region, we are requesting a Part II Order of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) asking for a thorough environmental assessment for the extension of Columbia Street on the Waterloo Moraine to determine the location of the vertical fractures through the till. This street extension is required to service proposed neighbourhood developments also on the Waterloo Moraine. The City of Waterloo has concluded that the road extension does not pose a threat to our ground water but this conclusion is not supported by the facts.

There are many issues that warrant this request (see Attachments for details). We have four specific concerns: water quality, air quality, procedural irregularities, and threats to the ecological integrity of these sensitive lands. Our main concern with the Columbia Street extension is ground water contamination from road salt and pollution created by the proposed neighbourhood this road will service. The ground water balance is threatened by an increase in impermeable surface area from the road extension and the proposed neighbourhood developments. Air quality is also a concern as no studies have been done investigating the effects on local air quality from increased traffic on the Columbia Street extension. Forecasts from City documents indicate that 18,000 automobile trips will occur on this road extension daily. There are also procedural problems with the decision by Waterloo Council to extend Columbia Street. Finally the extension and connecting roads to the proposed neighbourhoods will destroy the ecological integrity of the Waterloo Moraine.

The Columbia Street extension’s purpose is to service proposed neighbourhood developments on the west side of Waterloo (also on the Waterloo Moraine). These two issues are interconnected and should be treated as such.

We have attempted to address our concerns on this matter directly with Waterloo City Council. Waterloo City Council have responded, but failed to address our concerns.
If you have any questions or comments please contact us. We anxiously await your response.

Respectfully,

Penelope Polyzou, Dr. Ing. David Wellhauser, BA, MA
79 George St. 155 Castlegate Cr.
Waterloo, ON, N2J 1K8 Waterloo, ON, N2L 5V1
Email: ppolyzou@golden.net davidwellhauser@yahoo.ca
CC to Waterloo City Clerk

Attachment A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure

Re: Request for Part II Order for the proposed Columbia Street Extension Erbsville Road to the Wilmot Line in Waterloo, Ontario.

Summary of Concerns

The environmental assessments carried out on the Columbia Street extension failed to consider the full social, economic, natural environmental and adverse human health effects of the extension and the proposed subdivisions. We will highlight four specific areas to justify our request for a thorough environmental assessment. They are water quality, air quality, procedural irregularities, and threats to the ecological integrity of the Waterloo Moraine. We will continue to forward relevant information to your office in support of our request.
Waterloo City Council in September 2003 decided that Columbia Street should not be extended to the Wilmot Line. This decision was overturned by the current Council. Our first concern deals with water quality and our specific concern is that the City’s conclusions on the effects of the extension on Waterloo Region’s ground water are not supported by the facts. Air quality, our second concern, was not addressed at all in the City’s environmental assessments even though Waterloo Region has some of the worst air quality in the Province. Procedural irregularities exist throughout the process. Our final concern is the threat to the ecological integrity of environmentally sensitive areas. Staff and Council have failed to honour previous council decisions on this matter and have also been less then cooperative in ensuring an honest and full dialogue with citizens on this matter.
After reviewing our four major concerns with the Columbia Street extension we believe you and your office will see the merits of a thorough environmental assessment of the Columbia Street extension and proposed neighbourhood developments.

1. Water Quality

We believe the Columbia Street extension and proposed developments may be in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 as it will endanger human health due to increased contamination of groundwater by road salt and other pollutants. Staff from the City of Waterloo have indicated that the proposed development area is not situated on a significant water recharge area. This conclusion is not supported by the most recent hydrological study2.
The EIS provided by Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd., Dougan and Associates and accepted by the City of Waterloo states on page 34:

“As noted in the Hydrogeological Study (Naylor, 2004), the site is not considered significant in providing recharge to the deeper regional ground water aquifer”[1].

Yet the hydrological study the conclusion is based on states:

“Two water budget zones are identified: a swale zone and the rest of the property [the rest of the property is what we are referring to]. Assuming a nominal annual evapotranspiration rate of 65% of precipitation recharge (the annual precipitation recharge is taken to be 910 mm per year), the water budget for the 16 ha swale zone comprises 8% release of precipitation recharge to the swale rivulet, 65% evapotranspiration and 27% recharge to depth. In the remainder of the property the budget comprises 65% evapotranspiration and 35% recharge to depth [emphasis added]”[2].

Clearly the EIS’s conclusion is not supported by the facts. 35% of the precipitation recharges directly into our regional aquifer. This is significant. Furthermore the authors of the study have been contacted and they stand by the 35% recharge figure. The City was asked to explain this contradiction at their July 12, 2004 meeting. No response was forthcoming. The City was asked to respond to this question in writing by July 28th by Waterloo’s Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee (WCEAC).
A response was received on July 27, 2004 which was insufficient in addressing these concerns. The City was asked to respond to three questions (see Attachment A). Question one was not answered. It was asked to determine if the City could halt development, to protect the health of our community, without legal penalty. The second question addressed the weight of short term financial factors versus long term damage to quality of life and community health. In the City’s response to this question they stated “Staff were motivated solely by good planning principles and the best interest of the City of Waterloo”. Building on the Waterloo Moraine is neither good planning nor in the best interest of the City of Waterloo. Furthermore the City stated “The district plan review process, including development on the final recommendations, was based on careful and thorough consideration of all relevant interests and issues”. This fails to take into account the new information from the hydrological assessment (Naylor, 2004) which determined that over one third of precipitation recharges into our Regional aquifer. This was directly addressed in the third question which asked how the City explained the contradiction between comments that the development is not situated on a significant recharge area even though new data from the hydrological assessment (Naylor, 2004) demonstrates that it is. The City refers to data from 2003, while they were asked about new data from 2004. Furthermore submissions from Emil Frind, a ground water specialist, and Wendy Fisher, the Principal Planner for the Region of Waterloo, to the City warn of significant recharge. Professor Frind stated “I hope that the 3 schemes proposed [regarding iTRANS Traffic Study] are only schematic as there is as yet no indication that the local topography and hydrogeology has been taken into account…This is important because the entire west side is underlain by an aquifer which is part of the Waterloo moraine system that supplies our drinking water”[3]. Wendy Fisher stated “It is generally acknowledged that there are areas of the subject lands with low to moderate vulnerability, so designated because of a thin “cap” of less permeable silt and clay overlaying more permeable sand”[4]. The hydrological assessment (Naylor, 2004) and both Professor Frind’s and Principal Planner Fisher’s comments indicate the area in question is on the Waterloo Moraine and a significant recharge area.
Moreover, no studies have been done to determine the location of the vertical fractures that allow water to recharge into our regional aquifer. Clearly a thorough hydrological study needs to be done to determine the location of the vertical fractures the water recharges through.

2. Air Quality

According to the Waterloo Region Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Air Quality[5] during the months April to October, Waterloo Region often experiences extended periods of poor air quality. On several occasions, our region has the worst smog levels in Ontario. According to a study in Canadian Geographic (May/June 2000), Waterloo Region has some of the worst air quality in the country in terms of ground level ozone levels (O3), a by-product of vehicular emissions, and inhalable particulate matter (PM). “The US EPA Air Resources Board recently released a 10-year study identifying a three-fold increased risk for asthma and decreased lung growth in children who live in communities with high levels of O3 and PM”[6]. The Columbia Street extension’s environmental assessment did not consider air quality effects even though traffic projections from the proposed developments will generate 18,000 daily automobile trips.
A further matter for consideration is that the neighbourhoods the road is being constructed to service will not be immediately serviced by public transit and it is unclear at what time public transit will be extended to these neighbourhoods. Current Provincial Government policies support new neighbourhoods to locate in areas already serviced by public transit.
A thorough air quality study needs to be done to determine the impact of the Columbia Street extension and proposed developments on Waterloo Region’s air quality.

3. Procedural Irregularities

The majority of public submissions were opposed to the Columbia Street extension. This is not reflected in the City’s decision making. Furthermore, the following procedural irregularities surround the City’s decision:
A. Request by Council in 2003 to investigate other options (not connecting to the Wilmot Line) was not completed by staff;
B. Decision and public discussion made on the evening of the Federal election; and
C. Citizens have had difficulty accessing information from the City Centre on this matter.

A. In September 2003 Council instructed staff that it was their goal that Columbia Street not connect to the Wilmot Line and they requested staff investigate other options[7]. This matter was never followed up upon by staff. These alternatives need to be investigated.
This is further substantiated by written comments from Wendy Fisher, Principal Planner for Waterloo Region, of February 12, 2004.

Connecting the Columbia Street Extension to Wilmot Line is supported by the Columbia Street Extension Class Environmental Assessment Needs and Justification and the Waterloo West Side Services Master Plan. Both of these studies, in addition to the iTrans West Side Traffic Study (Phase 1) dated December 5, 2003, conclude that without this connection the transportation network in the area can not support the proposed developments within the West Side Study Area. Although these studies do not specifically address the alternative of not connecting Columbia Street to Wilmot Line, it is the opinion of Regional staff that a requirement to consider such an alternative as part of the Clair Hills Distrcit Plan Review will provide full consideration to all road network options [emphasis added][8].

The environmental assessment we are requesting should study alternatives to connecting Columbia Street to the Wilmot Line.

B. Council discussed and passed the extension on the day of the Federal election even thought they were asked by the community to postpone the discussion as public participation would be limited due to the election.

C. City Council has made it difficult to access information on this matter. The City tried to charge between $500-$600 for a copy of the 1997 Columbia Street Extension EAS. This matter was reported in the KW Record in an article by Terry Pender entitled, “Waterloo charges for study copies” July 3, 2004 (Appendix B).

These procedural irregularities support findings in an article from the Journal of Canadian Public Administration entitled, “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”: government and the conundrum of consultation in the environmental sector.

As numerous observers have pointed out, however, there are manifold forms and gradations of consultation. At its worst, consultation may simply be a cloak for manipulation, such as when “people are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of ‘educating’ them or engineering their support”. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, in its Public Consultation Guide, acknowledges that governments may be tempted to consult stakeholders only after a decision has been made, in order “to get their agreement with the decision. This situation will probably involve confrontation and time-consuming activities as stakeholders vent their frustration”[9].

This reflects the consultative process of the Columbia Street extension and proposed neighbourhood developments.
A comprehensive environmental assessment, that considers these procedural irregularities, would guide the implementation of good planning.

4. Need to Protect the Ecological Integrity of ESPA 19 and Wetland Features (Meadow Marsh #23, #24, #25 in the West Side Lands EIS)

Birds, amphibians, and other wildlife migrate and travel from the wetlands to the ESPA. Wildlife depends on the interconnectedness of the Wetlands (Meadow Marsh #23, #24, #25) and ESPA 19. Further ecological integrity concerns are outlined in Appendix C (WCEAC’s comments to Council on West Side Lands EIS report and addendum).
A comprehensive environmental assessment is needed to fully determine the ecological impacts of the Columbia Street extension and proposed neighbourhood developments on wildlife and for the area’s ecological integrity. It is important to note that the proposed development area is the last major north/south wildlife corridor in Waterloo.

Conclusion

We respectfully ask you for a thorough and comprehensive environmental assessment that includes:

· hydrological assessment to determine the location of vertical fractures and the effects of both the Columbia Street extension and proposed neighbourhood developments on Waterloo Region’s groundwater balance;
· air quality study;
· investigation of the option of not connecting Columbia Street to the Wilmot Line; and
· wildlife and ecological impact study.

Further study of the developments outlined in this submission are important to ensure the health of our community and to protect Waterloo Region’s groundwater for future generations. It would also address the procedural irregularities outlined in Section 3.

 

[1] West Side Lands, Environmental Impact Study Gies-Clair Meadows/Activa-Greyerbiehl Sites, City of Waterloo, February 2004, page 34.

[2] Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd., Hydrological Study Westside Waterloo Lands, Waterloo, February 2004.
[3] Frind, Emil. Comments on iTRANS Traffic Study open house April 15, 2004. Submitted to the City of Waterloo on April 22, 2004.
[4] Fisher, Wendy, Principal Planner for the Region of Waterloo. Submission to Scott Nevin, Community Policy Planner City of Waterloo. March 5, 2004.
[5]http://pirg.uwaterloo.ca/cacaq/airquality.html
[6] Steffler, David. “Clean Air: it’s within our reach”. Our Community Newspaper, issue #24, spring 2004, page, 6. http://www.kwhm.org/on/issue24/onpage6.htm.
[7] City of Waterloo, Community Policy Department. West Side District Plan Review Final Report. June 10, 2004, page 5.
[8] Fisher, Wendy Principal Planner, Region of Waterloo. Submission to Scott Nevin Community Policy Planner, City of Waterloo. February 12, 2004.
[9] Baetz, Mark and Brian Tanguay. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”: government and the conundrum of consultation in the environmental sector. Canadian Public Administration, Volume 41, No. 3, Fall, Pages 395-418.