Real Disclosure

The City should have disclosed that TFD will result in a net total annual emission of 90,324 Tonnes of GHG per year.

 The calculation for this is:

• GHG increased by volume of traffic x amount of time of traffic on road.
  • Use avg traffic volume x 24 hrs x avg GHG emission per hour per vehicle
  • Assuming peak to average ratio is 10:1 and that peak hour volume is 2 hours x morning & afternoon
  • US EPA: light duty vehicle (incl passenger car but not SUV and miniVANs) = 337 gCO2 per mile
  • US EPA: SUV, miniVAN, pickup trucks are approx 1.3 x worse
  • US EPA: Combined Cars & Trucks = 1.13 x passenger = 1.13 x 337 = 380.81 gCO2 per mile driven
  • 380.81 x 1.6 = 609.296 gCO2 per km per vehicle = 0.6 kg CO2 per km
  • TFD is 4.8 Km long = 0.6 x 4.8 = 2.88 Kg CO2 per vehicle
  • Using unconstrained modal split disclosed in the 2004 EA Traffic Study of 8950 vehicles per hour (In+Out) 8950 x 2.88 = 25776 Kg CO2 per peak hr
  • 8 x 25776 / 1000 = 206.208 tC per day from peak plus 16 x .1 x 25776 / 1000 = 41.2416 tC non-peak per day
  • 206.2 + 41.24 = 247.44 tC per day x 365 = 90,315.6 tC per annu
• GHG absorption decreased by loss of forest cover due to clear-cutting for the road:
  • Use hectares removed by road times GHG absorption per hectare
    • 4.67 ha Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Ironwood Deciduous Forest
    • 0.34 ha Dry-Fresh White Ash-Hardwood Deciduous Forest
    • 5.61 ha Fresh-Moist White Pine-Hardwood Mixed Forest
    • 0.37 ha Young Deciduous Forest
    • 4.67 + 0.34 + 5.61 + 0.37 = 10.99 ha
  • 10.99 x 0.75 = 8.2425 Tonnes Carbon absorbed per year
  • According to David Suzuki Foundation, other GHG removal per hectare of forest is 60 kg/ha = 0.06 t/ha
    • 0.75 + 0.60 = 1.35 GHG per ha
  • 10.99 x 1.35 = 14.8365 Tonnes of GHG per year

 Net change in GHG = 90315.6 + 8.24 = 90323.84 Tonnes per year

Lack of Accountability

The analysis used in the previous section is based on the City of Ottawa’s own traffic study statistics which are based on unreasonable traffic volumes.  Nonetheless the City was obligated to disclose the impact based on the numbers that they used to justify the road.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) was also obligated to ensure that the disclosure was accurate.  How could they have accepted an error of over 90 MegaTonnes of GHG emission?

We deserve much more responsibility and accountability from our public servants at both the Municipal and Federal levels!

Prior Studies

 The prior environmental assessments (EA) done in 2000 and 2007 prior to City amalgamation were poorly executed. 

The study done in 2000 failed to note the presence of endangered species at all, while the study done in 2007 notes that 3 endangered species are present but then ignores them for the balance of the assessment. 

Neither EA faithfully applies the prioritized assessment criteria that was developed during public workshops with the residents of the area (residents wanted environmental concerns to be given highest priority). 

Neither EA performed any impact assessment on the ecology of this Provincially Significant area – let alone on endangered species.

Meanwhile, protection of endangered species, such as the Butternut Tree and the Blanding’s Turtle exists at both the Federal and Provincial level.

Paragraph 32(1) Canada Species at Risk Act:  

No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species.

 Paragraph 9(1)(a) Ontario Endangered Species Act:

No person shall, (a) kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species.

The Right Thing

 It is never too late to do the right thing.  The City needs to immediately halt work on the Terry Fox Road expansion pending a comprehensive assessment of the entire ecosystem affected by this roadwork. 

This assessment can then be used to properly plan the road, its mitigation measures, and to control and guide the expansion of the urban boundary in this ecologically diverse area. 

 In the meantime, the existing federal funding for the road should be re-directed towards upgrading the relocated Goulbourn Forced Road and 2^nd Line Road as well as creating an adequate ecological crossing where Kizzell Drain crosses the Goulbourn Forced Road. 

This will satisfy short-term transportation needs of both residents and animal life while a more viable longer-term plan is developed by the City.

Biologist Report

 I checked butternut trees in, and adjacent to, the section now being cleared for the Terry Fox expansion from Morgan’s Grant  to the vicinity of the railroad tracks. Butternut trees in and along the proposed route have been designated by number and fencing.

 I searched the ground around the bases of a number of the trees growing in the forest south of the cleared area, but found no remnants of shells from last year or previous years. They would have been chewed by squirrels but the hard shells take years to disintegrate.  Neither did I find young seedlings.

But at least two very old, large and still living butternut trees (trunks marked by number to designate them) were cut and piled in the section already cleared for the new highway.

Both had many live branches with healthy buds and the largest cut stump had a squirrel midden, larger than several footballs, beside the base  composed of  thousands of chewed butternut shells. 

That was the only tree in the area that I could identify to have been a major producer of  nuts through last year.  It may have been  the largest and oldest in the area, there were signs of decay in the trunk, but the tree was  vigorous and upper branches should have produced fruit for years to come.

This is the result of my sampling of the state of  butternut trees adjacent to, and within, the marked route of the Terry Fox Expansion on March 28, 2010.

Martha Webber  (www.dandelionjam.com)

Photos 

 Photos Taken by Scott Newman:

• Victim 1
• Still Alive
• Victim 2
• Still Healthy

10 Failures In The Report

1. Ms. Wilkinson, the City Councillor for Kanata, will be surprised by the fact that the environmental studies that she thinks were performed actually have no analysis, consideration, nor plan to protect endangered species.

• Nowhere in the 300 MB of material is this important topic addressed and it is disturbing that a City Councillor may have been misled on this fact.

2. Although the environmental report recognizes that the area being threatened is ecologically significant at a provincial level, less than 25% of the report addresses the natural environment. 

• The majority of the report examines human environmental aspects such as bus ridership, noise from traffic, etc.

3. In the ecological section, the report notes the presence of endangered plant and animal species in the area under study and then proceeds to ignore that fact for the balance of the report. 

• One would expect that endangered species would have received deeper analysis and consideration or at least highlight the need for such a study in its final recommendations – but it did not.

4. Even though ecological impact was clearly established as being the most important criteria for the environmental study, the report selected the alternative that it rated to be the absolute worst for the natural environment! 

• And, after selecting the ecologically worst routing for the road, the subsequent alignment analysis also failed to select a mitigation option which would minimize impact to the natural environment (given that the environmentally worst route had already been selected). 
• This occurred in both cases because a flawed paired-comparison methodology failed to establish weights for the criteria used.

5. Incredibly, the memo on 17 April 2000 from the Planning & Development Approvals Commissioner, to the Transportation Committee failed to discuss the obvious concerns that

• the routing alternative being recommended did not align with the highest priority criteria set by the Transportation Committee, and
• endangered species were present in the area and that further ecological study was warranted prior to finalizing the recommendation. 

6. The only concern expressed with the recommendation was that it would lead to additional pressure to develop sensitive natural and agricultural areas.

• The current plan sets up even more ecological problems in future.

7. The traffic volume portion of the main ”environmental study” forecasts over 1000 vehicles an hour during peak periods but does not provide a forecast of animal deaths caused by this volume. 

• The mitigation strategy that it recommends consists of posting animal crossing signs to alert drivers.  This is outright ecological irresponsibility. 

8. The alignment study provides for a single passageway but does not provide an analysis of how effective that would be considering that slow moving turtles are unlikely to hike down to the passageway just to cross the road. 

9. In fact in no place in the report is the magnitude of ecological impact assessed.

10. The City of Ottawa’s own report shows that current plan for the Terry Fox road extension is the worst possible ecological option both short and long term.  This is a flawed project that must be stopped immediately and sent back to the drawing board.

Call To Action
Construction activity has already started and significant habitat damage is about to occur to the Blanding’s Turtle.  The soil temperature in the spring is crucial for the survival of the turtle population.

 
The truth about this flawed environmental study needs to be brought into the sunlight of public awareness.  With informed public opinion, it will be easier for Council to make the right decision to stop this impending environmental disaster.

Please share these findings as much as possible so that we can stop this thing.