HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnv - 2012-02-16 - Sub-Committee Report - Strasburg Road Extension EnvironmentStrasburg Road Environmental Assessment
Sub Committee - Report
Date:
January 20, 2012
To:
Environmental Committee
Strasburg Road Environmental Assessment Sub-Committee
From:
(Rizwan Younis, Mark PetersonandCouncillor Fernandes)
Subject:
Strasburg Road Environmental Assessment Sub-Committee Report
(EA) Study for the South Section of the Strasburg Road Extension from north of Stauffer Drive
southerly to New Dundee Road. Background information was provided to the Committee as
th
part of the December 15 agenda package and a website link was provided to additional
information available online.
th
At the December 15, 2011 Environmental Committee meeting, Ian Upjohn, Principal Planner
Environment Division with SNC-Lavalin Inc. with assistance from his project team gave a
presentation on the Strasburg Road Extension Environmental Assessment to the Committee.
The presentation highlighted the following:
Project location / Project objectives
Alignment alternatives
Land use, Natural heritage features and Central heritage features
Evaluation criteria / Screening of alignment alternatives
Preferred alignment
In addition to the Consultant and his project team representatives were present from the City
(Mr. Binu Korah,Manager, Development Engineering and Mr. Grant Murphy, Director of
Engineering) to answer questions and receive comments and/or concerns from the Committee.
Latter in the meeting several members inquired as to how their questions, comments and/or
concerns would be addressed. The Committee decided that that a sub-committee would be
established to provide comments.
All comments and/or concerns from the sub-committee / Committee will be forwarded onto Mr.
th
Binu Korah. Mr. Binu Korah will return to the Environmental Committee for the February 16
Committee meeting.
The following are the comments put forward by the Strasburg Road Environmental Assessment
Sub-Committee:
1.Comments related to the project
:
It should be clearly identified whether or not the project is required because the
1.1.
existing road infrastructure will not adequately handle the projected increase in
vehicular traffic due to increased residential development in this area.
1.2. Other factors that were not discussed were that there is no development presently
dependent on this road extension to access a major arterial road. Which begs the
question of: If no further development occurs then is this road really necessary?
1.3. Another factor that is not stated anywhere in the material is the fact that these lands are
presently under an OMB appeal. Therefore, it is the opinion of this review that until the
1 of 10
ì ó ï
appeal is completed that no further work should move forward. The consultation
process is costly and if the OMB upholds the Protected Countryside Line then no future
development will be allowed at all in this location.
1.4. The pure desire for another road seems to have overridden the clear impacts on the
wide range of conditions and sensitivities.
2. Comments related to the evaluation methodology employed
:
2.1. In the EA, the method used to deduce the Recommendations i.e., which alignment
receives further study and which alignment does not from the pie charts developed in
the Screening of the Long List of Alignment Alternatives is not described.
2.2. The consultant who prepared the EA indicated that there was no numerical or weighting
system applied to the Evaluation Criteria used to screen the Long List of Alignment
Alternatives. The reviewer questioned how it is possible to accurately determine the
best alignment alternatives without some objective scoring system.
2.3. As an exercise, each reviewer applied objective scoring systems using the information
provided.
2.3.1. The first reviewer assigned a numerical score to each of the pie charts assigned
to each alignment alternative. For simplicity, it was assumed that all evaluation
-
-for all the
evaluation factors for each of the Long List of Alignment Alternatives were totaled, it
was found that:
Table 1: Review No. 1
AlternativeScoreRank (in alignment preference)
W1
441
W2
339
W3
377
C1
422
C2
394
E1
368
E2
394
E3
386
E4
403
2.3.2. This evaluation matched the EA Comprehensive Summary
Comments/Recommendations with the exception of alignment C1. Specifically, in
the
use a weighting system for each of the evaluation factors, but in reality some of the
evaluation factors may indeed be more important than others. For example,
technical factors may be deemed to be more important than financial factors which
may not be as important as land use considerations.
2 of 10
ì ó î
2.3.3. The second reviewer performed a similar but different analysis based on a
(analysis included on pages610). Slide
20 from the Dec 15, 2011 presentation was used for the analysis.
The
following ranking was obtained:
Table 2: Review No. 2
AlternativesRank
E2
4
E3
3
E4
3
E4-Modified
1
C2
5
W1
2
2.3.4. After reviewing the Long list of alternatives the third reviewer gave each pie a
numerical ranking where a full pie was 5 and an empty pie was 1 the numbers
showed the following:
Table 3: Review No. 3
AlternativeScoreRank (in alignment preference)
W1
441
W2
413
W3
386 (tied with E3)
C1
422
C2
395 (tied with E2)
E1
377
E2
395 (tied with C2)
E3
386 (tied with W3)
E4
404
2.3.5. From the analysis above it is interesting that C1 and W2 were not considered for
further study even though the ranking places them 2nd and 3rd using the same
pies as the consultant did. Also, it is interesting that it was not possible to replicate
the same preferred alignment(s) as shown in the short list of options.
2.4. The factors and indicators/measures comprising the evaluation criteria were thorough.
However, because the Comprehensive Summary Comments (Recommendations)
appear to be qualitative only, the method of arriving at these recommendations is not
transparent. This raises the question of what was weighted more Environmental
impacts or transportation impacts? Cultural impacts or Socio impacts? Transportation
or Cultural?
2.5. It is impossible to replicate the recommendations of the EA without some kind of scoring
and weighting system in place to minimize subjectivity. The use of a weighting system
would further refine the selection of the best alternative route. Consultants and/or City
staff should look into more prudentquantitative methods to ascertain the most feasible
alignment.
3 of 10
ì ó í
2.6. A peer review should be conducted specifically looking at the methodology of the EA
process as well as how the preferred alignment was decided without any numerical
ranking, weighting or scoring.
3. Comments related to woodlands:
3.1. A concern with the original plan of the road going through the woodlot (1980's) as well
as other woodlots to the east.
4. Comments related to wetlands:
4.1. The clear indication of the wetlands as viewed on the map titled
Study Area
boundaries where Endangered Species occur. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude
that any road built within those boundaries or the MNR regulated area will have
significant impact on the Endangered species.
5. Comments related to water resources:
5.1. The area of the EA is considered a Well Head Protection Area (WHPA) under the
5.2. The western option appears to address issues related to sensitive wildlife (fauna) in the
area but does not adequately address concerns of impacts to the groundwater resource
which in my mind is a greater environmental issue.
5.3. Reduction of the permeable surface area footprint would present a threat to the
recharge capability in this area.
5.4. Reduction of the permeable surface area footprint would have a negative impact on the
groundwater quantity in this area.
5.5. is a man-made feature and can be recreated
6. Comments related to:
6.1.
development will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the groundwater recharge
facilitate further infilling by developers as the majority of the surrounding area was
identified as being owned by developers.
6.2. The western option would only defer the takeover of the Bed and Breakfast operation
due to the poten
4 of 10
ì ó ì
7.
7.1. It appears that the cost of purchasing the land from a viable business that also has
historical value has not been factored into the financial criteria but only the cost of
building the road. The owners of land that W1 impacts also one owner but whose
interests are not in farming as the assessor has viewed minimal farming activity on
those lands in the last number of years. Acquisition of ALL lands must be factored into
the financial component.
8.Comments related to the information available:
8.1.
should be completed with the most recent information before the consultant makes any
further presentations on this subject.
8.2. Also note that Slide 20 from the Dec 15, 2011 presentation does not match with the
Project Information Package -Full Text Matrix.
9.
The Strasburg Road Environmental Assessment Sub-Committee of Kitchener
Environmental Committee (KEC) recommends the following:
9.1. A peer review should be conducted specifically looking at the methodology of the EA
process. Consultants and/or City staff should look into more objective quantitative
methods to ascertain the most feasible alignment.
9.2. These lands are presently under an OMB appeal at the Regional level. Therefore it is
the opinion of this review that until the appeal is completed, that no further work should
move forward.
NOTE: The role of the Environmental Committee will be complete once the Committee has
provided their advice to standing committee/council through resolution or otherwise at the
th
February 16, 2012 meeting.
5 of 10
ì ó ë
6 of 10
ì ó ê
7 of 10
ì ó é
8 of 10
ì ó è
9 of 10
ì ó ç
10 of 10
ì ó ïð
