[All] Fw: Waterloo North Water Supply & Impacts to Threatened/Endangered Species

Tue Feb 7 12:15:10 EST 2012

Hi folks

Last one in the series of responses regarding the Laurel Tank well proposal. 

Lulu 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: Amy Domaratzki <ADomaratzki at regionofwaterloo.ca>; "'minister.moe at ontario.ca'" <minister.moe at ontario.ca>; "patty.quackenbush at aecom.com" <patty.quackenbush at aecom.com> 
Cc: "'commissioner at eco.on.ca'" <commissioner at eco.on.ca>; "'minister.mnr at ontario.ca'" <minister.mnr at ontario.ca>; Eric Hodgins <EHodgins at regionofwaterloo.ca> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Waterloo North Water Supply & Impacts to Threatened/Endangered Species

Dear Hon. Ministers et al. 

In Waterloo Region there is a lack of proven need for a new Laurel Tank Well inspite of our continued growth. I will provide you with the proof.

Waterloo Region’s residents, businesses and municipalities used under 149,000 cubic metres of water per day in 2009, down from 165,000 nine years earlier, according to a report from the Region of Waterloo. And that’s despite an expanding population that has added an extra 75,000 residents here since 2001. Details are in this KW record here:
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/505015--region-s-water-use-dropping-despite-growth

In Mannheim, crews are draining 2.5 million
 litres a day straight from the aquifer into a creek. If treated, this amount of water would meet the demand of 8,900 residents at home and at work. This is also noted in the KW record: 
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/643669--mixed-messages-on-water-conservation

There are areas in Waterloo Region where pipes have to be flushed because growth didn't increase use as expected. The pipes are too large, they hold water for too long and the and in the end, they simply release the water into the environment.

In the attachments I have included the PDF presentation from Thomas Schmidt, the Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo showing the data of how we are using less water now than before in spite of growth. It was presented at the GRCA watershed forum in 2011.

At this time of global fiscal duress, taxpayers do not want money squandered on projects not needed by the community nor should we allow our municipality to squander it's water resources. We need to improve upon the management of our existing supply and encourage conservation and we must demonstrate a reasonable need for the water before we commit to a large infrastructure projects like this. We have a duty to wisely manage our resources with frugality to support not only the needs of our generations but secure the supply for generations to come and in my view this project is simply to premature to persue. The data simply does not support actual need.

Please do not approve of this project.

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ontario
N2V 2L2

________________________________
 From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: Amy Domaratzki <ADomaratzki at regionofwaterloo.ca>; "'Patty.Quakenbush at aecom.com'" <Patty.Quakenbush at aecom.com>; "'minister.moe at ontario.ca'" <minister.moe at ontario.ca> 
Cc: "'commissioner at eco.on.ca'" <commissioner at eco.on.ca>; "'minister.mnr at ontario.ca'" <minister.mnr at ontario.ca>; Eric Hodgins <EHodgins at regionofwaterloo.ca> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:52:27 AM
Subject: Re: Waterloo North Water Supply & Impacts to Threatened/Endangered Species

Dear Ms. Domaratzki

Please observe figure 24 in the attachment that clearly shows a predicted drawdown of 2-5 meters in the deep aquifer as a result of the Laurel Tank proposal in proximity to ESPA 19 located to the East of Wilmot Line and ESPA 17 is just to the North.  Both of these areas contain primary recharge that connects directly to the deep water aquifer systems. 
In Clair Creek located in ESPA 19,  you can see a whirlpool effect as the water enters in and there are areas in ESPA 17 where the water funnels right down into the deep water aquifer. Both of these areas sit an a location known as the Sandy Hills. Any anticipated drop of 2-5 meters in the water table will have devastating impacts to the biodiversity of this area as well as the hydrogeology. 

Please view the attachment called colormoraine to view the primary recharge areas. The Waterloo Moraine is approx. 400 sq km but the primary recharge only makes up about 20-25% of the entire moraine area but it gathers 80% of the groundwater. With the current well proposal, portions of primary recharge are located in the projected cone of depression, the vortex like formation that will happen with the withdrawl of the water. it will be a steady state draw down pulling water out of these areas towards the well. This will result in the drying out of surface sediment and with that, there will be an augmentation of the biodiversity that threatens both the recharge capacity and the federally protected species that lay within these areas.   

In the UN report Water for People, Water For LIfe, it confirms that simply by removing vegetation it exposes soil and when it rains it results in soil compaction and recharge areas across the world have been depleted because the vegetation was removed. In these primary recharge areas, the reason we have such a high yeild of water is due to the fact the topography of the hummocky hills made forestry difficult. The old growth trees create a canopy that retains shade, cooler temperatures and holds moistures and this is why we have the vernal ponds still to this day. The trees create a microclimate that allows for the growth of moss and lush vegetation, which retains water in situ and allows for infiltration into the deep water aquifer. If you create a draw down in the sandy hills, the trees, the moss and vegetation may fail to thrive and if we lose this, we loose the ability of the groundwater recharge to function all together.  

I have years worth of documentation regarding the hydrogeology of this area because I have personally participated in two separate OMB hearings trying to protect these areas. For OMB case PL071044, the OMB experts minutes clearly stated the following in Exhibit 8 section 1 that: 

"There will be no alteration of the quality, quantity, direction or timing (hydroperiod) of groundwater or surface water regimes that currently sustains these ponded water features."

It also states in Exhibit 8 section 2 that:  "There shall be no adverse impacts on wetland W-12"

You may view this entire document here. http://waterloomoraineact.com/expertminutes.htm 

The final OMB ruling for PL071044 states: "conditions referenced in Exhibits 8 and 9 are acceptable and will stand"

The wording of the ruling is not permissive.  I filed a certified copy of this ruling as well as the expert's minutes with the Superior Courts in Kitchener on August 2009 and it is now registered as Court Order. If this well disrupts the hydrogeology of the vernal ponds in this area it will be considered an act in contempt of court. 

It is the duty of the city, the region and ministry to assure compliance to provincial law. If the augmentations take place below the ground via a draw down, it's still an augmentation non the less and a violation of the ruling. 

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo ON
N2V 2L2

________________________________
 From: Amy Domaratzki <ADomaratzki at regionofwaterloo.ca>
To: 'Louisette Lanteigne' <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>; "'Patty.Quakenbush at aecom.com'" <Patty.Quakenbush at aecom.com>; "'minister.moe at ontario.ca'" <minister.moe at ontario.ca> 
Cc: "'commissioner at eco.on.ca'" <commissioner at eco.on.ca>; "'minister.mnr at ontario.ca'" <minister.mnr at ontario.ca>; Eric Hodgins <EHodgins at regionofwaterloo.ca> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 9:12:13 AM
Subject: RE: Waterloo North Water Supply & Impacts to Threatened/Endangered Species

Ms. Lanteigne,

The preferred solution presented in the Waterloo North EA is not projected to have widespread impacts to the shallow system.  The impact to the water table from pumping at Laurel Tank is not projected to extend to ESPA 17 and 19.  The expected impact to the shallow aquifer system from pumping at the Laurel Tank well and Well W5A is presented on Figure 39 of the Hydrogeological and Natural Environment Report.  The area of impact ends more than 2 kilometres north-east of ESPA 17 (the closer of the two ESPAs).  

Sincerely,

From:Louisette Lanteigne [mailto:butterflybluelu at rogers.com] 
Sent: February 1, 2012 12:48 AM
To: Amy Domaratzki; Patty.Quakenbush at aecom.com; minister.moe at ontario.ca
Cc: commissioner at eco.on.ca; minister.mnr at ontario.ca
Subject: Waterloo North Water Supply & Impacts to Threatened/Endangered Species

Hello

This letter is in regards to the Waterloo North Water Supply Municipal Class EA Schedule C, taking place in the City of Waterloo.  A new well is being recommended by AECOM to be placed on Conservation Drive at a location called Laurel Tank. 

The wide spread draw-down impacts as noted in the EIS reports and Hydrology Report  regarding the Laurel Tank proposed well are projected to impact the water table within Environmentally Sensitive Protected Area ESPA 17 and ESPA 19 which are habitats for the following threatened and endangered species include:

All 4 varieties of the Jefferson Complex  (Laurel Creek Watershed Study.)
Acadian Flycatcher (EIS studies & Regional tendering report notes it)
Western Chorus Frogs & Mink Frogs, Cricket frogs (Frogwatch, Ontario Vernal Pond, Laurel Creek Watershed study) 
Prothonotary Warbler (via. Pers. Communications with Lyle Friesen )
Rainbow Mussel (Clair Creek/Monestary Creek) Residents saw racoons eating them by the creek.

Species of Concern confirmed in these ESPA's include: 
Red Headed Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Cerulean Warbler

The list is not comprehensive.  For further information on the biodiversity of this area, please contact the following experts who have personally conducted studies within ESPA 17/19 area regarding Birds, Fish and Amphibians. 

Lyle Friesen, song bird biologist at : Wildlife.Ontario at ec.gc.ca
Ted Cheskey, Nature Canada's Manager, Bird Conservation Programs  tcheskey at naturecanada.ca
Associate Professor Tom Woodcock at Wilfrid Laurier re: Amphibians 
Dr. Dean Fitzgerald President of the Ontario Chapter of the American Fisheries Society president at afs-oc.org

A small portion of the public information regarding the rare species located in ESPA 17 & 19 can be viewed online here:
http://waterloomoraineact.com/birdsespa19.htm 

ESPA 17 & 19 contains kettle pond habitats featuring unique microclimates and old growth mixed forests, swamp lands and agricultural lands. Much of the area is primary recharge for the Waterloo Moraine and the ESPA 19 and 17 areas feed into the cold water trout fishery of Monestary Creek as well as Clair Creek. There is a high volume of regionally significant species condensed in this particular area, both terrestrial and aquatic. The old growth trees still stand due to the steep grading of the land. Many of the endangered species are area sensitive and require large tracts of undisturbed forests open water and field areas for breeding/feeding/migratory habitat.  The healthy amphibian populations is due to the presence of coyotes who help to control raccoon populations protecting the vernal ponds from over predation.  

I went to the OMB to protect natural features of ESPA 19 via OMB appeal PL071044 where my expert ichthyologist Dr. Dean Fitzgerald and Senior Hydrologist Stan Denhoed gave sworn testimony that helped to secure full protection for the capture zones of the vernal pond habitats in ESPA 19. To view the signed off experts minutes that validated the need to protect these vernal ponds,  you can visit here: 
http://waterloomoraineact.com/expertminutes.htm

Provisions exist to protect the habitat of threatened species in the provincial Policy Statement 2005:
1 Natural Heritage
1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.
1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. 

2.1.3 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
1.     significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species;
2.     significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and
3.     significant coastal wetlands. 
1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
1.     significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1;
2.     significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield2 ;
3.     significant valley lands south and east of the Canadian Shield2;
4.     significant wildlife habitat; and
5.     significant areas of natural and scientific interest 
unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.
1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and
1.     unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. 
When it comes to the Endangered Species Act 2007 the most current law always applies. This provincial law cannot be "grandfathered" to an older, less protective version. The logic for this is due to the fact that the government views any threats to existing threatened or endangered species and their habitats as a current threat so current law stands. This information was confirmed to me by Senior MNR policy adviser Gail Jackson on October 6, 2011 as per our telephone conversation.

The Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered species as well as their habitats. The definition of Jefferson Salamander habitat in Ontario according to the Endangered Species Act as consolidated on July 1 2011 states: 

Jefferson salamander habitat
 For the purpose of clause (a) of the definition of "habitat" in subsection 2 (1) of the Act, the following areas are prescribed as the habitat of the Jefferson salamander:
 In the City of Hamilton, the counties of Brant, Dufferin, Elgin, Grey, Haldimand, Norfolk and Wellington and the regional municipalities of Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York,
i. a wetland, pond or vernal or other temporary pool that is being used by a Jefferson salamander or Jefferson dominated polyploid or was used by a Jefferson salamander or Jefferson dominated polyploid at any time during the previous five years,
ii. an area that is within 300 metres of a wetland, pond or vernal or other temporary pool described in subparagraph i and that provides suitable foraging, dispersal, migration or hibernation conditions for Jefferson salamanders or Jefferson dominated polyploids,
iii. a wetland, pond or vernal or other temporary pool that,
A. would provide suitable breeding conditions for Jefferson salamanders or Jefferson dominated polyploids,
B. is within one kilometre of an area described in subparagraph i, and
C. is connected to the area described in subparagraph i by an area described in subparagraph iv, and
iv. an area that provides suitable conditions for Jefferson salamanders or Jefferson dominated polyploids to disperse and is within one kilometre of an area described in subparagraph i. O. Reg. 436/09, s. 1.

If the City, Region or developers etc. encroach upon habitat areas during construction, in a manner that will harm disturb or kill threatened or endangered species, they must by law, make a Ministry request to  ask permission to do so. This means the utilization of the Endangered Species Act section 17 2 c)  to request permission. No land augmentations in the protected area can take place without this permit. That is how the law is designed. 

Unfortunately, on October 4th 2011, I took the following video where Waterloo Regional Planning Staff are saying to Regional Council that they "Don't need a permit"  to kill Jefferson Salamanders. This footage was in regards to a proposed roadway called the River Road Extension that the Region wants to place in Hidden Valley, the location of the largest population of Jefferson Salamanders in Canada according to Dr. Jim Bogart of the Jefferson Salamander Recovery Team.  Here is a link to the video footage: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdRuYRIQdJ

According to the discussion I had with MNR senior policy advisors, the law demands that there must be a NET BENEFIT for the species. If one is killed, they must be replaced by two or more live specimens per kill and they must expand on the delineated protected habitat area to assure the improved survival rates of the remaining specimens in the area. The provincial and federal government are bound by international treaties to meet their obligations to protect biodiversity and this provincial law is to assure that conservation efforts are reasonably met.

The process to secure a kill permit must pass through several review agencies and signing officers. A single application can take up to 7 years before a permit is issued. It  must be signed three times by various review agencies including  MNR staff, the deputy minister, the MNR ministers and others. Prior to the issuance of permit the request be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public comment.  ALL alternative designs submitted by city planners, developers AND the public can be reviewed at this phase and the decision that best balances needs of the threatened/endangered species and planning needs can be implemented. If there is no reasonable way to secure a net benefit of the species, the request will be denied. 

In regards to this proposed well system, I have not seen any evidence that the city and/or AECOM has filed with the Environmental Registry and reasonably proven net benefit to protect all threatened and endangered species in the affected draw down area. In fact I see no mention of Jefferson salamanders or the numerous species that I have eye witnessed and/or noted within the AECOM EIS report. The Region has a registry for endangered species and Kevin Eby stated in council that Jeffersons exist in ESPA 17. He notes there was never DNA samples done so they don't know if they were hybrids or not, but Guelph MNR officer Ken Cornelisse confirmed where potential Jefferson breeding ponds were during my OMB process. 

It is not unreasonable to state draw down can have dramatic impacts to shallow vernal pond habitats and shallow headwater areas or that the lack of water will adversely impact these populations of threatened and endangered species. It can also have adverse impacts to the cold water trout fishery in Monastery creek. I see no reasonable data to show these resources will be reasonably protected or that the protocols to protect rare species and fisheries is reasonably being met. 

It is premature to accept this proposal until a proper study has been conducted to determine the presence of Jefferson Salamanders and other rare species within the drop down zone. The vernal pond habitats they rely on are at risk. 

In closing, I will leave you with a quote from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gord Miller which was stated during the recent release of the Ontario Biodiversity Report. He states, "the federal government has promised, during the current International Decade for Biodiversity, to conserve biodiversity on behalf of all Canadians." It is imperative that the Government of Ontario acts quickly and come up with a plan to implement those commitments.  This requires a new Biodiversity Strategy. Rhetoric alone will not suffice.”

Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette Lanteigne
Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ontario
N2V 2L2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120207/b08770a3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7252 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120207/b08770a3/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2011WF_thomasschmidt.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 734278 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120207/b08770a3/attachment.pdf>