Green Guelph

Okay I was kidding. Just a joke folks. Don’t get your salamanders all tied up in a knot. All in good fun.

Here (from Ward 2 blog) are the back and forth  responses from the “press release” – the Hanlon Creek Business Development Protestors and The City of Guelph. It’s an interesting read. In fact, very well done from City Staff in my opinion.

Save Our Old Growth Forest!
Staff Comment:
OMB Condition 3 requires the Developer to complete a tree inventory and conservation plan. This was done as part of the Environmental Implementation Report which was approved by the GRCA, EAC and the City earlier this year.

The intent of this condition is to identify where it is feasible to protect and retain trees, and where it is not feasible to do so to establish a tree replacement mitigation plan.

The 2006 Hanlon Creek Heritage Maple Grove Forest Survey Report authored by Bruce Kershner for the Kortright Hills Community Association provided the basis for this condition and work. All of the old growth (heritage) trees identified in the Heritage Maple Grove, with the exception of two, are being retained. The old growth trees left outside of the proposed boundary were identified to be a sugar maple in very poor condition and an American beech in fair condition. Since the surveys were conducted, the sugar maple has fallen down.

Approximately 1,688 trees are proposed for removal within Phase I and II due to construction and/or high hazard rating. The loss of trees within Phase I and II will contribute 3,951m of crown radius being removed. Overall, the loss of trees within Phase I and II will result in approximately 13.2ha of land. It is anticipated that very few trees will be removed due to construction activities with the preliminary layout of Phase III.

Based on planting plans, as well as the proposed street tree planting plan, it is projected that there will be approximately 2,533 trees and 4,937 shrubs planted throughout Phase I and II.

Nearly half of the trees proposed for removal are situated within thin hedgerow communities that provide very little wildlife habitat. To compensate for tree removal and provide additional native wildlife habitat, active and passive restoration and enhancement plans have been developed for various areas throughout the business park, such as woodlot and wetland buffers, storm water management ponds, open meadow areas, riparian areas and swales.

On July 27th, 2009, at approximately 7 am, over 50 people gathered at the site of the proposed Hanlon Creek Business Park (HCBP) to protest the environmental destruction inflicted by Drexler Construction, as approved by the City of Guelph.
To date, Drexler has begun the process of building a 4-lane wide culvert over Tributary A of the Hanlon Creek, which is the first construction project for the HCBP. This has involved:
• The bulldozing of a 4-lane road,
• construction of silt fences surrounding Tributary A,
• the cutting of trees and destruction of wildlife habitat along Tributary A.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
The construction works include a two-lane road with a 34.0 metre long culvert. The culvert is an open bottom span structure. Some tree removal is required to install the structure and remove the on-line pond.

Drexler is also contracted to dig up the gas lines that run parallel to Downey Rd., dam and divert Tributary A, and build a culvert crossing to facilitate the construction of the 74-acre road network in preparation for Phase 1 of the Hanlon Creek Business Park.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
I do not believe the contract includes the re-location of an existing gas main, but will confirm with our consultants.
There has been mounting opposition to the HCBP since its instigation in 1993, which has greatly accelerated in the past 8 months. Numerous organizations have concerns regarding the proposed development, including its effects on both the human and non-human inhabitants of the site and surroundings.
The land that is currently being destroyed has not always been the property of the City of Guelph. Before it was purchased from the township of Puslinch, this land was hunting and gathering grounds for the Neutral Nation and other Indigenous nations for over 11,000 years.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
Archaeological evidence has been found in many subdivisions developed in the past throughout the city. The requirement for an Archaeological Assessment (OMB condition 14) is a standard condition for all subdivision applications processed in the City.

The Developer has submitted the D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. report which has been accepted by the Ontario Ministry of Culture. While the report does state that there is evidence that Indigenous people used these lands, no significant artefacts were identified. A review by the Ministry of Culture confirms this to be the case.

This exceptionally environmentally-sensitive area is also home to the Paris-Galt moraine, which has been identified by Mayor Karen Farbridge and MPP Liz Sandals as extremely important for the recharge and filtration of Guelph’s drinking water. Tributary A, a stream that feeds into the Hanlon Creek, which in turn feeds into the Speed and Grand Rivers, is being devastated by the construction of the culvert. These waterways provide drinking water for several communities downstream of Guelph, including Brantford, Six Nations, and Cambridge. The impact of this development is not confined to Guelph, and any development of the site risks the contamination of these communities’ drinking water. The Grand River is already on the verge of collapse due to a combination of human impacts, and as stewards of these rivers we need to protect them from any further possible risk.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
A small portion of Phase 2 of the south-east portion of the HCBP is located within the Paris-Galt moraine. The balance of the HCBP is not. The Tributary “A” works being conducted in Phase 1 have been approved by the GRCA to ensure that the culvert construction will not impact this tributary. The stream currently has on on-line pond which will be removed and it is anticipated that water quality will improve as a result of the removal.
With respect to the protection of Guelph’s drinking water it is recognized that the Hanlon Creek Business Park is located within a portion of the capture zone for the City’s Downey Road municipal well. The Downey well provides about seven percent of the City’s sustainable groundwater supply. This well is therefore a very important drinking water supply source for the city and in recognition of this the Hanlon Creek Business Park will be developed in a manner that maintains the rate of recharge to the groundwater system within the site. A water balance approach that specifies block-by-block infiltration targets has been used to identify the quantity of precipitation required for infiltration throughout the site to maintain the pre-development water balance.
Also, land use designations have been established for specific blocks within the business park to prohibit operations that would potentially pose a risk to groundwater quality. The requirement of groundwater recharge targets and zoning designations were developed and approved during the OMB hearing in 2006.

It should be noted that most shallow groundwater in the HCBP discharges to Hanlon Creek and little groundwater recharges to the shallow bedrock and even less (if any) recharges to the deep bedrock (i.e. below the Eramosa Formation). Based on particle tracking, most of the groundwater that flows to the Downey Well is derived from the east and southeast of the well and little, if any is derived from the HCBP. Water quality in the Downey Well is unlikely to be affected by the industrial land uses in the HCBP.
We believe that the continuation of this development is unlawful, as it is failing to abide by the laws of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Federal Species at Risk Act, and the Provincial Endangered Species Act. We believe the City of Guelph has deceived the public and evaded adequate wildlife protection measures by declaring that the construction of the HCBP will have no negative impact on the Provincially Significant Wetland and the habitats of two threatened species on the site, the Jefferson Salamander and Western Chorus Frog. The 15-30m buffer of adjacent lands are extremely inadequate and defy scientific studies that state that a range of 120-500m adjacent lands are needed. Further, section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement mandates protection of lands within 120m adjacent to the Provincially Significant Wetland, which includes the site of the culvert.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
The Provincial Policy Statement relates to planning policy not legislation. The PPS does not mandate the protection of lands within 120 of PSW.

The establishment of the HCBP buffers recognized the following policies.

The City’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual (p.10) states that, “Site-specific evaluations based on the considerations noted above may demonstrate the need for greater or lesser distances for adjacent land widths”.

The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) states the following:

“2.1.6 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 2.1.5 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.” This was done through the Environmental Implementation Report that was approved by the GRCA and EAC earlier this year.

The GRCA Wetlands Policy (2003) states the following:

“6.2.12 The GRCA, in consultation with the affected municipalities, will request an Environmental Impact Statement for development (including lot lines) within 120 metres of the boundary of a Provincially Significant Wetland or an unevaluated wetland.”

The need for an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is triggered for development that lies within 120m of a PSW or unevaluated wetland. The EIS is intended to evaluate the proposed development in relation to impact on ecological function of adjacent lands and demonstrate no negative impact to natural features.

From 2002 to 2009 extensive environmental work was completed to determine the buffer widths and mitigation measures.

In 2004 Natural Resource Solutions Inc., completed a consolidated EIS for the Hanlon Creek Business Park which was approved by the GRCA and the City of Guelph’s Environmental Advisory Committee. As a result of discussions between NRSI biologists and GRCA staff, buffers from natural heritage features (i.e. wetlands, wooded areas) were developed and approved in principle for the Hanlon Creek Business Park.

Further assessment and detail to these buffers were provided in the HCBP Environmental Implementation Report which was approved by the GRCA, City Staff and EAC in 2009.

It should also be noted that the City has been in contact with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Canada. These agencies have provided no indication that the City is in contravention of the Federal Species at Risk Act, and the Provincial Endangered Species Act

Continued development of the HCBP is causing great harm to the plant and animal inhabitants of the land. This site is a rich and thriving ecosystem. It is home to over 112 species of birds, 16 species of mammals, 270 species of plants and trees, and 20 species of reptiles and amphibians. Of the species identified, both the Western Chorus Frog and the Jefferson Salamander are Federally protected, with the Jefferson Salamander also being Provincially protected. Though the City’s own environmental consultants confirmed the presence of the Jefferson Salamander, the fact that the destruction of this area has proceeded is a testament that the City’s concerns lie not with the adequate protection of the Jefferson Salamander or the environment in general, but with the continuation of an expensive, unlawful, and ill-thought-out development. When Mayor Karen Farbridge says that the finding of the Jefferson Salamander proves “The City remains committed to protecting the habitat of endangered species,” it is obviously a lie if the City proceeds with any development of the site.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
One dead Jefferson Salamander hybrid was found on Laird Road. This discovery was the result of our ongoing monitoring program in this area.

DNA analysis on this salamander determined that while that salamander is a hybrid Jefferson, the source of the sperm donor was not been confirmed.

The discovery is the result of the City’s ongoing terrestrial and aquatic monitoring, which is being conducted by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI).
As a result of this discovery, NRSI and MNR have conducted additional on-site surveys to try to confirm if any breeding areas exist within the HCBP. This work combined with previous salamander surveys conducted by NRSI within the City of Guelph, Puslinch Township and Kitchener in the spring of 2009 concluded that due to the lack of larvae, dry site conditions, no further adult salamanders being trapped, and the isolated finding of one road kill salamander that was discovered over 1 km from Tributary “A” wetland area that this discovery should not be an impediment to the construction of the Tributary “A” road crossing.

There is also the question of why this land is being developed. With the current economic situation, it is financially irresponsible for the City of Guelph to dedicate tens of millions of dollars, nearly it’s entire capital budget, to the creation of an industrial development that has no proposed buyers and very little future. Countless industrial lots within city limits have sat vacant for years, The city has no guarantee that the public funds allotted to the HCBP will ever be recuperated.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
While we are currently in an economic downturn, it is vital that Guelph is positioned to be competitive when the economy recovers. If we are not, we will lose out to other communities on opportunities to attract businesses and jobs, with long-term consequences for our local economy. The availability of market-ready serviced employment land within the city is currently very limited, especially for larger sites. The development of the Hanlon Creek Business Park is also an important part of our local growth management strategy, which under Provincial Places to Grow legislation requires us to accommodate 31,000 new jobs. The Business Park will help us accommodate these jobs within our city boundaries instead of sprawling onto farmland.

For the above reasons, we have taken it upon ourselves to prevent the destruction of this vital land. Our demands to the City of Guelph are:
• To listen to public outcry and respect the intrinsic importance of this land by immediately ending this development and terminating their contract with Drexler.
• To compensate the skilled labourers of Drexler Construction for lost wages, including those who choose to stand with us.
• To publicly apologize to the people of Guelph for disregarding their opposition to this development..

Concurrent to this action, others who feel similarly will be gathering at City Hall at 6 pm on Monday, July 27th. Please come and voice your opposition to the Hanlon Creek Business Park to the mayor and city councillors, who will be entering City Hall for the council meeting at 7 pm.

You are welcome to contact us on the site. Our phone numbers are:
Camp Contact: (519) 820-6280 Media Contact: (519) 820- 6239

Please note: though we recognize the work of LIMITS, we are in no way affiliated with or organized through them..       Staff

The 2^nd River Remembers: Ecological and Heritage Walking

by the Speed River. 

Journey with us along the Speed River and back through time!  

Knowledgeable and experienced tour leaders will share the ecological facts and heritage of Guelph’s magnificent and integral river system.  Attendees will discover and discuss:

• Why Guelph was settled around the river
• How human settlement has affected the health of the river and
• How we are turning back the clock to re-vitalize the river ecosystem

The first tour takes place on Wednesday July 15^th from 6:30-8:30.
Additional tours:
Sundays: July 19^th, 26^th, August 2^nd and 9^th 2:00-4:00pm
Wednesdays: July 22^nd, August 5^th and 12^th 6:30-8:30pm.

We will be officially launching the tours on Sunday July 19^th at 1pm with music and speakers! All tours will meet and finish at the Boathouse, 116 Gordon Street.  Suggested $5 donation per person (ice cream at the Boathouse included)!  Children under 12 are free (ice cream not included).

For more general information or information relating to accessibility please contact: opirgguelphevents@gmail.com or call 519-824-2091 or visit www.opirgguelph.org 

Tour profits will benefit ACOGW’s “Heritage Fund,” which, when large enough, will provide funds for heritage restorations, and OPIRG’s Speed River Project, which is dedicated to restoration and revitalization of the watershed.

Just got this even emailed to me yesterday.

I’ve been doing my own research regarding the public spaces recycling initiative that Nestle brought forward to the City of Guelph several months ago, and apparently hasn’t heard anything from the City yet. ( Nestle’s words, not mine). I found this release from Sarnia and how they are launching the program there.

Remember how Guelph was suppose to me a “leader” for the environment? Or the City to watch for anything “green”. Well I guess Sarnia is taking that title with this particular initative. The Mayor has some strong words that maybe the leaders in this City need to listen to. Check out what he said…

“Rather than sit on the sidelines and do environmentally symbolic but ineffective actions that do not address the recycling issue – like banning the sale of bottled water in municipal facilities, Sarnia Council decided to take a leadership role. By doing so, Sarnia will help Ontarians to achieve
considerably higher recycling rates by hosting the province’s first pilot public spaces recycling program.”

Here’s some more comments from Nestle in the same release regarding this program:

“It is our objective to collect 100 percent of the plastic beverage containers we produce,” explained Gail Cosman, President, Nestlé Waters Canada. “If the results we’ve seen in Quebec are any indication, the introduction of public spaces recycling in every province will go a long distance towards helping us to achieve that goal.    “It is our intention to support pilots across Canada that help todemonstrate the effectiveness of public spaces recycling – in the hopes that local and provincial governments will partner with us in the establishment of this program in every community across this country.”

Do you read that? 100% collection rate. And Nestle would not only be collecting their own plastic water bottles but also the pop plastic bottles and other refreshing liquids that are contained in plastic bottles. You know, the ones that seem to be totally okay with the fringe anti-plastic activists.

This is upsetting me folks. I am against the plastic bottles, but I also can’t turn a blind eye to a company wanting to help our communities with this issue.

Let me introduce you to a new business here in town called Guelph Solar Hot Water. This is a fantastic company and they can help you obtain hot water through a solar panel setup. They do more than just that though, please call them for further details. If you’re thinking of building a new home, think about solar as an option. You can work with Guelph Solar Hot Water to install what’s needed during the construction process. This is the way to go folks.

Guelph Solar Hot Water specializes in using solar energy to reduce water heating costs. Hot water is the second largest energy cost in residential homes, and solar hot water systems can provide year round savings.

Benefits of Solar Hot Water systems:
- Reduce Green House Gas Emissions
- Cut hot water heating costs in half
- Provide excellent return on investment
- Reduce fossil fuel usage
- Insulate owner from Peak Oil transition costs
- Are an investment that appreciates tax deferred with your home
- Use local and renewable energy
- Have a 20 to 30 year life expectancy
- Are eligible for grants and credits and incentives

Guelph Solar Hot water has the experience required to put the sun to work for you. From simple residential applications or larger commercial projects each solar thermal opportunity is evaluated to ensure long term durability and efficiency.

Steve Dyck
Guelph Solar Hot Water
519 994 4749

I saw this letter, sent to both the Guelph Mercury and The Guelph Tribune, this week and I must say that the letter writer does make some good points. I have found some hypocrisy within the anti-bottled-water movement that they only target those filling plastic bottles with water and have no problem with plastic bottles filled with any other kind of liquid. If you’re against plastic bottles, then be against all plastic bottles. That just makes more sense. Obviously, the issue is that they (The big evil water bottling companies) are taking a “natural resource” and that’s what’s upsetting those heavily opposed to the industry. Remember, I’m not a fan of bottled water either. Don’t get me wrong here, I bought a SIGG reusable bottle last year and my whole family now tries it’s best to use it. But be consistant Mr. and Mrs Activists, don’t buy any other liquid in plastic bottles if you are so dead against it. I have found myself looking in the mirror and trying to challenge myself to not do that but it’s hard to do. When I do buy bottled water (yeah i do sometimes folks, I’m a normal human being that likes choice and I’d rather buy a bottled water 4 times a year on a long road trip than pop.) I at least recycle it. And this is were there’s a huge problem with us humans, we aren’t recycling these things! If the stats as indicated by the letter writer are true regarding the program in Quebec, than shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to recycle these things? Especially if Nestle would be willing to provide the infrastructure to do it! Well, here’s the letter below for you to read. A response from the City of Guelph would be nice. What are your thoughts?

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: GUELPH TRIBUNE JULY 8TH, 2009

I read with interest the article about banning the use of bottled water in Riverside Park on Canada Day that appeared in the June 30 edition of the Guelph Tribute entitled, “No plastic water bottles at park.”

Beyond the fact that neither the Rotary Club of Guelph nor the City of Guelph has the authority to ban the use of a legal, healthful product like bottled water in a public park, the effect of that effort was the trading of one piece of plastic for another piece of plastic. As evidenced by the contents of the garbage cans on Canada Day (and we monitored them), most visitors to the park purchased other beverages found in plastic bottles when bottled water was eliminated as a hydration option. Given that soft drinks outsell bottled water by a 2:1 margin, one would expect that there would always be more pop cans and bottles found in the garbage — or a recycling bin — than water bottles. Those beverages weren’t targeted by those concerned about plastic beverage container waste. Yet, bottled water was.

This matter could have been avoided. Last October, Nestlé Waters Canada proposed a pilot public spaces recycling program to the city for the Sleeman Centre. The city asked us to revise our proposal in January to include the Guelph Lake Sports Complex. We did and submitted the revised proposal in February.

That proposal would have seen the implementation of a highly successful methodology that captures recyclables typically found in Ontario’s Blue Box program that are abandoned by consumers in park spaces, recreational facilities like arenas, streetscapes, transit stops, bars and restaurants, elementary and secondary schools, convenience stores and gas stations. Those recyclables include aluminum, plastic, glass and newsprint.

Established by Nestlé Waters Canada and its industry partners in Quebec a year ago, public spaces recycling is achieving recovery rates as high as 85 percent. Through public education campaigns and citizen participation, the initiative is augmenting the province’s existing curbside program by increasing recycling rates. Ontario’s first pilot is now underway in Sarnia.

We would have funded the cost of purchasing recycling bins for both the Sleeman Centre and Guelph Lake Sport Complex as part of the pilot. We would have been responsible for the overall management of the project. There would have been little or no cost assumed by Guelph taxpayers. If asked, we would have considered extending the program to include Riverside Park so that a meaningful environmental initiative could be demonstrated there on Canada Day, rather than the environmental symbolism and highly questionable community policy we witnessed last week.

We await the city’s response to our proposal.

John B. Challinor Nestlé Waters Canada