Does Ontario Need Better Standards for Environmental Studies?
The Terry Fox Road debacle in Ottawa is a telling example of the failure of the municipality's planning staff to follow some reasonable standard for conducting an environmental study. The absence of a higher standard can be attributed to at least 3 major failures in the study:
1. The study completely ignored the presence of endangered species. The study enumerated the animal, fish, and plant life affected and noted the presence of endangered species - but did nothing about it. There was not subsequent impact analysis, no mitigation analysis, no nothing.
2. Despite having been given clear criteria to make environmental concerns top priority in assessing alternatives, the study selected the alternative that it rated as worst for ecological impact. This was allowed to happen because they did a pair-wise comparison of alternatives with no scoring system. No scoring system means no application of priorities when assessing trade-offs.
3. The study estimates traffic to peak at over 1000 vehicles an hour - yet the mitigation strategy to protect endangered turtles crossing the road is merely to post road-signs! Again, the lack of an impact analysis to estimate the effectiveness of the mitigation meant that irresponsible mitigation strategies can be proposed at random.
In truth I have no idea whether there are any standards for environmental studies in Ontario. If not it's high time that we had some, but if there are standards we should insist on a higher bar.
- Paul Edward Renaud's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
Environmental Assessments Are Only Self-Assessments
According to the Ministry of Environment in Ontario, the environmental assessment process is only a self-assessment process which requires the proponent to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the project.
There are NO minimum standards!
A City's planning staff can do as shoddy a job as they choose to and unless there is a public outcry, no one will know the difference.
This is unacceptable.
The look of "progress"
As I drive through the area of the Terry Fox extension on a daily basis, it's heartbreaking to see what's happening there. Where once there was a beautiful old growth forest teeming with wildlife, on a hill overlooking the surrounding plain and the Carp River, there is now a barren landscape that resembles a WWI battlefield. So this is what "progress" looks like?
Progress Eroded
The route chosen for the Terry Fox Road extension is the worst of 4 possible alternatives for the environment (according to the City's own Environmental Assessment).
However, this route is also the one that extends the urban boundary of Ottawa the most. That sets the stage for even more "progress" in the most sensitive wilderness area within Ottawa.
Perhaps the fact that 3 members of the City Planning and Environment Committee had over 25% of their political campaigns funded by developers has something to do with this. (Further detail can be found on my personal blog at http://renaud.ca/wordpress/?p=291 ).
The lack of checks and balances is why the provincial code of conduct for EAs needs to be improved!
Federal Standards Lacking Too
It turns out that the Federal EA process is just as broken as the Ontario one.
The Federal Environmental Assessment Act also prescribes a self-assessment process with no minimum baseline for consistent decision making.
For example, shouldn't a project that threatens an endangered species be required to perform a more extensive impact and mitigation analysis than a project that does not?
All the regulations say is that the project should consider environmental impact and mitigation. You can drive a construction truck through the loopholes this enables!