Topic: Roads, bridges and wintering bald eagles: 'only in Cambridge you say'

Some personal observations about local road planning and using the bald eagle as a red herring.

[follow this link for my page with bald eagle viewing information, links and photos]
[escape the political bull some local folk have attached to the bald eagle  and go to next link]
[new bald eagle eggs and nest webcam Jan.27/08 in Maryland - real thing!!!]

Basic conclusion of my experiences:  "Planning is politics, politics is planning" and never assume otherwise!

Trivia Question #1  Assume that a wintering bald eagle has roosted for the night beside the Grand River south of Brantford.
In the morning it flies north up the Grand River to spend the day hunting for food just south of highway 401.
How many vehicular bridges would the eagle have to fly over on each of the daily trips?

Trivia Question #2. In 1999 when the when the University of Guelph was seeking a buyer  for its Cruickston property, several critics of the university sale raised the issue of a geological formation. "The ridges show as faint white lines making up a wing, head and streaming body and tail feathers. The feature is about 100 metre in length.  Here is the question -  Was anything done "to settle its historic status. Was it a man-made animal effigy, a quirk caused by plowing the land or simply pebble lines left by the periodic rise and fall of the Grand River" or an issue raised to confront the land sale process.? (THE RECORD, Oct. 19, 1999, p. B2)

Question #3: With the change in status, what happens now?

"An indication of the successfulness of recovery efforts for this species came in 2009 when the status of the Bald Eagle in southern Ontario was changed from Endangered to Special Concern. This is a great victory for a bird that was nearly lost from southern Ontario, although monitoring remains an important task to ensure that this positive trend continues."

http://www.bsc-eoc.org/research/speciesatrisk/baea/index.jsp?targetpg=history

UPDATES:

[1] (2005) - as part of an interview with the new executive officer for Cruickston about a fundraising campaign, a newspaper article included the following statement: "But victory in the roads and bridges battle didn't come easily and wasn't cheap. Legal fees alone cost the organization $1 million and that's apart from money spent on consulting and scientific reports." (THE RECORD, June 3, 2005) Too bad that the numerous average citizens of Cambridge who wanted a better solution to the transportation problem did not have access to such a war chest.

[2] (2006) - OMNR suggested planting buffer areas along the river. It would be nice if certain condo owners along the river
did not cut down the wooded buffer to create a better view of the river .... some of the trees were actually on public property.
Wonder if these folk signed the anti-CARSS petition .... just wondered?

[3] 2006-08 - Eco-gem' in legal limbo

[4]  2009  - construction of a new parking lot on RARE property along Blair Road in North Dumfries. In the last 3 paragraphs at the end of this page, I briefly mention the kerfuffle that erupted when the City of Cambridge upgraded the parking lot at Moyer's Landing. An extra $35,000 was spent to satisfy the  concerns raised by the self appointed  "aesthetic guardians" of Blair. I wonder if those self same vocal guardians have evaluated the new RARE parking lot design with the same concern?

[4] 2009  - extracts from the legal proceedings  (Nov. 30 update)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 My personal comments and observations about roads, bald eagles and transportation planning in Cambridge
                        [ originally composed after a request for my view of the roads planning issue in August 1, 2003]
 
It would seem that there are several distinct issues that have clear boundaries and therefore planning to deal with them should be relatively simple. However, as in any community, seemingly clear Cambridge transportation planning issues come with "baggage". And this gives credibility to my conviction that in many civic issues: planning is politics and politics is planning.

FOUR basic issues related to transportation planning in Cambridge:

#1. At the request of Cambridge Council, a "no bridge" transportation option is being explored via the newly constituted Detailed Transportation Network Review of the Cambridge Area (DTNR).. It would seem to me that the implicit goal of this study was to lay the foundation for a no bridge road planning template.

Cambridge Council adopted a strict no bridge option, so the only option is to create a new transportation master plan. Necessary revisions to the Cambridge Official Plan must include future transportation plans. The reality is that CARSS is dead and thus joins the list of rejected transportation plans for Cambridge. As one newspaper by-line states: "Long laid plans for city bypasses and major roads are wiped out by new plan".

#2. Cambridge currently has a road network transportation problem that without action will continue worsen.

#3. The bald eagle is a winter visitor to the Grand River valley in Cambridge.

#4. Cruickston lands fall within both Cambridge (10%) and North Dumfries (90%). Most of the lands have been donated to a charitable status group with an environmental focus. However, a significant portion of Cruickston land within Cambridge boundaries had the ESPA designation removed around 1996 - - except for the river shoreline. The farm field "contributes little to the ESPA...."  Removal of the ESPA designation on the farm fields could have been a preliminary step by the U of G (land owner) to exploit a portion of the significant aggregate deposits below the fields.

Here then is my analysis of the 4 items ...... (written in 2003 as the result of a request to explain my views. But even now in late 2008, there is little if anything in the analysis that I would change - especially in view of the above mentioned updates.)

#1.  Perhaps the first place to start looking at the current situation is to start with the demise of CARSS and appearance of the NO BRIDGE option (DTNR).. The Can-Amera Pkwy will be constructed to run from Townline Road to Highway 24. Apart from this one project, it would seem that the only new transportation construction in Cambridge will consist of upgrades and improvements to existing routes. At this time, the Region of Waterloo has accepted the position of Cambridge Council with respect to bridge building And the Region was quite clear in their final statement that any future (river) bridge projects will be the responsibility of Cambridge. Although Cambridge tried to add some wiggle room for future river crossings during the final stages of the discussions, Regional Council gave Cambridge Council what it originally asked for......no new river bridges..... not unless Cambridge builds them.

There are several other troubling aspects of the No Bridge planning approach. My reply to the DTNR Phase #1 report was presented in another document. But some comments need to be mentioned.

In the original planning for the hiring of a consultant for the No Bridge study, it was clearly stated that the DTNR reports would explain and illustrate the implications of this new study. And now Cambridge Council has accepted in principle Phase 1 of the Detailed Transportation Network Review (DTNR), no bridge option, as their transportation planning blueprint.

But the Phase #1 report did not present any concrete description of options resulting from a No Bridge plan.

But the acceptance of Phase #1 as the 'way to go' by Cambridge Council did implicitly present residents of Cambridge with some amazing conclusion that seem to have been ignored:

- Phase #1 findings and recommendations were not based on an analysis of the transportation system to meet future needs.

- Phase #1 is based on the assumption of necessary Official Plan and zoning changes that will create a document that will alter traffic flows and land use to satisfy the basic assumptions of a No Bridge approach.

- Phase #1 fails to realistically deal with traffic flow into the industrial sectors located north of 401

The bottom line is that as city-wide planning principle, No Bridges, has been adopted via the Phase #1 report. However, this report is at best incomplete and at worst based on assumptions that future Councils may not want to implement. And yet, it is currently the official stance of the City of Cambridge. What if the hard data promised in Phase #1 contradict the implicit assumptions of the first report? What if citizens strongly object to the necessary Official Plan changes?

One can only assume that Phase #2 report will be based on hard data and deal with Speedsville Road.
(update: Phase #2 did not include any data from Speedsville Road.)
 

#2.  There is general agreement that "there are currently areas of congestion and traffic deficiency in the City of Cambridge" and that all of these problem areas are the same as those "identified in transportation studies carried out in the 1990s." Every study, including CARSS, identified the current issues and they are significant. What actions did Cambridge Council take during the 1980s and 1990s to deal with the already identified transportation issues?

In view of knowledge about current traffic network deficiencies, it is important to note that the findings and recommendations of Phase #1 of the DTNR "were not based on an analysis of the transportation network to meet future needs. They were based on a review of existing transportation needs and public input regarding the "no bridge" options."

In summary then, at this point Cambridge has no data regarding future transportation needs, and yet has committed itself to what can best be described as a two city road system that is dependant upon significant planning and zoning changes and reduced river crossings. City staff also note that by accepting Phase #1 recommendations, Cambridge is committed to a course of actions for both the short term (to 2011) and the long term (to 2021). This course of action means "that with minor exceptions, new roadways will not be looked at as a means of solving the problem of traffic congestion to 2011."

[a] Cambridge Council is committed to a planning and transportation policy and yet the current analysis and data was not based on an analysis of the transportation network's ability to meet future needs. Cambridge Council has adopted a transportation network philosophy and blueprint without data for long term planning.

What if the Phase #2 data negate or contradict some of the basic assumptions the flowed from Phase #1 and then into city policy? The attached comments provide some expansion of this issue, specifically with respect to Speedsville Road and the northern industrial basins

[b] In addition, the necessary and significant planning and zoning policies (Official Plan changes) have not been described in anything but vague terms. What happens if a some time in the future, residents reject the Official Plan revisions?

[c] The reality of the situation is that vociferous Cambridge & North Dumfries opposition had stopped any progress on the CARSS project. At the request of Regional Councillor Brewer, the "no bridge" option was used to re-start the planning process and eventually led to DTNR.

The next step was acceptance of  DTNR  Phase #1 by Cambridge Council. Guided by the decisions of Cambridge Council, the Region has now specifically said that ANY future (river) bridge construction will be the total responsibility of Cambridge. And despite some last minute arguments that sounded like "we did not say no to ALL bridges", the Region accepted the original Cambridge Council position - NO BRIDGES. And all of this done without Phase #2 data or future planning. But Cambridge Council got what it asked for.

"The bridges and arteries have all the elements of being dead." (Mark Fretwurst, Cruickston representative)

#3. Bald Eagles

If only the wintering bald eagles could understand what an impact they have had on politics and planning in Cambridge. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has published two research papers dealing with the protection of wintering bald eagles. The CARSS project short listed two transportation corridors that had the potential to affect wintering bold eagles and their habitat. In addition to their review of the 2 road routes, the OMNR was also asked to look at the impact of a proposed trail. Most people tend to forget the second purpose. "The OMNR is also providing input to a proposal to create a walking trail in concert with a golf course expansion, which potentially affects wintering bald eagles south of highway 401 in the subject area.

It is important to note the dual focus of the OMNR recommendations: roads and trails.

The OMNR has produced a series of maps indicating locations where the construction of a new transportation corridor would pose a high risk to bald eagle wintering habit. The reports identified risk or constraint areas as Reaches: a numbered series of geographic areas. Until the OMB golf course hearings, most people did not realize the data also applied to winter trail proposals. And so it was at the OMB hearings that the proposed trail in Reach #1 became a significant portion of the objections presented by the City of Cambridge, Heritage Cambridge and Les Kadar.

One of the interesting conclusions in the OMNR study is that fact that bald eagles are less disturbed by road traffic than by a lone trail hiker. Regular bald eagle sightings occur around the islands located just south of highway 401 despite the heavy traffic volumes on the 6 lane highway and recent bridge construction.. One argument is that if you build the road during the summer, the eagles will habituate to traffic flow when they arrive here in the winter. The OMNR study included 8 recommendations for building new roads and bridges.

The impact of hikers on the bald eagle was not unknown to the City of Kitchener, and had even been anticipated by the creation of a seasonal trail if it ran through the 300 m buffer zone. This 300 m buffer strip from feeding areas was the basis for boundary lines for all of the Reaches (risk zones) for both roads and trails.

And now with the publication of wintering bald eagle habit zone maps by the OMNR, the stage is set to make the eagle a political force. Any Cambridge project (bridge, road, parking lot, park, trail or golf course) that could be identified as threatening to the bald eagle is in jeopardy. It is likely that the OMNR bald eagle studies provided the single most important basis for halting the CARSS project. But it might help to read some of the OMNR's wording:

"The proposed locations of alternative river crossings EW1 And EW4 appear to pose little risk to wintering bald eagles. There is no confirmed diurnal foraging sites nearby and there is no potential for roost habitat. Bridge profiles at these locations should be designed as low as possible to avoid interference with eagles flying up and down the valley."

A few comments about the issue of winter trails and the bald eagle. As mentioned before, the proposed golf course trail would have been seasonal and featured a chain link fence along the Fountain Street boundary. In addition, Kitchener staff would monitor the area from November 15 until March 15. As mentioned before, the issue of the proposed golf course trail, fencing and security were significant features in the arguments made by the 3 groups opposing Kitchener at the OMB hearings. It now seems ironic that Cruickston itself proposes to build 10 km of summer hiking trails, largely within Reach #3 of the OMNR report. Will these proposed trails will include the design features of seasonal bald eagle protection that Kitchener agreed to provide: fencing, monitoring, isolation? The very trail design features stressed by opponents of the golf course trail?

Although the OMNR created 300 m buffer zones to protect the bald eagle, they had to deal with existing roads and buildings. In these situations they truncated the boundary lines

" Where the 300 m setback intersects with an existing transportation feature (road, trail or bridge), the feature will be designated as the setback limit. This recognizes that bald eagles frequenting the subject area have already accepted the existing transportation infrastructure."

I find some irony in the objections made to the park and parking lot changes made at Moyer's Landing by the trails committee. The project area falls within Reach #2 ..... however, Blair Road and all of the local buildings are equally close but do not fall within the buffer zone........truncated lines!. And this might be considered a specific example of how the eagle and politics issues mated.

Critics of the Moyer's Landing project used the bald eagle factor as part their argument against the project. And at what was supposed to be a friendly neighbourhood discussion to examine the issues, the opponents arrived at the meeting with their lawyer. Needless to say, city staff were surprised by this unannounced participant. The reason for including the lawyer, as it was explained to me, goes as follows: "We could not let the City get away with what they were doing at Moyer's.......who knows, the next step would be a CARSS bridge being built over the river..."

One of the of the participants involved in the process is fond of saying, "I may be wrong, but ... "

Well, to borrow his words, I may be wrong, but there you have it, my personal overview of the factors related to transportation, wintering bald eagles, trails and political planning in Cambridge and North Dumfries.