Municipality of the County of Colchester Truro Heights Well Water Survey Report July 2016 Joanna Burris Planning Student Colchester Community Development ii Created by Joanna Burris, Planning Student With the guidance of Paul Smith, Senior Planner Municipality of the County of Colchester Community Development 1 Church Street, Truro NS July 2016 This version of the Truro Heights Well Water Survey Report was edited to protect the privacy of individual property owners and business owners in Truro Heights. For more information, please contact the Colchester Community Development Department (902-897-3170). iii iv Truro Heights Well Water Survey Report Executive Summary The Truro Heights Well Water Survey was conducted by the Community Development Department during the summer of 2016. The purpose of the study was to investigate concerns that had been expressed by property owners in the residential and commercial area south of Truro Heights Connector Rd. and north of the Millbrook boundary line. The goals of the study were to gain a better understanding of the extent of quality and quantity issues in the specified area and to gauge property owners’ interest in connecting to a central water system. This study follows a similar survey that was conducted about 20 years earlier in an attempt to evaluate the need for central water. Although property owners opposed the idea in the past, the project was revisited due to ongoing complaints and the seemingly worsening condition of groundwater in this area. The survey was administered using a mail-out questionnaire which was delivered to all property owners of developed land in the area. Property owners were given over two weeks to complete the survey and were asked to return it my mail or by email. The survey included questions that requested identifying and property information, descriptions of both quality and shortage issues that had been experienced on the property and opinions about current satisfaction and whether they would want to connect to a central system if it was available. Out of the 194 surveys that were mailed out, fifty-seven percent were returned. Close to fifty percent of all returned surveys indicated that the property had experienced water quality issues, and seventeen percent of surveys described a water shortage issue. The water issues in the study area were divided into four distinct areas based on proximity and type of issue. The two main areas of concern were 1) Keywest Ct., Annabelle Dr., and the very top sections of Truro Heights Rd. and Morley Ave.; and 2) Rocky Ridge Rd., Urquhart Dr. and the lower half of Morley Ave. The first area (Area 1) experienced both significant shortages and declining water quality, according to property owners. This area has had over sixteen new multi-unit buildings go up since 2000 and has the highest density of units in the study area, aside from a single 9-unit building. Property owners in Area 1 have explained that the water quality and quantity have been lowering in recent years, which seems to have a very strong link to the area’s intensification. Area 2, around Rocky Ridge Rd., is the location of all but one of the properties where the water in considered undrinkable. Issues in this area are mostly quality issues, except for a few shortages near the southern end. Several property owners from this area have indicated that their water has had the same poor quality for close to or over twenty years. The main issues in this area pertain to discolouration, odour, taste, staining of plumbing fixtures and rust and sediment build-up. Quality issues in this area seem to be solely caused by a high concentration of naturally occurring minerals in the groundwater. The properties in this area with perfect water likely have wells drilled into different fractures than those without. A few common issues across the study area were high iron content, which seems to be the cause of many other issues, poor taste and odour, seasonal aesthetic issues and hard water. There were also a few reports of bacterial presence. Based on the survey responses received, the condition of well water in the study area is a concern to residents. It seems as though the main causes of water issues in the study area are high concentrations of minerals in specific groundwater fractures and the intensification of development. Although there are properties with reported perfect water conditions, half the properties are experiencing some water issues, some of which are reported to be very serious. There appear to be more property owners who are satisfied with their well water than those who are not, but a higher proportion would consider connecting to a central water system than would not. To ensure that everyone in the area has access to clean, safe water, the Community Development Department will report the findings of this investigation to Colchester County Council, who will in turn provide direction on how this issue should be addressed. Residents should check the Municipal website periodically for further updates and possible public meeting notices. v vi Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Project Definition .................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background & Rationale .......................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Research Methods................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Timeline ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3 3.3.1 Survey Development .................................................................................................................... 3 3.3.2 Sample Population ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.3.3 Data Collection Process ................................................................................................................ 5 4.0 Methods of Data Analysis........................................................................................................................ 6 5.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 6.0 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 13 7.0 Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 19 8.0 Conclusions & Moving Forward ............................................................................................................ 21 References ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A – Survey.................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix B – Research on Optimal Survey Type ........................................................................................ 24 Appendix C – Letter to Property Owners .................................................................................................... 28 Appendix D – Population Density and Well Depth Maps ............................................................................ 28 vii 0 1.0 Project Definition Clean, safe water is an essential part of a person’s well-being – it is necessary not only for survival but for so many other elements that contribute to a good quality of life. The Municipality of the County of Colchester is situated in Nova Scotia, Canada, where residents are fortunate to have access to clean freshwater every day of the year. The municipal government has a responsibility, as the governing body closest to the people, to listen to its constituents and their needs, especially when it comes to a resource as important and life-giving as water. This study was conducted as a direct result of complaints received from residents regarding the condition of water in Truro Heights. The purpose of this study was two-fold: to gain a better understanding of the extent of quality and quantity issues in the Truro Heights area, and to gauge property owners’ interest in a central water system. The study was conducted using a mail-out survey to residents. This method was used rather than doing formal water testing in the area for several reasons: the department wanted to understand how water issues were affecting members of the community and how serious they perceived these issues to be; many residents have their wells tested regularly and would already be aware of any serious issues; a survey of the entire area allowed for a more holistic understanding of quality and quantity patterns in the area; and a survey is extremely cost-effective. The results of this study will directly influence the Community Development Department’s next steps for community consultation and will be used to inform the Municipal Council’s decision on the direction taken to address the issues presented in this report. The survey was carried out in May and June of 2016 because of the availability of the Community Development summer student to dedicate time to the project and the need to address climbing numbers of complaints. The study was completed by Joanna Burris, Planning Student, with the assistance and guidance of Paul Smith, Senior Planner. 2.0 Background & Rationale This study was not the first of its kind in Truro Heights; this area was surveyed for feedback on water quality and a central water system about 20 years previously. Some surveys reported poor water quality and public consultation was initiated to discuss the possibility of extending central water into the surveyed neighbourhoods. It is unclear whether the same study area boundaries were used for the previous survey. Most property owners that participated were averse to the idea and the project was abandoned due to widespread concerns that water quality and quantity were not issues at that time. The Community Development Department decided to pick the issue up again in the spring of 2016 after several more complaints had been received from area property owners and the situation appeared to have worsened. Before a survey was conducted to evaluate the severity of the situation, three well-drilling companies from the Truro area were consulted about any existing water issues that they had encountered in Truro Heights or been told about by clients. The comments supplied by the well-drilling companies indicated that there have been water quality and water shortage issues in Truro Heights in the past. 1 Additional research, separate from the survey, was also conducted to determine the type of bedrock in the study area. A geology map of the Truro area from the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources was useful in determining this information. See the paragraphs below for descriptions of each bedrock type. The Wolfville Formation can be found around Lower Truro, Bible, Salmon River and parts of Truro. Around McClures Mills, Hilden, part of Millbrook and part of Truro, the bedrock belongs to the Cheverie Formation. This includes the very top part of the study area, covering sections of the properties on the Truro Heights Connector Rd. Most of the study area is part of the Horton Bluff Formation (upper member), as is a section of Millbrook (Naylor, Giles & Brisco, 2005). Fundy Group WOLFVILLE FORMATION (LTFw): variably sorted, medium- to coarse-grained, brownish-red sandstone, pebbly sandstone and conglomerate near the base, with minor mudrock interbeds Horton Group CHEVERIE FORMATION (ECHC): grey-green to minor maroon sandstone, locally granule to pebbly conglomerate, interbedded with maroon to minor grey-green mudrock HORTON BLUFF FORMATION, UPPER MEMBER (ECHhbu): light- to medium-grey, thick sandstone (quartz arenite), interbedded with grey shale, micaceous mudrock, greenish-grey mudrock and nodular dolostone, minor granule conglomerate (Naylor, Giles & Brisco, 2005) 3.0 Research Methods 3.1 Study Area The study area for this project was a primarily residential community in Truro Heights with a few commercial properties on Truro Heights Connector Road, Parkway Drive and Alderbrook Drive. This area was identified for the survey because many of the complaints received about the water condition in Truro Heights came from residents of properties within the boundaries indicated below. This area is also in close proximity to the existing central water system that services the Millbrook Power Centre. The specific geographic area included in the study is bounded to the north by the Truro Heights Connector Road and to the east by Highway 102, and includes the following streets: Parkway Drive, Alderbrook Drive, Annabelle Drive, Keywest Court, Morley Avenue, Urquhart Drive, Franklin Drive, Rocky Ridge Road, Rosalind Drive, Roslindale Drive, Chantilly Lane, Chiasson Way and portions of Truro Heights Road and Truro Heights Connector Road. The following map displays this area geographically. 2 Commercial Residential Figure 1. Map of the Truro Heights study area. (Map source: Google Maps, 2016. Map edited by Joanna Burris, Municipality of the County of Colchester Community Development, June 2016.) 3.2 Timeline The initial round of surveys was distributed on May 30, 2016, with a return deadline of June 17, 2016. Residents were asked to return surveys before this date; however, some surveys continued to trickle in for several weeks after the deadline. Additionally, surveys that had been returned, undelivered, by Canada Post we re-mailed up to ten days after the initial distribution date. 3.3 Survey Methods 3.3.1 Survey Development The Truro Heights Well Water study was conducted through the use of a survey questionnaire. A survey is a relatively quick and cheap way to obtain information from a large number of people. Another interactive research method that could have been implemented was the interview; however, interviews are costly and time-consuming to conduct (Palys & Atchison, 2014). Using the survey allowed the Department to consult a greater number of people in a short amount of time. Please see Appendix A for a full version of the survey. Preliminary online research was completed to determine which type of survey would be the optimal choice for this study. Options included a mail-out survey, a browser-based survey, and a combination of the two. Please refer to Appendix B for a complete summary of this research. It was determined that a mail-out survey would be the best choice. The Municipality is not supplied with email addresses for all property owners, and therefore the link to an online survey would have had to be distributed using 3 regular mail, diminishing the cost-saving benefits of a browser-based survey. Additionally, studies show that response rates are generally lower for online surveys than for mail-outs. Mail-to-internet surveys have particularly low response rates, even compared to email-to-internet surveys (Shih & Fan, 2008; Campbell Rinker, 2015). The varied age demographic within the study area also contributed to the choice of survey type. Although there are many young and middle-aged residents in the study area, there is also a significant older population (Statistics Canada, 2011). While most property owners may have been able to complete an online survey, mail-out surveys are accessible to everyone, since they only require access to a mail box or post office, and postage would be paid for by the Municipality. To make the process as easy as possible for respondents and to encourage a higher response rate, respondents were provided with two options for returning the survey: by regular mail using a pre-paid and addressed envelope that accompanied the survey or by taking a photo or scan of the completed survey and emailing it to the Department. The survey was printed on a single page, single sided, for two reasons; if the survey was short, more people would be inclined to complete it, and it allowed for respondents to more easily scan and return the survey. To keep the questionnaire short, only integral questions were included. The first two questions on the survey were single response questions that would provide a bit of personal information about the respondents. This was essential for linking responses with properties to interpret the results and discover trends. The following question was a categorical response question combined with single response (see Question 3 below). 3. Please indicate (with a checkmark) the description that best fits your property: Your residence Rental unit(s) # of occupants : _____ # of units: _____ # of occupants : _____ Commercial Other (Please indicate: ___________________________) Figure 2. Survey question #3 regarding property type and number of units and occupants. Question 3 was necessary for understanding whether water issues were present in residential or commercial areas. Questions 4 and 5 were presented in an identical format that combined a Yes/No question with an open-ended question, allowing respondents to elaborate on their selection. Question 4 pertained to the water quality of the well water while Question 5 asked about water shortage issues. Question 6 allowed respondents to express their feelings about their current water system. This was an opinion question, whereas the previous questions requested factual responses, and it was framed in the form of a Likert Scale. Respondents were asked how they felt about the statement: “I am happy with my water system the way it is.” This question allowed the Municipality to understand how residents perceive their water quality, which is extremely important. The final question was another opinion question asking whether or not property owners would connect their properties to central water, if it was available. This question was essential for understanding 4 property owners’ interest in and acceptance of the idea of central water in the neighbourhood. The last part of the survey was a space for additional comments. Instructions for returning the survey, as well as the deadline, were provided at the top of the survey. 3.3.2 Sample Population The target population for this study included every owner of one or more developed properties within the defined study area. Only property owners with a residential or commercial building on their land were surveyed; owners of undeveloped land were not contacted, since there would be no well drilled or used regularly on those properties. The total number of individuals in the target population was under 200, therefore, rather than surveying a representative sample, the survey was distributed to the entire population. This way, the results would more accurately represent the circumstances of all property owners, and all members of the population would have an equal opportunity to share their experiences. 3.3.3 Data Collection Process Surveys were printed on single-sided sheets of 8.5”x11” sized paper and were accompanied by a letter printed on a separate sheet of paper with a municipal letterhead explaining what the survey was about, why it was being conducted, and how to return it to the department. The two sheets were folded together and placed into envelopes, along with a pre-stamped return envelope that was addressed to the Community Development Department, located at 1 Church Street, Truro NS. Labels with addresses were printed, placed on the envelopes, and the envelopes were stamped and mailed out to the properties in the study area using regular mail. The surveys were mailed to the civic addresses of the properties in the study area and were addressed to the property owner. A few surveys were rejected by Canada Post due to incomplete or non-existent addresses, likely due to differences between civic and mailing addresses, or were refused by the residents. These surveys were then re-mailed directly to the home addresses of the property owner. The letter and survey included a clear deadline, requiring the survey to be returned by the 17th of June, 2016 – seventeen days after they were mailed out, giving owners several weekdays and two weekends to complete the survey. Most surveys were returned by regular mail; however, about 9% of returned surveys were returned by email, so it was a good decision to provide both options. The surveys were distributed to both commercial and residential properties within the study area (see Figure 1). Surveys were addressed to property owners rather than tenants to ensure that only one survey was completed per property and so that owners could give feedback about connecting their properties to a central water system. In addition to survey data, for the sake of data analysis other data sources were consulted to attempt to explain the trends in the survey results. These included Nova Scotian geology maps, population density data and well log data. The geology information was obtained from an open map on the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources website. Data on the number of units on each property in the study area was used to display trends in population density and was obtained from the Property Information Department of the Municipality of the County of Colchester. Well data was found in the Nova Scotia Environment Well Log Database, accessed through the NS Environment website. 5 4.0 Methods of Data Analysis The initial step for data analysis was to transcribe survey results directly into a spreadsheet without coding, so that the spreadsheet could act as a database of exact survey responses all in one place. When addresses or names were missing from responses, they were looked up in a property information spreadsheet provided by the Property Information Department. These properties were indicated with an asterisk next to the address in case of discrepancy so that it remained clear that the respondent did not supply the address. The survey results spreadsheet included thirteen columns with the following headings, based on the survey questions: Survey number Date received Name of property owner Street/address Property type # of units # of occupants Quality issues & description Shortage issues & description Happy with water system the way it is? Would connect to central water? Additional comments Researcher’s notes To analyze and interpret the data, the open-ended questions on the survey were coded and assigned to categories. The descriptive water quality data supplied by respondents in Question 4 was coded using both deductive and inductive techniques. Five initial categories were created ranging from perfect water to extremely poor water quality based on the anticipated results of the surveys. The descriptions for each category were adjusted while properties were being placed into each of the five to ensure the categories were suited to the data. After coding was completed, the assignments were reviewed to ensure that each property was placed in the appropriate category. This review process revealed that the category descriptions were not specific enough to be mutually exclusive, and so the category definitions were adjusted slightly again. The data was then reviewed and coded a third time to ensure that each response was placed in the proper category. Table 1 shows the final descriptions for each category: 6 Table 1. Code used to categorize qualitative responses on water quality. Note that only one of the list items in a category must be true for a response to fit in that category. WATER QUALITY Code 5 Perfect water, no complaints. 4 Water is usually fine; minor seasonal issues. 3 Water quality is not great, but is improved with a filter. Hard water, requires water softener; mild but consistent issues having to do with taste, odour or colour (not harmful). Significant seasonal issues. Generally unpleasant water. 2 Several significant and consistent water quality issues; very unpleasant; regular or recurring issues with bacteria or need for UV light. 1 Quality renders water undrinkable. Harmful chemicals or bacteria despite filtration system. 0 No data. The categories were each assigned a colour and a number; 1 and red represent the lowest quality while 5 and green represent the highest quality. The numbers were necessary for data input into mapping software while the colours were important for visual representation and analysis. Coding for responses regarding water quantity was done in a very similar way to water quality except with only three categories. The categories were designed to correspond in severity with the five categories for quantity, such that the highest category (green, 5) represents no shortage issues while the lowest (red, 1) represents significant shortage issues. Because the survey data was self-reported and water was not actually tested, the categories are based on property owners’ perceptions of the condition of their well water. Following are the three categories and their associated descriptions. Table 2. Code used to categorize qualitative responses on water quantity. WATER QUANTITY Code 5 No quantity problems 3 Occasionally have shortage issues 1 Often or constantly have water shortage issues The responses to Questions 6 and 7 on the survey did not require coding, since Question 6 already associated respondents’ feelings with numbers and Question 7 was a simple Yes/No question. Additional comments from respondents were typed directly into the results spreadsheet. These comments were considered later when evaluating the perceived severity of residents’ water condition – many respondents had some passionate things to say. 7 The survey data was then mapped using Esri ArcMap and property data obtained from the Colchester County Property Information Department. Five maps were created in total with the responses from survey Questions 4 through 7 (maps based on survey data are not included in this version of the report – please contact the Community Development Department for more information). For the two maps representing the quality and quantity of well water in the study area, the coded data was inputted into the mapping software and each number was then assigned a colour to match those in the tables above. The resulting maps displayed the extent of the quality and quantity issues on each property. Properties without survey responses were either assigned the category No Data or Undeveloped Land, depending on their status. A third map was created to show the general condition of water at each property; to accomplish this, the codes given to each property for water quality were added to the codes for water quantity to create a new scale out of 10. By simply adding the values together, both quality and quantity were given equal weighting in the combined score and were therefore considered equally important for the purpose of this study. The new values for each property were inputted into the mapping software. The colour scheme for the combined scale also has green at one end and red at the other with a spectrum in between. A fourth map was created using the data from Question 6 on the survey. Responses, which were all numerical values between 1 and 5, were assigned to their respective properties on ArcMap. Since the question pertained to property owners’ satisfaction with their water quality, the colour scheme used for the Quality map worked well to represent this: green for happy property owners, red for unhappy property owners and a spectrum in between. A fifth map was created using Question 7, the final question on the survey. The data was easily separated into three categories: “Yes”, “No” and “Other”. Examples of the types of responses in the “Other” category can be found in the following section, 5.0 Results. Each category was assigned a colour: dark blue, bright blue or dark grey. This colour scheme was intentionally created to be different than the other maps, since responses indicated property owners’ opinions and could be categorized as neither good nor bad; therefore it did not seem appropriate to use the red/green spectrum. In addition to data obtained from the survey, additional research was conducted on factors that could influence well water in this area, such as bedrock type and depth, well depth and population density. Bedrock type in the study area was found using a bedrock geology map of the Truro area. The two types of bedrock in the study area were noted, as well as the location of the boundary between them. This knowledge was not further analyzed on its own, but used to interpret the survey results. Density was mapped using existing property data rather than the number of units indicated by the respondents. The data for number of occupants was not supplied by enough respondents to be of value. The well depths found in the NS Well Log Database for properties in the study area were put into a spreadsheet and then added to the study area map, creating a map showing patterns in well depth throughout the study area. Since not all properties were found in the Well Log Database, the well depth data was used with caution and not as an entirely reliable reference. The well depth map can be found in Appendix D. 8 5.0 Results Fifty-seven percent (111 out of 194) of the surveys that were distributed were returned to the department. Initially 195 surveys were distributed; however, one property held only a personal garage for a neighbouring property, and so the figure 194 is used when referring to the number of developed properties involved in the study. Fifty-five respondents indicated that they had experienced some form of water quality issue, ranging from infrequent and mild to consistent and severe. The types of quality issues described by respondents included the following: Unpleasant smell and/or taste Cloudy or “dirty” water Discolouration (rust-coloured, brown, yellow) and staining of clothes or water fixtures High iron content, rust build-ups and blockages High magnesium, calcium and/or hydrogen sulfide content Presence of arsenic, tannins, coliform and/or bacteria Lower quality of water during dry periods Presence of heavy metals Water full of sediments Seasonal deterioration of water quality Hard water; necessary to use water softener to drink/use well water Nineteen respondents indicated that they had experienced some form of water shortage issue. The types of quantity issues described by respondents included the following: Low water levels during all seasons Water shortage/lack of water during summer months or dry periods Decrease in water quantity following construction of neighbouring multi-unit buildings The two following charts show a comparison between the severity of property owners’ responses regarding both water quality and water shortages, using the colour scheme and rating scale presented in section 4.0 Methods of Data Analysis. The percentages refer to the proportion of the total responses for Questions 4 and 5 that fit into each category. 9 Quality 6% 5; Perfect water, no complaints. 4% 4; Water is usually fine; minor seasonal issues. 3; Water quality is not great, but is improved with a filter. Hard water, requires water softener; mild but consistent issues having to do with taste, odour or colour (not harmful). Significant seasonal issues. Generally unpleasant water. 51% 34% 2; Several significant and consistent water quality issues; very unpleasant; regular or recurring issues with bacteria or need for UV light. 1; Quality renders water undrinkable. Harmful chemicals or bacteria despite filtration system 5% Quantity 13% 4% 5; No quantity problems 3; Occasionally have water shortage issues 1; Often or constantly have water shortage issues 83% Figures 3 & 4. Charts showing the distribution of the severity of water quality issues and water shortage issues. In order to represent this information geographically and to understand which areas in the study area correspond with each colour, this data was inputted into maps, which have been omitted from this version to protect the privacy of property owners. 10 In survey Question 6, respondents were asked to rate, on a scale of one to five, the degree to which they agreed with the statement: “I am happy with my water system the way it is.” The following graph displays respondents’ contentedness with their current water system. The graph also indicates the proportion of respondents in each category who had experienced some form of water issue, whether qualitative or quantitative, from those that did not. 40 Number of respondents 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1; Disagree strongly 2; Disagree somewhat 3; Neither agree nor disagree 4; Agree somewhat 5; Agree strongly Level of agreement No issues Experienced some form of water issue Figure 5. Graph displaying the distribution of responses to the statement: "I am happy with my water system the way it is." (survey Question 6). Twenty-six percent of respondents either disagreed strongly or disagreed somewhat with the statement; 22% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement; and 52% either agreed strongly or agreed somewhat with the statement. 11 When asked if they would connect their property to a central water system if it was available, 45% of respondents answered “Yes”, 36% of respondents answered “No” and 19% of respondents were unsure or unable to answer the question, supplied a conditional answer or left the question blank. The following chart displays this data graphically. Other 19% Yes 45% No 36% Figure 6. Chart displaying the distribution of responses to the question: “If it was available in your neighbourhood, would you connect your property to a central water system?” (survey Question 7). This chart shows that there are more property owners who want to connect to central water than those that do not. There is also a significant number of respondents who could not commit to a Yes /No answer. According to respondents’ comments, the main reason for this uncertainty was that they required more information about the total cost of connecting before they could make a decision. Others simply left the question blank or did not explain their responses. About 68% of respondents that experienced water issues, whether quantitative or qualitative, indicated that they were interested in connecting to central water. Additionally, most respondents that were interested in connecting had experienced water issues; however, about 10% of respondents wanted to connect to central water even though they had not experienced any water issues. In their comments, some property owners attributed this to concern over diminishing water quantity and quality due to new multi-unit developments, or concern for fire safety and the need for fire hydrants in the area. 12 6.0 Discussion By comparing the maps for water quality and quantity, it is clear that there are similarities between the maps and that there are areas that suffer from both types of issues. Not all of the properties that experience quality issues have water shortages, but nearly all of the properties with shortages experience water quality issues. The table and the map below identify four distinct areas within the larger study area that contain properties that are geographically proximate and experience similar water issues. ** Please note that not all properties located in each area experienced the same severity of issues and some did not experience issues at all. Additionally, the data presented below represents the results provided by 57% of all property owners that were surveyed. The condition of the well water on properties that did not return the survey is not assumed to be similar to those that were surveyed. The quality of water is dependent of the depth and specific location of each well and can differ from one property to the next. ** Table 3. Descriptions of each problem area. Streets included Keywest Ave., Annabelle Dr., Truro Heights Rd. Area 1 (above Franklin Dr.), top half of Morley Ave. Rock Ridge Rd., lower half of Morley Ave., Area 2 Urquhart Dr. Area 3 Parkway Dr., Truro Heights Connector Rd. Area 4 Truro Heights Rd. (below Chiasson Way) and east end of Chantilly Ln. 13 Description of issues Quality and quantity; residential Mainly quality; residential Solely quality; commercial Quality and quantity; residential Area 3 Area 1 Area 4 Area 2 Figure 7. Map showing the main problem areas outlined in blue. Descriptions for each area are found in Table 3 above. Area 1 Area 1 appears to be a pocket of both quality issues, ranging from fair to poor, and frequent shortage issues in the following spots: Keywest Court, Annabelle Drive, and Truro Heights Road, from the Connector Road almost to Franklin Drive. The following map images show the water quality, water quantity and a combined map for this particular zone. This “pocket” has the highest density in the study area, aside from the 9-unit property on Chantilly Lane. There are many two-unit buildings on Keywest Court, Annabelle Drive and Truro Heights Road, and several four-unit buildings and a pair of six-unit buildings on Truro Heights Road. The following map shows the density by number of units for the entire study area. 14 Figure 8. Map showing the density in the study area by number of units, with a blue box around the Area 1. For a full-sized map and data sources, see Appendix D. In Area 1 there appears to be a correlation between the condition of water and the number of units. This dense area would have many people drawing groundwater, lowering the water table and potentially causing shortages. The remaining water could therefore have an increased concentration of solvents resulting in decreased quality. This correlation is supported by the observations of a few respondents who indicated that the water condition has declined since the construction of several multi-unit buildings in the area. The water shortages in Area 1 are more severe than the quality issues, so it is possible that the density directly impacts the quantity of groundwater and that the quality is indirectly affected as a result. Since 2000, there have been over 18 new developments in Area 1, at least sixteen of which have twounits or more. Keywest Court alone had two single-unit buildings and seven two-unit buildings built during this time. The strong correlation between the increased density and increase in water issues shows that the poor water condition in Area 1 can be attributed to intensification. Outside Area 1, the only area with significant shortage issues is around the cul-de-sac on Rocky Ridge Road in Area 2. 15 Area 2 Another spot in the study area with significant water quality issues is Area 2: Rocky Ridge Road, both halfway down the street and in the cul-de-sac, the bottom half of Morley Avenue and Urquhart Drive. While properties in Area 1 were most likely impacted by the intensification of development and the depletion of the water table, properties in Area 2 with quality issues may simply be the result of the mineral concentration of the groundwater in the particular fractures into which the wells were drilled. The property owners with the worst quality issues on Rocky Ridge Road and Morley Avenue have indicated that they have lived at their properties for close to twenty years or longer and have had the same quality of well water since the start. Quality issues on these two streets, which include staining of fixtures, discolouration, sedimentation, odours and poor taste, are likely caused by high concentrations of minerals and sediments in the specific groundwater fractures. Both the location and depth of each well would determine the quality of water drawn, which explains why some properties with excellent water are situated near properties with a much lower quality. The quality of well water on Rocky Ridge Road is a major concern; all properties but one on the street reported having some kind of water issue and many have severe quality issues. Three out of four of the survey respondents who indicated that their water was undrinkable owned properties on Ricky Ridge Road. Most issues with discolouration occurred on Rocky Ridge Road, as well as neighbouring Urquhart Drive and Morley Avenue, and staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry was only reported on these streets. Property owners that cited problems with discolouration and staining usually also had issues with poor odour and taste. Discolouration issues experienced by property owners in this specific area included: Rust-coloured water, rust build-up Stained fixtures, often yellow Brownish-coloured water Discoloured laundry, yellow or brown Black sediment build-up Red-brown or rust discolouration results from dissolved iron in drinking water, which often occurs naturally with manganese (Nova Scotia Environment, 2008a). Iron and manganese can also affect the smell and taste of the water, which are issues that many respondents indicated having. Hub Well Drilling also mentioned the presence of iron in this area. Mudrock and sandstone, which make up a good part of the underlying bedrock, both typically have iron concentrations of several percent (Bissell, 2016). Levels of iron and manganese found in groundwater in Nova Scotia are not normally high enough to pose health risks; however, they affect the aesthetic quality of the water (NSE, 2008a). Additionally, both iron and manganese can increase the growth of unwanted bacteria. High concentrations of iron and manganese can cause staining of plumbing fixtures or laundry. Manganese solids may form deposits in pipes and break off as black particles, and iron can collect and block pipes, producing rust flakes in water (NSE, 2008a). All of these effects have been reported by survey respondents. It seems likely that the groundwater beneath Rocky Ridge Road, Urquhart Drive and Morley Avenue has a higher concentration of iron and 16 manganese than the surrounding areas, since this area experiences more issues relating to colour and associated odour and taste. The occurrence of black sediment and rust build-up were also solely reported on Rocky Ridge Road. The well depths in this vicinity are general less deep than in areas with good water quality, which may have an effect on mineral presence, although there is inadequate well depth data to confirm the trend. The wells may also be drawing water from a different groundwater source than other properties with better quality. A couple of property owners in the Rocky Ridge and Morley area acknowledged that there was hydrogen sulfide (H2S) present in their well water or that their water sometimes smelled like rotten eggs. This distinct smell in groundwater is a clear indication of the presence of dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas in the water. The gas can be found in both shallow and deep wells, and is often present in areas underlain by sandstone or shale, like this study area, as indicated in section 2.0 Background & Rationale (NSE, 2008b). Hydrogen sulfide can also cause yellow or black staining of plumbing fixtures – another possible explanation for some of the stains experienced by property owners, since the gas and the stains were reported in the same area. Health risks for water with an elevated concentration of hydrogen sulfide are nausea, vomiting and stomach pain, although it is rare for a person to consume a harmful does, since the concentration would render the odour and taste extremely unpleasant (NSE, 2008b). The presence of the gas may also signal the presence of other contaminants which may require further investigation to confirm. Other possible causes of discolouration are humic substances, tannin or lignin, which can cause a yellow to brown colour in water. They are not believed to be hazardous to human health but may indicate that other contaminants are present (NSE, 2009). Area 3 Area 3 consists of the commercial zone on Parkway Drive and part of the Truro Heights Connector Road. Responses from this area include only quality issues, but no shortage issues. The wells in the area are extremely deep, which may explain this trend. Out of the seven property owners in the area that responded, three reported water issues while four did not. The Nova Trucks property located on Truro Heights Connector Road has water so poor that employees do not drink it. Issues that were reported in this area include unpleasant odour year-round, dirty water from fall through spring, and naturally occurring heavy metals in the water all the time. All three of these reports could be describing a similar issue in varying degrees of severity, or they could be experiencing different problems. Since there are only three properties with issues, there is not enough data to determine a trend; however, it seems likely that the cause of the issue is solely the type of bedrock and the weathering of this rock resulting in minerals in the groundwater. The heavy metals reported could be iron and manganese, which are found in other parts of the study area. The depth of the wells may also have to do with the “dirtiness” or high concentration of heavy metals in the water. Water deep underground is under a lot of pressure and therefore moves more slowly, allowing increased contact with the bedrock and therefore more dissolved substances. 17 Area 4 Three properties in Area 4 were mapped in approximate locations; not including those two, there were four properties in the area with quality issues, all quite close together, and one with occasional shortage issues. All the properties surrounding Area 4 for which responses were received had perfect water, in both directions on Truro Heights Road and on Chantilly Lane. Therefore it is possible that these four properties had wells dug into a different fracture in the bedrock than the surrounding properties. Water quality issues reported from property owners in Area 4 included: Poor water Necessity of water filter Smelly water despite filter Year-round foul smell or odour Unpleasant taste (like sewage in one case), year-round Very high iron, all seasons. Most issues in this area seem to persist throughout the year, and mainly have to do with odour or taste. Since one of the property owners mentioned a very high iron content, it is possible that it is also iron that is causing the unpleasant odours and taste. Iron in drinking water can affect the smell, taste or colour, but it is not normally present in harmful amounts in Nova Scotia. The iron occurs naturally through the weathering of rock. Manganese may also be present. Theses minerals could explain all issues described above, and their presence is consistent with the bedrock types and responses from the rest of the study area. General A common issue for property owners throughout the study area is hard water. Many respondents indicated that they require water softeners to make their well water usable. Calcium and magnesium, which are most often found together, are major contributors to water hardness; hardness is measured in mg/L of CaCO3, calcium carbonate (NSE, 2008c; NSE 2008d). The underlying bedrock in the study area contains dolomite, which can weather into particles of calcium and magnesium in groundwater (Naylor, Giles, & Brisco, 2005). The effects of calcium and magnesium in drinking water are mostly aesthetic, affecting the taste of the water and the ability of soap to lather. Well water in Nova Scotia is normally below the concentration of CaCO3 that would pose a health risk or be unsuitable for domestic purposes (NSE, 2008c). In general, property owners that experienced water issues were less content with their current water systems than those who had not experienced issues; however, responses varied greatly for respondents that experienced similar water issues. One property owner may have neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement while someone with an identical water issue may have agreed somewhat or strongly. This occurred a few times in the data. There was one response that indicated that the property had no issues, and yet the owner still disagreed strongly with the statement. This may have been due to confusion about the direction of the scale, or perhaps another reason for being discontent with the well water. 18 The highest proportion of respondents specified that they would like to connect to central water, although it was not more than half of respondents. The next highest proportion of people did not want to connect, followed by the few who were unsure. Not all respondents that wanted to connect had water issues, and not all respondents with water issues wanted to connect. The following table shows the breakdown of which respondents wanted or did not want to connect to central water. Table 4. Table showing the breakdown of responses for survey Question 7, divided into categories based on whether or not the property had any water issues. “Would you connect your property to central water if it was available?” Condition of well water Yes No Other Experienced some form 39 2 16 of water issue Did not experience any water issues 11 38 5 The greatest number of property owners who wanted to connect to central water had experienced some form of water issue, whether it was a quality or quantity issue, and mild or severe. It can be observed from Figure 9 that the areas with the most light blue are Area 1 and Area 2. There are many other interested property owners scattered across the map, but it is clear that the areas with the most water issues have the highest concentration of property owners that want to connect. This is entirely logical, but it is not only the property owners with water issues who are interested. It may seem strange that there are property owners who want to connect to central water even though they have perfect water conditions; however, there seems to be a general concern in the area about the depletion of well water due to intensification. Fire safety was also mentioned by a couple owners, since central water would include the installation of fire hydrants. In the survey, there was a small note indicating that connecting to central water would result in a “small tax increase”. It is possible that this inclusion may have influenced the responses of a few property owners who may have otherwise said they would like to connect. However, if it had not been mentioned, more people may have expressed interest in connecting and then not followed through later when they learned about the cost. 7.0 Limitations and Delimitations The results of this survey are based on the responses of fifty-seven percent of the study area population; therefore the results may not be a fully accurate representation of the entire study area. Because of the nature of the survey and by choosing to survey property owners rather than test the water quality, our data relies on the reporting abilities of the respondents. Each respondent would have a different rating scale for the severity of their water condition. For example what may be considered unpleasant water for one person may be found suitable for another, depending on their experiences and attitudes. In order to limit the subjectivity of survey responses, most questions provided in the survey were fact-based and required not an opinion but a statement of issues and conditions. Respondents were not asked to evaluate the severity of their water issues; this was done by the 19 researcher when coding results. There may also be inaccuracies in results if tenants of properties have not reported water issues to their property owners. In the survey that was distributed, it was optional for respondents to supply their names and they needed only indicate the street on which their property is located, not the entire civic address. Without the specific locations of the properties referred to in the returned surveys, it was difficult to display results geographically and to determine patterns in the results. Fortunately, many respondents chose to include their names and/or the civic address of their property. This allowed us to map the survey results. For responses that included only a name or only an address, the other was easily discovered using property data for the study area and supplied by the Property Information Department. For responses that included neither a name nor a complete civic address, guesses were made for the property’s location based on the street name and by comparing the quality of water with others on the street and assigning it to a property near others with similar water qualities and quantity issues. Indices such as number of units were used as well to deduce approximate locations. If the survey were to be repeated, I would suggest that respondents be asked to indicate the exact address of the property in order to facilitate spatial representation and analysis of the data. Surveys were addressed to property owners but were mailed to the addresses of the properties in the study area. In most cases, this was not an issue since the majority of properties hosted single-unit dwellings inhabited by the property owner and their family. In cases where the properties held rental units, it was less likely that the survey would end up in the hands of the owner. Some surveys were returned by Canada Post, of which a couple had been refused by residents while others had been returned indicating an incomplete or non-existent address. When surveys were returned by Canada Post, they were re-mailed using the actual home address of the property owners. These re-mailed surveys all included a note inside indicating to the property owner which property the survey was to be filled out for. The next time, extra effort should be taken to research the addresses of all property owners for the initial distribution of the survey. Had this been done, the response rate would likely have been higher and there would have been less confusion for renters and lower costs for envelopes and postage. Regarding the rating scale that was created and used to categorize the results from survey Question 4 & 5, it was difficult to make equivalent codes for quality and quantity. Therefore the combined map could be skewed if code descriptions inherently resulted in the two not being weighted equally. Perhaps the lowest level for quantity should have been no water to match the lowest quality level of undrinkable water. The issue with that alternative is that there were no responses from property owners that indicated that the property had no water. The lowest ranking for each category was determined by the worst condition described by respondents. This means that although the condition of having undrinkable water should perhaps have been considered worse than having frequent water shortages, the two were considered equal for the purposes of this study. However, the potability of the water was determined by each respondent rather than by a standard test, therefore the fact that respondents indicated that they do not consume their water does not necessarily mean that it is unfit to drink. 20 The Municipality did not conduct actual well water tests in the study area due to time constraints, budget and the incomplete picture that such a technical study would provide. Water tests may have enhanced the results from the survey, if it had been feasible to conduct them alongside the survey; however the test results would not have been comprehensive enough without the survey. 8.0 Conclusions & Moving Forward Based on survey results, it is clear that the water quality is perceived as fairly poor throughout the study area. Some residents have had consistent, unpleasant water quality issues that may be inconvenient and require a bit of investment, while a few others are unable to drink their water at all. Other properties may have reported perfect water conditions. The main causes of water quality issues in the area seem to be high iron content and intensification, although there are others as well. Additionally, water shortage seems to be a common issue in this area and may possibly increase in prevalence in the future as more land is developed and if the climate becomes drier. In their responses, property owners drew attention to the fact that both the quality and quantity of groundwater in some areas have declined in recent years with the construction of several multi-unit buildings. Concerns that future development may further deteriorate the water condition seem legitimate, and further research may need to be conducted prior to the approval of forthcoming developments. There is a great deal of variety regarding property owners’ feelings toward their current water systems. There appear to be more property owners who are satisfied with their well water than those who are not, but a higher proportion would consider connecting to a central water system than would not. The Community Development Department will report the findings of their investigation to Colchester County Council, who will in turn provide direction on how this issue should be addressed. Residents should check this website from time to time for further updates and possible public meeting notices. 21 References Bissell, H. J. (2016). Sedimentary rocks. In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/sedimentary-rock/Iron-rich-sedimentary-rocks. Campbell Rinker. (2015). Surveys. Retrieved from http://www.campbellrinker.com/surveys.html. Naylor, R. D., Giles, P. S., & Brisco, D. C. (2005). Geological map of the Truro Area (NTS 11E/06), Nova Scotia [Map]. (1:50,000). Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Mineral Resources Branch. Nova Scotia Environment. (2008a). The drop on water: Iron and manganese [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/thedroponwater.TasteSmellColour.asp. Nova Scotia Environment. (2008b). The drop on water: Hydrogen sulfide [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/thedroponwater.OverallWaterQuality.asp Nova Scotia Environment. (2008c). The drop on water: Calcium and magnesium [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/thedroponwater.TasteSmellColour.asp. Nova Scotia Environment. (2008d). The drop on water: Hard water [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/thedroponwater.OverallWaterQuality.asp Nova Scotia Environment. (2009). Your well water 3: Understanding chemical quality [Info booklet]. Retrieved from https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/water/privatewells.your.wellwater.asp. Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2014). Research decisions: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches, fifth edition. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd. Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249-271. doi: 10.1177/1525822X08317085. Statistics Canada. (2011). Population by age and sex comparison [Table]. Retrieved May 17, 2016 by the Municipality of the County of Colchester via PCensus. Westlake, D. (2016). Truro Heights property information [Spreadsheet]. Truro, NS: Municipality of the County of Colchester. Acknowledgements Special thanks to Paul Smith, Senior Planner, whose support, guidance and second opinions were instrumental to the success of this project. Thanks also to Crawford MacPherson, Director of Community Development, for his input and advice and to David Westlake, GIS Technician/Protective Services Coordinator, for his assistance in obtaining property data and his patience during the process. 22 Appendix A – Survey Truro Heights Well Water Survey Please complete the survey and return it by June 17, 2016. You may return this survey using one of the following methods: 1. Return the survey by mail using the enclosed, prepaid return envelope. 2. Scan or take a picture of your survey and email it to [email protected] 1. What is your name? (Optional) __________________________________________ 2. On what street is your Truro Heights property located? _________________________________ 3. Please indicate (with a checkmark) the description that best fits your property: Your residence Rental unit(s) # of occupants : _____ # of units: _____ # of occupants : _____ Commercial Other (Please indicate: ___________________________) 4. Have you or your tenants experienced any water quality issues in the last 5 years? For example, discolorations, unpleasant taste, etc. YES / NO If yes, during which season(s) did these issues occur? What was the nature of these issues? Were there any unusual circumstances surrounding these issues? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Have you or your tenants experienced any water shortage issues in the last 5 years? YES / NO If yes, during which season(s) did these issues occur? What was the nature of these issues? Were there any unusual circumstances surrounding these issues? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: I am happy with my water system the way it is. Disagree strongly 1 Neither agree nor disagree 2 3 Agree strongly 4 5 7. If it was available in your neighbourhood, would you connect your property to a central water system? (This service may be accompanied by a small tax increase.) YES / NO 23 If you have any additional comments, please feel free to write them below. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your valuable input. Appendix B – Research on Optimal Survey Type Optimal Survey Type for Truro Heights Water Quality Study May 2016 There is much debate in the data collection world about whether a mail-out paper survey or a browserbased survey (such as Survey Monkey or Typeform) is more ideal. While there are advantages and disadvantages to both types, the suitability of each survey type also depends on the format of the survey being conducted, the demographic of the survey population, the time-frame of the study, the budget and a number of other factors. In this brief I will discuss the pros and cons of both online and paper surveys as well as the possibility of providing both options to respondents. Based on the information and discussion provided below, I conclude that a mail-out survey would be the best option for this project. The median age of residents in the Truro Heights study area is 40.6. Although 48% of the population is between the ages of 15-49 and would likely be fully capable of completing the survey online, there is still a significant older population, with 35% of residents over the age of 50 and 5% over the age of 74 (Statistics Canada, 2011a). Forty-five percent of household maintainers in the study area, who would likely be those to complete the survey, are over the age of 55, with 4% over the age of 74 (Statistics Canada, 2011b). Older adults are generally less likely to use computers on a regular basis. Studies show that young people and university and college students are usually more likely to respond to online surveys, while the general population tends to prefer mail-out surveys (Shih & Fan, 2008; Ziegenfuss et al., 2010). There are young people in the study area, but in order to appeal to the greatest number of residents and since most household maintainers are over the age of 25, in terms of demographics it seems most reasonable to distribute a mail-out survey (Statistics Canada, 2011b). There are, however, are factors that need to be considered. Mail-out surveys are a time-tested method of data collection for large population samples. In the context of this project, mailed surveys would be sent out with an additional envelope and postage included for their return. Since they only require paper, envelopes, photocopying and postage, mail-out surveys are fairly economical (Palys & Atchison, 2014). They do not require computer access or skills and are therefore accessible to almost anyone, since respondents need only find a postal box to drop it in after completion. Mail-out surveys are considered very convenient for respondents, since they can fill them out whenever and wherever they choose (Campbell Rinker, 2015). A downside to mail-out surveys is that distribution and collection can take a long time due to the mailing process and respondents’ delays in returning the survey (Campbell Rinker, 2015). However, if the study time-frame is more than a couple weeks and mail-outs are being shipped locally, this factor is of little importance. Analyzing paper surveys can be time-consuming and tedious and is prone to human error, whereas many browser-based 24 survey programs will automatically analyze the data and provide graphs and tables (Palys & Atchison, 2014; Campbell Rinker, 2015). One source indicates that researchers can expect a response rate of 1040% for mail-out surveys, which is quite low (Palys & Atchison, 2014). However, other sources describe studies that have had much higher response rates from mail-out surveys, especially when respondents are sent a follow-up notice or motivated by an incentive (Gigliotti, 2011; Yammarino, Skinner & Childers, 1991). Another source states that mail surveys usually have higher response rates than internet surveys (Shih & Fan, 2008). Browser-based, or internet, surveys are often very similar in format to paper mail-out surveys but they are accessed online rather than in hard-copy. Internet surveys are considered fast since there is no delay between the time the survey is submitted by the respondent and when it can be analyzed by the researcher (Palys & Atchison, 2014; Campbell Rinker, 2015). Many internet survey programs are free and allow various methods of asking questions, including adaptive questioning so that questions asked to a respondent can be selected based on their previous responses (Palys & Atchison, 2014). Questions can even be altered by researchers part-way through the study if respondents are having a difficult time understanding (Campbell Rinker, 2015). There is usually no cost to distribute browser-based surveys if it is a free product and if survey links are delivered by email, except perhaps to obtain email lists. However, for this project we would be required to distribute the survey link using regular mail, and would therefore also require envelopes and postage. Studies show that mail-to-internet surveys have lower response rates than email-to-internet surveys (Campbell Rinker, 2015). Another alternative would be to distribute a mail-out survey that also includes a link to an online survey, giving residents the choice of format they wish to use. This technique seems to make sense for a population with a mixed demographic and would provide all respondents with a method of response that they are comfortable with. However, although it seems as though providing more options would lead to a higher response rate, studies have shown that the result is in fact the opposite (Ziegenfuss et al., 2010; Friedman, Clusen & Hartzell, 2004). Respondents are less likely to reply to the survey for many reasons, such as that they may take a while deciding which method to use and then forget about the survey, or they may decide to do the internet survey, throwing out the mail-out in the process, and then have trouble figuring out the online survey (Friedman, Clusen & Hartzell, 2004). These studies were from 2004 and 2010, so it is possible that by today respondents respond differently to the two options. Because of the combined factors of the study area’s demographics and predicted response rates associated with mail-outs, we should conduct a mail-out survey. Additionally, this project’s survey does not require adaptive questioning or any type of question format that cannot be used on paper. The mailout will be accessible to everyone and possible for any adult to complete, and is the preferred type of survey for the general population. Mail-out survey studies can require a longer time-frame, but that does not seem to be a concern for this project. Additionally, the planning summer student is fully capable of and willing to analyze results from the mail-out survey, as time-consuming and tedious as it may be. The possible alternative to only a mail-out survey would be to combine the two survey methods, but studies have shown that response rates are generally lower for a combined method than for mail-outs alone. 25 Sources Campbell Rinker. (2015). Surveys. Retrieved from http://www.campbellrinker.com/surveys.html. Friedman, E. M., Clusen, N. A., & Hartzell, M. (2004). The net effect: A comparison of internet and mail survey respondents. American Statistical Association section on survey research methods. Retrieved from https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2004/files/Jsm2004000837.pdf. Gigliotti, L. M. (2011). Comparison of an internet versus mail survey: A case study. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 16(1), 55-62. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2011.535241. Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2014). Research decisions: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches, fifth edition. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd. Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249-271. doi: 10.1177/1525822X08317085. Statistics Canada. (2011a). Population by age and sex comparison [Table]. Retrieved May 17, 2016 by the Municipality of the County of Colchester via PCensus. Statistics Canada. (2011b). Household maintainers [Table]. Retrieved May 17, 2016 by the Municipality of the County of Colchester via PCensus. Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta-analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 613–639. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749409. Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Beebe, T. J., Rey, E., Schleck, C., Locke, G. R., & Talley, N. J. (2010). Internet option in a mail survey: More harm than good? Epidemiology, 21(4), 585–586. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25680593. 26 27 Appendix C – Letter to Property Owners May 30, 2016 Dear Property Owner, The Municipality of Colchester is investigating some concerns about potential well water issues in the Truro Heights area. Some inquiries suggest certain properties are experiencing both a shortage and / or quality problems with on-site wells that supply water to residences and businesses. In order to better understand the extent of this problem, the Municipality is undertaking a short survey of property owners in your area. We encourage you to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to us in the prepaid self-addressed envelope provided. Alternatively, an image of the completed survey may be emailed to [email protected]. We respectfully ask that your response to this survey be returned by Friday, June 17, 2016. On behalf of the Municipality of Colchester, I appreciate you taking the time to assist in this process and once compiled, we will post the results of the survey on our website at www.colchester.ca. Should you have any questions or comments in the meantime, please feel free to get in touch. Sincerely, Paul J. Smith, MCIP, LPP Senior Planner Appendix D – Population Density and Well Depth Maps Please see map documents on the Colchester County website. 28
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz