[All] MNR feedback and Lulu response re: Brant County
Louisette Lanteigne
butterflybluelu at rogers.com
Wed Oct 24 00:16:02 EDT 2012
Hi folks
Residents of Brant County reported sightings of an unusual snake that was striped red, white and black and I reported that to the MNR as I requested the terrestrial and hydrological reports regarding the proposed Dufferin Quarry Pit in Brant County. Just wanted to clarify that to let you know I'm not trying to insult anyone with the use of the term. Lol.
Anyways, the letter below is my response to MNR's Ken Cornelisse. The one before that is the letter from Ken. Currently I still have yet to secure any of the scientific data regarding this project but never the less, I'm working on securing new policy or industry standards to secure better transparency of reports.
Currently Official Planning Policies as approved by the Province recognizes jurisdictional powers of municipalities to comply to policies to protect water, rare species etc. but if a pit application results in damages to the habitat of threatened species and/or water resources off site away from the study area, does the liability fall on the municipality, the pit owner, the MNR or all three? Currently it appears that the absence of data by Dufferin Quarry is stripping both the MNR and the municipality of the ability to reasonably secure compliance to existing policies. This same issue is happening in regards to Melancthon. Similar concerns for the West Side Lands and Mount Nemo.
Am I naive to think the MNR actually doesn't have this info or does the MNR actually lack that basic data? Is the absence of that data normal?
Anyways, the emails are below if your curious. I'm using this as a case study to make policy recommendations for the Aggregate Act Revision. We need to make sure to formulate policies to bind the Aggregate Act to have regard for the Source Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Lulu :0)
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "Cornelisse, Ken (MNR)" <ken.cornelisse at ontario.ca>
Cc: "Freeman, Linda (MNR)" <Linda.M.Freeman at ontario.ca>; "Stone, Mike (MNR)" <mike.stone at ontario.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Strange Snakes in Paris & reports needed
Hello
Mr. Cornelisse
First off I would like to thank you for the email response sent on October 22, 2012. The communication is very much appreciated. Please allow me to recap briefly:
September 28 2012, by email I requested to review terrestrial reports and as well as hydrogeological reports regarding the property of the Dufferin Quarry Pit on Watts Rd. in Paris Ontario which was approved 38 years ago and has yet to cut ground.
The reason why I was trying to secure the terrestrial reports and associated field notes was to validate if studies were reasonably conducted to monitor for Jefferson Salamanders and Blandings Turtles. You know from my previous OMB appeal PL071044 that I am familiar with the protocols and procedures of such studies because I hired experts to represent such issues. I also worked with a group who was successful at securing new studies for Jefferson Salamanders in regards to Hidden Valley. Previously Jim Bogart, the chair of the Jefferson Salamander Recovery team stated there were no Jefferson Salamanders on site in Hidden Valley but after scrutinizing the reports we found his theory was based on tests conducted on rotten eggs. The group I worked with helped to secured a different method of study incorporating the use of pit traps and toe and tail clippings that found one of the largest population of Jefferson Salamanders in Canada, on site.
In no way did that matter impair my respect for Mr. Bogart. He is a wonderful man, highly accomplished and I admire his work greatly. In this case it was just a matter of what samples were used and what methods were incorporated. With a different approach to testing it achieved more accurate results and that is the point I'm making with this.
Mr. Cornelisse, in your correspondence to me sent on October 22 2012, regarding concerns for Blandings and Jefferson Salamanders you stated the following:
MNR is not aware of any individuals of these species, or regulated habitat occurring at this site. We also note that the onsite pond is outside of the area where extraction will occur. Dufferin aggregates hired consultants (Marshall Macklin Monaghan) to undertake terrestrial and aquatic inventories at the site and they will continue this multi-season study in 2013. No species-at-risk have been found on the site.
The absence of data might not negate the risks. Lack of data may indicate flawed test times and methods similar to what took place in Hidden Valley for example. I want to scrutinize the terrestrial reports to make sure test times and methods being used are optimal to study specific species because several area residents in Brant have already spoken with me about the Blandings turtles on site and in the adjacent ponds surrounding this project. I went to Paris Ontario and I spoke with the residents and the turtles are common knowledge. The area's residents have seen them for years along this area. That's why I'm trying to get the data. It's hard for me to believe the company has not acknowledged them by now. If there is a recovery strategy I want to see it to find out if these animals are being reasonably protected. Based on the feedback I've had from area residents, they are not.
The potential breeding ponds they mentioned lay on adjacent lands outside the 120m buffer zones for this pit. If there are rare species located in the untested ponds, activities on the proponent’s land still has the potential to encroach upon their critical habitat. Blandings turtles travel to sandy areas to lay their eggs. The sediment type of the proponent's property may make for suitable nesting habitat. We need to know if the proponent’s property has the potential to serve a function for the off-site threatened or endangered species populations. We also need to know if they will be adversely impacted by the draw down impacts of the water taking.
The Species At Risk Act (SARA) provides in no uncertain language that the purpose is to ensure that critical habitat is protected. The MNR cannot reasonably meet this objective if the ponds on the adjacent lands, outside the 120m bufferzone, remain untested. I would like to request that there will be reasonable studies conducted on the adjacent ponded features outside the 120m buffer zone to assure compliance to SARA. If the animals are in the adjacent ponded areas, they still must have a reasonable recovery strategy outlined to comply with the law as written.
In Brant's Official plan it is clear the municipality has a mandate to protect threatened species and habitats in sections 1.8.8, section 2.2.19, in section 3.3 etc. This policy as approved by the Province recognizes the power municipalities have in regards to this matter. Any rare species in their jurisdiction falls under this criteria and the Endangered Species Act cannot be grandfathered. How in good faith, is the municipality and the public supposed to assure policy compliance by the proponent if we cannot access the terrestrial reports to scrutinize the data? That is not reasonable.
I want a copy of the terrestrial report either a hard copy or PDF. I also want to review the field notes to see where and when they studied and what methods they used. As a member of Frogwatch and the Ontario Turtle Tally, and the Ontario Vernal Pool Association, I glean information from these types of reports for the sake of establishing future policy recommendations to increase the effectiveness of EA processes. My work with Frogwatch was referenced in the report Community Engagement for Adaptive Management in Environmental Assessment Follow-up, John F. Devlin, Series 2011 produced by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Here is the link to the PDF copy of the report. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/7F3C6AF0-docs/CEFAMIEAFU-eng.pdf
On Tuesday September 25, 2012, I requested terrestrial and hydrological reports from the Mark Pomponi, Brant County's General Manager of Development Services. He emailed Water Services Alex Davidson to find out if they had the hydrology data and stated the reports are incomplete. Here is the response I received.
________________________________
From: Alex Davidson
Sent: Tue,25-Sep-2012 10:11 AM
To: 'butterflybluelu at rogers.com'
Cc: Jayne Carman
Subject: FW: Website message
The hydrogeo work is not complete.
The attached July 9, 2012 letter report from Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates was presented at the July 10, 2012 Public Works Committee.
We understand that further hydrogeo info will be included with an
application for a Permit To Take Water. This will be posted on the EBR
when received by the MOE.
Regards,
Alex Davidson
Water Division Manager
County of Brant
_________________________________________
Mr. Cornelisse, in your correspondence to me sent on October 22, 2012 1:59 you stated the following:
Dufferin Aggregates has completed a thorough review of the property in conjunction with the site plan and licence conditions to ensure adverse impacts to the public and the natural environment are mitigated. This includes compiling more than 20 years of monitoring data in preparation for an application to the Ministry of the Environment for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW).
You stated that Dufferin Aggregates has completed a through review of the property in conjunction with the site plan and licence conditions. If that is true, why is hydrogeological data regarding this proposal not yet complete? Why can't I access sediment studies or bore hole data? Normally this information is pretty straight forward but nobody seems to be able to provide it to me. Dufferin Aggregates produces more than 18 million tonnes of aggregated per year. I find the absence of such basic information for public scrutiny very disturbing. They've been through these processes before. Why are they not sharing data regarding this proposal? I am trying to prepare my commentary for when the water taking permit request goes online and it impairs my ability to participate if I don't have reasonable access to that information and reasonable time to scrutinize the data to provide comment.
Mr. Cornelisse you stated in the email dated October 22, 2012 at 1:59pm that
The onsite wetland is within the water table and so it is not dependent on surface water (unlike pond W12 in Waterloo ). So the extraction and any changes to the surface drainage area for the pond are not anticipated to impact the wetland to any great extent. This area is sand and gravel and under the existing conditions, little surface water makes it to the wetland because much of the water infiltrates into the ground. I also note that the extraction will create another water / wetland feature.
Mr.
Cornelisse, as much as I appreciate these predictions, without the
data to support it is simply hearsay. All wetlands and most
groundwater features are influenced by surface water infiltration at
some point to achieve that baseline water table but to understand
flow and flow rates from point A to B requires the hydrological data
and sediment composition data so we can understand both the
geological connectivity under the ground as well as the topographical
influences at the surface level. Fluvial flows throughout the Galt
Paris Moraine system generally impact the first 12 meters down so if
the bore hole data isn't at a reasonable depth beyond that then we
honestly cannot predict the impacts to aquifers or predict the true
hydrogeology of the area. The public and the municipality need to be
provided with the baseline data to plan appropriately so we can avert
externalizing costs onto taxpayers over the long term. We have the
jurisdiction as taxpayers to participate in the public process.
This data is fundamental to support the claims they make regarding
infiltration rates, protection of habitats and adjacent natural
features. How can anyone state they can reasonably protect on-site
ponds in the absence of this data? I don't even see any data relative
to draw down impacts. That alone can drain the ponds in this area on
and off site. Where is the mapping for this?
In
good faith I did visit the this website you recommended at: http://www.dufferinparispit.com/en/index.aspand in my view, it's like reading a marketing brochure.The mandate of the CAP is
to provide,
encourage and facilitate two-way communication between local
residents/regional stakeholders and Dufferin Aggregates on
operations. It is designed to educate stakeholder groups and the
community on aggregate in our society and to maintain/improve
relationships with neighbours and community organizations.
I
don't see their advisory panel as having the jurisdiction to
entertain a “do nothing approach” if their mandate limits them to
address comments “on operations”.
On
that website there is the absence of the scientific data again. They
seem to have a water retention pond planned but no detailed data of
the pond is posted up on the site at all. Why not? If they sincerely
want to facilitate honest communication about this project it would
seem reasonable that we should be provided with the data in order to
facilitate meaningful dialogue.
I
honestly have to ask, does the MNR have the bore hole data ? If so is it
possible that I can use FOI to request it? It is very difficult for
me to believe the province would actually proceed to allow this
project to manifest fully in the absence of this critical information
when the potential risks to this community is so enormous. I do hope
the province demands the release of this information to avert risks.
Again
Mr. Cornelisse, I sincerely thank you for your response. Forgive me
if I seem alarmed about this matter but it is an unusual project. I
got involved after residents asked for my help and when I reviewed
the general information, it appears to be quite a significant risk
for this community, water supply and rare species.
In
good faith I hope to learn from this process and hopefully I can help
to foster a better way to get industry to free up the data so the
public, municipalities and provinces have the knowledge enough that
we can collaboratively plan together rather than relying upon
unsubstantiated predictions. Good planning begins with good data that
is shared openly in good faith. If we don't get that first step
right than we risk significant externalized costs and risks. There
are ways we can work to avoid such scenarios and it is my hope I can
incorporate some of these concepts into the Aggregate Resource Act
Revision process. This project makes a great case scenario to support
the need for more transparency of data.
Thank
you kindly for your time.
Louisette
Lanteinge
700
Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo
Ont.
N2V
2L2
________________________________
From: "Cornelisse, Ken (MNR)" <ken.cornelisse at ontario.ca>
To: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Cc: "Freeman, Linda (MNR)" <Linda.M.Freeman at ontario.ca>; "Stone, Mike (MNR)" <mike.stone at ontario.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:59:58 PM
Subject: RE: Strange Snakes in Paris & reports needed
Dear Ms. Lanteigne,
Thank you for your email of October 14, 2012, sent to Mike
Stone, regarding the Dufferin Aggregates Pit in Paris Ontario .
I am responding to your email on behalf of Mike.
Firstly, I would like to make you aware that this site has
been licenced under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) since 1974. As such
there is no current “planning process”. However, Dufferin
Aggregates has established a Community Advisory Panel (CAP) which provides the
public with an opportunity to discuss concerns and share information.
Information about the CAP can be found at http://www.dufferinparispit.com/en/index.asp.
Though this site has been licenced since 1974, the Licensee,
Dufferin Aggregates, must abide by all current legislation which regulates pits
and quarries in Ontario
including the ARA and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the associated
regulations. They must also comply with the approved site plans and
licence conditions for the pit, as well as the Endangered Species Act.
Dufferin Aggregates has completed a thorough review of the property in
conjunction with the site plan and licence conditions to ensure adverse impacts
to the public and the natural environment are mitigated. This includes
compiling more than 20 years of monitoring data in preparation for an
application to the Ministry of the Environment for a Permit to Take Water
(PTTW). Upon receipt of the application, MOE will post the proposal on the
Environmental registry for public input.
I did consult with Graham Buck, Species-at-Risk Biologist,
about your questions on Blandings turtles and Jefferson
salamanders. As you know, Blandings turtles and Jefferson
salamanders are listed under the Endangered Species Act as
“Endangered” and “Threatened” respectively. MNR
is not aware of any individuals of these species, or regulated habitat
occurring at this site. We also note that the onsite pond is outside of
the area where extraction will occur. Dufferin aggregates hired
consultants (Marshall Macklin Monaghan) to undertake terrestrial and aquatic
inventories at the site and they will continue this multi-season study in
2013. No species-at-risk have been found on the site. As with any
private lands, the landowner must comply with the Endangered Species Act and
its regulations.
The onsite wetland is within the water table and so it is
not dependent on surface water (unlike pond W12 in Waterloo ). So the extraction and any
changes to the surface drainage area for the pond are not anticipated to impact
the wetland to any great extent. This area is sand and gravel and under
the existing conditions, little surface water makes it to the wetland because
much of the water infiltrates into the ground. I also note that the
extraction will create another water / wetland feature.
Regards,
Ken
Ken Cornelisse
District Water Resources Coordinator
MNR – Guelph District
1 Stone Road West
Guelph , ON
N1G 4Y2
phone: (519) 826-6849
fax: (519) 826-4929
Email: ken.cornelisse at ontario.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20121023/455ed3cb/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list