Valley Voices Resident's Association; preserving the natural and scenic beauty of Shelter Valley in the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand, Northumberland County

Valley Voices Letter to Ministry of Natural Resources:

July 14, 2003
District Manager
Ministry of Natural Resources
300 Water Street, P.O. Box 7000
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
Dear Drew Young:
Re: Application by Shelter Valley Aggregates for a License to Permit
a Sand and Gravel Operation under the Aggregate Resources Act at
Lot 5-6, Concession 3, Alnwick-Haldimand Township in the County of Nothumberland.
We are writing on behalf of the Valley Voices, to object to this application based on many areas of concern, including, but not limited to, public health, public safety and natural and human environmental impact.
The Shelter Valley area has progressively developed into primarily rural residential and agricultural usage, particularly considering the great number of severances granted over the last 20 years for residential use. In fact it is marketed as such in one of the township's websites. These were granted in areas known by the township to have Aggregate Resource designation in the Official Plan.
The inevitable negative impacts of dust, noise, and heavy traffic are incompatible with the residential nature of this area and result in real threats to public health and safety. In addition, we request that a full independant environmental assessment of the site and surrounding area be done. Specifically, in reference to a June 17, 2003 Ontartio Courts Division decision, we want to see: demonstrated need, other aggregate source of alternatives that are less impactful, more suitable and safer. Over 50% of the subject land in this proposal is woodland, yet the township's Official Plan does not address the significance of woodlands. Consent to this application would result in the destruction of habitat for breeding birds and other widllfe, alter existing watersheds and/or sub-watersheds and impact fish habitat in an area designated Environmental Control.
The applicant commissioned a Report advocating their position by McNaughton, Herson, Britton, Clarkson Planning Ltd., with input from Aercoustics Engineering Ltd., (Noise assessment) and Gartner Lee Ltd. (GLL) (Natural environment). This report is designed to ensure the applicant receive the ARA license.

The GLL Report assessment "confirms the presence of significant wildlfe habitat on and adjacent to the property". However, by stating that "extraction will not occur in the southern woodlot, thereby ensuring no impact to the significant wildlife habitat provided by this woodlot", fundamentally ignores that "approximately 50% of the 56 ha. property is forested", not just the proposed retained woodlot. "For many wildlife (including plant)species, it is largely unknown what minimum or adequate land area is required for viable populations to be maintained. With respect to woodland species, there are several factors that cannot be "totalled" to serve as an adequate amount of habitat. Many animal and plant species cannot migrate or move along woodland patches separated by even tens of metres".¹
Planning decisions have NOT been made in the context of maximizing woodland size and connectivity. "impacts of any kind on woodlands have a temporal component; it will often take several years for the symptoms of negative impacts of development on woodlands to manifest themselves. Negative impact should not only be characterized only by the immediate physical damage to woodlands caused by development, since development activity on or adjacent to woodland is very likely to impede the ecological function of that woodland to some degree."²
Woodland in "significant" in terms of its function on the landscape. Thresholds of significance on a watershed or sub-watershed basis have NOT been determined in the applicant's assessment. The current Official Plan of Haldimand Township is being revised for the amalgamated Township of Alnwick-Haldimand, and neglects inclusivity of any determinates of "significant woodland", but that does not preclude such an inclusion in the revised (new) Offical Plan. The first Provincial interest of the Planning Act is "the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions ... ". The importance of these woodlands that will be obliterated in this applications are understated. Woodlands hold and recycle vast amounts of water and constitute a major vehicle for water infiltration into aquifers; they moderate infiltration rates, prevent errosion and siltation problems.
The Report states "the water table under and adjacent to the site would remain unaffected by the pit operation". However, at a public meeting on July 09, 2003, the applicant's consultant conceded, "the water table would change", if the pit was there. The Report also stated "no water taking will be required". In direct contradiction of this statement, the applicant's consultant also stated at this meeting that "there may be a future application for water taking", which is incompatible with a pending application for increased water taking directly south of the proposed pit by a local water bottling company.
The Report is flawed in that it fails to include any investigation concerning the impact on ponds on adjacent properties west of the proposed pit. Specifically, the Report fails to consider the impact on the pond in an area of Lot 6 in between elevations 204.5 and 210 masl, approximately midpoint of the west side of the proposed site, which drains across the proposed pit area into a Cold Creek tributary.
The Report also states "no appreciable impact on fish habitat", despite the fact that the applicant is asking to redesignate an EC area to facilitate a proposed new road for haulage of gravel, and there will be appreciable noise, dust and resultant use of dust supressants in this EC area. This EC area is not exactly delineated as required. The landowner and applicant, Ben Peters, dammed this Cold Creek tributaru without MNR permission to create an artificial pond where the existing road and proposed new road would join. It is known that this has already damaged fish habitat. It is unknown the extent of damage or impact that has already been done to the fish and other habitat in this area, as MNR did not conduct an investigation. Proximity to a number of high pressure gas and oil pipelines must also be considered. The MNR must therefore ascertain all impacts on the fish habitat, including the possible re-designation of this EC area, the pond drainage to this tributary from the southwest, the man-made damming of this tributary, and potential leachate of wast burned and buried on this site (see the Ministry of the Environment records, approximately 1990-1993).
The GLL Report determined that there were "36 species of breeding birds ... based on a one day study". A one day study is NOT satisfactory. However, as of July 2, 2003, the Ontario Bird Breeding Atlas identifies 114 species for this region.³
The application Report also identifies 16 species of regionally significant plants. Mention of other wildlife is conspicuous by its absence. Neighbours' observations of not only winter deer ranging, but breeding and fawning evidence refutes "OMNR has not identified any winter deer range within 120 m of the property".
The applicant plans on using on-site fuel tanks for equipment use. In addition, the proposed pit may result in disturbances to on-site disposed waste (referred to earlier) and a previously closed landfill to the south, purported to be a hazardous waste disposal area. The exact contents and location are unclear. Perhaps the MOE could enlighten your ministry as to their findings at this site, as they successfully prosecuted the pit applicant/landowner for an illegal dump site, unlicensed waste disposal site and incineration at this site. (see Ministry of the Environment records, approximately 1990-1993).
Apparently, the local health unit could not locate records pertaining to this landfill, despite the Report stating "Investigation by the landowner of the closed landfill confirm that the waste is south of the property line and off-site". The landowner recently severed and sold this closed landfill site. Would any performance bond cover the area of liability of a contingency plan cost for clean up of any contamination or spill in the area, either on or off-site?
On June 17, 2003, re: Ontario's amended Environmental Assessment Act, (EA Act), "The Ontario Divisional Court ruled that the Minister of the Environment has no jurisdiction to exclude key environmental planning issues - such as "need" and alternatives - from EA planning processes under the Act, in a recent case of a proposed landfill expansion near Napanee ... the 1996 amendments (to the EA Act passed by the Harris government in 1996) were not intended by the Legislature to empower the Minister to "scope" or screen out the fundamental issues of "need" and alternatives (and whether there were safer or more suitable sites) from EAs prepared under the Act ... The court decision will undoubtedly require a fundamental new direction in Ontario's EA program".⁴
The specialist speaking on behalf of Aercoustics Engineering Ltd. at a public meeting on July 9, 2003, stated that concerning noise and vibration studies, "it is hard to make measurements when the pit isn't in place". The "valley effect" was also not considered. The interrelationship between noise, vibration and traffic all have temporal components too; i.e. temperature (air density, windows open/closed); seasonal variations in rainfall, snowcover, leaf and field cover; vehicular and pedestrian traffic and transportation (school buses, farm (slow-moving vehicles), snowplows, snowmobiles, tourists; breeding seasons and range, etc.
Within the time constraints mandated by the application and law, adequate time has no been allowed for the conduction of peer reviews, nor their results to be studied and commented on by either of the Ministries (MNR nor MOE), or the Municipality. It is therefore requested that an extension be granted past July 21, 2003, for comments to be accepted by the MNR.
Respectfully, Valley Voices requests that the MNR:
• obtain relevant information from the MOE concerning the past illegal dumping and burning, and closed landfill at this site, and relevant information from the Lower Trent Conservation Authority (LTCA) with respect to the recent reclassification of an SNA (Significant Natural Area) in the site area, and the EC area of the Cold Creed tributary;
• consider the above MOE and LTCA information in the MNR decision respective of this application;
• review all possible environmental impacts of this application (including the man made damming of the Cold Creek tributary by the landowner) and have independent studies conducted to address impacts on fish habitat, water tables and water quality (especially in light of the pending application for increased water taking by a local water bottling company), wildlife, and the public health and public safety of surrounding residents;
• reject this application based on these concerns.
As a Ministry of the Province, you are responsible to defend its Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) for effective implementation. Expert witnesses from Provincial Ministries must be available to fully represent the provincial interest, especially when no-decisions by Municipalities on applications force decisions to the OMB.
Their testimony must state specifically the PPS policies that are relevant to the application and how their decision "had regard to" the policies.
In conclusion, while we understand the proposed site is a gravel-rich area, we believe that given the rural residential nature of this valley, an aggregate pit here would be inappropriate.
On behalf of the Valley Voices citizens group,
Mark Towers, Bob Mitro,
Co-chair, Scenic Beauty and Rehab Co-chair, Noise, Traffic and Safety
Henricus Jansen, Jim Bissonnette,
Co-chair, Economic Impact Co-chair, Environmental

cc: Shelter Valley Aggregates
Township of Alnwick-Haldimand
Ministry of Environment
Lower Trent Conservation Authority
Hon . Dr. Doug Galt, MPP Northumberland

^1. Provincial Policy Statement Five-Year Review - Response by the FON to the Request by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MAH) EBR Registry # PF01E0002
^2. Ibid.
^3. Region 17 Square 18TP68 BirdsOntario.org
^4. CELA Canadian Environmental Law Association Bulletin 8 - July - 2003

top

VALLEY VOICES