sent to Alnwick Haldimand Council
January 12, 2004
Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. Peer Review
The Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
Shelter Valley Aggregates Ltd.Shelter Valley Pit
1.0 Introduction
Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. (NEA) was retained by the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand to conduct a peer review of a license application by Shelter Valley Aggregates Ltd. The proposal is for a licensed aggregate extraction operation, on a 56.4 hectare (101 acre) parcel of land described as Part Lots 5 and 6, Concession 3, Haldimand Township. Shelter Valley Aggregates has applied to the Township to amend the Township zoning by-law from Rural (RU) to Extractive Industrial (M3) to permit its operation. The proposed license also requires an Aggregate Resources Act Class A license for a Category 3 pit above water. Due to a large number of public concerns generated by this application, Township Council has requested a peer review of this application for four specific areas: natural environment, hydrogeology, noise and transportation. This present review addresses the natural environment concerns. Other issues are being reviewed by other experts and will be addressed in separate reports.In general the scope of the peer review was to comment on the scientific rigour and integrity of the reports accompanying the application and to address any issues and concerns raised since the report was reviewed by local residents. In addition NEA was asked to review correspondence from the Lower Trent Conservation Authority which comments on this specific application.
2.0 Methodology The documents reviewed by NBA for the Natural Environment component of the study were:- Level I and 2 Assessment of Proposed Sand and Gravel Pit, Township of Alnwick/Haldimand (Gartner Lee Limited, February 2003)
- Shelter Valley Aggregates Shelter Valley Pit - Existing Features, Operational Plan, and Rehabilitation Plan, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC), January and February, 2003.
3.0 Peer Review
3.1 Natural Environment Level I and 2 Report
The Level I and 2 report was prepared as part of the ARA Summary Statement and Planning Report under the lead of MacNaughton Hennsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC, February 2003). The following peer review focuses on the natural environmental requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act and the Township Official Plan policies.
3.1.1 Adequacy of inventory of species
The level of effort in identifying species on this property was appropriate for this site. No further field work or literature review is necessary for the biophysical inventory.
Inventories of the property were carried out in the fall of 2001 (8 September, 22 November and 03 December) and summer of 2002 (03 June, and 23 July). Detailed plant inventories of the property were conducted on two occasions and in two different seasons. Vegetation community descriptions and naming followed the Ecological Land Classification (MNR, 1998), the industry standard for community descriptions. Breeding bird surveys were conducted on June 3,2002. Given the size of the subject property, and the habitats present (primarily forest and old field meadow), the inventories conducted are adequate.
The single field visit for breeding bird surveys yielded a list of species detected on that date. To supplement this information the report also provides data from other sources such as significant species in the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas 10x10 km aliasing square that contains the study site is 18TP68. Data for this square could be consulted to give an indication of other species that may be present on the subject property or adjacent lands. This information should have been used to comment on other possible species that may have been missed (early breeders) or were present in the recent past. A review of the data for this square found three species that are considered provincially vulnerable, Red-shouldered Hawk, Red-headed Woodpecker and Cerulean Warbler. No nationally or provincially endangered or threatened species were recorded.
3.1.2 Significance of species
Plants: The study site plant list is presented using Cuddy (1991) to define the significance status. The report identifies sixteen (16) plant species found on site as Regionally Significant. The Level I report then notes that "the south woodlot, which will be retained, contains populations of at least eight of the regionally significant species." (Page9). This indicates that eight of the regionally significant species will be lost from the property as a result of approval of this application. No impact analysis is provided to guide the reader in determining the significance of this loss to any remaining populations of these species in adjacent areas, the region or the province.
Birds: The breeding bird table (Table 1) provides a detailed list of the bird species observed on the property but does not indicate if any are significant according to standard national, provincial and regional lists of significance. Possible sources include COSEWIC (2003) rankings, COSSARO (2003), NHIC database and MNR wetland manual appendices (1993 with 2000 update).In section 5.6 Cooper's hawk is mentioned as a locally rare wildlife species but no source citation for this statement is provided.
The text for significant wildlife habitat (page 12) identifies forest interior breeding bird habitat in the southern woodlot and adjacent areas and a wildlife corridor in adjacent areas. The shape of the central and northern woodlot and several disturbances have eliminated any forest interior habitat in these areas.
From our interpretation of the data, a wildlife corridor also exists on the site of the proposed extraction through the northern and central woodlots. The significance of this second corridor is not evaluated in the report. These woodlots connect the two Significant Natural Areas and also connect woodlands to the north of the subject property to both SNA's. The value of these connections/linkages on a regional or local level was not discussed.
The Level I report concluded that two significant natural heritage features as per the Aggregate Resources Act are present on or within 120 m of the proposed licensed area. These are fish habitat and significant wildlife habitat. This report farther notes that the Lower Trent Conservation Authority (LTRCA) has identified a Significant Natural Area (SNA) on site and a second one adjacent to this site. For these reasons a Level 2 report was completed (GLL. page 13).
3.2 Natural Environment Level 2 Report
3.2.1 Fish Habitat
The GLL level 2 report concludes that "no appreciable impact to fish habitat is anticipated". This conclusion is based on the premise that since the extraction will not reach the water table there will be no change in groundwater conditions feeding the adjacent brook trout habitat in Cold Creek. The hydrogeological peer review consultant (Trow, 2003) has expressed some concerns regarding the lack of sufficient data to confirm the groundwater table elevation. They state "More information is required to establish the vertical limit of extraction by better definition of the groundwater table elevation, and the relationship of the upper aquifer to the local groundwater supply aquifer. "
Generally when vegetation is removed from a site the amount of water available for infiltration or runoff increases due to the loss of evapotranspiration. Increased runoff and/or increased infiltration is a change from existing conditions which has not been evaluated. Provided the groundwater table is not reached, these effects are expected to be minor, but, still need to be addressed as they can affect fish habitat.
3.2.2 Vegetation
In the Level I report GLL list sixteen species of regionally significant plant species in section 5.2, eight of which will apparently be extirpated from this site. These species and the significance of their loss is not addressed in the Level 2 report.
An examination of Figure 2 shows the following:
3.2.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat
The Level I concluded that three criteria related to the presence of significant wildlife habitat features were present. They were: 1) presence of forest interior breeding birds and habitat, 2) presence of locally rare wildlife species (Cooper's hawk) and, 3) a habitat linkage between the two SNA's.
1) The presence of interior forest birds has been discounted in the last several years by the scientific community. The current science discusses the importance of area sensitive bird species. These species require a minimum area of suitable habitat (eg. grassland, mature forest, wetland) to successfully breed. The MNR SWH Technical Guide includes area sensitive species in component 2, specialized habitats for wildlife. Impact assessments are conducted on a species by species basis to determine how much habitat is currently present and what the impact of the proposed development and subsequent loss of habitat will be on the maintenance of sufficient habitat for that breeding pair or population.
The Level I report should examine the bird species that are considered area sensitive as per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, Appendix N (MNR, 2000). The Level 2 report should include an impact analysis of the proposed operation on each species. For example, the three hawk species have large territories that require a combination of forest cover for nests and roosting, as well as fields and forest edge for foraging. The maintenance of these habitat requirements post development are not discussed.
Our preliminary review concluded that 12 area sensitive species are present only six of which will remain in the southern woodlot after full development.
2) The Cooper's Hawk is not mentioned in the Level 2 analyses. The habitat requirements of this species (nesting, foraging) and potential impacts on these functions should be included in the Level 2 report.
3) The strategy proposed in the Level 2 report is that the southern woodlot be retained with a buffer of 15 metres to "help preserve wildlife habitat and corridor junction between Tubb's Corners andLakeport Creek Headwater SNAs." (GLL, page 14).
We agree that it will "help preserve" the corridor functions. The level of impact, however, even with this help could be significant. Unfortunately the role of this southern woodlot as habitat or corridor is not identified or evaluated. At the present time there are two identifiable corridors, the southern woodlot and the central woodlot. The impact of complete removal of the central woodlot is not addressed in terms of either wildlife habitat, habitat for regionally significant plants or as a corridor.
Further the GLL report notes that impacts of the proposed pit on breeding wildlife include "human presence, noise, vibration and dust from stripping, extraction, haulage and rehabilitation" (Page 14). They then state that these impacts "are expected to be relatively minor due to adequate setbacks ". Further on in the level 2 report the recommended setback is 15 metres. No explanation or analysis is provided to show how a 15 metre buffer of agricultural field will provide an "adequate buffer" for breeding birds or any corridor function. The level 2 report then indicates that any adverse impacts will be temporary due to the plan to rehabilitate the site following the life of the pit. There is no indication of how long the life of the pit will be. Depending on the extraction rate it could be up to 50 years. Quite often when a pit is active, expansion o f operations are sought and granted. Therefore how temporary these impacts are is undefined and subject to change.
The final rehabilitation plan calls for a rehabilitation area of 120 metres from the existing southern woodlot. It is our opinion that this 120 metres may act as an adequate buffer from the southern woodlot and may compensate for a portion of the loss of habitat in the central woodlot. Whether or not it can replace the corridor function of the central woodlot has not been assessed. We remain skeptical that l5 metres will provide any significant protection for the southern woodlot. We further note that the Existing Features Plan provided in the application shows a 75 metre corridor from the southern woodlot to the central woodlot. This corridor will be removed by the extraction operation.
3.2.4 Significant Natural Areas The Level I report indicates that the property contains 29 hectares of forest cover, 23 of which will be removed as a result of extraction. Of the woodlots on site, therefore, 80% will be removed. The proposed Rehabilitation Plan calls for an "Ecological Restoration Plan Area" of approximately 5 hectares. No analysis is provided to show how this 5 hectares will adequately replace the 23 hectares of forest cover lost either in terms of habitat or in terms of function.
The Level 2 report concluded that the Tubb's Corners Headwater SNA recognized by Lower Trent Conservation does "not meet most of the criteria for which the area was identified by Brownell and Blaney (1995)" . The Tubb's Corners Headwater SNA contains 181 hectares (Brownell and Blaney, 1995). GLL then concludes that the southern woodlot meets more of these criteria. We agree that the presence of black oak makes the southern woodlot more significant from a Provincial perspective. From a functional point of view, however, no data is presented to show that the southern woodlot is more significant than the central woodlot. No analysis is provided to show that the reduction of corridors between the Tubb's Corners Headwater SNA and the Lakeport Creek Headwaters SNA from two (central woodlot and southern woodlot) to one (southern woodlot), will not have a significant impact on this corridor function.
In fact evidence is provided in the Level I and 2 reports to show that the central and northern woodlots contain many features and provide functions which might be interpreted as significant. The main reason for the higher status of the southern woodlot is the presence of black oak. Eight of the sixteen regionally significant plants found on site, however, do not occur in the south woodlot. Without the central and north woodlots half of the areas sensitive birds known from this property will be lost. This indicates that the proposed operation will have a negative impact on significant plant and wildlife resources on this property. This impact has not been quantified or evaluated to date.
The extraction area includes a 15m setback from the boundary of the property and the Tubb's Headwater's SNA. The plan shows that the edge of the forest will be partially removed by the extraction. The Level 2 report does not indicate if this will impact on the functions of the SNA, the forest ecosystem or if a wider setback is warranted along this part of the eastern licensed area.
3.2.5 Preventative, Mitigation and Remediation Recommendations Six recommendations are presented in the Level 2 report for incorporation into the Site Plan.
a) the limit of the excavation must be at least 15 m from the dripline of the south woodlot ... The depth of extraction appears to be approximately 10 metres adjacent to the southern woodlot (Section A-AI Operational Plan). No analysis is provided to show that the 3:1 slope to a depth of 10 metres provides adequate protection from< "dessication of the root bearing soils along the forest edge" as indicated.
b) existing vegetation must be retained where possible within all setback areas ... We agree, however, the areas where such retention is not possible should be identified. This includes berms within the 15m setback.
c) topsoil and overburden..... shall be stripped and stored separately
We agree.
d) silt fencing and/or straw bales shall be used to prevent sediment from leaving the pit until vegetation is established.
We agree that sediment must be prevented from leaving the pit, however, this should also apply after vegetation is re-established. This statement also requires further clarification as there appears to be a conflict with statements between the natural heritage report and on the Operational Plan. On the Operational Plan it is stated that "no off-site water diversions or discharges to surface waters are proposed. In the event that overland surface water flows occur at certain times of the year (e.g. frozen ground conditions), measures will be implemented on-site to ensure no surface water run-off enters Cold Creek to the northeast of the site." In the natural heritage report it states "... it is unlikely that there would ever be surface flow from the property that could even be temporarily used by fish."
If there is the potential for off-site runoff, even on a seasonal basis, then silt fences, straw bales and possibly a sedimentation pond will be required. The location of these sediment control measures and the point of discharge requires further evaluation. This has not been provided.
In further analysis of the potential for impact to Cold Creek we note that the proposed haul route is north from the pit, which requires the crossing of Cold Creek. Upgrading the existing farm crossing or construction of a new crossing of Cold Creek will have to be completed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Federal Fisheries Act. This potential impact is not addressed in the Level I or 2 report.
e) berms shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope and all areas progressively rehabilitated shall be vegetated with a perennial grass mixture...
We agree. To promote screening of the operation, consideration should also be given to planting fast growing trees on and adjacent to the berms.
f) the rehabilitation and closure plan should include an Ecological Restoration Plan that enhances the natural linkage and habitat value in the area of the south woodlot.
We agree, however, no analysis has been provided to identify how this 120 m restoration area will function to enhance linkage functions, especially as it does not connect across the entire site. Connectivity would be greatly enhanced over the future disturbed condition if this buffer extended from property line to property line along the south.
The use of native plants, including trees, shrubs and native grasses for the rehabilitation area and the species recommended are appropriate.
Planning Policies
Land use policies will be addressed by the Township planner. The following discussion addresses natural heritage issues only.
3.3.1 Provincial Policy Statement
No information is provided in the Level I or Level 2 report with respect to conformity with Mineral Resources (Section 2.2) or Natural Heritage (Section 2.3) policies. Section 1.2 of the Gartner Lee report does not list the Provincial Policy as being addressed in their report.
The Summary Statement prepared by MHBC addresses both Natural Heritage and Water Quality and Quantity issues under the Provincial Policy Statement. They note that the Gartner Lee report "...confirms the presence of significant wildlife habitat on and adjacent to the property." They then correctly note that "The PPS allows for development and site alteration in lands adjacent to these natural heritage features provided it has been demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological junctions of these areas."
As discussed previously the significance of the wildlife habitat and corridor functions that will be disrupted or removed by the pit have not been identified or addressed in the GLL report. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that there will not be negative impacts on the significant wildlife habitat or functions. Conformity with the PPS has, therefore, not been demonstrated.
3.3.2 Aggregate Resources Act
The Level I report addresses the Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act. Generally the Natural Heritage Report and the Planning reports address these requirements. Further clarification, however, is required on the following issues:
- whether or not there will be surface water discharges from the site (see
- the rehabilitation plan, cross section A-AI shows a 3:1 slope extending
- the cross section on the Operational Plan shows the northern edge of the
3.3.3 Official Plan
The Official Plan for the Township of Haldimand (April 2002 text consolidation) has specific policies related to aggregate extraction operations. The following discussion relates to natural heritage policies only.
Section 5 Land Use Policies, subsection 16 Aggregate Resources
(ii)j. Additional information such as hydrology, wildlife, vegetation and soil inventory studies which may be required due to special concerns related to a specific site and any other relevant information as Council may deem necessary.
This section is quoted in the Level I and 2 report (GLL, 2003, p 4), however, no information is provided as to what council has deemed as being required. This report includes a section on consultation with the Lower Trent Conservation Authority but not with council.
The ARA Licence Application and Planning Report (MHBC, Tab A) also identifies this section and states that reports have been prepared to address this requirement and identifies the GLL reports on natural environment and surface water. The Level I report identified both fish habitat and significant wildlife habitat as triggering a Level 2 report.
Without any other information we have concluded that fish habitat and wildlife habitat are among the concerns of council and the Township planner that these reports have attempted to address.
16 b (v) In order to preserve the scenic beauty and amenity of the area, aggregate operations will generally be restricted to areas which can be screened from public view.
The MHBC planning report (Tab A, Table 1) only identifies issues up to 16 b (iii and iv). This section of the OP has not been addressed.
3.4 Agency Reviews
The Lower Trent Conservation Authority provided comments on the MHBC report in 2002. Consultation between LTRCA and GLL is presented in the Level I report. In addition GLL provided additional material directly to NEA in December 2003 to further document the background of consultation with LTRCA.
In 1994 a landscape analysis report was prepared for LTRCA by Reid and Grand (1994) which documented candidate areas for protection within sections of the watershed. The Tubb's Creek Headwater SNA was identified as a Priority "A" site by Reid and Grand (1994) and The Lakeport Creek Headwater SNA as a Priority "C" site. Recommendations from this study lead to the preparation of more detailed analyses by Brownell and Blaney (1995) which led to the identification of two Significant Natural Areas(SNAs) in the vicinity of the proposed pit.
In a letter to LTRCA by GLL on 20 July 2002 additional information was presented to show some inaccuracies in the Brownell and Blaney mapping. Based on their analysis, GLL argues that had this more detailed information been available to Brownell and Blaney, the central woodlot on the Shelter Valley Aggregates property would not have been included in the Tubb's Corners Headwater SNA. They also conclude that the extractive operation proposed will not have a negative impact on the Tubb's Corners Headwater SNA ecological attributes and functions.
In response LTRCA (24 September 2003) notes that "..the Conservation Authority views the Significant Natural Areas identified by Brownell, as part of the natural heritage system and endeavours to protect them." LTRCA also notes that since SNAs are not designated or protected there is no mechanism for deleting the central woodlot from the designation as requested by GLL. While agreeing with the findings of GLL on the subject lands, LTRCA notes "...the only outstanding concern is the net loss of natural area and woodland that would occur if extraction were to occur."
In this same letter LTRCA states that compensation for this loss of the central woodlot would be the retention/protection of the southern woodlot. We disagree. Retention of the southern woodlot will be a mitigative measure, but will provide no compensation for the loss of the central woodlot While we acknowledge that the southern woodlot is of higher quality than the central woodlot, both are part of the Tubb's Corner Headwater SNA and both provide a number of functions including wildlife linkages. Removal of one of these connections and reduction of the total wooded area is not compensated for by retaining the other one.
Compensation may be provided as identified by LTRCA in the longer term by reforestation of the area of extraction when the pit is closed. However the rehabilitation plan for the site (MHBC) calls for a 120 metre ecological restoration area adjacent to the southern woodlot with the balance of the property reverting to farm uses. This will result in a net decrease in the area of forested land.
The present application will lead to a net reduction in both area of woodlot and connectivity both between the SNAs and other wildlife habitat to the north. Even with the future revegetation of 120 metres adjacent to the southern woodlot, there will be a net loss of forest cover and a concomitant loss in wildlife habitat.
In their final letter of 24 June, 2003, LTRCA states they have no concerns with the application. They do recommend, however, that two areas, the southern woodlot and a meadow marsh swale and 30 metre setback on the western portion of the property be protected from extraction. The final plan for this property shows protection of the southern woodlot but extraction of the meadow marsh swale.
3.5 Public Concerns
As part of our retainer, NEA was also asked to evaluate concerns of the public for this application. Council has forwarded all letters received for review and comment.
A total of 184 letters was received. A total of 99 people wrote letters, with 45 people writing twice and 10 writing three times. Some residents have written 6 letters. Table I lists our summary of the concerns expressed in these letters. This table shows that the number one concern was for safety from the increased truck traffic. The second most cited concern was for environmental impacts followed by dust and noise impacts and then human health.
This high level of concern appears to be related to the expectations of the residents for peace and quiet and "quality of life" by living in this rural area. They view the potential impacts of the proposed extraction operation on their lifestyle as significant and the benefits to themselves and the community as insignificant to non existent.
4.0 Conclusions
The Level I and 2 reports provide a good species inventory of the subject property but are weak in the analysis of impacts. Prior to any approval of this site for extraction, further analysis of the features and functions identified on and adjacent to this property is required. 4.1 Natural Environment 1) Impacts to fish and fish habitat have been adequately addressed provided that there is no surface water discharge to Cold Creek and provided the groundwater conclusions of Gartner Lee are validated. There are contradictory statements as to whether or not there will be seasonal discharges to this creek. If there are discharges then additional information should be provided to demonstrate how the cold water fisheries will be protected under all conditions.
2) Significant wildlife habitat and functions have been identified on and adjacent to this property. The proposed operation will result in the removal of 23 hectares of forest habitat and the rehabilitation plan will provide a replacement of only 5 hectares of forest cover some time in the future. This will result in a net loss of wildlife habitat. The significance of this loss must be identified and evaluated prior to concluding conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement has been achieved.
3) The Level I and 2 reports have focused on the connectivity between Tubb's Corners Headwater SNA and the Lakeport Creek Headwater SNA, and the importance of the southern woodlot in maintaining this connection. Since the central woodlot contains less significant forms of vegetation its role as a connective link either between the two SNAs or further north has not been evaluated. The significance of this central connection, and conversely the significance of its loss, has not been evaluated. This must be evaluated prior to concluding conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement has been achieved.
4) The Level I report should examine the bird species that are considered area sensitive as per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR, 2000). The Level 2 report should include an impact analysis of the proposed operation on each species.
5) Eight of the regionally significant plant species identified by GLL will be lost from the property as a result of approval of this application. An impact analysis is required to determine the significance of this loss to any remaining populations of these species in adjacent areas, the region or the province.
6) Section 16 b (v) of the Township of Haldimand Official Plan "In order to preserve the scenic beauty and amenity of the area, aggregate operations will generally be restricted to areas which can be screened from public view" should be addressed prior to approval of this application.
5.0 References Brownell, V. and C.S. Blaney (1995) A Biological Inventory and Evaluation
of Twenty Areas in the Lower Trent Region. A Consultant Report for
LTRCA, March 1995 - Draft Report.
GLL (2003) Level I and Level 2 Assessment of Proposed Sand and Gravel
Pit Township of AInwick/Haldimand. A Consultant report prepared
by Gartner Lee Limited for Shelter Valley Aggregates February 2003.
GLL (2003) Clarification Letter from Gartner Lee Limited to Niblett
Environmental Associates dated 8 December 2003 providing
background information to consultations with Lower Trent Conservation.
MHBC (2003) Aggregate Resources Act Licence Application Package &
Township of Haldimand Re-Zoning Application Report Shelter Valley Pit.
A Consultant report prepared by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning
Limited for Shelter Valley Aggregates Ltd. February 2003.
Ontario (1997) Provincial Policy Statement Revised February 1997.
Reid, R. and J. Grand (1994) Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority
Natural Areas - Wetlands Evaluation. Landscape Analysis and Project Outline.
A consultant report prepared by Bobolink Enterprises for LTRCA, Trenton, 133pp.
Township of Haldimand (2002) Official Plan. April 2002 Text Consolidation.
