re: application for a category 2, class a quarry below water … · ministry of natural resources,...

M.A.Q. Aggregates, Inc. Agency Review Response Highland Quarry February 6, 2008

i

i

February 6, 2008 AEC: 04-015 Ministry of Natural Resources Midhurst District 2284 Nursery Road Midhurst, Ontario L0L 1X0 Attention: Ms. Kathy Woeller

District Planner RE: Application for a Category 2, Class A Quarry Below Water Licence

Highland Quarry– M.A.Q. Aggregates Inc. Response to Agency Review Comments

Dear Madam: The following documentation has been prepared to address issues and concerns raised by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Niagara Escarpment Commission, the County of Grey, and the Municipality of Grey Highlands on the application for an Aggregate Resources Act (ARA: Category 2, Class A Quarry Below Water) of the proposed Highland Quarry. The comments received to date on the ARA application included:

1. Niagara Escarpment Commission (letter dated April 19, 2007 addressed to Mr. Randy Scherzer);

2. Ministry of Natural Resources (letter dated February 8, 2007 addressed to Mr. David White); and

3. Municipality of Grey Highlands: Draft Summary of Comments from MAQ Agency Meeting, which includes comments and concerns by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) (email from Mr. Randy Scherzer to Mr. Don Scott).

To provide the agencies with a clear and concise response, the report has been organized to address each issue, whether is it related to the hydrogeology, hydrology, or natural environment. In light of the concerns raised, the proposed extraction limits have been revised to provide additional protection to the Hart’s Tongue Fern, the woodlots, and the wetlands. It is hoped that this additional information provides the information required to allow the agencies to complete their technical review of the ARA application.


ii

ii

Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Tecia White, M.Sc., P.Geo Senior Hydrogeologist GARTNER LEE LIMITED Christopher Wren, Ph.D. Senior Environmental Scientist BEACON ENVIRONMENTAL Ron Huizer, B.Sc. Honours Principal ROBIN CRAIG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Robin Craig BSc., MSc. Cc David White, QC Quinn Moyer, MAQ Aggregates David Webster, Ministry of Natural Resources Kathy Pounder, Niagara Escarpment Commission Andy Sorenson, Grey Sauble Conservation Authority – GSCA

Kathleen Crawford-Patterson, Grey Highlands Randy Scherzer, Grey County


iii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Report Organization....................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ..............................................................3 3.0 SIGNIFICANT HABITAT OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................17 4.0 OTHER NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS........................................20

4.1 Significant Woodlands................................................................................................. 20 4.2 Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern.............................................................. 24

5.0 HYDROGEOLOGY .........................................................................................................28

5.1 Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)....................................................................... 28 5.2 Hydogeological Impact Assessment ............................................................................ 28 5.3 Highland Quarry Rehabilitation Plan........................................................................... 31

6.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................33

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Wetness Index for Plant Species Table 2 Duration of Frog Breeding Table 3 Summary of Surface Water Flows Table 4 Butternut Health Survey Highland Quarry (2007) Table 5 Significant Forest Habitat of the Highland Quarry site and Adjacent Lands Table 6 Hart’s Tongue Fern Survey (Highland Quarry 2006-2007)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Woodland Evaluation (Pre-Development) Figure 2 Woodland Evaluation (Post-Development) Figure 3 Significant Natural Features (Pre and Post-Development) Figure 4 Proposed Natural Features Setback Figure 5 Surface Water Monitoring Locations


1

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION M.A.Q. Aggregates, Inc. (MAQ) has submitted an application under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to license the Highland property located on Part of Lot 20, Lot 21, and Part of Lot 22, Concession A, Municipality of Grey Highlands (Grey Highlands). The ARA application is to licence the entire 100 ha property, of which 61 ha are proposed for aggregate extraction (Category 2, Class A Quarry Below Water). MAQ is diligently following the process for applications under the Act, which is laid out in the Aggregate Resources of Ontario, Provincial Standards. The Provincial Standards contain a set of standard application criteria, which includes guidance on the requirements for the technical reports, which are to accompany the application. The technical reports that have been submitted in support of the a ARA licence for the Highland Quarry include:

1. Level 2 Hydrogelogical Assessment / Numerical Modelling Report (Azimuth and Earthfx);

2. Natural Environment Report Level 1 and Level 2 (Gartner Lee Limited); 3. Archaeological Assessment (North York Archaeological Services); 4. Blast Impact Assessment (Explotech Engineering Ltd.); 5. Acoustic Study (Hugh Williamson and Associates, Inc.); and 6. Haul Route and Transportation Assessment

(Consult Tatham Transporation Consultants).

In addition to a licence under the ARA, the proposed Highland Quarry also requires planning approvals pursuant to the Planning Act. The County of Grey (County) and the Municipality of Grey Highlands (Grey Highlands) are responsible for determining the appropriateness of a proposed land use through the review and approval of applications pursuant to the Planning Act. The Aggregate Resources Act provides that no licence can be issued if a zoning by-law prohibits the site from being used for the establishment or operation of a quarry. The licencing of the Highland Quarry requires amendments to the County Official Plan, the Grey Highlands Official Plan and the Grey Highlands Zoning By-law. In order to determine if the proposed land use is appropriate the County and Grey Highlands rely on the technical expertise of the MNR and the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA). The above mentioned agencies have completed their reviews of the technical reports submitted in support of the quarry application and have provided comments. Furthermore as the Highland Quarry is located within the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area, the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) was circulated and has provided comments on the ARA application. This report has been prepared to address the comments associated with the Level 2 Hydrogelogical Assessment Report (Azimuth, 2005) and Natural Environment Report Level 1 and Level 2 (Gartner Lee Limited).


2

2

1.1 Report Organization This report has been organized to provide the agencies with a clear and concise response to all the comments raised through the review process. MAQ has received review comments on the application in the form of several correspondences, including both letters from the MNR and NEC, in addition to an email from Grey County. The official comments are provided by the MNR in a letter dated February 8, 2007. These comments focus on the predicted impact to the Provincially Significant Wetlands, endangered species, and significant woodlands. Our response to these comments is provided in Sections 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The comments provided by the NEC focus more on the ground water impacts and the interaction between surface water features. The additional information requested to clarify the NEC concerns are provided in Section 5. Lastly, there were several general comments, which are addressed in Section 6. As expected in situations when there are multiple review agencies, there were several concerns that were raised more than once. In this situation, the concern and corresponding response is provided under the most relevant section of the documents. The concerns are highlighted in blue and italicized.


3

3

2.0 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS Concern: According to the report, the Central Wetland will overflow less often thus

altering the hydroperiod (the period of time during which a wetland is covered by water), potentially resulting in a shift of the wetland community’s floral composition.

Azimuth: During the spring runoff, there will be no alteration to the hydroperiod. Analysis

of post-development surface water flow to the Central Wetland have demonstrated that spring flow will be sufficient to “fill” the wetland pocket to present day levels (i.e. to the elevation of the karst overflow). Currently, when the wetland’s maximum spring water level is achieved, excess surface water inputs are transferred through karst flow to the North Wetland. Following spring flow, the wetland’s water level slowly draws down as a result of evaporation and water transpiration from trees. Water losses in the wetland as a result of infiltration are minimal due to the underlying clay layer (discussed further below). There is insufficient water surplus during the remainder of the year to result in standing water to accumulate in the Central Wetland.

Beacon: Based on the vegetation community in the Central Wetland no changes in the

plant species is expected to occur. The primary vegetation components of the existing swamp wetland is a canopy of young Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) with a subcomponent of Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra), American Elm (Ulmus americana), Yellow Birch (Betula allegheniensis) and Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea). The understory is comprised of a variety of shrub species, primarily Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Mountain Maple (Acer spicatum) and Choke Cherry (Prunus virginiana). Ground flora is primarily composed of Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis), Fowl Manna Grass (Glyceria striata), Field Horsetail (Equisetum arvense), Northern White Violet (Viola macloskeyi) and Dwarf Enchanter’s Nightshade (Circaea alpina).

As indicated in Table 1 (below), the primary tree species in the community are facultative in their soil moisture requirements, being able to grow in both wetland and upland conditions. The only tree species that requires prolonged saturated soil is Black Ash, and this species is not dominant in the community. Similarly, the primary species of the community’s shrub component are facultative upland and wetland species. The groundcover is also represented by species with soil moisture requirements along a gradient from upland to wetland. Based on the wetness index of the plant species present, it is clear that this community is regularly exposed to soil moisture gradients from saturated to dry, as would be expected given the ephemeral nature of the wetland. Based on the soil moisture requirements of the primary plants species of the wetland community, soil


4

4

saturation conditions are achieved through the spring (April-May) and drying of soils occurs through the summer (August-September). A significant shift in the plant community is not expected to occur.

Table 1. Wetness Index for Plant Species

Plant Species Wetness Index Trees

Acer rubrum 0 FAC Acer saccharinum -3 FAC Betula allegheniensis 0 FAC Abies balsamea -3 FACW Fraxinus nigra -4 FACW Ulnus americana -2 FACW

Shrubs Acer spicatum 3 FACU Prunus virginiana 1 FAC- Cornus stolonifera -3 FACW

Ground Cover Equisetum arvense 0 FAC Viola macloskeyi -5 OBL Circaea alpina -3 FACW Onoclea sensibilis -3 FACW Matteuccia struthiopteris -3 FACW Glyceria striata -5 OBL OBL Obligate Wetland – always occurs in wetland, >99% probability FACW Facultative Wetland – Usually in wetland, 67-99% probability FAC Facultative – Occurs in either wetland or upland FACU Facultative Upland – Usually in upland, 67-99% probability UPL Obligate Upland – always occurs in upland, >99% probability Source: Oldham et al, 1995.

Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario. NHIC.


5

5

Concern: While the report recognizes the temporal changes to the hydroperiod, it has not considered the qualitative aspects (water temperatures, depth and quality) of the water that flows into the Central and Northern Wetland and how they may be altered.

Azimuth: The Central Wetland will continue to collect spring freshet and overflow into the

Northern Wetland. Therefore, the only function of the wetland that is altered during this period is a decrease in overflow to the Northern Wetland (53,000 m3) during the spring period. This reduction represents approximately 5% of the total post development spring freshet entering the Northern Wetland.

During the summer the surface water runoff to the Central Wetlands will be reduced by 10,000 m3. As a result, there will be approximately 5,000 m3 remaining, which will be collected in the Central Wetland over the non-spring freshet period. This volume is equivalent to a total standing water depth of 0.2 m over the wetland ponding area of 2.4 ha.

There is no reason for the chemical character or thermal of the spring freshet that overflows from the Central Wetland into the Northern Wetland to change as a result in the reduction of the catchment area. An evaluation in the change in water quality would only be required if pumping of incidental water from the quarry sump to the Central Wetland were to occur (i.e., ground water versus surface water). However, based on the impact assessment competed for the Central Wetlands vegetation components, it is understood that the pumping of supplemental waters to this feature is not required to maintain its biological function. A berm will be constructed around the proposed Central Wetland boundary to ensure that all surface water runoff remains in the catchment area (i.e., does not runoff into the quarry).

Concern: The surface water catchment of the Northern Wetland will be reduced from

281 ha to 254 ha and may result in changes to the composition of the vegetation communities or contribute to declines in the amphibian population. It is not know if the changes in hydrology would further impact reptiles utilizing the site, as these species were not studied during the field season.

Beacon: The North Wetland is a treed swamp community that is of similar composition to

the Central Wetland, with Silver Maple and Red Maple representing the primary tree species. The canopy also supports a sub-component of American Elm and Balsam Fir. The dominant shrub is Red-osier Dogwood. Groundcover is also similar to that of the Central Wetland, however, Ostrich Fern (Matteucia


6

6

struthipteris), is the common groundcover throughout. This wetland has formed along an intermittent watercourse, with flow occurring primarily during the spring freshet. Standing water in the wetland is absent by early summer and by late summer soils are dry.

Though the total volume of surface water flow will be reduced during the spring, spring flow will be sufficient to maintain a soil moisture regime that is consistent with existing conditions. Existing wetland plants of the community are facultative and tolerant of both upland and wetland soil moisture regimes and are typically exposed to summer drying. Based on these factors, a significant shift in the plant community is not expected to occur.

Spring breeding surveys conducted for the Northern and Central Wetland identified four frog species and one toad species, Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica), Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) and American Toad (Buffo americanus). No Ambystoma salamanders were found breeding on the site. For successful breeding, frogs and toads require ephemeral ponds that maintain standing water for a sufficient number of days to allow eggs to hatch and tadpoles to grow and complete metamorphosis to the adult stage. The period of time (days) from the laying of eggs to emergence of adults from the breeding pond varies with species. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the time requirements for the species documented as breeding in the wetlands on the subject property.

Table 2: Duration of Frog Breeding

Species Egg Hatching Period Tadpole to Adult Total Duration

American Toad 2 - 12 days (late April) 40 - 70 days 42 - 82 days Spring Peeper 6 - 12 days (April) 50 - 90 days 56 - 102 days Western Chorus Frog 3 - 14 days (April) 40 - 90 days 43 - 104 days Wood Frog 10 - 14 days (April) 40 - 80 days 50 - 94 days Northern Leopard Frog 10 - 12 days (May) 60 - 90 days 70 - 102 days Source: Wright, A.H. and A.A. Wright 1975. Hand Book of Frogs and Toads. 1975. 640 pg.

The range in the number of days from egg hatch and transformation to adult is dependant on the water temperature of the pond (i.e. the warmer the water, the faster the hatch and growth) and the onset of water level decline in the pond (i.e. as the transformation period approaches, tadpoles can speed up the transformation process during drought conditions, emerging as smaller adults). For the frog species on the subject property, April breeding species (Spring Peeper, Chorus Frog and Wood Frog) require, on average, 70 days from laying of


7

7

eggs to young adults emerging from the breeding pond, a period of 10 weeks. During most years, egg laying for these species will be underway by April 15th in the local area. Therefore, young adult frogs would begin to the leave the ponds by the last week of June. Adult American Toads would emerge from the last week of June through the first week of July. Northern Leopard Frogs would transform to adults from the end of June to mid July. Based on this assessment, during a year of average temperature and rainfall, standing water ephemeral pools in the wetland areas would be maintained until the end of June, thus maintaining local frog populations. Analysis of projected hydro-periods for these wetlands indicates that standing water would remain in the wetland ephemeral pools through June.

Robin Craig The Natural Heritage Resource Manual (pg. 110) states “snakes are difficult to

inventory…” and it also suggests that “casual observation will suffice when assessing potential development impacts”. The manual further recommends that “when there is a concern about a particular species” additional efforts could be undertaken to inventory reptiles. Surveys for reptiles were conducted on the site and consisted of searching under fallen logs and other debris and discussions with the landowners (page 15, “Level 2 Natural Environment Report for the Proposed Highland Quarry” July 2006). There were also 20 different field days spent on the property between May and September over two seasons, by three different and competent biologists noting wildlife species. Only two reptiles were documented. When conducting background checks of the site, no data were found regarding reptilian species of concern, thus more intensive inventory was not warranted. We believe that there are very few reptiles on the site and that, as a result, reptiles will not be impacted by changes to hydrology.

Concern: According to the numerical modeling conducted, the Central Wetland will

experience a significant drawdown effect within the bedrock beneath the wetland. No information has been provided with respect to any intrusive testing, or discussion on the vertical flux of ground water across the wetland and into the Paleozoic rocks beneath. No information has been provided as to how much water will be lost through ground water infiltration.

Azimuth: Intrusive testing (Test Hole #2) was completed on June 27, 2007 in the Central

Wetland. Results indicate that beneath the organic layer at surface, there is a dense clay unit that supports the wetland. This supports the findings presented in the Azimuth report, which reported the details of a similar subsurface investigation (pg 20 paragraph 2).


8

8

Test Hole #2: Located within Central Wetland Test Pit Purpose: To determine depth to bedrock and presence of

potential overburden aquifer. Test Pit Description 0.00 - 0.25 m Top Soil Black peat topsoil, saturated 0.25 – 1.00 m Clay Brown clay, trace silt, saturated, soft, becomes gray at 0.5 m. 1.00 – 1.10 m Silt Gray silt, dry, very dense, blocky structure. Excavation halted at 1.10 m as silt could not be augered by hand. No monitoring well installed

Both the organic materials and clay were reported as saturated, with a very dense dry silt layer beneath. Precipitation data indicates that little to no rain fell after June 5, when 54 mm fell over three days. Fifty percent of any rainfall is typically considered to be lost to evapotranspiration leaving 50% for infiltration and/or runoff (i.e., water surplus). The equivalent water depth of 27 mm of runoff from the 21 ha collected in the ponding area of the Central Wetland (2.4 ha) is 0.24 m of standing water.

Therefore, the materials beneath the wetland remained saturated for a period of at least three weeks, indicating that recharge to the ground water system is minimal. This would be expected based on the extremely low permeability of the 0.75 m of clay that was encountered.

The Central Wetland is a “perched” surface water system. Therefore, the rate of infiltration beneath the wetland is controlled by the hydaulic conductivity of the clay, the recharge area, and the hydraulic gradient across the clay unit. The hydraulic gradient across the clay is defined by the water level in the wetland, and the base of the confining unit. This gradient ranges between zero (when the soils are dry) and approximately 1.75 m/m (when wetland is “full”).

Concern: Excavation in the Central Wetland catchment area may intercept karstic flow

from the Central Wetland to the Northern Wetland. To mitigate, additional monitoring wells may be needed in the vicinity of the karstic features in order to safeguard against possible catastrophic events. With respect to creation of the


9

9

berm, no information has been provided as to the impact of such berm to the North Wetland.

Azimuth: Dye testing results indicate that the karstic flow from the Central Wetland

follows a relatively simple conduit flow system to the North Wetland based on surface water flow rates, measured time of travel, and total recovered dye concentrations. Although based on the testing results, the pathway appears to be relatively direct, (i.e., ground water flow through limestone typically follows a tortuous pathway). There is a potential that the quarry face intercepts this flow path. If such a situation were to occur, the results would be instantaneous and presumably observable in terms of flow into the quarry along the face. The use of monitoring wells to safeguard against the potential for this to occur (i.e., karstic flow enters quarry) would be based on the assumption that these wells would be used to delineate the karstic pathway.

Due to the tortuous nature of the karstic feature, the ability to accurately identify the subsurface pathway becomes extremely difficult. Therefore, monitoring wells are not considered a feasible monitoring / trigger method. If the karstic feature is intersected, other mitigative methods were suggested such as the berm or through other engineering solutions (i.e., construction an overland flow system to the Northern Wetland).

To ensure the hydrological function of the Central Wetland is maintained, it is recommended that the preferred mitigative option be the construction of an overland channel from Sink #1 to Seep #1. This is pro-offered since the sink flow is virtually channel flow immediately beneath the ground surface. As such, the “buried” flow is irrelevant to the conveyance of this water from one point to the other and therefore can be routed overland with no significant loss to the functionality of this flow. The proposed channel would be constructed from the Sink #1 (at an elevation of approximately 519 masl) to Seep #1 (approximately at an elevation of 517 masl). This channel would be constructed in a manner that would limit ground water infiltration through the cap rock (i.e., clay lined), which would ensure all overflow water reached Seep #1. The sinkhole from the Central Wetland would be sealed with Bentonite grout.

Concern: The Rob Roy Complex will reportedly have a 25% reduction in flow supply. With the dewatering directed to it from the operating quarry, there will be a net increase of 17%. During the time period between when the quarry is not in operation (i.e., no de-watering occurring), and has not yet reached equilibrium, there will be a net 25% reduction in flow to the complex. It is not clear how long this period will last or what the impact may be.


10

10

Azimuth: It should be noted that predicted reduction represents the change from the modelled area, not the change for the entire to the Beaver River watershed. The modeling exercise predicts a 25% reduction to the Beaver and Mad River, which represents a change from 22.6 L/s to 17.0 L/s. The simulation predicts that the impact compared to “pre-quarry” conditions. The reduction to the baseflow to the rivers as a result of the existing Duntroon Quarry is 1.7 L/s (current baseflow is modeled as 20.8 L/s). The predicted reduction from the proposed quarry operations (i.e., Highland and Duntroon expansion) is 18%. Approximately 2% of this amount is directed towards the Mad River. Therefore the total predicted reduction (16%) represents the change in our study area to the Beaver River.

To put this into perspective, the Beaver River Watershed area covers an

approximate area of 377,000 ha (152,500 acres). The portion that drains to the Beaver River from our study area covers an area of 1,640 ha (0.4 % of the Beaver River watershed). Thus, we are looking at 16% reduction within 0.4% of the watershed (a total reduction of approximately 0.006%).

The following discussion is meant to demonstrate that the ground water contribution to the Beaver River at our study boundary is very small. Surface water monitoring data has been collected by Jagger Hims at the boundary of the study area since 2004 (September, 2007). Of particular interest are stations SW5, SW6, and SW6A, which monitor flow downgradient of the Highland and Georgian properties (Figure 5). The following table summarizes the fluctuation in flows at each of these monitoring locations Table 3: Summary of Surface Water Flows

Spring High Summer Low Station No. Flow (L/s)

SW5 246-742 1-12 SW6 371-1376 0-30 SW6A 600-1670 15-53 The numerical modelling results indicate that the baseflow at SW6A (model area boundary) will decrease by 16%. Therefore, a baseflow of 15 – 53 L/s would be reduced to 12.6 to 44.5 L/s. This range captures the steady-state evaluation that predicts the reduction from 20.8 to 17.0 L/s (16% reduction).

The majority of the water that flows through the system is considered to be surface water runoff from either spring melt or stormwater. A simple water balance calculation shows that if the average annual snow pack (267 mm – equivalent water depth) melts over a 6-week period, flows at SW6A should be approximately 1,670 L/s (based on a catchment area of 1,640 ha). This


11

11

calculation compares favourably with the surface water flows collected by Jagger Hims at SW6A. Baseflow is considered to be approximately 15 L/s, while flows greater represent stormwater runoff (with a slight increase in baseflow during these periods). For clarity, this concern evolves around a “post quarrying” situation when the quarry will be allowed to fill with ground and surface water to its final rehabilitated level. Hence the last question is asking how long would it take from cessation of active dewatering to a final rehabilitated state. Using a steady state approach, the final quarry volume represents 13,200,000 m3 (i.e., up to the estimated rehabilitation level of 512 masl). Net direct precipitation into the quarry per annum is ~500 mm/a or 300,000 m3. The numerical modeling estimates that the quarry will intercept 403,900 m3/a. Thus, it would take approximately 20 years to fill the quarry to the estimated rehabilitation level.

Concern: No work has been completed to date with respect to fish habitat. The agencies would like to receive justification that the proposed quarry operation will not have impacts to the Beaver River. This includes assessing whether or not impacts from: reducing the catchment areas, reducing the amount of water flowing through the wetlands, the quality of the water being put into the wetlands; etc. will not have an impact downstream to the fish habitat within the Beaver River.

Gartner Lee: Our response below is subdivided into two sections: first dealing with work

conducted with respect to fish habitat, and secondly, justification that the proposed quarry will not impact fish habitat within the Beaver River.

1) Work has been undertaken with respect to fish habitat both on and off-site. Extensive surveys and documentation on the site have shown there is no fish habitat on the proposed Highland Quarry property itself. Therefore, there will be no direct impacts to fish habitat as a result of the undertaking.

The closest fish habitat to the subject property is found in what is referred to as the South Tributary to the Beaver River. This is a small stream that is located to the south of the Highland site on the adjacent Georgian Aggregates property and flows in a westerly direction. The stream originates in a wetland complex on the Georgian property and flow is supported almost entirely by discharge from the Duntroon Quarry operation. Seep #3 (discussed below) also discharges into this tributary when the seep is flowing. The tributary supports small cyprinids that are restricted to isolated pools and pockets of standing water when Duntroon is not discharging and during dry


12

12

periods. During run-off events and periods of discharge from Duntroon stream flows up to 720 L/s have been recorded (Jagger Hims 2007). In contrast, during wet periods, flow from Seep #3 is in the range of 1-4 L/s. Suitable brook trout spawning habitat was noted by our study team in the South Tributary about 1 km from the southern boundary of the Highland property (Gartner Lee, July 2006), but fish habitat surveys closer to the boundary reported degraded fish habitat due to livestock grazing (Stantec 2005; also Gartner Lee study team observations). No measurable reduction in flow of the South Tributary is predicted as a result of the proposed Highland Quarry, therefore, no off-site impacts to fish habitat in the South Tributary are expected. 2) We recognize and accept that the Beaver River and its watershed contain coldwater fish species including migratory salmonids in the lower reaches, and additional studies were not considered necessary to support this position. Native brook trout are reported to occur in the upper reaches of the Beaver River including reaches of the Southern Tributary, which is located south-west of the proposed Highland Quarry site as just discussed. As discussed in response to the comment above the water balance assessment predicts about a 16% reduction in baseflow (groundwater) leaving the subject property toward the Beaver River catchment area. This represents a change from about 20.8 to 17.0 L/s. However, the majority of the water that flows from the site is surface water runoff from either spring melt or storm events, where flow from the site is estimated to be as high as 1,670 L/s. Thus, the contribution of surface water to the Beaver River watershed far outweighs the groundwater or baseflow contribution. Finally, the subject area only represents 0.4% of the Beaver River watershed area. Therefore, there is no reason to expect impacts to the off-site fisheries or fish habitat in the Beaver River or Rob Roy wetland complex as a result of the proposed change in the catchment area. Lastly, there is no reason for the chemical character or thermal of the spring freshet that overflows from the Central Wetland into the Northern Wetland to change as a result in the reduction of the catchment area. Thus, no changes in water quality in fish habitat is predicted.

Concern: The Duntroon Quarry encountered a significant fracture along its west face and

remedial action was required to stop the flow of water. It is unclear as to the mitigative plan for the Highland Quarry should a similar fracture be encountered late or early in the extraction process.


13

13

Azimuth: The geological conceptual model for the Amabel Formation, which is presented

in the Azimuth (2006) report, is considered to consist of a number of discontinuous vertical fractures. The structural geology of the Amabel Formation in the vicinity of the Highland Quarry area is unique in comparison to the traditional fractured limestones in southern Ontario. The conceptual structural model for the Amabel Formation is a vertically dominated fracture network, where extensive vertical joints intersect lateral / discontinuous bedding plane fractures. Typically regionally extensive bedding plane fractures dominate the fractured rock flow system.

Recognizing that vertical joints can plan a fundamental role in ground and surface water interaction, assessing the location of potential vertical joints became an important component of the hydrogeological assessment. Of specific interest was the potential for the occurrence of vertical joint lineaments, which intersect the Highland property to surface water features in the vicinity of the site. In this regard, Dr. Cruden, a professor of structural geology and tectonics at the University of Toronto was retained to complete a vertical joint assessment. The results of this study indicate that there are no significant regional lineaments (i.e., joints) were identified to be within or that intersect the Highland property; unlike that present at the Duntroon Quarry (i.e., stream alignment that coincided with the quarry extraction). The presence of a clay filled vertical fracture was identified in the drilling program (at OW4), indicating that isolated joints of finite horizontal length exist. The specific joint encountered at OW4 would provide limited vertical leakage due to the low permeability of the clay material, which has filled the joint. The jointing frequency has not been determined, but estimates suggest that it would be on the order of 50 m per significant joint (Cruden, 2005). However, what differentiates this site location is that it exists on a bedrock peninsula that is partially buried to the west. The re-entrant valley of the Pretty River extends south past this site location and severs this portion of the Amabel bedrock from remainder of the rock mass that exists further west of the Pretty River re-entrant valley. As such, the preferred jointing orientation fractures passing through the site are expected to terminate into the side of the Pretty River re-entrant valley. The re-entrant valley is a ground water sink (i.e., drains water into the Pretty River as opposed to supplying water). Thus, it is doubtful that a ground water source can emulate from the valley present northwest of the site, which would supply a significant quantity of surface water. In short, the site location is not conducive to this arrangement.


14

14

Regardless of the findings showing the presence/absence of conductive vertical fractures in the vicinity of the Highland property, there are mitigative options that have been proven to minimize the associated impacts, if required. As discussed in the Azimuth report (2006), a vertical / lateral fracture system, which is connected to a surface water feature was encountered as extraction at the Duntroon Quarry proceeded in a westerly direction. The incidental water from the quarry is discharged to this surface water feature, and as a result of the vertical connection between a joint and a lateral bedding plane, water was being re-circulated back into the quarry. To minimize the ground water influx from this fracture network to the quarry, a large pond was constructed. The pond was constructed to abut against the quarry face, creating a hydraulic gradient which has proven to reduce the impact of the quarry on ground and surface water features (Jagger Hims, as per com October 2007). The induced hydraulic head from within the quarry as also minimized impacts to adjacent water wells, which are believed to be connected to the vertical / lateral fracture system intercepted by the quarry.

Concern: We do not concur with the conclusion that these wetlands have no important or

sensitive features. As such, we do not support the concept that a 15 m vegetative buffer will be adequate to protect these features. Furthermore, we do not believe that a 15 m buffer will be sufficient to mitigate edge effects such as, increase wind speeds, solar radiation, air temperature, all of which affect moisture gradients.

Beacon: As detailed in the Level 2 Natural Environment Report, with respect to

ecological functions, no critical wetland functions are supported by the existing adjacent uplands along the boundaries of the Central or North Wetlands. As a result, buffer requirements along the wetland boundary were identified for mitigating general disturbance impacts. As noted in the report, existing literature identifies that 15 m wide disturbance barrier buffers can be effective, provided they are covered by vegetation such as trees and shrubs. The report also details that for the wetland boundaries a 15 m buffer would be identified as a minimum buffer width, but that buffer widths much greater than 15 m would be established based on the proposed extraction limits.

Based on a review of the current proposed plan (Figure 4), the minimum buffer width is 32 m wide for the Central Wetland, with a maximum width of 60 m. A buffer width of 35 m or more is identified for more than 90% of the total wetland boundary. At present, greater than 75% of the Central Wetland boundary lies directly adjacent to open agricultural field, without any apparent edge effects from wind, sun or air temperature. Therefore, providing a treed buffer with a width of approximately 35 m around the wetland is identified as adequate


15

15

mitigation for maintaining existing physical conditions along the Central Wetland edge.

Based on the current proposed plan (Figure 4), the North Wetland boundary has an approximate straight-line length of 1,156 m along the northern extraction limit. Along this boundary a treed buffer with a minimum width of 90 m to over 400 m will be maintained for a continuous length of 490 m, representing more than 40% of the total wetland boundary. At present, the adjacent lands support well-established mature hardwood forest for the remaining boundary. In addition, as identified in the Natural Environment Report, phasing of the proposed extraction will allow for the opportunity to initiate an edge management plan, including pre-stressing and vegetation gap restoration, well in advance of the time when the extraction limit will approach the wetland boundary. Given that the existing buffer lands are well vegetated, and that additional trees will be planted through the development of an edge management plan, the 15 m buffer will provide protection against changes in air temperature, sunlight penetration and drying effects.

With respect to increased potential for wind throw, the existing southern and northern edges of the woodlot in which the treed swamp is found shows no effects of wind throw, even though the edge is exposed to open fields. Similarly, the existing Central Wetland, which is also dominated by treed swamp, has over 75% of the wetland boundary adjacent to open field and is directly exposed to the wind with no apparent wind throw in the wetland.

Based on a review of existing buffer requirements for wetlands as documented in the literature, the proposed buffer widths based on the current extraction plan, and assessment of existing conditions of the edges of the wetlands on the subject property, the proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate potential edge effects along the boundaries of the Northern and Central Wetlands.

Concern: Justification for the buffers / setbacks around the central wetland area also

required. The justification should explore the current catchment areas of the wetlands and ensure that the proposed reduction to the catchment areas will not have an impact on the wetlands.

Azimuth: The delineation of the proposed setbacks around the Central Wetland was based

on topography and the catchment area required to maintain the hydrological function of the wetland. Topographically, two distinct ridges that are orientated with their long axis east-west are separated by a low-lying area, which contains the Central Wetland. To ensure that the Central Wetland continues to collect sufficient spring freshet to allow for the overflow into the Northern Wetland, a


16

16

minimum catchment area of 3.1 ha was required. With this in mind, a proposed extraction limit was defined by following the topographic contours (520-522 masl), preserving the natural surface water drainage pattern. The final extraction boundary creates a catchment area of 7 ha. Post development conditions will collect more twice the surface water runoff requirements, which would provide excess flow into the North Wetland.

Concern: Further justification is required with respect the width of the proposed peninsula

connecting the Central Wetland to the North Wetland. Azimuth: The proposed extraction boundary provides an extensive buffer width, which

connects the Central and North Wetland. This buffer with ranges between 490 m and 105 m, with an average of over 250 m. This width is dictated primarily by the inclusion of the Hart’s Tongue Fern colony, but also to capture an adequate area with the intent to contain the karstic features within a protected area.

Robin Craig: The proposed connection between the wetlands currently consists of a narrow

wooded section surrounded by agricultural crop land. The width of the proposed peninsula will allow for an expansion of the woodland to meet the Central Wetland through natural regeneration and form a more wildlife friendly connection.


17

17

3.0 SIGNIFICANT HABITAT OF ENDANGERED SPECIES Concern: While we have no concerns with the use of the CFS guidelines to assess the

health (of the butternut), we are unable to determine which trees were determined to be healthy as no information was provided in Table 4.3 that relates to the extent of the cankers.

According to the assessment, 15 of the 26 trees appear healthy which the remaining 11 trees are dead or dying. Although 15 trees are determined to be healthy only 2 of the trees are proposed to be retained as the remaining 13 are located within the area for extraction. There was mention that part of the mitigation measures would be to plant the two healthy saplings into the protected area. The agencies would like to see where the proposed planting area would be for these two saplings, and why that area was chosen.

Robin Craig: The butternut on the property were revisited during the 2007 growing season.

The health of all butternut was re-assessed using the Ostry method and the locations of all trees, especially “healthy” trees, were plotted.

A total of 30 butternut were found and assessed (Table 4). This is four more than reported originally as several additional dead and fallen trees were included in the 2007 results (Table 4). Only six trees met the criteria for retention (Figure 3) according to Ostry, that is trees with more than 70% live crown and less than 20% of the combined circumference of the bole (trunk) and root flares affected by cankers or trees with at least 50% live crown and not cankered on the bole or root flares. The retainable trees are identified as numbers 12, 18, 25, 26, 27 and 28 on Table 4. Three of the retainable trees are saplings with diameters less than 10 cm and three are mature with diameters greater than 20 cm. The saplings do not show any signs of the canker disease while the three mature trees all had some degree of canker with the circumference of bole and root flares affected ranging from 9 to 19%. Ostry states that coalescing cankers eventually kill severely affected trees but he goes on to say that trees able to overcome the infections should be retained to reproduce. The coalescing cankers may eventually kill the three mature trees on the property.

Three “retainable” trees are located close to each other near the old farm house on County Road 31 along the eastern boundary of the property. Two are saplings and one is a large mature tree with a diameter of 50 cm and about 13% of its circumference affected by canker. These three trees are located in the “cultural meadow” (CUM) ecological unit. A fourth butternut is another sapling located


18

18

between the agricultural field and the deciduous forest unit (FOD5-1) on the north area of the property. The fifth and sixth are two mature trees located in the deciduous forest unit (FOD3-1) in the north-east section of the property. One consists of two stems with diameters of 26 and 42 cm and about 19% of their circumferences affected by canker. The other consists of three stems, two of which are alive and standing having diameters of 34 and 27 cm respectively and about 9% of their circumferences affected by canker. These three trees are located in “deciduous forest woodland” ecological units.

One, if not all of these cankered, mature trees will likely succumb to the disease within the near future. The saplings are most likely progeny of the mature butternut on the property, all of which are dead, dying or infected with butternut canker. It is likely that these saplings will not have any more resistance to the disease than their parents and will eventually die of the disease as well.

Five of the six retainable butternut are located within the extraction limits of the proposal. The remaining tree is in the non-extraction area located within the connecting link between the central and north wetlands.

Proposed Mitigation

• Monitor the health of the six retainable butternut and report annually. The area in which five of these trees are located is not scheduled for extraction for about 20 years. We expect that, unless the three diseased, mature trees show some resistance to the canker, they will be dead before 20 years. We also expect that the three saplings will also be diseased in time because they are most likely descendants of dead or dying trees currently on the property and may have no more resistance than their parents.

• One sapling is currently located outside the proposed extraction area within the connection between the two wetlands.

• Transplant the two other retainable saplings, located near the old farm house, to the open area north of the wetland along the north property boundary outside the extraction area. This area is currently open, which is desirable for butternut.

• Plant 10 saplings per retainable, mature tree that is located in the proposed extraction area, so that 30 saplings in total will be planted. We will attempt to find canker resistant saplings that are produced locally. If these cannot be found we will search for other locally produced saplings. These saplings will be planted outside the proposed extractions areas, at various locations around the property to prevent or at least slow the potential spread of the disease.

• All butternut rescue efforts will be directed by knowledgeable experts. The proposal meets the test of the PPS and policy A. R. 2.01.07 regarding development in significant portions of the habitat of endangered species, because healthy, living saplings will be excluded from the extraction area or moved to a protected area and dying trees will be compensated with plantings in protected areas.


19

19

Table 4: Butternut Health Survey Highland Quarry (2007) Tree # (multi-stem)

Vigour Live Crown (%)

Circ. (cm)

dbh* (cm)

Amount of Canker/Circ (cm)

Canker % of Stem Circ.

Retainable Tree (y/n) /remarks

1 2 80 53 17 55/53 >20 n 2 2 90 65 21 41/65 >20 n 3 3 90 54 17 23/54 >20 n 4 2 90 58 18 40/58 >20 n 5 (a) 5 - 82 26 - - - (b) 5 - 69 22 - - - (c) 5 - 100 32 - - - 6 (a) 5 - 91 29 - - - (b) 3 50 125 40 70/125 >20 n 7 3 50 110 35 50/50 >20 n 8 (a) 5 - - - - - - (b) 5 - 105 35 - - - (c) 3 10 147 47 100/147 >20 n 9 5 - 153 49 - - - 10 3 20 145 46 130/145 >20 n 11 4 70 131 42 90/131 >20 n 12 3 70 156 50 20/156 <20 y 13 5 - 94 30 - - down 14 5 - - - - - down 15 3 70 112 36 85/85 >20 n 16 4 20 136 43 140/136 >20 n 17 (a) 4 <1 129 41 185/206 >20 n (b) 5 - 77 25 - - - 18 (a) 3 70 81 26 42/220 <20 y (b) 3 70 139 44 - - 19 (a) 4 30 56 18 32/117 >20 n (b) 4 50 61 19 - - - (c) 5 - 50 16 - - - 20 (a) 5 - 79 25 - - down (b) 5 - 110 35 - - down 21 (a) 5 - 91 29 - - down (b) 5 - 100 32 - - - 22 (a) 4 30 78 25 165/286 >20 n (b) 4 30 113 36 - - - (c) 4 30 95 30 - - - 23 5 - 130 41 - - n 24 (a) 5 - 130 41 - - down (b) 5 - 110 35 - - down 25 1 100 13 4 - <20 y 26 (a) 3 70 108 34 17/192 <20 y (b) 2 50 84 27 - - - (c) 5 - - - down 27 1 100 13 4 - <20 y 28 1 100 3 1 - <20 y/multi stem 29 5 - 81 26 - - leaner 30 (a) 5 - 116 37 - - down (b) 5 - 72 23 - - down

Note: Retainable trees highlighted in red


20

20

4.0 OTHER NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS 4.1 Significant Woodlands Concern: The criteria for determining significant woodlands suggested by OMNR are

based on recommendations made in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 1999 (NHRM).

The suggested criteria are:

• Size • Ecological Function • Uncommon Characteristics

“Size”: MNR suggests that we use the Municipality of Grey Highlands as the landscape unit in which to assess the significance of the woodland. Data provided by MNR (2007) indicate that Grey Highlands is currently 31% forested. A more ecological approach, which is suggested in “How much Habitat is Enough, 2004” is to assess woodland area on a watershed basis. For this proposal the upper Beaver River sub watershed was analysed for forest cover (Figure 5-2 Level 2 Report, July 2006). The forest cover using this approach was 37% with four areas greater than 200 ha. Referring to the NHRM regarding woodland size, a suggested standard is “Where woodland cover; occupies more than about 30% of the land, a minimum size is not suggested – consider other factors”.

Since both the municipality and the sub-watershed contain more than 30% forest coverage, the size of the woodland on the Highland Property should not be a consideration in determining significance.

“Ecological Function”: The NHRM again provides guidance. For

b) “Linkages” which is the only function we believe applies to the Highland Property, the suggested standards for significance are “woodlands with one or more natural heritage features or areas within their boundary” and “woodlands that are in, close to, or adjacent to, a groundwater discharge, recharge or headwater region”. The woodlands on the Highland property have several significant, natural heritage features and ecological functions including;

• Provincially Significant Wetlands, Rob Roy Complex • Endangered Species Habitat, butternut • Significant Wildlife Habitat, hart’s tongue fern • Forest interior habitat • Contains recharge and discharge functions.


21

21

“Uncommon Characteristics”; The NHRM suggested standards for significance are “unique composition, age, or site quality represented by less than 5% of the woodland area in the planning area”, and “older woodlands should be protected”. Using these standards we do not consider MNR’s concerns appropriate in this section. We considered the Hart’s Tongue Fern and butternut more appropriately designated as “natural features” within “ecological functions”. We do not consider the regionally rare plants to be “uncommon characteristics” or to be “ecological functions”. None of the species are provincial species of concern (S1, S2, or S3) nor are any considered at risk and they do not constitute natural heritage features that have protection under the County or Municipal planning policies with respect to the PPS.

The woodlands on the Highland property are typical for this area of Ontario consisting mainly of sugar maple and other common hardwoods and do not have any unique qualities within the planning area. The past forest management practices of logging and general forest tending have ensured that few trees greater than 100 years survive in the woodland. Therefore, the woodlands of the Highland property do not meet the standards for uncommon characteristics described in the NHRM.

Conclusion

The Highland Quarry woodlands meet some of the standards for “Ecological Function” only and do not meet the standards for any other of the factors. These woodlands, therefore, could be considered significant because they meet the suggested standards for one or more of the factors described in the NHRM.

Significant Woodland Analysis

The woodland information has been revised since the natural environment report submitted in 2006. To determine the extent of woodlands on the property and adjacent lands in 2007, the areas of all predominantly forested ecological units were combined with obvious adjacent forested areas that appeared on the aerial photo. On site these included the forest communities, FOD3-1, FOD5-1 and FOD5-8, the swamp communities SWD3-2 and SWD6-2, the cultural communities of emerging forests CUT1 and CUW and the small, cultural plantation CUP3 located in the north-east section of the property.

As a result of this re-assessment, the significant woodland on the Highland property is about 52.0 ha in area and is part of a larger 63.5 ha woodland that extends to adjacent properties (Table 2). Forest interior habitat (100 m from the edge) is about 18.4 ha within the larger woodland and 18.1 ha on the property. The 2007 results are also compared with the 2006 results and displayed in the Table 5.


22

22

Table 5: Significant Forest Habitat of the Highland Quarry Site and Adjacent Lands

Total Forest Cover Interior Habitat (100 m from edge) Development Phase

2006 2007 2006 2007 Pre Development Conditions

Highland Quarry 46.2 52.0 18.6 18.1 Adjacent Lands 6.6 11.4 0.0 0.3

Total 52.8 63.5 18.6 18.4 Post Development Conditions


Total 30.6 34.7 1.1 4.4 Reduction in Forest Cover Between Existing and Proposed


Total 22.2 28.8 17.5 14.0 Notes: all areas expressed as ha

Comments from the other review agencies, as described in the Grey County memo of August 28, 2007, suggested that we include all plantations in our analysis because they may form important connections to other woodlands. Although the plantations may meet the NHRM definition of woodlands as “treed areas”, we did not include most of the plantations on the property in our analysis because we did not consider that they met the intent of the PPS to protect “natural heritage features” from incompatible development. Except for a small red pine-European larch plantation in the north-east section, all of the plantations on the property were planted to be harvested as Christmas trees, an agricultural crop and not a natural heritage feature. The majority of the plantations consist of Scots pine (an introduced species) planted in 1983. They were pruned and tended regularly until 1998 when a severe ice storm caused extensive damage. The trees are currently about 5-8 m tall, about 10 cm in diameter and are very crowded as they were planted only 2 m apart (usual for Christmas tree culture). The ground vegetation is still meadow like with goldenrod, aster and grass species dominant. There are also some white spruce, white pine, European larch, Douglas fir, mugo pine and Colorado blue spruce in smaller plantations. Some were planted as recently as 2003 with the intention of marketing for landscape use. The long term plan would be to cut and re-plant many of the damaged and over grown areas again with Christmas trees, thus returning many of these treed areas to meadow like conditions.


23

23

With respect to the importance of these plantations as “important connections to other woodlands” we submit the following:

• the woodlands on the Highland property are isolated from nearby woodlands as they are surrounded on the north, west and south by open fields and pasture and on the east by Grey County Road 31;

• the plantations do not offer any connections to offsite natural features including other woodlands; and

• the significance of the woodland area on the property is currently determined only by ecological features located in the northern section.

Forest interior habitat is present on the property as there are about 18.1 ha. OMNR wanted an analysis of the woodlands within the context of the Municipality of Grey Highlands and not Grey County but goes on to suggest that analysis of woodland cover in Grey County indicates that forest interior habitat should be 8 ha to ensure that interior habitat remains above the recommended threshold. We have not reviewed this analysis nor have we attempted to determine the amount of interior habitat in either Grey Highlands or Grey County. On reviewing the document “How Much Habitat is Enough”, however, we have determined that the most significant factor impacting interior habitat is total forest cover on a landscape. The current forest cover in Grey Highlands is 27453 ha or about 31 % of the municipality (OMNR, 2007). The reduction in forest cover because of extraction on the Highland site will be 22.8 ha or about 0.1 %. This is a negligible amount and is likely less the standard error of the original calculation. Although the interior habitat on site will be reduced from 18.1 ha to 4.3 ha, this remaining habitat will meet the recommended minimum of 4.0 ha suggested in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and will not be lost. The remaining habitat will continue to contribute to the significance of the woodland. As a result we do not believe that there is a negative impact from the reduction of the forest interior habitat on the Highland property.

The proposed extraction limit on the property will extend into the significant woodland, but no natural features that determined the significance of the woodland will be lost as a result. After quarry development the significant woodland will be 34.7 ha of which 28.1 ha will remain on the property and will retain all the features that determined significance originally.

Proposed Mitigation

• no extraction will occur within the PSW; • no extraction will occur within of the Hart’s Tongue Fern (HTF) concentration areas (see

details in the Hart’s Tongue Fern Section 4.2);


24

24

• the proposed extraction limits will also ensure that 4.3 ha of forest interior habitat remains within the woodland;

• about 1 ha of agricultural lands adjacent to both the Central Wetland and the main woodland area will be protected and encouraged to regenerate to forest species from the existing diverse, natural sources to compensate for some of the lost woodland area. This will enhance the connection between the Central Wetland and the remaining woodland.

• forest removal for future extraction will only occur as required so that the loss of woodland will be minimized at any one time;

• tree removal will not occur during April, May or June to protect breeding species; and • one retainable butternut will be located in a non extraction area and the other two will be

compensated by transplanting the saplings in protected areas in the north-east area of the property. Thirty additional butternut will be planted in protected areas to compensate for trees lost (See details of mitigation for butternut in Endangered Species section).

4.2 Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern Concern: The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide provides the direction for

delineating these habitats. The population of Hart’s Tongue Fern on the property meets these criteria and is considered significant wildlife habitat. As a result of the clearing and excavation from the quarry operations, the larger of the two Hart’s Tongue Fern populations will be removed. In order to mitigate the loss, the report recommends that the plants be moved. There is little evidence, either in this report or the scientific literature, to indicate that transplantation of the individual plants is a viable mitigation methodology.

Robin Craig: In light of the uncertainty in the ability to effectively move/transplant the Hart’s

Tongue Fern colonies the proposed extraction boundary has been revised. The revised mitigative strategy allows for all the known Hart’s Tongue Fern colonies to be protected within the regulated setback areas. A 15 m buffer will be maintained between the southern edge of the Hart’s Tongue Fern colonies and the quarry face (refer to Significant Wildlife Habitat section below for more details).

Concern: The Conservation Authority noted that Hart’s Tongue Fern was present west of the revised protected area. The agencies require that these plants be inventoried and a determination should be made as to whether or not this population constitutes significant wildlife habitat. With the additional information collected for the Hart’s Tongue Fern, the agencies are interested in the number of colonies inventoried and an estimate of the number of plants within each colony as well as the condition of the plants.


25

25

Robin Craig: The Hart’s Tongue Fern populations on the Highland Quarry property were re-visited in 2006 and 2007, at the suggestion of the above review agencies, to ensure a thorough understanding of the numbers and extent of this rare plant on the subject property. The locations of many colonies and the extents of the two main concentration areas were plotted using GPS coordinates and mapped (Figure 3). Every colony and plant that could be found was counted in the protected woodland area connecting the Central and Northern Wetland units (Table 5). This area is designated the “eastern concentration area”. There were a total of 237 ferns in seven “colonies” ranging in size from 1 to 84 ferns. The colonies were somewhat discrete and separated from each other. Allowing for a few missed plants, a reasonable estimate would be 250 Hart’s Tongue Ferns in this area. The ferns were also found to the west in the deciduous forested area. This area is designated the “western concentration area”. The ferns were found throughout this area and were relatively evenly distributed. There were six counted colonies ranging in size from 4 to 577 plants and one estimated colony of 1,000 ferns for a total of seven colonies and an estimated 1,757 plants. Again, allowing for a few missed plants, a reasonable estimate would be 1800 Hart’s Tongue Ferns in this area. There were also a few ferns found between these two main concentration areas. This area is designated the “between E and W concentration area”. The ferns in this area were isolated from either of the other two concentration areas. One group contained 40 plants and the other 1 for a total of 41 ferns.

In total 16 colonies were located on the Highland property containing about 2,100 Hart’s Tongue Ferns. The presence or absence of individual ferns is time specific as new ferns may develop and existing ferns may die but the estimated total number of ferns on the property seems to remain relatively consistent during the years of this investigation. All the ferns were found in the deciduous forest unit (FOD5-1) in association with moss covered boulders or fractures in the bedrock. As there are no known criteria for assessing the health of these ferns, it was assumed that plants with “fresh” looking green fronds were healthy. All of the ferns encountered met this criterion and appeared to be healthy. No habitat areas of existing Hart’s Tongue Ferns are included in the revised extraction plan for the property


26

26

Proposed Mitigation • Hart’s Tongue Fern concentration areas will be excluded from the extraction areas on the

property; • a 15 m buffer will be established between the southern edge of the HTF concentration

areas and the proposed extraction area. The most complete review of the species that was found was the “Recovery Plan American Hart’s Tongue Fern” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993 and no guidance was given to suggest suitable buffers for protecting HTF. The 15 m was chosen because existing literature identifies that 15 m wide disturbance barrier buffers can be effective, provided they are covered by vegetation such as trees and shrubs. All of the proposed buffer areas adjacent to the HTF concentrations are currently forested with some sapling and herbaceous ground cover and will provide an adequate barrier from the quarry extraction zone. The ferns are scattered about the designated concentration areas and only about 5 % are located along the southern edge and will be separated from the extraction area by the 15m buffer. Most ferns, or about 95 %, are located 30 to 200 m from the extraction zone. The area of the suggested buffer is currently forested and this 15 m vegetated buffer will provide some shade and some sunlight to the 5% of the ferns that are closest to the extraction area. Opening the forest along the buffer edge will encourage shrub and sapling growth, which may be beneficial to the ferns. The literature suggests that the species appears to colonize early successional habitats and secondary growth forests where canopy openings are more abundant. There is also a correlation between sporeling vigour and openings in the tree canopy that allow light and moisture to reach the plants. Moderate amounts of sunlight seem optimal as too much direct light can lead to injury;

• a fence will be erected along the buffer to clearly separate the extraction and protection areas;

• the trees along the woodland buffer will be pre-stressed by partial clearing along the line at least one year in advance to ensure that impacts to the new forest edge such as wind throw and sunscald are minimized. This will also encourage development of saplings and shrubs;

• a plan will be developed by appropriate experts to provide details and guidance for the pre-stressing along the proposed buffers. This plan will developed in conjunction with a plan for the buffer areas along the wetland areas (see Section 2.0 Provincially Significant Wetlands for buffer discussion);

• Because there is little information available regarding HTF habitat requirements and transplanting methods, the applicant, MAQ Aggregates, is interested in providing funding for research into habitat requirements and re-location science of HTF and in forming a partnership with OMNR, other appropriate agencies and expert individuals to direct this research.

The proposal meets the test of the PPS and policy A. R. 2.01.07 regarding development in significant wildlife habitat; there will be no negative impacts on the natural features for which the area is identified.


27

27

Table 6: Hart’s Tongue Fern Survey (Highland Quarry 2006-2007) Concentration

Area Colony Number Number of Plants Distance to Setback (m)

% of Total Population

1 5 30 0.2 2 65 50 3.2 3 84 40 4.1 4 12 90 0.6 5 46 30 2.3 6 1 50 0.0

Eastern

7 24 120 1.2 Sub-Total 237 11.6

8 11 80 0.5 9 36 80 1.8

10 26 80 1.3 11 103 15-70 5.1 12 577 15-70 28.4 13 1000 15-70 49.1

Western

14 4 15 0.2 Sub-Total 1757 86.3

Misc. 15 40 15 2.0 16 1 15 0.0

Sub-Total 41 2.0 TOTAL 2035 100.0

Notes: Refer to Figure 3 for colony location


28

28

5.0 HYDROGEOLOGY 5.1 Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) Concern: It is the opinion of the NEC that information provided in support of an OWRA

Section 34 Permit to Take Water application should be included in the ARA application. This includes volumes of water to be discharged and details on the water management plan (i.e., pumping scenarios).

Azimuth: Under the Provincial Standards that supports the ARA, a Category 2 licence for

below water extraction is subject to an Ontario Water Resources Act, Section 34 Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and Section 53 Certificate of Approval (CofA). Under Section 12.1 of the Level 2 report (Azimuth, 2006) the volumes of water to be managed are summarized based on full development conditions. When quarry development is complete, ground water will be seeping into the quarry at a rate of 12.8 L/s. This is equivalent to approximately 400,000 m3/a. With the addition of approximately 270,000 m3/a of water that enters the quarry from direct precipitation (minus evaporation), there will be about 670,000 m3/a that will be discharged from the quarry. To assist in the ARA application process, a Water Management Strategy report for the Highland Quarry will be submitted to the MNR for review. Although this report will be prepared to support the PTTW and CofA applications, it provides the details required for the agencies to make an informed decision on the proposed quarry operations.

5.2 Hydogeological Impact Assessment Concern: The conclusion that the drawdown in the ground water regime as a result of

quarry development will not impact the wetland areas needs to be explained. Azimuth: One of the advantages of developing a numerical model of the various fracture

zones, using the results of packer tests, is that you can estimate the potential impact of each water-bearing fracture zone associated with changes in land use. This becomes important when completing impact assessments on the surrounding ground water and surface water regimes. Quarries that extract from below the “water table” intersect water-bearing fracture zones, which seep into the excavated area. This seepage or release of water from the conductive fractures depressurizes the water-bearing fracture zones. This depressurization is simulated through the numerical model and is presented as an area of “drawdown”.


29

29

From a modeling perspective, the Amabel Formation beneath the Central Wetland will be dewatered down to the elevation of the proposed quarry floor (490 masl). It is our opinion that the estimated Highland Quarry dewatering is unlikely to significantly influence the Central Wetland. This statement is made because this wetland is a “perched” surface water feature and therefore has limited vertical hydraulic connection to the underlying ground water regime (see discussion above in Section 2 – pg 8-10). Additional field work was completed on June 27, 2007 to support this assessment. The North Wetland is underlain by a silty to medium sand, which has been reported to range between 0.3 and 3.5 m in thickness. The relatively high permeability of the underlying sands reflects the reported hydroperiod for this feature (i.e., dry by mid-June), suggesting that this feature acts as a potential recharge zone. Without the presence of a confining layer, there is a potential for a hydraulic connection between the ground and surface water system at this location. Therefore, the depressurization of the Amabel Formation beneath the North Wetland may impact the North Wetland, if a conductive vertical connection (i.e., jointing) exists. The regional assessment completed by Cruden (2005) indicated that there was little evidence to suggest a significant lineament exists along this system. However, water level data from OW5-I suggests there may be a local hydraulic connection. Therefore, there may be some ground water influx into the quarry from the wetland during the spring freshet. However, during this time, frozen ground water conditions still exist in the upper joint segments and the majority of the spring freshet is expected to be conveyed downstream to the Rob Roy Wetland.

Concern: No evaluation of the source of the water from Seep #3 was apparently conducted

although the report acknowledges that there is a significant contribution. This should be quantified.

Azimuth: Seep #3 is located south of the Highland property on the adjacent Osprey Quarry

property (owned by Georgian Aggregates). Although at the time of reporting, no quantitative evaluation of Seep #3 had been completed, there was no indication in the report that this ground water discharge location provides “significant” contribution to the baseflow in the Southern Tributary. In fact, on page 23 (Azimuth, 2006) it is noted, “natural surface water flow in the vicinity of the Highland Quarry property consists primarily of spring freshet, with minor ground water discharge (Seep #3)”. Furthermore, the report also states on page 100 that “ground water seeps identified along the streambed (i.e. Seep #3) do not


30

30

contribute sufficient quantities to sustain flowing conditions throughout the year.”

However, since the release of the Level 2 report, monitoring of this seep has been

conducted. Results indicate that the seep flows during wet periods (late fall and early spring). Specifically, the seep has only been observed to flow during October, November, and March. When flowing, discharge rates were measured to range between 1 and 4 L/s. In comparison, the South Tributary had a measured flow rate of about 720 L/s during this same time period (Jagger Hims, 2007). Thus, the contribution to the stream flow is insignificant. It should be noted that the flow rate in the South Tributary is controlled primarily by discharge from the Duntroon Quarry, in addition to spring freshet. During the dry periods, the South Tributary does not flow if discharge from the Duntroon Quarry not occurring. Seep #3 is located at an elevation of approximately 508 masl, which corresponds to the conceptual understanding of the presense of a conductive lateral fracture plane. Therefore, while this fracture is saturated, ground water discharges at this horizon including Seep #3. During dry periods, the 508 masl fracture plane is dewatered at this location and discharge from this feature at Seep#3 ceases.

Concern: The report describes how the Amabel Formation acts as a reservoir, storing

relatively small quantities of water for a significant period of time. The water level data suggests that the ground water that recharges the ground water system in the spring is released from storage slowly over the remainder of the year. The significance of the continuous release of ground water to the surface water system should be addressed and how the quarry will impact this function.

Azimuth: As noted in the comment “relatively small quantities” of water persist in the joint

system. Thus, this volume cannot support any significant baseflow. The slow decrease over the summer period is interpreted to represent evaporation as opposed to flow. Even if there is a component of flow it would result in an insignificant volumetric discharge. Hence, this system of vertical joints does not sustain baseflow in the surface water system. The cumulative impact assessment, which allowed for fracture interconnectivity, indicates that the 508 masl fracture will be dewatered, primarily due to its limited lateral extent, which is controlled by topography. Although this fracture has been identified as one of two ground water flow zones, it should be recognized that this flow zone does not transmit large quantities of water. This is supported by the lack of domestic water wells, which draw from this depth (the majority are drilled to the Amabel-Fossil Hill Contact). Regardless of the transmissive


31

31

characteristics of this flow zone, it does provide a minor component of the baseflow to the Rob Roy Wetland Complex. Based on the numerical simulation, (i.e., best case situation) the reduction of baseflow from the Amabel Formation during quarry operation is 25%.

5.3 Highland Quarry Rehabilitation Plan Concern: No assessment has been made of water losses due to the evaporation from the

creation of the lake in the rehabilitation plan, where water had previously been stored underground.

Azimuth: The water balance assessment presented in the Level 2 report estimates that

based on the 30-year climatic norms for water surplus, approximately 447 mm/a is available for runoff and infiltration. The calculation for water surplus has already accounted for the evapotranspiration component of the water balance assessment. Evapotranspiration is a significant water loss from a watershed. Types of vegetation and land use significantly affect evapotranspiration, and therefore the amount of water leaving a watershed. Under pre-development conditions, the evapotranspiration was calculated to be approximately 543 mm/a for the site conditions at the Highland property.

However, under post-development conditions, transpiration is replaced with open water evaporation. In southern Ontario, the mean annual evaporation from open water is commonly accepted to be approximately 790 mm/a (Philips and McCulloch, 1972). Evaporation rates are to a great extent dependent upon the characteristics of the water body. By increasing the increasing lake depth, evaporation will decrease mainly due to the rates of heating and cooling. With a predicted lake depth of approximately 30 m it is anticipated that 790 mm/a is a conservative value for evaporation. The difference between the pre- and post-development water losses due to evapotranspiration and evaporation could be up to 247 mm. An important concept to understand is the difference in the components of the pre- and post water balance assessment. As mentioned above, the water surplus is the water that is available for runoff and infiltration. If it were estimated that 90% of the water surplus (i.e., 447 mm) runs off to the Beaver River, then approximately 45 mm is available to infiltrate, which would be “stored” in the fracture network (under pre-development conditions). However, under post-development conditions, the water surplus component for the rehabilitated lake is the difference between the precipitation that falls on the lake, minus evaporation. There is no runoff component. This provides an additional 400 mm of water to


32

32

the ground water system annually. Discounting the additional evaporation (i.e., up to 247 mm) would yield a net increase of 153 mm (or more) per annum.

Concern: The increase in surface water temperatures caused by the reduction of ground

water storage or conversely the addition of surface water should be evaluated during quarrying and after. The changes in water volumes and temperatures should be considered on the downstream impacts to fisheries.

Azimuth: As has been noted above, the expectation is that the vertical jointing at the

Highland site does not represent a significant ground water reservoir capable of providing large quantities of baseflow. As was seen with the Duntroon Quarry, virtually no ground water flow occurred at the site for the initial 20 years of operation. Presuming a conductive joint is not intercepted (as was discussed above); there is little expectation that the quarry operations will have much of an impact on the surrounding hydrogeologic environment. Thus, surface water temperature should not be significantly influenced by the operations. Similarly, the discharge of excess water from the quarry operations is anticipated to represent a small percentage of the stream flow and therefore the thermal effects were considered minimal. Assuming an interconnected system (i.e., worst case evaluation); the numerical evaluation estimated that the ground water baseflow would be reduced by 3.8 L/s to a post development flow of 17 L/s (see Section 2, pg 10-11). As discussed above, this overall reduction in baseflow contribution is not considered to be significant from a quantitative or qualitative (i.e., thermal) perspective. The numerical model also estimated that the quarry would not completely fill under the proposed rehabilitation scheme. This occurs because of the fracture interconnectivity created in the numerical model. Under this scenario, an equilibrium water elevation of 512 masl would persist in the quarry. To date, there are no known studies that have assessed ground water thermal gradients resulting from the creation of a lake in a rehabilitated limestone quarry. However, there have been numerous studies, which have studied impacts association with below water sand and gravel operations. A pit pond warmed through the summer months could result in a flow of warmer ground water to nearby points of baseflow discharge and, in turn, affect cold water fisheries resources. An analysis conducted on behalf of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority in 1998 concluded that pit ponds have minimal impact on ground water temperatures, and that these minor effects are completely dissipated within a few hundred metres from a pit (Ostrander et al, 1998). Field monitoring has also


33

33

confirmed that ground water returns to its normal background temperature within tens of metres of pit ponds (Harden Environmental, 1995).

As mentioned previously, the depth of the lake greatly influences the ability to heat the water body. With an estimated lake depth of approximately 30 m it is anticipated that water will remain at a background ground water temperature (5-10°C) throughout most of the water profile. Therefore, negligible adverse impacts as a result of thermal effects are anticipated on surface water features as a result of the proposed operations. In light of the absence of data to determine the thermal impacts from limestone quarries, the MNR has recently recommended that thermal monitoring become a standard (David Webster MNR Hydrogeologist; as per comm.) in the aggregate industry. Therefore, thermal monitoring will be incorporated into the AMP.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS Five of the natural heritage features listed in Policy 2.3 of the PPS have been identified as concerns by the various Provincial and municipal review agencies. These include Provincially Significant Wetlands, Endangered Species, Fish Habitat, Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat. Information has been presented in this report that addresses all the specified concerns. Adjustments have been made to re-align the proposed quarry operation to avoid areas supporting significant features such as the wetlands and the Hart’s tongue ferns and buffers have been recommended to further protect these features. Most of the endangered butternut on the property are either dead or dying but three saplings appear healthy. One will be protected in an area where extraction is not planned and the other two will be moved to a protected area. As well, thirty additional butternut will be planted in suitable locations around the non operational areas of the property to compensate for the loss of the three mature trees that will be lost. Information has been presented to demonstrate that fish habitat downstream will not be impacted. A detailed review of the significant woodland on the property has been completed and the various factors that determine its significance have been examined. A plan has been presented that ensures that no factors will be lost, although some may be reduced, the reduction will be negligible in the context of the Municipality of Grey Highlands. The impacts associated with multiple quarry developments on the ground and surface water regimes was provided in the Level 2 Hydrogelogical Assessment Report (Azimuth, 2005). The comments associated with the Level 2 report have been addressed to ensure that the review agencies are provided with a comprehensive understanding of the cumulative impact assessment. Additional information has been provided to quantify the reduction to baseflow in addition to surface water inputs to wetland features. This information supports the conclusion that impacts with quarry development will have negligible impacts to the overall features and functions of the wetland / surface water features.


34

34

This proposal, therefore meets the tests of both the PPS Policy 2.3.1 and Policy A. R. 2.01.07 regarding development in and near significant natural features and has clearly demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features for which the area is identified.


35

35

REFERENCES Environment Canada, 2004.

How Much Habitat is Enough? Second Edition. Gartner Lee Limited, Beacon Environmental, North-South Environmental Inc. and Robin E. Craig, 2006.

Level 2 Natural Environment Report for the Proposed Highland Quarry. Grey County, 2007.

August 28, 2007 e-mail to Cuesta Planning from Randy Scherzer. Subject: FW: Draft Summary of comments from MAQ Agency Meeting.

Harden Environmental Services Limited, 1995.

Hydrology Report – Caledon Sand and Gravel Inc. January 18, 1995. Jagger Hims Limited, 2007

Duntroon Quarry Expansion Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Program Addendum.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2007.

February 8, 2007, Memorandum to David S.White, Q.C. from Kathy Woeller District Planner MNR Midhurst District. Subject: Category 2, Class A Licence Under the Aggregate Resources Act Highland Quarry.


E-mail from Kevin Reese R.P.F. District Forester Midhurst District, July 20, 2007. Subject: Grey Highlands forest cover numbers.


Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1999.

Natural Heritage Resource Manual. Ostrander, M.D., Martin, P.J., Blackport, B. and Picotti, M., 1998.

Impact of Aggregate Extraction Activities on Cold Water Discharge. Groundwater in a Watershed Context. Canadian Water Resources Association.

Philips, S.W., and McCulloch, J.A.W., 1972.

The Climate of the Great Lakes Basin: Climatological Studies, Number 20, Environment Canada, Atmospheric Services, pp. 40.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993. Recovery Plan American hart’s tongue.

re: application for a category 2, class a quarry below water … · ministry of natural resources,...

Documents