Summary of Objection Letters Received Dale Anne Brendon Daniel

Summary of Objection Letters Received 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Dale Anne Brendon Daniel Cairns Dave and Diane Borman Dr. Morris Jenner, Yvonne Jenner & Lesa Jenner Wendy Prince & Betty Ross Harrington Community Club Dr. Larry Jensen (Wildlife Corridor) Dr. Larry Jensen (EIS Study) Dr. Larry Jensen (Aggregate Quality) Alycin Hayes Oxford Green Watch Sigfred Jensen Karen Bechard January 15, 2006 January 15, 2006 Undated January 20, 2006 Undated January 24, 2006 Undated January 24, 2006 Undated January 20, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 18, 2006 Attention: James Hill, Corporate Manager of Community and Strategic Planning County of Oxford Community and Strategic Planning Office 415 Hunter Street, Court House P.O. Box 397, Woodstock, On N4S 7Y3 Re: FILE: ZON. 5-04-14; Corporation of the Township of Zorra Notice of objection to rezoning of Lot 29, Con 1, West Zorra Dear Mr. Hill, We are the proud new owners of the Bechard property on the 31st Line, #316783. It has been a dream of ours for many years to obtain a country property that we could call our own. We are sure that since the information about the proposed gravel pit was disclosed to us at the time of purchase of our new home, you may feel that we are in favour of the proposal. However, this is very much to the contrary. Admittedly, we did not educate ourselves thoroughly enough to make such a decision about our new property. In light of the new information presented to us from Larry Jensen, neighbouring property owner on the East side of the 31st Line, we are now realizing what an impact this will have on our new property. We were under the assumption that the pit would only go in if ourselves or the Princes, neighbours on the South side of our property, granted access for them to put in a laneway. In viewing the maps and proposed positioning of the pit, we now see that it is only a matter of this being passed by the Township since their property already has a direct access planned. You might wonder why we would go so blindly into something we apparently did not know enough about. As you all know, Real Estate has taken a huge jump and properties such as the one we’ve purchased do not come up often. We have been actively looking for something like this since early last year and had actually lost 2 properties previously to this one due to other offers. We did not want to take a chance on this happening again and wanted to pursue our dream property as quickly as possible. It would seem that past attempts to save this natural wetland for the animals has not been successful. We plead with you to at least think of the families that you are affecting if the wildlife and surrounding natural resources are not enough to stop this. I (Diane) grew up in this area on the Embro Road in Brooksdale, where my parents and grandmother still reside. My sister also lives in Harrington with her 3 small children. We were very delighted to be moving to the country to start a family and have our children attend Zorra Highland Park Public School as I did and be so close to my family. With schools becoming more and more violent, we thought this small rural setting was perfect for our future family. I can not imagine having an extremely large gravel pit right in our back yard knowing we would like to have a family there, with small children at risk of coming in contact with large trucks or worse yet, so close to the pit itself. I understand that there are other young families living close-by who also share our concerns about traffic safety, noise and dust pollution. It would certainly be a deterrent to others like ourselves looking to move to this otherwise beautiful Harrington area. Not only would this be a strain on our personal plans for the property, financially this would be a horrific set back. We put everything we have into this property and it would be disastrous to have the property go down in value. In purchasing such a property, we viewed it as an investment for our future in hopes to have our own children live there someday or at least benefit from its increased value over the years. This will greatly de-value our property with the noise, pollution, dust, possible loss of well and pond due to destruction of natural springs which they are both fed by, not to mention take away our dreams of owning such a naturally beautiful property. In closing, we hope that you will seriously consider our concerns about the proposed project and the consequences to the environment and the plans we have for our new home & future family. Sincerely, Dave and Diane Borman 233 James St. S. St. Marys, ON N4X 1B8 519-284-2158 January 20, 2006 Attention: James Hill, Corporate Manager of Community and Strategic Planning County of Oxford Community and Strategic Planning Office 415 Hunter Street, Court House P.O. Box 397 Woodstock, ON N4S 7Y3 Re: FILE: ZON. 5-04-14; Corporation of the Township of Zorra Application for Zone Change Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, West Zorra Joint Notice of Objections by Dr. Morris & Mrs. Yvonne Jenner, and Ms. Lesa Jenner & family (of 316714 and 316686 Line 31, Zorra Township- refer to map at end of letter) We wish to make objections to Zorra Township’s rezoning of Lot 29 Con 1 to develop a gravel pit, for the following reasons: • A. Safety Concerns 1) Traffic: In the recent past, three accidents involving gravel trucks occurred along Line 31, between Road 92 and 96. Firstly, a school bus traveling along this stretch of 31st Line was forced off the road and into the ditch (wetland) as it passed a gravel truck. Thankfully the students were not injured. When there is gravel truck traffic on our road, the road and especially shoulders, become very soft and traffic has to drive down the centre of the road. The road has many “blind spots” where one cannot see oncoming traffic because of the numerous hills. Another time a gravel truck flipped right off the road landing upside down in a hollow, crushing the cab of the truck. A third accident occurred when a gravel truck went off the road into the wetland in front of the proposed site and spilled fuel into the water. This naturalized area is highly sensitive because of the water table being so close to the surface. Extra caution needs to be taken in this regard because of the high aquifer vulnerability along this road. When gravel trucks drive down Line 31, we are at great risk when we are driving because the trucks do drive down the centre of the road and at excessive speeds, even though the limit is 60 km per hour. 2) Present traffic is relatively light when the adjacent gravel pit on lot 28 con 1 (across 31 Line from our property) is inactive, so that residents like myself currently use the roadway for walking, bicycling, jogging, even riding horses. These activities will become impossible with traffic of gravel trucks, particularly given the steep hill along this road and the location of the proposed gravel pit entrance being right at the bottom of this hill. Our quality of life will be seriously compromised especially when CBM’s gravel pit decides to ship gravel which it is licensed to do anytime. st 3) Camp Tanner, the 2nd neighbour at the top of the next hill to the south, runs a very busy schedule from spring to fall with camps - a camp for children with diabetes, church camps run by Oxford Presbytery, as well as local Scouts and Guides groups actively using the facility. As a result, there is increased traffic during the summer, which would conflict with gravel trucks traveling along this narrow gravel road. As well, camp activities such as occasional hikes past the wetlands would become too risky and would have to be curtailed. I would not be in favour of widening or paving the road as this would encourage motorists to travel at greater speeds and also cause further degradation of the locally and provincially significant wetlands along 31st Line (as stated by Cameron Smith in Toronto Star article). • B. Impact on Wetlands, Plant Species, and Wildlife: 4) The excavation site would seriously impact the present wildlife corridor between the Lakeside complex including the Ross property on lot 28 con 1, our own property on lot 28 con 2 and Jensens’ wetlands on lot 29 con 2 and the Wildwood complex to the north. The presence of wetlands attracts a bounty of wildlife including wild turkey, pheasants, deer, fox, coyote as well as a multitude of birds, amphibians, and snakes that thrive in this natural area. It has been noted by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) that the rare at-risk Silver Shiner is found in the waters of Harrington Creek. Any pollution caused by excavation on lot 29 con 1 could seriously jeopardize conservation efforts to preserve this rare species. It would also negatively impact the numerous rare plants identified in the required Natural Assessment, as growing in lot 29’s locally significant wetland which are threatened with destruction if Zorra Township builds its access road in the proposed location. Transplanting a few of them can hardly be considered satisfactory, given the fact that these plants are so sensitive that they may not survive, and especially when transplantation occurred this fall after the recommended dates given in the latest Natural Assessment. What will happen to the animals that depend on this wetland for survival? How does Zorra township plan to repair the damage done? This does not seem to be addressed in the site plan. One of the implementation measures of Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy is to “integrate Biodiversity Conservation into Land Use Planning, i.e., Seek opportunities to establish protected areas that contribute to the completion of a well-designed system of protected areas representative of Ontario’s ecosystems’’. Why does Zorra not consider this option in its plan? If it wants ratepayers to practise conservation measures, should it not lead by example? We believe that if Council is to act prudently and responsibly, it should at least wait until the Oxford Natural Heritage Study is complete and take into consideration the recommendations given there. We believe that Zorra Council’s site plan should look at the value of this property in terms of all the contained natural resources and complete an Environmental Impact Study to determine the priorities here: gravel pit development (when there are already 13 pits within a two mile radius of the proposed pit, with available gravel) or enhancement of conservation measures to preserve wildlife corridors and the species at risk identified in the site plan’s Natural Assessment study. Which would be more valuable for a sustainable future? Please refer to Oxford’’ s Official Plan, Chapter 3 Natural and Cultural Resource Management Policies 3.2 Environmental Resource Policies Page 3.2-7: ““Any development approval on lands within or adjacent to the Environmental Protection designation shall be conditional upon enhancement and remediation measures as determined by an Environmental Impact Study in accordance with Section 3.2.6. An Environmental Impact Study may be required for development proposed within the Open Space designation.”” 5) Disruption of the Wildlife corridor is a concern. Many animals are spotted regularly while in transit from natural areas in the Lakeside-Wildwood Complex. The open space on lot 29 con 1 is a crucial link between the valleyland on lot 30 con 1 and the woodlot and wetlands on lot 29 con1 and 2 as well as the woodlot and woodlands to the south through lot 28 con 1. Excavation of the moraine hillside would virtually destroy this corridor since it would necessitate a fence along the northern lot line, thus rupturing the existing passage way for larger animals who regularly wander from the valleyland on lot 30 con 1. The narrow wildlife corridor blocked by a high fence on Zorra’s site plan could not begin to compensate for this potential rupture. As evidenced by the multitude of animal tracks seen criss-crossing the road on a snowy day, this is a very important area for animal shelter and a further reason why paving this road would not be recommended as it would add to yet another potential cause for vehicular accidents: collisions with crossing deer. • C. Noise Impact: 6) This issue is a major concern for us. Our property is situated in close proximity on the south side of the proposed pit site and at a similar elevation. Therefore, the woodlot will not be an effective noise barrier and noise will likely reverberate in our direction. Having lived across the road from another gravel pit, we have experienced the aggravation of the constant noise which, even from a distance, can make it unpleasant to enjoy the outdoors on our property. While the separation distance may be greater in the case of Zorra’s proposed pit, I wish to point out to you 2 important oversights in Zorra’s site plan: one is the lack of berming on the south side of the excavation site and the other is the fact that our houses are both located at approximately the same elevation as the pit site. Therefore, we will receive little/no benefit from any woodlot buffers in the southern EPA as these are located at a lower elevation. As far as we can see in Zorra’s site plan, there has been no study done as to the effectiveness of the EPA area and woodlot as a buffer to the south where the elevation rises on lot 28. As well, we don’t see any consideration of the cumulative impact for us in the eventuality that we along 31st Line would become ‘sandwiched’ between 2 licensed aggregate pits (CBM’s on east part lot 28 and Zorra’s potential pit on east part lot 29, not to mention the other 3 pits licensed on the west part of lot 29 & 28) both operating on basically the same time schedule. According to a statement by Mrs. Marg Misek-Evans in the December 2003 OMB decision on the Innes Gravel Pit versus Tousaw, “she noted that while the trees in the EPA area may buffer the pit area, the truck access remains the same” (i.e., not buffered). I feel that the proposed access to Zorra’s pit on 31st Line would add to our noise concerns as there are no buffers near the roadside. Since the area fronting 31st Line near the proposed access is a locally significant wetland, we do not wish to see any berms constructed on this site as this would further damage this sensitive wetland ecosystem. • D. Impact on Water: 7) We are also concerned about the interference of the potential excavation on the water table and the water reserves that are obviously present on this site property as evidenced by the existence of many springs and seepage areas. Since the excavation site is located near the top of the highest point of land in this region ( possibly in Oxford County), the fact that it is such an important reserve/collection vessel for naturally filtered, potable water for wells located on and around the moraine hill, it would be difficult and very costly to replace this natural ‘water tower’. As well, one must consider the potential for contamination. Once the percolation zone is removed, water can be contaminated. If for some reason, a spill/contamination occurred on the excavation site or elsewhere in this ‘high aquifer vulnerability’ zone and the groundwater became contaminated the people of Harrington and area would be at great risk. Who would ensure that the many wells in the area feeding off the same moraine hill recharge source were made safe again? One knows from the Walkerton experience how costly it can be to neglect water source protection - health wise and monetarily. In this case, does the ratepayers’ right to potable water not take precedence over the township’s need for cheaper source of gravel (Though I don’t understand how it will be “cheaper” after spending a million+ dollars to purchase and open a pit)? Therefore, at the very least, it seems to be of extreme importance that further studies be done to map out the water sources for wells in the area and that additional safeguards be imposed on the proposed pit site plans to ensure that no such accident as in Walkerton could ever take place. We are concerned that Harrington Creek cannot afford to sustain more disruption without suffering irreparable damage to its status as a cold water stream, needed to sustain steam spawning areas and to feed the fish habitats in Harrington Pond. We have already witnessed the damage caused to one branch of the Harrington Creek flowing through the east side of our property . These changes occurred after a municipal drain was constructed on the farm property to the south, on lot 28 con 2. This has caused the flow to become highly variable, ranging from flooding one day and being nearly dry within a few days. We have noticed a degradation in the quality of water flowing in this stream evident in its unpleasant smell and colour as well as in the rarity of fish and other aquatic wildlife observed previously. In conclusion, for the various safety concerns, negative impacts upon the wetlands, plant and wildlife species, impacts upon the quality of life and especially upon our water, we wish to restate our objection to the proposed zoning change of Lot 29, Concession 1, Zorra Township. Sincerely, Dr. Morris Jenner Mrs. Yvonne Jenner Ms. Lesa M. Jenner 316714 and 316686 Line 31 Zorra Township (see map below) cc. Mr. Don McLeod, Township of Zorra Attention: James Hill, Corporate Manager of Community & Strategic Planning County of Oxford planning@county.oxford.on.ca Ron Versteegen, Planner, County of Oxford rversteegen@county.oxford.on.ca Copy forwarded (by Oxford County) to The Township of Zorra Re: Proposed zoning by-law amendment by the Township of Zorra Lot 29, Concession 1, Zorra Township, Oxford County, A2 to ME File Number: ZON 5-04-14 • • E-mailed January 24, 2006 Hard copy to be delivered by hand Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at the Public Meeting in Zorra Township Office Receipt of this email communication will register two (2) official objections to the above named proposal by Wendy G. Prince and Betty J. Ross residing on 31st Line (316725), part Lot 28, Concession 1, Zorra Township. This is not our first objection. This is our first official objection since Zorra Township officially applied for a zoning by-law amendment for the purpose of opening and operating an aggregate extraction operation. We strongly oppose the application to rezone the above mentioned property from A2 to ME. The very first of our knowledge of this proposed pit was March 5, 2004. Zorra Township had not yet purchased the property. We gathered as much information as we could in a very short period of time. We made an urgent appeal to Zorra Township at a Council Meeting on March 16, 2004, along with 60 other opposing residents of Zorra Township, to reconsider the purchase of this property. It was dismissed. Subsequent appeals by written communication, prior to the purchase deadline date, were also made. We believe that the Township of Zorra has been reckless (proposing access directly through, which would destroy, a wetland) and irresponsible (purchasing, with tax payers money, a piece of property for the purpose of operating a gravel pit that prior to purchase had not been personally visited by Council, or assessed at any level, as told to us by Council) regarding the purchase of Lot 29, Concession 1 for the purpose of operating a Municipal Gravel Pit. Although we have since amassed and read dozens of documents and learned much regarding the intricacies of land planning, aggregate operations and the environment, I have taken the liberty of attaching my original presentation to Zorra Township where I represented a group of some 20 Zorra residents. This is just to give you some background. Much work has been done since that time and there is much to be done as yet. There are so many environmental, social and economic reasons to oppose the rezoning of Lot 29, Concession 1 to ME for the purpose of developing and operating this Municipal Gravel Pit, they cannot all be stated in one communication. We will register the following objections at this time: • Environment: wetlands, woodlands, natural areas: • • • • • • • • excerpt from Oxford County Official Plan: “during this period….75 percent of original wetlands have been drained. These changes have transformed the natural environment of Oxford County into a patchwork of progressively smaller and increasingly isolated natural area remnants. These changes, while providing many economic benefits*, have also served to demonstrate the value of woodlands and wetlands in maintaining a healthy environment and a desirable quality of life”. Lot 29, Concession 1 is situated within the most provincially significant natural area corridor in Zorra Township. Within that UTRCA watershed corridor are significant ponds and lakes, aquifers, creeks, woodlands, wetlands, wildlife, rare plants and rare fish The proposed access road would destroy an existing significant wetland – this goes directly against Oxford County’s Official Plan and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority's recommendation to Zorra A floodline/fill line would have to be crossed to access 31st Line Cumulative impact: there are currently 5 licensed gravel pits in the direct area and a total of 12 licensed gravel pits in the area – when is enough, enough? Noise, dust, vibration: there would be 2 operating pits with access roads on one section of 31st Line which runs through wetlands and woodlands and over Trout Creek. How much can this significant, fragile natural area withstand? Quality of Life: on 31st Line within 1 to 3 km, along with farmland and conservation styled private residences, there is a Child & Youth Camp and an extensive Summer Resort and Retirement Community. There is not a need or a proven economic benefit* for this pit. There are many existing pits in this area. Zorra should be protecting this non-renewable resource and utilizing the extensive sand and gravel available in operations that already exist. The above statements are true and factual to the best of our knowledge, and support our objection of the proposed by-law amendment by the Township of Zorra for Lot 29, Concession 1. Thank you. Sincerely, Wendy G. Prince 316725 – 31st Line Embro, Ontario. Betty J. Ross 316725 – 31st Line Embro, Ontario. January 24, 2005 mailto:planning@county.oxford.on.ca. Att. James Hill, Corporate Manager of Community and Strategic Planning County of Oxford Community and Strategic Planning Office 415 Hunter Street, Court House P.O. Box 397, Woodstock, On N4S 7Y3 Telephone: 519-539-9800; Fax 519-537-5513 Re: FILE: ZON. 5-04-14; Corporation of the Township of Zorra Notice of objection to rezoning of Lot 29, Con1, West Zorra Dear Mr. Jim Hill, On behalf of the Harrington Community Centre (HCC) located at the intersection of 31st Line road and Oxford County Road 96, we wish to object to the above mentioned rezoning. The Harrington Community Centre is a community-based organization incorporated since 1986 and for the past 40 years, it has worked to provide year-round programming for local seniors and other locally-based non-profit groups.The Harrington Community Centre has the priviledge of being located in the former Harrington Schoolhouse (SS #4), which, over the course of its almost 100 years of operation, has seen many students reach a high degree of success in life. This unique building, is as yet undesignated as a heritage site. The water source for this facility is a natural spring. We see that Zorra’s property, lot 29 con 1 is planned to become an excavation site on a moraine hill which is in the same recharge area as the source for the HCC if you look at Oxford’s recharge map for this area. I understand that Oxford’s Official Plan states : “Groundwater Protection In order to reduce the probability of groundwater contamination, Groundwater Recharge Areas are identified on Schedule C-2, Development Constraints. It is intended that these areas will be protected from contamination by uses and activities that could affect the recovery and use of groundwater supplies for both domestic and agricultural purposes. The following policies apply to Groundwater Recharge Areas” Doesn’t it follow that excavation in a hill which is the recharge zone for a given area where water is collected on higher ground would affect the water flow of that entire area sharing this recharge zone? After the Walkerton tragedy caused through neglect of source water, we think it would be unconscionable to proceed with this rezoning without doing a thorough Environmental Impact Study on the groundwater in this recharge zone, to determine the impact of this excavation development on the groundwater feeding the Community Centre as well as any other property getting water from the same recharge. The natural heritage value of lot 29 concession 1 becomes quite clear when one looks at the numerous natural heritage features listed in Zorra’ s Natural Environment Level 1 report pages 4-7: fisheries habitat, significant wetlands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, provincially and locally rare flora. May we point out that the author of the report forgot to include the significant valleylands located to the north on lot 30, very close to the pit site. When taken as a whole, how could this area not qualify for preservation instead of being considered for site alteration that could irreparably damage it ? According to Oxford’s Official Plan, section 3.2.3.1 Natural Heritage System Components: “The priority within this policy area is to preserve and enhance important environmental areas and features while protecting them from land use impacts that would detrimentally alter their size and physical form, impair their ecological functions or degrade their quality.” Also, “Use Schedules and the Environmental Features Schedule C-1. Environmental Protection Areas include the following Provincially significant natural heritage features • • Significant wetlands, • Significant portions of the habitat of endangered or threatened species and other significant wildlife habitat,; • fish habitat, • significant valleylands, • significant woodlands • significant life science areas of natural and scientific interest. The Environmental Protection designation also applies to locally significant natural heritage features”. Mr Morton reports (page 4 #8) that since Zorra Township has only 11.5% forest cover, much less than the established 30% guideline, this would mean that “areas of forested lands can be considered ‘Significant’ within the subject lands”. To us, this would seem further reason for not disturbing this natural area as they are too precious to lose. Also, we would like to point out something else which seems to have been ignored by Zorra’s site plan documents, that is the cultural heritage value of this natural wetlandupland forest area on lot 29. Besides its rich vegetative and wildlife resources, this area was known in the past to be a favorite site of recreation and learning. Indeed, there is a historical connection between the former Harrington schoolhouse on lot 30 concession 2 and the natural area on lots 29 con 1 & 2 which are within walking distance, south of the schoolhouse, along 31st Line. These wetlands and woodlots provided the scene for many school field trips over its almost 100 years of operation (1869-1966). It has been reported to us by a former teacher of the school that this setting inspired one of its most prominent graduates, Rev.Charles W. Gordon, who attended the school in its earliest days (1870’s) and went on to become an internationally-acclaimed author known under the pen name of Ralph Connor. We feel that the historical significance of the natural area on lot 29 concession 1 and 2 would merit it being included in the heritage resources list. We refer you to section 3.3.2.1 Municipally-Sponsored Preservation Initiative: “INVENTORY AND PROMOTION County Council and Area Councils will undertake measures to enhance public appreciation and the visibility of heritage resources by: • Maintaining a comprehensive data base listing of heritage resources having historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or natural significance as contained in Appendix 4 to this Plan; According to Figure 4 - Framework for the Environmental Management Policies in chapter 3.2 of the County Of Oxford ‘s Official Plan, one of the goals of the Environmental Resource Protection Policies is Cultural Heritage affecting historic buildings, sites and areas. Therefore, given this site’s cultural/historical value combined with its numerous natural heritage values, we object to the rezoning of lot 29 concession 1 for an aggregate pit. Instead, we feel they should be considered for heritage designations to preserve some of our past for the benefit of the present and future generations to enjoy. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mrs. Rose Whaling, President MR. Andrew B Kittmer, Treasurer and agent File Zon.5-04-14 Application for Zone Change on E part, Lot 29, Con 1 West Zorra. Notice of Objection by Dr. Larry Jensen Destruction of the wildlife corridor: Introduction: According to Oxford ‘s Official Plan, County Council and the Area Councils will strive to: Achieve net environmental gain through the protection and conservation of existing natural features, the maintenance of existing ecological functions and the creation of new environmental features, wherever possible. IDENTIFY AND PROTECT SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS Preserve and protect lands and water identified by the Province, County and Area Municipalities as significant natural areas by designating such features as Environmental Protection Areas on the Land Use Schedules. DEVELOP THE NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM Ensure the viability of protected natural areas through the development of the Natural Heritage System by linking environmentally protected areas and open spaces via a series of natural or open space corridors. I wish to make the following objections to the rezoning of Lot 29 con 1: Opening and operating an aggregate pit on Lot 29, Con.1 W.Z. will cut off a major wildlife corridor that involves function of my property on Lot 29, Con 1 W.Z. as part of this corridor. This issue is partly acknowledged in the Natural Assessment completed by Mr Morton in Zorra Township’s Summary Report prepared by Harrington & Hoyle Ltd, Nov. 2004, page 19: “Potential Impacts • Removal and impairment to corridors, forest linkages • Daily and seasonal movement of wildlife • Flora germination, invasion of non-native species” As a mitigative measure, Mr. Morton suggests that (page 20, section 17.6: ”The 15 m northern property/fence line setback zone is to be enhanced for wildlife corridor/linkage functions and identified as a Tree Planting Zone on figure no 10.” Lot 29, Con 1 WZ is located south of Wildwood Conservation area and the village of Harrington (Map 1). Footing the property is Harrington Creek flowing through one of Oxford’s largest remaining complex of Provincially Significant wetlands with adjoining Carolinian-fringe forests and locally significant wetlands connected with the Lakeside complex. On the north side is a deep wooded-wetland ravine that connects with Wildwood Conservation area. Harrington Creek flows northward through Harrington village and enters Trout Creek as it enters Wildwood Conservation area and complex north of Harrington. However, the natural wildlife corridor along Harrington Creek is largely cut off by the village of Harrington’s residential streets and dwellings. Thus, the main alternative wildlife corridor must be a short cut northward through the east part Lot 29 Con 1 to reach the deep wooded, wetland ravine which connects more directly with the Wildwood Conservation area. The third additional corridor, is a narrow corridor that extends northeast from the PSW to ultimately connect with Wildwood Conservation area. However several residential properties and fences within this latter corridor, make this corridor less viable. The attached maps from Oxford County’s web site vividly show the key position that Zorra’s property occupies with respect to being a key wildlife corridor between the Wildwood and Lakeside natural complexes. (See Figures 1 to 4). Fencing: In Harrington & Hoyle’s summary report (page 15), Mr. Janssen states the excavation will come to 15 m of the north boundary of the property. This narrow 15 metre strip is to serve as a wildlife corridor as this setback will be planted with trees. Mr. Janssen and Mr. Morton fail to mention that a barrier fence will be constructed parallel with the 15 m set back (site plans) and no trees will be planted on the opposite side of this fence on Lot 30, Con 1. Thus wildlife can not migrate farther north than the 15 m set back and wildlife from the north cannot easily enter the treed 15m set back. Instead it will be a barrier for wildlife that cannot jump the fence or squeeze under it. At present, lot 29 is on the south east side of a gently sloping moraine with a small wooded knoll at the top forming the highest elevated point Oxford County (385+ metres asl) The land is southeast sloping agricultural land at the base of which are wetlands and PSW. Agricultural cropping on the property now allows Lot 29, Con 1 to function as a wild life corridor. As pasturing of livestock has largely ceased and most fences have now fallen into disrepair in northern West Zorra Township, thus there are no significant fence barriers such as those required for aggregate properties and other fences from the PSW to Wildwood Conservation area are also in disrepair. The only barriers for wild life are county Road 96 to the north and the 31st line road to the east. There are no fences along the 31st Line road and the fencing is gone or in disrepair along Road 96. As well, CBM’s high page barrier fence along the west side of Zorra’s property is not a direct barrier (Figure 7, Natural Environment, Technical Report, Level I & II, 2004). However, CBM fences fronting Lot 28, Con 1, W.Z. and enclosing the W Part Lot 29, Con 1 limits the corridor to being only the width of Lot 29, Con 1. At present wild life can migrate largely unimpeded most of the year between the Wildwood Conservation area into the Lakeside part of the Wildwood-Lakeside Complex via E. part Lot 29 Con 1 and W part Lot 29 Con 2. It now appears to function as the widest and most free of the remaining wildlife corridors between the two complexes. With the opening of an aggregate pit on Lot 29 con 1, Zorra will be required to construct a barrier fence around three sides of its aggregate property as required by the Aggregate Act. Without fencing, ATV’s and snow mobiles will be attracted to the property as is the case with CBM’s properties in spite of barrier fences. Whether Zorra fences off the whole of its property or along the fill lines between its operations and the wetlands and forest, this fencing will effectively cut off the wildlife corridor. Wildlife, upon crossing the 31st Line from W.Part Lot 29 con 2 (my property), will meet a high barrier fence fronting Zorra’s property connecting with CBM fences. As it tries to exit the ravine on the north side ,wildlife moving south from the Wildwood complex will meet a fence again connecting with CBM fencing( around W lot 29 con 1?). Thus, the two high page barrier fences would pose a significant barrier for animals larger than field rabbits. Young deer, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, turtles, wild turkeys, grouse have all been observed to use this corridor. As a result of the required barrier fences on the north and south sides and east along the road side in conjuction with CBM fencing, the functioning of my own property as part of a wild life corridor between the Lakeside and Wildwood complexes will be greatly compromised or it will cease to exist. Along the back/west boundary of Lot 29, Zorra plans to remove the high fence between its property and CBM’s property through a Mutual Fence agreement passed by Zorra Council in November 2004. However, Zorra’s plans to make it part of a large fenced off property extending from the 29th line to the 31st line is only in order to maximize their extraction area. At present this fence at the back of Zorra’s property does not pose a significant barrier to wildlife using this north-south corridor and tends to direct wildlife toward the two natural areas. Excavation: It is difficult to argue that the removal of CBM’s fence will mitigate Zorra’s blockage to the wildlife corridor. The excavation 20 to 30 m face along this portion of the property will be very steep rendering it difficult for wildlife to climb or descend such a slope.. As well, with time the north side of Zorra’s proposed aggregate pit will have a steep 30 m face making it difficult for animals to reach the 15 m wide treed setback at the top of the face. Indeed this new slope will become a major hazard for larger animals like the numerous deer who have been seen to use this corridor (See site plans by H&H) Roads An expected requirement of Zorra Township will no doubt be a major upgrade of the present hilly and narrow 31st Line gravel road, with widening and paving of a 12 meter wide strip through the Lakeside/Wildwood Complex. This will be in addition to their 40 m wide allowance for a planned haulage road with flanking drainage ditches and berms through the frontal wetland to reach the pit operations. At present the 31st Line road is a gravel road with narrow shoulders and no side drainage ditches in the wetlands . It is within the environmental fill lines across the front of Zorra’s property and within other environmental fill lines south of the property within the Lakeside Complex.. However, in regards to this issue, I wish to point out in a published (Dec 17 2005) article by the Toronto Star’s environmental reporter Cameron Smith, a quote from Gordon Giffin Park Superintendent of St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada: “A road with pavement two metres wide within two kilometres of a wetland will force a decline of 19 per cent in the snakes, frogs, salamanders, skinks and turtles, and a 12-percent decline in mammals. Within a kilometre of a wetland, a road will thin plant species by 13 per cent, and within 500 metres, birds will decline by 14 per cent. The reason is that roads let in more light, runoff and ditches change the neighbouring hydrology, buffer zones are eliminated for things that live deep in forests, and traffic creates hazards and noise.” Upgrading of the 31st Line road through further raising, widening and paving with the associated shoulders, ditches and forest cut back, thus attracting increased high speed traffic, primarily gravel trucks and equipment, will greatly stress the ecology and hydrology of the Lakeside-Wildwood Complex, and further downgrade its function as one of its critical wildlife corridors described above. Zorra’s haulage road traffic and noise combined with changes to the 31st Line, will truncate the wildlife corridor not only for larger animals but for plants, birds and small amphibians and reptiles and in effect, negatively impact all of the wetlands ( in the complex?.) The haulage road is to extend the width of Zorra’s property from the 31st Line road to its boundary with CBM. It will act as a third road barrier. This will expose small slow animals such as turtles, frogs and other amphibians as they try to cross over the road to preditors, traffic and sunlight. The same will happen as this wildlife tries to cross the excavated site as it expands into the 2nd phase of operation. The Provincially Significant Wetlands on my property and on Zorra’s abutt the 31st Line and abut their haulage road and haulage road entrance. If the planned road development in the site plans is approved , the proper functioning of all the PSW on my property and Zorra’s property will be in large part destroyed, according to Gord Giffin’s statement concerning the impact of roads on wetlands quoted above. Noise: Heavy equipment movement, with accompanying noise from crushing and sorting will frighten wildlife from migrating across the property or from inhabiting the nearby PSW. Bird nesting, animal movement will be forced to stay farther east and south of the property and to the north of the property. The traffic of loaded gravel trucks will have the same effect as they come and go either from the south or north, accelerating or braking at the 31st Lline road haulage entrance as they approach the 31st line road and turn north or south and vice versa. The isolated, treed high point of land, at 385+ m asl, on lot 29 con 1 and overlooking Zorra’s proposed aggregate operation, now serves as high look-out point and provides nesting for hawks, owls and ravens. Such birds will be shunned from this part of the corridor. Dust, erosion and spray : As this will be a clay-rich aggregate deposit, crushing, sorting and trucking will stir up large amounts of dust that,with the prevailing winds, will drift into the PSW and hamper the pollination of many rare and endangered plants, forcing them to retreat deeper into the PSW or disappear. Summary: Any wildlife that enters Zorra’s property will face considerable danger as it tries to migrate between the various sections of the Lakeside and Wildwood Complex. The 15m wide treed allowance on the north side is meaningless if there is a steep aggregate face on one side and a barrier fence on the other side. Animals such as deer will be vulnerable to being corralled on Zorra’s property by hunters and coyotes. Other, small animals will not even be able to use the corridor as they will be exposed to several hazards. Zorra ‘s proposed aggregate pit seriously compromises the value of my portion of the PSW as a crucial link in a wildlife corridor and a habitat for Oxford’s natural heritage. This would negate the more than 60 years of conservation practised by my family since we have purchased this property back in 1942. In light of Oxford County’s Official Plan goals to Achieve net environmental gain through the protection and conservation of existing natural features, I feel that the County needs to demand far more research into the validity of this development project before it should be allowed to proceed. Furthermore, is it in the best interest of Oxford ratepayers to rezone such a property for aggregate extraction for a short term gain of saving a few pennies on aggregate material when there are so many other aggregate pits licensed in northern Zorra Township? Or would this property have much greater value as a wildlife refuge with precious water sources, allowing citizens to reap benefits as to their quality of life indefinitely? January 24, 2005 mailto:planning@county.oxford.on.ca. Att. James Hill, Corporate Manager of Community and Strategic Planning County of Oxford Community and Strategic Planning Office 415 Hunter Street, Court House P.O. Box 397, Woodstock, On N4S 7Y3 Telephone: 519-539-9800; Fax 519-537-5513 File Zon.5-04-14 Corporation of the Township of Zorra Application for Zone Change on E part, Lot 29, Con 1 West Zorra. Notice of Objection by Dr. Larry Jensen Environmental Impact Study Requirement According to Oxford County’s Official Plan, a full Environmental Impact Study would be required to include all the adjacent environmentally sensitive and protected areas, in particular, the areas where impact from nearby development is likely to occur. In Oxford County’s Official Plan it is acknowledged that this falls within the jursdiction of the MNR. In recent years, former wetlands have been allowed to rejuvenate on Lot 29, Con.1 WZ, and on adjacent land such that, if an official wetland study had been were conducted within the last few years, the area of designated PSW would have been enlarged to a considerable degree. It is my opinion that rezoning not be allowed to occur until the MNR has conducted such a study. It is obvious that in Zorra’s site plan and documents, there are discrepancies concerning the extent and location of the PSW on Lots 29 Con 1 and Lot 29 Con.2 shown on different sources of data. On the UTRCA map, the PSW comes in contact with the Fill Line and the fill line is slightly bent to accommodate the PSW. In Mr.Morton’s Natural Environment technical report, the maps (Figure 2) shift the PSW on Zorra’s property 20 to 25 m south east from the UTRCA bend and by 5 to 10 m south of the UTRCA fill line. As well, Mr. Morton’s maps show that the adjacent PSW on the east side of the 31st line as being 20 m east of Harrington Creek whereas the UTRCA map show this same PSW being tight against the east banks of Harrington Creek. The PSW on both maps are 80m in from the 31st line road, but on Mortons map, the Harrington Creek is placed 20m closer to the 31st line than is seen on the UTRCA maps and on Oxford’s base maps (Figure 4). It would be expected that the PSW come to the banks of the Harrington Creek and be found on both sides of the creek as this is very flat low-lying land (Figure 5). On Oxford’s GIS maps the PSW come to the property? edge on the east side of the 31st line road. My own field comparisons of the designated PSW on my property with the area adjacent to the 31st line road suggest that Oxford’s GIS maps are more accurate than MR. Morton’s?. Mr. Morton’s line representing the 120 m EP set back from his placement of the PSW boundary is actually 104 and is the same line as is displayed on the site plans of Harrington and Hoyle’s 2004 Report. On the site plans, for example the Operations Plan, (Figure 3), the PSW are shifted 30 to 35 south west from the bend in the Fill Line and 12 to 17 m south of the Fill Line. This make the line showing the 120 m EP set back valid. According to Oxford’s Official Plan?, the exact definition of Oxford’s 120 m Environmental Protection Setback (Buffer Zone) is uncertain. It can be assumed to mean restricted or minimal development within 120 m of the PSW that may affect the integrity of the PSW or it can be assumed to mean that this 120 m buffer is actually an integral part of the PSW meaning no development allowed to alter the land and vegetation within 120 m of the PSW. To have any meaning, this 120 m environmental set back must mean no major development, reconfiguration (land scaping), or change in the use of the land within 120 m of a PSW. On Mr. Morton’s map, the 120 m Environmental Protection buffer zone required for the PSW on Zorra’s property is faintly shown by a green dashed line. As mentioned, according to the scale provided, it measures as a 104 m EP setback ( buffer) and the accurate line should come within10 m of of Bechard’s property line on his maps. The distance in width between the northern limit of the fill line around Zorra’s valleylands and Bechard’s southern property line is 120 m. Mr. Morton’s maps do not appear to consider this part of Zorra’s property as also being part of the EP setback for the PSW on the east side of the 31st line road. On Oxford’s GIS maps, the 120 EP setback includes all the wetlands fronting Zorra’s property as being within the EP setback for the PSW (Jensen’s) on the east side of the 31st line road. Thus Zorra’s locally significant wetlands in which they propose to construct a haulage road with associated ditches, settling ponds and berms, is a ‘double’ EP zone, i.e., for two separate PSW’s. Consideration of this double function of the wetlands should be made prior to destroying these wetlands. They are a contiguous wetland area with the PSW areas on both Zorra’s property and mine. Morton’s Natural Environment technical report makes no assessment of the impact that the construction of the haulage will have on the PSW on the east side of the 31st line road probably because he considers them outside the 120 m EP zone. Neither his nor Mr. Pentney’s reports consider the impact that drainage ditches will have on the water table of the surrounding wetland and PSW and what possible degradation this will bring to the natural environment. Hence they provide no mitigating solutions. My scientific analysis of the haulage road site plans indicate, there would be considerable impact, for example, a probable drop of 2 to 4 m for the water table extending into the PSW. The uncertain and conflicting boundaries of the PSW and the probable destruction of a wetland that would now be considered Provincially Significant, adjacent and contiguous to the present PSW, make Zorra’s site plan and report unsatisfactory. It is my opinion that these undesignated wetlands should be re-evaluated, including the possible effects that construction of a haulage road will have on all local and provincially significant wetlands and PSWetlands. I refer you to the following in Oxford’s Official Plan: Section 3.2.4.2.1 Significant Wetlands: “In addition to the requirements of Section 3.2.6, the Environmental Impact Study for lands adjacent to a Provincially Significant Wetland will examine the merits of the proposed development to ensure that such development will not result in any of the following: • loss of wetland functions both hydrological and ecological; • subsequent demand for future development which will negatively impact on existing wetland functions; • conflict with existing site-specific wetland management practices; and • loss of contiguous wetland area.” 3.2.6 Environmental Impact Studies To define and describe the natural heritage feature as well as the functions and processes associated with allowing the feature to exist in a natural state. 1.5 Interpretation Given the generalized boundaries of environmental features and resources such as wetlands, areas of natural and scientific interest, mineral aggregate resources, significant woodlots, well head protection areas and vulnerable aquifers and any corresponding land use designation shown on the land use schedules of this Plan, it may be necessary to more precisely interpret the boundaries prior to the approval of development applications within or adjacent to these lands. Where interpretation of the limits of any such feature or resource is called into question, the County may specify the nature and extent of information required to define or interpret such limits. The final interpretation of the limits of any such feature or resource will be undertaken and/or approved by the County, the agency or the Ministry responsible for identifying the resource. It is intended the corresponding land use designation will only apply to the area defined as the environmental feature or resource. File Zon.5-04-14 Application for Zone Change on E part, Lot 29, Con 1 West Zorra. Notice of Objection by Dr. Larry Jensen This objection is based on the low quality, high clay content of aggregate located on Lot 29, Con 1, West Zorra , on the site to be extracted. Erosion of the clay and sandy clay into the wetlands and PSW would be difficult to control and the noise and dust would be high compared with other nearby pits. The high clay and sandy clay content in the aggregate may require washing of the aggregate for purposes other than road fill and general road gravel. Information from the geotechnical test pits indicate that the much of the aggregate is boulder till (Zorra Till) containing near surface, poorly sorted gravel seams. Based on the geotechnical report and my own observations, the main components of this aggregate would be clay, sandy clay, and stone 2 cm to 1 m in size. Layers of consistent, clean, homogeneous sand for winter sanding of paved roads appear absent and clean, pebble-sized stone for asphalt paving is very limited without washing and sorting. Some stony, poorly sorted gravel layers comprised of 2 to 10 cm pebbles mixed with clay and sandy clay are present but the test pits give little indication of their thicknesses. Collected boulders 0.5 to 1 m size, exposed by cultivation, occur along the fence bottoms and edges of the agricultural land to indicated the property is largely till. A wide variety of stone compositions and sizes occur in the till and the till outwash suggesting that very high noise and dust levels from sorting and crushing would be a problem. Almost all of the material would have to go through sorting and crushing for road gravel and asphalt unless it is simply used as road fill. The larger stones are mainly very hard, abrasion resistant Precambrian rock from north of Lake Huron, comprised of granite and granite gneiss, diabase and gabbro, and very hard Huronian sedimentary rocks. Smaller stones are a mix of these compositions in addition to limestone and sandstone cobbles and pebbles. Other nearby pits of better quality and quantity, have better segregated units of clay-free sand and gravel without many large cobbles and boulders that require continuous difficult sorting and crushing. It is my opinion that the only real value of this aggregate pit would be for road-fill to raise and widen the low portions of concession roads from 1 to 5 meters in height, throughout the Lakeside/Wildwood Complex to resemble Country Road 96. If this is the Township’s aim, this would greatly degrade the natural heritage of the complex in all respects, as it did when Country Road 96 was built up in 1950 and the then highest point in Oxford Country (Lot 30, Con 1) was cut down. Erosion from the exposed hill-cut deposited a meter-thick layer of sandy clay in the nearby valley where I resided, killing many trees and shrubs and ruining my parents orchard and garden with no compensation. The portion of the hill the county of Oxford removed in 1950 was part of the same moraine that Zorra wishes to excavate. As school-aged children, we watched the hill being cut down and the road being built up through Harrington. Except for a few gravelly streaks, it was all Zorra Till. Zorra’s property is likely to be very similar. Silty water spilling over the 31st line road at the haulage road exit and flowing toward Harrington Creek, will deposit silt in the PSW and enter Harrington Creek. During one torrential storm a few years ago, Bechards was flooded including their basement (see photos below). This muddy water from only a small part of Zorra’s property, flowed from their property into the wetlands where it was contained. This is where Zorra now proposes to put their haulage road. The haulage road ditches, with run off water from the whole property diverted toward these ditches, will silt up and over flow the 31st line road into the PSW on my property. Zorra Gravel Pit Application and Harrington and Hoyle Report on the Robinson Pit. Geotechnical Assessment In his introductory Summary Report ,Mr. Bernie Janssen may be overly optimistic in his assessment of the quality and quantity of aggregate on Zorra’s property. Could it be in part, the result of misinterpretation of the Aggregate Resources Inventory Paper (ARIP)of the Township of Zorra, Report 61, 1986 MNDM and Cowen’s 1975 report on Oxford County and, as well, in part, his assessment of aggregate tests on the property? It should also be remembered that, at the time of mapping, the OGS’s (MNR-MNDM) data was based on hand augers and air photo interpretations combined with visits to road cuts and aggregate pits. For lack of time, much of the area such as Zorra’s property, would not have been examined in detail. The OGS’s mapping is meant to be only general guidance to assist people in searching for aggregate and mineral resources. As an example, Mr. Janssen bases much of his conclusion on a reference to the six aggregate deposits mentioned by Cowan (1975) to the south of the property. Mr. Janssen infers by their presence, that the aggregate of these aggregate pits can be simply extrapolated into the Zorra Property. The pits referred to by Cowan 1975 were already opened prior to 1975. These opened deposits are outwash deposits such as the kames on lot 28, located to the south, deposited by outwash from stagnant ice and the erosion of elevated stagnant ice-contact deposits (moraines) such as that identified on the north side of Zorra’s property (Tavistock Till). The photos in his report, (Figs 11 and 12 p.12) are outwash deposits (kames) quite distant from Zorra’s property and are probably not representative of Zorra’s property. Cowan (1975) clearly distinguishes them from terrain near Harrington by giving specific locations. According to Cowan, much of the remaining area is hummocky terrain underlain by glacial till with some gravel and consequently, the ARIP of Zorra Township has included Zorra’s property within this zone as a possible additional aggregate resource area with the deposits referred to by Cowan (1975). Till has little or no internal consistency and internal layering but instead, it is a random mix of clay, silt, sand, and stone up to meter size. Most sloping moraines are stony near surface, resulting from clay, silt and sand being washed down slope. Most moraines have streaks of gravel because of glacial water making channels where the clay and silt is carried away leaving the coarser material behind. Much of this occurs either under the glacier or as the glacier melts back prior to the reestablishment of vegetation. Within a short time, many gravel streaks and lenses (some with layering) become buried by the channel sides caving in on top of the gravel or by silt being deposited on top with less vigorous outwash as the glacier wanes. Cowan classified this area as a potential aggregate zone (as was the stated policy in our organization at that time to indicate any area with possible gravel deposition). Extensive, sub horizontal sheet-like layers of well sorted gravel, pebbles and sand tend to be deposited in the lower areas at moderate distances from steeply sloping till land forms. In most cases, where glacial outwash flows outward into flatter areas away from the base of elevated till land-form areas (or glacier’s stationary front), extensive sub horizontal layers of gravel are built up such as is seen farther to the southwest of Zorra’s property. The finer sand and silt in this case, was carried farther out toward Lakeside, where these deposits become very fine sand and silt with the clay having been largely removed. (Figure 1) There is no reason to believe that the gravel deposits such as that owned by CBM and Lafarge and “Rounds” continue at depth into Zorra’s property just because it is part of the same ridge as stated by Janssen (p.11, 3rd Par.). It is more likely that it is the Tavistock (Zorra) Till which occurs at depth under the test pits. Indeed the deposits of gravel-bearing outwash must thin and end as they butt against the Tavistock Till found in the core of Zorra’s property (See test pit logs #6, #7,#9, #24 #25, #27 and probably #26). (Please also see my accompanying geological diagrams). It is likely the Tavistock Till unit slopes downward to the west, south and east under relatively thin, gravelly upper sections that were described in other further downslope test pits. Thus, this irregular upper gravelly section seen in some test pits, on Zorra’s property would most likely form a minor part of a south to west facing (sloping), irregular, apron of gravel-bearing units. These units would be expected to thicken and improve in quality towards the southwest into the adjoining properties as described by Cowan (1975). The gravelly section may be quite thin on much of the Zorra Property. The uppermost sandy-silt-clay surface material recorded in most of the test pits, was likely formed by gradual slumping and erosion from high remnants of the Tavistock Till, part of which remain as an isolated mound on the north edge of Zorra’s property. Proximal to the edge of this till mound, the aggregate deposits are more likely to occur in streaks within the till and to have a high clay content. Cowen (1975) shows and states that Zorra (Tavistock) Till deposited by the Huron Glacial lobe overlies the bedrock in the north Zorra Township and the Port Stanley Till of the Erie Lobe remains largely south of Ingersol. Thus there is little chance of the Tavistock Till burying extensive glacial contact (out wash) sand and gravel deposits associated with outwash from the Port Stanley Till sheet. Instead, the glacial sand and gravel being outwash from Zorra Till must overlie the Zorra till deposits as mentioned by Pentney in his hydrological assessment. Indeed most of Zorra’s property may be mainly underlain by stony till with narrow streaks and lenses of gravelly material. Most of the test holes are only from 3 to 5 meter depths. What occurs below these depths is unknown. However the work plans show that excavation are to be from 15 to 25 meter depth from surface. There is a high probability that much of the material to be excavated will be Tavistock Till comprised of silty clay containing numerous cm to meter size stones. It may be good only for road fill. Indeed, many of the down-hole photographs of the test pits in Harrington and Hoyle’s 2004 report resemble the structure and texture of Zorra Till seen in Cowan’s Photo 7, p28 of his report. What the above paragraph means, is that, Zorra should and must conduct deep tests to determine that actual gravel thickness in at least three widely spaced intervals across the property down to the water table to determine the true extent and continuity of the aggregate deposit and to make certain they are not going to be, in large part, extracting Tavistock Till.. The cross-sections A-A. B-B and C-C in appendix C of the Hydrogeological Assessment of Harrington and Hoyles 2004 Report show till is present on the high ground and till present at depth to the bedrock, both considered to be Tavistock Till. This analysis suggests two distinct glacial tills separated by an easily recognizable, wide-spread layer of outwash gravel. Cowen(1975) would have quickly recognized this significant feature and mentioned it in his report. Such a layer would be exposed and be prominent in the valley of Harrington West. All excavations including the lowering of the hill west of Harrington by Oxford County back in 1950, exposed only heterogeneous glacial Tavistock Till. An extensive continuous gravel deposit would not be expected to occupy the core of a hill mantled by veneer of glacial Tavistock till. Glacial readvances usually plow over and level such sharp features caused by previous glacial advances and retreats. Material such as this becomes re-incorporated into the till material for deposit elsewhere. Pentney in the hydrological assessment of H&H report also states that the till deposits are overlain by glacial outwash gravel and sand on p.3. Not much information is provided about CBM’s Bore hole #2 by Janssen (p.12) except that there appears to be about 25 meters of aggregate extending down from surface. The hole was put down on the south western edge of the ridge that extends into Zorra’s property. On Zorra’s property this ridge rises and it is described in 5 of the test holes as being composed of Zorra Till along its crest toward its northeastern end on Zorra’s property. CBM #2 hole is located 200 meters from Zorra’s property at a point where the ridge starts to slope steeply southwest. A thick, south-dipping apron of gravel material could occur at this location on the SW flanks of the ridge and be properly called and be part of, an ice-contact outwash deposit, which in Cowan’s report, occurs mainly to the south and southwest. If it has a steep southward dip, its apparent thickness (as recorder in the vertical bore hole) could be much greater than its true or actual thickness. See attached C profile section). Nothing is indicated about the slope of the gravel units in CBM #2 hole within Janssen’s report to indicate that this deposit extends to any great extent into Zorra’s property. A second deep drill hole should be conducted on Zorra’s property to establish slope and thickness of this gravel unit extending on to Zorra’s property. I did visit the March 30th , 04 tests sites (#17-#27) the day after these 13 tests were made, to take preliminary notes. And, I, again 4 days later revisited the property to take photos and more extensive notes and samples from material left at surface. In most cases, the gravelly material and the clayey material had been placed in separate piles close to the hole during digging. Incomplete refilling of the test holes allowed me to take notes. Witnesses said the 13 tests were completed within half a day. Time was lost getting stuck while entering from the back of the property and establishing a means through a heavily wooded area to reach the first test site #17. They had little time to effectively replace the material they excavated. In summary, the logs do approximate what I viewed in the field. The logs which reported Tavistock (Zorra) Till, #24, #25did show no evidence of gravelly material, only limited cobbles and pebbles in a silty clay matrix. All the test sites had considerable silty to sandy clay left on surface. None of the 13 test sites had indications of “clean” well sorted aggregate of sand, coarse sand, pebbly sand or cobbles with sand and pebbles such as can be easily observed in the CBM aggregate pits towards the south west. At the test sites with indications of aggregate present, the aggregate invariably had silty clay and appeared to be poorly sorted. In some test sites, aggregate portions could not be obtained without a high amount of clay-size material. Ignoring the clay and silt content, as stated in the logs, test pits #19, #17 #18 and #20 did have aggregate material that one could call gravel for road work. These holes are located at the southwest edge of the property and could be well on to the aggregate apron on the southern edge of the mound of Tavistock Till to the north and could be the start of the large thick aggregate layer to the south. As well, Test hole #23 located behind Bechard’s residence also had gravel – possibly the best gravel. (See crosssections A,B,C and D. Of interest is Test Hole # 27 “with gravel layers dipping west” overlying “compact till with some stones” located on the west edge of Zorra’s property. This suggests the core of Zorra’s aggregate property may be composed of Tavistock Till draped by a mantle of a gravel-bearing zone that thickens to the west and south that explains CBM’s BH2 270m to the south west (See Profile Section C, attached). Of additional interest is Test Hole #21 with reported Port Stanley Till at 2.5 m below surface. The “Grey, clayey silt till” was actually bluish grey sandy silt material which suggests it has remained unoxidized and has never been above the water table. It is next to the wetland and was seeping water when I visited this site. Similarly, Test Hole #22 had fine watery quicksand. Both are located in the southeast part of the property at water table levels. According to the site plans the haulage road is to be built over the location of Test Hole #22 (See attached photographs 1 and 2) The water montitoring bore holes are of interest. All have (unnamed) Till shown overlying sand and gravel? This till probably represents material eroded off the higher land areas. The lower gravel must have large stones larger than cobbles or have cobbles set in a solid matrix to give the reported drilling problems . One major point – why was at least one of the water montitoring bore holes not located near the north west side toward the back of the property? This would have given a more accurate monitoring of the water table and also provided information about the aggregate material at depth. Because I have no first hand knowledge or observations about the test sites #1 to 16, other than what is reported in the logs, I can only make general comments about these test sites. All of them seem to have 2 to 3 m of fine (clay and silt) surface material which must be removed before excavation can proceed. This amounts to a tremendous volume of soil to shift around and prevent from washing into the wetlands. Berming will only require a small portion of this top soil. Please look at the photographs provided in H&H report. The quality of the photographs of the test sites provided in my copy of the Harrington and Hoyle;s report bother me. Many appear to have their colours altered by accentuating the blues and greens and washing out the red which obscures the true clay content. At all the sites, the clay, silt and sand size material were all a rich brown colour more or less as shown in TP29 on page 7. Note that the grass would not yet have been a bright green in March. Shades of blue are prominent in the shadowy portions of many pictures. (See pages 5, 6 and 7). My own photographs show the natural brown silty clay at all the sights mixed in with what was referred to as gravel. Note the photos of Test Pit 29. This pit was noted to have some of the cleanest sand and gravel found on the property. Note the resemblance of Cowan’s photograph Photo 7, p. 28 of typical Zorra (Tavistock) Till to those in Harrington and Hoyle’s 2004 of the test pits. An additional question comes to mind. Giving gravel an approximate grade as to its quality is not that difficult to do for an experienced eye. Only 3 test pits (#4 #19 #20) are reported to have “B” gravel and two samples, one each from test pit #17 and #29 were the only gravel samples sent for testing. The sample from #29 passed as granular B, Type 1, and that from #17 failed although both test sites are close to each other in the extreme southwest corner of the property. One would expect much more thorough testing before opening an aggregate pit of this size. Only 4 test pits are reported to have gravel units with >50% gravel, 3 of which are also located in the southwest part of the property. Only a few other test pits have reported to have units of >35% gravel. According to Cowan (1975), most of the aggregate pits in the 1a area of significant aggregate resources have gravel units of >75% gravel. This would suggest that this proposed aggregate pit requires more tests to locate better quality gravel units. Further, Oxford’s Environmental Constraints Plan shows Zorra’s property falls within an area that has a slope hazard of 20%, contained in a groundwater recharge zone (See map). Provincially Significant Wetlands and locally significant wetlands are located at the base of the property. Given the 2+ meters (6+feet) of clay material that must be excavated prior to access to the gravel, and the abundance of clay- to silt-size material within the tested aggregate, the erosion of sediment into the lowlands is bound to be a major problem. I had difficulty reconciling the elevations on Harrington and Hoyle’s report with the OBM elevations which I have always found to relatively accurate in my work. In this area, data from these OBM maps corresponded closely with my GPS instrument readings. My cross-sections are all based on OBM maps. However, it seems, much of the contouring on Harrington and Hoyle’s work plans and rehabilitation plans appear to be about 5 meters too low. Elsewhere in their report, the reported elevations seem accurate. If their elevations on their plans are used as being equivalent to OBM elevations, it will actually allow them to excavate at a lower elevation than the wetlands ie. below the water table. Two of their test holes (#21 and #22) at 340.6 m asl actually leaked water at surface. However their rehabilitation plans show excavating at or below 340 m asl, up-slope at the 343-344 m asl level and the floor of the final surface gradually rising to 348 m asl at the west end of the pit. Excavating further up slope, down 3- 5 m (10-15 ft) to the level of their water-bearing test holes would put them below the water table. Something is not correct if they intend to stay above the water table. Enclosed are photographs of TP#21 and TP#22. In the logs of TP 21, ground water seepage was reported at 4 m below surface. In TP 22, seepage was noted at 1.2 m and rapid seepage at 4 m below surface. It strongly suggests that although the remaining test pits were reported dry, the holes were quickly refilled before water had a chance to enter the holes to any extent. The test holes should have been left open for a day or so to determine if the holes had penetrated the water table, particularily where there is abundant clay and silt. It is no different than digging a fence post hole and coming back the next day to find it half full of water. In a separate report, I will discuss the hyrdological problems with this proposed aggregate pit. As a final note, there is a small, abandoned aggregate pit located in the southern woodlot on the edge of the PSW. It is easily overlooked as it is now overgrown with mature trees and partly filled by stones gathered from the nearby field. Possibly early settlers opened it as they did many other pits for road material and building foundations. If good aggregate had been found here, it would have remained opened and expanded. This poor quality aggregate deposit should remain as is to serve Oxford and SW Ontario as a source of fresh potable water and a cold water source for Harrington Creek and the trout spawning streams feeding Harrington Creek. Dr. Larry Jensen Retired Geoscientist R. R. #3, Embro, Ontario 905 274 8165 519 348 2738 Don MacLeod From: Sent: To: Subject: Liz Buchanan January 26, 2006 12:52 PM 'Ron'; Don MacLeod FW: rezoning -----Original Message----From: ALYCIN HAYES [mailto:echohay@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:36 AM To: planning@county.oxford.on.ca Subject: rezoning Re: Township of Zorra FILE: 5-04-14 Alycin Hayes 3166-25 31 Line, RR #3, Embro, Ontario, N0J- 1J0 Dear Township of Zorra Council, Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the zoning by-law amendment meeting on January 31, 2006 as I will be out of the country. As the owner of an adjacent property located at 316625-31Line, RR # 3 Embro (Echo Hill Farm,Lot 27 Conn 1) I would like you and the council to know I strongly oppose the rezoning of the property located as part of Lot 29,Conn1, on the 31st line from Agricultural (A2) to Aggregate Industrial (ME) in order to establish a sand and gravel pit. Sincerely, Alycin Hayes Alycin Hayes Phone contact USA (352) 335-7065 Canada (519) 475-4450 _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement 1 Bettina Koschade Oxford Green Watch RR3 Embro, Ontario N0J 1J0 Ron Versteegen Community and Strategic Planning Office County of Oxford 415 Hunter Street, Court House P.O. Box 397 Woodstock, Ontario N4S 7Y3 January 20, 2006 Re: Corporation of Township of Zorra application for MNR Category 3, Class A Aggregate licence and zone change proposal. Dear Mr. Versteegen, On behalf of all members of Oxford Green Watch, I would like to express our grave concerns regarding the proposed application by the Corporation of the Township of Zorra for rezoning and for a Class A, Category 3 license for aggregate extraction on the property Lot 29, Concession 1 in the Township of Zorra. The proposed area for rezoning lies in the center of a recharge zone for the Harrington Creek watershed. A gravel pit and access roads located in the middle of this watershed would redirect the recharge flow from where the soil currently collects rain water and melting snow that is slowly released into the aquifer that feeds vital local wells as well as Harrington Pond and Creek. The quality and quantity of water recharged into the aquifer are dependent on the soil in the watershed to process the surface water. The area has, therefore, been identified as an Aquifer High Vulnerability Area as well as a Groundwater High Intrinsic Susceptibility area in the Oxford Groundwater Study maps on the Oxford County website. It was recommended in the Groundwater Study that these areas be incorporated into the County planning documents. The proposed area is also contiguous to a Provincially Significant Wetland. Adjacent land to a significant wetland is defined as being within 120 metres or in the case of wetland complexes, 120 metres of individual wetlands comprising the complex. These limited legal definitions unfortunately allow for a lot of planning leeway that often does not fully describe or account for variable topographical features and cumulative effects of surrounding land features and land use. Lot 29, Concession 1 is surrounded on three sides by Environmental Protection Areas, with the Wildwood Conservation Area to the north, as indicated the Oxford Official Plan map for Zorra Township Schedule Z-1. Though the land in question is not legally defined as “adjacent”, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists has identified the immense value of green corridors upon which fauna, flora, and waterways survive from one protected area to the next to protect the biological diversity of each area. The cumulative effects of excavating land in the centre of such an intricate and complex system on the surrounding wetlands must be closely evaluated, even if the land in question is not yet legally identified as adjacent or as Provincially Significant, in order to prevent detrimental environmental effects to the ecosystem of the Harrington Creek watershed. The proposed pit will require additional road systems and potentially the paving of existing roads. As indicated in a report of another wetland area in Ontario, “wetlands are heavily impacted by roads… The reason is that roads let in more light, runoff and ditches change the neighbouring hydrology, buffer zones are eliminated for things that live deep in forests, and traffic creates hazards and noise” (Cameron Smith, Toronto Star, December 17, 2005). The extraction of the land is only a portion of the impact this pit will have on the ecology of the Harrington wetland area. The Oxford Official Plan is a planning guide for the County; there is nothing in the Plan that prohibits going above and beyond protecting our communities and our environment. The required studies under the Plan are a minimum requirement, not a limit. As the County Planner, your concerns and knowledge of the area may indicate the need for extra caution in allowing such extreme operations to occur in such a sensitive area. Dalton McGuinty encourages citizens to embrace a culture of conservation to make Ontario a cleaner, greener, healthier place to live (www.ontarioconserves.gov.on.ca/ english/index.asp). All of us as Ontario citizens, are responsible for making this happen. “Conserving nature is like money in the bank,” as said by David Suzuki, and the sole driver for this pit is economic considerations, short-term considerations, whereas economic stability must be ensured for the long-term. This pit is an example of how “we are mortgaging humanity's future by subsidizing narrow economic interests,” as David Suzuki said in his 2002 article in Science Matters (a column also published in the Oxford Review). This pit will not solve the long-term economic needs of Zorra Township. Dried up wells, contaminated aquifers, lost source of drinking water, lost wildlife habitat, extinct species, extensive environmental damage, increased road hazards and truck traffic, these are some examples of the costs that this pit will incur, some of them with an intangible monetary value. As we are sure you are aware, there is a significant amount of scientific support for preserving this wetland area ranging from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, UTRCA, the David Suzuki Foundation, Environment Canada, Ontario Nature and more. A healthy community is reflected in a healthy environment with green spaces and abundant wildlife. These last natural heritage sites in Oxford County cannot be replaced or refurbished in the future; we have to protect them today to enjoy them and reap their benefits tomorrow. The Government of Ontario knows the value in preserving these remaining natural areas. Oxford County can take a stand to protect these areas. You can make a difference. Yours truly, Bettina Koschade Chairperson Oxford Green Watch Page 2 Oxford Green Watch