Tannery Hearing -- Day 17
Evidence of Rob West
Woodland size criteria for determining if a woodland merits “significant” status, from Ontario’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual.
Rob West, Oakridge Environmental Ltd. (ORE), was qualified to give evidence as an ecologist and biologist. He is also qualified to complete wetland evaluations using Ontario’s Wetland Evaluation System (OWES).
He prepared his witness statement after visiting the site 7 times during the day (diurnal) and 3 times at night (nocturnal).
Mr. Putnam asked Mr. West to summarize his evidence. “The proposal to cap the site isn’t supportable. The loss of wetland and the loss of habitat for at risk species will have a negative impact. There needs to be a “vegetative protective zone along all the 30 m buffer areas. It cannot be a manicured lawn with a few trees and shrubs.”
Mr. Putnam had Mr. West confirm that the “no negative impact” policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are repeated in Kingston’s Official Plan (OP), that Ontario’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual (the Manual) has criteria to assess “significant wildlife habitat,” that the Tannery land is in in ecoregion 6e, and that Ontario has species at risk legislation, which is updated annually.
Mr. West went to the above table in the Manual to talk about the Significant Woodland on the site. Using aerial and spatial data, he found the woodland met the criteria of Significant for size [contrary to Mr. Snetsinger]. The Manual says to consider the woodland area all together, without considering property ownership, and so Mr. West included the adjacent woodlands on Belle Park and Belle Island in his size calculation. Ms. King objected because this evidence was not in Mr. West’s witness statement or his reply evidence and said that he cannot bring it up for the first time at the hearing. Mr. Putnam responded by saying the existence of a Significant Woodland on the site is an issue and the evidence is relevant. The Chair said to move on.
Mr. West spoke about the wetland which he said is dominated by cattails and has dispersion areas. He found Long-nosed Gar spawning along the bay.
Mr. West compared his assessment of Significant Wildlife Habitat with Mr. Snetsinger’s. They agreed on these elements:
Butterfly Migratory Route/stopover Areas
Bat Maternity Colonies
Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas, and
Raptor Wintering Area.
Mr. West adds:
Reptile Hibernaculum
Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat
Turtle Wintering Areas
Breeding Amphibians (Wetland)
Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat, and
Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species.
He said that Mr. Snetsinger had not followed the bat detection process that he would use, saying you have to locate detectors between the woodland and foraging area rather than only in the tree canopy. There are two bat species covered by species at risk legislation identified at the site – the Small-footed Myotis and the Little Brown Myotis.
Other species at risk are the Least Bittern and the Chimney Swift. Mr. West saw the former in the wetland area and the latter foraging. He also saw two turtle species of special concern – Northern Map Turtle and Snapping Turtle. He said that it was “highly probable” that the turtles hibernate in the PSW.
Mr. Putnam asked about his findings regarding the wildlife habitat. Mr. West replied, “It is a high value, high functioning PSW. A little gem within the city, that is used as a residence by many wildlife species.”
Mr. West said that he had read Mr. Snetsinger’s Environmental Impact Assessment before coming to the site. He said that the report had said the site was “poor” and “degraded.” He was expecting a barren land. “I was surprised. You don’t usually find wetlands like this in any city.” There’s habitat diversity and species at risk. Mr. West found “an abundance of new wildlife.” “The wetland appeared healthy, with no die back. The existing vegetation is doing its job. There’s no evidence in the wetland of erosion or sedimentation.”
He was able to kayak into the wetland following channels opened by beaver and muskrat with their constant use, going back and forth to the shoreline.
Mr. Putnam asked: What is your opinion of the remediation plan on the ecological and biological features of the site? “The cap is going to cover almost the entire property and about 95% of the coastal wetland. It’s going to remove most of the Significant Wildlife Habitat and remove most of the riparian areas. It could impact fish habitats, and if the fines [types of capping material] erode, it could affect the spawning areas for Long-nosed Gar. It would remove a functioning wetland with an unknown, and a fraction of the wildlife would use it in the future.”
What would be the impacts on species at risk? It would be a loss of Least Bittern breeding areas. It would remove the treed buffer, and the roosting and nesting areas for bats and the foraging areas for Chimney Swifts.
Does this meet the definition of “negative impact?” “They would never recover from this proposal.”
What about the ribbon of life? “I haven’t seen evidence that the ribbon of life can be vegetated.” The loss of the wetland could increase runoff affecting fish habitat.
What about the bare soils in Mr. Snetsinger’s photographs and evidence? This is mostly from the encampments. There are areas of scorched earth from fires. “To me, some of those photos weren’t representative of the overall conditions on the site. Yes, there are some invasive species.
There is good soil coverage and the soil is stable.”
Mr. West said that there is also unevaluated wetland on the Tannery land that should have been mapped. He explained that he had come to this conclusion because there were more than 50% wetland species in the area, terrestrial species are dying because the soil is too wet, his auger holes found peat, and the bored holes filled in quickly suggesting that the water table is at that level. He said that he would have identified this wetland for discussions purposes with a project engineer or hydrogeologist.
Mr. Putman asked if the site should be remediated? “I agree it should be. XCG gave compelling evidence of contamination on the site. I disagree with capping. If I had found poor conditions, I would have had no issue siding with the cap. It is not confirmed that the site is contaminating the river.” “Eliminating the woodland and the PSW is an ecological loss to the site and surrounding area.”
What is your recommendation to the Tribunal? “Uphold Council’s refusal of this application.”
Ms. King began her cross-examination asking about Mr. West’s wetland evaluation experience and when he had completed wetland evaluation training to qualify as a wetland evaluator. He replied that he has mostly updated wetland evaluations – probably 5 to 10 a year for the last 24 years.
How many involved a site with human disturbance? Quite a few.
How many in urban areas? 4 this year.
How many brownfield sites? 12 to 15.
How many involved contamination in wetland sediment? Some where contamination was discharging to a lake or river.
How many in the Kingston area? One 5 km north of the 401. Others in Belleville and Ottawa.
Have you every provided expect evidence on the Great Cataraqui Marsh? No.
Were you ever on the site before you were retained to work on this file? No, kayaked past.
The 10 times you were on the site, were you always there with the permission of the owner? I let Mr. Snetsinger know before going. Sometimes he was there, too. Sometimes someone else from his team. Sometimes I was not accompanied by anyone.
Ms. King then asked Mr. West about the documents he had reviewed to prepare his witness statement and asked about some reports that were not listed. He looked at the XCG report to understand the extent of the capped areas. He did not list the Conservation Authority letters or the Ministry comments. “They were doing their own review. Some agencies have different positions focused on their policies and they don’t even see the site.” “I determine the site based on what I saw, not what everyone else [might say].”
Did you review Mr. Chown’s witness statement? “Once everything was compiled, we reviewed each other’s documents to make sure were not saying something different.”
Did you review the No Clearcuts Kingston’s documents? Mr. Hallett? Mr. Rancourt? Mr. Kaufman? “No. I wanted to keep my opinions focused on my site visits.”
What is an unevaluated wetland? It is a wetland that hasn’t been formally evaluated with MNRF criteria, scoring.
Does the PPS refer to an “unevaluated wetland?” Does OWES? The Official Plan says that “unevaluated wetlands” are natural heritage “B” features in section 6.1.3 and Schedule 8.
Schedule 8A doesn’t identify any unevaluated wetland on the site? Not in the context of the OP. It is mapped by the Land Information Ontario (LIO) mapping. “I use it as an indicator because the LIO maps have contours. It’s a precursor before going to a site and is quite often reliable.” “An unevaluated wetland may become a PSW if scoring shows PSW status.”
What about the mapping on GeoHub? “I never rely on the mapping. I find it to be incorrect where there are wetlands on the site.”
Could you explain the legend in your wetland map? “Wetland (ORE)” – “That’s the wetland that I identified myself that’s new, that hadn’t been identified before.” “Wetland (unevaluated) – “that’s from the LIO mapping.”
You agree with the new wetland mapping from November 2023? Mr. Snetsinger and Mr. Kristensen evaluated the boundary. “I don’t disagree with the evaluated boundary. They didn’t include the wetland that I would have included.”
Mr. Snetsinger did not include the unevaluated wetland or the wetland (ORE). “We disagreed on this.”
The new boundary is now on GeoHub and in Kmap images. “I use my own skills on the ground.”
Referring to the above wetland map Mr. West presented in his evidence, he explained how the stormwater route at the southwest corner of the property is a narrow channel that is only 30 – 40 cm wide, then expands to a much wider area where more wetland species are found, finally discharging into the Phragmites area which Mr. Snetsinger says is PSW.
The soil samples show non-native soils, fill material? This doesn’t preclude it from being a wetland. “In each hole I completed, I observed peat.”
Mr. Snetsinger also reviewed your samples and didn’t see evidence of peat? “He attributed it to contamination.”
Ms. King pointed out that his auger holes were dug in December 2023. Not an ideal time to map a wetland. Mr. West added that he would defer to hydrogeological work to confirm what he saw. He noted that XCG did not have data from this area.
Ms. King noted that OWES does not consider stormwater routes wetlands. Mr. West answered that even when the narrow channel was dry, the wetland plants to the north were still there and it was wet.
Ms. King pointed out that OWES says that ditches beside a wetland which drain the wetland are considered to be a disturbance, and not part of the wetland.
Ms. King asked about another matter about which Mr. Snetsinger and Mr. West do not agree – the concrete slab. Mr. Snetsinger said the 50% rule in OWES was not met. Mr. West’s opinion is that the 50% rule is met. He looked at the type of plants growing at the edge of the slab and in the cracks in the slab, and trees that don’t like wet roots that were dead and came to the conclusion that the concrete slab is part of the wetland.
Maybe the trees were dead for a different reason? The same trees growing in the nearby rock wall were in “fine shape.”
The concrete slab is a human disturbance? “I would consider the concrete to be a disturbance.” Based on the 50% rule, it is a wetland.
Two different evaluators could come to two different conclusions? Yes.
Any reason to disagree with the description of the fill on the site? No.
You were aware that Golder did a peer review of Ecological Services’ Environmental Impact Assessment and were satisfied with it? That report is from November 2020., “I wasn’t on the site until 2023. If they had known what the site is like now, they may not have signed off on it.”
Was your Environmental Impact Assessment peer reviewed? No.
Did you consult with the Conservation Authority? No.
Did City staff comment on your work? No.
Did Parks Canada or any approval authority review your work? “I don’t send on to agencies without City approval.”
You wrote that there were many data gaps in the Environmental Impact Assessment. There were only four:
Installation of bat acoustic detectors in June to confirm the presence of Little
Brown Myotis and Tri-coloured bats.
Diurnal and nocturnal surveys to confirm presence/absence of Species at Risk
avian, amphibians and other species, during the appropriate season.
Confirmation of the wetland boundary, with collection of soil data to support the
findings (mapping of Ecologcial Land Classification (ELC) communities).
Verification of fisheries use in the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) and in
the offshore environment of the Cataraqui River/Bay.
Mr. West replied that “there’s a lot to those four points.”
The part of the PSW that is in the Tannery site is 1% of the whole PSW? “That’s neither here nor there. When it’s a PSW, it’s a PSW. That’s all that concerns me.” It is wildlife usage habitat, especially in an urban area. They are few and far between, based on what I saw, it functions at a higher than normal rate. “I’ve seen less wildlife in totally rural wetlands.”
Does the PPS or the OP use the term “high functioning” or “high quality?” Other professionals use these terms, including MNRF.
With respect to species at risk, there is a lot of agreement between you and Mr. Snetsinger? I saw a Least Bittern. He referenced the possibility without seeing one. Bats? He reported Tri-coloured Bats and Little Brown Myotis. I identified Little Brown Myotis and Small-footed Myotis, and not Tri-coloured Bats. I saw snakes and enough of them together in one place to conclude that hibernacula on the site are likely. “I might have come at the proper time, just might have been the luck of the draw.” I saw two Osprey nests. I did not see a Bald Eagle.
You identified six Significant Wildlife Habitats? Two in the upland area with which Mr. Snetsinger disagrees and 4 in the wetland.
Ms. King continued. Analysis doesn’t stop here, though. You have to identify negative impacts. I don’t see where you address negative impacts in your Witness Statement or Reply? “I don’t say it specifically. The development will displace over half of the Significant Wildlife Habitat.”
You don’t mention “critical habitat?” That’s the federal term for a federal species at risk assessment. This is not a federal site.
Ms. King asked about a statement in Mr. West’s witness statement. It reads: “According to the proponent’s consultant team, it would not be possible to naturalize the capped areas to any great extent (landscape level) as trees could compromise the cap’s integrity. Therefore, the property’s shoreline would not possess any significant naturalized vegetation.” Mr. Snetsinger denies making this comment. Mr. West replied, “I asked him what type of material would be applied to the cap. He said ‘a clay cap.’ I asked, are they going to grow something on that? He said, ‘no, because it would impact the clay.’”
Mr. West continued by referencing Mr. Shipley’s evidence, “His evidence of what can be done on the cap has been changing ever since… could be gravel ... it’s been an evolving cap.”
Ms. King asked Mr. West to agree that the Tannery is not a closed system.
Surface water is connected to the river. Yes
Groundwater is connected to the river. Yes.
Animals move on and off the property. Yes.
Humans move on and off the property. Absolutely.
You do not address the history of the site in your Assessment? Obviously, it is contaminated. “I wouldn’t argue that. Information about what is there now is the best information, not information from 30 to 50 years ago. I try to stay clear of contamination, trying not to let that sway my judgment of the condition of the site. Vegetation that looks like it’s impacted? Species that look like they have been impacted? What natural heritage features are on the site?”
Is the quality of the soil relevant to the ecology of the site? It changes over time. Black Locusts and Manitoba Maples are early succession species. They’re the first to invade a site after it has been altered. Vegetation is not related to contamination. After 10 to 20 years, more native species will be present.
Mr. Shipley is concerned with the risks to ecological receptors. Are you concerned about these risks? Absolutely. I was discussing with Dr. Rooney about how these contaminants become mobile. This is her expertise. I learned from her.
Mr. West added that he didn’t see any evidence of erosion, sedimentation, or destabilization in the wetland. “The water was clear.”
Ms. King asked if you can tell if water is contaminated by looking at it. “It could be in solution. It appeared to me that the soils were stable.”
In your witness statement, you say that “the removal of the Natural Heritage Features in this area would be catastrophic to those wildlife utilizing the wetlands and woodland on the subject property.” Catastrophic? “I believe that. It is one of the last woodlands on the river and a highly functioning system with vegetation with interspersion areas.”
The PPS and the OP don’t use the term “catastrophic” and your work does not detail how it would be catastrophic. “If all the trees are gone and a majority of the wetland is gone, that’s a huge change for the species that reside on the site.”
In re-direct, Mr. Putnam asked about the ditches that drain a wetland not counting as a wetland. Mr. West reiterated his testimony that the stormwater coming onto the southwest corner of the site is in a confined channel.
Tomorrow’s witness is Dr. Rebecca Rooney.
thank you so much for this Vicki.