Staff comment on HCBP protest

Save Our Old Growth Forest!
Staff Comment:
OMB Condition 3 requires the Developer to complete a tree inventory and conservation plan. This was done as part of the Environmental Implementation Report which was approved by the GRCA, EAC and the City earlier this year.

The intent of this condition is to identify where it is feasible to protect and retain trees, and where it is not feasible to do so to establish a tree replacement mitigation plan.

The 2006 Hanlon Creek Heritage Maple Grove Forest Survey Report authored by Bruce Kershner for the Kortright Hills Community Association provided the basis for this condition and work. All of the old growth (heritage) trees identified in the Heritage Maple Grove, with the exception of two, are being retained. The old growth trees left outside of the proposed boundary were identified to be a sugar maple in very poor condition and an American beech in fair condition. Since the surveys were conducted, the sugar maple has fallen down.

Approximately 1,688 trees are proposed for removal within Phase I and II due to construction and/or high hazard rating. The loss of trees within Phase I and II will contribute 3,951m of crown radius being removed. Overall, the loss of trees within Phase I and II will result in approximately 13.2ha of land. It is anticipated that very few trees will be removed due to construction activities with the preliminary layout of Phase III.

Based on planting plans, as well as the proposed street tree planting plan, it is projected that there will be approximately 2,533 trees and 4,937 shrubs planted throughout Phase I and II.

Nearly half of the trees proposed for removal are situated within thin hedgerow communities that provide very little wildlife habitat. To compensate for tree removal and provide additional native wildlife habitat, active and passive restoration and enhancement plans have been developed for various areas throughout the business park, such as woodlot and wetland buffers, storm water management ponds, open meadow areas, riparian areas and swales.

On July 27th, 2009, at approximately 7 am, over 50 people gathered at the site of the proposed Hanlon Creek Business Park (HCBP) to protest the environmental destruction inflicted by Drexler Construction, as approved by the City of Guelph.
To date, Drexler has begun the process of building a 4-lane wide culvert over Tributary A of the Hanlon Creek, which is the first construction project for the HCBP. This has involved:
• The bulldozing of a 4-lane road,
• construction of silt fences surrounding Tributary A,
• the cutting of trees and destruction of wildlife habitat along Tributary A.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
The construction works include a two-lane road with a 34.0 metre long culvert. The culvert is an open bottom span structure. Some tree removal is required to install the structure and remove the on-line pond.

Drexler is also contracted to dig up the gas lines that run parallel to Downey Rd., dam and divert Tributary A, and build a culvert crossing to facilitate the construction of the 74-acre road network in preparation for Phase 1 of the Hanlon Creek Business Park.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
I do not believe the contract includes the re-location of an existing gas main, but will confirm with our consultants.
There has been mounting opposition to the HCBP since its instigation in 1993, which has greatly accelerated in the past 8 months. Numerous organizations have concerns regarding the proposed development, including its effects on both the human and non-human inhabitants of the site and surroundings.
The land that is currently being destroyed has not always been the property of the City of Guelph. Before it was purchased from the township of Puslinch, this land was hunting and gathering grounds for the Neutral Nation and other Indigenous nations for over 11,000 years.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
Archaeological evidence has been found in many subdivisions developed in the past throughout the city. The requirement for an Archaeological Assessment (OMB condition 14) is a standard condition for all subdivision applications processed in the City.

The Developer has submitted the D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. report which has been accepted by the Ontario Ministry of Culture. While the report does state that there is evidence that Indigenous people used these lands, no significant artefacts were identified. A review by the Ministry of Culture confirms this to be the case.

This exceptionally environmentally-sensitive area is also home to the Paris-Galt moraine, which has been identified by Mayor Karen Farbridge and MPP Liz Sandals as extremely important for the recharge and filtration of Guelph’s drinking water. Tributary A, a stream that feeds into the Hanlon Creek, which in turn feeds into the Speed and Grand Rivers, is being devastated by the construction of the culvert. These waterways provide drinking water for several communities downstream of Guelph, including Brantford, Six Nations, and Cambridge. The impact of this development is not confined to Guelph, and any development of the site risks the contamination of these communities’ drinking water. The Grand River is already on the verge of collapse due to a combination of human impacts, and as stewards of these rivers we need to protect them from any further possible risk.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
A small portion of Phase 2 of the south-east portion of the HCBP is located within the Paris-Galt moraine. The balance of the HCBP is not. The Tributary “A” works being conducted in Phase 1 have been approved by the GRCA to ensure that the culvert construction will not impact this tributary. The stream currently has on on-line pond which will be removed and it is anticipated that water quality will improve as a result of the removal.
With respect to the protection of Guelph’s drinking water it is recognized that the Hanlon Creek Business Park is located within a portion of the capture zone for the City’s Downey Road municipal well. The Downey well provides about seven percent of the City’s sustainable groundwater supply. This well is therefore a very important drinking water supply source for the city and in recognition of this the Hanlon Creek Business Park will be developed in a manner that maintains the rate of recharge to the groundwater system within the site. A water balance approach that specifies block-by-block infiltration targets has been used to identify the quantity of precipitation required for infiltration throughout the site to maintain the pre-development water balance.
Also, land use designations have been established for specific blocks within the business park to prohibit operations that would potentially pose a risk to groundwater quality. The requirement of groundwater recharge targets and zoning designations were developed and approved during the OMB hearing in 2006.

It should be noted that most shallow groundwater in the HCBP discharges to Hanlon Creek and little groundwater recharges to the shallow bedrock and even less (if any) recharges to the deep bedrock (i.e. below the Eramosa Formation). Based on particle tracking, most of the groundwater that flows to the Downey Well is derived from the east and southeast of the well and little, if any is derived from the HCBP. Water quality in the Downey Well is unlikely to be affected by the industrial land uses in the HCBP.
We believe that the continuation of this development is unlawful, as it is failing to abide by the laws of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Federal Species at Risk Act, and the Provincial Endangered Species Act. We believe the City of Guelph has deceived the public and evaded adequate wildlife protection measures by declaring that the construction of the HCBP will have no negative impact on the Provincially Significant Wetland and the habitats of two threatened species on the site, the Jefferson Salamander and Western Chorus Frog. The 15-30m buffer of adjacent lands are extremely inadequate and defy scientific studies that state that a range of 120-500m adjacent lands are needed. Further, section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement mandates protection of lands within 120m adjacent to the Provincially Significant Wetland, which includes the site of the culvert.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
The Provincial Policy Statement relates to planning policy not legislation. The PPS does not mandate the protection of lands within 120 of PSW.

The establishment of the HCBP buffers recognized the following policies.

The City’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual (p.10) states that, “Site-specific evaluations based on the considerations noted above may demonstrate the need for greater or lesser distances for adjacent land widths”.

The Provincial Policy Statement (2005) states the following:

“2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.” This was done through the Environmental Implementation Report that was approved by the GRCA and EAC earlier this year.

The GRCA Wetlands Policy (2003) states the following:

“6.2.12 The GRCA, in consultation with the affected municipalities, will request an Environmental Impact Statement for development (including lot lines) within 120 metres of the boundary of a Provincially Significant Wetland or an unevaluated wetland.”

The need for an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is triggered for development that lies within 120m of a PSW or unevaluated wetland. The EIS is intended to evaluate the proposed development in relation to impact on ecological function of adjacent lands and demonstrate no negative impact to natural features.

From 2002 to 2009 extensive environmental work was completed to determine the buffer widths and mitigation measures.

In 2004 Natural Resource Solutions Inc., completed a consolidated EIS for the Hanlon Creek Business Park which was approved by the GRCA and the City of Guelph’s Environmental Advisory Committee. As a result of discussions between NRSI biologists and GRCA staff, buffers from natural heritage features (i.e. wetlands, wooded areas) were developed and approved in principle for the Hanlon Creek Business Park.

Further assessment and detail to these buffers were provided in the HCBP Environmental Implementation Report which was approved by the GRCA, City Staff and EAC in 2009.

It should also be noted that the City has been in contact with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Canada. These agencies have provided no indication that the City is in contravention of the Federal Species at Risk Act, and the Provincial Endangered Species Act

Continued development of the HCBP is causing great harm to the plant and animal inhabitants of the land. This site is a rich and thriving ecosystem. It is home to over 112 species of birds, 16 species of mammals, 270 species of plants and trees, and 20 species of reptiles and amphibians. Of the species identified, both the Western Chorus Frog and the Jefferson Salamander are Federally protected, with the Jefferson Salamander also being Provincially protected. Though the City’s own environmental consultants confirmed the presence of the Jefferson Salamander, the fact that the destruction of this area has proceeded is a testament that the City’s concerns lie not with the adequate protection of the Jefferson Salamander or the environment in general, but with the continuation of an expensive, unlawful, and ill-thought-out development. When Mayor Karen Farbridge says that the finding of the Jefferson Salamander proves “The City remains committed to protecting the habitat of endangered species,” it is obviously a lie if the City proceeds with any development of the site.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
One dead Jefferson Salamander hybrid was found on Laird Road. This discovery was the result of our ongoing monitoring program in this area.

DNA analysis on this salamander determined that while that salamander is a hybrid Jefferson, the source of the sperm donor was not been confirmed.

The discovery is the result of the City’s ongoing terrestrial and aquatic monitoring, which is being conducted by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI).
As a result of this discovery, NRSI and MNR have conducted additional on-site surveys to try to confirm if any breeding areas exist within the HCBP. This work combined with previous salamander surveys conducted by NRSI within the City of Guelph, Puslinch Township and Kitchener in the spring of 2009 concluded that due to the lack of larvae, dry site conditions, no further adult salamanders being trapped, and the isolated finding of one road kill salamander that was discovered over 1 km from Tributary “A” wetland area that this discovery should not be an impediment to the construction of the Tributary “A” road crossing.

There is also the question of why this land is being developed. With the current economic situation, it is financially irresponsible for the City of Guelph to dedicate tens of millions of dollars, nearly it’s entire capital budget, to the creation of an industrial development that has no proposed buyers and very little future. Countless industrial lots within city limits have sat vacant for years, The city has no guarantee that the public funds allotted to the HCBP will ever be recuperated.
Staff/Consultants Comment:
While we are currently in an economic downturn, it is vital that Guelph is positioned to be competitive when the economy recovers. If we are not, we will lose out to other communities on opportunities to attract businesses and jobs, with long-term consequences for our local economy. The availability of market-ready serviced employment land within the city is currently very limited, especially for larger sites. The development of the Hanlon Creek Business Park is also an important part of our local growth management strategy, which under Provincial Places to Grow legislation requires us to accommodate 31,000 new jobs. The Business Park will help us accommodate these jobs within our city boundaries instead of sprawling onto farmland.

For the above reasons, we have taken it upon ourselves to prevent the destruction of this vital land. Our demands to the City of Guelph are:
• To listen to public outcry and respect the intrinsic importance of this land by immediately ending this development and terminating their contract with Drexler.
• To compensate the skilled labourers of Drexler Construction for lost wages, including those who choose to stand with us.
• To publicly apologize to the people of Guelph for disregarding their opposition to this development..

Concurrent to this action, others who feel similarly will be gathering at City Hall at 6 pm on Monday, July 27th. Please come and voice your opposition to the Hanlon Creek Business Park to the mayor and city councillors, who will be entering City Hall for the council meeting at 7 pm.

You are welcome to contact us on the site. Our phone numbers are:
Camp Contact: (519) 820-6280 Media Contact: (519) 820- 6239

Please note: though we recognize the work of LIMITS, we are in no way affiliated with or organized through them..       Staff

23 Comments

Filed under Environment, Growth

23 Responses to Staff comment on HCBP protest

  1. kim

    Such a shame to inundate us with lengthy recitations of study after study. Seems you don’t get what the protesters are saying, which is that your system is rigged, flawed, fixed, and allows developers (in this case the City of Guelph) to get away with whatever they want to.

    15 meter buffers around a Provincially Significant Wetland? That is atrocious.

    Building the first part of the road infrastructure before proper salamander tests have been done? Astonishing.

    Hiring consultants to say that there is NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on the ecological functions of a wetland, by surrounding it with a 6 lane road and a 675 acre industrial park, with tiny tiny buffers? How do you expect people to believe this?

    Building an industrial park around an old growth forest, instead of creating a nature reserve and tourist attraction? What about future generations? Should they visit some of the last old growth forests by walking through hundreds of acres of parking lots and roads, or through beautiful meadows and streams?

    Seems these people have shone the light on something when all other attempts to get through to politicians failed. Good on them.

  2. Robert

    Shame on you, Councillors Beard and Findlay for dancing around the issues. According to your oft-cited “experts”, paving over a wetland has no negative impact on it.

  3. Jerry

    I can’t believe the fuss some people are making!

    This project has been discussed and studied for over ten years. Let’s get on with it and get it done!

    Guelph needs the land serviced for more jobs!

    • BK

      Obviously Jerry you are aware of only a minimum of the facts regarding this project. My guess is that your understanding of the few facts that you are aware of, is flawed. Do your homework more carefully in the future before you make rash pronouncements.

    • Katie

      The service industry is DEAD why are building another business park. There are plenty of empty plants in this city that could be used if someone came up with those type of jobs. I am disgusted and ashamed to be from Guelph when we are continuously allowing the city’s forests and agricultural lands to be destroyed. It is time the city implemented a green belt to protect what little buffer we now have between the surrounding cities.

  4. hcbpoccupation

    I went to the site of the forest and business park development today, and was very surprised by what I saw. First and foremost was the horrible effects of this development on the land. Protesters pointed out many trees recently killed, including some almost 150 years old. There is an exceptionally wide swath of rolling meadows bulldozed for a new road. It is very sad to see what the city has authorized. Even sadder that the Mayor says this is needed for Guelph’s economic future. What happened to this City’s Mayor and council? Goodness gracious. Every time the Mayor is quoted in the news she appears to have gone farther into the right wing, ‘economic progress or else’ mindset.

    But I was pleasantly surprised by the kindness of the mostly young people who have taken it upon themselves to keep this land safe from heavy machinery. There were many of them, all very generous, kind, hospitable, and deeply caring for the fate of this world. There were even some babies there.

    I would encourage anyone with the slightest interest to visit them and see the site for yourself. A personal visit will take away any faith in the truth of the Mayor’s words and the words of other supporters of the Hanlon Creek Business Park.

    The website hcbpoccupation.wordpress.com is up and running as of today, it provides more information and pictures.

  5. BK

    Each time the mayor, a city staffer or a councillor opens their mouths to say anything about the HCBP everyone else cringes to be subjected to their continuous string of lies. It is equally sad to think that they probably actually believe their own propaganda. The rest of us know they are leading us down a perilous road if they persist in the HCBP. It is not about creating jobs for people living in Guelph but is about greed and corruption. We need a very big broom to clean out that new city hall building as it is already infested by some very toxic people.

  6. Jack

    BK, your inflamatory comments are nothing other than vicious rhetoric. Anyone can make claims of lies and greed, but where is the proof? “Staying tuned” does not cut it. If you don’t have the goods then don’t make dramatic claims about the mayor and the rest of those at city hall.

    If you feel so strongly about HCBP, if you have felt so strongly about HCBP, then where were you over the past several years?

    Where were you when council discussed the park over the years? You were not at the podium at city council meetings to voice your concerns, to state your objections, were you? I don’t think I have seen a letter to the editor objecting to the park from a writer whose initials are BK.

    If you couldn’t be bothered to object – openly – in the past, then why all the anger now?

    And did you have that anger when the Mitchell farmhouse was being torn down? I did. And did you stand before council to express your objection? I did. And my opinion was expressed in a letter or two to the editor. Did you write? did you care?

    And where were you when several healthy trees were culled in Royal City Park? Were you in front of council decrying their decision? I was. Were you? And was your letter published with mine?

    Could it be that standing before council and writing a letter to the editor requires a person’s name, while a councillor’s web discussion allows the anonymity of simple initials?

    And you want to sweep city hall clean. And replace them with what? A mayor and council who refused to listen to multitudes and allowed WalMart (now there’s a friend of the environment!!!) to build where WalMart wanted to build? A council like the one that had the Mitchell farmhouse torn down because a developer wanted it torn down before it could be declared a heritage site? This list could go on but surely it is sufficient to show the lack of thought behind your petulant rantings.

    “Toxic rantings” indeed. The only poison is the shrill of your unsubstantiated claims.

  7. Bill D.

    Right on Jack. This park has been in the works for a long time and many, many voices have been heard along the way. Many compromises have been made and the current plan is very different from the original. But it’s still not good enough for this protest group. They want it stopped altogether. And yet, nearby we have the Hanlon Creek Conservation Area, Preservation Park and Sanctuary Woods, where development is not allowed and is well protected and no one seems to recognize it as part of the same ecosystem.

    There are other sites in Guelph (and the Paris Galt Moraine) that are in far greater peril of development ie. between Clair and Maltby, east of Gordon. And not just Guelph — why are the protesters limiting their environmental boundaries at the city limit? Right across Downey Road, the gravel companies are raping the very same moraine, the very same ecosystem.

  8. John

    I agree with Jack. ‘Stay tuned’ doesn’t cut it.

    What you’re perpetrating onsite is trespassing and what you’re saying on this blog is libel.

    I have tremendous respect for those among us that stand up for what they believe in, but you’re circumventing some very important steps along the way.

    If I were you, I would have some compelling arguments that haven’t been heard during the approval process or a GREAT lawyer. Preferably both.

    Good luck… come tomorrow (when the city solicitor heads to court) you’re certainly going to need it.

  9. Brian H.

    Jack, you have hit the nail on the head: not only have you and Bill talked about other areas in the same ecosystem, but you made me think of the awful, awful three years we had under the previous council. Where would we be if they still ruled? There would have been no recent adjustments to the HCBP plan because any objections would have been ignored. You don’t realize that you have a city hall that listens, talkes all views into account, and then does what is BEST FOR THE CITY. Not what is best for you or me exclusively. Not what is best for a small group of bussed-in tresspassers, but what is best for the community as a whole.

    John wishes the occupiers good luck in court tomorrow. I don’t. They are holding up a well-planned, remodelled, modified and ecologically sound project that is needed for the tax base in Guelph.

    • John

      Sarcasm is an underappreciated form of humour. I guess because it has to be explained to some, and you know what they say about jokes that have to be explained…

  10. hey jack, and in any of you standing up for what you believe in, did it stop anything?? in all your letters, did it stop the destruction of what you valued?

    no, it didn’t. the only way to stop this continued irresponsible path of development is to continue to stand directly in front of the machines – the metal ones coming to clear our life allowing environmental systems, and the neoliberal ones which commodify every individual part of our existence and put a market price on our survival.

    and to john. the steps were taken in trying to block this development, and as usual, our legal avenues proved ineffective in assuring the future generations (the ones after the uncaring baby boomers finally die off) have adequate resources to exist.

    to bill d, an ecosystem will only continue to exist if it is resilient enough to sustain attacks upon it. if we continue to fragment the remaining forests they will all collapse and we will have environmental catastrophe. you are right in saying they are all a part of the same ecosystem, and we have to ensure they stay that way.

    stand up and fight back tomorrow in court and everyday until those who will destroy our future for short term profits can no longer continue in their destructive ways!

    • Brian H.

      To your question of Jack’s effectiveness in activism during the last council term: Yes, Dan, they eventually did: they stopped that destructive council in its tracks in the November election.

      The people spoke.

      The people elected a mayor with a background at OPIRG, a mayor who introduced the concept of the triple bottom line with her Smart Guelph initiative during her first term. Along with her , the people elected several environmental activists: Vicki Beard who has introduced Canada’s first butterfly park and has pushed for more native palntings within the city; Leanne Piper who has spent decades working successfully with Heritage Guelph; June Hoffland who shone with her work at stopping the LaFarge property from becoming a Big Box central; Bob Bell, a long-time green (and Green) activist; Ian Findlay, who works downtown and has a passion for its survival, along with the pride and reputation in which Guelph is held nationally. I could go on, but the point is made.

      To call our local politicians “neo-liberals” is laughable, given their history of environmental work within this city.

      It would be more accurate to call some (perhaps many) of the occupiers “neo-Guelphites”: folks who rally and travel to any demonstration, whatever the cause. After all, a party is a party.

      • So Brian H, if the council is so environmentally focused, why is it allowing the destruction of one of the last stands of old growth in southern ontario and the demolition of the habitat for the critically endangered jefferson salamander, and many other species of animals.

        Clearly a destructive council remains.

        selling out your life-allowing systems for short term profits is a classic sign of new-liberalism. the commodification of nature is another (buytterfly or wetland).

        the 7 people you name on your injunction are all from guelph, as are most of those at the blockades. others who are stopping the irresponsible destruction of irreplaceable land are there in solidarity and with an idea that all our systems are linked. our watershed flow through each other, the air is a common resource, the animals that rely on the few remaining corridors and islands of forest for their very existence can’t stop the machines of “progress” on their own.

        and to take it down to your level of thinking:
        the tax base in guelph is not going to be so happy when it comes time to pay the ecological debt that this project is going to create. and while the developers count their profits, it will be up to the public alone to fund the fallout response.

        “Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”

  11. Is it true that not one tenant has been secured for the park. No one has been able to answer this…

    • Jack

      Dan said: ” the only way to stop this continued irresponsible path of development is to continue to stand directly in front of the machines “.

      So your strategy is – and correct me if I have misinterpreted the inferences in your statement – is to lie low when such developments are first presented at council; to not allow yourself to make your views known either at council or by a letter to the editor and to force yourself to shut up when there are public workshops or meetings with city staff.

      Then, when the project has been ammended, adjusted, accomodated, passed by council and put into action – then, and only then do you raise the roof with cries and tantrums because the city did not listen to your silence; that the city had no sympathy for your hidden views; that the city staff did not respond to your absence of objections.

      Then you must stand in front of a machine because the adjusted view of the elected council is not YOUR view. And I know, that is so totally unfair, isn’t it, Dan?

      You should write a paper on this and have it published: I’m sure politos of every stripe will rush to read it and put it into action.

      Yes, like John, I relish the use of sarcasm!

      • jack, we need to set some ideas of sustainability that are correct, and this needs systemic change. destructive development needs to be stopped whether it be in guelph, in waterloo, in kitchenen, or anywhere else in out watershed or wherever it is happening.

        voices need to be raised to council, and people need to raise their voices when irresponsible developments are put forth, but when all that fails to actually stop the destruction of lands that my generation and my kids and my grandkids need to sustain life when you are all dead, people must then actually physically stop the destruction.

        all those who wrote letters and made their voice heard without stopping the development (you can’t make something more sustainable, it is either sustainable or it is not, there is no spectrum) have to come back and put their words and their voice to action with their bodies. or i guess just give up and allow future generations to pay for the greed of the boomers.

        if any one can actually tell me the jefferson salamander is not at the site, and if any one can tell me that this island of forest is not at all significant to the animals and the hydrogeology of the region, then lets have it. the EA is a weak political document, so don’t point to that, point to academic evidence that you can clear land and not impact the ecological services of that land. try to do that.

  12. johnny-come-lately

    but Jack, I just bought my first newspaper last week.

    oh my gawd, what a big bright shiny world out there!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s