DS41 pond presents danger to aviation, CMC says

September 11th, 2009
The Site 41 Community Monitoring Committee has written to the Huronia District Airport Commission pointing out that large populations of birds, particularly geese, have been attracted to standing water in the Site 41 storm water management pond.
“We are writing you today to alert you to a compliance issue as well as a safety concern on the approach path to Huronia District Airport,” says the letter approved yesterday by the commttee.
“The potential for interference with aviation activity was identified at an Environmental Assessment Hearing in 1989 and has been subject of repeated discussions at the Community Monitoring Committee (CMC), are a danger to aviation.”
The letter states that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Simcoe County have been alerted to the concern and the need for action to guard against an accident, and County environmental services director Rob McCullough disagreed that there is a compliance issue, particularly as there is a moratorium.
“The CMC is of course aware of the moratorium,” the letter states. “It is however the County of Simcoe’s responsibility to manage the site in such a way that prevents the risk to air traffic.”
MoE official Greg Athron told the CMC that there are geese on other neighbouring bodies of water, like Tiny Marsh.
“We have birds on the shoreline too, but they are not in the flight path,” noted Tiny Township Councillor Andre Claire. The airport is 4.6 km north of Site 41.
Athron said the concern would soon be ended by the winter migration.
But CMC chair Ron Cobbett said he’s very concerned by a significant increase in the number of geese flying over every day. “Until this point there never was a pond on Site 41, this pattern of geese has never existed.” The birds will return in similar numbers and present a continuing danger to aircraft every year unless measures are taken, he predicted.

“Significant” changes to Dump Site 41 would require a review
Tiny Township Deputy Mayor George Lawrence asked about the status of the MoE’s Certificate of Approval for Dump Site 41 if the project is abandoned by Simcoe County but could come to life again because of a sale to a private buyer.
Cindy Hood, district manager of the MoE’s Barrie office, said any significant changes to the Cof A – for instance, expanding beyond the present four North Simcoe municipalities that can use it for waste disposal, or disbanding the Community Monitoring Committee – would required an environmental assessment and the public would be involved.

Siltation issue at Parnell flow “not new”
Greg Athron suggested that the state of the sediment at the bottom of the trough at the Parnell flow indicates that “the siltation issues are not new” and there’s no evidence to link recent incidents of cloudy water in local wells and artesian flows to dewatering at Dump Site 41. The flow hasn’t been used on a regular basis in recent years and it’s not monitored, he added.
“I would have to disagree,” said CMC member Gord Leonard, noting that he had put his hand to the bottom of that trough many times over the years and never felt any silt – and there has been a greater incidence of people experiencing problems with their water in recent months since dwater started.
CMC member Anne Ritchie-Nahuis added that the flow is the actual “cleanest water” tested for five years by Dr. William Shotyk of the University of Heidelberg, described in a peer-reviewed paper to be published in the January, 2010 issue of the Journal of Environmental Monitoring.
There have been no other land changes in the area, she said, and it is the MoE’s responsibility to investigate whether or not the dewatering is having an effect on underground water movement. She asked that a turbidity monitoring device be placed on the Parnell flow.

No answer on judicial review
Anne Ritchie-Nahuis noted that Environment Minister John Gerretsen had agreed at an August 24 meeting with SDS41 representatives that the public should have access to the calibrated MODFLOW – the subject of a two-year-old request through the Information and Privacy Commission.
But County Council has voted to ask for a judicial review of a recent order from the commission. “This is a waste of taxpayers’ money,” Ritchie-Nahuis said. “I’m very concerned that it is just a stalling tactic.”
McCullough said he could not discuss the matter because the decision was taken at an in camera meeting of council.
“We have to abide by the sanctity of closed session,” said Springwater Deputy Mayor Tony Hope. “We can’t comment on that.”

Missing from the minutes
The minutes of the Aug. 20 CMC meeting make no mention of the statement by Sheamus Fay that the MoE had not responded to his call about contamination of his water during three days in June. Yesterday, Lynn Downer also recalled that the MoE had been asked whether the ministry’s “reasonable use” guidelines allow a certain amount of contamination in the water. The reply was “yes,” but that’s not in the minutes either – a significant omission, Downer suggested.

Show and tell
Ina Wood and Shelley Essaunce-Lamarche stuck pins in a sample of the plastic liner to be used at Dump Site 41. Rob McCullough was unimpressed. The liner will be protected by a thick geotextile layer and a layer of gravel. “It’s passed all the tests,” he said, describing an experimental installation at Site 41.
“All liners leak. It’s an inadequate barrier to protect our water,” replied Essaunce-Lamarche. “We have the privilege of having the purest water on the planet and we have the responsibility to protect it.”

An audio recording of the Sept. 10 CMC meeting is available online. MP3 files

Edit | 2 Comments »

chris says:
September 11, 2009 at 11:09 am  (Edit)
It is not clear to me why the order of the Information Commissioner should be appealed by the County.
The interest of the County is, fairly obviously, that the order be complied with by Genivar. And, if Genivar wishes to appeal the ruling, it has the right to appeal.
Instead the County appears to be appealing on behalf of Genivar, and billing the expense to the taxes.
How can this be justified? By what stretch of logic does Council put itself in the position of using our taxes to prevent us from gaining access to information for which we paid; information which has a direct bearing on our welfare.
It is no wonder that the Council discusses these matters behind closed doors. But there is no legal justification for it doing so: this is a breach of the spirit if not the letter of the Municipal Act.
No Councillor should feel bound to keep this secret. The people have a right to know why the Information Commissioner is being challenged; why the County is financing that challenge; and why Council takes decisions of this nature in secret.
And we have a right to the answers.

RavenshoeFarms says:
September 11, 2009 at 6:35 pm  (Edit)
I thought that aviation safety issues were under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, a Federal ministry, not the provincial MOE.