WITNESS STATEMENT Blasting and Our Concentration of Heritage Stone - - PDF document

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [1]

WITNESS STATEMENT Blasting and Our Concentration of Heritage Stone Structures Glen Duff 14267 4th Line Nassagaweya Rockwood, ON N0B 2K0 SLIDE 1 My name is Glen Duff and I live at 14267 4th Line Nassagaweya where my wife Sharon and I operate a family farm SLIDE 2 with income generated by hay sales and breeding stock from a highend flock of registered Rideau sheep. We participate in sheep research and teaching of veterinary students by Professors from the University of Guelph School

• f Veterinary Medicine.

After graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in Biochemistry I began work in the pharmaceutical industry and I am therefore very familiar with well-designed scientific studies with a high degree of reliability that incudes legitimate peer review. I served 4 years as an elected Board Member of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario where I led the Issue of clean water and agriculture and I am also a past member

• f the Board of the Ontario Farmland Trust. SLIDE 3 Our 19th century farm is located 1.2

km from the site of the proposed Hidden Quarry. During the last 10 years of my business career I was appointed Vice-President of Issues Management for the Canadian operation of a large Swiss multinational and received extensive training in Issues Management in Switzerland and the U.S. and travelled internationally consulting on Issues Management. Issues Management attempts to achieve an in depth understanding by clearly defining, understanding and prioritizing issues and creating a strategic action program based on the following stakeholders: 1) Who pays? 2) Who benefits? and, 3) Who takes the risks? Inevitably these questions rarely affect the same parties or organizations.1 My specific topic today is “Blasting and Our Concentration of Heritage Stone Structures”

• f which we have many located close to the proposed Hidden Quarry site. However,

there are many other compelling reasons why I believe the Hidden Quarry proposal must be rejected. I fully understand the need for aggregates and their importance to all of us and therefore the need for pits and quarries but I do not understand the need for quarries

1 Glen Duff, Presentation at the University of Guelph,1995

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [2]

adjacent to high population centres like Rockwood and placing at risk a significant concentration of heritage structures. My three management questions can be applied to the heritage buildings in the vicinity of the proposed quarry. 1. Who pays for heritage maintenance? 2. Who benefits from the quarry blasting? 3. Who takes the risk? As you answer the questions, you will understand the concern of our group. In preparing this participant statement, I consulted with 12 other landowners who, like myself, are within a very restricted 2000 metres of the proposed site. Every one of these landowners shares my concerns about the stability of these structures with blasting in the area. SLIDE 4 I have submitted to the OMB with my participant statement a detailed inventory2

• f 13 heritage properties located in the vicinity of the Hidden Quarry, of which 11 are

privately owned. Ten of these landowners participated in an in-depth survey of their properties with details of their history and architectural details documented and photographed in a report submitted to CRC. This report also includes SLIDE 5 a map of the location and distance of each property from the proposed quarry site. Each property has one or more structures of 19th century heritage buildings. These are primarily stone houses with stone foundations and/or stone barns3 or bank barns with stone foundations all of which are highly vulnerable to structural damage as a result of repeated vibrations secondary to blasting. Some of these structures have been referenced in local, national and international publications- For example, SLIDE 6 the classic 1853 stone barn on the Weil property in Nassagaweya complete with a SLIDE 7 hay-wagon lift, and the SLIDE 8 1843 stone barn, painstakingly restored, on the Felber property, also in Nassagweya. SLIDE 9 The Rockwood Academy, one of Ontario’s oldest boarding schools featured in the movie “Agnes of God”, is now owned by the Ontario Heritage Foundation. SLIDE 10 St. John’s Anglican Church, built in the early 1880’s is an elegant landmark in Rockwood. _______________

• 2. Cultural Heritage Inventory, June 2016, Cheryl Holmes, Perry Groskopf, George Marsh and Linda Sword
• 3. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/barns/

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [3]

SLIDE 11 The McNabb Farm in Eramosa is a Century Farm, in fact new plaques SLIDE 12 make it a sesqui-centennial farm for the many generations of this family. SLIDE 13 The Sargent Farm stone (1861) and bank (1895) barns are a legacy from jazz great Peter Appleyard whose SLIDE 14 last concert took place in this acoustically perfect barn in 2013. SLIDE 15 And the Webster-Doyle home in Nassagaweya, just 900 metres from the proposed quarry site has just this spring received an award for heritage conservation work and SLIDE 16 outstanding renovation from Heritage Milton. In a local historical publication the author states “One can argue that barns have joined the ranks of endangered species in Ontario. Urbanization and changes in the agricultural economy have caused many farmers in Canada to abandon their farms, many of which were generations old. On those surviving farms, new barns have been built that lack the cultural and architectural interest of barns from earlier years. Generally speaking, there are no preservation groups supported by wealthy societies, heritage trusts or governments to fund the purchase or painstaking and costly preservation of these barns.” The responsibility and cost for preservation of such structures that benefit our community and province with this cultural landscape now and for future generations is through the generosity of the private owners. One element which puts these older structures at risk is the composition of mortar used in the 19th century. SLIDE 17 Some stone masons call it ‘dead mortar’. When asked about 19th century mortar, Laurie Wells, an experienced restoration architect, stated: SLIDE 18 “Old mortar used in the construction of local stone buildings lacked the “resiliency” of modern mortars. This is caused by the use of ‘at hand’ materials including ‘unwashed sand.’ This lack of resiliency causes the mortar to degrade over time (and all the buildings on the CRC heritage list are well over 100 years old) making the mortar susceptible to fracture and disintegration. Vibration from mining/quarrying

• perations will result in cracking/fracturing of the old mortar in wall foundations of these

buildings rendering them ‘unstable.’”4 Only stone masons specializing in heritage restoration can duplicate the particular quality of the mortar required to ‘work’ with the stone.

___________

• 4. Ms. Laurie Wells, Old World Stone owner and consultant throughout North America on the restoration of old

buildings, (Canadian restoration architect living in Nassagaweya in an historic stone school house) Interview 2016

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [4]

In reference to the potential impact of blasting, William Hill Mining Consultants Limited (WHMC) states that “blasting, especially underwater blasting in the region’s porous karst bedrock formation, will send strong vibration waves up to 2.5 kilometres from the site.”5 WHMC also projects in its witness statement to this Hearing significantly different conclusions from the blasting effects presented by James Dick Construction based upon one unidentified site. These differences are likely the result of data obtained in different rock material than that of the proposed Hidden Quarry. The WHMC work disputes the validity of the prediction formula employed by JDCL and makes the case of a more relevant reference based on the Miramar, FL quarry in Dade County and the following data have been calculated from the formula using the proponent’s blasting loading of 150 kg per delay. SLIDE 19 In this chart are listed the distance in metres from the blasting site relative to the peak particle velocity per second caused by the blast. The closer to the blast, the higher the peak particle velocity or, in layperson’s terms, power of the vibration. _______

• 5. William Hill Mining Consultants, 2016

D(M) PPV (mm/s)

400 40.40 425 37.57 500 30.91 600 24.84 700 20.64 800 17.59 900 15.27 1000 13.46 1250 10.29 1500 8.27 1750 6.87 2000 5.86

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [5]

SLIDE 20 The graph illustrates the numbers on the chart, with high peak particle velocities up to 1000 metres. There are five heritage properties and eight heritage buildings within 1000 metres of the

• site. The projected blasting vibration in this 1000-metre radius area is projected to be

between 12.5 and 55 mm/s PPV. This is higher than the limit above which structural damage is possible. SLIDE 21 The eight heritage buildings within 1000 metres of the proposed Hidden Quarry site are marked by stars on the five properties on the map. SLIDE 22 At 4958 Eramosa 6th Line, just northwest of the proposed Hidden Quarry site is the property known as the “Ball Farm”, just recently sold. The property includes several heritage buildings and barns moved to the property within the last 40 years and re-constructed. These buildings are not inventoried in the study because access was not possible at the time of the survey. Nevertheless, the original 19th century stone house is visible from the road. SLIDE 23 Across Eramosa 6th Line, #4963, is the Allen Farm with a carefully restored 1863 stone house, and SLIDE 24 bank barn and, less than 500 metres from the site.

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [6]

SLIDE 25 The Hill Farm is at 5006 6th Line Eramosa. The stone house was built in 1863, and the SLIDE 26 bank barn dates back to the mid 19th century. The stone foundations and walls are original structures. SLIDE 27 The DeGrandis 1863 stone farmhouse and SLIDE 28 mid-19th century bank barn are located northeast of the proposed site, at 4970 6th Line Eramosa. SLIDE 29 And, in Nassagaweya, the 1882 Webster-Doyle house is located at 14190 5th Line Nassagaweya. The house is on the original stone foundation. I have serious concerns that the basis for assessing potential damage to structures does not include specific studies of vulnerable stone structures at any level of or distance from repeated vibration. I also have concerns about repair and remediation if heritage buildings do suffer damage from blasting. In May 2014 at a public meeting in Rockwood’s St. John’s Church I asked Greg Sweetnam of JDCL about risks to stone structures. He answered, saying, “James Dick will pay any costs associated with structural damage as a result of our blasting.”6 I’m not sure if he was aware how many heritage buildings are at stake, nor did he state under what conditions JDCL would pay. Once again I ask: Who inspects and controls the level

• f the blast? Who pays? Who gets the benefit? Who takes the risks?

The Applicant has not addressed potential blasting impacts on heritage buildings. The George Robb Architect Report undertaken by JDCL as required by the Aggregate Resources Act provides limited commentary, acknowledging SLIDE 30 the cultural heritage landscape of the Eramosa 6th Line only, and noting: “The Sixth Line rural road- scape is a cultural heritage landscape based on its tree lined rural profile and remaining three nineteenth century farmsteads to the north of the property.” He states, without reference to blasting impacts, “These three farmsteads are well separated from the site, the closest being approximately 250 metres northwest. The applicant intends to maintain/supplement the treed verge of the roadway and design landscaped berms inside the existing tree line.”7 The issue I am concerned about is not only with the trees, it is with our stone structures that we call home. __________

• 6. Greg Sweetnam VP JDCL, St. John’s Church, Rockwood, ON, May 10, 2014
• 7. George Robb Architect, Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, Built Heritage feature & Cultural Heritage Landscape, Hidden

Quarry, June 2013 p.6

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [7]

Blasting near heritage buildings certainly contravenes the letter and spirit of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Wellington Official Plan when they address cultural heritage. Here are, in brief, the policy frameworks for cultural heritage protection which speak to this case:

• 1. Ontario Heritage Act
• i. Its purpose: to give municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve

the heritage of Ontario.

• ii. Its primary focus: to protect heritage properties and archaeological sites.
• 2. Provincial Policy Statement on Cultural Heritage:

"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be preserved."

• 3. Wellington County Official Plan:
• a. 2.1.5 – “Wellington County will promote land use decisions which provide an

economically strong, healthy and socially responsible community and which protect our natural and cultural heritage for this and future generations.”

• b. 6.6.5 – “New aggregate operations may be established...The following matters will be

considered” including… “the effect on cultural heritage resources.” Conclusions I am very concerned about the potential impacts of blasting on our cultural heritage buildings. SLIDE 31 The predominantly stone structures of the former Nassagaweya and Eramosa Townships are key components of this SLIDE 32 agricultural, cultural heritage

• landscape. At least ten of the buildings in this inventory were constructed before
• Confederation. In northern Nassagaweya, the handsome stone barns are a defining

cultural heritage feature. SLIDE 33 Likewise, the cathedral-like atmosphere of the soaring bank barns is awe-inspiring juxtaposed with the charming architectural accent, the SLIDE 34 milk house set over the cold water of the Brydson Creek. SLIDE 35 This is our cultural and agricultural heritage. The structural soundness of eight cultural heritage buildings within 1000 metres contained in this inventory is at risk if the proposal is approved. Many more homes and barns in the vicinity may also be at risk.

file: hidden quarry/OMB Participant Statement [8]

In summary I urge the Board to: 1) Reject the rezoning so that the heritage buildings are protected and the property remains as Agricultural land; 2) If the quarry is approved, conditions should require the proponent to:

• a. Undertake to have these heritage buildings assessed by structural

engineers to determine their baseline condition;

• b. Undertake reasonable and regular monitoring of structural changes and

damage based upon credible third-party oversight;

• c. Ensure effective mitigation of damage to these structures including

compensation to the owners for damage . Respectfully submitted, Glen Duff SLIDE 36 On my own behalf and on behalf of the following stewards of heritage buildings who share my concerns and support this statement. Most of the signatories are here today.

Mike and Emily Lawrence 14259 Guelph Line, Nassagaweya Peter Berringer 8366 Eramosa-Milton Town Line, Eramosa Scott and Belinda Sargent 14220 4th Line Nassagaweya Debbie and Allan Weil 14051 4th Line Nassagaweya Bob, Kathy and Bill Lasby 3319 30 Sideroad, Nassagaweya Jackie and Wayne Garrett 4066 30 Sideroad, Nassagaweya Otto Felber and Anita Berkis 4306 30 Sideroad Nassagaweya Doug Webster and Karen Doyle 14190 5th Line Nassagaweya Joyce and Bill Hill 5006 6th Line Eramosa Shirley Allen 4963 6th Line Eramosa Stephanie de Grandis 4970 7th Line Eramosa Alex and Jean McNabb 5036 7th Line Eramosa

2019-03-05 1

Cultural Heritage Buildings in the former Nassagaweya and Eramosa Townships In the Vicinity of the Proposed Hidden Quarry

Duff Sheep Farm Nassagaweya

Map of Cultural Heritage Properties near Proposed Quarry Site ___________ Inner ‘Circle’: 1000 m. Outer ‘Circle’: 2000 m. Weil Stone Barn – 1859 Nassagaweya

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019-03-05 2

Felber Stone Barn – 1843 Nassagaweya

Rockwood Academy - 1853

• St. John’s Church Rockwood – 1881

Designated Ontario Heritage Building

McNabb Stone House – mid 19th Century Eramosa

McNabb Century Barn – mid-19th Century Century Farm ~~~ Strongly Rooted in the Community (125 years) ~~~ Growing With the Country (150 years)

7 8 9 10 11 12

2019-03-05 3

Sargent Bank (1895) and Stone Barn (1861) Nassagaweya Painting by Lillan Rosenthal for Peter Appleyard 2013 Sargent Bank Barn 1895 Peter Appleyard with Rafter Backdrop Webster/Doyle Log House 1882/Stucco 1902 Webster 1882 Original Exterior Chinked Log Wall Stone Foundation Weakness Stone Foundation of a Bank Barn – Mortar disintegration

13 14 15 16 17 18

2019-03-05 4

Distance in Metres by Peak Particle Velocity

Chart – Blasting PPV’s by distance Heritage Properties within 1000 metres

• f proposed

Hidden Quarry site

“Ball Farm” 19th Century Stone House 4958 6th Line Eramosa Allen Stone House 1870’s 4963 6th Line Eramosa Allen Bank Barn 1870’s 4963 6th Line Eramosa

19 20 21 22 23 24

2019-03-05 5

Hill Farm Stone House 1863 5006 6th Line Eramosa Hill Barn mid 19th Century 5006 6th Line Eramosa DeGrandis Stone House 1863 4970 7th Line Eramosa DeGrandis Bank Barn mid-19th Century 4970 7th Line Eramosa Webster Doyle 1882 14190 5th Line Nassagaweya 6th Line Eramosa – A “Cultural Heritage Landscape”

25 26 27 28 29 30

2019-03-05 6

Felber Stone Barn 1843 Nassagaweya Garrett Bank Barn 1880 Nassagaweya DeGrandis Bank Barn Eramosa

31 32 33 34 35 36