Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Waterkeeper Objects to Melancthon Mega Quarry

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper,

April 19th, 2011

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has filed a formal objection to the application by 3191574 Nova Scotia Company (aka The Highland Companies) for a Class A licence to remove more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate annually from a pit or quarry in Melancthon Township. Our objection reads as follows:

BY MAIL

Craig Laing, Aggregate Inspector
Ministry of Natural Resources, Regional Operations Division
Southern Region, Midhurst District
2284 Nursery Road
Midhurst, ON L0L 1X0

3191574 Nova Scotia Company (The Highland Companies)
477476 Third Line
Rural Route Delivery 2
Shelburne, ON L0N 1S6

April 19, 2011 

Dear Mr. Laing and Directors, 3191574 Nova Scotia Company:

Re:

EBR No. 011-2864 (Melancthon Quarry)
Objection, Aggregate Resources Act s. 11(3)
Application for Class A licence to remove more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate annually from a pit or quarry, Aggregate Resources Act s.7(2)(a)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper objects to the application by 3191574 Nova Scotia Company for a Class A licence to remove more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate annually from a pit or quarry in Melancthon Township. Waterkeeper makes this objection pursuant to s.11(3) of the Aggregate Resources Act.

Waterkeeper has been an active intervenor in the proposal by Nelson Aggregate to expand that company’s Burlington Quarry since 2005. We are currently participating in the joint Ontario Municipal Board and Environmental Review Tribunal hearing into that proposal.

Nelson’s proposed quarry expansion was the subject of a Joint Agency Review Team [JART] Report, which examined the potential impact of the quarry on the environment, surrounding land use, and social and recreational value in the area. It provided invaluable information on the expected effects on hydrogeology, aquatic life, and ecology, including threatened species discovered on the site by local residents. New information continues to arise in the context of the hearing, indicating the inadequacy of relying solely on proponent-produced and commissioned reports for a project of this type.

The proposed Melancthon Quarry would occupy 937.1 hectares of land just outside of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s watershed. The proponent’s application indicates that one billion tonnes has been identified for extraction. Like the proposed Nelson quarry, the aggregate that would be extracted in Melancthon is part of the Amabel Formation, a layer of dolostone that constitutes a valuable aquifer. The bedrock includes karst features, which are formed when groundwater moves through limestone or dolostone bedrock, slowly dissolving the rock and increasing its permeability.

The proposed quarry would reach depths of close to 60 metres or 200 feet, requiring extraction below the water table. The proponent would be required to dewater the quarry to keep it dry for excavation, causing drawdown of surrounding groundwater and potentially impacting local surface water courses. The floor of the existing quarry would continue to be dewatered in perpetuity to allow it to be used for farming post-extraction.

The proposed Melancthon Quarry is many times larger than Nelson’s proposed expansion site. No detailed, site-specific external review of the potential impacts of a quarry of this size and depth has been conducted.

Waterkeeper is concerned about the potential impacts of this project, both during extraction and during the proponent’s proposed post-extraction quarry floor farming operations. The dewatering and pumping that will be required to facilitate the project could have devastating effects on the flow and supply of ground and surface water to lakes, streams, and rivers within and beyond the watershed.

Waterkeeper objects to the approval of this application and respectfully requests that 3191574 Nova Scotia Company’s proposal be denied. In the alternative, Waterkeeper requests that the proposal be referred to a hearing to allow for the examination of scientific evidence by an independent decision-maker and for meaningful public participation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact Joanna Bull, Counsel for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, if you have any questions or concerns about this objection.

Sincerely,

Mark Mattson
President and Waterkeeper

Other stories like this one ...

Aggregate & Mining
(Most recent of 546 articles)

Fish
(Most recent of 5875 articles)

Groundwater
(Most recent of 112 articles)

Ontario
(Most recent of 3482 articles)

Research
(Most recent of 211 articles)

Sandi wrote:
April 19th, 2011 at 3:19 pm

I applaud your position on this proposal and trust that you have it in the hands of both Ministry and Highland Companies before the April 26th deadline. With such a short period to submit, the Objection process is stacked against those that it will negatively impact, for generations.
I urge you to take this issue to the highest order and make it an election issue. The applicant’s proposals seems to fly in the face of logic and reason, only seeking a quick exploitation of our precious resources of water and prime agricultural land, for their profit.
It takes those from outside our borders to covet what we so easily take for granted and are so lax to protect.

jim pearson wrote:
April 19th, 2011 at 6:35 pm

Welcome aboard, this application is horrific. 600,000,000.liters of water a day they propose to move …Forever… that is a long long time.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:30 pm

[...] submitted our formal objection regarding the Melancthon quarry under the Aggregate Resources Act to the Ministry of Natural [...]

Posted by Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Thanks for your comments, Sandi. We really appreciate it!

Posted by Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Long time indeed, Jim! Thanks for your comments.

Kahne:koteh! People are speaking out in defense of the land! Get involved now! NO Melancthon Quarry « ndn media wrote:
May 5th, 2011 at 11:24 pm

[...] http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2011/04/19/waterkeeper-objects-to-melancthon-mega-quarry/ [...]

Kerry wrote:
May 10th, 2011 at 2:27 pm

Hi all,

Your letter notes that “Waterkeeper makes this objection pursuant to s.11(3) of the Aggregate Resources Act,” but the ER update page says that “Comments received through the Environmental Registry should not be construed as an objection under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) in accordance with section 4.0 – Notification and Consultation Standards of the Provincial Standards 1.0 under the ARA.”

What’s the deal? Has the ER rendered your objection invalid? I’m confused.

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Kerry

Posted by Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
May 20th, 2011 at 3:17 pm

Hey Kerry,

For this project there are two separate processes. The quarry will need approvals under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) and through the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The ARA comments go directly to the proponent — in this case, Highland Companies. The proponent must then resolve all issues raised. If the proponent cannot resolve the concerns, an automatic hearing is triggered. The ARA comment period has ended.

The EBR comment period has recently been extended until July 11th. If a hearing is triggered, the government bodies involved will use comments submitted through the registry.

So, commenting via the ER doesn’t render your objection invalid. That statement is to clarify that a submission to the registry is not an objection under the ARA.

Hope that clarifies!

Allie

denise wrote:
May 25th, 2011 at 1:22 am

600,000,000 liters of water a day pumped forever. After the quarry closes is all that water going to end up in nice little bottles? It’s not the stated plan but plans change.Seems to me that the water is worth more than the quarry material, liquid gold -the investment of the future.