We received this comment via email:
The assertion in the Savanta Inc. Report No 6161 pp7-8 Section 3.1.4 that Prime Agricultural Land is the only possible site for this project is only indicated due to their constraint to find a site to accommodate for this projects mega-size. It should be noted that they report that there are almost 500 ha in 39 areas with an average parcel size of 12 ha and a max of 76 ha. The average parcel size is really more of an indicator of the disturbance area and a bit of a red herring as the extraction volume is more important commercially.

Basically, there are a number of issues at play. There is the whole ecologically sensible idea of using sources of resources that are close to the markets they will be used in thereby reducing transportation costs and greenhouse gas emissions. There is the issue of the hassles of the approvals process and hoops that companies must jump through to appease those NIMBYs and the out of sight out of mind factors – even when a company attempts to design a responsible, ecologically sensitive and long term remediation plan.

This site and concept is flawed on many levels. They want to move a river. They want to site the quarry on Prime agricultural land. They will be pumping water out of the hole for a thousand years. They will impact the groundwater, surface water and air. They will add $100s of millions of dollars in costs to the products they wish to produce due to the remote location far from the markets they wish to supply. Practically, there are already numerous potentially profitable pockets with hundreds of years of capacity to supply this material within closer proximity to the markets of the GTA.

From the OMB
The applicable provision of the Planning Act (the “Act”), the ARA, the Provincial Policy Statement, 1997 (the “PPS”), the OP and the Region of Peel Official Plan (the “ROP”) will be considered in some detail below as the Board determines various issues before it. However the Board must note, as a preliminary matter, the obligation, onus or burden of proof which is established by certain of these documents.

Policy 2.3 provides “development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent land to (natural heritage features and areas) if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified” (emphasis added). The Board finds that this means that a proponent of development has the onus of demonstrating no negative impact. Objectors to a development need not demonstrate that there will be negative impact.

David

[...] This mega quarry is really, really big [...]

[...] This Mega Quarry Is Really Really Big! (www.Waterkeeper.ca – May 04/11) … Lake Ontario Waterkeeper illustrates some concerns about the proposed Melancthon quarry on the outskirts of Shelburne.  ”Picture a 20-storey hole in downtown Toronto stretching from the Don Valley Parkway to Dufferin Street spanning from the Gardiner Expressway to Dundas Street” … continue reading. [...]

[...] This Mega Quarry Is Really Really Big! (www.Waterkeeper.ca) … Lake Ontario Waterkeeper illustrates some concerns about the proposed Melancthon quarry on the outskirts of Shelburne.  ”Picture a 20-storey hole in downtown Toronto stretching from the Don Valley Parkway to Dufferin Street spanning from the Gardiner Expressway to Dundas Street” … continue reading. [...]

[...] This Mega Quarry Is Really Really Big! (www.Waterkeeper.ca) … Lake Ontario Waterkeeper illustrates some concerns about the proposed Melancthon quarry on the outskirts of Shelburne. “Picture a 20-storey hole in downtown Toronto stretching from the Don Valley Parkway to Dufferin Street spanning from the Gardiner Expressway to Dundas Street” … continue reading. [...]