Note: Our entire submission is available here for download.
On May 17, 2006 Nelson Aggregate Co., a partnership between Lafarge Canada and Steed and Evans Holding ltd., (â€œNelsonâ€?) erected an information sign and published a Notice of Application in the Burlington Post. This triggered a 45 day public notification and consultation period under section 11 of the Aggregate Resources Act (â€œARAâ€?). On May 31, 2006 a notice of proposal for an instrument was posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. Both of these public consultation processes are regarding the same application for the issuance of a Class A licence under ARA s. 7 (2) (a) to remove more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate annually from a quarry located in Burlington, Ontario. This single submission from Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a comment on and objection to both the EBR Registry and the ARA notification.
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (â€œWeâ€?) object to the application and make the following recommendations:
1. That Nelson rescind the triggering of the 45 day ARA public consultation period and re- post public notice when JART has completed its review of the project. 2. That the EBR comment period be extended to match the deadline of a re-posted ARA notification period. 3. In the alternative, that Nelson's application be rejected
In October 2004 Nelson applied to amend the Burlington Official Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Halton Region Official Plan. These amendments are required in addition to the Aggregate Resources Act approval and other licenses. In 2004 the Joint Agency Review Team (â€œJARTâ€?) was created with a mandate to study the technical and background information necessary to process those applications. JART includes all relevant agencies namely, Conservation Halton, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, the Region Municipality of Halton and the City of Burlington. JART's purpose is to ensure that the review is comprehensive and efficient. Because of incomplete information, JART will not complete its final report until the end of 2006.
As documented below, Nelson has failed to complete studies necessary for JART to properly assess Nelson's applications. Of the completed studies and reports, some of the most important are merely drafts or outlines. This means that Nelson has not completely studied the potential impacts of the proposed quarry and has not told the public what it will do to address adverse impacts.
In light of (a) the short public study period, (b) the numerous uncompleted studies, (c) the numerous reports and plans that have only been submitted in draft or outline form, and (d) the pending JART report, we do not believe that the public has been granted a fair opportunity to study Nelson's request.
The grounds for our request are as follows:
A. Nelson is asking to open a quarry in an environmentally sensitive area without full public scrutiny B. The quarry design does not appear to be based on the most up-to-date science or best engineering practices C. The effects of the quarry and Nelson's plans to mitigate them are still unknown D. Ongoing investigations of Nelson's unauthorized activities suggest a lack of respect for the environmental approvals process
Please view our entire submission for the argument supporting these grounds.