Nelson Aggregate Proposed Quarry Application

Key Issues and Concerns

March 10, 2008

• The length of time it is taking the government agencies of the Joint Agency Review Team (JART) to review this quarry application (review began in 2004) reflects the fact that the application is mired in technical difficulties. The government JART Report will not be completed in time to inform and educate citizens who are being asked to comply with the Aggregate Resources Act 20-day objection response period timeline. Citizens will not have the benefit of their government technical team report. The ARA process is biased in favor of the applicant.

• Nelson Aggregate is seeking to remove approximately 140 acres of bedrock infrastructure and diverse ecosystems on Mount Nemo in Burlington Ontario. The Mount Nemo plateau is located on the Niagara Escarpment and in the Ontario Greenbelt. It is one of the most prominent landform features across the entire north shore of Lake Ontario. It is rich in natural heritage and cultural heritage features. It is a prime headwater area of the Bronte, Grindstone, Tuck, Shoreacres, Appleby, Mount Nemo, Willoughby and Lowville Creek Systems. It is known for its natural areas designated for protection such as Provincially Significant Wetlands, Regionally Significant Woodlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Its elevated landscape (approximately the height of the revolving restaurant in the CN Tower) means that the water in the Mount Nemo aquifer is supplied entirely by rain and snowfall. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of domestic wells are supplied by this aquifer. PERL and Nelson water experts have estimated that Nelson Aggregate’s existing 600-acre quarry (which has operated since the 1950’s) is already using between 30%-40% of the available water. The company is seeking to open an additional approximately 140-acre quarry and substantially increase their water demands.

• In Dec. 2007 Protecting Escarpment Rural Land (PERL) water experts (Blackport Hydrogeology) reviewed the Sept. 2007 Nelson/Golder Hydrogeology Water Reports and found major problems including:

1.) inadequate groundwater flow monitoring,

2.) inadequate study and characterization of Karst features, and the potential for major groundwater decline and impact on wetlands and wells

3.) potential major groundwater reduction to the Medad Valley,

4.) inadequate water budget analysis,

5.) major discrepancies between earlier and recent reports and testing concerning soil conductivity and wetland protection.

6.) water level data collected since 2003 has not been reported

• Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) are at obvious risk. The Provincial Policy Statement protects PSWs from negative impact. However, Nelson is seeking to quarry a Provincially Significant Wetland and a significant woodland in the southwest corner of their property. The company is also stating that there is little or no groundwater connection to Provincially Significant wetlands because the Halton Till soil acts as an “aquitard” and therefore there will be little or no impact with quarrying 30 metres from Provincially Significant Wetlands. JART has agreed with PERL experts that this conclusion is too definitive, and our qualified experts do not see the data or adequate reporting to support this major conclusion.

• Substantive risk to drinking water. Nelson is not providing well water guarantees. The projected well water impacts are not fully understood. Nelson states that private wells will be affects to varying degrees; some will go dry, other wells will lose water levels. Nelson will either enhance the well, or drill a new one, or install a cistern; however, only if it can be proven that the cause is the proposed Nelson quarry. Wells that are currently being affected by the existing quarry do not qualify. PERL water experts note that most Mount Nemo wells could not be deepened as they are already drilled to the base of the Amabel Formation, the main aquifer and the formation proposed to be quarried, and there would be a substantial risk to well water quality from poorer quality water in the bedrock units underlying the Amabel Formation.

 Nelson is proposing an unproven Groundwater Recharging System (GRS) to mitigate/offset the loss of the groundwater/aquifer affecting area wells, wetlands, woodlands and streams. The theory is to inject surface water into the groundwater aquifer to prevent drying out. The problem is that potentially contaminated quarry-bottom water could pollute drinking water or poison the environment. What expertise does Nelson have in treating water to Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards? How can this GRS be allowed under the Ontario Source Water Protection Act? What prevents the injected water from flowing right back into the quarry? The Groundwater Recharge System is an unproven and potentially dangerous idea, which could put health at risk.

• The existing and proposed quarry operations must be made to meet current Ministry of Environment (MOE) ‘certificate of approval’ standards for dust, noise, air quality, spill containment, etc. There should be no grandfathering or exemptions, regardless of the current licenses. Further, the operating permit for the asphalt plant, located below-the-water-table must be revoked, because we can no longer accept the risk to drinking water. No mention is made of on-site field equipment secondary fuel & oil spill containment measures e.g. dikes. Fuel, oil and lubricant spills are a risk to the groundwater.

• The rehabilitation scheme has not been shown to be feasible. PERL water experts tell us that there simply isn’t enough water available to fill up massive excavated pits while ensuring wells will not go dry. In this area of highly fractured, porous limestone, and relying solely on precipitation to fill the “lake”, the company has not proven that these excavated pits could in fact fill with water.

• Aside from the unlikelihood of “lake” fill-up, the company is seeking to process the aggregate in the existing original quarry for the15 year life of the new proposed quarry, which means that the lake scheme which was promised in the original quarry 55 years ago, could not be filled until 2073, which is 120 years since the start of quarrying. The industry calls quarrying an INTERIM (temporary) land use. Again, the hope that these excavated pits would fill with water has yet to be proven. After 55 years of quarrying, Nelson states that they will have rehabilitated only 44% of the quarry by 2010. The Ministry of Natural Resources regulations require progressive ‘as-you-go’ rehabilitation. The existing quarry must be closed, vacated and fully rehabilitated in the next few years, as assured. Additionally, the company should be required to post an insurance bond to guarantee their mandatory (but rarely enforced) rehabilitation obligation. Putting the required rehabilitation costs aside upfront would indicate good faith and a commitment by the company to follow the rules of rehabilitation.

• Protect 75,000+ trees and Endangered tree habitat. The proposed quarry site consists of habitat of the Federally Endangered tree species, the Butternut Tree. In 2006 the company transplanted Butternut trees out of their habitat without a permit. At least 2 of these trees appear to have died due to the transplant. When Endangered Species habitat is discovered it is to be protected. A majority of the 75,000 mixed coniferous trees on the proposed quarry land, planted approximately 15 years ago by the previous landowner and Conservation Halton under the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program, are proposed to be destroyed. This reforestation project was undertaken to help re-establish the critically low forest cover in Halton Region. Trees clean our air, our water, help fight global warming and provide natural habitats.

• Protect the form and function of the Mount Nemo West Arm Tributary, a headwater of the Grindstone Creek, and fish habitat. The West Arm Tributary 15m setbacks do not meet provincial standards of 30m. PERL understands that this tributary has not been assessed by OMNR under PSW criteria or by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for over 25 years. It is habitat for 9 species of fish. A setback that will safeguard the wetlands, woodlands and wells may need to be 120m. The proposed extraction boundary setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas must be determined through thorough groundwater studies. The precautionary principle must apply.

• All possible negative and total impact scenarios pertaining to noise and air quality need to be assessed in advance. Noise and air quality modeling that has been done does not include all of the quarrying machinery, nor assess the impacts of locating the processing plant on the new proposed site, instead of the existing quarry site. The site preparation and berm construction machinery must be included in the noise assessment. Nelson needs to assess the noise and air quality impact of locating the processing plants on the proposed site, instead of the existing quarry floor. The MOE noise guideline NPC-232 for Rural environments must apply, not NPC-205; the existing quarry is not to be considered background ambient noise.

• Heavy trucks and earthmovers climbing up hundreds of feet of Escarpment grade negate the “close-to-market” argument, in that more fuel is consumed and additional noxious emissions and greenhouse gases are generated. The industry’s desire to locate quarries close-to-market is driven primarily by the high cost of transporting aggregate. The industry purports their environmental concerns when advocating for close-to-market locations, and, while these concerns may be legitimate, as a significant contributor to global greenhouse gases the industry’s position is perhaps analogous to flying one’s Lear jet to the grocery store for organic vegetables. Due to its elevated nature quarrying on the Niagara Escarpment unnecessarily creates additional noise, pollutants, and greenhouses gases.

• Cultural Heritage has not been a real part of the JART review. Archaeological investigations on the site uncovered remnants of a 1600’s Neutral (Attawandaron) Indian longhouse and hundreds of ceramics, tools, beads and bones. Halton Region claims to rank Neutral sites as highest priority. First Nations have not been consulted and Cultural Heritage has not been properly considered and respected in this review to reflect society’s interest and respect for our cultural history.

• The company illegally dredged and drained headwaters of the Grindstone Creek on the proposed quarry site in 2006. Now it is proposing to “enhance” i.e. landscape the same southeast section of the Grindstone Creek Headwaters Provincially Significant Wetlands Complex and woodlands and contribute to the Regional and Local greenlands system. After their dredging and draining caused damage to the immediate wetlands and Significant Habitat of a Threatened Species directly downstream, how can Nelson Aggregate guarantee that site preparation and construction work will not again damage adjacent wetland habitats and wildlife? The company’s past actions demonstrate their concept of landscape “enhancement” and speak more loudly than their projected promises.