HOT ISSUES @ bpeg.ca

This is an outline of concerns regarding expansion of Harold Sutherland Construction Limited “New Keppel Quarry” on Grey Road 17 just northwest of Owen Sound on way to Copper Kettle and Bass Lake.

An application for a very large “New Keppel Quarry” has been underway for some time and now is the time to express your concerns in order to have an impact that may help stop the application. The proposed location of the quarry expansion is currently a pristine environment beside Grey Road 17 near the Copper Kettle, just a few miles northwest of Owen Sound. There are many reasons for alarm.

For photo research on the Keppel Quarry expansion, goto this link:
http://smugmug.com/gallery/6000046_zj4H8#567867874_qF4pP

(Photos are best viewed by clicking on the large photo, then clicking through the 137 images with the ">" button. Alternate method to view photos is click the "slideshow" button, then click the "fast" button in top left of screen. You may need the free Adobe "Flash" reader to be loaded on your computer for proper viewing.)

The Aggregate Resources Act, (ARA) has a legislation that enables what they call a “proponent driven” approach for quarry applications, which means the proponent initiates and runs meetings, notice, etc. in keeping with the legislation.

The Aggregate Resources Act may be viewed at the web-link provided
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a08_e.htm

Under the ARA process, Harold Sutherland Construction Ltd advertised its proposal in the local Sun Times newspaper on April 17/07 and the public information meeting was held on May 9/07 at the proposed location of quarry site just northwest of Owen Sound on Grey Road 17 on the way to the Copper Kettle. However it appears that many affected people and organizations were not aware of this proposed development because it was reported that only 3 people attended the May 9th meeting. Odd for a proposal with such far reaching consequences.

A call to the Ministry of Environment (Greg Powers 519-873-5000) confirmed that the site plan for the “New Keppel Quarry” includes provisions to pump 5,250,000 litres per day of water. This would occur 17 hours per day, 265 days per year for 10 years. There is a great concern that this activity would have a negative impact on the adjacent wetlands and the wildlife. Local farmers are also concerned about the impact on water levels. See the following Ontario Environmental Registry web site for specific details on the proposed water pumping.

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTAwNDc3&statusId=MTUwMTEz&language=en

The proposed site for the Quarry expansion is adjacent to a designated, protected Area of Natural & Scientific Interest (ANSI).

The proposed site for the quarry is surrounded on three sides by Grey Sauble Conservation Authority managed area 72, “The Glen”.

The site is also very close to the Bruce Trail and is within the protected area of the Niagara Escarpment.

The proposed site is adjacent to Provincially Significant Lifescience protected wetlands and within a World Biosphere Reserve and regcognized Greenbelt.

There are significant environmental, noise, traffic, dust issues involved. Rare species of plant, animal and insects are at risk.

Here is a link to the Niagara Escarpment Initial Staff Report, 2007 regarding the PG167 Ammendment Application received from the proponent:
https://ospace.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/1873/9963/1/279235.pdf

Alarming aspects of the official “New Keppel Quarry” site plan appear to include:

1) The site plan calls for a quarry much larger than the size of the existing Harold Sutherland Construction Limited Quarry. A hole roughly 70 feet deep will be dug and very large quantities of water will be pumped. The site plan shows that this hole will require vigorous pumping in order to allow access to the rock. Once completed the plan shows that the natural water level will be 55 feet deep. This hole will become a sink into which the local wetlands will drain.

2) The new quarry will use massive amounts of explosive material per blast. During heavy blasting phases up to 1126 pounds of explosive per day could be used. There is a real concern that the amount of blasting called for in the plan will fracture the bedrock and result in a catastrophic draining of the water table and the adjacent protected wetlands.

3) The plan shows 600,000 Tons of gravel to be extracted per year. With each truck loaded to 25 Tons, this works out to 24,000 truck loads per year. This site application would provide for 48 years of operation at this level. Add to this countless truck loads of Redi-Mix and Asphalt.

4) Noise will be created during work days M-F 6AM-6PM & Saturday 6AM-1PM. The noise has been bothersome to homeowners along the delivery routes.

5) The plan also incorporates an on-site Asphalt Plant and Ready-Mix Cement Plant adjacent to the existing Area of Natural and Scientific Interest with smoke stacks expelling contaminants. Noise and chemical by products are troubling.

6) Noise levels of the on-site equipment are shown at 104-121 db. This is well above the audible pain level and likely to have a direct impact on wildlife, even though some thought has been put into attenuating the noise.

7) The site plan anticipating pumping water back and forth between the new and existing quarry via a tunnel under Grey Road 17. Lime clouded water will be settled out in ponds so that the lime can be sold for various purposes.

There is a plan to pump site water into the ANSI designated area once per year. PRIOR TO TESTING, NO WATER SHOULD BE PUMPED UNLESS IT HAS PASSED THOROUGH TESTING JUST PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED PUMPING. Tests should be completed for Ammonium Nitrates and other chemicals in addition to the limited list of chemicals proposed to be tested for. Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) is often used as an explosive compound by quarry operations because it is relatively inexpensive. With over 1100 pounds per day being exploded there is a real fear that Ammonium Nitrate will get into the water. Since Ammonium Nitrate is clear, the water may be clear but still contain deadly concentrations this and other harmful contaminants.

8) Surface water that was once wetland water will become open pond water with a surface area approx 144 acres. Such open water evaporates much faster than natural habitat wetlands, which will result in a draining effect on the natural wetlands in the Area of Natural and Scientific Interest.

9) The site plan eliminates an existing Road Allowance since it is located in the middle of the proposed quarry pit. A Road Allowance is public land, and in my opinion the plan should be set back 20 metres.

10) The site plan shows a small setback from the adjacent Area of National and Scientific Interest, however this buffer zone is also shown as a storm water pond. In my opinion, the whole quarry is just too close to this protected area.

11) There is a real concern that the site plan does not fully address the recent “Species at Risk” and “Source Water Protection” legislations.

The complete application and supporting documentation is on file at:

Ministry of Natural Resources, 1450 Seventh Avenue East, Owen Sound, N4K 2Z1, attn: Dave Munro, Aggregates Technical Specialist 519-371-8470

Harold Sutherland Construction Limited, R.R. 2, Kemble, Ontario NOH 1S0 Attn: Harold Sutherland 519-376-5698

Georgian Bluffs Township office, 177964 Grey Road 18, R.R.3, Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 5N5 - Planning Office 519-376-2729

County of Grey Office, 595 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound, Ontario N4K 3E3 - Planning Office 519-376-2205

While we appreciate the importance of available aggregate materials, surely there are alternate locations for a proposed quarry that are not within the Niagara Escarpment protected area, not within a World Biosphere reserve, not within a recognized Greenbelt, not adjacent to a Provincially Significant wetland, not adjacent to a designated Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), and not surrounded on three sides by a protected Conservation Area.

Talk about the proposed Keppel quarry with your friends and neighbours. Do we benefit enough to leave the results to our children’s children?

What can you do? Act now, during the review. Get involved. Speak up. Be heard.

1) Write the Premier of Ontario: Dalton McGuinty, Premier, Legislative Building, Queen's Park,Toronto ON M7A 1A1
or log your comments with the Premier at web site: http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp

2) Write the Ministry of Natural Resources: The Honorable Donna Cansfield, Ministry of Natural Resources, 6th floor, Room 6630, Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley St., West, Toronto M7A 1W3
or comment online at:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/index.html
select Online Feedback: Please select a Subject “Message to the Minister”

3) Write the Ministry of the Environment: The Honorable John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment, 12th floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue W.,Toronto, ON, M4V 1P5
or online at:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/forms/email-form.php?replyRequested=y

4) Write a letter of support to the Niagara Escarpement Commission. The NEC have opposed the PG167 Ammendment file to expand the quarry: Kathryn Pounder, Senior Planner, 232 Guelph Road, Georgetown, Ontario L7G4B1. Or Email Kathryn at kathryn.pounder@ontario.ca

5) The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is the Hon. Leona Dombrowski
ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org

6) Dwight Duncan,Finance
dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org

7) Kevin Daniel Flynn Ministry of the Environment
kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org

8) Hon. John Gerretsen
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org

9) Hon. Michael Gravelle Northern Development and Mines
mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org

10) Bill Mauro, MNR
Suite 6522 6th Floor Whitney Block
99 Wellesley St.West
Toronto, Ont., M7A 1W3 tel 416 314 6467, Fax 416 327 0617

11) Hon. Gerry Phillips
gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org

11) Write a letter to the editor of the Owen Sound Sun Times
290 9th Street East, Owen Sound, Ontario, N4K 5P2 or by web:
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/feedback1/LetterToEditor.aspx

and/or the Wiarton Echo, Box 220, Wiarton, Ontario N0H2T0

and/or the The Toronto Star, Ian Urquhart at email: oped@thestar.ca
or write to address: One Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M5E 1E6.

Letters must include full name, address and all phone numbers of sender (daytime, evening and cellphone). Street names and phone numbers will not be published.

Finally, Please email us your feedback: nokeppelquarryexpansion@comcast.net

My first impression of the proposed Ontario government ‘ban’ on incandescent lamps was one of confidence. I had a feeling that this move was thoughtfully considered and that it would be a bold initiative to harvest the low hanging fruit of the global warming solutions. Whenever I review proposed legislation I often wonder how well the intended result will be reflected in the draft regulation. Personally, the announcement of the proposed legislation had the intended result. We looked at lighting requirements of our home and business and found opportunity to convert from incandescent lamps to more economical (conservative) alternatives. When the Federal government announced that they were jumping on the bulb bandwagon as a leading part of the new government’s global warming strategy my second impression was that the whole issue probably deserves a closer look.
We have some lighting experience here on the Peninsula by virtue of our dark sky reality and I would like to read some further discussion from the converted on the old bulb vs new bulb issue. This discussion may prove valuable if it leads to a comprehensive review of our lighting requirements which is independent of commercial gain and political opportunism.

Some readers may consider this to be conspiracy theory but it is an interesting read.
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
We purchased CFLs for commercial use and we have found that generally they do not last for much more than a year but we keep buying. I hope that the Chinese made products sold in Walmart do not become the lighting product of choice for the future and another waste diversion problem.
---------
By the way, there is new lighting being installed at the Lion’s Head Hospital and while visiting there today, I did not have the opportunity to ask the contractor any questions. Judging from the design on the corner, I will have to question the design of the additional lights. I will suppose that the dark sky program here has had an effect if the lighting is proper.

Cheers,
Tom