Summary of of Issu sues Hidden Quarry Application Guelph-Eramosa - - PDF document

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

facebook: hidden quarry website: hiddenquarry.ca twitter: crcrockwood e-mail: crchiddenquarry@gmail.com

Summary of

• f Issu

sues “Hidden Quarry” Application Guelph-Eramosa sa Township For Halton

• n Region
• n Planning and Public Works Com
• mmittee

20 April 2015 Introduct ction

• n

CRC Rockwood Inc. (CRC) is a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of residents of Guelph-Eramosa Township (GET), Halton Hills and Milton with regard to the proposed “Hidden Quarry”. Since the applications for rezoning of the proposed quarry site from Agricultural-Hazard to Industrial- Extractive, and for a Class A Category 2 license under the ARA for extraction below the water table, CRC has actively engaged GET, Halton Hills, Halton Region, Milton, GRCA, and the Provincial Ministries in regard to our concerns about the impact of the proposed quarry. CRC has met previously with planning staff from the Town of Milton and Halton Region to discuss our shared concerns. This paper summarizes the issues that CRC has raised as the application is assessed under the Planning Act and ARA, and accompanies the brief presentation made by CRC to the Halton Region Planning and Public Works Committee on 20 April 2015. CRC has submitted information to GET and other stakeholders providing details of its concerns related to hydrogeology, blasting, haul routes, economic impacts, natural and aquatic habitat, air quality, cultural heritage, and visual impact. As well, CRC has raised concerns about the possibility that approval of the Hidden Quarry will provide an opening for the development of additional quarries in the area. What follows is a summary of the concerns that pertain to issues of most significance to Halton Region. Hydrogeol

• log
• gyi

CRC has retained the services of Hunter and Associates, Environmental and Engineering Consultants (Hunter), to peer review the proponent’s application documents regarding hydrogeology. The summary report (April 2015) describes a number of outstanding issues:

• 1. Hunter disputes groundwater modelling results submitted by the applicant and the predicted

water table drawdown estimates, as well as the allowance for seasonal variability of flow.

• 2. The applicant has not considered how the Phase 1 extraction area will be dewatered and the

requirement to lower the water table to provide for dry staging of subsequent blasting operations.

• 3. The applicant has deficient groundwater level monitoring and overburden water level monitoring.
• 4. Hunter asserts the need for private well replacement and the absence of a contingency plan in the

event of adjacent springs drying up due to quarry operations.

• 5. Hunter asserts the need for additional monitoring wells on the quarry site.
• 6. It is noted that applicant’s site plans in application documents are not consistent.

P.O. Box 121, Rockwood ON N0B 2K0

2

Bl Blastingii CRC Director William Hill, a mining engineer with 60 years of international mining experience, reviewed blasting impact analysis reports submitted by the proponent, and a review carried out by the proponent of those reports by its consultant Golder Associates. The latter report is identified as a “peer review”, but CRC disputes this designation as the subject reports and the review report were carried out by the proponent’s hired consultants according to terms of reference set by the proponent. Regarding substantive issues, the Hill report raises issues pertaining to the geology and karst weathering of rock on the quarry site, the risks of fly-rock ejection from the site largely due to the unique characteristics of the karstic formation, various drilling and blasting considerations, blasting patterns and powder factor considerations, and the transmission of shockwaves and ground vibrations. Of note are the following points:

• 1. The proponent asserts the absence of karst geology on this site based on one bore-

hole examination that failed to detect large-scale karst weathering; the Ontario Geological Survey maps show either potential or observed karst in a large area to the east of Guelph encompassing the quarry site, and direct observations of sink holes and a disappearing stream on the site as well as evident karst immediately to the south of the site suggest the contrary.

• 2. The proponent acknowledges the possible ejection of fly-rock in the Blasting Impact

Assessment (“Orientation of the aggregate operation will be designed and maintained so that the direction of the overpressure propagation and fly rock from the face will be away from structures as much as possible.”), apparently in the belief that the direction of fly-rock ejection can be controlled. Nothing else provided by the proponent addresses this risk to the adjacent stretch of Highway 7 and the numerous buildings and residences that are within range.

• 3. The Hill Report questions the proponent’s conclusions that blasting with the

indicated quantities of explosives per charge will keep vibration levels within permissible limits.

• 4. The Hill Report notes that the quantity of explosives used per tonne of rock

extracted (powder factor) is significantly higher than typically used in similar mining operations, leading to greater risk of blowouts and fly rock.

• 5. The proponent’s reports do not acknowledge that 80% of blasting operations will be

carried out at distances closer to sensitive receptors for vibration than the distance used to calculate acceptable vibration levels, with the result that vibration at these receptors will exceed permissible levels in most blasting operations.

• 6. The Hill Report also questions the proponent’s conclusion that a “causeway”

carrying the Brydson Creek through the middle of the quarry site will be able to withstand the effects of blasting in the two extraction areas between which it

• passes. The Brydson Creek passes under Highway 7 and empties into the Blue

Springs Creek.

3

Haul Routeiii The proponent submitted four iterations of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), and at the request

• f Halton Hills, Milton and Halton Region, a Haul Route Study (HRS), all carried out by Cole
• Engineering. The TIS received comments from MTO and R. J. Burnside & Associates on

behalf of Guelph-Eramosa Township. CRC’s review of the HRS has raised a number of issues:

• 1. As noted by Burnside in response to the TIS, and again by CRC in review of the HRS,

the proponent underestimates the number of truck trips by basing the estimate on an average 33 tonne load, roughly the capacity of tractor trailers. Furthermore, while providing time, day-of-week, and seasonal distribution of load transportation data, the use of “average” values creates the impression that truck traffic will be much lower than will actually be the case. Without attempting to cor

• rrect for the

average loa

• ad size question
• n, CRC’s estimate of truck trips per hour in the period May

through September, 0600 to 1500 hr. ranges from a low of 15 to a high of 32 trips/hr. and an average of 24 truck trips per hour or one every 2 ½ minutes.

• 2. The proponent uses as a “proxy” its Erin Pit for projecting truck trip frequency

without providing any justification.

• 3. While the TIS indicates that 5% of truck traffic will be northbound and 95%

eastbound, the HRS gives a different breakdown as shown below: Haul Route Distribution

• 4. The question of queuing of trucks for entry to the quarry site is addressed by the

proponent’s HRS as follows: “The site plans indicate that the gates will be positioned to allow enough room for a full truck/trailer to pull off the 6th line.” In addition to providing space for one truck on site, the proponent offers assurances that truck arrival to the area before the 6 am start of operations will not be

• permitted. CRC’s view is that queuing of trucks along Highway 7 and 6th Line will be

a problem, as it most certainly is at other quarries such as those in Milton.

• 5. The proposed haul routes will put considerable stress on Acton’s Main Street

including Highway 7 east towards Georgetown, as well as on RR 25 northbound and southbound from Highway 7.

• 6. CRC recognizes that the 5th and 6th Lines Nassagaweya offer access to RR 25

southbound without the need to pass through Acton. These lines are load limited but enforcement can be expected to be an issue.

4

• 7. MTO required assessment of negative structural, dust, noise and traffic impacts to

the Highway 7 right-of-way, which, apart from traffic, has not been provided.

• 8. The proponent estimates a 1% increase in truck traffic based on its low estimate of

truck trips, but the increase of heavy truck traffic from 7% to 8% is actually a 14% increase in heavy truck traffic. Econ

• nomic Impact

CRC requested that GET carry out an economic impact study and the submission of that report is pending at this time. CRC has asserted that there is good reason to expect a negative impact on property values in both Milton and GET, based on extensive research published by Professor Diane Hite of Auburn University, as well as analysis carried out in Caledon and elsewhere. The Hite work indicates a range of depreciation of property values, and therefore tax assessment, from 25% or more at 500 m, to 15 – 20% at 1000 m, to between 5 and 7% at up to 5 km. The impact on viable agricultural operations in the vicinity of the quarry site is also seen by CRC as a potential negative economic factor. Numerous crop farming, horse-training, and livestock farms are in relatively close proximity. A large and highly successful oyster mushroom growing operation is situated on the northern boundary of the quarry site, which, its owners believe, will be adversely affected by both water impacts and dust produced by the quarry. Other costs borne by municipalities and infrastructure versus the revenues flowing from the operation to the municipalities will presumably be assessed in the Economic Impact

• Study. The “Social Impact Study” requested by Halton Hills Council will provide additional

data from the perspective of the neighbouring areas. Aquatic Habitativ CRC retained Dr. Karl Schiefer, an Aquatic Ecologist, to carry out a survey of habitat and fish populations in the Brydson Creek, immediately downstream of the quarry site. A tributary

• f the Brydson Creek flows through the middle of the quarry site, and the Brydson Creek

itself drains into the Blue Springs Creek.

• Dr. Schiefer’s conclusion was that Brydson Creek provides an exceptionally high quality,

cold-water stream habitat for a natural and self-sustaining brook trout population. Various features of the stream and terrain contribute to the high quality of trout spawning habitat in this stream. Dr. Schiefer described the brook trout population as “exceptional and very significant within this watershed.” He advised that there is a need for “very detailed and reliable sampling, measurement, modelling and assessment of the hydrogeological features [of the Brydson Creek] as a precondition for providing adequate protection to these downstream aquatic ecosystems and brook trout populations.”

5

Prol

• liferation
• n of Quarries

The proposed Hidden Quarry is planned to extract approximately 14 million tonnes of aggregate, from a rock formation which, according to the Ontario Geological Survey, holds more than 350 million tonnes of rock of the same quality. As the first quarry in this area, the Hidden Quarry may well be the “thin edge of the wedge” of quarry development that could proliferate. Adding weight to CRC’s concern about this outcome is information

• btained from the public record that two properties in fairly close proximity to the Hidden

Quarry site may be held for future aggregate extraction. The former Ball farm is approximately 100 acres on the west side of 6th Line Eramosa, immediately adjacent to the Hidden Quarry site. The property was sold approximately one year ago and is held by Markham Hill Farms. A Director of Markham Hill Farms is a lawyer by the name of Donald Hindson, a partner in Markham law firm Cattanach Hindson Sutton

• VanVeldhuizen. Mr. Hindson has previously identified himself along with Mr. Greg

Sweetnam to be a member of the Quarry Project Management Team for James Dick Construction Limited. A second property is located on Eramosa – Erin Townline, a short distance north of Crewson Corner. In 2004, this property was sold by Mulmur Aggregates Inc. for $2 to 2101271 Ontario Inc. CRC considers both cases to be examples of common practice in the aggregate industry of banking land for future development. Were this to be the case, the negative impacts summarized above would be significantly increased.

i Hunter and Associates, Peer Revie

iew: Prop

• pos
• sed Hid

idden Quarry Zon

• ning By-law Amendment and Aggr

grega gate te Resou

• urces Act Applic

icatio ions, April 2015

ii William Hill Mining Consultants Ltd., An Apprais

isal of

• f th

the Peer Revie iew by Gol

• lder Associa

iate tes of

• f Two Repor
• rts

ts Tit itled Blast Impact Analysis is James Dic ick Hid idden Quarry By Explote tech Engin ineerin ing Ltd td., January 31, 2015

iii Cole Engineering, Ha

Haul Rou

• ute Stu

tudy, Eramos

• sa Quarry, Township

ip of

• f Guelph-Eramos
• sa, March 30, 2015

iv Dr. Karl Schiefer, Aquati

tic Habit itat and Fis ish Survey of

• f Brydson
• n Creek, January 2015

20/04/2015 1

THE “HIDDEN QUARRY” APPLICATION

Halton Region Planning and Public Works Committee 22 April 2015

Who is CRC?

• CRC Rockwood Inc. non-

profit

• Ad hoc committee

established March 2013

• >800 members in GET,

Halton Hills & Milton Board of Directors:

• Dr. Alex Kanarek, Co-Chair
• William Hill, Co-Chair
• Doug Tripp, P. Eng., President
• Perry Groskopf, Vice-President
• Dr. Stephanie DeGrandis, Secretary
• Natalie Jaroszewski, Treasurer
• Elisabeth Crha
• Michele Dawe
• Quentin Johnson
• Dan Kennaley, RPP
• John Scott
• Linda Sword
• Michael Venhuis
• Harold Wilson

What is being proposed?

• Proponent: James Dick Construction Ltd.
• Limestone quarry licence for 39.4 ha site, 24.9 ha to be

excavated

• 700,000 tonnes per year for 20 years
• Extraction approx. 30 m below water table
• Haulage by 21,213 trucks per year, approx. 26 trucks/hr.

to and from site, avg. 33 tonne load (semi-trailers)

• Requires rezoning of site from Agricultural/Hazard to

Industrial/Extractive

What has CRC done?

• More than 20 delegations to GET Council
• Representations to MOE, MNR, GRCA, GET Consultants
• 4 community meetings
• Liaison with Halton Hills, Milton, Halton Region
• Internal expertise re mining operations and hydrogeology
• Independent consultants
• Hydrogeology
• Air quality
• Wildlife habitat
• Aquatic habitat

What are our concerns?

• Hydrogeology, presence of karst topography
• Haul route
• Blasting vibration and fly-rock
• Economic and agricultural impact
• Air Quality
• Natural and aquatic environment
• Cultural heritage
• The “end game” – multiple quarries

Hydrogeology

• Area estimated to account for 10%
• f total groundwater recharge for

GET

• Proponent says: “The subject property

is not considered important for water protection as it does not represent a sensitive recharge, discharge or headwater area”.

• Well drawdown upstream,

contamination downstream 1

• Destruction of Brydson Creek and

Blue Springs Creek aquatic habitat 2

• Destruction of wetlands 1
• Mining underwater largely untried in

Canada

References: 1. Hunter & Associates Peer Review, April 2015 2.

• K. Schiefer, Ph.D., Aquatic Habitat and

Fish Survey of Brydson Creek, January 2015

20/04/2015 2 Blue Springs Creek Valley

Quarry Site

Blasting Impacts

• Karst environment:
• Uncertainty about blasting

impacts & fly-rock 1

• Uncertainty about impacts
• n groundwater flow
• Saturated rock good

medium for vibration transmission

Reference:

• 1. William Hill Mining Consultants Ltd., An

Appraisal of the Peer Review by Golder Associates of Blast Impact Analysis James Dick Hidden Quarry By Explotech Engineering Ltd., January 2015

Haul Route Issues

• Traffic volumes—east through Acton, south through Milton,

west through Rockwood

• Underestimation of number of truck trips in March ‘15 HRS
• Our estimate – peak >32 two-way trips/hr.
• Use of 6th Line Eramosa as part of haul route
• Misalignment of 6th Line Eramosa and 5th Line Nassagaweya
• Location of truck queuing areas
• Impact on cultural heritage buildings and landscapes
• Increase in noise levels on haul routes—noise study

Haul Routes One quarry . . . Or several?