120 gravel pits/quarries in Haliburton County.
Green Party's Elizabeth May Urges
Tighter Ontario Government Regulation On Aggregate Industry
Gravel pits can be located with 15 metres of homes
Elizabeth May is recognized as one of Canada’s leading environmental activists, is the former Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, and is now leader of the Green Party of Canada. She spoke to almost 200 citizens last week in Puslinch Township.
“In my lifetime as an environmental activist I’ve had far more victories than defeats”, was the hopeful message Elizabeth May delivered to members of Gravel Watch Ontario, who have been affected by the mining of aggregate. Each has expressed frustration with an industry that conducts itself with apparent disregard for the environment and for the quality of life of people living near a quarry or gravel pit. In some cases, this mining activity is within 15 metres of their property line, resulting in dust, noise, and threatening groundwater resources (wells), wetlands, marshes and wildlife. Of paramount concern to the group is the lack of regulation of this industry by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).
Billboard ad by OSSGA of rehabilitated Vineland Quarry; one of less than 3% of quarries
and gravel pits rehabilitated in the Province of Ontario.
Formerly the Aggregate Producers' Association of Ontario, the OSSGA (Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association) is the non-profit industry association representing 94 producers of sand, gravel, and crushed stone in the province of Ontario along with 150 consultants, suppliers, and distributors of aggregate industry products and services.
Lochlin Esker and Provincially Significant Wetlands under threat
The Miller Graham Quarry
The aerial photo (below) of the Miller Graham Quarry, located off County Road 1, was taken
May 30, 2006, the day following the first blast by the Miller Group (Graham Pit). This quarry was licensed in the late 1990s. The existing gravel operation has aleady removed a portion of the esker.
In 2005 application was made to the Township of Minden Hills for
re-zoning of parts of the Graham and Stuckless properties
from rural to extractive industrial to allow Miller to operate a quarry on the site.
As required by the Planning Act, a well attended public meeting was held
during which considerable opposition was expressed to the proposed re-zoning.
The Council, noting the principled opposition based on concerns
regarding the impact of such a project on the adjacent wetlands and esker, denied the re-zoning.
Environment Haliburton! and several others have sponsored a review of the area wetland
which resulted in this wetland being declared provincially significant.
The esker is now being investigated as a candidate site to be declared as an ANSI (area of natural and scientific interest).
Miller Graham appealed the Township refusal to rezone the property to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Stuckless property is not included in the OMB appeal.
A full hearing is scheduled to begin
January 22, 2007 at 11 am at the Minden Hills Community Centre.
We encourage all concerned about this project and/or interested in how the Ontario Municipal Board works to attend the hearing.
What's an Esker
Eskers are long, winding ridges of stratified sand and gravel which occur in glaciated and formerly glaciated regions of Europe and North America. They are frequently several miles in length and, because of their peculiar uniform shape, somewhat resemble railroad embankments. Eskers are the deposits left by streams which flowed within and under glaciers; after the retaining ice walls melt away, the stream deposits remain as long winding ridges.They can reach hundreds of kilometers in length.
The name 'esker is derived from the Irish word eiscir (Old Irish: escir), which means: "a ridge or elevation, especially one separating two plains or depressed surfaces" (Dictionary of the Irish Language). The term was used particularly to describe long, sinuous ridges, which are now known to be deposits of fluvio-glacial material. The best-known example of such an eiscir is the Eiscir Riada, which runs the entire width of the island of Ireland from Dublin to Galway and is still closely followed by the main road linking those two cities.
More about eskers can be found here and here
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bark Lake Gravel Pit and proposed Asphalt Plant
Asphalt opponents lose hope in the system
Bark Lake approval reveals flaws in regulations: Environment Haliburton
Greg Hoekstra
Local News - Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Updated @ 2:09:16 AM
While members of the watchdog organization Environment Haliburton (EH!) will continue to fight the proposed asphalt plant in Irondale, vice-president Heather Ross says the organization is quickly losing hope that residents’ concerns will hold any weight with the provincial government.
Late last month the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) gave approval to Royel Paving Ltd. to set up a portable hot-mix asphalt plant at the Bark Lake quarry, despite what Ross calls “enormous opposition” from the public.
And while the project still needs to gain a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment, Ross tells the Echo that she now has little confidence that the application can be stopped, due to what she says are lop-sided regulations favouring the aggregates industry.
“We’re not being critical of the civil servants that have been involved, nor of the company that’s been involved. The problem is that the regulatory framework we have to work within is so weighted towards aggregates that the environment can’t possibly win,” she says.
“We just don’t have a process that allows us to weigh the pros and cons of any project…Our concerns have no weight at all. It’s like justice with only one scale.”
Ross says this imbalance is not a new trend but one that stretches back to the early beginnings of the project. In the late 1990s, when Royel first applied to put a gravel pit at the Bark Lake site, Ross says provincial regulations only required consultation with residents within 500 metres – or a single household.
Click Here!
“As a result there was no meaningful conversation about the gravel pit, it just went ahead.”
Since quarries are considered a “minor land usage,” Ross says there was also little requirement for an environmental study. At the time, she says the company did the bare minimum needed to gain approval, but over the past decade the project has evolved into a much larger operation that should have warranted a much more comprehensive assessment.
“[In the 1990s] the government demanded very little and the actual study gave even less. That study didn’t even recognize that this is a site for endangered species,” she says, referring to three species at risk (Blandings turtle, hog-nosed snake and five-lined skink) identified by a more recent survey.
“Our issue is that this has become a big industrial project that was evaluated on the smallest of impact criteria. If this project had of been assessed for the whole project, right from the beginning, there would have been a much different result.”
While the MNR’s recent decision is admittedly small on a provincial scale, Ross says it still reflects poorly on the current government.
“It’s just a little decision, comparatively, but it really does bring into question how much environmental integrity there is in the province. I mean, they say they want to stop sprawl, but this is precisely how you get sprawl. You can just feel the fingers of sprawl grabbing a hold of the southern edge of this county and pulling,” she says.
And that should be one of the biggest concerns for residents of Haliburton County, says Ross.
“We have to think about what kind of a future we’re looking at, and whether we want to be a resource-extraction area,” she says. “Is this what we want for Haliburton County? Is this our economic future? I don’t know, but I think we oughta talk about it at least.
“We don’t know enough about this particular asphalt plant to know what it’s going to do to air quality, but we certainly do know that the hot asphalt industry is a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions,” she says.
In the interim, Ross says her organization will continue to oppose the proposal while working alongside other community groups, such as the Irondale River Protection Association. However, she also says that much of the headaches could have been avoided long ago if local representatives listened to the will of the people.
“There’s real concern out there that local politicians could have stopped this plant by opposing it. It would have been unlikely that the MNR would approve the plant if the local politicians held firm against it, but they haven’t,” she says. “You have to ask if there’s a bit of a democratic deficit here, when the voice of the people isn’t heard.”
For those still in opposition, Ross recommends that the only way to make a difference is to let the province know that stricter environmental regulations need to be enforced on aggregate projects.
“People really need to start pushing Ontario to actually review its aggregate policy so we can get over this hump,” she says. “We just can’t win. We can maybe have the hours changed, but that’s about the extent of the impact we can have. It has nothing to do with whether this is what we want, or if this is what’s needed in a rural area.”
For those reasons, amongst others, it’s hard for Ross to remain optimistic that the Ministry of Environment will be her organization’s saving grace.
“Considering how often we have put forward the same set of arguments, it’s hard to have much hope,” says Ross. “Every step along the way people have been very active and involved, but they’ve lost every single battle.”
- ghoekstra@haliburtonecho.ca
For more information on Environment Haliburton visit www.environmenthaliburton.ca.
To all people who have expressed opposition to the Asphalt Plant on Crown Land at the Bark Lake quarry site.
An organization has been formed to voice our opinion in unison.
IRONDALE RIVER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (IRPA)
Mission Statement
As stewards of our earth's environment, we call upon government to
declare that no asphalt manufacturing facilities be installed upon the
wetlands, source water, and headwaters of natural drainage basins.
For our kick off initiative we have organized a Public Demonstration to express our opposition.
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is in the final stages of reviewing this proposal.
It is essential for you to come out in numbers and join us to voice our opposition together!
Date: Friday June 29 th, 2007 Rain Date: Monday July 2nd (12am – 4pm)
To allow us to organize more efficiently
A: Please indicate your choice of location:
1. MNR Minden office
2. County Rd. 503 & Irondale Rd.
3. The Beamish Site, (outside the gate on County Rd. 503)
B: Please indicate your choice of time:
1. 2 - 4pm
2. 4 - 6pm
3. 6 - 8pm
Signs will be available for you to carry but we encourage you
to bring your own or give us some of your one line suggestions .
Please bring your family, neighbours and friends and spread the word.
We do ask that you do not bring small children as we will be protesting near main roads.
Council supports asphalt plant
Greg Hoekstra
Haliburton County Echo
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 07:00
Local News - Within seconds of pledging their support for the proposed Bark Lake asphalt plant, Highlands East councillors received an earful from disappointed and dismayed community members.
“This is a real farce…it's unbelievable,” bellowed one woman before she stormed out of the Lloyd Watson centre, where last week's council meeting was held.
“I can't believe I voted for you jerks,” said another as she approached the council table. “This is affecting my life. I live there, and when my well goes dry and I'm smelling asphalt all day, I'm going to be calling you, Mr. Burton.”
Following a request from Dennis Simmons - a consultant working on the asphalt plant project - the recently elected council had to decide whether to rescind or uphold a 2003 resolution that did not support the project. Roughly 60 members of the community turned out for the meeting to see how council would rule on the matter.
After hearing a delegation from Simmons on Tuesday, the new council voted narrowly in favour of rescinding the original resolution and then passed a resolution of their own in support of the plant. Councillors Jim Mackie and Gary Stoughton voted alongside Reeve Dave Burton in support of the proposal, while incumbent councillors Suzanne Partridge and Donna Graham held the same position they did during their previous terms and voted against supporting the asphalt plant.
Since the proposed plant would be operating on Crown land at the placePlaceNameBark PlaceTypeLake site, the final say on the matter lies with the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Nevertheless, council's decision to support the application was a devastating blow to many in attendance who have been fighting relentlessly against the project since its inception. With the support of the municipality now on record, the plant is seen as being one step closer to becoming a reality.
The decision was originally supposed to be made earlier this month, but was delayed after confusion arose over terminology labelling the plant as “portable.” Several councillors were unsure whether the portable plant was intended to be permanent or temporary, so it was requested that Simmons attend the next council meeting to clear the air.
Last week Simmons explained that the plant would be portable in the sense that it would be left on axles and would be capable of leaving the site from time to time if a project arose elsewhere. However, he also said that the plant would be permanent in the sense that it would be “based at the placePlaceNameBark PlaceTypeLake site.”
placeCityBurton then raised a number of concerns that had been forwarded to him by e-mail, including apprehension over increased truck traffic and the effects that increased blasting could have on the water table.
Simmons spoke to those concerns, noting that the company - K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Ltd. - has already had both a traffic study and hydro-geological report done in the area, both of which determined there would be no problems. He also said that the company would be purchasing a new plant for the placePlaceNameBark PlaceTypeLake site, which is contrary to the widespread belief that they would be using a facility built in the 1960s.
Following Dennis Simmons' brief address to council, former Warden of Haliburton County George Simmons then stood and requested permission to speak on the matter. Council agreed to let the second Simmons voice his opinion, so long as he kept it short and to the point.
“I think it's irresponsible of this council to even be thinking of an asphalt plant,” said Simmons. “It conflicts with your zoning bylaws, so if you wouldn't have it on private land, why would you allow it on Crown land?
“It's very important. If you don't start adhering to your zoning bylaws, then surely there is a problem. And I guess from my perspective, there have been two meetings now devoted to an old issue in which there has been no new development. To rehash something that you've already stated is a mistake,” he said.
Following George Simmons, local ratepayer Al Eppich was also given the opportunity to speak on behalf of “concerned citizens of Highlands East,” at which time he urged council to uphold the resolution at hand, just as the former council had done.
“Successive councils such as yourselves have been approached time and again but they have upheld the resolution. This isn't the first time they [Beamish] have come back and asked `will you change it for us,'” said Eppich. “The applicant is still waiting for the right conditions…they're waiting for a new council to say yes.”
Eppich went on to stress that, in his opinion, any financial benefits the plant may bring to the area would be more than offset by negative impacts to the local environment and tourism industry.
“The fact remains that the primary benefit for Highlands East continues to be the revenues derived from a residential property tax base. Permanent and seasonal residents, like you and I, provide the jobs for our local trades, building suppliers, the real estate industry, and the recreational, food and services industries,” he said.
“By attempting to locate on Crown land, Beamish would be exempt from property taxes while benefiting from infrastructure, maintenance and services paid for by our residential taxes. A permanent asphalt plant is of benefit only to Beamish..while detracting from the tourist-centred economy of Highlands East.”
Considering the environmental impact of such a plant, Eppich pointed to an application currently listed on the province's environmental registry. The application, made by Beamish, is for a permit to take water at a rate of nearly 5,400,000 litres per day for the purpose of aggregate washing.
“If you take an average family, the average house uses 500 to 600 litres per day. So that amount would supply water for 10,000 houses. So I don't know how many houses are in the county, but that's almost as much water as the entire county uses on a daily basis,” said Eppich. “Where will this water come from, and at whose expense? Who benefits from dry wetlands and dry wells?”
Eppich ended his speech by asking council to not only uphold the resolution as written, but also to strengthen their opposition with a bylaw. Of course, shortly thereafter council voted to do the exact opposite, but not before several councillors had their say on the matter.
Partridge, who voiced strong opposition against the proposal during the last council meeting, once again expressed why she feels council shouldn't rescind the 2003 resolution.
“I don't feel that our council, in good conscience, can support a private company engaging in an activity on Crown land that we would not allow private individuals to conduct on private land,” she said. “We can't have two sets of rules. We need to uphold our zoning bylaws, or go through the bylaw process and change it.”
Donna Graham, who represents Ward 3 where the plant would be built, also expressed her opposition to the proposal as well as her displeasure with the fact that the decision was even before council.
“Personally, I don't think we should even have a decision to make. Due to the fact that it is on Crown land, the decision is up to the province, and I feel like they are putting us in a wrongful place,” she said.
Shortly thereafter the three newly-elected councillors banded together to overturn a decision that had been on the books for approximately four years.
Though the municipality has now reversed its stance on the asphalt plant, the final ruling is up to local representatives from the MNR. That decision was originally supposed to have been made by now, but due to setbacks, the verdict has been delayed, says MNR area supervisor Bill Hutson.
In an interview with the Echo, Hutson said that the Ministry is still waiting for Beamish to submit a final summary report detailing any steps the company has taken to mitigate concerns from the public consultation process. Once the report is received, the MNR also has to review the company's final site plan.
Hutson said that at this time it is difficult to give an exact time frame for when the Ministry's final decision will be made. He did note, however, that the review process can be onerous and time-consuming, suggesting that the future of the proposed asphalt plant won't be decided for some time yet.
“It won't be by next week, I can assure you of that.”
Asphalt debate gets sticky
Greg Hoekstra
Haliburton County Echo
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 07:00
Local News - A heated discussion over the proposed Bark Lake asphalt plant consumed much of the morning during last Tuesday's Highlands East council meeting but as of yet there is no indication whether the new council will support or oppose the project.
The issue was put on the agenda after consultant Dennis Simmons wrote to the municipality requesting that the newly elected council rescind a resolution opposing the project.
“It is my understanding that the new council may be more supportive of development while at the same time ensuring environmental impacts resulting from the development are minimal,” wrote Simmons on behalf of K.J. Beamish Construction Co., which has a quarry at the site.
“It has been clearly proven through reports from professional engineering firms, environmental specialists and public presentations by K.J. Beamish Construction Company that there would be minimal to no impact on the environment or local citizens' lifestyles. Taking this into consideration I am seeking the new council's support in reconsidering past councils' negative position on the above noted proposal.”
Close to a dozen concerned residents and cottagers turned out for the meeting, forcing council to move the gathering from the council chambers to the roomier Lloyd Watson Centre.
Throughout the discussion passionate observers continuously tried to speak from the floor, sometimes being acknowledged by council and other times being quelled. The first such outburst came during comments by Deputy-reeve Jim Mackie, when one observer blurted out, ”This sounds like a pitch from Simmons.”
At the time, Mackie was voicing his opinion to Reeve Dave Burton regarding both the safety and environmental impact such a plant might have on the surrounding environment. Mackie admitted he was not the “be all and end all” authority on the subject but he does have past experience working with both the Ministry of the Environment and the Canadian Council Ministers of the Environment.
“With the type of asphalt plant they are looking at putting in, these are contained units. They aren't a tar pot boiling and giving off noxious fumes, and I think you'd find that the greatest source of any kind of contaminant going into the environment at all would be dust from the rock,” said Mackie.
The newly-appointed deputy-reeve also says the county needs such a plant in order to provide higher quality asphalt that would, in turn, lead to better quality roads.
“The proper application of asphalt is critical. The hotter you have it, the better grade it will be. That's not news, that's reality, and that's well documented,” he said. “I believe the stone that you find in that quarry is the hardest stone that you can find in placeStateOntario. When it is crushed, it will make the best asphalt in Ontario, bar none, is what they're telling us. In fact, that is the only type of asphalt used for the 400-series highways.”
Not only did Mackie's supportive comments draw murmurs from the crowd, but also from Ward 2 councillor Suzanne Partridge, who sat on the previous council that opposed the project.
“In the letter from Dennis Simmons it says that the environmental impacts will be minimal, and the impact on local citizens' lifestyles will be minimal. But I don't believe that minimal environmental impact are good enough - we have to have no environmental impact,” said Partridge to a round of applause.
“I haven't changed the position I held with the previous council. I don't think it's compatible with our lifestyle. I'm not opposed to having paved roads but I believe that if we need a paving job done we can bring in a portable asphalt plant. That worked very well when doing [Highway] 118 two years ago,” she added.
“I agree,” chimed in Ward 4 councillor Gary Stoughton, “and this is a portable plant, right? That's what it says.”
At that point confusion surfaced amongst councillors as to whether the proposed “portable” plant meant a temporary or permanent facility. Mackie noted that much of the paperwork he has seen refers to the plant as being “portable,” which has led him to believe the building would be left on axels after being assembled. Many detractors in attendance, however, were then quick to point out that the term “portable” does not necessarily mean temporary.
“If this were a temporary plant, there wouldn't be any opposition,” hollered out one resident.
Partridge then clarified for council that, to the best of her knowledge, the proposal being put forth by K.J. Beamish was for a permanent facility.
“My understanding from previous discussion with Beamish and Dennis Simmons is that the nature of this type of asphalt plant is that they are all considered `portable'; however, it is going to be installed on a permanent basis in this location,” said Partridge. “So, portable in that it can be moved but permanent in that it is not their intention to move it.”
With that in mind, Partridge also pointed out that such a project would not be permitted within the municipality under current regulations. However, since this project is being considered for construction on Crown land, the decision lies with the Ministry of Natural Resources - making council's decision to either support or oppose the project an act of principle more than anything else.
“In our own bylaw it says that a portable asphalt plant may be permitted on a temporary basis. Now I know that's on private land, but why would we support something on Crown land that we would not support having on public land in our municipality,” asked Partridge.
As the discussion drew to a close, Burton asked that council defer making any decisions on the matter until all uncertainty was eliminated and council had the most up-to-date information.
“What I would suggest to council is that we bring Beamish or Dennis Simmons in for a delegation at the next council meeting,” Burton said.
Burton also promised to seek advice from the county on the matter, while Mackie said he would research and find the legal distinction between “permanent” and “temporary” facilities.
As is stands now, Dennis Simmons is slated to address council at 11 a.m. on January 23. The meeting will once again be held in the Lloyd Watson Centre, in order to accommodate interested members of the public. This is a regular meeting of council, not an open forum.
Municipal clerk Irene Cook says one concerned party has already requested to be put on the agenda to address council. Cook says that there may also be an opportunity for residents to speak from the floor if the reeve allows for it at that time.
Bark Lake-Local Biologist addresses concerns in a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources,the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministry of the Environment.
PDF 1.2mb (text and pictures)
Notes on Bark Lake asphalt plant activities, July 24, 2006
With summer comes the reappearance of the site plan amendments for the Bark Lake quarry.
A short history
• in 1999 Royel/Beamish received a lease of 21 years for a gravel pit on the crown
lands adjacent to the former Bark Lake leadership training camp.
• this was done under the disposition of crown lands environmental assessment
exemption order and under the Aggregates Act.
• minimal consultation and environmental assessment were needed.
• in 2003 Beamish applied for a site plan amendment so that it could place a
permanent asphalt plant on the site. At that time they were proposing to transfer
a out of service plant which was manufactured in 1960 from Newmarket. There
was a major up-roar over this plan and all faded back into oblivion.
• in 2004 Beamish applied for a site plan amendment to place a crusher on the
site. There were objections and EH! opposed the plan but the crusher was
moved in and caused the noise that was anticipated. The crusher has since
been moved off the site.
• in 2005, the site plan amendment for the asphalt plant came to the fore again
and again there was opposition, including EH!, and again the amendment faded
away.
2006 actions to date
• in 2006, yet again the site plan amendment for the asphalt plant appeared.
Some people within 500 metres of the quarry were informed, others were not.
• the decision-making to approve the asphalt plant is that the company first
receives approval for the major site plan amendment from the MNR and then
applies for a certificate of approval to release substances into the air from the
MOE. The C of A application must be posted on the EBR..2
• July 12, a group from Irondale met with Laurie Scott, MPP.
• the company held an open house on Saturday July 16 at the quarry.
• the Irondale group met again July 17 to formulate a response to Scott and
determine a direction for the summer.
The quarry open house
• the company had a great many consultants at the open house and a very few
maps and some pictures of other plants as well as very high sugar sweets
• the company's strategy was for people to ask individual questions of their
experts.
• however two amazing women took over and forced the company reps to stand in
the sun and take the group's questions. The women were great, the company
stunned.
• in general the answers from the company were of 2 orders - “too early to say”
and the information is publicly available.
• the themes from the questions were - why a permanent asphalt plant?, why was
the notification so poor?, what is the anticipated truck useage?, what are the
effluents?, why here?
• one issue began to stand out and that is that this site plan amendment, if
approved, will be the first siting of a permanent asphalt plant on public lands in
the province, we believe.
• EH! went to the meeting with several pages of questions. The following is a
summary of my questions and the (non)answers.
The plant itself
The information from 2003 was that the company plans to move the Newmarket
plant to the Bark Lake site. When asked about this the company unequivocally
stated that
(a) they were not moving the plant from Newmarket;
(b) they would purchase a second hand plant with a 6,000 lb. capacity;
c) they would develop their business plan when they had the site amendment.
Many asked why they were considering a permanent plant when a temporary
would do. The answer was that Beamish goes after small projects that require
small amounts of asphalt and that temporary plants produce great amounts for
large, road building scale projects. When asked about these small projects, the
company replied that they do not yet have a business plan and that the projects
depend on those they bid on and win.
The plant will use home heating fuel or #1 or #2 diesel fuel (we got both
answers). It requires 1,000 gal of fuel for 1 tonne of asphalt. With a 6,000
lb/day (2721 kilogram) throughput, there would be the potential use of 2,271 gal
of fuel/day.
All questions about the need for the plant were met with the response that (a)
this is a business decisions and so private and (b) they have no business plan as
yet.
Traffic
As there is no business plan, the company could/would not estimate the truck
traffic likely to be generated. However they did provide a rule of thumb that a
truck will carry 20 tonnes of asphalt and the plant will produce over 2000 tonnes
so one could assume at maximum traffic of 200 one way trips/day. This is the
rate in Orillia however the company claimed this would be unlikely at this site.
More likely would be 50 loads /day for 100 one way trips. The company said it
would not park trucks in the property they own to the west of the pit.
Employment.
At its maximum the plant would employ 4 people (although others claim it takes
only 1 person to operate a plant) and another 6 people to spread asphalt on the
job site. Asked how many had gained employment since the pit opened, the
answer was 4 upon occasion.
Environment
On the environment, the company noted that:
• The plant will be equipped with a bag house not a scrubber.
• No new studies are planned for the asphalt plant.
• The siting of the plant at the quarry will not change their site rehabilitation
plan.
• The asphalt plant will be quieter than the crusher and the combined noise
level will be about 90dba at the site.
• There will be no change in emissions or noise level from the plant.
• In 2005, the company sampled five area wells before and after blasting
and found no increase in pollutants.
• There has been no impact on groundwater.
• There will be no emissions from the plant.
• The company will follow the law on its spills policy etc. (The crusher was
moved on site without a certificate of approval and the company was
fined for this violation - about $300!)
Other
• When asked about community relations, the company replied that it is a
good neighbour and made none of the usual offers of on-going
consultation and conflict resolution.
• The company claimed there would be no impact on property values
Letter from Environment Haliburton to Dennis Simmons
Dennis C. Simmons Development and Land Management Consulting Services
Box 41
Irondale ON K0M 1X0
July 24, 2006
RE: Proposed Site Plan Amendment to Aggregate Permit #24197
Dear Mr. Simmons:
The following are the comments Environment Haliburton! provided last year concerning
this proposed site plan amendment. Neither the proposed project nor our opposition to
it have changed in the past 12 months.
The proposal to site a permanent asphalt plant within the boundaries covered by the
aggregate permit #24197 first surfaced in 2003. The local community responded with
outrage and condemnation both of the project and of the process. The local
government, the Township of Highlands East, passed a resolution opposing the siting
of permanent asphalt plants in the municipality. In 2003, the application was
withdrawn. In 2004, the company applied for and received, in the face of local concern,
a Certificate of Approval for a crusher on site. Now, in 2005, the application for an
asphalt plant has resurfaced.
In 2003, as the attached letter indicates, Environment Haliburton! expressed grave
concerns about both the project and the process. We repeat these concerns. Asphalt
plants make poor neighbours and are a particularly inappropriate land use in an area
such as Haliburton County whose economy rests on the protection of our natural
environment. As local asphalt needs are and can be met through temporary asphalt
plants which are extraordinarily well protected by law and regulation, there is no
reasonable justification for this application.
Environment Haliburton! requests that those parts of the application for site plan
amendment to allow the siting and operation of an asphalt plant be rejected.
Environment Haliburton! has no objection to the change of name of the gravel pit. We.
do object to the change in hours of operation. We note that the items in the application
regarding the siting of the observation wells and of the drainage ditch are to bring the
site plan into conformity with actuality. While we do not oppose these changes, we do
note that revisions to site plans for the purpose of bringing the plan into compliance are
against OMNR policy.
Of equal importance to Environment Haliburton! is the current interpretation of the
Class Environmental Assessment for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development
Projects. Apparently, once the lease has been signed and the resource disposition
made, any further changes such as the asphalt plant, are considered an amendment to
the project. Under the Environmental Assessment Act changes to an undertaking after
approval require assessment. With the addition of the crusher, and now of an asphalt
plant, the undertaking has changed and the environmental screening and studies
leading to the issuing of the lease and permit no longer describe the actual undertaking.
Therefore Environment Haliburton! requests that Permit #24197 be revoked and the
complete project - quarry, crusher, asphalt plant and any other additions to the
undertaking proposed by the proponent - be subject to a Category C process under the
Class Environmental Assessment for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development
Projects. With the undertaking being subject to the Category C process, there will be
the opportunity to discuss the need for the project, to review alternatives to the project,
to assess the impact on the natural and human environment, to hold two or more public
consultations and to discuss mitigation and monitoring measures. Surely a
commitment to sound natural resource management and environmental protection
requires nothing less than a full, thorough, consultative and open assessment.
Yours sincerely
Heather Ross
Environment Haliburton!
c.c. Bill Hutson, OMNR.
c.c. K. J. Beamish, CEO, K.C. Beamish Construction Co. Ltd.
Bruce Hancock, District Manager, MOE
Gord Miller, Commissioner, ECO
Brian Messerschmidt, OMNR, Manager Aggregates and Petroleum Resources Section
Laurie Scott, MPP, Haliburton - Victoria - Brock
Reeve K. Tallman, Municipality of Highlands East
Letter from Greg Rose of Asphalt Watch
Asphalt Watch: developments and Template Letter for Min of the Enviornment - David Ramsay
My name is Gregory Rose. I am a permanent resident of Irondale and work full-time in Haliburton County. I am managing the Asphalt Watch email distribution list regarding K.J. Beamish Construction Company’s application to install a permanent asphalt plant at the Bark Lake Quarry in Irondale. There are now over 40 people and families on the Asphalt Watch email distribution list. This email distribution list is proving to be a powerful method of organizing.
I do not speak for the community; however, it is obvious after the July 15th meeting at the Bark Lake Quarry, that an organized and rational group of local residents are opposed to the installation of a permanent asphalt plant in Irondale.
The Public Information Session hosted by K.J. Beamish on July 15 was –most likely- the final phase of the application process that was mandated by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in order for the MNR to determine if it will approve site plan amendments to permit the installation of a permanent asphalt plant in Irondale.
K.J. Beamish is now in the position to submit a final report to Mr. Bill Hutson at the MNR in Minden who will approve or reject the application as early as early as August to September of this summer.
It is imperative that those opposed to the permanent asphalt facility at the Bark Lake Quarry voice their concerns at the provincial level to, David Ramsay, the Minister of Natural Resources. I would encourage each of you to use the template letter attached to this email and send it to Minister Ramsay. This letter will be most effective if you pen-in or re-type the letter with your name and address to the right of Ramsay’s, sign the letter and copy those decision-makers on the CC-Distribution List. Better yet, write your own personal letter of concern regarding this industrial development.
Time is crucial at this stage; if you intend to send this letter to Minister Ramsay and copy the people on the CC-Distribution List, do not delay.
Thank you & good luck,
Gregory Rose Phd
Irondale, Ontario
Sample letter to Minister Ramsay
Hon. David Ramsay
Minister of Natural Resources
Room 6630, Whitney Block
99 Wellesley St. W.
Toronto, ON M7A 1W3
RE: Proposed Site Plan Amendment to Aggregate Permit #24197
Dear Hon. Mr. David Ramsay:
In 1999 Beamish Construction was issued Aggregate Permit #24197 to operate a
Category 11 gravel pit on public land in the now Township of Highlands East. The
location of the pit, next door to the privatized Bark Lake youth leadership training
centre, is in the heart of “cottage county”. In 2003, the Company requested a site plan
amendment to allow the addition of a permanent asphalt plant. The request was met
with strong opposition from the community of permanent and seasonal residents and
the Twonship. Action was not taken.
The next year, 2004, Beamish requested and,over the opposition of the community,
was granted permission to locate a crusher on site. The crusher was moved onto the
site without the needed Certificate of Approval and the company fined. The crusher
has since been removed. In 2005 and again in 2006, Beamish requested the site plan
amendment so that it may locate a permanent asphalt plant on the site. The community
continues to be in opposition.
I request that you direct your officials to reject this site plan amendment for the following
reasons:
1. This is an industrial use proposed for public lands. It has been subject only to
limited environmental assessment not the assessment required to determine the
appropriateness of the industrial use of public lands..
2. The project exists only as a suggestion to locate an unidentified plant for an indefinite period of time to produce an unknown quantity of asphalt for unspecified use using unknowable inputs and generating unknown pollutants. It
is not possible for anyone, including your staff, to know the potential impact of
this development.
3. With no actual information regarding the specific project, the asphalt plant, it is
not possible to assess either the costs or the benefits to the County and
Township.
4. The Township of Highlands East and the people of the community are united in
their opposition to this project.
5. The future of Haliburton County lies in the protection and preservation of its
environment. Permanent asphalt plants are sited in urban areas not in areas
dependent upon the beauty and purity of their environment for survival.
I look forward to your timely response.
Yours sincerely
(your name)
c.c. (List follows).
Bill Hutson
Area Supervisor,
Minden Office
Ministry of Natural Resources
Box 820
Minden ON K0M 2K0
Dennis C. Simmons Development and Land Management Consulting Services
Box 41
Irondale ON K0M 1X0
Mr. Bob Graham,
Vice President
K.C. Beamish Construction Co. Ltd.
Box 250
King City ON L7B 1B2
Brian Messerschmidt, Manager
Aggregate & Petroleum Resources Section
Ministry of Natural Resources
Box 7000
Peterborough ON K9J 8M5
Mr. G. Miller, Commissioner
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
1075 Bay Street
Suite 605
Toronto ON M5S 2B1
Pauline Desroches , District Manager
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Peterborough District Office
Robinson Pl South Tower
2nd Flr
300 Water St
Peterborough , ON K9J 8M5
Laurie Scott, MPP
Haliburton - Victoria - Brant
14 Lindsay Street North
Lindsay ON K9V 1T4
Ms. Monique Rolf von den Baumen-Clark
District Manager
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Bancroft District
Highway 28 South.Box 500
Bancroft ON K0L 1C0
Reeve Keith Tallman
Township of Highlands East
P.O. Box 295
Wilberforce, ON K0L 3C0
Royel Applies for a Permanent Asphalt Plant near Irondale
About 30 residents of Irondale gathered for an impromptu photo on Thursday afternoon to display their opposition to a proposed asphalt plant at the Bark Lake quarry.
Photo: Lance Crossley
Thumbs down for Irondale asphalt plant
Neighbours take their fight to Highlands East
Lance Crossley
Local News - Friday, July 15, 2005 @ 07:00
A controversial issue in Irondale is set to resurface now that a proposal to build an asphalt plant at the Bark Lake quarry appears to be back on the table.
Royel Paving has already submitted its application to the Ministry of Natural Resources and is currently trying to meet the government requirements necessary for a site permit. (The site is on Crown land.)
Irondale residents opposed to the plan are appearing before Highlands East council today in an effort to gain council support for opposition to the plant.
“I think [Royel Paving] is targeting Irondale because it’s a poor community,” says Ann Eppich, who has a residence off Irondale Road and is not more than a couple kilometres from the proposed site. “It’s a passive community in a lot of ways. They’re very shy people.”
Eppich, who has become one of the lead organizers for those opposed to the idea, is angry that the community at large was not properly notified of the plan. Dozens in the community, including Eppich, found out from a photocopied letter that was circulated throughout the community. The letter was written by Dennis Simmons, an Irondale consultant who is working on behalf of Royel Paving to get the government’s green light for the project.
In the letter Simmons says he is fulfilling the requirements of the MNR by giving notice about the planned asphalt site and that any concerns should be submitted to both he and the ministry by July 15. The fact that so many found out only by a photocopied letter – and so late in the game – has enraged a number of people within the community.
However, Simmons says he has not done anything through the back door, claiming that the ministry only requires that he notify residents within 500 metres of the proposed site. The fact that those outside the radius gained access to his letter has prompted Simmons to have a lawyer investigate potential infringements to copyright laws.
“That letter was not supposed to be distributed all over the countryside,” says Simmons, who also gave written notice to the Ministry of Environment, the Township of Highlands East, Haliburton County, and Bark Lake Camp.
Royel Paving had planned to build a temporary asphalt plant in 2003 but a wave of opposition halted the process. This time around, the application is for a permanent plant that would be allowed to provide asphalt for projects up to 80 kilometres from the proposed location. Along with MNR approval, the company would also need a Certificate of Approval from the MOE.
Critics of the plan are worried about the resulting noise, traffic, and air pollution from such a plant.
“My biggest concern is the increased road traffic during the week, especially those heavy trucks,” says Bob Hayes, who has been associated with Irondale since 1947.
“There’s a lot of people who have moved into this area because of the clean air, clean lakes and water, and lack of traffic. All [the asphalt plant] is going to do is have a negative effect on it,” says Irondale resident Dan Slovitt.
Simmons, who lives within a couple kilometres of the Bark Lake quarry, has lived in the area his entire life and says he has major property investments in Irondale. According to him, the plant would not be used “day after day or hour after hour”, but only as the company contracts require. He also says the MOE’s Certificate of Approval would ensure that the plant operates within the province’s environmental regulations.
“They can’t impact any adjacent neighbours – and that includes odours. It’s all under the Environmental Protection Act,” says the owner of Dennis C. Simmons Development and Land Management Consulting Services.
Simmons submitted the application on behalf of Royel Paving back in February. At the end of May he received a letter from the ministry outlining the ensuing procedures, which included notifying nearby neighbours.
Counter to what Simmons calls the “squawking, noisy minority”, he believes the majority of Irondale residents are “laid back” and don’t care one way or the other whether the plant goes ahead. Irondale resident Gordon Taylor is one of these community members and is critical of those opposed to the plan.
“It’s going to be a bedroom community,” says Taylor, who has had a cottage in the area since 1950 and has resided full-time in Irondale for the past 20 years. “The way a lot of people want it in this county is to have nothing but tourism here. All that means is that all the regulars in the county are beholden to them.”
A petition against the plant is circulating throughout the community and currently has 40 names attached to it. Eppich will appear before the township today and is hoping councillors will adhere to the resolution drafted by the previous council in the summer of 2003, which stated the township’s opposition to “any application from Royel Paving to install and/or operate an asphalt plant.”
Irondale quarry has applied for rock crusher:
Public has until June 27 to comment
The quarry that has caused so much controversy in the Irondale area has applied for a permit to expand its operation, despite a resolution from the Township of Highlands East asking for it to cease all operations while the situation is investigated.
Cedarhurst Quarries & Crushing Limited of King City, the quarry that leases Crown land close to Bark Lake in the Irondale area, runs a gravel pit operation and wants to build a permanent asphalt plant there, has applied to the Environmental Proposals and Approvals Branch for a permit to build a rock crushing plant consisting of a 300 tonnes per hour crushing operation complete with a primary crusher.
Cedarhurst is related to the Beamish/Royel Paving group that is spearheaded, in this area, by Dennis Simmons. Recently Simmons wrote a letter to the Minden Times asking Highlands East to rescind its decision to not support an asphalt plant.
The public is given 30 days to comment on the proposal after it is posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. The EBR website is: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/023113ei.htm
The public has until June 27, 2004 to send letters to:
Application Processor
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
Floor 12A, 2 St Clair Ave W
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L5
PHONE: (416) 314-8225 FAX: (416) 314-8452.
If you have any concerns regarding the quarry, now is the time to send a letter. These letters do have an impact on decisions made.
To see the EBR posting, click here.
We do not want a permanent asphalt plant like this anywhere in Haliburton County.
A place known for its beauty and fresh air is no place for the toxic fumes billowing from an asphalt factory.
ENVIRONMENT HALIBURTON has formed an asphalt committee, our 'Asphalt Club', to fight any proposals for permanent asphalt plants anywhere in the Highlands and to make sure portable asphalt plants employ Best Practices to do their job without harming the environment or the people and animals who live here.
Last summer Highlands East councillors promised a group of more than 200 concerned citizens that they would not support an asphalt plant in their township. And yet, when they (their planning consultants) wrote their zoning by-law, they have included room for permanent plants. The by-law has not yet been approved. NOW IS THE TIME TO TELL HIGHLANDS EAST THAT WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON THIS ISSUE. The zoning by-law must be immediately changed to reflect the will of the people -- it must forbid permanent asphalt plants!
Anyone who cares about the asphalt issue should send a letter to Highlands East with copies to the Ministry of Natural Resources office in Minden and the Minister of Natural Resources in Toronto.
Also, be sure to check out a brand new force in asphalt-fighting and democracy in the northeastern part of Haliburton County. It's called Highlands East W.A.T.C.H. and it stands for WARDENS ATTENDING TO COMMUNITY HAPPENINGS. These guys are fantastic!
Nora and the apshalt plant
Nora Pasley of Irondale points out some of water problems on her property since Beamish opened a quarry next door. Now Beamish is trying to make a permanent asphalt factory Nora's neighbour. (Photo by Darren Lum, Haliburotn County Echo.)
By Sheryl Loucks
Published in the Haliburton County Echo
A SPONTANEOUS CHEER filled the Highlands East council chamber as councillors
agreed to request that all operations in the Bark Lake quarry cease until a
public meeting can be held to discuss neighbours' concerns.
It was a surprising resolution to the No Asphalt Plant In Irondale group.
About 20 members of the group came to council last week to hear spokesperson
Nora Pasley ask for a change in the draft Official Plan to exclude asphalt
plants. She says her group has collected 1,300 signatures on a petition
requesting the ban plus a couple of pounds' worth of e-mails.
Pasley argued that the way the Official Plan is worded would allow someone
to put an asphalt plant in downtown Gooderham where there are two aggregate
permits. She says in the aggregate resource section of the proposed plan the
objectives are to "ensure that extractive activities are carried out with
minimal environmental or social cost."
She says there are environmental costs due to noise and air pollution and
other associated risks. Pasley also suggested there would be a high social
cost because an asphalt plant in the Bark Lake quarry could jeopardize the
residential redevelopment of Bark Lake itself - a project her group insists
will bring more jobs and revenue to the area than the quarry.
"Do you want paved highways? That's the conundrum," Councillor Suzanne
Partridge responded.
Pasley replied that the municipality does not use asphalt on their roads.
There was a brief debate on the quality of the provincial highways in the
county because of not having access to good asphalt. Pasley says her group
believes the county can be serviced with asphalt from Lindsay or other
sources.
"We don't want an asphalt plant. I don't know what we need to say to make
that clear," Pasley said to mumbled and not-so-mumbled agreement around the
room.
The discussion turned shortly after this comment to current operations in
the quarry. However, after the group left there was a discussion at lunch.
Clerk Sharon Stoughton-Craig said council had sought advice from its
planning consultant, Chris Jones, about the request to change the draft
Official Plan. The draft allows for portable asphalt plants.
The letter says the provision allowing portable asphalt plants is not an
as-of-right permission to all private land. It is a policy to say an
aggregate resource designation is the appropriate "designation" for such a
plant. Portable asphalt plants are not a permitted use in the extractive
industrial (MX) zone and a zoning amendment would be needed to establish
one. The council would consider potential impacts through a public process
before granting the amendment.
The debate over whether this is good planning in the eyes of the No Asphalt
group evaporated last week as the conversation changed to complaints about
the existing quarry. Pasley says her group has combed the minutes of the
former Glamorgan council and found no mention of approving the Bark Lake
quarry despite the fact that a letter in 1999, signed by then Clerk Glen
Madill, said that Glamorgan had no comments in regard to the application for
the quarry submitted by Royel Paving. The Ministry of Natural Resources
subsequently approved the application. Pasley says this was not a public
process and therefore the quarry was never properly established in the first
place.
Bill Hutson, local MNR supervisor, said in a later interview with the Echo
that the group may not like the way the permit was granted but it did go
through the appropriate public process.
Regardless of that, Pasley asked council to say there had been a mistake and
take "a clear and concise stand" protesting operations in the quarry to the
MNR and the Ministry of the Environment. She says the blasting has damaged
five residential wells. Other residents said blasting had made their homes
shake, which broke the seals around the windows. Pasley says the latest
round of blasting was the first time the residents had ever received prior
warning.
Reeve Keith Tallman's first reaction was to comment that the quarry is on
Crown land and therefore within the MNR's jurisdiction, not council's.
Pasley argued that under section 130 of the Municipal Act, Highlands East
does have the authority to "regulate matters not specifically provided for
by this Act or any other Act for purposes related to the health, safety and
well being of the inhabitants of the municipality."
She says problems with blasting, dust from crushing, noise from operations
and trucks, potential flooding and other hazards are threats to the
residents' health and safety. Pasley says Hutson told her that comments from
the municipality do carry the most weight when the MNR makes decisions.
Tallman then proposed council request all operations cease within the quarry
until a public meeting could be held with the MNR, MOE and the company,
Beamish Construction. The motion was moved by Suzanne Partridge and seconded
by Donna Graham.
Two and a half days after the council meeting Hutson said he had not heard
from Highlands East about the resolution. He says council does not have the
authority to stop operations in the quarry. The MNR cannot ask Beamish to
stop working in the quarry unless the company violates the terms of their
licence and permit.
He also said that many of the concerns such as noise, air quality, and
ground water are MOE responsibilities. There is a memorandum of
understanding between the MOE and MNR to work together to resolve issues
concerning the quarry since it is on Crown land.
Hutson also commented that there have been complaints about blasting outside
of permitted hours and his office has called the company to deal with the
problem ; no official written complaints have been filed. There is at this
time no official investigation of operations in the Bark Lake quarry which
would be needed to determine whether the company has violated the terms of
their license or operating permit.
An investigation may not be needed though. Don Headley, vice-president of
Royel Paving, a Beamish subsidiary responsible for quarry operations, says
they are open to sitting down with council to try and resolve problems.
"This is news to me. I talked to the operators up there (at Bark Lake) and
they say there have been no complaints," says Headley. "We're in the
business to produce material, not to anger people."
He says there have been complaints in the past but he was not aware of
problems with the latest round of blasting and work in the quarry. He had
not been aware of Highlands East's resolution until a phone call from this
reporter requesting an interview.
Headley says the latest round of blasting has been completed but did not
comment on whether other quarry operations such as crushing would continue
until there is a public meeting. No dates for such a meeting have been set
yet.
Above, Dr. Gord Smith and Cathy Olliffe with her two children, Angus and Sam.
JUST SAY NO!
Asphalt history in the Highlands
by Cathy Olliffe
THAT'S BEEN the rallying cry heard from every corner of the Haliburton Highlands as people have stood up against the construction of asphalt factories.
FOR SOME REASON, Royel Paving and its parent company, Beamish Construction, have pinpointed the Haliburton area as the site for its next permanent asphalt plant.
Asphalt factories are notoriously smelly things with a record of producing noxious, toxic, possibly cancer-causing emissions as they create asphalt for paving.
Haliburton County is cottage country, a place that depends on tourists to sustain its fragile economy. Haliburton has fresh air, beautiful forests, clean lakes and craggy granite cliffs. People come here from all over the world seeking peace and beauty. They come to escape the smokestack pollution of the cities they leave behind. Why on earth would anyone want to come here if heavy, smokestack industry were allowed to sprout up? Can you imagine sitting on your dock, inhaling fumes?
Citizens and local elected representatives have put the brakes on Beamish's plans twice now. The first time was in the summer of 2002 when Royel tried to get a building permit to put a plant on Highway 118 near Carnarvon (the Township of Algonquin Highlands).
The second time was the summer of 2003 when Beamish sought comments from the Township of Highlands East to put an asphalt plant near the community of Irondale. (Both townships are in Haliburton County.)
In the first case, Algonquin Highlands councillors worked fast to stop Royel. They passed an interim control by-law, which halted all development on industrial land and gave them a year to study the zoning. Within that year, they wrote and passed a new zoning bylaw (see www.changehaliburton.com) that states that permanent asphalt plants are not permitted anywhere in the township. Councillors realized the negative impact an asphalt plant could have on the environment and the economy and changed their own laws in order to do something about it. For the hundreds of people who worked so hard to fight the asphalt plant, the new zoning by-law was like manna from heaven: an important, historic moment they will all remember.
People were a little surprised when Royel didn't appeal Algonquin Highlands' actions. But, as it turned out, the company had already set its sights on another part of the county: Highlands East.
In this case, Beamish leased a large parcel of Crown Land in Highlands East and started an aggregate operation. Neighbours didn't like the noise and dust from the pit, or the way their wells suddenly dried up, but their concerns grew exponentially when they learned Beamish had plans to put an asphalt plant in the pit. By the time Beamish reps made an official visit to council to talk about this plant, people were already rallying against it and Beamish was met with a council room full of concerned citizens.
Soon public meetings were being held. Petitions passed out. Research done. The more people found out, the less they liked about asphalt plants. Because Beamish wants the plant on Crown Land, the rules are different than if they wanted it on private land, as they did in Carnarvon. They didn't need permission, per se, from the township to go ahead with their application to the Ministry of Natural Resources -- all they needed was the township's comments, preferably positive ones.
But thanks to public pressure, Highlands East council moved unanimously against the asphalt plant.
Still, the saga has not come to an end. Anything but. There is talk afoot of Beamish's continued interest in putting an asphalt plant in the Haliburton Highlands and those who faced the asphalt plant before are ready to face it down again.
Childhood brain cancer rates increased near asphalt plant in North Carolina
See the stunning 'slide show' presentation on the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League web site:
===================================================================
Photo By Alex Maness. Carolina Sunrock Corporation on Camden Avenue dumps a load.
Paving the Way
How behind-the-scenes lobbying allows big-money interests like the asphalt industry to steamroll citizens
An award-winning cover story by Jennifer Strom of The Independent, in Durham North Carolina
February 20, 2002
For six years, Doug Robins has paved driveways and parking lots with asphalt he buys from other suppliers. About a year ago, the owner of Asphalt Experts decided to open his own plant. But he couldn't find a place to build it, thanks to a law that puts 1,500 feet between the smoky blue plumes of asphalt plants and the places people live. So he did what other Durham business people do when they need help building things. He went to City Hall.
Greg Payne, then the city's economic development director, and members of the city/county planning staff got together to work on Robins' problem. After studying their laws and their maps, the staffers suggested Robins request a change to the law to reduce the 1,500 feet to 600 feet.
The plan seemed headed for success as it slid routinely through planning and zoning hearings last summer. It squeaked through Durham's one environmental review board, and the City Council planned to vote on it in September.
But one citizen watchdog sounded an alarm after learning of the proposal by accident. Days before the vote, neighborhood activist and NAACP leader John Schelp roused enough outcry to convince the council to delay the decision. Since then, Schelp has mobilized a diverse coalition of neighborhood activists, civil rights advocates, students and environmentalists.
The proposal would create 10 new sites for potential asphalt plants, which mix gravel, sand and rock with petroleum-based cement, emitting pollutants such as benzene and formaldehyde. Of those, eight are in East Durham, meaning less affluent, inner-city minority communities would bear the brunt of unsightly, odorous and potentially hazardous pollution from a smokestack industry feeding growth in the wealthy white suburbs.
A public debate is now raging over whether it's a good idea to put asphalt plants within two football fields of houses. But until Schelp rallied an unexpected but efficient revolt, the industry's unimpeded progress toward its goal was business as usual in Durham's planning process, where business interests influence the decisions that shape the landscape and affect citizens' everyday lives.
"Industry reps have insinuated themselves into every corner of policy-making, with a deleterious effect for citizens," says Lou Zeller, the research director and Clean Air Campaign organizer for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. His group battles asphalt plants and other controversial industries all over the state. "If the law is inconvenient for the industry to do business, they change the law."
Those who stand to profit from policy decisions have several tactical advantages that begin long before residents have a chance to speak at a public hearing. They originate on the ground floor of City Hall, where the city/county planning staff jokes congenially with developers who come in to study the wall maps and chat about their plans. They continue upstairs, in the economic development office, where the staff's mission includes helping local businesses grow.
Developers and business owners pay consultants to spend hours lobbying and clearing the way for their plans--consultants who often have long-standing relationships with staffers. They provide reams of background information to the planning department, data that often becomes the basis for staff recommendations in their favor.
On the other side, citizens with less technical knowledge and familiarity with the planning process rely on the public process to alert them to what's happening in their neighborhoods. In the asphalt case, the hearing notice was 10 words long, buried in a page-long, inch-wide classified ad, and no letters went out to neighborhood groups.
And even when they do participate in the public process, citizens--and their elected leaders--often find themselves at a disadvantage, says County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow.
"We are not experts on these topics. But the industries come in with all this information and they can tell their side of the story really well," says Reckhow, who chairs the Joint City-County Planning Committee where the asphalt proposal first surfaced in March. A planner by training, Reckhow calls the overall process "lopsided."
City and county staffers are quick to say their job is to serve the entire public. Anyone can walk into the planning office, ask for a change to the zoning law and launch the same approval process the asphalt industry is now pursuing. Interim Planning Director Dick Hails remembers an example from the 1980s, when a group of neighborhood leaders sought to change the zoning of adjacent properties to preserve open space near their homes.
But most of the time, few people without a financial stake work the system.
"The person that's going to be the most aggressive, and is more likely to spend the time in the planning office pushing projects, are the people who are proposing development," says Mayor Bill Bell. "And they have the time to do it, as opposed to John Q."
In the asphalt case, the financial stakes are high: the N.C. Department of Transportation awarded $1.2 billion in state road contracts last year alone. David Rifenburg, of Rifenburg Construction, who eventually joined Robins' effort to change the law so he, too, could build a Durham asphalt plant, has won bids for major road projects across the state. Rifenburg built the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in Durham, a $7.6 million project, and two years ago resurfaced the city's roads with 22,000 tons of asphalt supplied by Carolina Sunrock Corporation. Carolina Sunrock, one of the two existing asphalt plants in Durham, just won a bid to provide asphalt to the city this year, a $147,028 contract.
The Carolina Asphalt Pavement Association (CAPA), the industry lobby in Raleigh, estimates that public road contracts make up only about half the asphalt market. Private projects such as shopping malls and housing developments make up the other half. Rifenburg's private clients include Duke University (football stadium improvements and hospital complex) and Beechwood subdivision in Chapel Hill.
Like other developers with profits at stake, both asphalt companies hired consultants to help work the deal. Asphalt Experts hired Durham attorney Will Anderson, and Rifenburg hired local land planner George Stanziale. Stanziale's friendly relationship with the Durham city/county planning staff dates back to 1984, when he successfully advocated for controversial rezonings that led to the development of tony Treyburn.
"From my point of view, they always try to be helpful," Stanziale says of the planning staff. "Their job is to protect and legislate the [zoning] ordinance. But when someone wants to get something done on a piece of property, and it doesn't meet the ordinance or a particular plan, say, a small-area plan, they're going to always work with us to see how we can get it done."
Stanziale does frequent business with the planning department, wearing several hats on behalf of his clients and his firm, Haden-Stanziale. He represented developers of car dealerships as part of the controversial Streets at Southpoint mall. He co-authored the Downtown Master Plan and is often tapped to serve on advisory committees, such as a 1998 group that recommended changes to Durham's natural resources protections. And he profits from city business, winning publicly funded contracts such as the $78,000 job designing West Chapel Hill Street Park in 2000. He is currently consulting on a rewrite of the city's development ordinance.
Stanziale has never lost a Durham rezoning case. He says that's partly because he chooses his projects carefully but also because he has "great relationships" with the planning staff and involves them early in his plans.
Those relationships are one factor that contribute to citizens feeling disenfranchised by the planning system, says one critic.
"They've been doing this so long, some of them don't see how they bend over backwards for the developers. Then they don't understand why people like me think this is outrageous," says Steve Bocckino, a citizen activist in southwest Durham who got involved in politics when he led his neighborhood's battle against the Streets at Southpoint mall at Fayetteville Road and Interstate 40. Bocckino now serves on the planning commission, where he is frequently outraged by staff recommendations that side with developers, often based on what he calls "tortured logic." "They see the developers all the time and the developers are their friends. And they see residents as contentious naysayers."
But while the planning staff plotted to help Doug Robins and David Rifenburg move asphalt plants closer to homes, there weren't any naysayers to contend with, because no one knew about the plan as it gathered steam behind the scenes.
After cooperating with the planning department to develop language that was acceptable to both the staff and the industry, Stanziale and Anderson took their proposal to the planning committee for review in April.
Zoning text amendments affect property across the county, rather than altering the rules for one particular piece of land the way a rezoning does. Text amendments also differ from rezonings in another crucial way: They require very little public notice. If a resident wants to change a house into an office, the city/county planning department sends a letter to nearby neighbors, with details of the request, an explanatory map, contact numbers for questions and dates and places of public hearings.
But if the asphalt industry--or anyone else--wants to amend the law, the government puts an advertisement in the local newspaper, back in the classified section, lumped in with a long list of other issues described in technical language.
In presenting the proposal to the planning committee, the industry reps argued several key reasons for the change: The 1,500-foot setback rendered it impossible to build a new plant; changes in asphalt technology and "tougher EPA air quality standards" have cut down dust and noise affecting surrounding properties; and "there is a need for more asphalt plants in Durham to meet local needs."
The planning staff backed them up, recommending approval based on the applicants' arguments and a few of their own. One point staffers cited was that the 1,500-foot setback had arisen out of a 1980s rewrite of zoning laws in the wake of a chemical explosion and a chemical fire in East Durham. During the revisions, asphalt plants were lumped into the same category as hazardous materials and explosives.
"We looked at the actual impacts, and reported to the commission that asphalt plants fall somewhere between concrete plants and hazardous waste," says Hails. Concrete plants require only 100 feet of buffer space, while hazardous waste facilities require the full 1,500 feet.
The planning staff also mentioned that Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte do not require any distance between asphalt plants and homes, a point that struck Lou Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League as ironic.
"If Durham is even considering changing their setbacks, that's just incredible to me," Zeller says. "They would be undoing a good measure that protects public health in order to 'dumb-down' to what other communities have."
The citizen coalition has since pointed out several examples of other cities, including Boston, that are expanding the buffers for asphalt plants based on environmental and health concerns.
Another reason the staff cited in its recommendation was Durham's growth, saying "major road improvements and development projects maintain a high demand, with much asphalt being trucked in."
Photo By Jenny Warburg. John Schelp tells Durham elementary students why they should care about asphalt in their neighborhoods.
"The rule of thumb is, if we are demanding it, we should take some responsibility for providing it," says Hails. "If there's a demand for something in the community, then you look at whether there's an appropriate site."
The planning committee recommended approval, but also asked the Environmental Affairs Board to review the plan before it went any further.
The EAB, a joint city-county advisory panel, is made up of local residents with professional credentials in a variety of fields. Elected officials created the board a decade ago to provide them with expertise when faced with decisions just like this one.
"The EAB is there because [Durham County Commissioner] Becky Heron thought if we're giving the Chamber of Commerce money, we should do something to balance the other side," says Bocckino. "It's sort of the environmental chamber of commerce."
The 11-member board has specific slots for individual disciplines such as solid waste, water quality, air quality and public health, with the city and county each appointing five members and one seat for a representative of the Soil and Water Conservation District Board.
The EAB discussed the asphalt measure several times, eventually voting 4-3 to approve it with some changes. The board recommended expanding the setback from 600 feet to 750 feet, and requiring a solid 8-foot perimeter wall. An eighth member who had to leave the meeting early has indicated he would have voted against the plan, meaning it narrowly missed a 4-4 tie. One of the points that swayed the supporters was the staff's argument that Durham's setback was so much larger than other North Carolina cities, says one EAB member, who has since been chagrined to hear--via the citizen effort-- that buffers in other states are much larger, and in some cases, expanding.
One of the three no votes was member Marian Johnson-Thompson, who holds the EAB's public health seat.
"It's a situation--again--where money and big business come in and, I shouldn't say have no regard for poor people, but they're not as sensitive as they should be," says Johnson-Thompson, whose profession is studying health disparities among different ethnicities. "As a member of the board, I was embarrassed about how this vote went down."
The EAB discussions focused primarily on noise and dust, despite Johnson-Thompson's concerns that the health and quality of life for Durham's less affluent communities of color were the real target. The industry reps produced a voluminous stack of supporting paperwork, including a report arguing that asphalt plant emissions were no more dangerous than those of an average bakery.
"We did a lot of homework for them," says Stanziale. "We felt like we answered all of their questions."
With approval from the planning committee and the EAB, the proposal went next to a public hearing at the zoning committee.
John Schelp was sitting in the City Council chambers that night, waiting for his turn to speak. As the president of the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association, Schelp was there to urge the zoning committee to require more open space in "mixed-use" developments.
When the asphalt industry representatives stepped forward, Schelp listened in disbelief as they outlined their proposal.
The industry reps repeated their arguments: the lack of eligible land under the current zoning law and the growing market demand for asphalt in Durham. They said recent technological advancements reduce the environmental impact and health hazards. Missing from the discussion, Schelp says, was any recognition that the residents most likely to be subjected to new asphalt plants within 600 feet of their houses were low-income minorities.
"I thought to myself, we can debate health effects all night, but the asphalt industry says they are only interested in the sites in East Durham," says Schelp. "There's no gray area there."
It was clear to him the proposal had coasted pretty far toward City Council approval with zero public debate, thanks in part to a 10-word-long public hearing notice "the size of a blade of grass."
"The asphalt industry had eight months to whisper 'facts' into the ears of officials while the neighborhoods sat in the dark," Schelp says.
Shocked by the environmental justice issue going unchallenged, and the one-sided nature of the discussion, Schelp began collecting a citizen coalition to shine a public spotlight on the plan.
He started with his position within the Durham NAACP. The only white member of its executive committee, Schelp had been working to build racial bridges for months. A former Peace Corps worker with a master's degree in public administration, six years in the Congo and a long record of neighborhood activism, Schelp had recently been asked to organize the NAACP's "community committee" to bring diverse Durhamites together to work on common initiatives. The five-member group agreed to take on the asphalt project, and the NAACP advanced the committee $50 for publicity.
When the measure was scheduled for a Sept. 16 vote before the City Council, Schelp mobilized letter-writers through an e-mail list-serv that began with the five people on his community committee. It now contains 300 members.
Schelp, two other NAACP leaders and the minister of Morehead Avenue Baptist Church co-authored a letter to the editor published in The Herald-Sun on Sept. 16, the day before the scheduled vote.
"It's bad enough that developers are forcing limited local resources to be shifted from less affluent in-town neighborhoods to newly-paved suburban developments," they wrote. "Must we now face the threat of hazardous exposures from the asphalt industry?"
Council members, beginning to receive protest e-mails and facing voters in an election just six weeks away, voted unanimously to table the proposal.
"No one was real excited about this issue once it turned into a hot potato," says Anderson, the attorney for Asphalt Experts.
The neophyte coalition celebrated the delayed vote and began in earnest to outline their next attack. They targeted three issues: the lack of public notice, the potential health hazards, and the disproportionate effect on low-income minority neighborhoods.
Neighborhood associations across the county and churches in East Durham began to spread the word through their memberships. Schelp called Duke University officials to alert them their rare books storage is next door to one of the potential asphalt plant sites. He asked the Eno River Association to look at water quality issues, since one of the potential sites sits along the Eno.
Local environmentalists compiled data about the effects of asphalt plant pollution, including the dangers of toxic emissions from benzene and other byproducts of hot asphalt mixing. Prompted by the protesters, leaders of Environmental Defense, a national advocacy group, wrote a letter to the mayor and city manager citing Durham's ranking among the "dirtiest counties" in the United States based on an average individual's added cancer risk from air pollution. In a letter signed by Director Jane Preyer, the group urged the council to kill the measure, saying more asphalt plants in Durham would raise the county's already dangerous levels of acrolein, a chemical emitted by asphalt plants.
According to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, exposure to asphalt fumes can cause headaches, skin rashes, fatigue, reduced appetite, throat and eye irritation, and coughing. Asphalt paving workers, for example, have reported breathing problems, asthma, bronchitis, and skin irritation, according to OSHA, and studies have reported lung, stomach, and skin cancers following chronic exposures to asphalt fumes.
N.C. Central University professor Yolanda Anderson lent the group an intern and the campus student group, Central Environmental Action Student Effort (CEASE) got involved. CEASE printed a fact sheet and launched a public education campaign to spread the word to residents in the predominantly black neighborhoods around campus, where four of the potential sites lie. As they walked door-to-door, nine out of 10 residents they talked to had no idea they were living adjacent to a potential asphalt factory, with its burning petroleum smell and dump trucks trailing fumes down the street, says intern Melissa Lewis.
One Morehead Hills resident on the e-mail list eventually sent Schelp a $50 check, saying he was glad to double the group's budget.
When the industry reps said publicly they were seeking "independent data" from the state Division of Air Quality to counteract their critics, Schelp asked DAQ Director Alan Klimek to address the citizens' concerns as well. In a stock response the DAQ has given in similar controversies across the state, Klimek replied that the location of new asphalt plants is strictly "a local issue." Klimek wrote an op-ed piece last year echoing the same sentiments. CAPA, the industry lobby group, likes Klimek's argument so much it now includes his essay in the organization's public information packet.
Photo By Alex Maness. Stacey Isaac (left) and Rosemarie Marchan, members of the N.C. Central University student group CEASE, go door-to-door in East Durham.
The industry's influence is even more ingrained at the state level than it is locally, says Zeller, who attends DAQ advisory committee meetings where "The environmental groups don't show up but the industry shows up in droves."
In Durham, as letters from across town poured in to newspapers and City Hall, the local industry reps turned to their state association for backup. CAPA Executive Director Christie Barbee shot back at critics, writing a letter to local newspapers countering Schelp's first attack. She called the environmental injustice issue "baseless" and touted the industry's safety record and Durham's need for asphalt.
"I got a copy of [Schelp's] letter and there was a lot of misinformation about our industry," says Barbee. "No one in our industry strives to be controversial or to stir up trouble. But as city limits grow, you've got more and more area that needs pavement."
Having only two plants in Durham raises the cost of asphalt, says Barbee, citing cheaper prices in areas like Charlotte-Mecklenburg, where there are more than a dozen plants. "Durham is a good market," she says. "And Durham certainly could use the jobs that a plant would bring."
Asked how many employees a plant needs, Barbee estimated "six to eight," but added that the plants also generate related jobs for truck drivers and pavement workers.
As the grassroots organizers mounted their campaign, it was the accusations of environmental injustice that surprised the city staffers the most, including the interim planning director.
"I've heard of it in other places, but it's new for here," Hails says.
Actually, environmental justice issues in East Durham date back to the 1980s. A chemical company called Armageddon Recycling Co. on Peabody Street was cited repeatedly for leaking barrels that eventually exploded on March 10, 1983. A community group that formed to protest, Citizens for a Safer East Durham, pointed out in its flyers that the situation wouldn't have dragged on so long if the plant were "on the other side of town." Another chemical plant in the same vicinity, SouthChem Inc. on East Pettigrew Street, was the scene of a massive chemical fire on Sept. 3, 1986. Today, SouthChem is still in business and ranks as Durham County's third-largest polluter, according to Environmental Defense.
Overall, Durham's minority residents are four times more likely than whites to live near facilities emitting air pollutants, according to the Environmental Defense scorecard, while families below poverty are also four times more likely to live near polluting facilities than those above poverty.
"If you're poor and black, that's what you get," says Schelp.
The future of the asphalt proposal may be decided within the month. The Joint City/County Planning Committee discussed it again on Feb. 6 and asked for more input from the Environmental Affairs Board. This time around, the industry may have even one more vote, thanks to another behind-the-scenes move. On Oct. 15, the City Council appointed Asphalt Experts attorney Will Anderson to the attorney slot on the EAB. Anderson replaced outgoing member Jim Conner, an environmental activist and lawyer.
The council has scheduled a discussion for Feb. 21. Whether the plan will then be scheduled for a March 4 vote depends on the council, says City Manager Marcia Conner, while complaining about how much time her staff has had to spend responding to the "overwhelming number of e-mails."
Mayor Bell, whose inbox has also been flooded with protests, predicts the grassroots effort has accomplished its mission.
"I don't think this has a chance of going anywhere," he says. "Let me put it this way, I haven't had anybody write me saying we ought to be supporting this."
If they succeed in changing the zoning law, Asphalt Experts and Rifenburg Construction may build a plant together, according to Stanziale.
Schelp and his coalition want the setbacks for asphalt plants to stay at 1,500 feet. They want the planning staff to learn about environmental justice issues. And they want the rules for public notice of text amendments rewritten so they trigger letters to affected neighbors like rezonings do. On the last point, they already have support from the mayor.
"Given the amount of attention that's been given to that issue, I think the staff will look at a little different process," Bell says, though the staff is not so sure. Assistant planning director Bonnie Estes says with text amendments, "It's difficult to know who's impacted, so it would be difficult to know who to notify."
Bocckino and a fellow planning commission member have proposed another system reform: a new ethics policy requiring planning staff and commission members to disclose their personal financial interests.
County Commissioner Reckhow supports improvements to the public notice process and the ethics proposal. But in the bigger picture, she wants the government to balance the interests of people who live here and the people who profit.
"We recognize there's a gap and we're looking for ways to level the playing field," she says. "We need to do a much better job empowering our citizens."
Links:
C.H.A.N.G.E. (Haliburton County Advocates for a Naturally Good Environment) has been around for quite a few years accomplishing many things but lately the focus of C.H.A.N.G.E. has been fighting the permanent asphalt plants that have been trying to sprout up in this presently asphalt-plant-pristine area. The group hasn't been active for a while and has shifted its energies, for the most part, to Environment Haliburton. Still, there is plenty of information stored on the web site.If you want to know more about how the current battle is going, E-mail Nora Pasley at no_asphalt_plant_in_irondale@yahoo.com or Joanne Nicks at jnicks@sprint.ca.
For more information, albeit American, see:
U.S. Dept. of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
