There is a story going around that during a previous Everest application the Sauble Anglers and Hunters Club thought there could be an environmental problem and paid Henderson Paddon to check it out and provide expert opinion.

The proposal was found to be well engineered and sound. The risk of environmental damage is not zero but as with farming or other activities it is low.

The story goes that a club member who lived upstream of the proposed quarry subequently left the club after he could not get club support for his own agenda.

Local quarries provide jobs and money earned flows to the local economy. It is possible some people may support this kind of thing.

My take is that it will take substantial, real risk of permanent environmental damage to halt this project and I don't see it here.

Hi Dodge, I don't know about that story. The problem is the location and zoning. I am not opposed to quarries in general. I do know that there is ample decorative stone available elsewhere in areas already designated as Potential Industrial Extractive and Industrial Extractive. The proposed quarry will only employ 3 or 4 seasonal workers. Talk about stories, I heard that they hire itinerate workers (from Mexico) to labour the tree farm, not locals...totally unsubstantiated. Not only is there a potential serious risk to the environment (you need to read up on Karst if you are not familiar with it) over the next 25 years but this is just not good land use planning for the properties along county road 8. Not only that but there are real issues with water quantity and quality in wells of adjacent landowners, noise, dust, and traffic. You may be right, there are some who will support this inane proposal and it may be allowed to proceed. I believe it will ultimately end with an OMB hearing.
kltpzyxm

Hi Dodge
The SBPCCC web site contains a link (Links page in the General Interest section) to a Jan 9, 1999 report prepared by HP for the Sauble Anglers and Hunters. Is this the report you were referring to?
kltpzyxm

Why is a letter originating at Henderson Paddon showing up under the Sauble Anglers and Hunters Letterhead? It is an attempt to associate the club with the stated intention of the concerned citizens namely to stop the quarry. This kind of deceit makes me broadly suspicious of the whole site.

The Anglers and Hunters actually have a neutral stance on the whole issue but the website forgot to mention that. There is nothing in the H-P report that is a show stopper and I am sure the application must have been reworked over the years to meet standard practice. If any water does manage to get through to the river the lower temperature is a plus for the Sauble River. There are springs at Park Head but far too much time for the water to heat up before it reaches the flatrock area.

A few days ago I toured the cave where Ruby's Falls is located in Chattanooga. We were hundreds of feet underground. Decades of dye testing and they still don't know where the water comes from but it flows through. The rock is solid as a ..well you know what I mean. It doesn't turn into sponge.

I would assume that the latest quarry application covers all the bases nicely and it would be good manners and good strategy for all public organizations to take a neutral position on this one. A word to the wise: there is no sense burning any community bridges.

It should serve as a caution that this group has named themselves and their website South Bruce Penninsula... whatever in an attempt to gain some sort of legitimacy by association. The hand of a public relations expert at work I suppose.

I did some more enquiring about the HP report to the SA&H. This is the reply:

You received the document in the same format as I did during a Sauble Anglers and Hunters meeting at that time. All information received since the first quarry application including this document has been kept on file. I do remember being puzzled at that time by why the Henderson Paddon report was on a Sauble Anglers and Hunters Letterhead, which didn't make any sense. I was also puzzled about the written comments.

I have forwarded this info to the SBPCCC and I believe they have temporarily removed the document. It probably has as much relevance as the one day traffic study eight years ago that the proponent has used in their proposal.

Maybe someone from the SA&H can explain why the document is on SA&H letterhead and not HP.

kltpzyxm

Some decades ago I graduated from the University of Guelph as a biologist and even though I don't earn my living as one I was trained by the some of the best profs in the world.

I remember discussions about sustainable harvests in commercial cod fisheries when there were a lot more cod to be had. We were taught that there is always an environmental cost added to the activities of human populations and sometimes it is too high a price. Sometimes the benefit outweighs the cost. Speaking of a high price the chap who in his letter tried to tie in global warming with the quarry debate deserves some credit. Nice try.

Let's say that someone could wave a magic wand that prevented all mosquitoes from living in an area of one square mile around the proposed quarry. Looking at the population dynamics of all mosquitoes in a hundred square mile surrounding area do you think there would be any significant change? No not likely. In this way there is unlikely to be any environmental impact on populations in the quarry area but the theme recurs in many of the letters.
Playing this card is futile when going against a well constructed application and only works on brain dead politicians which, thankfully are in short supply.

However if you can prove species extinction that is an entirely different story.

I hold the creation of four seasonal jobs as a precious commodity unlike some of the letter writers. Many people have two or three jobs these days. A few of these jobs here and there add up to making a living. Yes, there is an environmental cost to making a living. Is there a difference between taking a green field and putting a manufacturing plant on it in Woodstock and taking a green field and quarrying stone?

Trucks must be bad for the environment if I read the letters correctly. How many trucks service the grocery stores and Home Depot and Wal Mart and all the other places we like to have conveniently nearby? I don't hear the same complaints about them. If a man makes his living in an industry that depends on trucking goods and retires to collect a pension check is it right he can complain about another business that has to truck it's product? Or is it only right to complain if it is a truck laden with quarry stone from Adair or one of the other quarries? Be careful how you play this card. The economy of the province is carried in trucks some days.

Changing the zoning? That is hard to do and I don't know how it will go. Generally there is a change allowed when the politicians see an economic benefit with little political cost.

When any business wants to start up, grow or diversify there will be some environmental cost. We live under a set of checks and balances that force a business to expose these costs and justify them. This exposes the business to scrutiny and sometimes that information is used to defeat a proposal and the economic benefit is lost. That is the way it is supposed to work.

This system fails if the public is mislead by special interest groups or politicians vote without doing their research or gathering expert opinion. That is why it is important for special interest groups to present a balanced platform to the public rather than a one sided approach.

With this in mind I want to end with a quote from one of the letters on the South Bruce penninsula Concerned Citizens Site. I think it pretty much covers their attitude.

"We need the support of any and all concerned citizens who care about our environment, fish and wildlife, water quality, truck traffic on County Road 8, noise and air pollution, tourism and stopping quarries/pits in Bruce County to attend this meeting."

I was pleased to see that over 100 people (14 SBPCCC associates) attended the information session last night in Park Head.  Mr. Snider, the environmental lawyer from Hamilton, did a good job of crowd control and he and the other presenters fielded a seemingly non-stop barrage of questions from the audience.  Unfortunately Mr Everest was not at the meeting to answer questions.  Our Mayor and Councillor Vukovic arrived at the information session after attending their previously scheduled meeting.  Most of the audience seemed to be familiar with, and opposed to, the project.  No one other than the presenters spoke in favour or the proposal.  One gentleman did remark that he came to the meeting neutral hoping to get  information and found it difficult with all the negativity.  For the most part, participants kept the questions relevant and, with the exception of a couple of comments which I felt were inappropriate, everyone conducted themselves in a manner suitable for such a forum.

Mr. Snider explained that there are two concurrent processes going on; the Licence Application for which this meeting was held and also the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendment process.  Citizens have until January 21, 2008 to express their concerns, with cause, in writing to Mr Everest and the Ministry of Environment.  If you have concerns regarding the Licence application and haven't already done so, please take the time to write them down and notify the proponent and the MoE.  If you object to the Official Plan and Zoning amendments then please write letters to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and the Bruce County Planning Department outlining your concerns.

Mr. Snider also indicated that it was Mr Everest's intention to continue this process until its ultimate conclusion.  This will likely be an Ontario Municipal Board hearing.  It would be prudent to begin preparing for this hearing now by familiarizing yourself with the Provincial Policy Statement which, I believe, governs the process.  The South Bruce Peninsula Concerned Citizens Coalition will try to find it online and make the link available on their SBPCCC Web Site.
kltpzyxm

In today's Sun-Time, Jim Algie offers some sound-bites snipped from both sides of the Sauble River Quarry fence ...

Everest, a retired Owen Sound dentist, said stone on the property has unique characteristics which make it ideal for use in flooring.

“There’s no stone quite like it,” he said in a telephone interview from Florida, where he is on vacation. “One of the unique characteristics of it . . . we’ll be able to cut it down to less than an eighth of an inch in thickness.”

Colour variations from taupe to black could lead to other applications.

Rogers worries about truck traffic — up to 38 trips daily — on what is a main route to busy tourist areas at Sauble Beach.

Burns worries about disruptions to fish habitat, water quality in his well and noise. He lives closer than anyone to the proposed quarry site.

“My house is 350 metres from the licensed area,” Burns said in an interview Wednesday. “Our well is also at the highest risk of anybody. They’re going down 50 feet into the rock and my well’s only 50 feet deep.

“The noise of the machinery, that diamond belt saw and caterpillar loader and the generator that runs that saw — they did a study." Burns said the study shows that noise at his home will slightly exceed environment ministry limits.

“That is what I’ll be hearing all the time. I won’t hear the birds or anything,” he said. “And once this is approved, how could they turn down everybody else? There’ll be quarries all along the highway.”
[ Sun Times: Third swipe at fighting quarry ]

Now, I don't know squat about the price of rock, but what I do know is that I don't disagree with all of Annie Leonard's new Story of Stuff video and it just seems to me to be an apropos side-story to consider as we consider the 'value' of this special stone, and then to also maybe, and maybe blasphemously so, to ponder and consider, just perchance and askance, why it was that we wanted to fly that 'Blue Flag' over our dunes.

Just a thought.

I am interested in the process regarding trying to stop the quarry as I have come to the conclusion somthing must be done in my own neighbourhood as I have concerns....
-The continued growth of the size of families and the influx of young couples who may have families in this neighbourhood-
Here is my argument.
A senior couple or household is tolerable as they make little noise, keep to themselves and are done expanding.

-Families with children make noise, the giggling and shouting is intolerable in my mind as the noise travels into my living space
-unsightly with all the toys laying around
-parents moving kids to different events or activities clogg our roads and increase traffic volume and noise and pollution
-a ball coming into my space is an intrusive and intolerable invasion of my space
These factors affect my property values and decrease the pleasure of life I expect from use of my property.

Seniors are quiet and keep to themselves, they don't go out as much and their needs are basic so we can eliminate the need for as much travel and even cut down on the traffic and stores downtown as they do need much and therefore the big trucks coming into town to resupply the stores won't be roaring through as often.
As there won't be as much demand for local goods this will work well as we won't need as many people nto work in the stores and this will help eliminate the need for young families to come to area and work. Therefore assisting with the above mentioned problem creating by expanding family units in our area.
So I am watching this as I growing frustrated with the amount of family units in my area trying to expand and grow at the cost of my enjoyment of life.
Gawds speed concerned citizens, this kind of audacious expansion for nothing other than selfish personal growth has to be nipped in the bud at all costs

I guess it goes back to that (innapropriate locker room humour) who are you gonna please with that, and the answer being "me"
I am here for my amusement:)
To understand where I come from and my thoughts on land use I have to start with a history lesson
50's-60's early 70's
small rural ontario ( where we are ) is busy and vibrant
as you drive down the road farm after farm is using the land and drawing some profit from it. The roads are full of tractors and combines going up and down the road. Car loads of families going into town to shop, play hockey, buses are taking children to FULL newly biult schools.
Restaurants are full of people on lunch who work at farm dealerships/ machine shops/hardware stores/ car dealerships. grocery stores are busy needing lots of help. The store fronts are fully open and each catering to a need or service and each one busy.
trucks from the big city are rolling in to restock the busy little towns they service keeping things busy in the big city trying to keep up to the busy little towns.
The farms and the economy thats supports them are busy
The the late 70's and 80's and into today
20% interest and the cost goes up and profits go down.
No money to fix anything so the machine shops close down
No money for that tractor upgrade so the impliment dealer close down
still need groceries but the account recievables get so high cuz everything is on credit the level of service and selection goes down.
no new car this year so the car dealership lays off or closes down
No one is coming in for lunch break because there is no local employment so the restaurant closes down
farm foreclose and people move away, school enrollment drops, schools close and not enough kids to support minor sports, arenas sit empty most of the time.
Those trucks from the city stop rolling in to resupply and the cities suffer.
In a word Recession
So we have all this land not being used so local government says yes people can sever lots biuld homes on it and those still working people move into farm homes while the land sits idle. cheap houses and acreage to boot for atv's,
retired people move to the area for relatively cheap housing. So the entire demographic in rural ontario has changed.
Now theres seems to be in some aspects of agriculture some areas where there could be a profit. farmer or a corporation wants to biuld a pig barn. The business of farming has changed and for those still in the business of feeding us see this type of factory farming as modern and effecient and profitable. All of a sudden there is a "concerned citizens" group of nieghbours who don't farm saying NIMBY
They drag out a process set up to keep and preserve the quality of life they have come to enjoy when they filled the real estate void left by a dying agriindustry.
Traffic/smells/enviromental impact all argued to the point as the land will sit idle. Economic impact is irrelavant as the attmpt to re establish the agri bussiness in rural ontario is outwieghed by the interests of a concerned citizens group and the agri industry is denied the use of what was agricultural land.. for producing food
So the farmers says I can make some money from my land by setting up a wind turbine, and we saw how the new demographic in rural ontario dealt with that...
So the land sits idle, in 30 years rural ontario is a shell of what it was, schools close, 3 towns have to merge to make a hockey team, hardware stores sell suntan lotion and beach chairs...farmers are told to retrain and get computer skills and industry has moved to china.
So this is my understanding of how land use politics works as I was involved. If I were to try and make a point with my last post I guess, based on experience, once a concerned citizens group gets a taste of success where do they stop. You can exchange the word stone with food anywhere here if it makes it more relavant..

Hi Wayne, food is a renewable resource, stone is not. the property is already in use as a tree farm. no one is being denied land on which to have a quarry, there are areas already designated for that, so again your analogy, with word substitution does not make sense. The aggregate industry has not sufferd the same fate as agriculture.

Your analogies seem to be premised on consumption; I suggest you take the time to watch and understand the video The Story of Stuff posted earlier by GaryM.

Why is a below ground water decorative stone quarry adjacent to the sauble river in an rural/agricultural zone a good idea?
kltpzyxm

This comment has been moved here.

Analogies aside I think, based on comments I have heard, got the point across that I was trying to make...
Anytime someone wants to develop or do something in rural ontario that has something to do with what we USE to do in rural ontario, it meets with a brick wall of resistance.
Whether it is a farm operation/ a quarry or a guy logging some trees, the hoops that a land entrepeneur must jump through make it a impractical venture. But if someone who has the nice 3 bedroom ranch bungalow biult in the 90's, cut out of a virgin woodlot and wants to dig a 100' x 100' by 29' deep fish pond with a nice bridge on his 100 acre lot he got for a song every one goes oooooo aaaahhh and that increases his property value of his and his neighbours place with no enviromental impact study done... Ok that is just jealousy cuz I would like a fish pond on my place,
Small industries like a quarry, a farm was once the foundations of our economy. The die has been cast that now this land is earmarked for nothing else but to be the quiet retreats of the retired, and they will firmly defend this, through the tried and proven processes set out.
Lessons were learned by those people who biult near an airport and then complained about the noise, so move to the country where it is quiet and god forbid someone make a move to change that
This will be a watched by others who are thinking of setting up small industry. Guess what, Toyota will not be biulding a plant here soon folks so we gotta take baby steps,
Everest would not bother to take the time to go through this process if there was not a market or need for this product. The consumer demand ( profit) is there or why go through this headache.
I just put down a 1000 sq feet of limestone floor, and I cut down no hardwood trees, no solvents, glues, imitation wood created by chemicals processes for this guy. No carpet laced with petroleum based biocarbon carcinegens all tested on cute bunny rabbits and reeses monkies for this guy. Good old natural stone, and both my floor and the process used to extract it left a lot lower carbon signature than any other type of floor. But it was drawn from a designated quarry, not some tree farm where no one probably thought to designate for this type of use when the questions went out.
So lets surround the areas around the pretty floodplains and rivers with houses instead, and there leaky ole septic systems cuz we won't get sewers ( sorry Bud I threw that in) and there well fertilized " Scarborough" lawns (sorry Gary I stole that one from you) and keep the industrial elite's capital where it belongs in Mexico China and other food and material producing parts of the world
So to say I should rethink or question my ideas cuz I don't understand the issues involved is correct. No offense but I'll just continue to look at life as if I were again looking through the dusty back window of a pickup truck at the sign fading into the distance saying "Farm for Sale"

And Yes I really don't like the fact they "Jazzed Up" the Hinterlands who's who theme song either.....

How do we come to think farmland or rural land is valuable? With the current high and rising prices of corn, wheat and anything related to alternate fuels there is pressure on some marginal lands that will raise the issue of permanent soil depletion. Traditional cow calf operations do not seem viable now if you do not inherit the land and the herd or have other source income. Fertilizer and machinery prices are also rising and all this begs the question, "What value is farmland in terms of what it can produce?" The answer is different if you include quarrying activity on the farm. Stone is worth something.

Wayne's essay on the changing demographic in rural areas is well stated (in his unique style a good read) and illustrates that the value of rural property has been realized by the commuter and the retiree for a residence and not for what it will produce. They pay good money for farms and marginal land and hope it stays that way and they can live with traditional farmers who are still active.

The requirement for a zoning change is key to this permit. There has to be a compelling reason to make the change and I have not seen it yet. More to come I suppose.

MXP..... Not all of us have university degrees which entitles or enables us for some higher means of financial security, or the self proclaimed arrogance a few letters behind the name seems to entitle some too
-As much to some peoples chagrin, some people in this world are not destined to such acedemic granduer that they can do a task which requires nothing but use intellect
-Some people are destined , and they should not be ashamed because I was there and technically still am, to work in a physicall enviroment or to do the moving not the thinking. For example, such places like quarries.
-The movement from the doers- to the thinkers- and now back to the doers re: pay grids seems to be a bone of contention for some people.
When , not so long ago, it was the skilled trades ( bricklayers plumbers, welders) that made the money. Then the "thinkers/university grads and consultates" started making the big dollar.
So those who thought about how to do stuff were making the coin, and those who were actually doing it were laid off, cuz all the money went to the ones who thought about it.
As I was 1 question wrong on a exam from working for the NOAA, fullfilling my dream of doing severe weather prediction research quickly came to an end. I was so close to being a thinker as opposd to a doer I could almost taste it. In fact one guy who in certain areas I helped get through school is making $150.000 US doing CCCOOOOOLLL on scene tornadic research every spring and then data anaylsis the rest of the year. But I got that one damn question wrong and now I am providing a clean working and viewing enviroment and fixin things, like a good janitor should
So don't belittle the fact because I can"t spell Carburatuer doesn't mean I can't biuld one, as the old high school benchmark goes.
There are people out there that may like or need to work in a quarry as it provides income to sustain a (meager to your standards) quality of life for their family. And those jobs are dwindlling.
Tired now so I will read this tommorrow and go "damn" and change a few things

wayne, i don't recall ever criticizing your spelling. i have never said that quarry jobs were not desirable. there are lots of quarry jobs available. ledgerock just advertised a few days ago for, i believe, 8 more employees. i am not opposed to quarries. i am opposed to the one proposed by Everest primarily due to its location. i lost my job too about 20 years ago and have been self employed since. there is lots of work to be done just not enough people with the get up and go to get it done.
kltpzyxm

I was at the father in laws and glanced at an issue of the Echo and read about the meeting in Park Head

One question
Did a " concerned citizen" a person belonging to a group whose agenda is to protect the interests and safety of the whole community by stopping a quarry development.
SET OFF A FIRE ALARM IN A CROWDED, (standing room only) ROOM???????.
If the answer is yes, because I can't believe someone of any sense at all, not suffering from a debillitating mental illness or not suffering from the effects of a traumatic brain injury, would think that this is an acceptable, safe and responcible way of getting a point across.
(sorry I remember a grade one pulled a station once thinking he could get a day off school, he thought he had a good point too).
Why weren't the police called, or because he was just making what seemed to be a popular point that many in the room agreed with and thought "way to go"....
If the quarry goes through, whats next sabatouging the brake lines on the trucks, because I can't see the difference in potential outcomes of yelling fire in a crowded room and a truck going out of control.
Goodness people, you have valids points in your arguments, stay with those, and for the Concerned citizens sake keep that radical fringe under control and use your heads.
When I take the time to figure out how to do it I will post the criminal code sections I think should be thrown at this idio..... sorry, distinquished looking gentlemen
I have never been in the Park head hall but to have a hundred people+chairs+panic banging around is a hell of of a way, when you could verbally go Beep Beep Beep to get a point across..

hi wayne, it was not a fire alarm, but the same backup signal device that is used on construction equipment. to my knowledge this action was not planned or endorsed by the SBPCCC. the SBPCCC only accounted for about 20% of the people in attendance at the park head meeting so we are not the only 'concerned citizens'. for your information, the SBPCCC is neither radical nor an anti-quarry group. we are opposed to the Everest proposal, not quarries in general. rather than look up the criminal code why dont you read the quarry proposal so you can make informed comments?
kltpzyxm