TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadership
Update on Proposed Quarry for 415 Brooklyn Road Public Meeting
1. Update on Proposed Quarry for 415 Brooklyn
Road
Public Meeting, 18 Feb 2014
2. PURPOSE OF MEETING
1. Importance of this quarry issue to you
2. Update on the past 7 months
3. Highlight the irregularities in the process
4. Our accomplishments
5. Why this application should be rejected and
6. What you can do
3. WHY IS THIS UNDER 4HA QUARRY
ISSUE IMPORTANT TO YOU?
• Threat to water sources, adjacent
agriculture, livestock
• Threat to human health and community concerns
• Environmental Assessment not required
• 107 quarries have been approved with only 1
being over 4ha
• A quarry could be approved for a property near
you
• no land use by-laws in Annapolis County
• process is based upon guidelines, not regulations
4. WHY IS THIS UNDER 4HA QUARRY
ISSUE IMPORTANT TO YOU?
• Residents have to investigate
• Appears NSE takes the Proponents’ statements at
face value
• residents must repeatedly identify problem areas
• White Point Quarry application was rejected
– Similarities between the two communities
– moratorium on any new development proposals for
the North Mountain
– All proposed quarry applications require an
Environmental Assessment
5. THE PAST 7 MONTHS:
• Professor Ian Spooner, a hydro-geoscientist, Ms. Donna
Crossland, a biologist, and Dr. Hendricus Van
Wilgenburg, an industry consultant
• Submitted a 114 page report
• Our website, www.annapolis-valley.ca.
• Media
• Sent letters, attended meetings, interviews
6. IRREGULARITIES WITH THE PROCESS
• submitted FOIPOP requests
• no requirement to know who the quarry operator will be
• Proponent’s application accepted with misleading and invalid
information
• Application process not followed
– No notice in local paper
– Bond months late
– Deadlines and extensions
– No public consultation
– Quarry size
7. HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORTS
Professor Spooner for the Community Stantec for the Proponent
On-site evaluation
Desktop study
Walked the property
No detailed field inspections or
field testing
Fact and evidence
Conceptual understanding
8. HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORTS
Professor Spooner for the
Community
Stantec for the Proponent
Findings:
Findings:
Water infiltration rates are highly
variable
Springs are common
Located within A zone of
significant regional groundwater
recharge
Perched water table
Infiltration rates slow
Abandoned old springs
Surface water capture zone
relatively narrow
Water table will not be
intercepted
9. HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORTS
Professor Spooner for the
Community
Stantec for the Proponent
Findings:
Findings:
Unpredictable and irreversible impacts
Risk limited by the small scale of the
quarry operation
Likely to alter groundwater flow and
velocity
Water contamination
No adverse affect based on the
interpreted groundwater flow
Release of chemicals unlikely to affect
water supply wells,
Could affect streams and springs
Mass movement may exist
10. HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORTS
Professor Spooner for the Community
Conclusions
Stantec for the Proponent
Conclusions
Impacts almost certainly will be
Will not adversely affect water
significant
supply wells
Groundwater study be conducted onsite
If springs and/or A perched water table
are present A quarry should not be
permitted
If the slope is unstable no development
should be permitted
11. Critical Points Not Addressed By
Stantec Desktop Study
• Connection Between Surface Water And Ground Water
Could Not Be Addressed In Detail
• Presence Of Springs, Elevated Water Table And The
Potential For Very Rapid Groundwater Flow Need To Be
Addressed By An On-Site Study.
• Located In A Groundwater Recharge Zone; Significant
And Widespread Impact Is Possible
• Only Be Addressed By An On-Site Study.
• Potential Slope Stability Issues Were Not Addressed
• An Impartial, On-Site Assessment Of Impact And Risk Is
Required
13. What have we done
• Submitted the 114 page report
• Proved to NSE, a road does not exist to the quarry
footprint
• Identified irregularities within the NSE process
• Retained the services of professional scientists and an
industry expert
• Presented facts and evidence in a professional manner
14. WHAT DO WE WANT NOVA SCOTIA
ENVIRONMENT TO DO?
1. Impartial review
2. Environmental Assessment
We believe the findings of these two requests
will not support the operation of a quarry on
the property
15. What can you do?
3 form letters for the Minister of Environment:
• Water
• Environmental Assessment
• Regulations
Your support
16. OUR VIEW
Government, without the proper
environmental responsibility or regulatory
supervision, places perceived economic
gains of certain industrial development
before obvious environmental
consequences, when in fact, these
consequences often outweigh the benefits
of these approved industrial actions.
