MNR gives green light to asphalt plant in
Irondale
Controversial proposal is one step closer to
becoming a reality
Greg Hoekstra
Local News - Tuesday, January 08, 2008 Updated @ 6:35:27 PM
 Last summer residents of Haliburton County protested against the proposal to put an asphalt plant at the Bark Lake quarry near Irondale. Late last month the Ministry of Natural Resources gave approval to the controversial project, which still needs to get a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment.
Photo: File photo
|
“Also, if you go to the provincial policy statement and look up ‘portable
asphalt plant’ it says clearly that the plant must be removed upon the
completion of the construction project. If [Hutson] insists that it is portable,
then I’d like to know which specific construction project it is providing
asphalt for.”
Despite Eppich’s assertion that the plant should be labelled permanent, not
portable, Hutson said the MNR stands by its classification.
“It’s not a permanent plant – it’s portable, and it’s conditional for
five years,” he said. “It’s a hot-mix asphalt plant that is designed to be
portable; it can be moved from place to place, and the company has indicated
they may want to do that.”
If the company does choose to move the plant for any temporary contracts it will
have to get another of certificate of approval from the MOE, he added.
Hutson also said the approval was not precedent-setting, given that there are a
number of industrial projects – both temporary and permanent – on Crown land
throughout the province. He cited industrial areas along the shores of the great
lakes, including large operations in the City of Hamilton.
“We just don’t think of it because it’s all built up there – we assume
it’s private land,” he said.
Other areas of concern for local residents, said Eppich, include increased truck
traffic on municipal and county roads, the threat to a number of species at risk
known to live in the nearby area, and source water protection.
However, over the past year Hutson said Royel Paving has undertaken a number of
studies to address all of those concerns, all of which were raised during the
public consultation phase, and lessen its impact to the natural environment as
much as possible.
“[The company] went the extra mile as far as work they did around the site to
mitigate any impacts,” he said. “The company did hydrological reports and
they were examined by our technical people. No adverse effects were found on
ground or surface water through the operation of the asphalt plant, basically
because it doesn’t use water.
“We had the company undertake a traffic impact study, which was done in 2006
and reviewed by Haliburton County,” he added. “They found that the roads
were adequate and were built to anticipate that traffic volume.”
But that explanation, said Eppich, doesn’t address the crux of the debate,
which revolved around whether increased traffic and industrial activity would
have adverse effects on a tranquil tourist area, such as Irondale.
“The argument was never about whether the highway was designed for truck
traffic of that size or volume, it was about the resulting noise and disruption
from the traffic,” said Eppich.
“People have the right to enjoy their properties. All of these people will
have been there long before the asphalt plant, and they are there specifically
to enjoy the solitude of a natural environment.”
In terms of species at risk, Hutson said several were found nearby but none on
the immediate site, which is why the proposal was able to move forward.
“There were some around the location, but the company has agreed that they
will monitor the site and have agreed to take some training from us on how to
look for any identified species in the area and what steps to take if they come
across any.”
Again, that explanation is not satisfactory for Eppich. ß
“These are people who are occupied with manufacturing asphalt and guiding
trucks in and out. How are these people going to be on the look out for
endangered species?” he said. “And, for that matter, if there are endangered
species in the area, then why is an asphalt plant going into the area in the
first place?”
Hutson said the MNR’s role in the process has come to an end with the signing
of the site plan agreement. While it was admittedly a long and arduous process,
Hutson said a team of MNR specialists made the decision because all requirements
were satisfied, even if public opinion is still against the asphalt plant.
“Any relevant concerns were looked at and taken into consideration,” he
said. “But it’s hard to keep everyone happy in a situation like this.
Comments like ‘It’s better located in an industrialized area’ are comments
that we look at, but how do you take those into consideration when it’s just
one person’s opinion? Those people are just philosophically against it…
It’s hard to mitigate that.”
However, Hutson said the public can take solace in the fact that, if the plant
is given a certificate of approval from the MOE, both ministries will continue
to monitor the site “routinely” throughout the five-year term, in order to
ensure it is meeting provincial standards.
Even still, Eppich said he won’t accept the MNR’s decision – or it’s
justifications – without a fight. In particular, he said the question still
burning in his mind is why such an operation is needed in an area revered for
its natural beauty.
“There has never been any attempt to justify why this plant needs to be at
this location in terms of demand,” he said. “But what we’re looking for is
the government to be honest and forthright in the accusations against them. What
definition of portable are they using? What happened to the species at risk? And
what happened to the government’s emphasis on source water protection?
“For me, it’s not over,” he concludes. “There are still far too many
unanswered questions.”
|
