Peer reviewer claims NDACT breached agreement
The ‘trusted peer reviewer’ retained in the pre-engagement process with Strada Aggregates says the North Dufferin Agriculture and Community Task Force (NDACT) has breached the Community Engagement Agreement in relation to a proposed quarry in Melancthon Township.
Engineer Garry Hunter of Hunter Associates says NDACT should have followed through on the process, to protect the public interest.
“My understanding is that NDACT failed to ‘argue over the application being submitted’ due to primary concerns about losses of community financial compensation and offset benefits and not about water resource impacts,” said Hunter in a press release issued March 14.
“I acknowledge that up to my March 10, 2025 termination, I was actively making submissions to Strada’s appointed adjudicator to constructively address outstanding quarry site plan application issues,” said Hunter. “My understanding is that I was terminated due to my strenuous objection to Strada’s filing of the Quarry Site Plan Application on Jan. 31, 2025, and my direct request to Strada that the application be withdrawn and let the scientific process play out in accordance with the Community Engagement Agreement, which I had supported throughout my retainer.”
The agreement dated Dec. 20, 2022 says at the conclusion of the community peer review of the studies, one of two events will occur: 1. If the studies or peer reviews conclude that the proposed quarry would cause unreasonable adverse environmental effects, Strada will not proceed with a formal application; 2. If the studies or peer reviews conclude that the proposed quarry would not cause unreasonable adverse environmental effects, Strada shall proceed with a formal [Aggregate Resources Act] ARA application. NDACT will not object to the Application.
“In my view, Strada’s arbitrary filing of the formal ARA application on or about Jan. 31, 2025, prior to resolution of the two fundamental either/or events was ‘heavy handed’, a ‘breach of the public trust’ and cast a biased ‘dark shadow’ over the subsequent objective determination of the ‘either/or events’ of the Community Engagement Agreement,” said Hunter.
Having achieved the goal of identifying weaknesses in a quarry application, NDACT has released its trusted peer reviewer.
Back in 2023, NDACT faced a unique dilemma when it received an offer from Strada Aggregates for pre- engagement with regard to a proposal to turn a portion of its existing 360-acre sand and gravel pit, in operation since 2004 in the area of 4th Line and County Road 17 in Melancthon, into a quarry, meaning they would be extracting limestone below the water table.
The quarry would be the deepest in the Ontario Niagara Escarpment geological area.
Normally the public would not be made aware of an application until it reached Phase 2 of the process. At the time, NDACT community liaison Carl Cosack said members felt they had little choice but to participate and enter into a Community Engagement Agreement. They worried that if they declined to engage they would have little recourse when it came time to an appeal.
The crux of the agreement – the first of its kind in Canada – was a commitment by Strada to hire a trusted community consultant, the same person who helped NDACT fight the mega quarry, and if studies prove the science is viable for Strada to proceed to file the application, NDACT agreed not to object to the application.
On Jan. 31 Strada Aggregates filed an application to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) for a completeness review for a proposed quarry within the footprint of its existing 360-acre sand and gravel pit in the Township of Melancthon. The proposed quarry would ship up to two million tonnes of aggregate per year, and would use existing entrances, exits and haul routes. In this first step of the Aggregate Resources Act application process, the ministry reviews the materials and confirms whether the application is complete.
“For us, the decision not to fight that is that they committed in writing to solve the outstanding hydro-[geological] issues that we have,” said Cosack. “We thought it was more important to get those issues resolved than it was to die on the sword of a technical submission.”
The goal with the consultant was to find the weaknesses in Strada’s application and he has done that in writing. Given that NDACT’s objective was completed, Cosack said to keep the trusted peer reviewer on retainer wouldn’t be responsible or affordable to donors.
“I recognize his objection to that NDACT agreed to the technical filing on Jan. 31 but in the end, as a board, whether we agree or not, it’s really for us to decide,” said Cosack. “There is a bone of contention there for sure but it is not the reason for ending his engagement, far from it. I couldn’t be more grateful. He has done exactly what we asked him to do and we’re driving on forward with that.”
Having been retained for almost three years, Hunter identified six outstanding hydrogeology issues.
“What this has done is it has put Strada on clear notice as to what things in their application will likely create a lot of push-back and it is for them to solve those issues before they file for Phase 2, which is the public consultation,” said Cosack, adding that Strada committed in writing to address the concerns before filing the next application.
Cosack said NDACT has spent more than $200,000 on that file alone, not including peer reviews on air quality, noise and blasting.
“At some point in time that just has to end,” said Cosack.
Outstanding Six Issues:
1. Is the current groundwater model fit for predictive purposes?
2. Is quarry diversion of Pine River groundwater headwater tributary stream flows to the Boyne River tributaries acceptable?
3. Do the site plans incorporate appropriate water quantity management and operational performance criteria?
4. Do site plans incorporate appropriate drinking water aquifer and protection of aquatic life water quality infiltration/injection operational performance criteria?
5. Do the site plan notes adequately incorporate the geotechnical consultant contingencies?
6. Does the quarry groundwater monitoring network meet the requirements for efficient long-term water level monitoring requirements?
