These comments relate to the…

These comments relate to the environmental impact in the case of the proposed Reid Road Reservoir Quarry in Milton, Ontario. In addition, there are grave concerns about groundwater, roads, blasting and other issues that need to be considered, which weigh heavily against approval of this quarry.
This area is in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) that includes a provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) described as one of the top ten botanical sites in the Region, and the region includes the Niagara escarpment sites that rank among the world’s most ecologically valuable. Protection of these areas includes both protection of the biodiversity of the area and protection of the many endangered and threatened species that cling to life in it.
The fact that there are multiple, often overlapping laws covering the protection of the environment and multiple ministries involved in upholding them at all levels of government is an indication that society holds the protection of the environment, and the diversity of wildlife, particularly in designated areas, to represent the greater good over individual enterprise. These laws have come into force as a result of strong and consistent public pressure over many decades. Clearly the designation of an ESA is a statement of the priority for judging the greater good. Yet the area reserved for the preservation of natural habitat is a very tiny and fragmented portion of available land and was mainly derived from land considered commercially useless. With habitat destruction, it is not possible to trade land areas. Some very important species like the cerulean warbler require a considerable buffer of deep forest from human settlement to survive against predators fed by humans. When land is set aside for an ESA, a PSW, or other public purpose it represents an irreplaceable asset as well as a major value in ecosystem services.
In the case of the proposed Reid Road Reservoir Quarry there are several additional considerations: Biodiversity is a recognized goal in conservation*. The destruction or fragmentation of habitat is the most cited factor placing species at risk of extinction and is a leading cause of the loss of biodiversity (https://www.ontario.ca/page/species-risk). The Halton Region Report of 2006 ranks the Guelph Junction Woods (ESA No.20) among the top ten sites in the Region terms of habitat, diversity and endangered species protection (a region endowed with some of the richest ecological and environmental habitat in the world). The continuity and connections between protected habitat areas are essential for the success of programs designed to preserve and recover species ate risk, but the proposed quarry represents a major new break in the continuity of the Guelph Junction Woods ESA. In fact any loss of such a magnitude not only degrades the value of the ESA but directly frustrates the remediation plans for endangered species in the area under the Endangered Species Act; a costly waste of taxpayer dollars.
Having set aside such areas of land, why wreck them? It cannot therefore be argued that the destruction of such a site for a development of a mineral resource that is plentiful in the area, with minimal economic value and minimal job creation represents the greater good for society.
While conservation programs such as the one at nearby Mountsberg boast of the progress made over the past century against irresponsible commercial exploitation of our region’s resources, on the contrary, the development of this site would prove that our government places little value on protection of the natural enviornment. Irresponsible commercial exploitation of our region’s resources will continue unabated for our granchildren to gawk at in little exhibitions, learning about the word “hypocrisy”.
Exempting the proposed quarry from even an Environmental Assessment would be like giving away hundreds of acres without even measuring the cost. Why have any ESA’s, are they really just land held in reserve at taxpayer’s expense for the ‘right people’ to profit from?
*I note that the regional risk assessment guidance does not even include a measure of biodiversity, or habitat continuity or ecosystem services or the integrity of the functioning ecosystem of species.