Fix the quarry issue

Four-hectare rule makes no sense

Scarification of the landscape is ugly and often times offensive to viewers who tend to view such a scene as a violation of the environment.

Cape Bretoners and those who travel to and from the Island frequently express displeasure when gazing upon the open face of Porcupine Mountain at the Canso Causeway and the disfiguration of the once stately prominence.

However, seldom do we look at the large shipping quarry at the base of the mountain and the impressive ship often in the Deep Water Port to load gravel and aggregate for foreign ports, and the jobs and spin-off employment created as a result.

Quarries in Cape Breton and, arguably, in all of Atlantic Canada, play a particular role. For example, in Newfoundland, and until recently, quarries – often referred to as gravel pits – were the summertime location for many trailers and tents where “townies” often would gather and congregate as communities of vacationers.

In Cape Breton, quarries have always existed, but more so under the radar than conspicuously in our face.

Within the past decade their creation has become more of a concern. Quarries located on the Lake Uist Road in Richmond County and New Harris Road in Victoria County concern residents and members of environmental groups over the prospect of discharge and residue from the operation escaping into the Bras d’Or Lakes.

Some citizens of Grand Mira South-Big Ridge are very concerned regarding the establishment of a quarry in their area. Although the proponent of the project has publicly advertised its intention, there will be limited public hearings since the project falls below the four-hectare requirement necessary to trigger a public assessment.

This is the problem. Similar to the expression ‘ Death by a thousand cuts,’ this four-hectare rule is a false criterion by any standard. Concerns focus on the risks of contamination to Mira River and the lobster fishery in Mira Bay and the need for a full environmental assessment.

The risks may be somewhat overstated but residents are entitled to an opportunity to question project proponents on details of the proposed quarry.

For example, legitimate questions such as the design and capacity of holding ponds, the layout of proper culverting, the anticipated level of truck traffic and the hours of operation.

The phoney four-hectare rule make no sense. One hectare equals approximately two and onehalf acres.

An application by a proponent for a quarry permit of 3.9999 hectares is disrespectful and devious, and simply leads to a possible huge quarry at some future date mathematically based on a multiple of the 3.9 magic.

All permits for quarries of any size should be subject to a Public Environmental Assessment.