Mr. Darryl Hagman Aggregate…

Mr. Darryl Hagman Aggregate Technical Specialist Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Southern Region 615 John Street North, Aylmer, ON N5H 2S8 RE: EBR Numbers 012-9852, 012-9850, 012-9848, 012-9845, 012-9843, 012-9849 Dear Mr. Hagman, I write this letter to you, a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, on behalf of OPAL, Oxford People Against the Landfill, regarding the multiple recent postings on the EBR related to properties owned and licenced by Carmeuse Lime in Oxford County where OPAL has its head offices. This letter is to express our concerns about the postings in terms of their information, the timelines and the availability of knowledgeable MNRF staff to engage in conversation with the public about them. This matter was discussed at some length at our board meeting on February 28, 2017 and this letter is the result of a motion passed at it. The various postings ( EBR Numbers 012-9852, 012-9850, 012-9848, 012-9845, 012-9843, 012-9849)contain very little information. There are no explanatory documents attached to them, no site maps, no rehabilitation plans, etc. The EBR postings are brief, very brief. It is then difficult, if not impossible, for OPAL and/or other members of the public to know the intent of these license changes or to measure their potential cumulative human health impact and other effects on the community. This lack of information in the postings then is a barrier to public consultation. Further, the EBR postings do not show how the assemblage of all the sites into one license will have effects via MPAC on tax revenues to the township and county. It is our understanding that the proposed merging of these licenses will have such impact, this after attending a recent session by Carmen Lipsis of MPAC. This needs to be spelled out in the postings so that members of the public and public officials can weigh the effect on properties in the county and their owners. The rehabilitation plan for the new combined licence is not appended. It is therefore impossible for the public to gauge if the new plan will represent equivalent or improved rehabilitation in the spirit of the original. I note that the original plan would restore lands to agricultural and/or recreational lands. Not only is nobody manufacturing additional prime farmland – the original condition of these plots of land – so necessary for a sustainable Ontario (and Oxford within it), but there is no indication that the other proposed final uses will be congruent with farming on parts (sic) of the properties in question or with the adjacent farms, homes, recreation facilities and heritage features. There is rightly much concern about the water use in the pits under these licenses and about it after extraction activity ceases. Unlike many parts of Ontario, Oxford County is entirely ground water dependent. Without seeing the proposed rehabilitation plan, it is impossible to know how safety will be ensured for the ground water and the aquifer. Will layers of subsoil and top soil provide filtration to protect our highly vulnerable aquifer? The Upper Thames Conservation Authority maps show that the Carmeuse quarries are in some of the most vulnerable areas of the aquifer, which is itself a valuable natural resource. Should there be contact and/or proximity of surface water and ground water, clean and safe drinking water could be affected. Similarly, since the water in the pits in question often ends in the Thames River, there is potential impact on that river of high international importance in light of studies of the lower Great Lakes. We (and you) need to see the rehabilitation plans e.g., for the filling of the pits, the specifics of the fill contents, and the studies of these plans by certified and reputable hydrologists in order to know that our public safety will be respected. There is no evidence in the postings of this. The subject lands are, as you are aware, also the area of study for a stringent Environmental Assessment ordered by Minister Murray of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. That EA involves all of the usual analyses and imposes another 15 conditions. It would be unfortunate to have this plan change interfere with that vital process. Any change in the topography, use, nature of the site will change the base assumptions of the EA’s scientific study rendering it invalid. This then represents a potential threat to the public, or at the very least to the public’s confidence in the MNRF and the MOECC. The comment period on this series of license adjustments is a mere 30 days. That is inappropriately short. The public has little opportunity to be informed of the proposals and less to respond. This is compounded by the lack of information above. It is vital that the comment period be extended another 60 days to make it 90 days and that the extension dates begin only when the site plans, rehabilitation plans, and technical analysis of its impacts on land, water, air, tax values and the community are made available via the MNRF and the EBR website to the public. After that, the public, public officials and you can examine the validity, completeness and value of the plans to the public interest. The difficulty of this comment period is compounded by the public’s inability to access you and/or the EBR for questions and comment. That the comment period be launched in your absence is puzzling to say the least. I assume that it is an error of some kind which will be rectified by the extension of the comment period and/or by a restart to the process. Similarly, numerous individuals have reported to me that their attempts to submit comments via the EBR were repeatedly and continuously frustrated by outages on the EBR site. It cannot be considered a consultation in all fairness if people do not have any opportunity or means to comment. In fact, consultation would work much better with reciprocal communications where the public might offer comment and questions and have responses from officials with your technical expertise to clarify the content of the full plans (sic) submitted by Carmeuse Lime and any terminology in them which might be unfamiliar to reasonable members of the public. It is difficult for OPAL or the public to comment in detail on the content of the requests for changes to site licenses because of the lack of available information. It is, however, evident to OPAL and other members of the public that there are significant and troublesome problems with the process by which the MNRF and they would be informed of the details of the plan. There are problems with the technologies which might allow the public to be informed and in turn to comment on the proposed site plan amendments. There is a problem when a person with your technical expertise has a posting for comment but is not available to support the public with information during the comment period. The remedies for this last problem might be that the comment periods be determined by your availability or by making other experts available during the comment period for licenses for which they would be responsible and would have been informed in advance of the details and content. In conclusion, OPAL asks that the comment period be extended to 90 days, that the public be provided at the start of the process the detailed rehabilitation plans and other information upon which they might comment, and that the comment period be aligned with your availability or the availability of another highly qualified aggregate technical specialist who would, like you, be able to define and describe to the public the impacts of these changes in multiple domains. Sincerely, Bryan Smith Bryan Smith, President Oxford People Against the Landfill bryasmit@oxford.net CC: Mrs. Margaret Lupton, Mayor, Zorra Township Mr. David Mayberry, Warden, Oxford County Mr. Ernie Hardeman, MPP, Oxford Mr. Glen Murray, Minister, Environment and Climate Change Ms. Kathryn McGarry, Minister, Natural Resources and Forestry