Hello, Thank you for the…

ERO number

019-3249

Comment ID

53216

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

Hello,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal (ERO # 019-3249). Though I will take a moment to share my disappointment with the MENDM and the proponent for not advising or believing that mail notices to affected neighboring properties would be beneficial to foster a meaningful and thoughtful engagement process for this proposal.

Please take note, that the ER posting may meet the Mining Act and Environmental Bill of Rights Act legislative requirements, but it is no secret this is not a platform that the public is; A) Aware about B) Advertised for greater exposure C) Actually capture the full scope for the Ministry to consider the concerns/comments of individuals that don't know it exists. It is 2021, it is time to use the tools of social media and other ways to reach people.

I am a full-time resident that is impacted directly by the project outline, the mining claim that overlaps my property abuts the proposal boundary - less than 500 metres from the proposed activities. Therefore, mine and other comments and concerns received during this public commenting process are valid and require to be addressed with factual, transparent and detailed response to everyone, not only the ones that commented on this posting.

Please ensure the Ministry and the proponent address the following concerns that I and many in the area have: Note, that these questions are developed with the understanding of the provincial legislation the Mining Act and Bill 173. I have used the following website https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/mining-act to formulate my understanding of the mandate of which the Crown is obligated to meet and promises the People of Ontario they will focus on.

1) How will this impact public health, safety and the environment? Some concerns that I would like addressed within this scope is drinking water (dug and drilled wells within close proximity), Gilbride Road safety and traffic (the ROW is not wide enough for the amount of recreational users and industrial proposals for this area, a road study and road improvements would prove to us that the proponent is considering its larger impact to citizens and not just the money in their pockets). Public health and well being (we live where we do because of the quality of life it gives us, and activities of this nature will surely impact that [Noise, Restrictions of access and impact on recreational Crown Land, drilling vibration what is the range of impact?). Have environmental studies been conducted to prove minimal impact to flora and fauna, is their adequate scientific studies that prove that there is no to minimal impact on the wildlife in the area, prove these activities will not impact ground water or surface water in the area, prove that these activities will not cause a greater risk for green/blue algae or other major concerns of water bodies in our area.

2) Is this respectful of private landowners and users of the resource? Prove to the citizens who reside and recreate in the area that this activity respects private landowners and users of the resource. I can assure you; the lack of engagement and the reliance of an ER posting shows a lack of respect to start with. Prove to us how you will move forward with respectful and meaningful engagement moving forward? Is there a qualitative / quantitative understanding from the Ministry and the Proponent of the exact magnitude of recreational users and seasonal/full time residents that live here? Quantitative data is required to be collected to prove and show that the Ministry understands what they are approving. Please Note: it will be seen as disrespectful if the studies are completed during ‘off-peak’ times, a study of bias nature shows the deliberateness of ensuring the numbers show what the proponent wants to see and not the reality of the situation.

3) Has there been meaningful Public and Owner Surface Rights engagement? No, there has not been. An ER posting is no longer an adequate and meaningful public engagement. As an owner of surface rights of the Project Outline and not being engaged is beyond disgusting. I understand the scope of legislation likely indicates that only the Permit Area Outline must be directly engaged, but it is disrespectful and thoughtless to have an ER posting that shows a larger area of anticipated impact and not engage with impacted citizens and owners of the surface rights for larger project foot print. Prove to us that you understand and hear our concerns and work closer and more transparent with us in the future. Just because we do not have an Organized Municipality to protect us, does not mean we should be treated as if we have no value and easily taken advantage of.

4) Address housing and property value for the area. As you know there are few waterfront properties available within the 35 km radius of the City of Thunder Bay. There are over 240 residents/homes/camps on One Island / Burk Lake. All of our property should not loose value because activities that Ministry allows. A gain for Transition Metals Corp should not mean the loss of equity we hold in our homes and property. I understand that exploration will not instantly impact the value, but the concern is with the future implications. It appears there are strong deposits on the proponents website, I anticipate this is just the start – meaning significant impact to local activities, quality of life, access and aesthetics of where we live. Therefor, making my property less desirable and in turn less value. Is compensation something that is standard practice, if not how will the Province of Ontario compensate the surface owners if they approve such impacting activities in our back yard, or under our homes!

5) Explain to us the process and implications of successful exploration results?

6) Please explain to us what are our rights are as a recreational users or surface right owners that are impacted by the project outline and permit outline area?

7) Please explain to us how the Crown is being mindful of current and future land use planning for the area. This area is constantly being bombarded with commercial proposals that impact the life of citizens who live here. Has there been consideration made on the implications of approving such activities so close to Thunder Bay. Has expansion of our city been considered, the displaced people who may need to move because of such activities if approved, what will it look like for future generations? If it hasn’t been clear, we are living through an Environmental Crises – it is time for the Government to think ahead, long term, and prove to the people of Ontario that we can trust the government to do it’s job and ensure we are managing resources with a 100 year + lens. Short term action and gain is no longer adequate way to manage resources. It our future generations who will pay if we are not thoughtful, use science, consider and show alternative options, collect quantitative / qualitative data to measure impact of activities and share transparently with the people the information.

It is the government’s job, as per the Mining Act mandate and information the Ministry posts publicly that MENDM will ensure that all the above will be addressed adequately and appropriately.
I look forward to the ongoing discussion, engagement, and consideration that will be given to ALL the users of the land.

Thank you.

Concerned Citizen of Fowler Township, and for future generations.