Re: EBR # 010-6875 We are…

Re: EBR # 010-6875 We are writing this objection letter in response to the notice regarding the application for a Category 2, Class A (Below the Water Table) License by Giofam Investments Inc. (the “Proponent”) to mine granite from a deposit located on Part of Lots 18 through 21, Concession 4, and Part Lots 19 and 20, Concession 5, in the geographic Township of Dalton, formerly the County of Victoria, now in the City of Kawartha Lakes (the “Site”). Cranberry Lake is located approximately 3.5 kilometres north east of the proposed quarry site. There are 16 lots on the Lake and all cottagers have agreed to restrictions on their activities in order to preserve the environment and to help ensure people are able to enjoy the surroundings. The area contains Provincially Significant Wetlands and shares many of its features with the proposed quarry site, and the area between including the Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands Provincial Park (the “Park”). We object to the proposed quarry primarily to protect Species at Risk and their habitat. In light of our concerns we commissioned Dr. J. Litzgus, a professor of Biology at Laurentian University, to do a peer review of the Proponent’s Natural Environment Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments. This was presented to Paul Cutmore, MNR, on July 8, 2009, in support of our objections. As noted in Dr. Litzgus’ report, there is continuity of the wetlands between our location and the Site and many if not all of the Species at Risk would be common. In fact, we have historical accounts of sightings of Species at Risk at the Site. The Natural Environment Report notes five-lined skinks (a “species of concern”) on the rock barrens and potential breeding areas for loggerhead shrike (an “endangered species”). Blasting and other quarry operations would likely kill some of the former and destroy significant habitat for both. We believe in the protection of the unique natural features of the area both inside and outside of the Park and consider quarrying to be incompatible with the protection and low impact uses that we promote. We also have concerns with respect to quarrying below the water table. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the extent of the drawdown of the water table resulting from quarrying below the water table. There may be wide ranging effects on the ecosystem including the drying up of lakes, rivers and ponds. The estimated 130 year life of the operation is an extraordinarily long time frame to predict ecological effects. The generation of fines is also a reason for ecological concern. The Geology and Resource Report notes that “Losses of fines are high during processing and may be as high as 40%...” This means that a very large volume of fine rock material will be stored on site. The large surface area of these relatively small particles facilitates the movement of chemicals into solution when exposed to rain and especially the relatively acidic ground water in the area. We do not see that the report addresses this question. We also share the concerns of others in the area regarding excessive noise from the quarry operations, the negative effects associated with the generation of silica dust and the increased truck traffic. • The proposed hours of operation do not include maintenance activities at the quarry. This means that significant noise from vehicles and equipment will be heard over evenings and weekends when trucks are not being loaded. • Significant amounts of silica dust will be released by the blasting and crushing. The Proponent’s plan does not address this dangerous material in any direct way, implying that procedures for mitigating simple inert dust will suffice. This is not clear. • The traffic study significantly understates the impact of quarry traffic. The report states that in 2009 the quarry traffic will only increase Monk Rd. traffic by approximately 4%, implying that, for the purposes of evaluating noise, pollution, safety and road wear, one trip by a truck carrying 30 tonnes of rock is the same as a passenger car. Further, the report does not address the cost of upgrading and maintaining the proposed route to support the loads that the trucks will carry. We look forward to your response.