Please be advised that I…

Please be advised that I object to the proposed Quarry. The Quarry will have adverse effects and negative impacts on the health, safety, quality of life and well-being of the public and me, properties, the natural environment and the environment. Summary of objections; 1. Entrance location – directly across from the front of my property, turn lane, acceleration lane, and staging area are not proposed. There is no shoulder area. A vehicle was in the ditch when trying to make a 3 point turn on July 02, 2009. There is a curve from the west and downhill slope and a hill from the east and uphill slope making this a dangerous location - Appendix A 2. Service facility location – less than 20 metres from Monck Road and directly in front of my property and kitchen window. Pollution from Sewage, Fuel and Facility view -Appendix B 3. Traffic – the sight stopping distances are less than 180 metres. The sight stopping distances quoted are for passenger vehicles and not buses and trucks. Truck volume will be much higher than stated due to peak periods - Appendix A 4. Health – Water quantity and quality, Dust, Silica (silicosis), Noise and Pollution. 5. Water – below water table, the flow is to Monck Road and the Head River. My Property is at risk of damage to the water table by the Quarry. Diversion a water sources. Permit to take water MOE. 6. Noise – Blast, Processing and Truck 7. Dust – Blast, Fines and Truck 8. Pollution – airborne dust, particulate matter and toxic gas emissions from blast, trucks and equipment. Certificate of Approval. 9. Blast – damage to property, persons animals and pets, blast window times too long, noise, dust, silica (silicosis) vibration, overpressure etc. winds from north northwest directly to my property. 10. Fencing – around entire property 11. Environmental –endangered species wildlife, spotted turtle, and loggerhead shrike. Destruction of wildlife and fish habitat. 12. Archaeological – burial site, Aboriginals not consulted areas not tested see attached – Appendix C 13. Mitigation - Management and monitoring who, when and where, guarantees of performance 14. Heritage Buildings – on site 15. Rehabilitation Plan – none. 16. Road upgrade and improvement cost by proponent. 17. Distance to Monck Road 600 metres from blast area, trucks and service facility 20 metres. 18. Property – the original plan was 148~ hectares and the current is 84~ hectares the entire property is 350~ hectares and should all be part of the review and analysis. The Natural Environment Report (April 2008) indicates 148 hectares. 19. The estimated quarry life is 130 years! No one should be provided a licence for that period of time. The water and filling of the lake areas is expected to be fifty (50) more years if it comes back at all. I request that the MNR have regard for provisions in municipal official plans and zoning by-laws that protect the natural environment, the environment, and the health, safety, quality of life and well-being of citizens and properties. I request that the MNR request that the Ministry of the Environment comprehensively review and comment on all technical reports (e.g. hydrogeological, noise, air quality, natural heritage resources) prepared in support of the quarry application. If no formal evaluation has been done, I request that a comprehensive wetlands evaluation be completed by qualified MNR staff on the subject site and adjacent lands to determine the significance of the wetland or wetland complex. I object to the proposal as the Quarry will have adverse effects and negative impacts on the health, safety, quality of life and well-being of the public, properties, the natural environment and the environment. Archaeological Report The Archaeological Report is not complete and is not what is on file with the Ministry of Culture. 1. The Stage 1 Report is based on an area of 148.2 hectares and the Stage 2 Report Revised April 2008 is 83.93 hectares. 2. The Stage 2 Report refers to an original May 2007 Report which is not included. The Ministry of Culture has the May 2007 referenced report on file the report circulated is “revised April 2008”. All the reports must be provided. 3. The transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2 leaves gaps in the analysis i.e. areas that were designated for testing in the Stage 1 Report but were not tested. (See figure 2 Stage2 and Figure 3 Stage 2). The north-west area was not tested nor was the south side. Different maps were used. The same base maps should have been used and / or an overlay of the maps should be included. The full designated area should be tested. 4. A burial site was discovered on the property see attached PDF. “Archaeological Assessments Ltd., MCL, as well as the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, should also be notified immediately if any human remains are discovered. “ The property should be more thoroughly reviewed with regard to burial sites. 5. The Stage 1 Report references - 1994 Report on the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources of the District of Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks. Volumes 1-3. What is the relevance of this reference? The Wahta are based near Bala in Muskoka and did not come to the area until the 1870s. Were the Aboriginal communities contacted regarding the property? Reference 2006 Draft Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines. Ministry of Culture, Toronto.