Commentaires

I think the period for the submissions should be much longer, at least 3 months, to allow people enough time to become aware of what is happening and give them time to research and present their comments thanks

Scant information is posted here. I don't know how the public could make informed comment based on this, although I will offer the following: 1. Without a detailed rehab plan, the posting makes little sense and should be closed, then put up with detailed plans and maps 2.

I request the time period for submissions be extended to 90 days as opposed to the 30 days now given. 30 days in not adequate time for the public to study and reply to the proposals. I am opposed to the muddification of the waters around the proposed dump site.

More time is needed in order to submit a proper response. I am requesting at least 90 days for this to be done.

The 30 day comment period is unreasonable and unacceptable. This is a very complex proposal with serious environmental implications. The comment period must be extended to a minimum of 90 days

Please make sure the comment period for this proposal is at least 90 days to allow all concerned parties to have their say.

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.

Please accept these comments as applying to the 6 concurrent EBR postings that are inter-related: 012-9852, 012-9850, 012-9849, 012-9848, 012-9845, 012-9843.

Oxford Green Watch is a not-for-profit group based in Zorra Township, Ontario. We are commenting on the 6 related Carmeuse Lime EBR postings, including this one, in order to point out that the 30 day comment period is inadequate.

This amalgamation of these quarry licenses will include a site that is over 100 years old. The ARA states that this is to be an interim use of the land and yet none of this site has ever been surrendered.

Mr.

This proposed site amalgamation reopens conditions for the rehabilitation of this area.

This proposed site amalgamation reopens conditions for the rehabilitation of this area.

This amalgamation of these quarry licenses will include a site that is over 100 years old. The ARA states that this is to be an interim use of the land and yet none of this site has ever been surrendered.

My concerns, and questions resulting form a series of email correspondence with Mr. Hagman, (see below) are two fold: Mr. Hagman’s contact information is: Darryl Hagman A/Aggregates Technical Specialist Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Aylmer, ON 615 John St. N.

According to an email from Darryl Hagman of the MNRF there have been no technical studies done on the Carmeuse sites because of “Grandfathering”. AS A CITIZEN, IF I WISH TO UPGRADE OR CHANGE MY HOUSE WIRING, I AM REQUIRED TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CODE.

I was unable, like many others in my community, to make this presentation at an earlier Council meeting, due to a technical failure of the EBR site, which frustrated many of us and prevented even the most basic access to the limited information on the EBR.

I have a series of questions that I hope can be answered before a decision can be made. - where is this new exit that is referred to in the notes but is not indicated anywhere else and hence we do not know its’ location , so how is it possible to make comment on it ???

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE MNRF SEND A LETTER TO THE MOECC REQUESTING COMMENT BECAUSE : The MOECC is currently under the impression and I quote: “The Carmeuse Quarry is separate from the proposed Walker Landfill. The landfill is proposed in the non-active portion (already quarried) of the quarry.