Comments

Doubling the tonnage makes little environmental, economic or social sense. It needs to be turned down. The environmental impacts of this license and those which it is proposed that it be amalgamated with are already the subject of numerous Spills Line complaints. Read more

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.

Read more

More time is necessary in order to submit a response to this. Ninety days would be appropriate.

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. Read more

It is very difficult to comment when access to information is very limited and when given such a short time frame of 30 days. How can one compare the current plans with the new ones? Much is at stake and the MNRF should be ensuring that the Carmeuse is following due process.

In regard to 012-9843. In this proposed change there are no site plans shown and the present ones are not there to compare to either. It is poor planning to only give 30 days to comment especially when the case officer has not been available for most of that time to ask questions of.

Read more

I am writing in concern of the amalgamation of laws that Carmeuse can increase the tonnage they excavate. It's concerning that in the 30 day period the case office has been grossly absent. In the 30 days, the rest of the details have not been made available to the public. Read more

Re EBR 012-9843 Carmeuse Lime (Canada) limited, a proposal to Add rescind or vary a conditon of licence to amalgamate Licence no 2130 and 2136 impacting the area of 3 licensed sites under the reference of 2136 While this action is purported to result in a decrease of annual production it remai Read more

This amalgamation of these quarry licenses will include a site that is over 100 years old. Read more

To: Darryl Hagman, Acting Aggregate Technical Specialist, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry April, 2017 Re: Comments on EBR numbers: 012-9852, 012-9850, 012-9849, 012-9848, 012-9845, 012-9843 – A Lack of information related to Site Plan Notes and Licence Conditions I object to the ch Read more

This proposed site amalgamation reopens conditions for the rehabilitation of this area. When you look at how other quarries are rehabilitated like St Mary’s , Innerkip, Port Colborne, and compare it to how sparse the rehabilitation plans are for Carmeuse, we have an opportunity to require Read more

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. Read more

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. Read more

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. This was confirmed by MNRF employee M Read more

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 ??? - Why was a letter not se Read more

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. Read more