Comments

i am very concerned about this issue and i feel that the time allowed for comments is not long enough, people need at least 90 days to process the information and comment on it thank you

The amalgamation of these licenses is not in the public interest all the while the site continues to need inspection and the air quality remains suspect in surrounding areas.

Please allow a longer response time for this application to be done correctly. Should be at least 90 days.

I want to vomit - Another access from Cty Rd 6 - Add that to the proposed Walker Landfill access and a comprehensive traffic study needs to be done before even considering this amendment.

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.

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.

As one of many Woodstock residents opposed to the dump, I am very concerned about the lack of information the MNRF provides, the lack of time in the consultation period (running out on the 16th) and the lack of available staff during much of the time period.

This is way to short of a comment process.does not address water contamination,lower propriety values or envoromental issues relating to everybody health in the area.

Please consider for 60 more days to be added to the comment period. What is the harm in allowing more time for our community to review this? Other communities (London) have been allowed extensions on the commenting period. Why not us?

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.

To: Darryl Hagman, Aggregate Technical Specialist, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Aylmer Office 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 In what little

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

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

p>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.

I have witnessed First Nation claims to all lands between the highwater marks of the Thames river and the lands there under at the exact location of the 3 licenses being applied to be amalgamated.. The original Thames river bed is part of each one of these licenses.

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.