Objection to Instrument…

Objection to Instrument Proposal #013-4836 To amend the current site plan of the Fleming Quarry licence no. 3581 to integrate the operations with the proposed Fleming Quarry “Extension” application (if approved) located adjacent to and north of the existing quarry. The Fleming Quarry currently is authorized to operate below the water table. Item 1: Lower the final extraction elevation to deepen the quarry to a depth of 181 metres above sea level (masl) from the currently approved 211 masl. In matters to be considered by the Minister includes ARA section 12 (1) In considering whether a licence should be issued or refused, the Minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have regard to, (e) any possible effects on ground and surface water resources including on drinking water sources. Lake Couchiching is within 300m of the quarry and sits at approximately 220 masl. If the quarry goes as deep as 181 masl, this could have possible negative impacts on the lake, and the wetland on quarry property as well, which due to the SWH features within, is being treated as Significant Wildlife Habitat. Consider the threatened species Blanding’s turtles that have been documented on site, known to hibernate in this wetland. Fluctuating water levels from either water drawdown, or increase in water from quarry discharge will have devastating effects on hibernation, as well as the sensitive spawning and nesting times of other species at risk known to live in this wetland. Blasting deeper is the kind of blasting that shakes the bedrock on which our homes’ foundations rest. Going deeper also further risks our wells possibly being compromised in both quality and quantity, due to the potential drawdown on the water table, and bedrock aquifer. The water table sits at 219 masl. Since there is no cross-section of the existing water table on the November 2017 site plan (which is the version the MNRF states we should respond to for these EBR objections 013-4835 and 013-4836) that demonstrates where the quarry is now in relation to the water table, and where going deeper to 181 masl will be, we object to the extraction being permitted to go deeper. The MNRF objected to this omission as well. This omission only serves to illustrate how easily compromised our water could be as a result of extracting down to a depth of 181 masl. This is something that can only be satisfactorily addressed with preventative measures, i.e. not being allowed to go deeper, rather than via mitigative or reactive measures. Vibration from the deeper blasting and extraction could cause contaminated leachate from closed landfill A253402 to affect the groundwater. This landfill is situated in the middle of Fowler property at the southernmost boundary and was active between the 1960s, and closed in 1988. Members of the community remember being able to dump whatever they wanted in there without any oversight or controls. The existing and proposed quarries, as well as the wetlands, are within the 500-metre radius of influence. The negative impact of quarry operations on this untested landfill, namely leachate migration, could potentially be the problems of the township and local community for decades to come. Based on information from the two reports commissioned by Fowler (the Terraprobe D4 Assessment and the Hydrogeological Report by Golder Associates), Terraprobe states that this landfill site has not been tested by any agency: Not Simcoe County, not the MOECC, and Terraprobe did not see fit to test or monitor the actual soil. Interestingly, there was not even any information available to Terraprobe when they made a request under the Freedom of Information Act. To quote from page 5 of Golder Associates’ hydrogeological report: “Unweathered and unfractured metamorphic rocks (such as the quartzo-feldspathic gneiss or mafic gneiss seen at the site) have primary porosities (i.e. natural volume of void space) that are typically less than two percent, and primary permeabilities close to zero. Secondary porosity and permeability are commonly developed through fracturing and weathering of the rock. Fractured metamorphic rocks may exhibit secondary porosities up to ten percent (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Groundwater flow within such bedrock aquifers is primarily through secondary porosity from fractures that have developed.” This would indicate that not only is seepage already occurring naturally at 2%, but is made worse by the quarry activity that would create the secondary porosity via fractures, resulting in a 10% leakage. I object to any risk of toxins leaching from the abandoned landfill into the water supply. Our community is protected from this risk under Bill 139 as noted above. Item 2: Reduce the excavation setback from 15 metres to 0 metres where the existing licence and the proposed “extension” are directly adjacent to each other. I am only addressing the existing Fleming Quarry, which as stated above is approximately 80 metres from the nearest residence. Numerous potentially hazardous issues facing local residents have been documented and not addressed nor resolved by Fowler Construction Company Limited. Allowing this setback offers no future solution to community concerns. Item 3: Reduce the excavation setback along the western boundary from 52 metres to 30 metres to enable the relocation of a hydro line. According to Hydro One, they are not aware of any official plans to relocate hydro lines (either public or private) at this site. I object to Fowler’s using this as their reasoning to reduce the setback dangerously and unreasonably close to a residential area, as it does not appear to be true. There are approximately 150 full time and seasonal residences within an 80 to 500-metre radius of the existing Fleming Quarry. Reducing the setback as requested may set the stage for the following potentially hazardous situations: •Flyrock: a mining engineer with more than 60 years experience has reviewed both the Explotech and Golder reports states that there is significant evidence this quarry should be no closer than 600 metres to the nearest residence. That is, the quarry in its current state is already too close to a residential area. This independently consulted engineer’s peer review of the Explotech report is available upon request. •Road closures during blasts: Rama Road, a significant traffic corridor running north from Switch Road, is routinely closed by Fowler Construction staff, and not by trained police officers. Fowler staff have been observed removing flyrock debris from Rama Road post-detonation, with the existing Fleming quarry’s current 52 metre setback. For Fowler to be able to come 22 metres closer to Rama Road, where the closest home is already 80 metres away, and most of the homes in the northern end of Floral Park are within an average of approximately 300 metres, Fowler’s request to reduce the setback is unreasonable, and dangerous. In the name of community safety, I object to the setback being reduced. Does Fowler staff have the authority to close the road? In the event of a blast-related disaster requiring emergency services, would emergency services get there in time? Are Fowler staff trained in the rudiments of emergency services practice and procedures? Who would be liable in an emergency situation that was improperly handled, or if anyone were personally injured or killed by flyrock, or had their property damaged by flyrock? Item 4: Revise the tonnage condition of 300,000 tonnes annually to be in combination with the proposed “Extension.” •I object to the “extension” requests being merged with the existing quarry requirements. The proposed site is zoned Rural (RU) and not Mineral Aggregate Extraction (MAE). •I object to the 300,000 tonnes per annum being removed from the licence to the site plan reducing the “red tape” Fowler Construction Ltd. requires to adjust shipping or excavation quantities. This means less accountability and transparency to the local residents and taxpayers, MNRF, and Township of Ramara. Item 5: Add technical report recommendations and mitigation measures from the completed studies undertaken for the Fleming Quarry and proposed “extension” as conditions on the site plan. •As I understand it, a condition on the site plan can be easily amended versus if it were on the licence schedule. If any recommendations and mitigation measures are to be followed, they would more likely be implemented if they were conditions within the licence. Item 6: Add a condition that allows aggregate from the proposed “extension” to be shipped to the existing quarry for processing. •Additional trucks shipping within quarry property means additional trucks on our local roads. This is unacceptable given the potentially hazardous traffic situation that exists today with the Fleming Quarry. Located in the high traffic intersection of Rama and Switch Roads, residents have strong evidence of gravel trucks and other Fowler staff vehicles disregarding Provincial Traffic laws. Dozens of Fowler-owned and/or contractor gravel trucks have been recorded blatantly disobeying the stop sign at Rama and Switch Roads. •It should also be noted there is a school bus stop within approximately 20 meters to the north of this intersection. Year round, this area is also frequently travelled by residents, tour buses, and visitors to Casino Rama. •Traffic is significantly increased during the summer months by seasonal property owners plus numerous visitors travelling through the area to cottages and other rural activities. Tourism is an integral revenue generator in our area, and results in many newcomers driving down Rama Road who may not be aware of the unpredictability of the massive quarry trucks constantly rumbling onto Switch from Rama Road, or Rama to Switch Road. Hazardous operation of quarry vehicles could potentially increase the risk of serious crashes, or worse. •Processing on-site creates a non-stop noise and dust pollution environment within the neighbourhood, from 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday. I object to this hazard to our health and safety. I object to the fact that there is no requirement under the ARA to undertake a study for Dust-Nuisance Impact Analysis. In a letter included on page 63 of the Planning and Justification Report, Simcoe County planner Greg Marek MCIP, RPP originally felt this should be required, and so do the residents. Item 7: Allow a condition which allows topsoil and subsoil to be shipped between the two sites for rehabilitation purposes. •What is in the soil and residue dust dispersed from the Fleming Quarry during the processing stage? The existing Fleming Quarry needs to be tested for the possibility of silica dust— a known carcinogen and by-product of granite processing in open pit quarry mining similar to the Fleming site. Silicosis and cancer are potentially lethal results of working in a granite pit that might affect workers, and residents living within 500 metres of the Fleming Quarry. •At the March 18th, 2019 Ramara township Committee of the Whole meeting, council passed a motion to address community concerns about the potential existence of deadly silica dust which is rendered airborne when the soil is moved or disturbed. The township is requesting the MOECC investigate whether there is any evidence of silica dust, and I object to any of these amendments being approved before results of any dust-testing are available. This request is still pending and no further activity should continue until there is confirmation that silica dust is NOT present on the Fleming Quarry or Woods Quarry. I have that right, according to the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8 section 12(1): Matters to be considered by Minister: In considering whether a licence should be issued or refused, the Minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have regard to, (b) the effect of the operation of the pit or quarry on nearby communities; (c) any comments provided by a municipality in which the site is located. •As the existing site is phased out the topsoil from the proposed extended site can be used to enhance rehabilitation of the existing site, is the soil/dust not contaminated with silica dust? •Are all parties involved, namely, Fowler, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of the Environment, Simcoe County, and the Township of Ramara, to name a few, 100% certain that there is no trace of silica dust? Are all of the aforementioned parties so confident they will be able to defend their position to approve the Fowler Construction Company’s licence amendments if there is an increase in lung cancer and/or respiratory illnesses among local residents and construction employees? Item 8: Add a condition which allows for relief from fencing requirements and setbacks for various activities (e.g. stockpiles, processing equipment) along the common boundary of the existing quarry and proposed “extension.” • The property is zoned as Rural, and is not licensed for Mineral Aggregate Extraction. A licence cannot be issued unless the zoning bylaw amendment is approved by Ramara Council. It must be noted that in May of 2018, more than 175 letters of objection from local property owners/residents were filed with the MNRF and Fowler Construction Company, and an additional 60 letters were sent to the Township of Ramara objecting to the Fowler/Fleming Quarry applications to extend their current site as well as expand their operations to above mentioned rural property. •The more pressing issues of fencing are those of exclusion fencing for reptiles to be erected around only the active extraction area such that habitat in later operational phases is still available for species to utilize in the interim. The current fencing is wire fencing a person could walk between at the quarry boundary, as well as what looks like landscaper’s cloth or a tarp held up by posts separating the wetland from the quarry ridge does not remotely exclude anything from getting through. Item 9: Permit a vertical face along the west boundary of the site instead of 2:1 side sloping reflect the proposed extraction limit and depth of the Fleming Quarry and show integration with the proposed “extension” site. •I reject this request for permission to leave the sheer rock face of the western wall in vertical form. This potentially dangerous situation is an accident waiting to happen for anyone wandering around exploring the area when quarry operations are discontinued. •For any migrating animals, this would have devastating effects as well on their population. The peer reviewer requested the 2:1 slope, and Fowler wants to reverse this recommendation. As the MNRF stated in their objection letter dated May 14th, 2018, they have concerns with the variation on the site plan related to Operational Standard 5.19.2 which requires that when the site is finally rehabilitated, all excavation faces of any quarry has a slope that is at least two (2) horizontal metres for every vertical metre with some exceptions. It is their position that Fowler’s explanation for retaining the vertical faces does not meet the conditions under which exceptions may be considered. These exceptions are listed in Policy A.R. 2.00.03. Item 10: Permit construction of noise attenuating berms along the western boundary and the southwest corner of the site that will remain a part of the final rehabilitated landform. •Why is Floral Park, populated by approximately 150 cottages and homes west of the quarry being designated, according to the Noise Impact Analysis, by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., as a Class 2 Area, and the area of homes east of the quarry considered to be a Class 3 Area? According to the noise attenuation report: “The receptor to the east of the Fleming Quarry site (i.e. R07) is considered to be in a Class 3 Area, according to the MOECC definition. A Class 3 Area is an area that has an existing acoustical environment dominated by the sounds of nature. The receptors to the north, west and south of the site (i.e. R01, R02, R03, R04, R05, R06, R08 and R09) are considered to be in a Class 2 Area. A Class 2 Area has an acoustical environment that is dominated by the activities of people, usually road traffic, during the daytime (07:00 to 19:00) but has a low evening and nighttime background sound level defined by the natural environment and infrequent human activity.” According to the MOECC, a Class 3 Area means: A rural area with an acoustical environment that is dominated by natural sounds having little or no road traffic, such as the following: • a small community with less than 1000 population; • agricultural area; • a rural recreational area such as a cottage or a resort area; or • a wilderness area. The Floral Park area west of the quarry by that same reasoning should be classified as a Class 3 Area, and be subject to the stricter standards of noise levels permitted as well. I object to any amendments being approved before the MOECC can investigate why the community of approximately 150 cottages and homes has not been given Class 3 Area designation. Item 11: Show a wetland in the eastern portion of the site. There is a wetland in the eastern portion of the site that is home to many species at risk, as well as six endangered, and threatened species: 1. Butternut tree 2. Bank Swallow 3. Little Brown Bat 4. Northern Long-eared Bat 5. Eastern Hog-nosed Snake 6. Blanding’s Turtle •These species and their habitat features have given cause for the wetland to be treated as Significant Wildlife Habitat, despite it not being provincially designated as such, for some reason. However, from what observations indicate, any mitigations do not seem to be in effect currently (water levels fluctuate, no visible exclusion fencing, only what appears to be a black tarp pegged loosely on stakes at the water’s edge, discharge water being dumped from the quarry into the Green River Tributary, where sometimes a rainbow sheen indicative of oil is sometimes visible on the water’s surface beside Switch Road, etc.) so my concern is that mitigations/recommendations will similarly not be implemented going forward. •Due to heavily fluctuating water levels observed in the past, there should be additional surface water monitoring points, with oversight given to the MNRF as to their placement. •As the MNRF suggests, more clarification is needed of what will be the triggers for the development of any mitigation measures and the associated details with respect to reporting to the MNRF. The specifics of the monitoring, reporting, and mitigation measures must be included in the notes of the site plans. •Recommend that an independent third party should be allowed to monitor the wildlife on a regular basis for the duration of the active quarry’s lifetime, to ensure health of the wildlife population, and to ensure mitigative measures continue to be implemented.