This proposed quarry is too…

This proposed quarry is too close to our community and would cause considerable adverse impacts to residents and visitors. Some of the impacts would not be felt for years – for example, illness and fatalities due to the added PM2.5 in the air; deterioration of the quality/quantity of our well water. Some impacts would be felt immediately – large gravel trucks diverting from a backed-up highway and travelling alongside pedestrians and cyclists in our village, the incessant noise and dust from blasting and aggregate processing. It is imperative that a fulsome analysis of the risks associated with the quarry be conducted. There are areas that were not studied and others where the scope was not adequately inclusive.

As a citizen concerned about the impact on the health and safety of the proposed Quarry on the community, the development of a comprehensive Terms of Reference is imperative to properly direct the assessment. Defining the Terms of Reference must be open, transparent, and allow the full participation of the public, as well as key stakeholders including ACTION Milton.

Below, I provide a list of issues of particular concern to me. Although many details of these issues have been addressed by the proponent’s consultants and have been reviewed in great detail by the JART organizations and their consultants, I remain concerned that the review has not adequately addressed all my concerns.

• Underwater blasting
o I am concerned that blasts detonated adjacent to and below the bottom of the pond, could cause irrecoverable damage to the groundwater supplying private and municipal wells. The groundwater flows slowly meaning that we might not see the impact of the blasting on our wells for several years making it easier for the proponent to deny liability for any future reduction in the quality and/or quantity of water supplying both private and municipal wells.

• Flyrock
o The potential for flyrock on the 401 does not seem to have been studied adequately. Our understanding is that because the blast takes place adjacent to a pond, risk of flyrock is deemed to be inconsequential. This does not make sense. There are vertical forces as seen when blast mats lift on detonation of a charge; these forces are not 100% controllable and flyrock can be the result. As well, there is exposed vertical rock above the pond water level which is not at all mitigated by the presence of the water.
o The proponent stated that flyrock will not occur because it is not allowed. This is condescending at best and reinforces the need for additional study.

• Traffic/Road Safety
o The impact on 401 traffic was not part of the scope of studies done to-date. This is unacceptable. Big fully loaded gravel trucks entering and leaving the 401 will disrupt traffic flow on the 401. A full highway corridor management study needs to be conducted.
o During times of highway congestion, it seems obvious that the gravel trucks will travel on municipal roads. The impact of these trucks travelling through the community has not been adequately studied.

• Air Quality
o Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is a known hazard and greater exposure increases risk. This risk to public health of the additive impact of this invisible dust has not been quantified or studied adequately.

• Natural Environment
o It is difficult for me to understand how the value of the site’s Provincially Significant Wetlands is being protected. Simply managing water level (if indeed that is achievable) will not protect against the incessant dust, blasting, noise and truck traffic on this important ecosystem.
o The Province states that the value of wetlands includes:
 groundwater storage and release
 provision of habitat for wildlife species, including species at risk
 ecosystem productivity and biological diversity
 flood damage prevention
 harvestable product provision
 improved water quality
 recreational opportunities
o A study needs to be undertaken to determine whether the licensing of this quarry would be consistent with the stated value of these important wetlands which are rated as being Provincially Significant.
o I do not feel that there has been adequate study pertaining the presence of protected species on the property. I understand, for example, that a study was completed for Jefferson Salamanders but I don’t believe it was comprehensive.

• Noise
o Along with the blasting vibration, noise would be incessant from the extraction and crushing of rock and the acceleration/deceleration of gravel trucks 6 days per week.
o I volunteer at a local farmed animal sanctuary and I worry about the impact of the blasting vibration on the animal residents at the farm

• Recycling/Reprocessing Asphalt & Concrete
o Permitting the stockpiling of used asphalt and concrete on the site and the reprocessing of them is a source of potential contamination which I understand has not been adequately studied.

• Definition of Environment
o Additional areas of concern which were not raised as part of the study include the “social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community”
o As noted in the ERO posting, over 1000 letters of objection were received by the MNRF. If the EA is conducted, each of these letters needs to be reviewed by the MECP to gain further insight into and to address both the technical and overall societal concerns of the community.
o I also worry about the impact of the quarry on the value of my home. I plan to use the equity I’ve saved through home ownership to supplement my retirement income. If property values drop, I will be negatively impacted during my retirement years.
o Campbellville is an important destination for outdoor activities. We have hikers, cyclists and many others who enjoy the local roads and conservation areas. Their enjoyment of the area would be negatively impacted by the presence of large gravel trucks on the roads and the dust and noise from the quarry.
o I am also worried about the integrity of our political system. The Premier asserted he does not want this quarry. The Town and Region have also stated they are not in favour of licensing the quarry. There was an error of some sort made a few years ago where the site was to be rezoned but the Town somehow didn’t comply with the Regional Official Plan leaving a discrepancy between the two. I worry that statements of leading politicians and the misalignment between tiers of government plans indicates cracks in our democracy.
o A Minister’s Zoning Order could be used to reduce the societal impact of this quarry on the community; however it appears to only be used to promote development; not to protect the environment.

It simply does not make sense to license a quarry so close to the community, adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands and beside a 400-series highway. While I appreciate the work that has been done to-date by the local governments, I remain concerned that there are gaps in the studies which present significant risk to the community. I implore the MECP to include the public in defining a broad Terms of Reference to review the potential impact of this quarry and to exercise the right to “refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking”. In other words, support the Premier in his assertion that this quarry will be stopped “one way or another”.