The Proposal Summary of ERO…

The Proposal Summary of ERO 019-5660 advises that Walker Aggregates Inc. has applied to increase the amount of excess soil that can be imported to the Ridgemount Quarry. The Proposal Details with respect to "the site plan" are confusing. The Aggregate Resources Site Plan Standards states that all site plans must be prepared according to the following minimum requirements for Rehabilitation:
62. A statement indicating whether any soil, topsoil or fill material will be imported to the site for rehabilitation purposes. Where rehabilitation materials are to be imported, details of the type, use, volumes and quality of those materials, as well as details on any related testing, tracking and record-keeping that will be carried out.
64. Details about how the slopes will be established on the excavation faces and the pit/quarry floor.
67. For an application for a Class A licence ... the final elevation of the rehabilitated area of the site illustrated by a one or two metre contour interval(s) expressed as metres above mean sea level.

This ERO Proposal Details indicate that "the licensee has calculated that the required rehabilitation, which is outlined on the site plan, will require the importation of 5,975,000 m3 of excess soil over the life of the quarry." This calculation of volume of soil to be imported for rehabilitation, however, is a requirement for an aggregate licence approval. Why is the licensee applying for an amendment to increase the amount of excess soil since this amount would have been submitted as part of the existing licence.
1. What site plan is referenced above? A proposed amended site plan or the existing site plan?
2. How is it possible (as stated in the Proposal Details) that this amendment will not change the final rehabilitation of the quarry? The quarry floor would be raised, two islands built and the amount of excess soil increased.
3. What is the benefit to Walker Aggregates Inc.? The financial gain if using the Rigemount Quarry as a reuse/receiving site for almost 6 million m3 of excess soil is significant.
4. What is the cost to the community, municipality, region? If the amendment were approved, hundreds of thousands of truckloads of soil would be entering and leaving the quarry for an undetermined length of time, possibly decades. Is this interim? This is in addition to the years of extraction.
5. Since the proposal is to dump below water table, all soils will be Table 1. Filling a quarry floor is not a beneficial reuse the Table l soil. What is the test to determine "beneficial"?
6. The construction of two islands with Table 1 soil is not a "beneficial" use of Table 1 soil. These areas should have been left out of the extraction area.

In conclusion, this amendment does not demonstrate a beneficial reuse of Table l soil. The references to "the" site plan are unclear (current or proposed). Approving this amendment is unfair to the residents. The proposed amount of soil is excessive. Is this rehabilitation or a soil reuse site?