1  

CHERYL CONNORS 16851 Mount Wolfe Road

Caledon, ON L7E 3P6 April 16, 2012 Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District Office 50 Bloomington Road, 4th Floor Aurora, ON L4G 0L8 Attention: Brent Armstrong The following are my objections to the proposed site plan amendment application for License #6677, Brock Aggregates Inc., Part Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion), Town of Caledon, Region of Peel: 1. VIOLATION OF OAK RIDGES MORAINE LEGISLATION & OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION PLAN This proposed major site plan amendment, if approved, would create a violation of Oak Ridges Moraine Legislation & the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Section 7 (1) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Legislation states that 7. 1) A decision that is made under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation to a prescribed matter, by a municipal council, local board, municipal planning authority, minister of the Crown or ministry, board, commission or agency of the Government of Ontario, including the Ontario Municipal Board, shall conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. 2001, c. 31, s. 7 (1). The subject property is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Area and is designated as a Natural Linkage Area and Country Side Area (Palgrave Estate Residential Community). Section 35(2) of the ORMCP states that in Natural Linkage Areas, “… there will be no extraction within 1.5 metres of the water table”.

  2  

The MNR’s policy (AR 5.00.00) states that the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”) applies to changes to site plans:

The Review of Proposed Changes to Site Plans and Conditions of the Licences or Wayside Permits under the ARA

MNR will have regard to the requirements of section 35 of the ORMCP when considering requests for changes to site plans or conditions of existing licences and wayside permits.

MNR should not approve changes that would constitute a new conflict of the requirements of section 35 of the ORMCP or a significant increase in the amount or extent of an existing conflict.

However, MNR can apply some discretion in dealing with situations where a conflict is insignificant or does not exacerbate the degree to which an existing licence or permit does not comply with section 35 of the ORMCP. For example, minor adjustments to permissions already permitted in the licence (e.g. changes in sequencing and planning) or relatively minor extensions to a pond that extends below the water table.

There are also situations where a change that conflicts with the ORMCP requirements could be considered for health or safety reasons (e.g. a minor expansion into a significant woodlot to stabilize an unstable slope).

When MNR supports such changes, the basic justification and rationale for such change should be clearly documented in the file.

MNR has acknowledged that the current application is a major site plan amendment. MNR Aggregate Policy AR 5.00.00 states that ORMCP section 35 would apply. Section 35 clearly states that there will be no extraction within 1.5 metres of the water table in Natural Linkage Areas. The 32.7-hectare site has a current licensed extraction area of 15.7 ha. 5.3 ha is permitted to be below the water table (even though only 3.8 ha is the size of the current pit lake). The amendment to the existing license would increase the area of extraction to 24.9 ha, with a below the water table extraction of 15.4 ha. Tripling the size of the below-the-water table extraction cannot be characterized as “relatively minor”.

  3  

Additionally, Section 35(2) also states that there must at all times be excluded area (both undisturbed and completely rehabilitated land) that is at least 1.25 kilometres wide. Due to the small size of this pit (with a width of less than 1.25 km), any increase in the extraction footprint (i.e. above the water table) would also not be allowed under the ORMCP, as the pit already exceeds the maximum area allowed to be disturbed at any one time. 2. THREATS TO WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY Brock Aggregates has already demonstrated that it does not have an adequate water-monitoring program in place. Three years of well monitoring tests by Groundwater Science Corp. were submitted to MNR in September 2011 (2008, 2009, and 2010). These tests show that this site is already a contaminated site with test results showing elevated levels of coliform and fecal coliform. Brock proposes to decrease the number of well monitors to three (all at the north side of the pit), while increasing the size of the pond to five times its current size. An alternative Town water supply does not exist. If the wells fail if this license is approved, hundreds of homes potentially will be without water. Even if someone were to pay the millions of dollars to bring in Town water, residents could still be without water for several months if not years.

At the two community information meetings held by the Town of Caledon and the meeting held by Brock Aggregates, many long-time residents in the immediate area of the pit reported that ponds and creeks on their properties completely dried up and wells failed when the Tottenham Pit lake was first created, particularly in the 1980s.

The Oak Ridges Moraine maps show that the area where the Tottenham Pit and nearby residences are located are in an area where the aquifer is considered to have the highest level of vulnerability.

There has been one hydrogeological study commissioned by Brock Aggregates by Gartner Lee that stated that there would be minimal affect on the aquifer system. Gartner Lee quotes Groundwater Science Corp that the groundwater direction is north. Gartner Lee’s representative at the public meeting stated that the groundwater direction is northeast. (This northeast direction is not contained anywhere in Gartner Lee’s submitted

  4  

hydrogeological report so where did this conflicting information come from? Is it north or is it northeast?)

Earlier hydrogeological studies state that the groundwater flow direction is north, south, east & west, including a 65-page hydrogeological study created by Dr. Sklash a professional engineer and hydrogeologist.

Why has Gartner Lee, MNR and MOE relied on the work of Groundwater Science Corp for an opinion on the groundwater flow direction? Why did Gartner Lee not consult the groundwater reports prepared for the area for groundwater source protection committees?

Groundwater Science Corp. uses promotional material that boasts of being "consultants for many successful Aggregate Resource Act License applications" and being a “proud member in good standing of the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (OSSGA)”. How can this be considered to be a fair and impartial study?

Further, there is reportedly an unconfined aquifer (the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer) below this site. Contamination will enter this unconfined aquifer quickly. The sandy nature of the soil in this area increases the risk of contamination due to leaching. Do we need to have another Walkerton situation before the Province will pay attention to the concerns of this community?

A hydrogeological study should be conducted by an independent professional hydrogeologist and peer-reviewed.

Hydrogeological surveys are projections only. The reality is that they don’t know what will happen when you concentrate this type of activity (digging below the water table in such a large area i.e. 32 hectares) on our precious resource (both quantity and quality of groundwater). To our knowledge, there is no other pit or quarry located in Ontario in the midst of a residential housing development, so close to such a large number of homes all on private wells.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority was misled by Brock Aggregates when they requested a review because they were informed by Brock that the site plan amendment was “minor in nature”.

  5  

Gartner Lee Ltd. Hydrogeological Assessment Report For Below Water Extraction Report Dated May, 2008 The only technical report submitted by the licensee in support of the proposed amendment is a Hydrogeological Assessment for Below Water Extraction dated May 2008 prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd. The Hydrogeological Assessment Report appears to have been prepared haphazardly with some parts referring to a Section 2.1 Hydrogeological Level 1 assessment and other parts referring to a Section 2.2 Hydrogeological Level 2 assessment apparently using the Provincial Standards (1997) issued under Regulation 244/97 of the Aggregate Resources Act (1990). In January 2010, the Region of Peel apparently did not feel that the May, 2008 Hydrogeological Assessment for Below Water Extraction prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd. dated May 2008 was adequate and requested that the licensee submit an updated Hydrogeology Report. Has the licensee submitted an updated hydrogeology report to the Region of Peel as requested? The Ministry of the Environment apparently did not review the Gartner Lee Ltd. Report dated May, 2008 until January, 2011, a year after the Region of Peel requested an updated hydrogeological report. By the time the MOE reviewed the Gartner Lee Ltd. Hydrogeological Assessment Report, the information in the report was outdated by at least 2 ½ years. Why did the MOE not request an updated Hydrogeology Report as was requested a year earlier by the Region of Peel? Did the MOE not evaluate the adequacy, the accuracy and the datedness of the information in the Hydrogeological Assessment for Below Water Extraction prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd. dated May 2008 when it undertook its review? The “current” site plan dated May 25, 2000 predates the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. Information in the “current” site plan may not be consistent with provisions in the various provincial policies in the 2005 PPS. Is the information in the Gartner Lee Ltd Hydrogeological Assessment Report (May, 2008) submitted with the request for the licence site plan amendment in November 2009 consistent with water policies in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement?

  6  

What watershed and/or subwatersheds are associated with the pit site and the surrounding area? Why does the Gartner Lee Ltd. Hydrogeological Assessment dated May, 2008 not contain any reference to the watershed and/or subwatersheds in the area? Has Gartner Lee Ltd. fulfilled the requirement to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning as required in the Water Policy for Ontario as stated in the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement? Provincial Policy Statement (2005) Section 2.2 Water 2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: (a) using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning: (b) minimizing potential negative impacts, including cross-jurisdictional and cross-watershed impacts; (c) identifying surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed; (d) implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to: l. Protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and 2. protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions; (e) maintaining linkages and related functions among surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas; (f) promoting efficient and sustainable use of water resources, including practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality; and (g) ensuring stormwater management practices minimize stormwater volumes and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces. 2.2.1 Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface water features, sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions.

  7  

Unconfined Aquifer Gartner Lee Ltd. reported that the hydrogeology of the entire pit site and the surrounding area was characterized by a shallow unconfined aquifer contained within sand and gravel deposits. Gartner Lee Ltd. did not identify the aquifer underlying the site and the surrounding area. There are actually three aquifers in the area of the pit (the Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer, the Thorncliffe Aquifer, and the Scarborough Aquifer). The Toronto Regional Conservation Authority has indicated that this is the reason why it is difficult to accurately assess the groundwater flow direction. The appalling lack of detail in the Gartner Lee hydrogeology report further indicates the lack of care and attention that has gone into its preparation. An impartial hydrogeology report should have been requested. What is your definition of a shallow unconfined aquifer? Is it not true that water moves quickly through an unconfined aquifer and that contaminates can move very quickly through the groundwater as well? Is it true that shallow aquifers are more likely to become contaminated than confined aquifers and their associated aquitards? Gartner Lee did not identify the aquitards under the pit or even mention that they existed. Gartner Lee Ltd. reported in May 2008 that there were 33 records of wells within 500 metres of the site and that all the wells were located in the overburden unit and the shallow unconfined aquifer system. The wells appear to draw their water supply from the shallow unconfined aquifer with no bedrock wells or deep overburden wells. The existing pit pond (3.8 ha) is excavated into the same shallow unconfined aquifer system. It is reported that precipitation will infiltrate to the shallow aquifer through the permeable soils on the site to become groundwater or enter the ground water from the pond. If water in the existing pond currently flows into the shallow unconfined aquifer, won’t contaminates in the pond water move quickly into the shallow unconfined aquifer where residents within 500 metres of the site currently draw their drinking water? The 2008, 2009 and 2010 Water Quality Monitoring Reports prepared by Groundwater Science indicate that bacteriological testing results for monitoring wells located on the pit site have elevated counts of coliform bacteria and fecal coliforms. Do these bacteriological test results for the monitoring wells not indicate that the water in the excavated pond has contaminated the shallow ground water on the pit site? Is the pit site a source

  8  

of contamination that may or has already adversely affected the unconfined aquifer and area wells off site? If the site plan amendment is approved and the existing pit pond becomes a 15.4-hectare lake, a lake that will be located in closer proximity to residences with increased infiltration into the shallow ground water system, the water in the unconfined aquifer may be even more susceptible to contamination. Water Quality Water is a finite resource that only has a small renewable portion. Water sustains life for everything – plant, microbe, bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile, person, fish. The amount of fresh water is minute when compared to the amount on our water planet. The freshwater that is available for EVERYTHING is under 1% of the water on the planet. Of this amount, much in the water cycle is green water, that which is in plants and soils. The blue water cycle is our lakes, streams, rivers and groundwater, with groundwater making up the vast share of this blue water system. Water is precious and cannot be replaced. When we disrupt our groundwater system we create changes to ecosystems that impact species and people. We change the divide where the water flows and disrupt water not only for ecological function but for people as well. Aggregate operations affect not only the local groundwater system but also flows to downstream watercourses resulting in impacts on aquatic life. There is much uncertainty relating to assurance of long-term flow contribution to these watercourses and to private wells. Sensitive surface & groundwater is at risk of contamination from quarrying, and discharge of groundwater plays an important role in maintaining stream flows, moderating thermal regimes, and providing habitat for flora and fauna. In addition to groundwater, surface water will also be affected by the proposed expansion. What about the impacts on the headwaters of the Beeton Creek and watersheds, which are already stressed by the existing pit, population growth and sprawl development. Alterations in the geological landforms will ultimately affect this area. There are tipping points in all ecosystems. While there is some data to interpret groundwater flow directions, the information is not adequate to understand the groundwater hydrogeology of the area for the existing license. If we do not understand the impact on our water system of the existing license, how can we determine how to judge the expanded license? More studies are needed that include more thorough research, measurements and studies including quantity and quality in the area of the pit

  9  

and the surrounding region. In considering any site plan amendment, a precautionary principle approach is needed to ensure future aggregate extraction and human development projects coexist, without impacting the ecological carrying capacity of the region.    

The current site plan approved in May, 2000 and the proposed new site plan dated May, 2011 indicate that the licensee is required to conduct water quality monitoring 3 times a year (early spring, summer and late fall). In February 2012, members of the public requested copies of all water quality monitoring reports from the MNR office in Aurora; however, only reports for three years have been provided (e.g. 2008, 2009, 2010). When are the water quality monitoring reports for 2000-2007 and 2011 to be made available for public review? Notes on the site plans require that the sampling points, number and location should best characterize the quality of the groundwater leaving the site boundaries. In the 2010 water monitoring report, Groundwater Science states that “groundwater quality is consistent with historical results.” Has bacteriological contamination been reported since 2000 in on-site monitoring wells and been an on-going problem? Both the current site plan (May, 2000) and the proposed new site plan (May, 2011) indicate that water monitoring reports are to be made available to the MNR, MOE, the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel “upon request.” It now appears that none of the water monitoring reports were requested or submitted to the MNR, the MOE or the municipalities by the licensees over the past 12 years, except for one month ago when the public asked to review the monitoring reports. As the MNR was responsible for issuing licences, approving site plans and overseeing pit operations over the past 12 years, why were the annual water monitoring reports not requested by the MNR for peer review purposes? Is the MNR negligent in its duty when it failed to request and review annual water monitoring reports to ensure that water quality was not adversely affected? In the 2010 water monitoring report, Groundwater Science uses dismissive wording such as “no consistent results” and “occasional positive coliform and or fecal coliform.” Groundwater Science also indicates that the types of water monitoring wells on the site are not usually used to sample for bacteria. Why has Groundwater Science been using these wells for bacteriological sampling

  10  

when the consultant should have installed more reliable and accurate water quality monitoring wells? A site inspection by the Ministry of the Environment on April 4, 2012 revealed that two of the wells used by Groundwater Science Corp were not functioning and should/could not have been used as sources of groundwater monitoring. What is the responsibility of a hydrogeological consultant to report the presence of bacteriological contamination and other contaminates in ground water to provincial/municipal authorities that might adversely affect residential wells and human health and safety in the area? Did Groundwater Science demonstrate due diligence when conducting the water quality monitoring program over the years? Is the MNR prepared to order an investigation and a scientific study into the operation of the Brock Aggregates Pit to determine the quality of groundwater and surface water on the pit site and the quality of water in the underlying unconfined aquifer in the surrounding area? Permits to Take Water It is my understanding that there have never been any permits to take water issued for this site and that Brock Aggregates has not yet applied for a permit to take water. Yet a washing plant exists in the current site plan. It would be impossible to operate a washing plant without taking the minimal amount of water required for a permit to take water to be required (50,000 litres per day). It is unacceptable that this pit has been operating without a permit to take water. 3. AIR QUALITY - SERIOUS THREATS TO HEALTH At the public information meeting on March 26, 2012, Brock’s representative stated that this pit will produce silica dust. The Ontario Ministry of Labour has strict guidelines in place for workers who come into contact with silica dust, requiring them at all times to wear respirators. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/silica/gl_silica_1.php The prolonged inhalation of respirable dust containing crystalline silica may result in silicosis, a disease characterized by progressive fibrosis of the lungs.

  11  

A pneumoconiosis (lung disease caused by the inhalation of dust), silicosis is marked by shortness of breath and impaired lung function, which may give rise to complications that can result in death. The development and the severity of silicosis depends on the airborne concentration of silica dust to which a worker is exposed and the duration of exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that crystalline silica inhaled in the form of quartz or cristobalite from occupational sources is carcinogenic to humans and has classified these forms of silica as Group 1 carcinogens. In addition, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has classified silica as a suspected human carcinogen with an A2 classification. Crystalline silica may be harmful following high exposure levels received over a period, ranging from a few weeks to years or after long-term exposures to lower levels. There are three major types of silicosis: chronic, accelerated, and acute. Chronic Silicosis Chronic silicosis is most common. Symptoms may not appear for a long time, usually more than 10 years, and may progress and worsen over a period of many years. Chronic silicosis may be either a simple or a complicated type. The effects of silicosis can continue to develop even after the exposure ceases and they are irreversible. In addition, the progression of lung fibrosis can also lead to the development of lung cancer. Simple Chronic Silicosis Simple silicosis is almost entirely without symptoms. In the early stages of the disease the lung nodules are small (usually 1 to 3 mm) and discrete in the upper lung fields. As the disease progresses the nodules increase in number and size and also occupy the lower field. Although simple silicosis may never grow more serious, long-term exposure to silica dust may lead to complicated silicosis. Complicated Chronic Silicosis Complicated chronic silicosis is also called progressive massive fibrosis (PMF). The first symptoms may be shortness of breath with exercise, wheezing or sputum that causes coughing. However, some people with the disease have no symptoms. Complicated silicosis can become worse when in combination with other lung diseases. Severe complicated silicosis can result in heart disease in addition to lung disease.

  12  

Accelerated Silicosis Accelerated silicosis is almost the same as chronic silicosis. However, it develops more quickly and the lung scars show up sooner. Accelerated silicosis can develop when exposure to large amounts of silica dust occurs over a short time period. Nodules may appear on a chest x-ray five years after the first exposure to silica dust and the disease can quickly worsen. Acute Silicosis Acute silicosis is a lung disease that develops rapidly. As few as 8 to 18 months may elapse from the time of first exposure to the onset of symptoms, which include progressive shortness of breath, fever, cough and weight loss. There is a rapid progression of respiratory failure usually resulting in death within one or two years. How Does Silica Enter the Body? Occupational exposure to silica occurs through inhalation of small airborne particles of silica dust, mainly in the range of 5.0 mm to 0.5 mm, which are not expelled from the lung when inhaled. Instead, they remain in the lung and are deposited in lymph nodes, where over time, calcium can deposit in those nodes and settle along the rim of the lymph node. This condition is known as “egg-shell” calcification. In some cases, silica particles are carried into the lungs where a scar may form around the particles. Over time, the hardened scars gradually start to show up on the chest x-ray as fibrosis of the lung. The Relationship between Silica Dust and Lung Cancer Exposure to silica dust has been identified as a clear exposure-response for lung cancer. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of inhaled crystalline silica. (Source: “Michael D. Attfield & Joseph Costello. American Journal of Industrial Medicine “Quantitative Exposure-Response for Silica Dust and Lung Cancer in Vermont Granite Workers” & M. M. Finkelstein, Canadian Medical Association Journal “Radiographic abnormalities and the risk of lung cancer among workers exposed to silica dust in Ontario”) Outdoor Operations If abrasive blasting is being conducted outdoors and persons other than those doing the abrasive blasting may be exposed to silica-containing dust, the work area should be identified by ropes or barriers located at least 25 metres from

  13  

the abrasive blasting area, to prevent entry by workers not directly involved in the operation. If it is not possible to locate the ropes or barriers at least 25 metres from the abrasive blasting operation, the employer should ensure that the abrasive blasting area is separated from the rest of the project by an enclosure that will confine the dust within the abrasive blasting area. Brock has requested a variance of only 15 metres to Mount Wolfe Road and a zero variance to the southern part of the property, when there are numerous homes in close proximity to this pit, where Brock plans to conduct processing and crushing. (Numerous requests to the MHBC Planner and MNR have failed to provide us with an answer as to why crushing is needed in a brick sand pit, leading us to suspect that Brock plans to bring aggregate material from off-site to this site for processing and crushing.) MNR, MOE and the aggregate industry callously refer to the residents who live near pits as “receptors” and discuss “acceptable limits”. As the Executive Director of the Canadian Network for Respiratory Care, I am qualified to speak to the adverse health affects of an aggregate operation located in the midst of a heavily-populated residential neighbourhood. This proposed operation represents a very real and serious threat to the residents. Other Threats From Dust Dust from this proposed license poses a serious health risk to the large residential community located in the vicinity of this pit. Recent studies show that fine particulates pose a greater danger to our health than other better-known types of air pollution, such as smog, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide. There is incontrovertible evidence that an increase in fine particulate matter in the air we breathe is related to asthma, COPD (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), pneumoconiosis and premature death. This is particularly dangerous to at-risk populations in the area (anyone with a pre-existing respiratory illness but also the very young and elderly are high at risk). Dust is produced from blasting, crushing, screening and stacking operations, as well as conveyor belts and loader and truck transport on site and trucks offsite as haul routes. Dust is also produced during overburden removal and from wind blowing over stockpiles and across barren pit floors. It is also harmful to vegetation.

  14  

There are no safe mitigation procedures when it comes to dust. Dust can kill you.

Canada already has an alarmingly high asthma rate, one of the highest in the world, with 3.2 million Canadians suffering from asthma. Poor air quality is one of the reasons for our high numbers of asthma and other types of respiratory disease, including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), projected to become the third-leading cause of death worldwide by 2020.

A recent meta-analyses of 14 different studies worldwide concluded that “moderate air pollution levels, currently considered to pose little risk to human health, may not be so safe after all”. (Source: Globe & Mail, February 17, 2012). The meta-analyses concluded that even moderate air pollution created increased levels of heart attacks, strokes, as well as traditional respiratory disease (asthma, COPD etc.)

The Environmental Protection Act states that dust emissions must meet the standards as set out in Regulations. There have never been air quality tests conducted at this site. Brock states that they aren’t required to because this is an old pit. It is very likely that the silica dust and other fine dust particulates that would be generated by allowing such a massive pit expansion would not meet the requirements of the EPA.

The health and safety of this community should not be “grandfathered”! A provincial policy that applies directly to the requested licence site plan amendment is found in Section 1.7.1 of the “Long-Term Economic Policy” in the Provincial Policy Statement. Provincial Policy Statement Section 1.7 Long-Term Economic Prosperity 1.7.1 Long term economic prosperity should be supported by: (e) planning so that major facilities (such as airports, transportation/transit/rail infrastructure and corridors, intermodal facilities, sewage treatment facilities, waste management systems, oil and gas pipelines, industries and resource extraction activities) and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, and minimize risk to public health and safety.

  15  

The PPS defines “adverse effects” as defined in the Environmental Protection Act and means one or more of: (a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it; (b) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life; (c) harm or material discomfort to any person; (d) an adverse effect on the health of any person; (e) impairment of the safety of any person; (f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use; (g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and (h) interference with normal conduct of business. How has the licensee demonstrated that there will no adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants and that there will be no risk to public health and safety as the result of the proposed aggregate operations? 4. NOISE Residents will be subjected to noise and other hardship. The new license will allow Brock to operate from 7 am to 7 pm from Monday to Saturday 52 weeks a year. Apparently, they will even mine on Sundays and holidays if they have an “emergency”. Can you please explain to me what would constitute an “emergency” that needs brick sand?

Despite clearly informing the community that a crusher would not be present at the site at the first Caledon information meeting, the Brock representative informed the community at the second meeting that there would be a crusher on site.

The noise of this operation (diesel trucks, crushing & processing equipment, and other excavation equipment) will result in a loss of quality of life for residents. We will be forced to stay in our homes with our windows closed. Who will compensate the residents for this loss of quality of life? No one moved to country residences to have an industrial extraction operation situated in their backyard. The community has been informed that Dufferin Aggregates had completed their extraction, that no additional site plan amendments would be allowed and that the pit would not reopen. Noise is also considered a contaminant under the Environmental Protection Act. A noise study should have been required under the EPA.

  16  

5. LOCATION

The Tottenham Pit is not located in an area designated in the Town of Caledon Official Plan as either resource or reserve. It is located in an area zoned by the Town of Caledon for residential use. Since the Pit license existed prior to the current Official Plan, it is recognized as a legal, non-conforming use of the land. Changes to the existing site plan should abide by the Town’s Official Plan and not increase the amount of extraction, extending the life of the plan. The Town spent $12 million identifying Resource and Reserve areas, as instructed by the Province.

There are 7,000 people living in the Palgrave Estates residential area. This is the highest density in a rural area in Ontario. One-third of the residences in Palgrave Estates are on private wells. 100% of the residents in the immediate area of the Tottenham Pit are on residential wells. There are another 5,000 New Tecumseh residents directly impacted just north of Hwy 9, in the Tottenham area. There are also hundreds of King City residents directly impacted (also on private wells), just east of the Caledon-King Townline, as this pit is at the crossroads of three separate regions.

This is not an intact parcel of land, bordering Hwy 9 and Mount Wolfe Road. There are homes directly on all sides of the Tottenham Pit. The Pit is literally in the backyards of these homes.

6. ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES Since this is an estate residential area, there will be a tremendous adverse economic effect on neighbouring homes. I have been told by one real estate agent that the value of my own home has dropped by 50% just as a result of this site plan amendment application being announced. While MNR repeatedly states that the ARA does not allow for compensation to property owners for loss in property value, adverse effects on neighbouring land use should be considered. At no point in Brock’s site plan amendment application have they presented an economic analysis proving the need for this brick sand. This excavation has one purpose – speculative extraction. Protect Caledon Inc. conducted a comprehensive evaluation of property value loss, based on this site plan amendment application being approved. (This was submitted to representatives of MNR at a meeting with the Town of Caledon in January 2012). The assessment used the Hite model (accepted by the OMB in the Town of Caledon’s economic impact statement during the Rockfort hearing).

  17  

This very conservative Hite Model showed a staggering $40 million property loss on homes within a 3km radius of the pit. MNR must consider the negative effects to the economy that creating such a major hardship on homeowners to have a devastating and catastrophic reduction in their major personal asset. This will have other indirect affects on the economy, as this loss in net assets will affect the residents’ ability to spend in the community. Reduced property values will also result in reduced tax assessments, reducing revenue to the province and the Town. 7. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION

Why didn’t the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) require Brock Aggregates Inc. to comply with public notification and consultation policies and procedures in Section 2.03.02 “Licence Site Plan Amendments to Extract Within the Water Table” of the MNR’s “Aggregate Resources Policy Manual (2006)” when the application was first submitted in 2009?

(Requirements: EBR Registry Proposal Notice, Sign posting, notice to all landowners within 120 metres, newspaper ad, public information meeting).

Why did Brock Aggregates Ltd. not heed directives from the Town of Caledon (October, 2009) and the Region of Peel (January 21, 2010 and June 23, 2010) in respect to notifying and obtaining comments from area residents and businesses?

There is an expectation by the public that the licensee is to hold a public “information” session. The consultants involved in preparing the hydrogeological and groundwater monitoring should have been in attendance at the Brock information meeting to provide information to the public and answer questions on behalf of the licensee.

• Andrew Pentney, Groundwater Science • Steven Usher, Rosalind Chaundy, Gartner Lee Ltd. Long and

Associates • Skelton Brumwell (May 25, 2000 Licence Site Plan)

The time allotted for the public information meeting was completely inappropriate. There should have been enough time for all members of the public to ask questions of the consultants.

  18  

Why has it been so difficult for the concerned public to obtain information from the Ministry of Natural Resources about the proposed site plan amendment? Why did a citizen’s group (Protect Caledon Inc.) have to hire a law firm to obtain access to documents that are in the public record? Why hasn’t the licensee submitted the five assessment reports requested by the Town of Caledon on October 5, 2009 and the two assessment reports requested by the Region of Peel on January 21, 2010?

• Natural Environment Assessment Report (Caledon and Peel); • An Updated Hydrogeology Report (Peel); • Cultural/Archaeological Assessment Report (Caledon); • Dust Monitoring Report Update (Caledon) • Noise Assessment Report (Caledon) • Visual Impact Assessment Report (Caledon)

8. CHANGE IN LAND USE PLANNING ACT Section 1.1 Purposes The purposes of the Act are, (a) to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this Act; (b) to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy; (c) to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions; (d) to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient; (e) to encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests; (f) to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning The MNR should consider and act in accordance with all the stated purposes of the Planning Act when it accepts and reviews a request for a site plan amendment and before making any decision (e.g.) notification and consultation processes for a requested licence site plan amendment must be fair, open, accessible, timely and efficient.

  19  

Planning Act Section 16. Contents of Official Plans (1) An official plan shall contain, (a) goals, objectives and policies established primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social, economic and natural environment of the municipality or part of it, or an area that is without municipal organization; and (b) such other matters as may be prescribed. The requested site plan amendment involves a physical change, which will have effects on the social, economic and natural environment in the area. The proposed below water extraction is not currently and never has been an "existing use" on these lands under the Planning Act or the Aggregate Resources Act. If the amendment was to be approved, the land use would cease to exist because the lands would be below water and would have no further land use. A change in the current use of these lands requires an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment under the Planning Act and a new licence application to change the use of these lands. Status of Town of Caledon Zoning By-Law 87-250 Aggregate Resources Act Section 10. Zoning by-laws An applicant for a licence must furnish information satisfactory to the Minister describing the zoning by-laws applicable to the site and adjacent lands. Section 12.1 Zoning By-law Prohibition on Licence (1) No licence shall be issued for a pit or quarry if a zoning by-law prohibits the site from being used for the making, establishment or operation of pits and quarries. (2) Doubt as to Zoning: If the minister is in doubt as to whether a zoning by-law prohibits the site from being used for the making, establishment or operation of pits and quarries, he or she may serve on the applicant a notice to that effect. (3) Application to Court An applicant who is served with a notice is entitled, within 30 days after the notice is served, to make an application to the Superior court of Justice for a judgment declaring that no zoning by-

  20  

law prohibits the site from being used for the making, establishment or operation of pits and quarries. Note # 4 in the “General References” on page 1 of the “current” site plan indicates that Town of Caledon Zoning By-law 87-250 dated October 1988 had not yet been approved for the site. Why would the “current” site plan prepared and approved some 12 years earlier and dated May 25, 2000 still contain such a note in 2012? What are the terms of Zoning By-law 87-250 and has the By-law ever been approved by the Town of Caledon over the past 12 years? Did a former minister err in not confirming the existence of an appropriate zoning by-law to permit the site to be used for the making, establishment or operation of a pit? Further, the Town of Caledon changed the zoning in the Gormley “expansion” in 1990 dependent on a development agreement being signed between Gormley Aggregates and the Town of Caledon so that estate residential would be the agreed-upon rehabilitative land use. The estate residential concept was actually included in the agreed-upon site plan. To remove this intended rehabilitative land use (by removing any land left remaining for rehabilitative purposes) would also contravene that land use, that should be registered on title. Section 34. Zoning By-laws (1) Zoning by-laws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities: 1. Restricting Use of Land For prohibiting the use of land, for or except for such purposes as may be set out in the by-law within the municipality or within any defined area or areas or abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway. (2) Pit and Quarries The making, establishment or operation of a pit or quarry shall be deemed to be a use of land for the purposes of paragraph 1 of subsection (1). (10) By-law May Be Amended Despite any other provision of this section, any by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section may be amended so as to permit the extension or an enlargement of any land, building or structure used for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land, building or structure continues to be used in the same manner and for the same purpose as it was used on the day such by-law was passed.

  21  

The licensee should be required to submit a comprehensive zoning by-law amendment application if the licensee wants to remove land before requesting an amendment to the licence site plan. Section 34. (10) The Planning Act indicates the need for a zoning by-law amendment because the lands proposed for extraction below water will mean that the land cannot continue to be used in the same manner and for the same purpose as it was used on the day when the current by-law was approved by the Town of Caledon. 9. LICENCE SITE PLAN It appears that the current licence site plan for the site was submitted by Dufferin Aggregates and approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources on May 25, 2000, some 12 years ago. Why didn’t Brock Aggregates Inc. submit an updated and revised licence site plan to the MNR in 2006 when it took ownership of the site? Why was the proposed new licence site plan prepared by MHBC dated May 2011 only made available for public review and comment a few weeks ago after inquiries were made by the public? The "2011" licence site plan (apparently there were 7 pages) is based on a site plan supposedly approved by MNR, dated June 9, 1995 prepared by Long and Associates. It appears that in May 2000, Skelton Brumwell reproduced the Long and Associates 1995 site plan and added some amendments and the site plan was then approved by MNR on May 25, 2000. The May "2011" draft licence site plan is apparently a reproduction of two earlier site plans with some additions by MHBC Planning. The major concern here is that the site plan of June 9, 1995 is basically still in effect and is based on information that is outdated by 17 years. Furthermore, the former licensee or his consultant, Long and Associates in 1995 did not have to meet the current Provincial Standards (1997) issued under the Aggregate Resources Act for the preparation of a licence site plan and submit specific technical reports (e.g. Level 2 Hydrogeology Report, Level 2 Natural Environment Report, Summary Licence Application Report, Planning Report, Noise Report, etc.).

  22  

Why is the Ministry of Natural Resources prepared to accept the proposed licence site plan dated May, 2011 that is based on inadequate, possibly incorrect and certainly outdated information? Has Long and Associates and Skelton Brumwell given MHBC Planning permission to use and "reproduce" the 1995 and 2000 licence site plans to produce the May 2011 draft version? Was any scientific field work undertaken by MHBC Planning to gather new data and information (e.g. current water table levels, land elevations, depth of onsite and offsite ponds, watercourses and wetlands, evaluation of wetlands, impacts on residential wells, traffic analysis) in its preparation of the draft licence site plan in May 2011? 10. AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT Section 2. Purposes of Act The purposes of this Act are, (a) To provide for the management of the aggregate resources of Ontario; (b) to control and regulate aggregate operations on Crown and private lands; (c) to require the rehabilitation of land from which aggregate has been excavated; and (d) to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate operations. Do the “current” site plan and the proposed draft site plan reflect the intended purposes of the Aggregate Resources Act? Section 8. (7) Site Plans for Licences: Plans Property of the Crown Every site plan submitted with an application under this section becomes the property of the Crown upon the licence applied for being issued. The “current” site plan is exceedingly outdated, inadequate and not accurate in part. Why would the Crown want to own such a site plan and no less approve an amendment to such an outdated and inadequate site plan?

  23  

Furthermore, the MNR has not been able to provide original site plans for this site. The first site plan that they have produced is dated 1995. In the absence of the earlier site plans, they have not provided the public or Protect Caledon Inc. with any evidence that there ever were legal licenses or legal site plans issued for this pit. As a result, the Minister should revoke this license. Section 15. Duties of Licenses Every licensee shall operate the licensee’s pit or quarry in accordance with this Act, the regulations, the site plan and the conditions of the licence. Section 15.1 Annual Compliance Report (1) Every licensee shall, in accordance with the regulations, submit an

annual report to the Minister for the purpose of assessing the licensee’s compliance with this Act, the regulations, the site plan and the conditions of the licence.

Much of the information in the “current” site plan that has been in place for 12 years may no longer be applicable to the site and may not be consistent with various provisions in current statutes and regulations in law. The licensee and previous licensees have been required to submit annual compliance reports to the Ministry of Natural Resources over the 12 year period. Why would the Ministry who has the responsibility each year to ensure that annual compliance reports are complete before acceptance not have instructed the licensee to update the May 25, 2000 site plan so that the site plan contained accurate, adequate and up-to-date information in accordance with current statutes and regulations? As well, the MNR apparently conducts a field audit of a pit or quarry every five years. At least two audits of the Tottenham Pit should have occurred within the 12 year period. Again, why would the Ministry not have instructed the licensee to update the May 25, 2000 site plan so that the site plan contained accurate, adequate and up-to-date information in accordance with current statutes and regulations?

  24  

Policy 2.03.00 “Licence Site Plan Amendments By Licensee” in the “Aggregate Policies and Procedures Manual” includes the following prescriptive “guiding principles” and highlights the importance of recommendations in technical reports. “Site plans are an integral part of the licence and reflect the culmination of considerable review and discussion during the licensing process. Certain conditions of the plan may have been included to address concerns raised by the public or agencies (including MNR); recommendations of technical reports (e.g. Natural Environment, Hydrogeological, Cultural Heritage Reports) and /or Ontario Municipal Board recommendations. Alteration of these site plans should not be permitted without a careful review of the implications that may result from the change. Site plan requirements resulting from an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing should only be modified or removed in rare instances, and only after appropriate consultation with the original affected parties...” How have the guiding principles in the Ministry’s own policies and procedures manual been applied to the requested site plan amendment for expanded below water extraction at the Tottenham Pit? The Town of Caledon Zoning By-Law 87-250 was approved at an OMB hearing. A request for a licence site plan amendment not only requires the submission of a full Level 2 Hydrogeological Technical Report but also a Level 2 Natural Environment Report, a Level 2 Cultural Heritage, a Noise Assessment Technical Report, an Air Quality Assessment Technical Report, a Summary Statement Report (Section 2.1 of the ARA Provincial Standards) and a Planning Report prepared by qualified experts. Why haven’t these technical reports been prepared and submitted in support of the proposed licence site plan amendment? In the absence of the submission of these requirements, I believe that the licence site plan amendment process undertaken in 2009 was flawed, particularly in terms of the availability and quality of information that would be needed for MNR, MOE staff, Peel Region, Town of Caledon and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) to make an informed and defensible decision about the requested site plan amendment.

  25  

In the case of the Brock Aggregates Pit, information is sketchy as to the type and number of technical reports that have been submitted over the past 40 years in support of the various licence applications and/or requested licence site plan amendments. The only technical report submitted with the proposed amendment is a Hydrogeological Assessment for Below Water Extraction dated May 2008 prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd. with a brief natural environment assessment in Appendix G dated April 27, 2007. The requested site plan amendment requires not only the submission of a full Level 2 Hydrogeological Technical Report but also a Level 2 Natural Environment Report, a Level 2 Cultural Heritage, a Noise Assessment Technical Report, an Air Quality Assessment Technical Report, a Summary Statement Report (Section 2.1 of the ARA Provincial Standards) and a Planning Report prepared by qualified experts. Why haven’t these reports been prepared and submitted in support of the proposed licence site plan amendment? Appendix E in the “Aggregate Policies and Procedures Manual”” contains no Site Plan Amendment Application Form and no Site Plan Amendment Application Checklist. This is a major omission in the Manual and for the administration of the Aggregate Resources Act by the Minister and Ministry of Natural Resources. Under Policy 2.03.00 “ Licence Site Plan Amendments by Licensee” of the Manual, the licensee simply has to write a letter requesting a site plan amendment for an approved licence and include “a precise description of the proposed amendment” and some other limited information. Why does the Ministry not have a basic and comprehensive application form that a licensee must submit for a proposed licence site plan amendment? 11. INADEQUATE EBR NOTIFICATION Brock Aggregates was informed early in 2009 that MNR considered this site plan amendment to be a major site plan amendment and informed Brock that they would have to post on the EBR and notify the Town of Caledon, the Region of Peel, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation of this site plan amendment application. This notification occurred in June 2009 yet the EBR posting did not occur until November 25, 2009 (closing January 4, 2010). One can only conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to post the notice at a time when most people are busy with the holidays and Brock would have the best opportunity to post the notice

  26  

without anyone being aware of it. Since no comments were received, they clearly were successful in achieving this outcome. This showed blatant disregard for the EBR process and a continued and deliberate attempt to keep the public in the dark about this site plan amendment. It is not known how MNR staff accepted and processed the request for the site plan amendment in the fall of 2009. EBR Registry #010-8427 posted on November 19, 2009 inviting public review and comment contained limited information about the requested site plan amendment. The notice did not include any information about a Public Information Session. Why wasn’t a public information meeting held immediately following notice on the EBR Registry in November 2009? Why did the MNR not post notice on the EBR Registry for the public meeting held in September 2011? Section 16. of the Aggregate Resources Act, Regulation 244/97 issued under the ARA and the Provincial Standards for the ARA do not identify, define or describe a “major” site plan amendment or a “minor” site plan amendment. The two types of amendments appear only in the Ministry of Natural Resources “Aggregate Policies and Procedures Manual.” The Manual was issued in 2006 without review by a legislative committee and any follow-up approval by the Province for its use as a necessary reference for Ministry staff. The introduction to the Manual contains no reference to the status of the document and at this time its contents may have no legal authoritative basis or authenticity. It appears that the MNR has no legal authority or basis to accept a request for a “major” site plan amendment. The Ministry should have required the current licensee to submit a new licence application to expand extraction below the water table on 10.4 ha of the pit, a “major” change to the limit of extraction in the original licence and other licences issued in the past for the site. Section 1.3 “Progressive Rehabilitation” and Section 1.4 “Final Rehabilitation” of the ARA Provincial Standards require the site plans to show such things as the sequence of rehabilitation, the location, design and type of vegetation that will be established on the site, the anticipated elevation of the ground water table, the final surface water drainage and the final elevations of the rehabilitated areas of the site. Section 1.5

  27  

“Cross-Sections” of the ARA Provincial Standards requires at least four cross-section diagrams (e.g. the final slope gradients that will be established, anticipated final elevation of the ground water table). Was it the intention of the original and other licensees and the decision makers of the time that this area was to be protected and rehabilitated to a productive agricultural after use? The request for a site plan amendment must be subject to a thorough review of the original intended after use of these lands. Consideration must be given to the interests of the Town of Caledon and the public. The Town of Caledon does not approve of the permanent loss of these agricultural lands. The municipality does not favour the excavation of another pit lake that will provide no assessment or economical benefit in the future. Why has the MNR not required former licensees and the current license to fulfill progressive and final rehabilitation requirements over the years that were identified on previous site plan(s)? There must have been a valid reason for the Ministry of Natural Resources that at some time in the past, possibly when the site was first licensed in the 1970’s, to limit extraction to 1.5 metres above the seasonally high water table. Was this area considered a “sensitive” area and in need of protection at the time of the original licensing and again in 2000? The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act defines “sensitive” as: “In regard to surface water features and ground water features, means areas that are particularly susceptible to impacts from activities or events including, but not limited to, water withdrawals, and additions of pollutants.” Why was the area that is now proposed for extraction below water previously designated as an area for extraction above water only? The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan identifies this area as being in an area identified as containing a “highly vulnerable aquifer”.

  28  

12. SURFACE WATER, UNEVALUATED WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES, HEADWATER TRIBUTARY AND OTHER TRIBUTARIES & UNEVALUATED WETLANDS Under Section 6.0 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources has a responsibility to evaluate the significance of all wetlands in Ontario. Provincial Policy Statement (2005) Section 6.0 Definitions “Significant” means in regard to wetlands, coastal wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interest, an area identified as provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources using evaluation procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Why has the Ministry of Natural Resources not evaluated the unevaluated wetlands on the pit site, the unevaluated wetland adjacent and west of the site referred to the “Blackhorse Wetland,” a wetland to the northwest and adjacent to the site, and other unevaluated wetlands north of Highway #9 using the “Ontario Wetland Evaluation System: Southern Manual” dated December, 2002? Are these wetlands “Provincially Significant” and entitled to protection under Section 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement? Are all of these wetlands part of a wetland complex? When will the Ministry of Natural Resources commit to undertaking the evaluation of these unevaluated wetlands? Watercourse: Headwater Tributaries and Other Tributaries In February 2010, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) raised concerns about the potential adverse impacts of below water extraction to the headwater tributary of Balley Creek and the Beeton Creek. Another unnamed creek apparently flows through the wetland on the pit site.

  29  

Why hasn’t the Ministry of Natural Resources required the licensee to address NVCA’s concerns about adverse effects on the two creeks and their tributaries as well as the unnamed creek that flows through the wetland area on site? NVCA also wanted an assessment of the affect on fish habitat in the wetlands and the creeks. The “Preliminary Natural Environment Assessment” in Appendix G of the Gartner Lee Ltd. Hydrogeological Assessment for Below Water Extraction dated May, 2008 does not make any reference to fish habitat. Why hasn’t the MNR required the licensee to submit a Level 2 Natural Environment Technical Report required under the Aggregate Resources Act and included the study of fish habitat as one of its components? 13. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING UNDER THE PLANNING ACT AND THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT Planning Act Section 6. (2) Consultation A ministry, before carrying out or authorizing any undertaking that the ministry considers will directly affect any municipality, shall consult with, and have regard for, the established planning policies of the municipality. In accepting the request for a site plan amendment and reviewing the request, has the MNR adequately and forthrightly consulted with the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel and demonstrated regard for the established planning policies of the two municipalities? The Town of Caledon has clearly indicated that they are not in favour of the site plan amendment and have further asked that the license be revoked. The Minister and MNR Staff are legally bound by provisions in Section 3. (6) of the Planning Act when reviewing and commenting on a requested licence site plan amendment . Comments, submissions or advice affecting a planning matter that are provided by the Minister and MNR staff must be consistent with all policy statements in the 2005 PPS that are in effect on the date when the comments, submissions or advice are provided and shall conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2001) and shall not conflict with it. As required under Section 3. (5) of the Planning Act, the decision of the Minister and the Ministry that affects a planning matter must be consistent

  30  

with all policy statements in the 2005 PPS that are in effect on the date of the decision and shall conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2001) and shall not conflict with it. In the case of the requested licence site plan amendment, the Minister of Natural Resources and MNR staff have a legal duty to ensure that all comments, submissions, and advice as well as decisions concerning a planning matter are consistent with all provincial policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). Are the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, the Region of Peel, the Town of Caledon and the Notttawasaga Valley Conservation Authority prepared to meet the responsibilities and obligations of Sections 3. (5) and 3.(6) of the Provincial Policy Statement when undertaking the review of the proposed site plan amendment request and making a decision? Planning Act Section 71 Conflict In the event of conflict between the provisions of this and any other general or special Act, the provisions of this Act prevail. In the event of a conflict between provisions in the Planning Act and provisions in the Aggregate Resources Act, provisions in the Planning Act prevail. Some clarification is required as provisions in Section 66 of the Aggregate Resources Act have long been misunderstood and interpreted incorrectly by the aggregate industry, consultants, Ministry staff and others. Aggregate Resources Act Section 66. (1) Act Overrides Municipal By-Laws etc. This Act, the regulations and the provisions of licences and site plans apply despite any municipal by-law, official plan or development agreement and, to the extent that a municipal by-law, official plan or development agreement deals with the same subject matter as this Act, the regulations or the provisions of a licence or site plan, the by-law, official plan or development agreement is inoperative. The key consideration is the direction and wording “deals with the same subject matter.”

  31  

Provisions in the Aggregate Resources Act do not ”deal with” provincial policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) such as water policies, natural heritage policies, public health and safety policies, etc. Most policies in a municipal official plan and provisions in municipal zoning by-laws and development agreements are based directly or indirectly on provisions in the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement and other Acts such as the Municipal Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Public Health Protection and Promotions Act, the Oak Rides Moraine Conservation Act and the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Provisions in these Acts are not “dealt with” in the Aggregate Resources Act. It is supremely imperative that all relevant provisions in all Acts are respected and observed when the Ministry of Natural Resources reviews and comments on the requested site plan amendment. Any decision that is made by the MNR and the Minister must comply with the provisions in all statutes and regulations. The Ministry of Natural Resources must require the licensee to comply with all provisions in other legislation besides the Aggregate Resources Act before it makes a decision in respect to the request for a site plan amendment to expand aggregate extraction below water at the Brock Aggregates Pit. 15. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY A transportation study has not been submitted for the Brock Aggregates Pit to determine the number of trucks entering and exiting the pit each day, traffic counts on Highway #9, haul routes, school bus loading zones, the design of the pit entrance and public safety. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has indicated that they will require a transportation study prior to granting Brock Aggregates with a permit to use Highway 9 as its haul route. Further, since the traffic on Highway 9 has increased exponentially since the pit was last operating (approximately 10 years ago), this is now an extremely unsafe truck exit with a very blind exit from Old Highway 9. Granting this site plan amendment will be creating a situation where there is a very real possibility of serious truck accidents, putting other motorists and pedestrians in the area in grave danger.

  32  

16. CHANGING INFORMATION BY BROCK & MHBC PLANNING At the two pubic information meetings held by the Town of Caledon and the third meeting held by Brock Aggregates, MHBC Planning and Brock have presented three differing and conflicting representations of their proposed site plan amendment. At the first meeting, the Brock/MHBC representative clearly told members of the community that they need not be concerned about dust because there would be no processing and crushing on-site. At the second meeting, she informed the community that there would indeed be processing and crushing on site. The numbers indicated in the fact sheet distributed by Brock at the third meeting are completely inconsistent with the site plans submitted. The public now has absolutely no idea what Brock proposes to do at this site. How can the public be expected to comment when we have no idea what the altered and significantly reduced extraction data presented in the information sheet mean? 17. FOREST Brock Aggregates has indicated that they propose to cut down 1.6 hectares of forest on the pit site. The Nottawasage Valley Conservation Authority in their comments of February 19, 2010 has already informed MNR that this forest cover is part of a larger forest within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and meets the test for “significant woodland” (Key Natural Heritage Feature – KNHF) within the ORMCP. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Section (3) (3) An application for development or site alteration with respect to land within the minimum area of influence that relates to a key natural heritage feature, but outside the key natural heritage feature itself and the related minimum vegetation protection zone, shall be accompanied by a natural heritage evaluation under section 23. Natural heritage evaluation 23. (1) A natural heritage evaluation shall, (a) demonstrate that the development or site alteration applied for will have no adverse effects on the key natural heritage feature or on the related ecological functions; (b) identify planning, design and construction practices that will maintain and, where possible, improve or restore the health, diversity and size of the key natural heritage feature and its connectivity with other key natural heritage features;

  33  

(c) in the case of an application relating to land in a Natural Core Area, Natural Linkage Area or Countryside Area, demonstrate how connectivity within and between key natural heritage features will be maintained and, where possible, improved or restored before, during and after construction; Brock Aggregates is required under the ORMCP to conduct a Natural Heritage evaluation to justify the need to cut down the forest. The ORMCP would likely preclude the cutting down of this forest and certainly MNR does not have the authority to approve this site plan change in the absence of a Natural Heritage evaluation. Cutting down the forest removes the little natural dust mitigation that is on-site and its purpose can only be described as material gain for Brock by selling the wood from the oak forest for profit. 18. ARCHEOLOGY MNR has been made aware that the area of the Brock pit may have significant Indigenous artifacts. There is an ANSI 1 km south of the pit where 5,000 artifacts were surface collected, showing evidence of a significant 14th Century Iroquois village. We also understand that the Blackhorse Trading Post was located just east of the pit. For MNR staff to flippantly state that this is “already a disturbed site” is unacceptable. MNR should require the assessment of the lands from an Indigenous perspective. Have the First Nations, particularly the Mississauga of the Credit been consulted on this application? 19. NEED FOR AGGREGATE MATERIAL NOT DEMONSTRATED Has Brock even demonstrated that there is a current economic need for this brick sand? Reports in the 1980s by Gormley Aggregates stated that the aggregate material in the southeast portion of the pit (where Brock proposes to extend its below-the-water table extraction) were of “generally poor quality”. Is MNR prepared to cause such catastrophic adverse effects on this community so that Brock Aggregates can mine poor quality aggregate material? The idea of needing the resource close to source for reasons related to climate change is confusing. Given the technologies available for cleaner trucking technology and other modalities of transportation, this is no longer an acceptable rationalization.

  34  

20. THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OF ALL This is a picture of my son Jakob.

\ We moved to this community in 2002 when my son was a baby. My mother had just died of lung cancer (on October 15th, one day after my son Jakob’s first birthday, and on the eight-year anniversary of my father’s death from throat cancer). After watching my non-smoking mother die a horrible, excruciatingly painful death from lung cancer, my husband and I decided that we needed to change our lives. We moved to our lovely, quiet country property because we thought it would be a beautiful, safe place to raise our son. Our real estate agent informed us that there used to be a pit north of our property but that it had been shut down and that the only future use on the property would be estate residential, as that was what the community was now zoned for.

  35  

My son already suffers from severe respiratory allergies. He can not live next to the dust emissions that will be produced from this pit. As a mother, it is my responsibility to provide my child with a safe environment for him to grow up in. Further, I have dedicated my life’s work to helping Canadians with respiratory disease. At the Canadian Network for Respiratory Care, we work hard to prevent Canadians from developing respiratory disease. Imagine my absolute horror when I opened the letter in September that a long inactive pit literally in my backyard was about to reopen, creating a major health hazard for my son. And when the Brock consultants just answered my question that there is silica dust produced in this pit as if this was completely inconsequential, I was appalled. It will be forever entrenched in my consciousness the sound of my poor mother struggling to breathe as she died of lung cancer. And now my home and my child will be 500 metres from processing and crushing. This area is often windy. Fine dust particulates can travel great distances but my family will literally be in the “eye of the dust storm”. I certainly recognize that aggregate operations are a necessary and valuable part of our society. But we need to start being smart about where they are located. And we can minimize the risk by locating them away from where large numbers of people live (aka “the receptors”). Industry needs to start being serious about finding safer ways to mine this aggregate – ways that won’t harm the environment and the residents who have the misfortune to live next to these pits. Government must also create full cost accounting that does not allow these companies to make billions of dollars in profit on the backs of the poor residents who live in adjacent properties. MNR needs to stop abusing the site plan amendment process by allowing sweeping changes to old pit that never had to undergo any rigour by today’s standards. This is an abuse of authority by MNR staff.

  36  

In light of all of my objections, but particularly that this site plan amendment is clearly prohibited under the ORMCP, I would ask that MNR reject this site plan amendment and that further, revoke the existing license (#6677). Regards,

Cheryl Connors