Evidence continues from James Parkin for JDCL on Planning:

• Meeting the additional tests applicants must complete in Aggregate Reserve Areas re Town of Caledon policies:
  1. Sub watershed study or CBSES (broader environmental study) —Completed.
  2. Traffic: Criteria: The entrance must conform to traffic safety; a traffic study must show there will have no unacceptable impacts; must mitigate impacts satisfactorily. Identify route with least impacts and identify those impacts. There are about 8 tests that Rockfort must meet under Traffic. —Completed
• Parkin believes entrance conforms. He believes the road upgrades are similar to what the Region was considering.
• He believes the JDCL traffic study meets the requirements of impacts and can be satisfactorily mitigated.
• Acceptable because of the quality of the resource here and the Town acknowledges that there needs to be a haul route to each area, —plus the category of the road.
• Route has been identified.
• He believes the requirements regarding balance of community values and environment have been accomplished.
• He believes the requirements of making the resource available use in a managed way and as much of the resource as is feasibly possible—has been met.
• Rehabilitation master plans required has been met on the site plan.
• Proposal for a citizen's liaison committee to address community concerns.
• To meet environmental plans, he believes they have conformed. Environmental Policy Areas (EPA) doesn’t occur on site. Mitigation has addressed the off-site EPAs. He believes you can have change in the features without a significant loss of function in this instance and conforms to the Town Policy.
• The site is outside the NEC plan and outside the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan

Consideration of Social Impacts:

• Not listed as a separate study the way traffic or environment is. No unacceptable impacts as per the Provincial Standards. The negotiated settlement removed wording that this was to be a stand-alone study by a scientist.
• Parkin went through the evolution of the social impact component in the settled agreement of the Town's Policy.
• In 2000 the Graham pit in Caledon, did a social consideration report, done by Parkin, which found there would not be unacceptable social impacts that are measurable, predictable etc.
• Parkin states that they have looked at Social impacts and have an understanding of the issue over the years.
• Public consultation was part of that process, both site-specific and off-site. Sweetnam has met with the CCC several times. There was a May 1997 meeting at Inglewood for the public. Follow-up happened with CCC about formal notifications to community.
• Objections to the application: 300 individual letters and 800 names on a petition.
  
• CCC sent out surveys to public on behalf of JDCL asking about their properties
  
• Jan 2000 document by JDCL, summarized the objections and recommendations.
  
• Aug 2003 Region raised financial concerns and JDCL said at that time they wanted to address their concerns. Letter to that effect sent Sept 2003.
  
• Public Information meetings also happened throughout the CBSES process.
• Parkin believes they have communicated their mitigation plans for noise, air quality, dust, blasting. For traffic, there has been mitigation proposed. For water they have developed the water supply procedure form. With respect to the natural environment, by protecting the water resources he believes they will protect the social value.
  
• Therefore he believes there will be no unacceptable social impacts, and with the proposed community liaison committee, problems can be addressed.
• He believes the application will have no Visual Impacts that were unacceptable.
• Cultural Heritage aspects were settled in 2004 but the Town and JDCL had differences about the applicability to Rockfort. It will be decided at this hearing (addresses archeology, the built and the landscape). The Town did a specific study in 2003 called the Rockside Heritage study. Parkin believes it meets the requirements of the cultural heritage work done shows no unacceptable impacts. The Ministry of Culture had no issues with Rockfort.
• The word "acceptability" in the policies is not defined, but in his opinion, there is clear direction to resource extraction, which is not unique to Caledon—in large measure based on Provincial Standards.
• In 1996, during the Region's scoping exercise of their OP—Town's OPA 114, says you have to do a fiscal impact study to the Town re subdivision developments and it exempts Mineral aggregate. It was to be dealt with in OPA 161. Town staff recommended the exemption—rendered in 1997. CCRS looked at things generally, but not specifically and it was not added in. This happened because of scoping exercise.
• Parkin believes that the application is consistent with Environmental values.
• Rockfort would help fulfill critical need for rock. Consistent with policies. There was balancing and compromising all along the way. Resource has to be made available in the PPS. There will be a land use change but it is acceptable given the importance of the rock. Site is rural and not hauling through villages. Protection and mitigation is the balancing of different interests. Regulation through the ARA and annual reporting, will ensure controls, so not to have unexpected effects.
• Parkin believes Aggregate Area 9 A should be identified as an Aggregate Resource Area.

***************************************************

Evidence for Fluvial Geomorphology for JDCL (channel form, stream profile, stream sediment and erosion) Report by Dr Villard.

• Evidence of the geomorphology is found in Appendix K of the CBSES- It describes channel forms and profiles, stream bed material and bank stability
  Report Page 3 describes the geomorphic setting as swales, swamps, and seepage where bedrock comes to the surface. There are poorly defined banks and irregular channel forms-also channel form sensitivity. This report was added to the CBSES to add or enhance the AMP.
• Each reach was assessed and identified for its channel sensitivity. There are few typical meandering streams or channels because of the bedrock.
• Conclusions: Page 19 –possible that creeks will adjust to quarrying- but suggest that there should be a monitoring program. The monitoring will be conducted seasonally for assessing the Base flow and after that annually.
• There will be a slight reduction in base flow and there will be a minor affect on the channels resulting in some loss of the flood plain.
• Page 96-100 Letter to CVC- talks about stream eco-morphology. The natural state will remain the same more or less—might be minor changes—the monitoring is appropriate and the potential for downstream change is unlikely.