OMB Rockfort Hearing, Mon. Jan.11, 2010

The Hearing resumes: Evidence given by Steven Strong and Kathryn Douglas of MNR regarding Rockfort

Lawyer for MNR is Mr. Kappos:

Mr. Strong is the District Planner for the Aurora district and Kathryn Douglas is an aggregate inspector for Aurora District. There are 147 pits and quarries in this area and her role is to ensure that the ARA process is followed.  Ms. Douglas has been doing this since 1998 and in Jan/98 when the application was submitted. March 4th landowners were notified.  March 24/98 JDCL held public meeting. During the 45 day commenting period, approximately 250 individual letters and over 1,000 letters and cards were sent in to MNR. Objections in the 45 day period were on water, dust, air, trucks and haul route, economic concerns, property values, suitability of the area, land use planning, environment, Niagara Escarpment, and blasting among other things. These objections remained at end of the 2-year period.

Evidence of Mr. Strong:

• Mr. Strong's role with the application since 2004 was coordinating the various disciplines looking at the file.
• MNR formally objected to the plan in 1998, regarding issues around the Natural Heritage.
• 18 issues were outstanding going into the hearing of 2003. Substantive discussion began in 2008 to resolve these issues.  In April 2009, JDCL responds to their concerns. The following are MNR requirements to drop issues:
• Comment 1. On Fisheries:  DFO letter which indicates they do not think there will be impact on the fisheries.
• Comment 2. On Spring Water Targets being too high: MNR requires that AMP review the targets on an ongoing basis in the 5 year review.
  
• Comment 3: Need for additional information.
  
• Comment 4: The stop light illustration was required in the AMP. 1) No operating caveats were allowed for operating below the target levels. 2) The observation of historic low to be modified only with MNR permission.
  
• Comment 5: Reduce required 8 week response time when there is prolonged operation below water targets.
  
• Comment 6: Contingency areas would have to be given permission by MNR so phasing would be controlled.
  
• Comment 7: Specifying minimum water levels each spring that must be reached before sufficient water was available to operate the water injection system.
  
• Comment 8: Priority of water allocation needed to be spelled out. Environment and water wells come first.
  
• Comment 9: re eastern wetlands: requires a monitoring to the east and north. See appendix I in AMP for wetlands.
  
• Comment 10: No loss of water in salamander pool to East – see Appendix I.
  
• Comment 11:They were concerned with monitoring locations were identified for increased monitoring. Also, enforcement of AMP targets in the annual reports would include: Map or figure that only shows wells with assigned targets and an accompanying table of information so MNR warden would have information easily. Starting Point was assigned as 5 years after removal of overburden.
  
• Comment 12: AMP needs 5 yr. review of peek shaving of water in spring. 
  
• Comment 13: a 5 yr. review of target levels is required.
  
• Comment 14: Amphibian pond location/design must have permission of MNR.
  
• Comment 15: re SE Storm water pond: discharge water cannot be done indiscriminately and be of good quality.
  
• Comment 16: AMP implementation: how will it be legally enforced? AMP is a specific operational requirement of the site plan. What is his experience with AMP? He has experience with off-site impacts and contingency measures in the AMP at Dufferin-Milton, Tansley quarry, Nelson expansion, Acton expansion. Also proposed for a variety of other locations in Ontario (e.g. Midhurst).
  
• Comment 17: How AMP and site plan would be implemented? – AMP stipulates staff would be hired to oversee monitoring and ensure AMP is adhered to. 
  
• Comment 18: re importation of fill: more detail needed of fill quality and placement.

Proof of Concept:

• Identified by MNR in 2008 that this could be addressed through AMP set of Milestones.  Stages could not go ahead unless each milestone is met and mitigation is in place and working.
• Re: NW wetland: reduced hydro-period of 1-3 weeks – add mitigation requirements in AMP – see Appendix I
  
• MNR also asked for language change re water target setting needing a minimum of 3 years of data. MNR suggesting that they move to a real-time monitoring system to remove lag time of monitoring and response.
  
• Water supply complaint procedure: they tightened the language and situations for exemption.
• MNR felt that if JDCL addressed all these issues, then MNR would be satisfied.
• MNR feels that some refinement is needed on the wetland Appendix I and some of the contingency plans need clarification. 

Ms. Douglas:

• AMP will be implemented through site plan notes.  In Summary, her opinion is that with changes recommended on the site Plan it conforms to the ARA.
• Mr. Strong – Greenbelt Plan does not apply to this application.
  His Summary opinion – with the changes to the site plan suggested, he believes the application conforms to ARA and the PPS.

CROSS EXAMINATION of MNR By Mr. Garrod (Region of Peel)

To Mr. Strong:

• Looking at the chronology of MNR review; What is the role of MOE (Min of Environment) in this review? Was its beginning, the letter from April 17th/98?
  -- Yes
  
• The MOE summarizes that the quarry is feasible with no adverse impacts subject to conditions stipulated by JDCL consultants,(Harden Environmental) attached to site plan. The MOE letter says when JDCL wants Certificates of Approval for water etc., more detail will need to be provided, but at this early stage they had no objections?
  --Agreed
  
• But these JDCL reports had all been updated since '99, correct?
  -- Yes.
  
• MOE letter of April/99 to MNR; states a detailed hydroG review was requested by MNR of the applicant. All of that was based on the old reports which have not been updated since 1999?
  --Agreed
  
• There is a letter from MNR to MOE for more input on the hydroG from the MOE?
  --Agreed
  
• Letter from MNR to JDCL in Feb 2000, stating MOE still has serious concerns regarding water resources?
  --Agreed
  
• The letters in 2000 from MNR to JDCL there were more concerns regarding the earlier hydrogeology?
  --Agreed
  
• Letter from Mr. Parkin in April 2003 to Mr. Farrell requesting for the Ministries to complete their review of the file?
  --Agreed
  
• Oct 2003 another letter from Mr. Parkin to MOE asking confirmation that MOE has no objections since 1998 even though there were new reports?
  --Agreed
  
• So by Feb 2000 the MOE says it still has significant concerns, is there a later letter from MOE?
  --Not that I'm aware.
  
• So this is the last letter, as far as I can see, that MOE has sent relating to a review of the application in Feb 2000?
  --Agreed.
  
• So it looks as though the MNR sent a 5 page letter requesting important information in July 99 that was never responded to by MOE?
  --No correspondence, but we have had discussions.
  
• You don't know of any specific written response to this letter?
  --Not that I am aware.
  
• Affidavit handed out of Mr. Strong’s declaration of June 2009
  
• The MNR in putting forward its most current comments and despite having serious about the hydro-G did not consult with any other Ministry?
  --That's not quite fair, it's just a response…
  
• That no external expertise was hired to assist MNR or other ministries were involved in the review?
  --Agreed.  
• There were no technical documents produced by any other ministry to assist MNR with their decision?
  --We had discussions...
• But there is no written technical documentation from MOE or any other Ministry or outside expertise, for any comments produced either for the public record or otherwise?
  --I'm not aware of any.

To Ms Douglas:

• In the MNR objection letter in July '99 it indicates that scientific water issues need to be addressed?
  --Agreed
  
• When did MNR finally hire a hydro-geologist?
  --Around 2005, his name is Mr. Webster.
  
• Has he done a review of this file?
  --I don't believe so.
  
• In a letter of '99, Ecoplans stated that they were expecting a written document for MOE on the File?
  --Yes, I guess so.
  
• An MNR letter Feb 2000 to JDCL, still has serious concerns of hydrological functions and states MOE needs the information to respond to MNR?
  --Agreed
  
• The Minister's referral letter to the Board was in June 28th 2000?
  --yes
  
• June ‘01 and June ‘02, Mr. Parkin was asking for the status of MNR review?
  --Agreed
  
• April ‘03 a letter from Mr. Parkin asking them to complete their review?
  --Agreed
  
• In all this time, MNR had big concerns about the hydro-G, but did not pursue to the extent of obtaining a written review from MOE or an outside hydro-geologist for review?
  --Agreed

-----------------End of the day-----------
Further items agreed upon by the lawyers and Board:

A new OMB Schedule was handed out for Jan through May. (check our website).

Feb 9th and 16th may be late starts, but it will be confirmed later.

Re the Public afternoon and evening hearing on April 12th, the Town will put out ads in the paper and on website. CCC will also give notice.

Town evidence will probably take less time than is noted on the schedule.

They are thinking of setting aside a week in June to finish final arguments. To be confirmed next week.