OMB Rockfort Hearing for February 1, 2010

Evidence in Chief of Mirek Sharp (for the Region and Town) on the Natural Environment:

He was retained in the Fall of 2008. He visited the site twice and the surrounding area.

Looking at the Chronology of his work:

• On Dec 20, 2008 he provided a preliminary assessment of his initial opinions on the project
  
• On January 30th, 2009 he provided his final peer review report and had meetings with the applicant. In Feb he received a response from JDCL on his peer review.
  
• March 3rd he put out a third report in response to JDCL and prepared the report primarily for the Region Council review of the approval before the Regional Council.
  
• While preparing his final witness statement in May 2009, he received the revised AMP and the letter of resolved issues from MNR.

His opinions on various aspects:

• On the Characterization of the on-site features: he is in agreement with the on-site characterization within the associated excavation footprint of the plan. He also agrees with the off-site characterization for the most part, however the majority of the endangered species are ground and surface water dependent. He points out all the areas, which are Provincially Significant, and because of the significant number of rare species in the area, careful consideration is necessary.

He has concerns about the protection of off-site features in the proposal:

• No analysis of the impacts in the absence of mitigation were done. Although those impacts have not been assessed they would not be acceptable. 
  
• It is his opinion that the confidence that the mitigation will work, should match the significance of the natural heritage. The protection relies on the thorough evaluation of the modeling and the groundwater regime. There is uncertainty in the confidence in those Hydro G aspects according to a number of experts, therefore he as an ecologist, does not have confidence in the mitigation.
  
• There have been no tests on the recharge wells and potential lag-time to impacts off-site if there is a fall below target levels. They should know how long it would take to get mitigation back up to acceptable levels. Until the field trials are done, the concept to protect the features and functions is unproven, and his opinion is that there is over-confidence about the AMP and the certainty of the outcomes.
  
• An AMP does not guarantee results or that modifications will work. JDCL uses the words that the AMP ensures that mitigation will succeed, but Mr. Sharp does not agree with that statement. 
  
• Because JDCL may not be able to properly monitor impacts given the lack of access on private property could be a problem. There is no guarantee that proper monitoring would happen, especially given that it may be for 80 years. 
  
• Because there are uncertainties with the groundwater modeling predictions his opinion is that the impact analysis may be incorrect and provide uncertainty of protection. 
  
• While he sees there is intent to protect the amphibians of the wetlands to the NW, NE, and East as general concepts; the plans in detail have not been provided, so how can we assume that this will be protective.
  
• His opinion is that there will be some impacts on the birds of the area for 80 years, but he believes those impacts are acceptable. But if the groundwater modeling is not accurate, there could be significant changes, which may be unacceptable re the PPS. The amphibian populations, especially in the NW wetland are marginal and may have a more substantial impact if the groundwater modeling is not reliable.
  
• He still has some outstanding concerns with the mitigation and protection of the off-site features and wetlands.
  
• His opinion is that there are risks to the amphibian regime. He cannot be confident of protection because of the modeling uncertainty. He believes that the loss of an entire population of an amphibian population in one of the wetlands is a loss of function and is in contravention of the PPS and the Regional OP Green lands system.
  
• MNR's statement of Environmental Values, states that the public needs to have transparency in the process to trust in the system of protection.

Cross Examination of Mr. Sharp by Mr. Buhlman of JDCL:

• Looking at Mr. Garrod's Opening Statements: Do you agree with his statement that if the mitigation does work, do you agree that the environment will be fine?
  --Overall they may be fine but there may be individual sites that are not.
  
• In the witness statement--It is not in your expertise to assess if there is a partial failure?
  -- I'm not looking at the engineering; I am looking at the results if it should not work.
  
• The recharge system has to be fully operational in the AMP?
  --Agreed
  
• The success of the mitigation depends on the AMP and not the model?
  --I would say that they are an integral part of the AMP. I am not sure how much the modeling assists you in choosing the choices.
  
• So the AMP is an appropriate approach and way to assess?
  --Agreed
  
• Have you worked on quarry practices before?
  --No
  
• Would you agree that all hydro-geological models have a certain degree of uncertainty?
  --I can't comment on that
  
• You agreed that impacts on bird species are acceptable?
  --Agreed
  
• You've said that minor shifts of vegetation are acceptable?
  --Agreed
  
• Minor shifts in vegetation can change due to natural phenomena?
  --Agreed
  
• In the NW wetland in the 2009 report, re the impacts to amphibians, you think the amphibians won't be affected?
  --That was before I had seen the new AMP
  
• You'd agree that sometimes amphibian breeding can be affected in the natural environment?
  --It can be
  
• Maintaining the spring inundation that would help the amphibians?
  --It can, but only if it maintains the hydro-periods
  
• In your March 3, 2009 report, you point out that if mitigation works, the wetland would be okay?
  --Agreed
  
• It would be fair to say that most of your concerns are about the veracity of the model?
  --Agreed,
  
• The AMP calls now for refining the groundwater model in Milestone 1?
  --Agreed
  
• You are aware recharge wells or grouting is used on other projects?
  --Agreed
  
• Have you worked on them?
  --Only on a peer review basis.
  
• Have you worked on Storm Water Management projects?
  --Agreed
  
• Those aren't demonstrated ahead of time?
  --Agreed
  
• What is important for you is that the mitigation is demonstrated to work?
  --I have been retained to judge if it has been demonstrated that off-site features will be protected.
  
• The AMP has target levels in the sentry wells?
  --Yes but they can be changed.
  
• You talk about the lag-time--that is in the red zone?
  --I'm looking at it from an ecological viewpoint
  
• The Chorus frog is not found consistently from year to year in the NW and wetland?
  --It doesn't mean they weren't there; they just weren't detected in the survey.

There was no re-direct by Mr. Garrod (Regional lawyer)