OMB Rockfort Hearing for Monday Feb 8th, 2010

Evidence of Mr. David Hardy on Social Impact for the Town of Caledon

Led By Mr. Barnett (Town lawyer)

JDCL wanted to have Mr. Hardy's evidence to be disregarded, but was not willing to put in a Motion that would delay things--but wanted the Chair to be aware.

• Mr. Hardy was first retained in 1998 for Rockfort studies. Then in 1999 he was involved with the advising the Town on their social impact policies. Peer reviews followed for Rockfort in 2000, 2003, 2008, and 2009.
• A social impact assessment is rooted in social sciences and gauges local and community-wide effects and how significant those changes would be on people's lives.
  
• Over the years with OMB quarry hearings there have been some good quality reports and some were poor. In the Camden East hearing wording was put on the record about the basis for social impact studies standards and how they needed to be scoped. This wording was put into Caledon's OPA 161 section 5.11.2.2.
  
• The requirement in OPA 161 for a separate report for social impact was dropped, although the intent was that an applicant would follow the methodology and gather data around the site beyond just a checklist for dust, noise, traffic, etc. The Town was clear about its expectations of applicants. Each discipline would have had information gathered on the users in the area based on interviews. Each discipline would have to go beyond just a checklist. The Graham Brothers for their pit in Caledon did this methodology report.  Mr. Parkin was the author of that report.
  
• In his opinion the applicant has not met these expectations: JDCL did two reports with no rigorous science or data involved. He thought the reports on Hydro-geology and traffic were adequate. However; The Credivale Park community was not looked at, which involves over 100 people. Overall impacts were not looked at, nor very little data was involved; recreational impacts were not looked at. The dust study impacts were looking at buildings, but not the impacts on people. There can be impacts on people, even when Provincial Standards were being met. Their noise environment will change because of the beepers, blasting, and crushers to move the noise level from a rural standard to more of an urban standard.
• Looking at your 1998 peer review you addressed things 12 years ago that needed to be assessed. They were: no info on social characteristics and whether tolerances will be exceeded; potential effects re traffic, dust, noise, hydro-geological, blast analysis on homes, effect on livestock, effect of property values analysis.
• In your opinion, has JDCL's impact information provided, meet the requirements of the Town OPA 161? -- No, JDCL did an analysis of the water wells, and some traffic info--but otherwise, residual impacts on noise, dust will have effects on people (they know from this from empirical evidence).
• Based on his own data collection, studies and Dr Homenuk's report (this is a report done by the expert of the CCC on social impacts), he concludes that the effects will be a diminishment or loss of values and character of the area.
• The mitigation measures proposed by JDCL are found in various places but Dr Homenuk cites mitigation measures that have not been done.
• Looking at Dr Homenuk's study, her felt it was thorough, with data collection and has technical studies, which supports conclusions. It concluded there would be diminishments or loss of the quality of life and property values for the people of the local area. These are significant changes.
• his opinion is that the Board should not approve the application because key requirements have not been met in OPA 161 and that mitigation measures need to reflect that.
  

Cross Examination by Mr. Tzekas (JDCL):

• You were retained in 1998 for Rockfort and then retained in 1999 for Town Policies, when were you retained for Policies?
  --It was an on-going retainer.
  
• Did any the CCRS policies ask for an explicit social impact studies?
  --In terms of the study, no; but I would have expected more as a professional.
  
• Given that, you still think that a separate study should have been done?
  --Yes
  
• In the ARA, is it your opinion, that other aggregate applications were typically required to a social impact study?
  --I would expect as a professional that these would be required and they would be helpful as well.
  
• Are you aware that the MNR had accepted and indicated that the application was complete?
  --My opinion is that it would be helpful to do it.
  
• You agree there weren't a lot of social impact studies being done regarding aggregate operations?
  --Agreed
  
• In looking at some of the Board quotes regarding rural changes, it is noted that there are regulations in place, which protect the public?
  --Agreed
  
• In the Orro decision, the Board was telling us that you don't need a stand-alone social impact study?
  --Agreed, but there was a feeling of unease that you needed to see more balancing.
  
• You make the statement that the Board's opinion has confirmed several other decisions?
  --The Board was wrestling with the balancing
  
• In the Camden East decision in 1997 it states that there needs to be a clear and evaluative protocol?
  --Agreed

Handout of Mr. Hardy's report in the Camden East case (he was representing Lafarge and he provided a peer review but not a social impact report).

• Here you state that Lafarge has supplied a broad look at social effect study, this was a typical report for aggregate?
  --Agreed
  
• There was a discussion of what an appropriate policy was for the social impact study and the Chair says there needs to be clear and reasonable policies for aggregate applications. Provincial standards are there to protect the public. Mr. Hardy, this is not a fair summary?
  --I think if you go on you'll find a better understanding.
  
• You did not accept a stand-alone study when you were working for Lafarge?
  --We came up with wording with McNaughton that included the word "people" as a very important part of what these studies had to look at, the effect on the people, not just a checklist.
  
• Looking at the Town of Caledon OPA 161 settlement, there is nothing explicit there that says you have to do a dedicated social assessment?
  --Agreed
  
• There were several outstanding aggregate applications at this time, are you aware that no stand-alone studies were required of them?
  --I'm not aware. My conclusions were that studies with data collection and assessment needs to happen, whether or not it's done within a stand alone study or not.
  
• Is it your opinion that a good report would have to look at both the positive and negative impacts of a proposal?
  --Agreed
  
• Does Dr Homenuk provide any of the positive impacts of an aggregate proposal?
  --I'd have to check, it's a long report.
  
• In 1999, the industry was expressing concern about the Town's proposed policies and that they were not reflecting the Provincial Policies regarding social impacts?
  --That's what the report says.
  
• Did you provide the policy wording of what the social impacts study does?
  --I don't recall about these particular words.
  
• In the Council's report of 2000, it is noted by staff that producers are concerned about the social impact study and Town staff believed the stand-alone was needed?
  --Agreed
  
• It was the position of NEC and CCC was that Area 9A should be removed from the aggregate mapping?
  --I'm not familiar with this, but the words say that.
  
• MMAH, APAO, Graham Brothers, Blue Circle, Franchisini and JDCL were concerned about the social impact study and community based studies not having clear and reasonable tests?
  --Agreed
  
• The final policies that were approved have the references to a stand-alone social impact study, deleted?
  --Agreed, but the details of what was expected was in 5.11.14. The fact that it is summarized in the policies indicates that it was the intent that it be required.
  
• Looking at the Graham Brothers pit decision, this was during the time there was controversy over the Town's social impact studies?
  -- Agreed
  
• Mr. Parkin wrote the social impact study for that pit?
  --Agreed, and I was the person who wrote the terms of reference for that study.
  
• How can you quote the Graham Brother application as useful?
  --I was focusing on and asking the question if we were to change hours or other things what would be the impact on the people.
  
• But the Board said it didn't find it helpful?
  --Yes but the Board was frustrated with there not being enough detailed information of individuals.
  
• What Provincial guidelines on standards tell you to look at the impacts on people?
  --We have found that there are impacts on people even if Provincial standards are met.
  
• Since OPA 161 enactment there have been other applications--in particular let's look at the Lafarge application and the Olympia application. The Town sent a letter to the proponents to say that the social impacts have been dealt within the individual subjects of noise, dust etc. Has the Town of Caledon required any other proponent to provide stand-alone studies?
  --I don't know.
• It seems to me that JDCL is being treated differently?
  --I would be speculating to comment on that.
  
• Did you review the consultation report done by JDCL in 2000?
  --Agreed
  
• This report summarizes the significant public involvement in the CCRS process and CBSES process?
  --Yes, there were some people that provided information but it isn't a broad spectrum of people from this specific area around Rockfort in the CCRS. 
  
• Is it fair to describe that the CBSES was extensive and had significant input from the community?
  --It appears so
  
• Are you aware JDCL attempted to "knock on doors" to get more information? 
  ---I believe they did a small amount.
  
• And what is a proponent to do if the person says, "the CCC told us not to speak with you"?
  --There can be difficulties, but then you need to get the information in other ways.
  
• The Credivale Park group is right beside the Brampton Brick quarry?
  --Agreed
  
• There was public consultation in CCRS, there is this application work, and the CBSES, do you not think that throughout that process the public concerns and issues have been voiced?
  -- Disagree. Public voicing is one thing but it does not analyze the data.
  
• Wouldn't people moving into the neighbourhood know what the impacts would be with all the signs around?
  --Disagree, Our experience is that people moving into the area often don't understand how they might be affected plus those people still deserve to have the social impact be analyzed.
  
• You were concerned that no social profile was completed?
  --Disagree; I was concerned it was incomplete
  
• You saw that Mr. Parkin referred to recreation and truck safety policy?
  --I would have expected a much more detailed assessment on recreation.
  
• You looked at dust, are you aware that a new protocol has come out on dust?
  --Agreed
  
• You mentioned you were concerned about property value drop. On what do you base that?
  --It could impact values or may not, but there is potential for them to go down.
  
• Chair asks about OPA 161 objective, measurable standards, how would interviews help inform that?
  --Until you go to the door and assess who they are, what are the aspects of their situation, then you can put that into the data, you won't have a good understanding of the impacts on those people.

Redirect by Mr. Barnett:

• Mr. Tzekas asserted that the Town had somehow treated JDCL differently, so what is your opinion?
  --In my experience the Town has asked for this for twelve years and it has not been provided.
  
• Looking at objective versus subjective assessments in Dr Homenuk's report; what are the kinds of objective data that makes it sufficiently rigourous?
  --The way the data was collected and analyzed.
  
• How were the subjective "feelings" questions handled in order to be considered objective?
  -- You ask open-ended and close-ended questions such that you get a consistent pattern. 
  
• Re the provincial standards, why is it that meeting those standards may still create an unacceptable impact?
  -- The standards are important but the hard data will show how people live their lives so it will show what those impacts might be. For instance, if there are animals on the property, how they might be affected.