November 21, 2006 Permit to Take Water Coordinator Ministry of the Environment, West Central Region 119 King Street West, 12th Floor HAMILTON, Ontario L8P 4Y7 E-mail: Cora.Sheppard@ontario.ca Dear PTTW Coordinator, Re: EBR # IA06E1293 – Permit to Take Water Application by St Marys Cement Group We are writing so that you will add our concerns to the public record and take them into consideration when you evaluate the application for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) by Gartner Lee Limited on behalf of St. Marys Cement Group. St Marys wants to test the theoretical Groundwater Recirculation System (GRS) they plan to use to try to reduce the unacceptable negative impacts of their proposed quarry development on our communities. In our area, groundwater is the only source of potable water. The Carlisle municipal system and private wells for homes, schools, farms and businesses all use groundwater as the source for drinking water and other uses. Adequate and quality supplies of groundwater are essential. We have had quantity and quality challenges for many years. The test that is planned would use significant volumes of water and would intrude into our groundwater aquifer. It is very important that you give our groundwater the highest level of protection possible. We think it is premature to consider this PTTW application now. There is still much work required to understand our watershed and to evaluate all the risks and other factors before a test should even be considered: * The City of Hamilton and its consultants completed the Carlisle Wellhead Protection Study in 2004. It needs to be approved by the Ministry of the Environment and action plans to protect our water still need to be put in place. * The Ontario Clean Water Act was just passed by the Ontario Legislature to protect our sources of water from existing and future development. Conservation Halton and the Hamilton Conservation Authority are at the very early stages of working on a water budget and the source water protection plan for our area. What we do know is that the proposed quarry falls within the Carlisle Wellhead Protection Area and the local recharge area – two areas that are supposed to be protected by this new law. A quarry development in those areas could be a significant threat to our drinking water. * Reviews of the hydrogeology reports for the proposed quarry by the Combined Agency Review Team (CART), provincial ministries (including the Ministries of the Environment (MOE) and Natural Resources (MNR) ) and Peer Review Team (Jagger Himms) found serious gaps, errors and omissions. A complete Hydrogeology Terms of Reference and work plan has still not been submitted and evaluated by these governments and agencies. Work that documents baseline conditions, potential impacts and their precise degree of severity should be completed first before any test to reduce those impacts is conducted. * There are many other major issues still on the table that could see the proposed quarry application turned down. Examples of issues are lack of haul routes, impacts on natural features (like the Provincially Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands like Carlisle North Forests, Bronte Creek, and other Environmentally Sensitive Areas) and incompatible land uses. The applicant’s work in these areas is very preliminary. They should be completed before tests that could harm our water forever are even considered. We think that giving permission to a test of this scale now is “putting the cart before the horse”. It would not respect the duty to protect groundwater and evaluate risks first – duties spelled out in the new Clean Water Act and in the Director’s considerations in O.Reg. 387/04. When you evaluate this specific PTTW application and test plan, there are many concerns that we want to raise: 1. The GRS system proposed is still unproven and there is no example of a precedent anywhere in the world. This is especially true for the system’s application to reducing the impacts of quarry dewatering in a deep fractured bedrock setting. The case studies that St Marys has included do not even relate to the geology found in this area. The studies point to the need for more research and problems with the systems over the longer term from factors such as plugging up. 2. The test plans to pump significant volumes of water. Almost four (4) times the volume permitted to be taken by the Carlisle Municipal system. There is no meaningful assessment of the impact on existing approved water users. The complaint and follow-up policy included is very basic considering that some people could lose their water supply permanently. 3. The volume of water to be discharged into Mountsberg Creek and/or one of its tributaries is also significant. We are concerned about the potential environmental impact on the creek because of changes in flow rate, chemical composition, and temperature. 4. If groundwater recirculation does occur, the test does not indicate how the quality of water in the aquifer will be protected from potential surface contaminants and/or changes in temperature which could lead to bacteriological impacts. Concerns about “thermal plumes” and how they would be addressed have been raised by both MOE and MNR with respect to drinking water, the Provincially Significant Wetlands, and other watercourses. 5. The tests include some procedures such as aquifer fracturing that would be irreversible and could possibly impact existing groundwater flows. We do not know how existing approved water users and natural features will be protected from potential changes in water quantity and quality. Again, the complaint and follow-up procedures seem inappropriate given the possible impacts. 6. It is not clear what these short term tests will mean. Even if the tests are declared a success by St Marys, the main cause of failure in this type of system, according to the case studies provided, is caused by plugging up and dissolution of the bedrock over the long term. The tests will do nothing to help assess the known long term failure scenarios. It is also not clear how the tests performed now will account for the seasonal changes in groundwater conditions. 7. The test plan includes a series of tests. Each one becomes more invasive to the groundwater aquifer. Moving to the next step should not be decided by St Marys and its consultants alone. The steps should be monitored and gated by independent experts. Unless certain criteria are achieved during the early steps, the later steps which have the potential to have irreversible negative impact should be restricted. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Our letter also supports the reports prepared by the community’s expert hydrogeologist and ecology team, being sent in by FORCE, on behalf of the community. Yours sincerely, From: [Insert your name and address here]