Opposition to

the Rubie Pit

Sand and

Gravel Project

Who are we?

• Group of shared landowners dating back to the mid 1970’s

• Three generations of friends and family have been lucky enough to share this land

• We all care deeply about our property, the adjacent land and preserving the environment

- 9 private properties in the Valley

(with exception to some 50km

south near Canal Flats)

Overview of Location Compared to Our Property

Access Concerns

Application Status

• Lands – License of occupation – Agency review and FN consultation TBD;

• Mines permit – Public consultation imminent;

• License to cut – unknown

• License for water – Rubie creek - unknown

Lands - Public Notice and Application Review

• Public Notification process was inadequate:• No consultation with adjacent landowners;• No notification at site of development; • Inadequate advertisements;

• Significant omissions in the application:• Application lacks general awareness of proximity to adjacent landowners;• Applicant failed to identify a well on our property within 300m of the site;• Applicant is unclear in duration of development, reclamation and future plans;• Application doesn’t identify that there will be visual impacts to adjacent land owners

or users (see 4.1.5 application);• Application doesn’t identify impacts to our ability to safely access our property (see

5.2.1 application);• Application fails to identify changes to drainage and increased erosion or

sedimentation (see 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 of application)

What we want?

• We are requesting the agency (RDEK) to recommend to the ministry the application be rejected and the applicant find a more suitable location for development.

Thank you for

your time!

• Special thanks to Gerry Wilkie,

Susan Clovechok and Doug Clovechok who visited the

proposed site during the Christmas break!

December 19, 2020

ATTENTION: Authorizations Specialist

MFLNRORD, Kootenay Region

1902 Theatre Road

Cranbrook, BC V1C 7G1

VIA Online Applications, Comments and Reasons for Decisions Submission

RE: Crown Land File: #4406152 and Roadway 4406153

I am a Registered Owner of Land Number CA3591138 from Title Number CA3026682, Parcel Identifier

016-470-460. Our property is immediately adjacent to the proposed Rubie Pit Sand and Gravel Project.

The duration and location of the proposed quarry will have a significant and prolonged impact on my

ability to access my property, the property value and the use and enjoyment of my property.

The Application #4406152 by Okanagan Aggregates Ltd (OAL) is completely insufficient. It has failed to

identify basic risks and mitigations associated with the location and nature of the proposed mine. It lacks

general awareness of proximity to adjacent landowners including a plan that appears to completely cut

off our property access in the future. There has been no site investigation completed – it appears this

application is solely based on a desktop exercise. The plan does not reflect actual conditions expected to

be encountered at the location. The application has failed to include a reclamation plan. The application

appears not to have followed The Guide to Preparing Mine Permit Applications for Aggregate Pits and

Quarries in British Columbia and has not met or even contemplated much of associated guidelines. Over

and above all of this there are less than one dozen deeded properties in this valley and the applicant has

chosen a piece of land immediately adjacent to two deeded properties. The selection of this location has

not been fully thought through and needs to be revised.

The following details why the proposed Rubie Pit Sand and Gravel Project application should be

rejected:

- Access

o The Location Justification in the application fails to identify any adjacent landowners.

o Under section 5.2.1 Adjacent Users or Communities of the Management Plan

Application OAL has indicated this development is not likely to restrict public access, or

the ability, or the ability of adjacent land owners or tenure holder to access property or

tenures. This is completely incorrect.

o OAL also states in section 1.1 Project Overview “the company wishes to begin

operations on a 5 hectare parcel of land and continue until the area within this Mine

Plan is exhausted (~15 years).” The application does not clearly illustrate OAL’s full

intent for the lands;

o It is understood with the future intent of this quarry our properties access would be

completely cut off from Settlers Road. See below diagram.

o In addition to physical access to the property this quarry proposal likely also prevents

the ability to install utilities to into the property should they become available in the

future (such as gas, electricity, etc).

o How will the applicant ensure safe and secure access during and after operations?

- Geotechnical and slope stability concerns

o The proposed location of the quarry is adjacent to my property along an existing steep

embankment. The removal of materials in this location can cause slumping or failure of

this slope and damages and a reduction of value of my property.

o There are no details in the application regarding the requirements of reclamation. In

fact, it appears the application has not even identified this as a risk or completed any

preliminary engineering or investigations.

o How will the applicant ensure slope stability and preservation of our lands and lands

adjacent to us?

- Environmental

o OAL is proposing the removal of water from Rubie creek @ 2000 gallons per day. Rubie

creek is a very small creek and fluctuates with seasonal flows. This may have a large

impact on the riparian areas and the creek bed.

o Within section 4.1.3 Riparian Encroachment OAL has indicated there will be no impact

to riparian zone of any water body. I believe this is incorrect considering the dewatering

contemplated in this proposal.

o Noise and dust associated with quarry and aggregate production will have an adverse

impact on the environment and can potentially impact our health.

o The application has not included any details regarding water management within the

site.

o It appears the applicant has failed to identify any environmental risks associated with

this development with exception to the potential to have archeological findings.

- Ground Water

o The application has failed to identify risks associated with impacting ground water and

therefore have no mitigation in place.

o The application fails to identify a well within 300m of the proposed site.

o The application fails to identify Anderson spring within close proximity of the proposed

site.

o The application lacks any water management plan for the site. It does not include or

contemplated any erosion or sediment control measures.

- Noise and Dust

o The applicant has failed to even identify noise and dust in their planning.

o Our property, located directly adjacent to this proposed quarry will be significantly

impacted for an extended duration of approx. 15 years. Noise pollution will significantly

impact our quality of life on our property and will also impact wildlife. An active quarry

adjacent to our property will decrease our property value.

o Many studies have shown dust produced from quarries contains silica. Inhaling

crystalline silica can lead to serious, sometimes fatal illnesses including silicosis, lung

cancer, tuberculosis (in those with silicosis), and chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease (COPD). The proximity of the quarry to our lands increases our

exposure to silica.

o How does the contractor intend on managing dust and noise? Will there be active

sound, vibration and air quality monitoring with available data through the life of the

quarry?

- Public Notice

o The requirements of section 4.6 Notification Requirements of The Guide to Preparing

Mine Permit Applications for Aggregate Pits and Quarries in British Columbia have not

been met.

o While the 30 day comment period was met (within The Columbia Valley Pioneer –

printed in the Nov 19 and Nov 26 issues), the project application could not be found in

the BC Gazette, as is required for gravel pit applications.

o Further to this, The Columbia Valley Pioneer was the only publication within which

public notice could be found. The Guide to Preparing Mine Permit Applications for

Aggregate Pits and Quarries in BC states “public consultation should take a variety of

forms”.

o In accordance with section 4.6 Notification Requirements of The Guide to Preparing

Mine Permit Applications for Aggregate Pits and Quarries in British Columbia “Proactive

consultation with…. Locally affected communities or landowners will assist in identifying

and addressing potential concerns related to a proposed mine”. As an affected

landowner this consultation has not happened.

o The Public Notice requirements have not been met.

- Vandalism, Damage to Lands and Trespassing

o The development of an open mine pit will increase the chances of persons accessing,

dumping garbage and debris and damage my land and the lands adjacent.

o How will this risk be mitigated and my land be protected?

- Loss of Property Value

o The development proposed will significantly decrease our property values. Should the

application be approved, who will pay this compensation?

- Discrepancies in the Application

o The Site Plan view shows sections A, B and C, however these sections are not included in

the information provided. This information is necessary to fully assess the impact of the

proposed works.

o The Site Plan states “Proposed Works – Y5 (2020-2025)” however within the

Management Plan application it is stated “In 2021, the company wishes to begin

operations on a 5 hectare parcel of land and continue until the area within this Mine

Plan is exhausted (~15 years).” The duration discrepancy is significant. The duration and

plan is not clear.

o Crown Land File #4406152 indicates area size of 3.81ha. OAL states in application they

will begin operations on a 5ha parcel of land (section 1.1).

- Insufficient Permit Application

o The Guide to Preparing Mine Permit Applications for Aggregate Pits and Quarries in

British Columbia outlines what the applicant should included within the application. The

application does not meet a significant amount of this guideline. The application lacks

detail and planning surrounding the proposed work. For clarity the requirements as

outlined in Section 5.6 of the Guide to Preparing Mine Permit Applications for Aggregate

Pits and Quarries in British Columbia are in Italic and my comments are in red.

Site Plan Requirements (General) Include documentation of the following:

• property boundaries

• access roads

• location of all structures and wells on neighboring properties within 300

metres of the property line – well within 300mm of proposed mine not

shown on plan. It appears to have not been identified.

• watercourses

• current land uses adjacent to property (e.g., forestry, residential, farms,

etc.) not shown. The applicant appears to have ignored neighbouring

property owners.

• elevation contours at five metres or less

b) Mine Plan (Specific) Include documentation of the following:

• final boundaries of excavation insufficient. Future mine plan

contemplated but not detailed

• buffer zones and setbacks

• area of initial excavation and progression of mining

• plan of progressive reclamation no reclamation details included

• final configuration after reclamation no reclamation details included

c) Locations - Describe the onsite locations of the following:

• topsoil, subsoil and overburden storage areas no subsoil or overburden

storage shown. It appears OAL has not contemplated overburden even

though it is likely to be encounter. OAL has not completed any

geotechnical investigation. OAL plan lacks details required in

anticipation of actual conditions that will be encountered.

• oversize and product stockpiles no reject or oversized stockpiles have

been identified. This will likely be required and could have an adverse

impact on the environment and adjacent lands if not handled properly.

• processing site The processing site has not been identified.

• waste and process water management facilities (e.g., settling ponds) no

erosion or sediment control measures have been identified even though

there are wells and water bodies close to the operation. No water

management plan.

• weigh scale no details included even though it is contemplated in the

application.

• fuel and lubricant storage no details included

• sanitary facilities no details included

• any buildings stormwater, wastewater, and erosion control, storage and

treatment systems

o permanent water-control structures require professional design.

no details included

o dry or intermittent water courses must be located and taken

into account in the mine plan. no details included

• noise berms (including a description of design particulars, proximity to

noise source, height and construction materials) no details included and

OAL plan lacks awareness and proximity to adjacent landowners

• vegetated buffers no details included

• water source(s) contemplated utilizing Rubie Creek however no

evidence of water license provided

d) Cross Sections

• Provide at least one longitudinal cross section and one (or more if

directed) lateral cross section at 1:5,000 or greater scale showing the

original land surface, typical configuration during mining with slope

angles and benches, and final configuration on completion of

reclamation. No cross section provided. Insufficient information to

review.

• The maximum excavation extents, sequence and method of mining, and

the final reclaimed configuration must be shown on the sections. No

cross section provided. No sequencing or reclamation details provided.

• Information from test pits or drilling on soil horizons such as clay, till

fines sands and perched water tables shall be shown. The mine plan

shall take problematic soils into account. No geotechnical or even visual

inspection of site has been completed based on the application.

Property Description

• Provide the following information about the mine property:

o address (if applicable)

o property owner’s name

o legal description

o size (in hectares)

• If directed, a legal survey of the mine property may be required.

f) Material Quality and Quantity

• Describe the type and volume of material to be excavated, and how

volume estimates were arrived upon. No details on how the estimated

volumes were calculated and no geotechnical information to support

estimate.

g) Mining Method Include documentation of the following:

• A development schedule which shows how and what method will be

used to remove overburden (i.e., type of equipment, such as loader or

excavator, to be used) this detail has not been provided.

• Configuration of the pit (e.g., pit slope angle, mining face height and

angle, bench spacing and width, etc.)

o Should be shown in the mine plan and sections This information

has not been included. No sections shown. Appears the OAL has

not provided sufficient details to ensure slope stability during

and after operations.

• Haul roads

o Provide the methods to be followed in the construction of

haulage roads. Design parameters of the pit haul roads in terms

of gradient, stabilized running surface, height of shoulder barrier

• Traffic plan

o Provide a traffic control plan showing the maximum allowable

speeds for the vehicles in use, rules for passing, “stop” and

“yield” locations, priority rules for various vehicles, rules for

night operation, maximum operating grades, emergency run-off

protection, shoulder barriers, and any other information

required by MEMPR.

• Open pit design

o Preliminary pit slope designs are required for initial permitting

based on available information obtained from boreholes, test

pits, and nearby rock cuts or natural outcrops. No geotechnical

investigation completed. No slope designs completed.

o Pit slopes are required for phased pit expansions using the

detailed geology and geotechnical information obtained from

exposed pit slopes, additional geotechnical boreholes, and

experience with the interim walls. Insufficient information. No

site investigation has been completed in order to plan for actual

conditions expected to be encountered.

h) Processing

• Include a description of the products expected to be produced, the

proposed method of processing (e.g., crushing, screening, washing, etc),

and proposed types of equipment that are to be used. OAL indicates

they intend to produce materials for future use. No details have been

included regarding the gradation of materials desired to be produced.

No evidence the raw materials will be sufficient to produce the

manufactured product. No indication of waste by-product or required

import of blending product. There are no details regarding method of

crushing and whether washing of products will be required in which

would require additional environmental protections not contemplated

in application.

• Indicate if processing will be continuous with respect to excavation or in

batches from time to time.

• If batch processing, indicate if processing equipment will be left on site

between batches. No details included.

• Note that all machinery must comply with the HSRC, but trucks used

only to haul product from the site are not considered to be mining

equipment and are not subject to the equipment standards provisions of

the Mines Act and HSRC.

i) Soil Salvage and Stockpiles

• Identify any soil storage locations, configurations, and anticipated

volumes. No subsoil or overburden stockpiles or quantities

contemplated even though they are likely to be encountered in this

area.

• Soil salvage, storage and replacement should be based on information

collected, including descriptions of soils, depth to be salvaged, erosion

and sediment control, and anticipated volumes of each soil type.

Insufficient information included. OAL’s plan lacks the detail required to

ensure soils will be salvaged properly and reclamed. No erosion and

sediment control details have been accounted for or included.

• Soil compaction and other activities that destroy soil structure should be

avoided.

j) Additional Mine Site Infrastructure

• Any additional mine site structures, including on-site accommodations

and offices, must be described in terms of location and construction.

Items of particular relevance to the reclamation plan are locations,

foundations, and nature of construction (e.g., movable modular units or

“permanent” structures).

k) Noise Impacts

• Describe the potential noise impacts of the operation and what

measures are proposed to minimize these impacts. OAL’s application

does not include any evaluation of impacts or mitigations associated

with their operations regarding noise even though the contemplated

mine site is adjacent to landowners.

• For quarries, describe the type of drills, blast pattern and frequency, and

measures to mitigate blast effects.

• A notification plan for neighbours living within a specific radius from the

quarry may be required. No notification has been made.

l) Dust Impacts

• Describe the potential impacts of dust generated on the sites, especially

potential impacts on adjacent properties, and describe what measures

are proposed to minimize dust impacts. OAL’s application does not

address any mitigations with regards to dust. The operation will

produce significant dust which is likely to include silica, which can have

long term and adverse health impacts. OAL has failed to recognize this

hazard to adjacent properties, wildlife, public and landowners.

m) Geotechnical Considerations

• British Columbia’s predominantly mountainous terrain has historically

resulted in pit and quarry operators tending to work from the most

easily accessible portion of the deposit, usually the toe of a slope. This

practice can sometimes lead to future negative events, including

geotechnical failure, with considerable future mitigation and expenses

required. The application lacks any design, reclamation details or

foresight regarding the future state of the lands and the potential

impacts to adjacent properties and potential safety and environmental

hazards associated with their proposal.

• APPENDIX 3 provides guidance on the development of mine plans for

different types of terrain.

n) Groundwater Impacts

• Information will be required to demonstrate the proximity of the

proposed excavation to the water table. No site investigation has been

completed and the water table level is unknown. The impacts to the

groundwater have not been considered and this mine could impact

adjacent wells.

• The operator must be aware of the possibility of perched water tables

bounded by hard till or clay/silt layers. No site investigation completely.

Perched water tables have not been identified in the application.

• The inspector may require a professional estimate of the winter high

water table if the excavation is likely to approach that level.

• Excavations below the water table will require special approval.

o) Groundwater Mitigation and Control

• Describe potential impacts of the proposed operation on groundwater

quantity and quality. The application contains insufficient information

and lacks any mitigation associated with impacting groundwater. Close

proximity wells have not been identified.

• If there are nearby wells or down slope water users, a hydrogeological

study to assess potential impacts and recommend mitigative measures

will be required. It appears the applicant is unaware of adjacent wells.

• Depending on known soil types and/or terrain, a slope stability analysis,

which will be used in the mine plan to mitigate groundwater and surface

water effects on slope stability, may be required.

p) Surface Water Management

• List the number of settling ponds and a provide description of the water

source, proposed dimensions and construction methods for each pond.

No site water management plan has been contemplated. No temporary

erosion and sediment control has been contemplated. No details

regarding reclamation have been included.

• If constructing a dam or dyke, indicate what the height of the dam or

dyke wall will be, and what materials will be used for construction.

• Indicate whether or not water will exfiltrate into the ground or will be

decanted to a watercourse. Describe the decant structure if one is

required. Application has not contemplated any site water management

plan.

• Describe how extreme rainfall events will be managed. This has not

been addressed.

q) Erosion Control and Sediment Retention Plan

• Describe how erosion will be prevented/minimized during construction

and throughout the mine life, and how any detached sediment release

will be contained within the mine site. No erosion and sediment control

plan has been identified.

• A potential for erosion will result from surface disturbance and exposure

during development activities. The proponent should be adequately

prepared to respond both with knowledge and materials (e.g., seed,

fertilizer, silt fences, settling ponds, flocculants). No erosion and

sediment control plan has been identified.

• Erosion control/sediment removal plans are required for disturbed

surfaces and soil stockpiles. No erosion and sediment control plan has

been identified.

o List the equipment that will be used for pond cleaning.

o The ground must be stable enough for the proposed works.

o A report on the structural stability of an existing pond may be

required.

o New impoundment structures may require a design from an

appropriate qualified professional.

r) Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (ML/ARD)

• Hard-rock quarry applications must include a ML/ARD geochemical

prediction of all materials exposed, disturbed or created during mining,

in accordance with the “Policy for Metal Leaching and Acid Rock

Drainage at British Columbia Mine Sites” (BCMEM and BCMELP, 1998)

and the “Guidelines for Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Mine

sites in British Columbia” (Price and Errington, 1998).

s) Reclamation Cost Estimates and End Land Use

• Describe the intended land use of the mine site upon completion of

mining. Proponents should be aware of the local land use zoning for the

area and whether or not the intended end land use is consistent with the

zoning. No reclamation plan has been included. The application is

insufficient.

• A reclamation cost estimate is required for all phases of mine

development and closure. These cost estimates form the basis of the

timing and size of securities required as a condition of the Mines Act

Permit. Not included.

• Reclamation cost projections must normally include, but are not

necessarily limited to, the following: Not included.

o site preparation

o revegatation and fertilization

o disposal of structures and equipment

o construction of spillways, diversions and other water

management structures

o removal of culverts

o disposal of fuel, contaminated soils, and toxic materials

o long-term maintenance and monitoring programs

o mobilization and demobilization

o engineering re-design costs

- Future Work

o Throughout the application future work is discussed however the full intent is vague and

unclear. The plan has not been thoroughly developed and has not contemplated

impacts to adjacent landowners.

- Visual Impacts

o OAL answered “no” to section 4.1.5 Visual Impacts. There will be adverse effects of the

project, and potential adverse effects on sight lines to the project area from surrounding

areas likely to be used for scenic viewing by residents or other users. This project will

impact our enjoyment and site lines from our property.

- Archeological Sites

o OAL has stated in the application a potential for significant archeological finds and has

also indicated that multiple archeological sites exist within a 6km radius. It appears this

is based on a desktop exercise. Based on this information, provided to OAL by a local

reputable archeological company, a site investigation should be completed before the

application is approved.

Based on the significant and real issues outlined in my letter, the complete lack of general awareness of

location and proximity to adjacent landowners and the lack of information to support the application,

consideration for approval of the application should be denied.

The proposed works would have significant impact to my property, health and quality of life.

Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns. I expect a detailed response in due time.

Regards,

Bryce Terry, P. Eng

Personal information has been withheld in accordance with section 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.