AWARE Simcoe is a citizens’…

AWARE Simcoe is a citizens’ group that works for transparency and accountability in government to protect water, the environment and the health of Ontarians.

1.1.1 Water Report
AWARE Simcoe supports any changes that strengthen the protection of water sources. Many areas of significant ground water and ground water recharge areas are not identified within the currant policies for water protection. Private wells in rural and farming areas have no protection. In Simcoe County Dr. William Shotyk, Professor and Bocock Chair in Agriculture and the Environment at the University of Alberta has identified the source water recharge area for the Alliston aquifer as containing the purest groundwater in Ontario and perhaps the world but it currently has no protection under legislation.
Aggregate extraction in source water areas must be prohibited without a full environmental and water assessment, and complete understanding of the impact of extraction on the groundwater and the watershed.

1.1.3 Natural Environment Report
We strongly support natural heritage policies and the four provincial plans (Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan) and encourage any changes that align aggregate operations with protection of those plans.

1.1.4 Agricultural Impact Assessment
We strongly support Food & Water First where Ontario’s vital agricultural sector and source water regions are given priority in land use planning. We therefore object to new and expanded pits and quarries within prime agricultural areas.

1.1.7 Application Requirements for Extraction from Land under Water
We do not support the proposal to customize the requirements for technical reports, information, notification and consultation processes. Allowing Ministry staff to customize requirements could put Ministry staff under pressure of influence. Additionally, customized requirements would ultimately lead to inconsistent applications, thus sowing confusion. It would be better to have a documented set of requirements to guide the application.

Additionally, we do not support extraction of aggregate from land under water (e.g. from the bed of a lake or river) without an Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken to determine how to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts locally and downstream.

1.1.8 Forestry Aggregate Pits
We do not support removing the 10-year time limit from above-water pits on Crown land managed by the forest industry. The proposal would allow forestry aggregate pits to be “open” indefinitely avoiding operational review and allowing sites to eternally defer end-of-life rehabilitation.

1.2.2 Site Plan Standards – Modernization
We do support aggregate extraction within any provincial plan focused on environmental protection (e.g. within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan).

1.2.4 Prescribed Licence and Permit Conditions (New Sites)

Conditions related to noise mitigation
We expect all aggregate operations to mitigate noise at source. Any changes to Crown land-based operations should be discussed in a meaningful way with local communities and First Nations.

Conditions related to other approvals
We do not support removing approvals from other ministries from the conditions required to obtain a new aggregate licence or permit.

Ensuring all approvals have been obtained before granting a new aggregate licence or permit would: (i) clarify and make transparent the entire process; (ii) stop licences and permits from being granted with only partial approval and thereby takes the overall operation into account; (iii) prevent premature operation of the site; (iv) allow government ministries to address differences over responsibility within the framework of the entire process when it comes to problem resolution, (v) encourage service oriented big picture thinking.

Conditions related to dust and blasting
We support any decisions that take the good health and welfare of people and our natural environment into account, as well as administrative transparency and accountability. See 3.1.2

1.3.1 Notification and Consultation Requirements
We do not support giving the Proponent the opportunity of an extension past the two-year overall notification and consultation process deadline. If the Proponent cannot resolve objections within two years, the project should be deemed too controversial to be allowed.

1.3.2 Notification and Consultation Process
We find that increasing the 120 metre distance threshold to 150 metres for a proposed pit and to 500 metres for a proposed quarry for resident (not landowner) notification to be negligible especially in agricultural or forested areas where properties are measured in hectares.

The Proponent of a new proposal should be tasked with a fiduciary duty to inform local landowners and community members to the extent that the proposal can be negotiated in good faith to benefit both the aggregate site operator and the community. Aggregate operations bring jobs, business and funds to the local area. Any new proposal should be negotiated to a win-win resolution.

We support licence applicants having more flexible options related to the method of notification as long as the applicants put forward their best efforts to contact and keep open channels of communications with landowners, residents, applicable First Nations communities, local businesses and governments.

1.3.3 Objection Process on Private Land
We do not support the ministry’s proposal to “clarify when submissions are considered to be formal ‘objections’”. Such a proposal would foster the notion that submissions made during the notification period are less important and easily dismissed.

Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (1993) gives Ontario residents the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Therefore, Ontarians have the right to comment and/or object to decisions being considered. The Environmental Registry was established so that Ontarians could comment on actions that could affect the environment. Ministries are obliged under the Environmental Bill of Rights to consider Residents’ comments when making their final decisions so proponents should take any objections submitted under this process to be of a serious nature.

Requiring a separate formal “objection form” process is redundant, time-consuming, and contrary to the spirit and intent of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Requiring a separate formal “objection form” process noting that objectors are expected to attend LPAT hearings would be intimidating and off-putting.

Requiring a separate formal “objection form” process two years (or longer if the extension proposed in 1.3.1 is ratified) after the notification and consultation process would bury the urgency of the issue in bureaucracy.

After two years (or longer) the proposal is easily forgotten and with only 20 days to reacquaint oneself with the original proposal, plus any amendments, plus the need to learn the new process of a separate formal “objection form”, makes the process stressful and more likely to be abandoned, thus favouring the Proponent’s case.

Enacting an objection process that decreases objectors’ options, increases objectors’ expense (i.e. registered mail only, submission by computer only) or does not encourage objectors to participate is unacceptable and contrary to Ontario’s democratic process.

The objection process should be easy for Ontarians -- not made difficult or exclusive or be setup to favour industry.

3.1.2 Dust
We support the idea that all licence and aggregate permit holders be required to mitigate dust to prevent it from leaving the site. Mitigating all dust would benefit sensitive receptors as well as the forest canopy and wildlife. Mitigating dust would reduce interference with First Nations’ constitutional right to hunt and fish.

3.1.3 Blasting
We request mandatory fly rock prevention procedures in an 800-metre safe blasting exclusion zone as adopted by Nova Scotia.

3.2.2 Rehabilitation Reporting
Since annual compliance reports are made available to the public upon request, we would like to see the reports made available online. Such availability would relieve some of the burden of requests on staff and facilitate transparent and accountable government.

3.3.2 Amendment to Expand into a Road Allowance
Assuming a closed road allowance will always stay closed does a disservice to the municipality and Taxpayers. As areas develop, road allowances take on added value and may be re-opened. Road allowances should not be sold or used to extract aggregate.

3.3.3 Amendment to Expand an Existing Site Below the Water Table
For the most part, there are few landowners within 120 meters of an aggregate operation in a rural area. In rural areas, the perimeter should be extended to 500 meters.

We do not support aggregate operations extracting below the water table without a full Environmental Assessment and complete understanding of the impact of extraction on the groundwater and within the applicable watershed(s) thereby avoiding any detrimental effects locally or downstream.

3.3.4 Self-Filing of Site Plan Amendments
Self-filing is a privilege and should not be undertaken merely to reduce costs. Monitoring and regulation enforcement are still priorities. Companies entrusted with the right to self-file must take their responsibilities to government and local communities seriously.

OTHER

We at AWARE Simcoe consider the Environmental Registry (ERO) to be an invaluable resource for people of Ontario. The tool, when used as intended, provides a key platform for soliciting feedback and hearing the voices of Ontarians. However, we have seen evidence that the ERO is being ignored under the current provincial government. Therefore, we provide our comments to this proposal for the record and in the hope that our concerns will be carefully considered and seriously addressed by the Ontario government - even though that has not been our experience in the recent past.

#ProtectOurWater #ProtectPrimeFarmland #GrowOurGreenbelt #FoodAndWaterFirst