There is no justification…

There is no justification for placing soil into groundwater. It is expressly excluded from O.Reg.406/19. It was never considered in developing the Soil Tables. The lake filling standards did not look at human health. The Best Management Practices (BMP) guide and Scientific Report produced by the Ontario Society for Professional Engineers did not make a valid case for it. The BMP warns of increased turbidity and biological contamination. Placing soil into groundwater has the potential for disastrous impacts on the drinking water for the surrounding community.

Recommendation: Placing soil into groundwater must be prohibited.

Some pit and quarry rehabilitation in the past had been the absolute minimum (3:1 slopes, a few inches of top soil, and grass seed). Some rehabilitations have built a natural landscape with landforms, wetlands, and vegetation in keeping with the adjoining lands. In most cases a minimum amount of soil was imported to meet the objective of a rehabilitation to make it suitable for another use. That would be the “beneficial use” required by O.Reg.406/19. Unless fill-to-grade is the only way to effect rehabilitation, the superfluous soil should be prohibited by O.Reg.406/19 because “The primary use of the reuse site must not be the deposit of excess soil.” Is fill-to-grade being considered just because it can add significantly to the profits of the owner? Fill-to-grade can delay for many years the return of the site to another productive use, and during that time continue to disrupt the neighbours.

Recommendation: Limit the soil importation for rehabilitation to the minimum required for a rehabilitation. Fill-to-grade to be limited to very special cases.

As stone, sand, and gravel came out of the pits and quarries to be trucked to construction projects, fees were collected to provide funds to municipalities to maintain the roads the trucks travelled on. The Proposal does not indicate compensation to municipalities to maintain the roads that incoming soil is trucked on.

Municipal oversight of the importation of soil for rehabilitation through site alteration and/or commercial fill by-laws provides for consideration of local impacts. There should not be two different regimes for reuse sites in a municipality. Why have one reuse site operating under an ARA regulation monitored by a NDMNRF inspector in a distant town who has 300 other pits to monitor and next door have a reuse site operating under a municipal permit monitored by a local by-law inspector? The municipality can consider all the impacts for the local situation thinking of haul routes, noise and dust, ultimate land use, zoning, protection of source water, etc. The municipality has the mechanisms in place for public consultations, applying for permits, collecting fees, etc.

The province has retained special powers over aggregate extraction because of the importance of aggregate to the provincial economy. However, at the point of rehabilitation, the extraction of aggregate has been completed and the provincial interest can diminish.

Recommendation: The Proposal presented in ERO 019-4801 be withdrawn and replaced with an amendment to the ARA regulations (and to O.Reg.406/19 ) such that the importation of soil into a licensed pit within a municipality be covered by O.Reg.406/19 and municipal permits be sought.