My comments to the: …

My comments to the: Proposed Amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act – 019-0556
I am a full time resident living in very close proximity to an existing granite quarry and our rural community is attempting to stop additional expansion of this quarry’s operations as it relates to almost doubling in actual size, drilling another 15 metres deeper to 181 MASL, and coming even closer to our community by reducing the road setback by 22 metres. My concerns lie in preserving my personal property as well as the natural and serene habitat in which I have chosen to reside, along with protecting the safety and health of the community, the precious environment, and all other inhabitants of this area. To that end I am trying to understand and stay informed of the purview of the Aggregate Resources Act, the responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, as well as our local municipality.
I appreciate the introduction outlined in the Proposed Changes summary and I have pulled out a few of the sentences below to specifically address:
Aggregate Resources Act
“The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is responsible for managing Ontario’s aggregate resources, regulated under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). Aggregate resources are non-renewable resources like sand, gravel and rock that are needed for infrastructure that supports the quality of life that Ontarians enjoy today.” The phrase “non-renewable” as it relates to aggregate resources is so important – the removal of natural resources cannot be replaced or rectified later so any decisions affecting these resources must be taken very seriously.
I strongly agree with the sentence, “equally important to manage and minimize the impact extraction operations may have on the environment and on the communities that surround them” since the current quarry is proposing to expand even further to virtually double its footprint, dig deeper, and closer to the road via setback reductions, and is situated less than 300 yards from my property and fellow neighbours.
I was also surprised to learn of an Aggregates Summit held in March 2019, but there is no mention of residents or non-industry representatives other than the municipality and Indigenous leaders participating in this summit, which leads me to question the resulting recommendations and obvious weighting in favour of the Aggregate Operators’ requests and/or needs. Currently I do not feel there is any unnecessary red tape or duplication in today’s processes nor are there “burdens for business” as it is described, and I would request that there be even more procedures for consultation, review and reporting, and formal approval, that are inclusive of communities and residents, environmental stakeholders, as well as current industrial and other decision makers.
With regards to your “Summary of proposed changes” and specific bullets – my comments follow each bullet”:
“We are proposing to make amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act, while continuing to ensure operators are meeting high standards for aggregate extraction, that would:”
• strengthen protection of water resources by creating a more robust application process for existing operators that want to expand to extract aggregate within the water table, allowing for increased public engagement on applications that may impact water resources. This would allow municipalities and others to officially object to an application and provide the opportunity to have their concerns heard by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. I AGREE with this comment, specifically suggesting a more robust application process where the water table is impacted. I hope that this high level comment however, covers our specific concerns as residents in close proximity to an active and potentially growing quarry, regarding dewatering activities and groundwater control.
• clarify that depth of extraction of pits and quarries is managed under the Aggregate Resources Act and that duplicative municipal zoning by-laws relating to the depth of aggregate extraction would not apply. I DISAGREE with simplifying this activity, as our municipality also has a responsibility for our water protection/resources – and thus I do not see this as duplication. Our community has been heavily involved in fighting changes that the current quarry proposes both for a new application as well as existing Amendments which would allow the quarry to mine deeper – and we are in the latter situation, at the mercy of the MNRF and the MNRF only, whereas the municipality should be involved in this very important decision as well. Decisions on these matters are often complicated due to so many factors which affect our health, lifestyle, our wells, lakes and rivers, etc..
• clarify how haul routes are considered under the Aggregate Resources Act so that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Minister, when making a decision about issuing or refusing a licence, cannot impose conditions requiring agreements between municipalities and aggregate producers regarding aggregate haulage. This change is proposed to apply to all applications in progress where a decision by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or the Minister has not yet been made. Municipalities and aggregate producers may continue to enter into agreements on a voluntary basis. I find this paragraph vague but I certainly believe that we do not wish to tie or restrict the hands of LPAT or the Ministry in finding solutions or compromises to complicated issues concerning roads and haul routes where traffic and safety, environment, and health, along with business needs are intertwined.
• improve access to aggregates in adjacent municipal road allowances through a simpler application process (i.e. amendment vs a new application) for an existing license holder, if supported by the municipality – I DISAGREE STRONGLY to this point based on the fact that we are fighting this exact situation currently and pleading with the MNRF to consider our fears and say no to the proposed Amendments - our quarry wishes to reduce setbacks from 52 to 30 metres on all impacted roads, which will bring operations including blasting, mining to 181MASL, increased water table concerns, and additional potential risks even closer to our properties and all inhabitants. The application process must NOT become simpler.
• provide more flexibility for regulations to permit self-filing of routine site plan amendments, as long as regulatory conditions are met. I also DISAGREE with this – no self-filing should be permitted. What is the definition of “routine site plan amendments”? And what is considered “routine” could be quite subjective, or the definition easily or intentionally misused by an operator.
“We are also considering some regulatory changes, including:”
• enhanced reporting on rehabilitation by requiring more context and detail on where, when and how rehabilitation is or has been undertaken. I AGREE with this comment, although rehabilitation is a long process
• allowing operators to self-file changes to existing site plans for some routine activities, subject to conditions set out in regulation. For example, re-location of some structures or fencing, as long as setbacks are respected. At this stage, I strongly DISAGREE on any form of self-filing regarding aggregate site plans.
• allowing some low-risk activities to occur without a licence if conditions specified in regulation are followed. For example, extraction of small amounts of aggregate if material is for personal use and does not leave the property. Again, I DISAGREE with this comment – even the phrase “low risk” is disconcerting. It is a “relative” term – low risk to whom” With our ever-changing environment, I truly do not think we should be trying to make things easier, rather, continue to maintain and perhaps even increase accountability where it comes to aggregate operations.
• clarifying requirements for site plan amendment applications – I AGREE as long as that clarification process is comprehensive including all factors, stakeholders, affected persons, etc.
• streamlining compliance reporting requirements, while maintaining the annual requirement. As merely a resident and not an engineering, blasting, hydrology or other type of expert, I am not familiar with all current compliance reporting requirements. However, during the last 18 months that our community has had to address and respond to proceedings related to the new licence application proposed by our current quarry, I have therefore reviewed all Original Studies done by paid consultants as well as Peer Review studies requested by our municipality, plus other relevant reports and information, and included in all of these documents are many more comprehensive risk mitigation processes and compliance reporting recommendations currently not in place, but suggested as a result of the heightened concerns and improved accountability our community desires at a minimum, moving forward. Thus it is clear in general terms, that more (not less) compliance processes and reporting are possible and essential, more checks and balances to preserve our health and safety, environmental concerns, etc.
With regards to “aggregate fees”, my understanding of the revenue that various levels of government receive is fairly minimal, and I was extremely surprised to learn this – but fees also appear to differ per region. With the fears that our community has, perhaps additional charges to cover insurance or surety bonds, replacements costs for water, other environmental impacts, property damage, etc. should be built into those fees.
In addition to all my comments above, I find it alarming to read that Bill 132 had been introduced this past Monday, October 28 with its own “amendments to pieces of the legislation including the ARA,” and thus creating additional confusion on what concerned Ontario citizens should be commenting on.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to comment.