Comments on ERO 019-6767:…

Comments on ERO 019-6767: Proposed changes to the Aggregate
Resources Act, Ontario Regulation 244/97 to expand self-filing activities
and a new policy regarding amendments to existing aggregate approvals

1. Who will decide when a proposed amendment is significant? Government officials (MNRF, MECP, Health, Agriculture, etc.) qualified to evaluate the potential adverse impacts of the proposed amendment? When these qualified individuals determine that the amendment would be significant, the self-filling amendment option should not be available to the proponent.
2. “A sketch or draft site plan showing the proposed changes should also be provided.” A “sketch” should be unacceptable as not providing the kind of thought and analysis that would be required to determine the significance of some proposed amendments; instead, a professional analysis and documentation should be the standard.
3. “The information provided … should clearly identify any potential impacts …” Where the proposed amendment would likely result in changes in dust and noise levels around the licensed site, actual measurements, over a sufficient length of time, performed by a qualified third party should be required. After all, the licensed facility already exists and the excuse that one cannot determine the impact of a new facility except by using models, with all their uncertainties, would not apply.
4. “When proposed amendments would result in significant changes … notification and consultation may be required.” In these situations, notification and consultation should be required.
5. “Amendments that substantially increase impacts or potential impacts will in most cases be considered significant changes.” The criteria for determining significance of the impact need to be defined or quantified. Part of the determination should include consultation with individuals living in the vicinity of the facility to establish lived experience prior to approval of the amendment.
6. “If the proposed amendments are related to activities that are already approved and would not substantially change the impacts that are already occurring … it is unlikely to be a significant change.” For this to be a logical argument, the impacts that are already occurring would have to be within applicable standards and criteria (real measurements would help), analysis of any complaints submitted by residents previously and consultation with residents.
7. “In general, significant changes to the operations and rehabilitation will include those that … change or delay progressive or final rehabilitation, … increase the impacts or potential impacts …” These are mute points given that there are thousands of abandoned gravel pits in Ontario that have not been rehabilitated, progressive rehabilitation as required by approved Site Plans is not occurring nor enforced, there are not post start-up requirements to confirm through measurement and consultation with residents the significance of current impacts, etc.
8. “Increase to maximum annual tonnage of up to 5% of the original tonnage”. Hypothetically, this might be interpreted as allowing 5% increases every 5 years, leading to 25% over 25 years, the lifetime of some gravel pit; this is excessive, and unnecessary given that the production capacity of currently licensed pits far exceeds demand.
9. “Importation of excess soil for required slope and grading” Should require attestation by a qualified, independent person that the excess soil is of suitable quality to ensure it will not contaminate groundwater.
10. “Lowering … raising … creating or… removing berms” Should require that the operator notify neighbours.
11. “Removal of excess soil” Difficult to see how there will be excess soil since in most cases the site is scheduled to be rehabilitated to agricultural use and will require as much soil as possible to start approaching the original quality and productivity of the soil
12. “Shrink or reducing limits of extraction, including raising final extraction elevation” Unclear what is meant by “extraction elevation;” if it means depth of extraction, need to ensure an adequate buffer above the maximum water table to protect groundwater.
13. “Increasing hours of operation” There are two problems with this – who will determine whether or not the local noise bylaw would be complied with and why do we have to operate at the maximum allowed levels of noise as opposed to valuing peace and quiet? There are enough licensed pits to more than satisfy the existing and forecast demand for aggregate.
14. “Installing portable asphalt or concrete plants or portable processing equipment” Why is an asphalt plant needed onsite when there should not be asphalt material onsite, unless it was imported? Why would such material be imported to such a site rather to another site nearby that is specifically authorized to handle asphalt materials? Onsite processing of aggregate generates a lot of fines rich in crystalline silica, and also requires the establishment of storage piles. These changes lead to a lot more windblown dust and adverse health impacts in the surrounding residential areas.
15. In Section 3.4, change “… appropriate consultation with the original parties may be required” to “…appropriate consultation with the original parties shall be required.”
16. Section 3.5 Site inspection: Unfortunately, MNRF is inadequately staffed to do the thorough and frequent inspections required.
17. Section 4.0 Notification and Consultation Process: The current requirement for proponents to use regular mail to contact residents within 120m of the facility needs to be expanded considerably as noise, dust and traffic impacts extend well beyond this distance. As well, means other than regular mail (e.g. regional newspaper postings, roadside signs, email postings) should also be used. As a general rule, more notification is always better than less notification and public engagement.
18. Section 4.2 Notification Parties: Ministry of Agriculture would be notified “if the proposed amendments would result in the site not being restored to the same … soil quality or agricultural capability” What is meant by “same” – the original condition prior to any aggregate extraction activities or the previously committed to rehabilitated condition? The former is unattainable and the latter is not well defined so this requirement is of little value.
19. Section 4 Addressing Comments: It is my experience that proponents generally meet the mandatory requirements to engage and consult by means of community meetings, open houses, registered mailings, and responses to concerns raised within the allotted time. However, they do not take concerns raised by residents seriously as evidenced by letters with little substance and replete with comments like “this is accepted industry practice,” or “the approach is acceptable to the Ministry,” etc. This is hardly what one with call “reasonable efforts.”