4.5 Mineral Aggregate…

4.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources

4.5.2.1 Demonstration of need … shall not be required: A test in terms of “need” should be required when considering new applications. Issue of “need” may curb the unwarranted or premature consideration of aggregate sites and reduce the stress in the local community with a proliferation of licensed facilities (e.g. Township of North Dumfries), and/or require owners/operators to properly close out older licensed facilities before pursuing new operations in proximity to their established locations.

4.5.2.2 Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social, economic and
environmental impacts: include also human health impacts.

4.5.2.4 Mineral aggregate operations shall be protected from development: to be fair, a similar requirement should be added stating that settlement areas shall be protected from aggregate development. This would involve determining the minimum distance of separation between an established settlement area and an aggregate development. Provincial technical note D-6-3 states that Class III industrial developments (e.g. gravel pits) have a zone of influence of 1000m and minimum separation distances of 300m. Unfortunately, gravel pits are exempted from the requirements of D-6-3, if a Best Management Practices Plan is implemented. This is unfair treatments of settlement areas.

A minimum separation distance between limits of extraction/processing facilities associated with licensed aggregate operations should be established. The minimum separation distance from urban areas/settlement areas as designated in an Official Plan and extraction/processing facilities shall be 300m or greater when recommended through applicable studies such as dust noise, and vibration analyses.

Some municipalities (e.g. Waterloo Region) require that the cumulative impact of a new gravel pit on human health and the environment comply with applicable standards, as part of the zoning approval. In the case of the human health impacts of dust, proponents attempt to do this by carrying out an Air Quality Impact Assessment using Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) models and data. Unfortunately, these studies are not being done in a rigorous manner, for example:
• Onsite control of dust emissions is assumed to be highly efficient (90-95%) through the uses of BMPPs although Environment Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory guidance suggests lower efficiencies (around 75%). This means that emission estimates may be at least 2.5 times larger than assumed. Furthermore, no onsite measurements or unannounced inspections by MNRF inspectors appear to be performed to determine that the BMPP is being adhered to.
• Site-specific concentrations of the PM2.5 fraction of dust, which contains most of the crystalline silica and diesel exhaust generated onsite are not measured in background air or downwind of the pit to support the impact analysis or confirm the model predictions.
• The cumulative impact of multiple gravel pits in the same area is not generally being estimated.
• Crystalline silica and diesel exhaust fumes are carcinogenic. Carcinogenic substances are referred to as non-threshold substances, for which the appropriate method for determining human health effects is to do a human health risk assessment. This is not being done nor required by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Instead, predicted ambient concentrations are compared to provincial and national air quality objectives and criteria, and if the predicted values are below the objectives or criteria the impacts are deemed acceptable. Unfortunately, the objectives and criteria do not necessarily apply to carcinogenic substances.

Given the above, proponents should be required to determine pre and post operation air quality data to support the air quality modelling studies and use real time monitoring equipment to help control operations. Unannounced inspections need to be done by government inspectors routinely and severe penalties levied against operators that violate their duties to protect neighbouring communities.

4.5.3.1 Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required…: A definition of “progressive rehabilitation” of aggregate operations needs to be established to provide for clarity and consistency. The objective should be to return lands at an enhanced rate of activity to the desired end use.

4.5.3.2 Comprehensive rehabilitation planning is encouraged…: This policy needs to be elevated in importance. A clear statement needs to be articulated that it is a priority that where a concentration of aggregate operations exist that comprehensive rehabilitation will be required, unless the Owner / Applicant can demonstrate why that is not practical.

4.5.4.1 In prime agricultural areas, extraction of mineral aggregate resources is permitted as an interim use provided that …the site will be rehabilitated to an agricultural condition: The definition of agricultural condition in this context should be amended to be more proactive and supportive of the goal that aggregate operations are meant to be an interim land use. The objective should be to restore and rehabilitate aggregate operations to a standard that, in the long term, contribute as a meaningful source for food and agricultural production. The suggested text for the definition of agricultural condition in prime agricultural areas outside of specialty crop areas is as follows: “... a condition in which substantially the same areas and same soil capability and rating for agricultural production will be maintained, restored and/or enhanced. In this regard, the agricultural capacity of the rehabilitated lands shall be demonstrated to support the production of crop varieties and yields, animal husbandry, food products or similar agricultural activity that is present on adjacent farms in proximity to the subject lands.”