Aggregate Regulation…

Aggregate Regulation Amendments

1.1.1 Water Report
I encourage and appreciate any changes to process that strengthens the protection of clean water sources. Aggregate extraction must be prohibited without a full Environmental Assessment and complete understanding of the impact of extraction on surface and groundwater and within the applicable watershed(s) thereby avoiding any detrimental effects locally or downstream.

1.1.2 Cultural Heritage Report
I encourage and appreciate any changes to process that considers and aligns aggregate operation location with cultural heritage and prevents the fragmenting of farmland. Many rural communities have a rich farming heritage that is being fragmented by urban development, commercial enterprises and resource extraction. Agriculture loses ground gradually as farmers sell all or part of their properties to “city-folk” and adjust their farming practices accordingly. Businesses that support the farmers such as feed mills, tractors and parts sales, mechanics, welders, informal country kitchen diners, local co-ops, and other farmers, go out of business or move to more profitable farming communities. Farmers are forced to drive their trucks and tractors to properties further and further away, putting up with more complaints (smell, tractors on the roads, noisy farm trucks), fewer services and more aggravation, until they too stop farming in the area, retire or move. Fragmenting Ontario’s farm heritage is short-term thinking when it comes to local and national food security for today, as shown by the COVID-19 pandemic, and for tomorrow. Where will our great grandchildren get their food?

Additionally, many rural communities endeavour to maintain and offer a thriving tourism industry, which often involves trail systems through natural resource areas. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) has been in operation since 1967 and proudly maintains the largest recreational snowmobile trail system in the world with more than 30,000 kms. Similarly, the Ontario Federation of ATV Clubs was established in 1999 to build and maintain a safe recreational family-oriented trail system for all terrain vehicles and currently touts 8,000 kms of trails. Additionally, Ontario has some of the most beautiful hiking and skiing trails such as the Bruce Trail, Ganaraska Trail, and many others. These trail systems benefit the local area, the region, Ontario and Canada. Allowing aggregate operations to negatively impact trail systems is economically damaging to all. In the best-case scenario, aggregate operators would be encouraged to work with local tourism groups to facilitate an exceptional trail experience.

1.1.3 Natural Environment Report
I 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 and appreciate any changes to process that aligns aggregate operations reporting with those policies and plans.

1.1.4 Agricultural Impact Assessment
I support the proposal that all applications for new pits and quarries on private land be required to undertake an Agricultural Impact Assessment to determine how to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts on agricultural lands and operations if the pit or quarry be proposed within a prime agricultural area.

1.1.5 Blast Design Report
I support the proposal that all new quarry applications on crown land that propose to remove more than 20,000 tonnes per year and that have a sensitive receptor within 500 meters of the limit of extraction be required to provide blast design reports. However, since drilling and blasting are the two most significant operations in a quarry, it would make sense to require blasting design reports for all use of explosives in all quarry operations both for the edification of the blaster and the quarry operator as well as to have a record to resolve and learn from any future issues.

1.1.6 Summary Statement
I support the proposal that the summary statement for all proposed pits and quarries on private land Crown land contain planning and land use considerations.

1.1.7 Application Requirements for Extraction from Land under Water
I 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, I 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
One of the problems with the aggregate industry is the lack of a visible end to an operation. By removing the 10-year time limit for forestry aggregate pits, the mandate for review is gone, the incentive for good business practice is gone and the public perception of a never-ending operation is entrenched.

I 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.

1.2.1 Site Plan Standards – Improving Flexibility
I do not support allowing aggregate operations to have flexibility in positioning how certain items (e.g. buildings, portable processing equipment) are identified on the site plan without requiring a significant increase to extraction area setback buffer zones. Communities and local area residents need assurance that aggregate sites have clear and set rules of operation to happily co-exist. Providing aggregate operations with the ability to build, dump piles of aggregate or move portable processing equipment ad hoc and within view would remove the Ministry and local municipality’s ability to enforce rules that interfere with the quiet enjoyment and esthetic of the area.

Fencing: Allowing aggregate operators to remove the fencing and have flexibility in the demarcation of the aggregate site boundary would place curious young people at risk. Removing the requirement for fencing would allow access to ATVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles, Jeeps and trucks.

1.2.2 Site Plan Standards – Modernization
Aggregate extraction should not be condoned within any provincial plan focused on environmental protection (e.g. within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan). The “maximum disturbed area” should be zero.

It is appropriate that the processing and removal of recycled aggregate from a site be included in the tonnage condition of the operation.
It is appropriate that all onsite activities be accounted for under the hours of operation.

1.2.3 Qualified Professionals to prepare Site Plans
It is appropriate that site plans be prepared and certified under the direction of professional geoscientists and professional planners in addition to professional engineers, Ontario land surveyors, landscape architects.

It is appropriate that qualified professionals be required to prepare site plans for pit and quarry applications proposing a tonnage condition of greater than 20,000 tonnes per year on Crown land.

1.2.4 Prescribed Licence and Permit Conditions (New Sites)

Conditions related to noise mitigation
I do not support the proposal requiring all new Class B licences and aggregate permits (Crown land) to mitigate noise at source only if a sensitive receptor is located within 500 metres of the site boundary.
Current regulations require Class B licences to mitigate noise at source while Crown land permits must mitigate noise at source if a sensitive receptor is located within 2,000 metres of the site boundary.
Applying a 500 meter buffer to Class B licences and reducing the buffer from 2,000 meters to 500 meters for Crown land permits is a significant decrease in noise mitigation that entirely benefits the aggregate industry and interferes with the right to quiet enjoyment by neighbours. “Sensitive Receptors” include residences or facilities where people sleep (nursing homes, hospitals, trailer parks, camping grounds, etc.); schools; day-care centres.

Additionally, such increased disturbance could interfere with First Nations constitutional right to hunt and fish in the area. Meaningful consultation with local First Nations communities must be undertaken before any change be considered.

All aggregate operations should mitigate noise at source.

Conditions related to other approvals
I 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 take the big picture into account; (iii) prevent premature operation of the site; (iv) stop government ministries from squabbling over responsibility when it comes to problem resolution.

Conditions related to dust and blasting
I 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
I support a standard 60-day notification period and standardization on business days rather than calendar days.

I do not support extension past the two-year overall notification and consultation process deadline.

1.3.2 Notification and Consultation Process
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 is insignificant in agricultural or forested areas where properties are measured in acres.

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.
I 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
I 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 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 more 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.

Objections are detailed during the notification and consultation period and should not be taken lightly. Accepting a process that lightens the weight of Ontarians’ objections is contrary to Ontario’s
Environmental Bill of Rights.

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 the aggregate industry.

1.3.4 Circulating New Applications to Agencies
I support changes to the list of agencies to which new applications are circulated, with the goal of reducing duplication and improving efficiency while still being transparent and accountable.

3.1.2 Dust
I support the idea that all licence and aggregate permit holders be required to mitigate dust to prevent it from leaving the site.

Dust should be mitigated from all operations including processing and internal haul roads.
Requiring that aggregate permit holders (Crown land) mitigate dust only if a sensitive receptor is located within 1,000 meters (reduced from 2,000 metres) of the boundary of the site is inadequate since such areas are usually forested.

Mitigating all dust would benefit sensitive receptors as well as the forest canopy and wildlife.
Additionally, drifting dust interferes with First Nations’ constitutional right to hunt and fish in the area.

3.1.3 Blasting
I support the proposed approach for blasting but would like to see mandatory fly rock prevention procedures and an 800m Safe Blasting Exclusion Zone as implemented in Nova Scotia.

3.2.2 Rehabilitation Reporting
Since annual compliance reports are made available to the public upon request, it would be nice to have the reports made available online on the Ministry website. Such availability would relieve some of the burden of requests on Ministry staff.

3.3.1 Site Plan Amendment Process
The ministry forwards copies of the revised site plans to local municipalities where the pit or quarry is located. They should also provide a copy to any other municipalities within 5 kms of the operations entrances/exits.

3.3.2 Amendment to Expand into a Road Allowance
Road allowances should be kept by the municipality for future use.
In rural Ontario unopened road allowances are used by multi-use trail clubs (Bruce and Ganaraska Trails, snowmobile and ATV clubs). It would be detrimental to local residents (e.g. dog walkers) as well as local tourism should a road allowance be closed. The Ontario Federation of ATV Clubs (OFATV) and the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) as well as the major trail organizations or equivalent administrative bodies should be notified if any changes are planned.

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.

I 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
Aggregate operations should only be allowed to self-file if they file if they take their filing responsibilities seriously thereby filing regularly and accurately, and if they are principled operators endeavouring to operate without infractions. In other words, have achieved social licence to operate. The Social License exists when a project has the ongoing approval within the local community and from other stakeholders, ongoing approval or broad social acceptance and, most frequently, as ongoing acceptance and with minimal complaint. Social licence is dynamic and non-permanent because beliefs, opinions and perceptions are subject to change as new information is acquired. Hence the Social License has to be earned and then maintained.

Proposed Site Plan Amendments Eligible for Self-Filling

Topic: Portable Processing Equipment
Portable Processing Equipment is extremely noisy and dusty.

In March 2008 Ken and Jeanine Cressey purchased a house in the hamlet of Snow Road Station, North Frontenac. It turned out there was an inactive gravel pit across the road despite the residential zoning. There were no signs, no berms, no screen of trees. In April 2009 when the pit started to be worked, there was dust. Jeanine started to cough. Day by day her cough worsened, and her doctor advised them to move. They put their house up for sale in August. Then the pit operator installed a portable crusher 90 metres from the Cressey’s front door. According to Ken, “the noise was insane and the dust from the trucks and crushing were even more extreme”. Complaints to the Township, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) yielded no support with the later two Ministries pointing to each other. The Cresseys were told that the pit could legally operate from 6am to 9pm and there was nothing that could be done. Jeanine’s coughing got worse. She stayed inside the house with the windows closed, suffering the noise and dust. The pit stopped operations for the winter in September 2009, but Jeanine was still coughing. At one time her coughing was so severe she had bruises on her stomach. Jeanine died on October 25, 2009. She had never had any heart problems or breathing problems until the pit had started up operations in October 2008. She was dead within a year of the start-up. Finally, the MNR took responsibility for the case with the MOE in a supporting role. The MNR took Ken’s videos, photos and documents to remind the pit operator of his responsibility. The operator was charged with crushing without a Certificate of Approval (CoA). On October 27, 2011 Wilbert Crain entered a plea of guilty on behalf of Crain’s Construction Limited and was fined $1,000.

1. Time of day operating limits should be reasonable and enforceable by whom?
2. How will mobile equipment be monitored for compliance re: provincial and local regulations?
3. There should be clarification as to which Ministry is responsible for enforcement of dust infractions. (MNRF or MOE?)
4. Infractions are serious and should be fined accordingly -- $1,000 is a slap on the wrist. (Crain Construction Limited)
5. What is the non-compliance escalation process? Mr. Ken Cressey can provide evidence as to how such portable equipment does not always comply with regulations and how the local municipality, MNR and MOE all defer responsibility.
6. What is contained in the emissions and particulate matter? Does the particulate matter contain crystalline silica? Crystalline silica dust is common from processing sand and gravel and is a known carcinogen. In addition, some dust suppressants are recognized as toxic to plants and to people.
7. Does the applicant have exemplary track record for compliance with local and provincial regulations?
8. Does the local community wholeheartedly approve of the entire business operation? Does the operator have social licence?
9. Has the community had input into the application as well as any corresponding applications such as the increased water use, traffic, effluent generation, blasting and dust?

Until the abovenoted questions are answered and steps are taken to satisfactorily take the local communities’ health and safety into account, I object to the right for aggregate operations to self-file in regard to portable processing equipment.

Topic: Entrances and Exits
Notification should be provided to other municipalities within 5 kms of the operations proposed entrances/exits.

Topic: Fencing
Fencing requirements should meet the local municipality’s by-law.

Other Comments
The Doug Ford government has a history of gutting environmental laws. In the nearly two years since the premier took office, Ontario has cancelled 227 clean energy projects, cancelled cap and trade program, wound down conservation programs, weakened endangered species protections and took away powers from the province’s environmental commissioner, who is meant to hold the government accountable. (National Post, April 8, 2020)

I have concern that the reason that these self-filing amendments have been proposed reflects the lack of budget and will to enforce and monitor aggregate operations rather than faith in the aggregate industry’s commitment to the rules.

I find Ontario’s Environmental Registry to be an excellent idea enabling Taxpayers to stay informed and provide input to government. The fact that the ERO process has been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic is a concern to me. A pandemic should not prevent good environmental processes.

I also find it concerning that the government has not addressed the issues around large-scale fill yet.

#NoOmnibus #ProtectOurWater #ProtectPrimeFarmland #FoodAndWaterFirst #StandForForests #ProtectOurBiosphere #Greenbelt #GrowOurGreenbelt #Bluebelt #UNDRIP #IdleNoMore #WetsuwetenStrong