Aggregates Procedures Manual
Contents |
Background
In April 2006, MNR finalized its Policies and Procedures Manual for the Aggregate Resources Program (referred to, hereafter, as “the Manual”). The Manual is intended for the use of MNR staff members who administer the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA), its regulations and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards (the “Provincial Standards”) adopted in 1997. By law, applications for licences and permits and the operation of pits and quarries must meet the requirements of the ARA and the Provincial Standards.
The Manual is intended to provide a consistent approach to the administration of the ARA across the province and a transparent process for the aggregate industry, stakeholders, municipalities and others. The updated Manual is over 700 pages long and contains approximately 180 policies and procedures covering all aspects of the aggregate resources program (see the ECO’s detailed review in this year's Supplement).
New licence application process
Arguably, the most important procedure in the Manual sets out a 46-step process for applications for new licences. The application process for new pits and quarries is “proponent-driven”. It is the proponent’s responsibility to prepare the application and supporting studies, conduct public consultation, and resolve concerns and objections. MNR staff will review the application at various stages of the process to ensure that all information has been submitted as required, and all steps have been completed. If MNR staff have any concerns or objections related to its mandate, the ministry must register its objections during the comment period similar to other circulated agencies and the public. MNR staff can refer the application to the Ontario Municipal Board for a decision, or make a recommendation to the minister to either issue or refuse to issue the licence.
Considering impacts on the environment
The purpose of the ARA is to minimize the adverse environmental impact of aggregate operations, while managing Ontario’s aggregate resources to meet provincial, regional and local demand. The Act requires the decision-maker to consider the effect of a proposed operation on the environment. In contrast, the Provincial Standards and Manual do not require comprehensive assessment of impacts on the environment: they require only certain aspects of the environment to be considered in technical reports. Technical reports on hydrogeology, natural environment, cultural heritage resources and noise are required to support licence applications.
Applicants must prepare a Natural Environment Level 1 report which determines whether there is fish habitat or any significant natural heritage features (wetlands, endangered and threatened species, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, woodlands, valleylands and wildlife habitat) on-site or within 120 metres of the site. If any of those features exist, then a Level 2 report is required to assess negative impacts and propose preventative, mitigative or remedial measures.
The Manual only requires identification and protection of “significant” natural heritage features, as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act. For example, proponents are not required to address regionally or locally significant wetlands. Other natural heritage features, such as woodlands and wildlife habitat, may not be addressed unless a municipality has already inventoried the area and identified them as “significant.”
The Manual also sets out requirements for Level 1 and, if necessary, Level 2 Hydrogeology Reports, which delineate the location of the water table and assess the impacts of proposed operations on surface and groundwater.
Additional requirements in environmental plan area
New policies describe the additional requirements and restrictions applying to aggregate operations in the areas covered by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and the Greenbelt Plan. The Manual states that the ARA is not specifically prescribed under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (ORMCA), and MNR should merely “have appropriate regard to its requirements when making decisions on the issuance of, or amendments to, licences and wayside permits under the ARA.” The ECO believes this is a serious gap in the implementation of the ORMCA and frustrates the intent to place special conditions on aggregate operations on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Municipal regulation of pits and quarries
The policy in the Manual describing municipal regulation of pits and quarries sets forth MNR’s interpretation that ARA decisions take precedence over almost all municipal decisions. Municipalities can control the location of pits and quarries through zoning lands to permit aggregate operations, but they cannot regulate depth of extraction or other matters.
Public participation policies
The Manual outlines ARA and EBR notification requirements and appeal rights, as well as descriptions of the public notice and consultation requirements for each type of licence or permit application. Applications for wayside permits for road projects and all aggregate permits on Crown lands are not posted on the Environmental Registry. New licences (except in newly designated areas of the province), changes to licence conditions, and some site plan amendments are posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment. In addition, most licence revocations are posted on the Registry. In total, there are 12 prescribed instruments under the ARA subject to Part II of the EBR.
Public Participation & EBR Process
MNR posted the proposal for 60 days, then extended the comment period by a further 30 days. The ministry received 45 comments from municipalities, conservation authorities, planning agencies (e.g., the Niagara Escarpment Commission), consultants and industry, interest groups and individuals, and MNR staff.
MNR said that many of the comments suggested changes that would require revisions to the ARA and/or the Provincial Standards, which were not the subject of the consultation. Commenters recommended: changes and additions to the technical reports; increasing commenting periods and notification distances; and increasing the municipal portion of licence fees.
MNR also acknowledged other comments recommending broader changes to its aggregates program:
- the policy Manual should be combined with the Provincial Standards into regulation;
- a stronger provincial regulatory role is required;
- the number of aggregate inspectors is inadequate; and
- a provincial aggregate strategy should be developed.
Several municipalities asked for more power to regulate pits and quarries, challenging MNR’s interpretation of the ARA. Conservation Ontario asked for mandatory notification of more types of site plan amendments, recommending that conservation authorities be circulated on all proposed site plan amendments that have implications for natural heritage, natural hazards, and/or surface and groundwater resources. Individuals, environmental and community groups also asked for mandatory consultation on all types of site plan amendments.
The issue of “downward creep” was also raised by municipalities and interest groups. They described a scenario where the proponent gets approval to extract aggregate above the water table and then, a few years later, obtains permission to extract aggregate below the water table through a “minor” site plan amendment (such an amendment does not require the same degree of study or public comment opportunities). MNR did develop a new policy in response to these concerns, and will now require formal notice and comment for site plan amendments for below water table extraction.
Substantial concern was expressed about the Natural Environment Report requirements, because so few natural heritage features have been identified by MNR or municipalities as “significant”. Commenters recommended that, at a minimum, all applications should identify the existing natural resources regardless of the label “significant.” They also recommended that the Manual recognize new 2005 PPS provisions regarding natural heritage systems. (In August 2007, MNR advised that the final version of the manual policies recognize the new 2005 PPS provisions regarding natural heritage systems.)
Many commenters, including municipalities and conservation authorities, also expressed disappointment that the revised Manual is silent on source water protection, and stated that the Manual does not provide sufficient direction to ensure that studies properly evaluate impacts on groundwater and surface water.
Several municipalities requested more specific rules for “progressive” and final rehabilitation, and challenged the description of aggregate operations as “interim” land uses. A comment submitted by one region said that quarrying almost invariably permanently changes the landscape and can preclude many other subsequent land uses. It also said the current policy framework makes it very difficult to address cumulative impacts and to set limits on how many “holes” (future lakes) will be imposed on a given area.
A number of commenters raised concerns about the ability of MNR to oversee the aggregate industry, and stated that the Ministry of the Environment, municipalities and conservation authorities should be more involved in approvals and inspections.
MNR staff from other program areas provided comments on the draft Manual during the EBR comment period. Most of the MNR staff concerns related to the Natural Environment Report Standards and the policies relating to the ORMCP. Their comments illustrate the ministry’s conflicting roles, overseeing both resource extraction and natural heritage protection.
Industry commenters raised few concerns, perhaps because MNR had conducted separate discussions with them prior to posting its Registry proposal notice. One commenter raised concerns that the procedures were too onerous. The Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (OSSGA) was concerned that the Manual states that all operations will cease on public holidays, using the Interpretations Act definition of holidays.
MNR’s description of the effect of public comments on the decision
MNR’s decision notice did not clearly describe the changes made between the draft and final Manual, or the effect of public comments on the ministry’s decision. MNR said that some significant changes were made, but did not describe them. The public has had difficulty accessing the finalized version of the Manual, which is available on MNR’s internal intranet site but not its public web site. The ministry has agreed to provide copies on disc upon request, but has declined requests by the ECO and members of the public to make the final text available on its public web site.
Other Information
MNR addressed some of the higher level issues raised during the consultations on the Manual – as well as issues raised in EBR applications for review – by amending the ARA and regulation, and issuing new direction to MNR staff regarding rehabilitation and compliance (see the ECO summary of an EBR application for review in Our cratered landscape: Can pits and quarries be rehabilitated? and 2004 Review of rehabilitation of pits and quarries). In October 2006, MNR announced that the ARA would apply to more of Central and Northern Ontario, and raised the fees and royalties, effective January 1, 2007.
ECO Comment
The policies and procedures in the Manual do not require adequate information gathering or full consideration of potential impacts and cumulative effects on the environment. Information about all natural heritage should be required and considered by MNR when considering approval of a pit or quarry application. Municipalities asked the province to adequately protect local and regional natural environment features and water resources through the ARA; otherwise, municipalities want additional powers to mitigate the environmental and health impacts of aggregate sites on their residents and communities. MNR should consider these legitimate concerns, particularly as municipalities and conservation authorities have primary responsibility for source water protection planning.
MNR said it couldn’t address most of the comments on the Manual because it was bound by existing provisions of the Act and Provincial Standards. The ECO agrees with the many commenters who suggested MNR update the 1997 Provincial Standards to reflect recent changes in provincial laws and policies and address public and stakeholder concerns. Some of the matters covered in the policy Manual should be incorporated into the Provincial Standards by regulation in order to make them enforceable. MNR should make the final text of the Manual available on its web site and ensure that the public is able to access future revisions and updates.
The Manual should better integrate the provisions of provincial land use plans with the ARA processes. The ECO believes that MNR’s ARA decisions must conform to the ORMCP, and urges the ministry to resolve this implementation gap. Applicants need to know precisely what additional studies and evaluation reports are required and what criteria MNR staff will use to make decisions about applications in these areas. Further, MNR must incorporate the requirements of its technical guidance for the ORM and Greenbelt Plan into the Provincial Standards and Manual.
The policies in this Manual describe a minimal role for MNR in overseeing the applications process, and resolving conflicts or concerns, even on issues within the ministry’s mandate. As discussed in Preserving natural areas, OR Extracting aggregates wherever they lay?, the ECO believes a new mechanism is needed for resolving disputes about proposed aggregate operations. The mechanism should allow for applications with unacceptable environmental impacts to be screened out at an early stage.
The ECO recently examined MNR’s capacity to administer its aggregates program (along with other mandated responsibilities) in a special report released in April 2007. Addressing MNR’s capacity problems is a necessary first step in strengthening the ability of MNR staff to administer the aggregates resources program.
| This is an article from the 2006/07 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2007. "MNR's Aggregate Resources Program Manual." Reconciling our Priorities, ECO Annual Report, 2006-07. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 113-118.
