Investigation: Aggregate Resources Act
Sand and gravel (aggregate) extraction is regulated by the Ministry of Natural Resources under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA), which requires operators to follow the conditions of their site plans. A violation of the ARA was alleged in a May 1999 application for investigation. The applicants claimed that The Murray Group Ltd. did not follow their site plan for the Bowman Pit Complex near Elora, excavated below the water table, and damaged a wetland and a woodlot. The applicants also alleged damage to the groundwater sources of cold water trout streams, a violation of the federal Fisheries Act.
In response to the application, an independent MNR investigator reviewed documents, visited the site, and interviewed the operator and the applicants, as well as MNR and MOE staff. The investigator found that, although the current site plan contains provisions that protect the wetland and woodlot, no such protection was in place 10 years ago, when the damage occurred. The investigator also found that there was no excavation below the water table, and thus no damage was done to the cold water streams. The ministry therefore concluded that there was no contravention of either the ARA or the federal Fisheries Act.
The ECO commends the MNR for assigning an independent investigator. The ECO also found the MNR investigation thorough. In particular, the ministry’s investigation of the alleged Fisheries Act contravention is commendable, since MNR has recently simply referred such allegations to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
However, we found the summary of the investigation given to the applicants inadequately summarized and, in some places, misrepresented the findings in the investigator’s report. For example, MNR stated that “there was no evidence found” that the operator had not completed required remedial work. The summary omitted to say that the reason that “no evidence” was found was because MNR staff did not visit the site to check on the operator's self-reports of non-compliance in 1997 and 1998. By the time the EBR investigation occurred, it was not possible to confirm whether the remedial work had been performed.
Although the operator had reported excavation depth violations in reports dated September 1997 and September 1998, MNR concluded in its EBR investigation that no depth violation had occurred. However, the summary of MNR’s investigation did not make clear this finding applies only to the time of the investigation, in 1999, by which time the operator had applied for, and received, an amendment to the depth limit and a new site plan. This does not appear to be a reasonable response to a report of non-compliance, nor a fair response to an EBR application.
The investigator’s report also confirmed the applicants’ allegation that MNR staff destroyed the site plan that was in effect until December 1998. The investigator concluded that this was done in accordance with a ministry policy to destroy site plans for aggregate sites once a new site plan is approved, and that no fur ther action was required. This is troubling, since the policy makes it impossible to investigate or prosecute the alleged violations of the site plan in effect just five months before this application was received. MNR should review this policy, as it could hinder future applications for investigation under the EBR and prosecutions under the ARA.
The investigator's report also indicates that MNR does not have sufficient resources, at least in the Guelph District, to regulate the self-monitoring system for aggregate extraction. The ECO’s 1997 annual report contained a review of the changes to MNR’s regulation of pits and quarries, including the move from annual inspections by MNR staff to annual reporting by licence-holders. At that time, MNR was intending to audit or field check 20 per cent of licences in 1997/98 and a minimum of 50 per cent in following years. This investigation found that ministry policy in 1999 was to field check 10 per cent of licences, but that Guelph District did not field check any in 1997/98 or 1998/99, due to inadequate staffing, and was planning to inspect only 25 (or 8 per cent) of the 334 licences in the District in 1999/2000.
The ECO encourages MNR to review the effectiveness of its Aggregate Resources Compliance Reporting Program, to determine how well inspections are being conducted by the different district offices, to see whether there are systemic problems with the program, and to develop remedies and put them in place. This would be a positive result from this EBR investigation, similar to the ministry’s response to the 1998 forestry applications for investigation, which resulted in a review by the ministry of its Forest Operations Compliance System (see pages 95-96).
| Recommendation 16:
The ECO recommends that MNR review the effectiveness of its Aggregate Resources Compliance Reporting Program, to determine how well inspections are being conducted by the different district offices, to see whether there are systemic problems with the program, and to develop remedies and put them in place. |
| This is an article from the 1999/2000 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2000. "Investigation: The Aggregate Resources Act." Changing Perspectives, ECO Annual Report, 1999-2000. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 108-111.
