Our cratered landscape: Can pits and quarries be rehabilitated?
Contents |
Background
In November 2003, the ECO received an application arguing that Ontario’s pits and quarries are not being adequately rehabilitated by the aggregate industry, and requesting a review of relevant sections of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). The applicants estimated that between 1992 and 2001, approximately 6,000 hectares were dug up to extract aggregates – without the rehabilitation required under the ARA. They asserted that this pattern would continue, unless rules were tightened.
The applicants also noted that an estimated 6,500 aggregate sites had been abandoned (excavated without rehabilitation) as of 1990. Since industry had, on average, rehabilitated only 13 such sites per year, the applicants estimated that it could take 489 years to get through the backlog.
The high cost of rehabilitating worked-out pits and quarries – an estimated average cost of $12,495 per hectare – was also raised by the applicants. They suggested that Ontario’s total rehabilitation costs could amount to $74 million per decade, and asked, rhetorically, “When will this rehabilitation take place? Who will pay for it? Will this rate of deficit continue in the future?” In the past, rehabilitation security deposits had been used by the province to guarantee rehabilitation work; but the Ontario government dismantled this system in the late 1990s, and returned approximately $49 million directly to aggregate operators. The applicants argued that this left little incentive for operators to carry out rehabilitation, and proposed a return to an “effective system of rewards and punishments so that rehabilitation actually occurs.” Additional issues raised by the applicants are described in the supplement to our 2004 Annual Report, along with more detail on the ministry’s response and commitments.
Regulators and the industry have long recognized that aggregate operators should not leave an ever-growing legacy of abandoned pits and quarries pockmarking the landscape. Abandoned aggregate operations provide little natural habitat, regenerate only very slowly, and can be prone to serious erosion. In some cases, their steep-sided slopes may pose safety hazards, and they may also act as easy conduits for contaminants (such as road salt or fuels) to leak into underground aquifers.
The Pits and Quarries Control Act (1971)
Ontario has required the rehabilitation of pits and quarries since 1971, when the Ontario legislature enacted the Pits and Quarries Control Act (PQCA). But the PQCA was soon deemed to be ineffective. New rules were finally brought into force with the proclamation of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) in 1990. The Minister of Natural Resources at the time stated, “The new Act puts more emphasis on environmental concerns and aggressively promotes the rehabilitation of pits and quarries located on private land. … Better site plans, better operating records and better rehabilitation will be required.”
Unfortunately, MNR grandparented all existing licences and permits when the ARA came into force, so that their site plans still reflected the weak rules of the old PQCA. This remains a problem to this day, since licences (on private lands) are issued in perpetuity, and the vast majority of licences in the GTA are over 30 years old. MNR can require licensees to amend their site plans, but licensees can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties (MAAP) program
By 1990, thousands of worked-out pits and quarries had been abandoned, either because their licences pre-dated rehabilitation requirements or because operators found it cheaper to forfeit the small security deposits. To deal with this legacy, the ARA created a separate fund – under the Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties (MAAP) program – with a levy set at a rate of 0.5 cent/tonne on extracted aggregate. MNR estimated in 1989 that “this fund could permit the rehabilitation of most abandoned pits in the designated areas within 12-15 years.” The MAAP fund was initially administered by MNR directly.
In 1997, MNR transferred the MAAP program to the aggregate industry association, as part of larger campaign of regulatory reform and government cost-cutting. A few broad goals were set at the time of transfer: to rehabilitate abandoned pits and quarries; to carry out research, including rehabilitation research; and to gather and publish information. The MAAP program has also established its own criteria for choosing sites that warrant rehabilitation. The rehabilitation work is carried out at no cost to the landowner and, after rehabilitation, the lands remain in private hands. As of 2005, a total of 366 hectares have been rehabilitated under the MAAP program, at a total cost of over $4 million.
Ministry response to request for review
In January 2004, MNR agreed to undertake the requested review. The completed review (released in August 2006) acknowledged significant weaknesses in the oversight of Ontario’s sand and gravel resources. The ministry “committed to a long term strategic approach to improving the Aggregate Resources Program and rehabilitation of aggregate sites.” Among other things, MNR agreed that: inadequate rehabilitation is widespread; that the ministry’s weak database makes oversight of rehabilitation difficult; and that the overall aggregate program faces significant staffing and funding challenges. The ministry promised to make rehabilitation a greater priority in its compliance work, and to examine the merits of a rehabilitation incentive system by August 2008. However, the ministry also concluded that the fundamental principles of the ARA are adequate to ensure rehabilitation, and that the Act also provides MNR with adequate enforcement tools. MNR did acknowledge the large number of abandoned sites (approximately 6,900), but did not propose a solution. MNR confirmed that the industry’s MAAP program was rehabilitating only 10 to 20 such sites per year, though increasing this target to 30 sites for 2005.
Recent progress by MNR
In June 2006, MNR amended the ARA to impose new reporting requirements on operators, and to give new powers to ministry inspectors. MNR also finalized its overhaul of the Manual of Policies and Procedures under the ARA, including updated policies for rehabilitation and enforcement (for details, please see Aggregates Procedures Manual.)
In October 2006, MNR expanded the geographic scope of the ARA to include more parts of central and Northern Ontario, and also increased the fees and royalties that aggregate operators must pay, effective January 1, 2007. MNR stated that the extra revenue would go towards enhancing rehabilitation, as well as strengthening compliance by hiring additional enforcement officers. MNR also introduced stricter rehabilitation rules in the Greenbelt Plan area, bolstered by area targets and timelines. Most aggregate operations in the subject area will require site plan amendments for rehabilitation in order to comply with the new rules.
ECO Comment
This review demonstrates that the EBR application process is an effective way to convey public concerns to the responsible ministry, and can trigger policy and operational improvements within ministries. To the ministry’s credit, MNR carefully evaluated the underlying issues, acknowledged a number of structural weaknesses and undertook some immediate improvements to improve rehabilitation rates. The ministry also made numerous commitments to work towards longer-term improvements – commitments that can now be tracked by the public and the ECO.
Barrier to rehabilitation #1: Inadequate legislation
The aggregate industry’s poor rehabilitation record has been a long-standing and frustrating concern for citizens, for MNR and for industry alike. Improvements over the decades have come at a glacial pace. There were hopes that the ARA, proclaimed 17 years ago, would resolve both the on-going rehabilitation problems and the legacy of abandoned sites. Clearly, neither has happened. Although MNR concluded that the legislation itself is fundamentally sound, the fact that the ministry saw the need to create more stringent rules for the Greenbelt Plan area suggests the need for clearer targets and timelines for rehabilitation incorporated into the ARA.
Barrier to rehabilitation #2: Grandparented licences
One key barrier to adequate rehabilitation is the large number of old licences that were grandparented when the ARA was enacted, effectively shielding them from rehabilitation requirements, and forcing ministry staff to use time-consuming site plan amendments on a case-by-case basis. These site plan amendments can be stalled by appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, adding further challenges for MNR’s over-extended aggregate staff.
Barrier to rehabilitation #3: Inadequate resources at MNR
MNR senior mangers were warned of severe staffing shortages in the ministry’s aggregate program in spring 2001 – at least two-and-a-half years before this EBR application was submitted. Overall, the ministry has been struggling with inadequate resources for managing many of its mandated responsibilities and programs, as described in the ECO Special Report “Doing Less with Less” released in April 2007.
Unfortunately, most new staff hired by MNR in spring 2007 will be assigned to Northern Ontario, and will not be available to resolve the very serious inspector shortages in the South Central Region, where the bulk of Ontario’s aggregate is extracted and where vaguely written, outdated site plans are wide-spread. Of the many recommendations MNR assembled as a result of this review, Recommendation #18 seems especially pertinent: “MNR will immediately undertake an assessment of its capacity for monitoring and enforcement including ensuring the rehabilitation of sites.” The ECO encourages MNR to complete this assessment, make it public and respond with a goal of building its field capacity.
Strengthening MAAP
The MAAP program is currently privately operated, but it exists by virtue of legislation administered by MNR, and it was MNR’s responsibility to set goals, targets and timelines when it handed the program over in 1997. The ECO suggests that a fresh look at the MAAP program would be timely, beginning with a re-evaluation of the geographic scope and environmental significance of abandoned pits and quarries on private lands. What types of sites are in greatest need of being rehabilitated, and how can landowners be brought on board? What types of sites are best left to regenerate naturally? What should the scope and end-point of the program be? These are questions that deserve broad public consultation. Among other things, the program requires measurable objectives and timelines reflecting current priorities for MNR and society, which might include protecting biodiversity, habitat connectivity and source waters.
Excessively delayed review
MNR’s review of this application was very protracted, requiring two–and-a-half years. The applicants found this lengthy waiting period very frustrating, and submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to MNR in March 2006 requesting full documentation about the status of their application. The released documents demonstrate clearly that MNR had completed the substantive part of its review by February 2005. A set timeline for ministries to conduct reviews is not stipulated under the EBR, but the legislation does state that ministers “shall conduct the review within a reasonable time.” MNR demonstrably failed to comply with this “reasonable time” requirement of the EBR.
Now that the challenges facing the ministry’s aggregates program have been shared with the public, the ECO hopes that future discussions on program and policy direction will take place in the broader public arena, involving the full range of stakeholders. The ECO is encouraged by MNR’s commitment to improving the Aggregate Resources Program and rehabilitation rates, and will continue to monitor and report on MNR’s progress.
| Recommendation 8:
The ECO recommends that MNR improve the rehabilitation rates of Ontario pits and quarries by introducing stronger legislation with targets and timelines; by applying up-to-date rules to grandparented licences, and by further strengthening the ministry's own field capacity for inspections. |
| 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. "Our cratered landscape:Can pits and quarries be rehabilitated?." Reconciling our Priorities, ECO Annual Report, 2006-07. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 139-144.
