The Swiss Cheese Syndrome: Pits and Quarries Come in Clusters
Too often, a simplistic, short-term approach is taken to land use planning. While the management of our land and its resources should reflect the immediate needs of a community, it must also anticipate the future aspirations of generations to come. In order to balance long-term social, economic and environmental interests, progressive land use planning must be underpinned by the constraints of natural environmental limits.
Progressive land use planning should begin at the landscape level. The significant natural functions of the environment – watersheds, moraines, large natural areas – should act as the critical first screen for later site-specific land use decisions. By initially establishing natural limits upfront, greater certainty is then achieved when localized decisions need to be made. Knowing upfront where different forms of development are appropriate or not, based on natural limits, is a sound approach to planning.
A resilient land use planning system should accommodate the unexpected. It should promote making decisions based on the best available information; it should not sacrifice the long-term sustainability of the land for perceived short-term benefits. It also should contextualize decision-making, serving as a check to ensure that broader objectives and constraints are reflected within individual decisions. It has been observed that this type of approach to planning is nothing more than common sense, although common sense is not always common in practice.
Arriving at the best possible decision in land use planning necessitates looking at the sum total of possible impacts. What is the total effect that this choice will have? What impacts will other choices have? How will this choice affect both short-term and long-term planning objectives for this area? Such questions are addressed when considering the cumulative effects of a land use planning decision. Cumulative effects can be understood as “changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present and future human actions.”
One of the more contentious land use planning issues in Ontario is deciding where aggregate operations – pits and quarries that extract sand, gravel, and stone – may be located and under what conditions. Government land use planning policies, as reflected in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS), give a high priority to aggregate operations. This priority is further re-enforced in the specific rules for aggregate operations that are found in the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). The decision to place a high priority on this land use is often viewed as coming at the expense of other land uses.
In April 2008, an EBR application was filed by members of the public that raised concerns that cumulative effects are not addressed in the approval of new aggregate operations. The applicants requested a review of the ARA, as they were concerned that there is no mandatory requirement for the consideration of cumulative social and environmental impacts when the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is considering approvals for pits and quarries. The applicants asserted that the regional impact of existing pits and quarries should be assessed when MNR is considering the approval of any new operations.
MNR denied this EBR application and stated that the ARA “is not the appropriate process to consider cumulative impacts.” The ministry took the position that there are already mechanisms to consider cumulative impacts in the local municipal official planning process, which must be consistent with the PPS. MNR stated that “any cumulative assessment mechanism needs to be sufficiently broad to consider all land uses (not limited to aggregate extraction operations).” The ministry used the example of a new residential subdivision and stated:
- Some may view these impacts positively, as a consequence of expanding growth of the community, while others may view these impacts negatively, as a change to the rural character of the community. It becomes a basic societal question, which is more appropriately addressed from a broad land use planning.
In essence, MNR took the position that thinking about cumulative effects was not its responsibility. However, the ministry did state that “cumulative impacts may be considered” in assessing the hydrogeological effects of new aggregate operations it licenses under the ARA.
ECO Comment
The ECO disagrees with MNR’s position that the cumulative effects of proposed aggregate operations are adequately considered in the municipal land use planning and provincial licensing processes. The ministry’s rationale was largely based on the assumption that cumulative effects are appropriately and effectively assessed through the municipal official planning process, guided by the Planning Act and the PPS. The PPS provides general policy direction on matters of provincial interest, reflecting the Ontario government’s stated priorities for the establishment of such land uses as aggregate operations. However, it does not contain any reference to cumulative effects or their consideration in municipal decision-making.
Moreover, municipal decisions on the zoning of lands typically do not assess cumulative impacts beyond a general level. Making broad societal choices should not be confused with site-specific technical assessments. MNR should develop a regionally-based planning approach, involving the assessment of cumulative effects, when considering an individual approval for a new or expanded aggregate operation. Such an approach is logical as geologic formations naturally cluster favourable locations for pits and quarries. This same clustering effect also is driven by a provincial land use planning directive which explicitly encourages that aggregate be made available close to markets. As a result, land use conflicts are almost assured: some of the highest quality aggregate deposits are found in the areas of the greatest ecological and social significance in southern Ontario.
The ECO has previously commented that Ontario’s current land use planning system is weighted in favour of extractive and destructive uses of the land. It often is deterministic in nature and does not include an a priori discussion of the need for any given project. This approach undermines the resilience of the lands, waters, and other aspects of the natural environment that communities value and upon which they depend.
Municipalities have little practical authority to restrict the approval of new pits and quarries under the existing land use planning system. They also are often reluctant to restrict new operations because of the costly possibility of facing an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. This skewed process often results in frustrated local residents feeling disenfranchised by both their local politicians and the provincial government.
The broader land use planning process under the Planning Act should, conceptually, consider cumulative effects as part of its decision-making process. However, MNR has an obligation to ensure that its own regulatory framework – the approvals over which it has direct authority – explicitly considers the combined effects of various land uses. MNR’s approval processes are intended to be the fine filters for site-specific land use decisions, and they often are the appropriate mechanism for the consideration of detailed technical information. Broader societal choices about land uses, as laid out in a municipal official plan’s system of zoning, should not be construed as a thorough assessment of the ecological and hydrogeological cumulative impacts of a particular project.
Historically, MNR has not considered its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) in making decisions about instruments, such as permits issued under the ARA, that are prescribed under the EBR. Section 11 of the EBR requires each prescribed ministry to consider its SEV when making an environmentally significant decision; it contains no exemption for decisions on instruments. Beginning with our first Annual Report in 1996, the ECO has held the position that SEVs must be considered by prescribed ministries when they make environmentally significant decisions on instruments.
| Recommendation 3:
The ECO recommends that MNR’s existing commitment to consider its SEV and cumulative effects during instrument decisions should also apply to instruments issued under the Aggregate Resources Act. |
The Ontario Divisional Court ruling on Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal et. al. of June 18, 2008 (leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal denied), indicates that ministries should be considering their SEVs – including such concepts as cumulative effects, where applicable – not just for broad policies and legislation, but also for site-specific approvals on instruments.
MNR’s current SEV, finalized in October 2008, directs that the ministry will document how its SEV is considered each time a decision is posted on the Environmental Registry. In a more definitive fashion, the SEV states that MNR will consider its SEV when decisions that might significantly affect the environment need to be made as it develops Acts, regulations, and policies. However, the SEV does not make any reference to the ministry considering its SEV for instruments, such as approvals under the ARA.
MNR’s SEV also does not explicitly acknowledge the need to consider cumulative effects. However, it does refer to related concepts. It states, “An ecosystem approach to managing our natural resources enables a holistic perspective of social, economic and ecological aspects and provides the context for integrated resource management.” In contrast to the contents of the SEV, the decision notice on the Environmental Registry for the new SEVs states,
- In reference to their own SEVs, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources are working to develop the long-term tools, including science, policies and guidelines to support the application of an ecosystem approach, including consideration of cumulative effects, to environmentally significant decision making.
The Minister of Natural Resources has taken a more clear position on this issue. In a letter to a member of the public in January 2009, the Minister of Natural Resources stated, “When making environmentally- significant decisions at the instrument level… MNR intends to consider its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) and cumulative effects.”
The ECO hopes that MNR and MOE will adhere to the EBR, uphold the Ontario Divisional Court ruling, and consider their SEVs when making decisions on instruments that might significantly affect the environment. The ECO will closely monitor how MNR and MOE consider cumulative effects in their decision making and will review this issue in future Annual Reports.
| This is an article from the 2008/09 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2009. "The Swiss Cheese Syndrome: Pits and Quarries Come in Clusters." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 29-32.
