Aggregate Resources Act Review Joint Submission - …...the Blueprint’s proposed changes and answers the feedback questions found in the Blueprint document on page 34 (Appendix 1)

PB-12-16

Halton Area Planning Partnership

Aggregate Resources

Joint Submission

December 2015

APPENDIX B

Partnership (HAPP)

Resources Act Review

1

PB-12-16 APPENDIX B 2

Introduction

The Halton Area Planning Partnership (HAPP) is comprised of Halton Region and the following Local Municipalities: the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton, and the Town of Oakville. The Town of Oakville is supportive of the principles embodied in the Joint Response that speak to integrating legislation, improving the process of review and approval, and strengthening implementation and assessment. However, due to the limited nature of the aggregate resources and operations within the Town of Oakville, the Town has not specifically commented on this review.

This submission represents HAPP’s response to the document “A Blueprint for Change: A proposal to modernize and strengthen the Aggregate Resources Act policy framework” (Blueprint) which was placed on the Environmental Registry as a Policy Proposal Notice (EBR Registry Number: 012-5444) on October 21, 2015. The Blueprint is based on the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on General Government (2013) for strengthening the Act and the February 2014 release by the Ministry of Natural Resources entitled “Comprehensive Government Response to Standing Committee on General Government’s Report on the Review of the Aggregate Resources Act”.

The Halton Area Planning Partnership now takes this opportunity to have its collective voice heard by responding to the Blueprint. HAPP’s submission provides comments on the Blueprint’s proposed changes and answers the feedback questions found in the Blueprint document on page 34 (Appendix 1) and provides HAPP’s key recommendations in this letter.

HAPP’s response is included in a chart attached to this letter and consists of general comments regarding the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) process, integration with the Planning Act and coordination with other Provincial Plans and legislation as well as responses to the specific proposals in the Blueprint.

Background

HAPP’s submission is based on a long history of applications dealing with aggregate extraction within Halton’s borders. Halton Region has consistently been among the highest producers of aggregate in Ontario since data became available in 1990. In 2014, Halton Region was the fourth highest aggregate producer in Ontario. Also in 2014, Halton Region produced over 7.7 million tonnes of aggregate. The Town of Milton produced 5.5 million tonnes of aggregate while the City of Burlington and the Town of Halton Hills produced a combined 2.2 million tonnes. Among single and lower tier municipalities, Milton has consistently been among the highest aggregate producers in the Province, including the second highest in 2014.


Twelve of the Region’s twenty-four existing ARA licenced sites are active today. A total of 1670 hectares are licenced under the ARA. Between 2012 and 2014, the Region of Halton and its local municipalities were involved in the review of four aggregate applications within the Region as well as two others that were adjacent to our borders. Four licenced sites are over 100 hectares in size.

Halton Region was among the first municipalities to institute a method of reviewing applications through a Joint Agency Review Team (JART) process that has helped to coordinate and streamline efforts between aggregate licence applicants and all associated agencies, including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Region and the local municipality, conservation authority and, when applicable, the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The JART process includes a coordinated peer review process that helps to expedite the review of complex applications. The process also seeks to engage the public more effectively and to facilitate the sharing of information between the applicant and agencies as well as the public.

The Region and its local municipalities have been at the forefront of positive advancement of the ARA licence application process by integrating, as much as possible, the very important aspects of the Planning Act and applicable Official Plans that are required to review aggregate applications in the most thorough way including:

• Proper and thorough public consultation

• Attention to the matters of provincial interest such as health and safety, traffic, noise, dust, sensitive use compatibility, natural heritage, cultural heritage, agricultural, natural resource, social, economic, employment, recreational and sustainability issues

• Adherence to the Provincial Policy Statement

Collectively, through the review of aggregate applications, we strive to balance the competing interests of the need for aggregate as building materials in Ontario with the Halton vision of a proper balance between protecting its natural environment, preserving its prime agricultural areas, enhancing its economic competitiveness and fostering a healthy, equitable society. HAPP’s comments are, therefore, based on this extensive wealth of knowledge and experience.

Key Points of HAPP’s Response

1. Greater clarity is needed to reconcile the objectives of mineral aggregate

extraction with the protection of the natural environment, prime agricultural areas and the preservation of water resources.

• The Province should identify priorities and set policies accordingly, recognizing that priorities may be different for different parts/areas of Ontario.


2. Proponents should be required by ARA policies to demonstrate the need for any additional supply of aggregate resources.

• This should be included in the ARA as a required study for new and existing licence applications. This would serve to establish an appropriate balance between the protection of aggregate resources and other provincial interests and community objectives, prevent the unsustainable use of the resource and mitigate negative impacts on agricultural and natural heritage resources.

• The PPS 2014 and the appropriate Provincial land use plans should also be amended to re-introduce a requirement for demonstration of need.

3. The Province needs to improve the integration of provincial plans (e.g. Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Growth Plan, etc.) with related legislation (e.g. Aggregate Resources Act) to ensure timely rehabilitation of aggregate operations and effective regulation of potentially impactful activities such as commercial fill operations and other site alterations.

4. Better coordination between ARA requirements and Planning Act

requirements is needed. The Terms of Reference for technical studies prepared in support of larger projects should integrate the requirements of the MNRF, the municipalities and other agencies.

• It is inappropriate to review the ARA framework in isolation from the Planning Act and Niagara Escarpment Plan requirements. It is the Planning Act and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) approvals that deal with the first and most fundamental decision: whether the change in land use (e.g. the establishment or expansion of a mineral aggregate operation) should be approved. Municipal requirements for Planning Act applications (associated with an aggregate application) often exceed ARA requirements, as municipalities must consider the greater public interest as it relates to land use and as established by the Province in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Therefore, better coordination between the ARA and Provincial and municipal Planning Act technical study requirements is needed so as to ensure that efforts are not duplicated, that the resources of public agencies are best utilized and that the Province’s broader interests are achieved.

5. Clear and transparent criteria should be established to determine the

conditions under which the MNRF will waive or amend ARA requirements.

• A number of references are made throughout the Blueprint document regarding proposed changes to allow the MNRF to waive and/or amend requirements (e.g., requirements for notification, requirements for studies). Clear and transparent criteria should be established to determine the circumstances when MNRF requirements can be waived or amended. It should be clear that requirements under any other piece of legislation would still apply.


6. Better coordination across MNRF departments is needed.

• Multiple MNRF approvals may be needed to support an aggregate operation (e.g., ESA approvals and ARA approvals). Improvements should be made to improve coordination across multiple MNRF departments, as conflicting information and/or messaging is often provided from each department.

7. Streamlining the multiple layers of approval.

• Aggregate development proposals often require multiple approvals (e.g., Planning Act approvals, Conservation Authority permit, Endangered Species Act approval, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Authorization). Where appropriate, streamlining or coordinating approvals is worthwhile. There are a number of instances where there can be an overlap in authority. Clarification regarding roles, responsibilities and requirements of all players is needed.

8. The interim nature of extraction must be defined in the ARA with more effective requirements for the timely closure of aggregate operations. Provincial guidelines must be established.

• Operators may have very limited amounts of aggregate left to extract at the end of the operation life cycle, yet they can continue to produce low volumes of material enabling them to continue associated stand-alone industrial operations (e.g. asphalt plants) and avoid completing rehabilitation of the site. If licences were reviewed every five years, site plans could be amended to include firm final rehabilitation and closing dates through criteria set in the aforementioned guidelines.

9. Municipalities, and other public agencies such as Conservation Authorities

and the Niagara Escarpment Commission, should be included as parties to licence and site plan amendments. Proposals for significant changes to a licence or site plan (e.g. tonnage increases, increases in operating life, increases in the depth of extraction) should be required to submit an application for approval.

• ARA licences and site plans commonly include provisions that were established through negotiations or public hearings to address important municipal and/or stakeholder concerns. Significant changes to these provisions should not be approved without public consultation and the agreement of the relevant stakeholders.

10. The aggregate licence fee must be increased and the disbursement must

be equitable and be based on the true costs of impacts.

• Given the considerable financial impacts on municipalities due to, among other matters, the use of the road network by large volumes of aggregate trucks, HAPP strongly supports an increase in fees to offset the multitude of costs borne by municipalities due to aggregate operations.


• The Province has indicated that it will be working with municipalities to gather cost-based information, Halton and its Local Municipalities would welcome the opportunity to participate in the process.

11. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry should require that applications for new or expanded aggregate extraction sites adopt a process similar to Halton Region’s Streamlined Mineral Aggregate Review Protocol, including establishing a Joint Agency Review Team (JART), to guide the review of aggregate applications.

• The Protocol streamlines efforts between aggregate licence applicants and all associated agencies.

• The JART process includes a coordinated peer review process.

• Engages the public more effectively and facilitates the sharing of information between the applicant, agencies and the public.

12. The ARA should include provisions requiring that financial, social and other impacts of aggregate hauling be included in any consideration and in all studies for a licence application including where the operation and haul routes are in different municipalities.

• Any studies should include adjacent lands and haul routes regardless of municipal boundaries.

• Require that social and financial impacts along haul routes be addressed. • Provision should be made for adjacent municipalities along haul routes that

cross municipal boundaries to receive fees.

Conclusion

HAPP has found that it is very challenging to provide fulsome comments on the Blueprint document and/or to provide support for the changes proposed in the Blueprint document without the full benefit of seeing the proposed detailed changes and language that will be included in the legislation, regulations, standards and policies.

HAPP does, however, firmly believe that changes are necessary and supports the efforts of the MNRF moving forward in making the required changes outlined in our response to the ARA and associated legislation. HAPP notes that it would be helpful if MNRF provided more details regarding the rationale for the proposed changes as part of the next round of public consultation.

Many of the proposed changes in the Blueprint document are supported by HAPP or can be supported if some required changes are made to the existing proposals and/or if more information and context is forwarded to HAPP.

PB-12-16

Thank you for providing the Regioncomment on the developmentopportunities for consultation on

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Glenn Director of Planning Services & Chief Planning Official Halton Region

John Linhardt Executive Director of Planning & Chief Planning Official Town of Halton Hills

Mark Simeoni Director of Planning Services Town of Oakville

c. Andrea Smith

Manager of Policy & Research, HAPP Chair

City of Burlington

Steve Burke

Manager, Policy Planning

Town of Halton Hills

Diane Childs


Town of Oakville

APPENDIX B

Region and its local municipalities the opportunitydevelopment of these policy changes. We look forward to

on this subject.

Mary Lou Tanner Director of Planning & Building

City of Burlington

Barb Koopmans Director of Planning &

Development Town of Milton

Chair

Dan Tovey


Halton Region

Gabe Charles,


Town of Milton

7

opportunity to to further

Building

APPENDIX 1: Joint HAPP Response to Proposed Changes to the Aggregate Resources Act (December, 2015) A Blueprint for Change: A Proposal to Modernize and Strengthen the Aggregate Resources Act Policy Framework Halton Region, City of Burlington, Town of Halton Hills, and Town of Milton

Legend: HAPP’s General Comments Stronger Oversight Environmental Accountability Improved Information and Participation Increased and Equalized Fees and Royalties

1

Proposed ARA Changes HAPP Comments Recommendation for Improvements

General Comments

1. Conflicting Provincial

objectives

• Greater clarity is needed to reconcile the objectives of mineral

aggregate extraction with other public objectives such as the

protection of natural heritage systems, water resources,

agricultural areas, operations and systems, public health and

safety, and social and economic well-being. The Province must

identify its priorities in consultation with municipalities and set

policies accordingly. The "sub area assessments" provided for

under the Growth Plan would be an opportunity to establish

priorities among conflicting policy areas within a certain context -

aggregates might be the priority in this sub area, natural heritage

in this sub area, or a portion of a sub area.

2. Sustainable aggregate

extraction

• A demonstration of need for more aggregate resources must be

re-introduced to the PPS and should be one of the required

studies in the ARA.

• The 2014 PPS and the Provincial land use plans should be

amended to re-introduce a requirement that proponents

demonstrate the need for the additional supply of aggregate

resources, in order to re-establish an appropriate balance

between the protection of aggregate resources and other

provincial interests, to prevent the unsustainable use of the

resource and mitigate negative impacts on agricultural and

natural heritage resources and avoid the approval of sites that

remain underutilized and thus are not rehabilitated.

3. Control impacts on

rural communities

• The Province needs to improve the integration of provincial plans

with the Aggregate Resources Act to ensure timely rehabilitation

of aggregate operations and effective regulation of potentially

impactful activities such as commercial fill operations and other

site alterations.



2


4. Prioritize Provincial

objectives

• There is a need to integrate and reconcile the competing goals

and objectives contained in multiple Provincial Plans, policies

and legislation to establish clear priorities on what is important

and how these priorities must be balanced.

• Additional guidance is needed on how to apply the Provincial

Policy Statement (PPS) Policy 2.5.3.1.

• Harmonize the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, the

Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Ontario Water

Resources Act, the Niagara Escarpment Planning and

Development Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean

Water Act and the Planning Act as they relate to aggregate

resources.

• Amend the ARA to include approved Official Plans as a

consideration.

5. Greater Municipal role

in approvals

• Allowing for municipalities to be partners in the ARA decision-

making process would begin the process of moving away from

the planning approvals gridlock that currently exists by

developing a new way of doing things.

• Municipalities should be given a greater role in the ARA approval

process to provide for greater transparency in the process itself.

6. Greater Municipal role

in monitoring

• Municipalities should be part of the post-approval process and

not just bystanders to ensure compliance and accountability and

to also share the responsibility for ensuring that operators

minimize social and environmental impacts.

• Amend the ARA to allow for participation of the Region in the

enforcement and monitoring process.

• Amend the ARA to delegate some of the authority for

enforcement and monitoring to the Region based on agreed upon

criteria.

7. Cumulative impacts of

aggregate extraction

• The consideration of cumulative impacts must ensure that all

environmental, social and economic impacts are identified

comprehensively upfront and properly accounted for throughout

a new and integrated approvals process.

• Amend the ARA to include consideration of the cumulative

impacts of new applications, including extensions and expansions,

in addition to the impacts of other operations in a broader

surrounding area.



3


8. Aggregate extraction

as an interim land use

• Defined time limits would provide a benchmark that could be

used to require and enforce rehabilitation. There should be a

limit to how long an operation can continue under an old licence

based on policies and practices that are not in keeping with

current practice. The time limits could be based on forecasted

annual tonnage plus a contingency for market factors affecting

the demand for aggregate, with a possibility for extension due to

those factors.

• Require a mechanism to respond to changes in the surrounding

community and environment and to changes in relevant

legislation and regulations and to update aggregate operations

to incorporate nest best practices.

• Conditions are continually changing. In many industries, licences

need to be renewed on a regular basis to ensure that the

industry is complying with up-to-date standards and

expectations. Aggregate operators must not be exempt from

this process.

• Licences should have defined time limits. They should not remain

in effect indefinitely as aggregate extraction is an interim land use

according to the PPS.

• A statutory requirement for the periodic review of licences and

site plans to ensure that licensed operations are consistent with

current policies and regulations and best practices with particular

emphasis on rehabilitation plans, mitigation, enhancement plans

and monitoring.

• These reviews should include public notice and consultation.



4


9. Expand licence

application submission

requirements

• There are many gaps in the information provided on existing

licences and site plans.

• New and revised licences and site plans should include the

following:

• Approved studies (e.g. noise, dust, transportation, water,

natural environment, karst, risk assessment, social, natural

heritage, etc. as well as cumulative impact studies, as

applicable) that provide bases for site plan approval and

issuance of the ARA licence.

• On-going submission requirements and frequency of such

submissions (e.g. monitoring, mitigation, compliance reports).

• Spill-control protocols (and requirements for notification to

local community if major spills occur).

• Public complaint resolution protocols.

• Information sharing strategy with other agencies.

• Consult with agencies and other stakeholders and/or whose

agreement is required for changes.

• Alternatively, make provisions for adoption of relevant

provisions set out in separate agreements (e.g., between the

operator and municipalities or other stakeholders and

planning approvals).

10. Rehabilitation, not just

of certain sites, should

be a priority

• The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation (TOARC) noted

that 17 files concerning former/abandoned aggregate sites

remained open in Halton Region as of 2012, of which 6 would

require rehabilitation and 11 would require site visits to

determine their status.

• However, we understand that none of Halton Region’s remaining

abandoned sites are a priority for rehabilitation.

• The ARA should not refer to standards/protocols that perpetuate

prioritization for abandoned site rehabilitation, but should ensure

progressive rehabilitation for all active/inactive aggregate sites.



5


11. Self-reporting in the

form of compliance

assessment reports

must be improved

• Compliance Assessment Reports (CARs) should be enhanced as

this is the only compliance-tracking document common to all

operations.

• HAPP believes that CAR reporting should be streamlined to

include more relevant information and ensure consistency to

allow for comparisons over time in terms of single and multiple

operations across the jurisdiction;

• CARs are the only documents common to all operators during the

ARA licence period. As such, they should be informative and clear

enough to help track changes and help draw conclusions over

time; and

• By analyzing long-term trends, operational and rehabilitation

progress can be seen. In their current state, CARs are often

redundant with no change to any information over a number of

years (sometimes decades), and this poses questions as to the

ability and/or willingness of operators to openly assess and judge

their sites’ compliance matters.

12. Define technical terms • Provide definitions of technical terms throughout the Act. • Define the terms: “Expansion”, “Extension”, “New”, and “Minor

Amendments” in addition to others presented below.

13. Include sensitive

receptors

• Sensitive receptors (and associated definitions) should be

included.

• A definition and list of sensitive receptors should be included

within guidance documents and included in studies and other

information in the application.



6


14. Terms of reference

requirements for

supporting technical

studies should be

expanded

• It is inappropriate to review the ARA framework in isolation from

the Planning Act and Niagara Escarpment Plan requirements. It is

the Planning Act and the NEPDA approvals that deal with the

first and most fundamental decision: whether the change in land

use should be approved, and thus whether or not the

establishment or expansion of a mineral aggregate operation

should be approved. That being said, the Planning Act approvals

deal with many concerns, such as water resources, that are also

dealt with in ARA approvals, and Planning Act decisions take into

account how impacts are to be mitigated through ARA approvals.

The two processes are interconnected.

• Terms of Reference for larger projects should integrate Planning

Act and ARA requirements.

• The requirements for Terms of Reference should be informed by

the EA requirements and the experience with the EA process.

The Terms of Reference should establish:

o A Joint Agency Review Team

o Timelines

o Requirements for public and agency consultation.

o Study requirements – what constitutes a complete

application.

o How decisions are to be made – e.g., on whether a study

satisfies the Terms of Reference.

• The Development of the Terms of Reference should require:

o Pre-consultation with municipalities, other public agencies

and stakeholders

o Public release of draft Terms of Reference - requiring public

notice and a 30(?) day period for submitting comments.

o Final approval by the host municipality(ies), the proponent

and the Minister.

• For those projects for which a Terms of Reference is required the

Ministry should be required to prepare a review of each

application coordinating the input of other Provincial agencies and

recommending whether the application should be approved.

The Ministry should be required to give public notice of the

completion of its review and make the review document available

in both paper and digital form.

15. Addressing changes in

legislation

• Licences should indicate where conditions are linked to other

legislation and regulations and how changes in such legislation

and regulations are to be addressed.

16. Perpetual care • New proposals that are contingent on perpetual care (e.g.,

perpetual pumping) should not be approved.

• The ARA should specifically note that any application that will

require perpetual care will not be approved.



7


17. Role of Adaptive

Management Plan

• There has been growing interest in using Adaptive Management

Plans to address uncertainty regarding impacts. In some cases,

the degree of uncertainty is so great, or the risks so significant,

that it would be inappropriate to put any trust in the ability to

mitigate impacts through Adaptive Management Plans.

• The ARA should provide guidance on the circumstances when

Adaptive Management Plans can be used to address uncertainty

and when they are inappropriate.

• The precautionary principle should be entrenched in the ARA to

recognize that some impacts cannot be mitigated.

18. Enhanced notification

requirements

• Under the Aggregate Resources Act, if there are objections to a

licence application the Minister may refer the application and

objections to the Board. If the Minister does not refer the

application and makes a decision to refuse it, the Minister is

required to provide notice of the refusal to the applicant who

may appeal the Minister’s decision to the Board. However, there

does not seem to be a requirement to provide notice of the

Minister’s decision to other stakeholders - and they do not

appear to have the right to appeal the Minister’s decision to

refuse an application.

• Require that stakeholders be provided notice of the Minister’s

decision on a licence application and the right of appeal.



8


19. Enhanced submission

requirements for

aggregate applications

is supported, but

municipal

requirements must

also be considered

• HAPP supports the proposed enhanced requirements for new

aggregate applications for sites on both Crown and private land.

Specifically, HAPP is pleased to see enhanced requirements for

studying the potential impacts to the natural environment,

water, cultural heritage, noise, traffic and dust, as well as new

requirements for applications on agricultural lands. Establishing

maximum disturbed areas and new requirements to lower

extraction depth below the water table are also positive

changes.

• There have been moments of conflict and overlap among public

agencies in terms of areas of jurisdiction and clearer direction

through the ARA or associated regulations and/or policies may

alleviate some frustrations. This would also increase efficiency,

reduce/eliminate duplication of efforts, and reduce the potential

for conflict.

• Although some municipal requirements for Planning Act

applications (i.e., Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law

Amendment) associated with an aggregate application may be

similar to what is required under the ARA, municipal

requirements often exceed ARA requirements. In Halton Region,

proponents of any new or expanded mineral or resource

extraction area are required to undertake studies addressing the

potential adverse impacts related to social, environmental and

human health including, but not limited to, impacts to the

natural heritage system, cultural heritage resources,

transportation system, drinking water, visual character of the

area, air quality, surrounding rural and agricultural communities,

cumulative impacts of the proposal and public financial liability

with continuous active on-site management.

• Multiple approvals are often needed for any aggregate

development proposal (e.g., Planning Act approvals, CA permit,

Endangered Species Act approval, DFO Authorization) and there

is often an overlap in authority.

• Better coordination between ARA and municipal requirements is

needed so as to ensure that efforts are not duplicated, that the

resources of public agencies are best utilized and that the

Province’s greater interests are achieved.

• Better coordination between the MNRF and municipal

requirements and processes is critical.

• Where appropriate, streamlining or coordinating approvals is

worthwhile. Clarification regarding roles, responsibilities and

requirements of all players is needed.



9


20. Standing Committee

recommendations not

addressed

• Many of the recommendations outlined by the Standing

Committee were not addressed in the Blueprint document.

• Many of the recommendations of the Standing Committee could

be better addressed. Specifically, HAPP would like to have a

better understanding of how the Standing Committee’s

recommendations relating to Municipal Land Use Planning

Responsibilities (i.e., Recommendations #22-23) will be

addressed. In the Province’s response to the Standing Committee

it was indicated that the MNRF, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and Housing (MMAH) and the Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC) would support local municipalities in

their activities by providing advice and guidance materials.

• The Standing Committee also made recommendations relating to

simplifying and standardizing consultation and data requirements,

where possible (i.e., Recommendation #4). As noted above, this

needs to be clarified further.

21. Clear criteria for

waiving of

requirements needed

• Clear and transparent criteria should be established to

determine the conditions under which the MNRF will waive or

amend requirements.

• A number of references are made throughout the document

regarding proposed changes to allow the MNRF to waive and/or

amend requirements (e.g., requirements for notification,

requirements for studies). Clear and transparent criteria should

be established to determine the circumstances when MNRF

requirements can be waived or amended. It should be clear that

requirements under any other piece of legislation would still

apply.

22. Better MNRF

coordination is needed

• Better coordination across MNRF departments is needed.

Multiple MNRF approvals may be needed to support an

aggregate operation (e.g., ESA approvals and ARA approvals).

Improvements could be made to improve coordination across

multiple MNRF departments, as conflicting information and/or

messaging is often provided from each department.



10


1.1.1) Enhancements to Requirements for Studies and Information

1.1.1.a)

Enhanced requirements for

studying impacts related to the

natural environment, water,

cultural heritage, noise, traffic

and dust.

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, additional information is

required as suggested in the Recommendations for

Improvements.

• The proposed change did not fully integrate the concept of

“cumulative impact assessment”.

• HAPP supports studies that take on a systems-based approach to

the protection of Natural Heritage System.

• ARA study requirements should be coordinated with study

requirements for amendments to municipal planning documents.

o Require social impact assessment addressing social and

economic impacts and impacts on community character.

o Require assessment of visual impact and impacts on cultural

heritage landscapes.

o Surface and ground water studies should be required to

address not only impacts on water uses but also ecological

impacts – on fish habitat, wetlands, woodlands, etc.

o Studies should be required to address impacts of any

associated facilities (i.e., asphalt, concrete) in addition to

extraction where applicable.

• ARA process should take into account municipal plans, policies,

and study requirements should be taken into consideration as

they may exceed provincial requirements.

• Studies must be required for noise, blast design, traffic and dust,

as well as any municipal study requirements where applicable.

• Define what “risk-assessment” means in the ARA context.

• Define what a “qualified expert” is for each study required.

• There should be guidance for applicants to conduct the

“cumulative impact assessment”.

• Any studies should include adjacent lands and haul routes

regardless of municipal boundaries.

• Require that social and financial impacts along haul routes be

addressed.

• Proposals in the vicinity of municipal drinking water supplies

should be in keeping with Source Water Protection Plans.



11


1.1.1.b)

New study requirements for

applications on agricultural

lands



Improvements.

• Provincial and municipal policies recognize that agriculturally-

related and on-farm diversified uses can be critically important

to the economic viability of farms.

• Address the impacts on microclimate through the preparation of

rehabilitation plans.

• Municipal approaches to delineate prime agricultural areas may

go beyond the minimum requirements of the PPS and should be

used as the basis to assess the impact on the agricultural areas

• Studies should address the impacts on the broader agricultural

sector (e.g. equine, fowl, etc.).

• Comprehensive assessment of impacts to agricultural and

agriculturally-related uses (including value-added and value-

retention, etc.) that could hinder/preclude current or future uses.

1.1.1.c)

Enhanced summary statement

requirements for all

applications

• HAPP supports this proposal. • Other information should also be included, such as: a description

of the proposal, natural heritage features and system, cultural

heritage, and community character and social impact.

1.1.1.d)

Updates to site plans

information requirements (e.g.

establishing a maximum

disturbed area) and prescribed

conditions

• HAPP supports this proposal.

1.1.1.e)

New requirements for

applications proposing to

extract aggregates from the bed

of a lake or river


1.1.1.f)

New requirements for plain

language summaries of project

proposals and technical studies

• HAPP supports this proposal. • It may be helpful to include an FAQ section.



12


1.1.2) Update to Notification, Consultation and Communication Requirements

1.1.2.g)

New timeframes, notification

areas and consultation

requirements


required as suggested below.

• A greater comment period may allow for fewer objections

• The “flexibility” option provided to request an extension is

supported.

• Agree that requirements for larger applications should be

established through Terms of Reference. See comments

respecting Terms of Reference comment number 15 of this

chart.

• Licence application process should be coordinated with

requirements for an Official Plan Amendment under the Planning

Act (i.e. notice and consultation requirements)

• Consider a broader and more comprehensive approach to

notification (i.e. newspaper, social media)

• Municipalities should always be included on the list of agencies to

be notified of ARA applications

• Criteria should be established to determine the circumstances

when MNRF notification/consultation requirements can be

waived (It should be clear that requirements under any other

piece of legislation would still apply.)

1.1.2.h)

New provisions regarding

notification and consultation

with Aboriginal communities

1.1.2.i)

Updated communication

requirements for applications



Improvements.

• Include an obligation to consult with municipalities to identify

best options for notice provision within municipality

• Require that digital copies of all documents be made available to

the public online (i.e., posted online)



13


1.2) Enhancements to Requirements for Studies and Information

1.2.j)

New requirements for requests

to lower extraction depth

below the water table

• HAPP supports this proposal

1.2.k)

New application for small,

temporary extraction

operations on farms

• Further clarification on the intent and applicability of the

proposal is needed

• Require notification to the municipality in which the application is

located.

• Application should require:

§ An accurate site plan showing existing elevations and

drainage.

§ A description and schedule for the proposed extraction,

including the start and end dates.

§ A sediment and erosion control plan

§ Letters of opinion from qualified experts respecting impacts

during after extraction on:

§ Surface drainage

§ Groundwater

§ Natural heritage

§ Cultural heritage (archaeology)

§ Notification requirements should be included.

§ The applicant should be required to address impacts to

adjacent lands.

1.2.l)

New requirements for

proposals to extract stockpiles

of Crown-owned aggregate

N/A



14


1.2.m)

New permitting requirements

for removing stockpiles of

aggregate

• HAPP supports this proposal in the circumstance where

extraction has ceased.

• A new license should be required to for removing stockpiles of

aggregate in the event that extraction has ceased, in order to

ensure that final rehabilitation and license surrender is not

inappropriately delayed.

1.2.n)

New ability to waive

application requirements in

unique circumstances

• It should be clear that requirements under any other piece of

legislation would still apply

• Criteria should be established to determine the circumstances

when MNRF requirements can be waived.

1.2.o)

New ability to refuse to accept

applications on Crown land

N/A

1.2.p)

Provisions added to allow for

peer review requirements for

technical studies in the future

• HAPP supports this proposal. • Throughout Ontario, implement a Joint Agency Review Team

approach for large applications as developed in Halton Region.

• Establishment of a peer-review process should apply immediately.

1.2.q)

Create flexibility for

grandfathering existing sites in

newly designated areas

N/A

1.3) New Tools



15


1.3.r)

Enable a new ‘permit by rule’

approach to low-risk activities,

removing the requirement to

apply for a permit or licence if

certain conditions or rules set in

regulation are followed

• Clarify when and where the policy applies.

• Establish the conditions/criteria for removing the requirements to

apply for a permit or licence.

• Provide detailed criteria as to what is low-risk; this should be

endorsed by applicable municipality.

1.3.s)

Establish new rules and

maximums for the extraction of

aggregates from private land

for personal use that will not

require a licence

• If this approach were to be used, the MNRF must be responsible

for monitoring and reporting.

• Clarify the rules and maximums for not requiring a licence for

extraction on private lands and for personal use.

1.3.t)

New ability for ministry to add

conditions and time limits to

primary purpose exemption

orders

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, further clarification on

the intent is required (i.e. the “primary purpose” must be for

agricultural improvement and not aggregate production).

• Refer to the Recommendation for Improvements on agricultural

exemption (1.2.k).

2.1) Studies, Information, Site Plans and Conditions

2.1.u)

New provision allowing the

ministry to require additional

studies, information and

updated site plans for existing

aggregate sites

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, further clarification is

required.

• Refer to the notes in 1.1.1.a).

• Identify process and include consultations with applicable

municipalities/conservation authorities and the public.

2.1.v)

New ability to establish

conditions on existing

aggregate sites related to

source water protection plans

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, see recommendation. • The conditions must be in line with the policies of the applicable

Source Water Protection Plan.



16


2.2.w)

Standardize references and

interpretation of tonnage limits

across the policy framework,

clarifying that the total tonnage

limit includes both blended and

recycled materials

• As there is additional impact on roads because of imported

materials, tonnages brought onto a site for recycling or

manufacture of products such as asphalt or concrete should be

subject to fees as well.

2.3) Changes to Reporting and Record-Keeping

2.3.x)

New reporting requirements for

site rehabilitation and for

removal of recycled or blended

materials

• HAPP supports the intent of this proposal; however, compliance

reporting should be strengthened (see comments on 2.3.aa)

below)

• There needs to be a consistency in rehabilitation and reporting

requirements.

• Need to strengthen licence requirements for continuous,

progressive site rehabilitation that is planned and implemented

incrementally through the life of the operation.

• Include firm requirements for when each stage of rehabilitation

must be completed and establish enforcement mechanisms (e.g.

financial assurances).

2.3.y)

Establish new requirements for

record-keeping on the

importation of fill for

rehabilitation

• HAPP supports this proposal and emphasizes the need for better

coordination/communication between MNRF and municipalities

on the rehabilitation process to ensure that an enforcement gap

does not occur between the surrender/revoking of the ARA

license and the triggering of municipal site alteration by-laws.

• Include quality standards of the fill as per EPA.

• Identify criteria that determines quantity ‘minimums’ (e.g. to

recycled/blended materials imported to quarry).

• There needs to be a better record-keeping and timely

communication between MNRF and municipalities/agencies.

2.3.z)

Clarify requirements for

detailed record-keeping during

operation

• Records provide useful information during operations and can

inform subsequent applications for licences.

• The record retention period suggested is inadequate considering

the lifespan of most aggregate operations.

• All records should be kept for a minimum of 7 years after the

surrender or revocation of aggregate licence.

• MNRF should undertake regular auditing of records for accuracy.



17


2.3.aa)

Streamlining and changing the

frequency of self-compliance

reports

• HAPP views self-compliance reporting as an ineffective

monitoring tool in the absence of resources and procedural

requirements to ensure accuracy of the reports.

• It is not clear how these proposals will help “enhance”

compliance reporting.

• MNRF must be responsible for receiving, reviewing for

completeness and accuracy, and auditing self-compliance reports.

• There should be no reduction in the current requirements for

reporting.

2.4) Site Plan and Condition Amendments

2.4.ab)

Clarify requirements for a site

plan amendment or a change to

a licence or permit condition,

enhancing local involvement on

significant changes

• HAPP supports the overall intent of the proposal; however,

further clarification is needed (see recommendation).

• Licences and site plans often include provisions that were

established through negotiations or public hearings to address

significant municipal and/or stakeholder concerns.

• Significant changes to these provisions should not be approved

without the agreement of the relevant stakeholders.

• Municipalities must be included as parties to any licence and/or

site plan amendments.

• Establish criteria for determining what constitutes a “significant”

change.

• Municipal plans, policies, and study requirements should be

addressed in applications for site plan amendments as they may

exceed Provincial requirements.

2.4.ac)

Enable self-filing of amended

site plans for minor changes in

certain situations

• Establish criteria for what constitutes “minor” changes.

• Identify other features/criteria that may require additional set-

backs (e.g. natural heritage features).

2.5) Improved Enforcement and Administrative Provisions

2.5.ad)

Remove minimum and increase

maximum fines issued for

offences under the Act

2.5.ae)

Enhance and clarify provisions

for compliance inspection and

false reporting

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, see recommendation. • MNRF must be responsible for receiving, reviewing for

completeness and accuracy, auditing, and enforcing compliance.



18


2.5.af)

New and enhanced powers

related to ‘no consent’ transfers

and revocation in special

circumstances

2.5.ag)

Administrative changes to

provide liability protection for

ministry employees

3.1) Current Fees and Royalties

3.1

Current Fees and Royalties

• Given the considerable financial impacts on municipalities due to

the use of the road network by large volumes of aggregate

trucks, HAPP strongly supports an increase in fees to offset the

costs to municipalities; however, see recommendations.

• This section indicates the Province will be working with

municipalities to gather cost-based information, Halton and its

Local Municipalities would welcome the opportunity to

participate in the process

• The fees need to be increased beyond what is proposed to a level

that adequately compensates municipalities for the costs of

addressing adverse impacts on local and Regional roads.

• The fees should also apply to recycled and blended materials.

• A study is needed to evaluate the appropriate distribution of the

fees in two-tier municipality or inter-municipal cases.

• Provision should be made for adjacent municipalities along haul

routes that cross municipal boundaries to receive fees.

3.2) Equalizing and Indexing Fees between Crown and Private Land

3.2.ah)

Align annual fees for Crown

land aggregate permits with

those for private land licences

3.2.ai)

New ability to disburse fees to

recipients that have road

responsibilities

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, see comments in 3.1.



19


3.2.aj)

Index fees and royalties to the

Consumer Price Index

• HAPP supports this proposal; however, see comments in 3.1.

3.2.ak)

Changes to royalty charge on

aggregate sites with a mining

lease and easier to find

administrative fees

N/A

3.2.al)

New ability to waive fees on

private land sites

• It is not clear which fees the proposal applies to. • Identify conditions/criteria to waive fees.

3.3) Provisions for the Future

3.3.am)

Create ability to make changes

in the future that allow for

broadening of the collection,

disbursement and use of fees,

and for programs to evaluate

their effectiveness

4.1) Creating Greater Flexibility for the Future

4.1.an)

New powers to modify the

Aggregate Resources Trust

agreement and establish

performance reporting

requirements in the future

• The increase in fees that HAPP proposed in 3.1 should also include

increase in fees to ensure that abandoned sites are rehabilitated

expeditiously.



20


4.1.ao)

Move specific requirements for

application, amendments and

reporting from the Act to the

Regulations or Standards

• HAPP is concerned about the legal implications of these changes

to municipalities and conservation authorities.

• It should be clarified which requirements are proposed to be

moved to Regulations and which are proposed to be moved to

Standards. There is a great concern that some requirements need

the legal strength of the Act or its regulations rather than

unenforceable standards.

• It would not be appropriate for some of the requirements to be

moved to the Standards.

4.1.ap)

Consolidate all exemptions to

the definition of “rock” into one

location

4.1.aq)


performance reporting

requirements in the future

• Identify specifically to whom the policy applies.

4.1.ar)


certification and training

programs in the future


4.2) ‘Housingkeeping’ Amendments



21


4.2.as)

Housekeeping amendments to

improve clarity and reflect

current practices

• HAPP disagrees that the list of proposed housekeeping

amendments are truly housekeeping in nature; some warrant

additional consultation (See recommendation).

• If the Ministry wants to remain as the ultimate approval

authority on aggregate matters, it must participate in the full

process including OMB hearings and the giving of objective

opinion and testimony.

• If the Ministry chooses to absolve itself from the decision-

making process and the matters of Provincial interest, they

should not have the authority to render decisions on aggregate

related matters.

• MNRF should provide notice of all proposed housekeeping

amendments to municipalities.

• MNRF, as approval authority, must always be a party before the

OMB/Joint Board.

22

APPENDIX 2: Joint Response to Questions on Page 34 of A Blueprint for Change A Blueprint for Change: A Proposal to Modernize and Strengthen the Aggregate Resources Act Policy Framework Halton Region, City of Burlington, Town of Halton Hills, and Town of Milton

Question HAPP Comments

1. What do you feel is the most

important proposal put forward

in the paper? Do you agree with

it? If not, why not?

The most important proposals for HAPP are the sections dealing with enhancements to requirements for studies and information (1.1.1

and 2.1 u.). These sections speak, albeit indirectly, to the study requirements that the Region of Halton and its municipalities have

requested and, in many cases, have already asked proponents for at application time. Our Official Plans require many of the studies listed

to be submitted at application time. HAPP supports enhanced requirements presented in many of the proposals but at the same time

finds that they do not fully encompass all the studies needed in order to provide a fulsome review of applications and all the impacts

associated with aggregate applications. Our comments within the attached chart express the need to fully integrate licence application

processes and requirements under the ARA with the Planning Act requirements (including official plans and zoning by-laws). This would

include the requirements for an Official Plan Amendment under the Planning Act for the giving of notice and consultation. If this is done, a

greater understanding of all of the impacts of aggregate operations will be known, the overall process will be more efficient and less time

consuming, and more informed decisions on applications can be made.

2. Do you think the proposed

changes are comprehensive

enough? If not, what do you

think is missing?

Our General Comments section in the attached chart details many of the proposals that HAPP believes were not comprehensive or far-

reaching enough as well as topics that were not addressed. Among the most important that was omitted is the need to integrate the

Planning Act with the ARA as noted above. Municipalities should also have a greater role in the post approval process to ensure

compliance and accountability and to ensure that social and environmental impacts are minimized.

A single sentence in the Blueprint document regarding cumulative effects, and only possibly requiring them to be considered and only

where identified in provincial guidance, falls short of what is required. Consideration of cumulative effects should be required in all cases,

should come from provincial or municipal guidance and should be included in the ARA as policy.

3. Do you support the Ontario

Government in moving forward

with the changes as outlined in

the paper?

The ARA has needed a thorough update for some time now. HAPP is very supportive of the process and supports many of the proposed

changes in principle. However, as noted above and in our attached chart, there are still many improvements that should be included.

Also, clarifications and more information or more details are required in order for HAPP to comment and/or support the proposals.

Documents

Aggregate Resources Act Review Joint Submission - …...the Blueprint’s proposed changes and answers the feedback questions found in the Blueprint document on page 34 (Appendix 1)