Comments on Ontarios Provincial Policy Statement in Regard to Aggregates

August 3, 2004, prepared by Gravel Watch, http://www.gravelwatch.org, Ric Holt, RR1, Elora N0B 1S0 ON, holt@uwaterloo.ca

 

These comments are in response to a request for comments by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; see http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_17433_1.html

 

These comments are submitted by Gravel Watch, a citizens committee dedicated

For example, the Ministry of Natural Resources, at Gravel Watchs formal request under the Environmental Bill of Rights, is currently reviewing how pit/quarry rehabilitation is or is not being done across the province. Gravel Watch has worked to help many groups across the province to resolve difficulties with pits/quarries and maintains a website, http://www.gravelwatch.org, with information about aggregates in Ontario.

 

The Ontario Provincial Policy Statement sets the standard for decisions about what lands should be exploited for aggregates (sand, gravel and crushed stone). As the Federation of Ontario Naturalists has said, in its 2001 comments on the PPS, the PPS is weighted too much in favour of aggregate extraction at the expense of agricultural land, natural heritage features and water resources. For details see http://www.ontarionature.org/enviroandcons/issues/PPS.html

 

Here are comments on various sections of the PPS regarding aggregates. The section numbers are the same as those in the New Draft PPS proposed by the Ontario government; see new draft in http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/1591355_PPS_draft_policies_e.pdf

 

1. Comments on Sections of Provincial Policy Statement Regarding Aggregates

 

a)      Guaranteed exploitation. New Draft PPS Sections 2.4.1 & 2.4.2.1 (unchanged from existing PPS) state that lands with known mineral deposits will be protected until exploited, i.e., in essence, guaranteed to be exploited. Since southern Ontario was subject to repeated glacial activity, there are extensive areas in the Province with known mineral deposits. The PPS apparently guarantees that these extensive parts of the Ontario landscape, including agricultural lands as well as lands meeting environmental and societal needs will be excavated. This violates the concepts that the PPS is to protect environmentally and societally important lands, and therefore should be redrafted to reflect a balance of priorities.

 

b)      Cheap gravel and the assumed need for gravel. New Draft PPS Section 2.5.2.1 (unchanged from PPS) is the well-known gravel plunder clause that is often quoted by the proponents seeking to license new pits/quarries. It says in essence, gravel should be dug as close as possible to the market and should be provided as cheaply as possible. This approach promotes maximal use of this non-renewable resource, without sufficient consideration of other needs such as sustainable usage, environmental protection and societal needs. This Section also states that there is no requirement to demonstrate any need for the aggregate. Establishing need is important, essential and common sense, and this need should apply to the particular location in question. This approach encourages the rapid and non-sustainable use of this resource. The need for aggregates should be considered in the larger framework of the PPS, in that aggregates are used in the production of Portland cement, which is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, and is used primarily to build roads, thereby contributing to gridlock, to air pollution from vehicle exhaust, and to urban sprawl.

 

c)      Conservation. New Draft Section 2.5.2.3 (unchanged from PPS) calls for conservation of aggregate resources, which is laudable. However, there is no known, reasonable measure to show that this has been attained in the past, and it appears that the government at every level have ignored this requirement. This clause should be promoted by requiring each consideration of exploitation to explicitly document and encourage conservation.

 

d)      Rehabilitation. New Draft PPS Section 2.5.3.1 (unchanged from PPS) requires progressive and final rehabilitation. It appears that in actual practice, rehabilitation is commonly not done. This Section should be updated to require measurable and reasonable constraints to enforce rehabilitation, including stated time limits with clear exploitation staging to allow enforcement of progressive rehabilitation, and posting of bonds to be returned when rehabilitation has been externally judged to be sufficient.

 

e)      Interim use. New Draft Section 2.5.4.1 (unchanged from PPS) states that  extraction of mineral aggregates is permitted as an interim use provided that rehabilitation of the site will be carried out whereby substantially the same areas and the same average soil quality for agriculture are restored. The term interim use should be removed, because, as the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2001 Annual Report has noted, commonly rehabilitation in Ontario pits and quarries is not actually carried out; see http://www.eco.on.ca/english/publicat/ar2002.pdf. It should also be removed in that interim use implies little change in the land, but only a different use of the land, whereas in truth, the land form, content, topology, ecology, etc are all dramatically changed, and in many cases is cannot be returned to its original form. In short, it is not appropriate to consider that aggregate extraction is an interim use of the land.

 

f)        Exemption from rehabilitation. New Draft PPS Section 2.5.4.1a (unchanged from PPS) implies that if the exploitation is sufficiently damaging, namely by excavation into the watertable, then the licensee is exempted from the usual requirement for rehabilitation. This anomaly should be corrected, perhaps by requiring a sufficient bond to discourage such damage except in highly unusual cases.

 

g)      Wayside pits. New Draft Section 2.5.5.1 (unchanged from PPS) essentially exempts the government of Ontario from following the PPS procedures and guarantees regarding mineral aggregates. There is no obvious reason to believe that the government should be exempt from such scrutiny. This should be modified to provide appropriate review by municipalities and the public.

 

2. Governance & enforcement. The management of aggregates in Ontario is carried out by a partnership between the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario (APAO, a registered lobbyist organization). Given the obvious conflict of interest involving APAO, this arrangement is inappropriate and not particularly effective in promoting the PPS principles into practice with respect to aggregates. The current PPS expedites exploitation of aggregates while supposedly requiring rehabilitation of pits and quarries. However, the MNR has few staff to encourage, guarantee or enforce rehabilitation, and the industry now does self inspection. Industry statistics indicate that there are 6,700 abandoned aggregate pits and quarries in Ontario. These statistics also indicate that, although rehabilitation is required by law, less that half of land disturbed for aggregate exploitation in ten years (1992-2001) was rehabilitated. This seems to indicate that although the PPS requires rehabilitation, this is a hollow promise, due to ineffective governance and enforcement.

 

3. Evading PPS by Back Door Deals with MNR. Once a pit or quarry has been approved, the ability of municipalities or the public to appeal to the PPS to guide the future changes in a pit/quarry are severely limited. For example, after a pit/quarry is licensed to excavate only above the watertable, the licensee can then apply directly to the MNR for permission to dig into the watertable with no hearings at the municipal level or with the public. The back door deal approach effectively shortcuts the PPS, in that the MNR is apparently permissive in dealing with such applications. For the PPS to be effective, greater openness and transparency is needed in the process of licensing and license amendment.