Aggregate resources - A question of need

NRU
June 3, 2015
By Edward LaRusic

The Town of Halton Hills is asking the province to level the playing field between municipalities and aggregate companies by forcing companies to justify the need for new pits. The industry however, says the market demand is clearly there and this would just be more red tape.

Halton Hills is requesting the province amend the Provincial Policy Statement and Aggregate Resources Act to require aggregate proponents to demonstrate there is a need for the resources they want to excavate. Mayor Rick Bonnette said this request is intended to give municipalities more evidence that a new pit is needed.

Municipalities have little authority to question where proponents decide to put their pits and quarries. Th e recently reviewed Provincial Policy Statement and the currently under review Aggregate Resources Act, provide no basis for municipalities to question whether the aggregates from a proposed site are even needed.”

Bonnette told NRU that 2014 Provincial Policy Statement retained a policy from the 2005 version, which explicitly says that proponents are not required to demonstrate need. “As a result, current provincial rules are weighed in favour of siting of aggregate extraction sites, and they’re at the expense of other provincial interests such as protecting groundwater, natural heritage, and building healthy, safe communities,” said Bonnette. “We’re hoping that [amending the two acts] would lead to more comprehensive planning for individual extraction sites that is transparent, shows justification and the need, and those results should result in a more sustainable use of aggregate resources.”

Halton Hills April 13 request follows applications by James Dick Construction to open a quarry north of Halton Hills in the Township of Guelph/Eramosa. Bonnette said this quarry will result in an increase in truck traffic, congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and there is little the town can do to fight it under current provincial policy.

Uxbridge mayor Gerri Lynn O’Connor told NRU that the town supported Halton Hills’ request at its May 25 council meeting. She said that quarries result in huge impacts on nearby communities, including noise, dust and stress on local road infrastructure. Uxbridge has 41 licensed pits within its boundaries, and O’Connor like to know if the material is available elsewhere before opening up number 42.

“I think what we’re saying is, why are we allowing more pits to open up when perhaps [the needed aggregate] is in other pits that are already open? Rather than keep opening and expanding pits, if the material is elsewhere, why can’t we get some of these holes in the ground covered up before we open another one?”

Bonnette said that the issue of need was raised by the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Gravel Watch Ontario in their submissions to the province during the recent provincial review of the Aggregate Resources Act. However, these requests did not result in any recommendations from the standing committee on general government in its October 2013 report on the review of the Aggregate Resources Act or the February 2014 staff response to the committee’s report.

Gravel Watch Ontario president Graham Flint told NRU that he is hearing that amendments are anticipated to be made public for comment this summer, and tabled in the legislature in the fall.

Environmental Defence clean economy program director Keith Brooks said that when you are talking about need what you are actually talking about is whether the aggregate resources are “close-to-market.”

“What [close-to-market] speaks to is that we should be getting the product from as close to where we need it as possible, because we don’t want to incur so many transportation costs, we don’t want to be incurring an impact far away from where the actual need is.”

Brooks said that the close-to-market argument is being used to justify negative impacts on communities, without looking at whether there are other sites that could handle the demand with fewer impacts. However, requiring aggregate companies to demonstrate need would be useful data that could lead to better decision making.

“We need better outcomes, we need more certainty, and we need a better balancing of the different objectives in the GTHA, in particularly where communities, the environment and resources are increasingly in conflict.”

Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association CEO Ted Wigdor told NRU that requiring operators to demonstrate there is a need for the product they want to extract would add an unnecessary regulatory hurdle to the many that already exist.

“[Our industry believes] that the existing regulations and market demand determines whether or not a company would go ahead with the application process. We don’t think it’s necessary to have [a need] requirement in place.

The requirement is already there through market assessment.”

Wigdor said that applications can take more than six years and millions of dollars to process before a new pit can be opened.

“I don’t believe that any company would do that on a whim. Clearly, there must be a demonstrable need in order for them to go through that process.”

Wigdor added that not all aggregate is equal-some aggregate is higher quality than other aggregate-so it is not easy to compare one pit to another. Plus, transportation costs for shipping aggregate can comprise more than half the cost of production and a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.

“If you double the [length of the] haul route, you are releasing the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 40,000 cars. We want to minimize both the environmental and the economic impact.”