JOINT AGENCY REVIEW TEAM (JART) PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ACTON QUARRY, TOWN OF HALTON HILLS, BY DUFFERIN AGGREGATES JART REPORT

Transcription

1 JOINT AGENCY REVIEW TEAM (JART) PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ACTON QUARRY, TOWN OF HALTON HILLS, BY DUFFERIN AGGREGATES JART REPORT Prepared by: Steven Rowe Environmental Planner in cooperation with JART Agencies and Peer Reviewers

2 JOINT AGENCY REVIEW TEAM (JART) PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ACTON QUARRY, TOWN OF HALTON HILLS, BY DUFFERIN AGGREGATES JART REPORT FEBRUARY 2012 Prepared by: Steven Rowe, Environmental Planner in consultation with JART Agencies and Peer Reviewers

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER...1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction THE EXISTING QUARRY THE PROPOSED EXTENSION Description of the Proposed Extension The Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Net Gain Rehabilitation Potential Effects of the Proposed Extension THE ACTON QUARRY JART Role and Function of JART Joint Agency Review Teams for Aggregate Applications Technical Review of Aggregate Extraction Applications Structure of the Acton Quarry Extension JART The Peer Review Consulting Team THE JART PROCESS Pre-Application Activities (June 2006 to March 2009) Post Submission Activities to Date (March 2009 to January 2012) Next Steps Public Consultation THE APPLICATIONS APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND POLICY Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) Planning Act Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) Greenbelt Plan Municipal Official Plans JART REVIEW TO DATE Introduction Water Resources Background Process: Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review Issues Raised in the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review Process: Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Review Water Resource Issues in the AMP Natural Environment Background Remaining Issues Additional Points from the Status Report New Issues Additional Natural Heritage/AMP issues Transportation Background Process: Traffic Impact Assessment Review Issues: Traffic Impact Assessment Review Nuisance Impacts: Noise and Blasting...55

4 8.5.1 Background Process: Noise and Blasting Nuisance Impacts: Air Quality Background Process: Air Quality Issues: Air Quality Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Background Process: Archaeology Issues: Archaeology Process: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage Issues: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage Agriculture Background Process: Agriculture Issues: Agriculture Visual Impact Background Visual Impact: Process Visual Impact: Issues Planning Background CONCLUSION...66 FIGURES...67 Figure 1: Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension Phasing Plan...68 Figure 2: Land Use...69 Figure 3: Preliminary Green Line Alignment and PBT Monitored Features...70 Figure 4: Rehabilitation Concept, Acton Quarry Extension...71 Figure 5: Niagara Escarpment Plan Proposed Amendment...72 Figure 6: Niagara Escarpment Plan Development Permit...73 Figure 7: Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan Proposed Amendment...74 Figure 8: Town of Halton Hills Official Plan Proposed Amendment...75 Figure 9: MHBC and Dufferin Proposals for Revised Extraction Limit for Phase Figure 10: Region of Halton Significant Woodlands...77 Figure 11: Ministry of Natural Resources Mapping, Provincially Significant Wetlands...78 Figure 12: Ministry of Natural Resources Mapping: Regulated Habitat under the Endangered Species Act...79 Figure 13: Revised Quarry footprint Dufferin...80 APPENDIX 1: ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT...81 APPENDIX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY...82 APPENDIX 3: RECORD OF ACTON QUARRY JART PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE # APPENDIX 4: DUFFERIN ACTON QUARRY EXPANSION JART Public Information Centre #2 89 JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 4

5 DISCLAIMER The Acton Quarry Joint Agency Review Team (JART) has been established to coordinate the technical review of applications submitted in March 209 by Dufferin Aggregates, a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. ( Dufferin ) to extend the Acton Quarry. This technical review is intended to form a resource for the JART agencies and other agencies whereby they may use it to help formulate recommendations and reach decisions on the applications based on their respective jurisdictions and to inform the public and stakeholders about the JART s findings on the issues raised by the applications. The following is a list of the agencies and municipalities represented on the JART and the current list of individuals from these agencies who have participated in the JART review process. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Steven Strong, District Planner, Aurora District; John Pisapio, Management Biologist, Aurora District Oleg Ivanov, Regional Hydrogeologist, Southern Region Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) Nancy Mott-Allen, Senior Strategic Advisor and JART Chair David Johnston, Planner Lisa Grbinicek, Senior Strategic Advisor * Note: Lisa Grbinicek was employed with Halton Region providing representation for the Region on the JART from November 2011 to Feb 3, 2012 Regional Municipality of Halton Brian Hudson, Senior Planner Tom Renic, Regional Hydrogeologist Paul Burgher, Supervisor, Healthy Environments, Environmental Health Peter Steer, Senior Policy Analyst, Environmental Health Alicia Jakaitis, Transportation Coordinator Town of Halton Hills Mark Kluge, Senior Planner Development Review Warren Harris, Manager of Parks & Open Space Steve Grace, Manager of Development Engineering Matthew Roj, Traffic Coordinator Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) Dan Banks, Manager, Hydrogeology Liam Marray, Manager, Planning Ecology Conservation Halton Raymond Guther, Manager, Watershed Engineering Services JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 1

6 Brenda Axon, Manager, Watershed Planning Services Kim Barrett, Senior Terrestrial Ecologist Samantha Mason, Senior Aquatic Ecologist. Input was also provided by staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Region of Peel. This Report is based on the technical information available at the time of writing. Conclusions and issues could change if the Dufferin applications change or new information becomes available. The report was informed by the exchange of information between Dufferin, their consultants, JART member agencies, their peer review consultants and other provincial agencies that provided input but it does not bind any agency to particular positions or decisions on the applications before them. Signature: Steven Rowe MCIP, RPP Aggregate Planning Advisor and author Signature: Nancy Mott-Allen MCIP, RPP JART Chair JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 2

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Joint Agency Review Team (JART) has been established to coordinate the technical review of applications submitted in March 2009 by Dufferin Aggregates, a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. ( Dufferin ) to extend the Acton Quarry. In January 2012, Dufferin circulated documentation to objectors regarding its attempts to resolve objections and to initiate a 20-day period for objectors to respond, under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) process. This JART Report is intended to provide a resource that will assist the JART agencies and the public to formulate their responses and to advise and/or reach decisions on the Dufferin applications under the ARA and other legislation. A third JART Public Information Centre, will be held in March 2012 to present this Report, to describe how public comments have been considered in the review process and to answer questions. This Report succeeds and replaces a JART Status Report, released in November 2010, which reported on the status of the review as of that date. The applications submitted are for a licence under the ARA, an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and a Niagara Escarpment Development Permit, an amendment to the Region of Halton Official Plan and amendments to the Town of Halton Hills Official Plan and Zoning By-law. More recently, in September 2011, Dufferin applied to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for a permit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 17 (2) (c) to allow Dufferin to engage in activities otherwise prohibited by the ESA (i.e. removal of regulated habitat of an endangered species) as part of the proposed extension. The application materials for the extension include a Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) that would govern the long term monitoring and mitigation of effects of the quarry extension on water wells, resources and natural features that are dependent on ground and surface water, if the proposed extension is approved. The JART members comprise: Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) Regional Municipality of Halton Town of Halton Hills Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) Conservation Halton Region of Peel The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) attended JART meetings in an advisory capacity but are not formally members of the JART. The JART retained expert peer reviewers in several areas of expertise and formed working groups to review technical materials submitted with Dufferin s applications. All of these groups produced requests for information and provided comments. Dufferin has responded in writing and met with some of the working groups. It had been intended that this JART Report would mark the completion of the technical review process. While the reviews for most of the technical disciplines under consideration are complete or almost complete, some reviews have been delayed. The reasons for this are summarized as follows: On January 30, 2012 Dufferin submitted a revision to the extraction footprint that has not yet been reviewed by the JART. This revised footprint has been submitted in response to issues that have come out of the JART review; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 3

8 New MNR mapping of Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs); New mapping of Regulated Habitat of Jefferson Salamander under the ESA. Dufferin has applied for a Permit under Section 17 (2) (c) of the ESA to allow for removal of Regulated Habitat. The JART does not review this application, but it has the potential to result in further and/or additional changes to the proposed extraction footprint and operations; JART does not have the benefit of a map of the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species pursuant to the PPS 2005; the matter of regulated vs. significant habitat has been discussed but remains unresolved and requires further clarification as it relates to this site. The JART has agreed with Dufferin to complete this JART Report. The Report was initially to be based on the information provided as of December 22, 2011 however Dufferin has provided further information that will be incorporated to the extent possible. This includes: Graphics illustrating the proposed conveyor system parallel to Third Line for Phase 7, received January 3, 2012; Memos from Dufferin s consultant on a water balance sensitivity analysis and on a groundwater modelling of historic conditions dated January 17, 2012; Further information on the applications received on January 6 and January 30, 2012; An update on the status of the peer review from Dufferin s perspective, including a letter responding to MOE and the air quality peer reviewer, received on January 11, Further details as they relate to each discipline are discussed in the body of this Report. This JART Report may be used by the agencies as a technical resource in providing advice and recommendations and reaching decisions, taking into account the information provided by Dufferin to date and the extent to which resolution or consensus has been reached for each discipline. The JART will consider new information and reach further findings that may be reported in one or more supplements to this Report, and these supplements would be made available to the public. Alternatively, the individual agencies may consider new information, provide advice and reach decisions without recourse to review and consideration by the JART. The progress of the review in each of the technical areas under review is provided in more detail in the Report and is summarized as follows: Overview of Issues The primary outstanding issues are identified as follows: The ability of Dufferin and any successor entity(ies) to manage water resources during the operation, decommissioning and rehabilitation of the proposed quarry extension, and in perpetuity, in such a way as to protect surface and groundwater resources from the effects of both the existing quarry and the extension; The ability of Dufferin s Adaptive Management Plan to protect natural features, functions and species (including species at risk) that are dependent on ground and surface water; Other impacts on natural heritage including proposed removal of habitat of species at risk, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. Technical issues related to the following disciplines have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Peer Reviewers, with general concurrence from the JART, subject to the potential JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 4

9 incorporation of recommended conditions in the Site Plan, Best Management Plan, agreements and other approvals as appropriate: Transportation; Nuisance Impacts: Noise and Blasting; Nuisance Impacts: Air Quality; Cultural Heritage: Archaeology; Cultural Heritage: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage; Agricultural Impact. Water Resources The JART has provided its most current review of Dufferin s Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report (November 2008) and Dufferin has responded. In October and November 2011, the JART replied to Dufferin s response. The JART has also reviewed the water resources aspects of the AMP and has identified further issues. The water resources peer review team has identified a number of areas where additional information is required, Dufferin has provided further information and analysis in a response dated January 17, This information is still under review by the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers have also advised the JART of a number of issues in relation to the applications: What are the on-going performance measures required of water management systems, in particular beyond the period of lake filling and final rehabilitation? Could water management systems fail over the long-term (including geotechnical issues relating to hydraulic buttresses and rock pillars)? What are the potential implications of failure of any of these systems, or components of these systems? How much might it cost to maintain and replace the water management systems? Given these potential failures: What are the environmental implications of failure? What contingency measures may a long-term operator have to consider? and, What is a realistic worst-case scenario for failure of a component of a water management system? The following reflects the current status of water resource issues in relation to the AMP: There is agreement that Dufferin s proposed mitigation measures are likely to protect private wells and that their Well Management Plan is at an appropriate level of development at this stage of the review process; Halton Region has undertaken recent studies under its Tier 3 Water Budget Assessment indicating that the Acton Quarry has no potential to have a significant impact on the Georgetown Water Supply Wells; JART recommended additional monitoring of groundwater levels and groundwater discharge north of Phase 4 in order to ensure that any changes in groundwater flow JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 5

10 towards Black Creek and tributary springs would be identified and mitigated. Dufferin agreed to conduct the requested monitoring but has encountered problems in gaining access to property that would be suitable for this purpose. Dufferin is continuing to pursue access to the property to the north, while at the same time they are in discussion with the JART regarding an alternative approach. It was made clear at a meeting in December 2011 that the lands north of Phase 4 were still preferred; The JART agrees that mitigation measures should be established and tested before extraction takes place, and the JART and peer reviewer agree that this should be included in any approval; Dufferin is still seeking input from the JART on how the Performance-Based Targets (PBTs) should be defined; On January 5, 2011 CRA provided a letter providing water quality information relating to the recharge system at the Milton Quarry showing no adverse effect, and providing interpretation of this in the Acton Quarry context. Based on review of material from the proponent s consultant, the JART and peer review consultant agree that it is unlikely that issues will arise with respect to the quality of water that is recharged through the proposed mitigation system; The proposed expansion would involve permanent mitigation measures as an integral part of the quarry design. Since active water management is proposed beyond the period of final lake filling, this approach further assumes that these measures will function effectively in perpetuity. Further passive management (i.e. without pumping) of the site following final rehabilitation is not possible and even if there is no extension, perpetual long-term active management is required to address the impacts of the existing quarry; Given the requirement for on-going mitigation and management as outlined above, Dufferin has acknowledged that formal agreements, with appropriate financial securities, would be required between Dufferin and agencies. These agreements will not be subject to JART review. Other issues raised in the JART Status Report are discussed in the body of this Report. Further discussion of water-resource-related AMP issues will take place when Dufferin provides responses to the water resource peer review team s comments. The peer review team will continue to review the implications of new information provided by Dufferin as it is provided and to advise the JART accordingly, resources permitting. Natural Environment Following exchanges of materials and meetings between the working group and Dufferin, a number of issues have been identified regarding both Dufferin s Level I and II Natural Environment Technical Report (December 2008) and the natural environment aspects of the AMP. The key natural heritage issues are as follows: The effect of the existing quarry operations on wetlands and implications, for the natural environment reporting and AMP needs further analysis for the Green Line concept, PBT s and monitoring; Cumulative effect should also be considered with respect to ecological conditions associated with the Niagara Escarpment; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 6

11 Incomplete data on biological resources; gaps in field data from areas C and G in proximity to proposed extraction areas where access to conduct field work was not granted or was otherwise restricted; Lack of incorporation of MNR PSW mapping and Jefferson Salamander regulated habitat mapping into Dufferin s natural heritage documentation; and any resulting changes to the quarry design footprint and natural heritage impacts arising from these; The matter of significant habitat (as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement) vs regulated habitat for the proposed extraction area requires further clarification from MNR for Jefferson Salamander; Additional Species at Risk were listed as Threatened as of January Some of these species were documented from and likely breeding within the proposed extraction areas. Dufferin recognizes this concern and has indicated that it will provide a response that acknowledges anticipated impacts on these species and what they propose to do to address these impacts; Potential negative impacts of the Third Line Haul Route, now modified due to Dufferin s January 3, 2012 proposal to transport aggregate parallel to Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck (yet to be evaluated; further clarification may be requested by JART); Concerns regarding the data basis and evaluation of some Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) categories, and the possibility that the proposed extraction areas may support SWH; Negative impacts on local landscape connectivity for wildlife species; Dufferin has accepted the Region s delineation of significant woodlands. The proposed removal of significant woodlands and its impact will be considered in the context of Dufferin s proposed replacement of woodlands and reforestation on lands outside the licensed area; Concerns as to the effectiveness of proposed creation of replacement habitats and natural heritage features (e.g. JESA habitat and significant woodlands); Adequacy of proposed setbacks between PSW s and significant woodlands and the extraction footprint. The following issues have been raised in relation to the AMP: The large scale of the AMP undertaking and infrastructure, potential for failure or inadequate operation of the mitigation system in critical periods, and the need to maintain the AMP in operation on a perpetual basis once Dufferin surrenders the licence; Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation of the effect of the quarry expansion on wetlands as outlined in the AMP; Whether the AMP for the Acton quarry site completely addresses combined impacts of the existing and proposed quarries operating together; There is a lack of clarity as to how ecological monitoring fits in with the water focused monitoring for the AMP, and how the PBT monitoring will identify and address ecological impacts without corresponding ecological data. The Dufferin position is that the primary JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 7

12 focus of the AMP is on water monitoring and control because that is what can be actively managed; No clear threshold of change to the natural environment beyond which management intervention would be required; There is a question as to whether the AMP will maintain the natural heritage system over the long term regardless of property ownership; The extent to which features will be actively monitored as part of the AMP; The need to manage the transition between wetlands being replenished through artificial surface water discharge under the AMP and being supported by groundwater as excavated lakes fill with water over time. The following commitments have been made by Dufferin to help resolve JART s issues: More comprehensive vascular plant, amphibian, and breeding bird data will be collected prior to any extraction to ensure an adequate baseline of information. The standard protocols to be used will be developed in consultation with review agencies; Commitment to collect baseline data from wetlands located outside the green line subject to access; qualitative ecological monitoring outside the green line but no commitment to establish PBT s in these features; Dufferin recently provided information on the proposed conveyor along the Third Line road allowance and confirmed that certain recorded bird species were migratory and not nesting in the vicinity of the site. Significant uncertainties remain with the ability of the proposed AMP to monitor and maintain key natural heritage resources potentially affected by the quarry extension, and their perpetual management after extraction is completed. The uncertainties relate to the quality and perceived value of the baseline information on the vegetation and wildlife resources present, the ability of the AMP to detect and respond to changes affecting biological resources in a timely manner, and the long term consequences of artificial intervention in natural systems and processes. The JART agencies will continue to work with Dufferin to improve the predictive and protective systems of the AMP. Discussion of other matters raised in the JART Status Report is included in the body of this Report. The information generated by the natural heritage review to date may be utilized by the JART agencies in formulating their recommendations and decisions, and the peer reviewers will continue to review new information as it emerges and to advise the JART agencies accordingly, resources permitting. Transportation The proposal will not affect current volumes of traffic generated by the quarry or the existing haul route. The original proposal to utilize Third Line South to transport aggregate by truck would have added new truck movements in the immediate vicinity of the quarry, but Dufferin is now proposing to transport this aggregate via conveyor to Phases 5/6. The traffic working group has worked through a number of issues with Dufferin s team and Dufferin has undertaken additional evaluations at the working group s request. While the working group is not entirely satisfied with the information provided the exchange has now reached a point where there is unlikely to be any further benefit from additional studies. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 8

13 The JART has requested some final, minor text changes in Dufferin s Transportation Impact Report and Dufferin s consultant has made these changes. Haul routes and requisite agreements are currently being discussed with the Town of Halton Hills and Halton Region. The Region of Peel has an outstanding issue relating to quarry traffic volumes on its Regional roads which remains under discussion. Traffic related issues can be reported to the Halton Regional Police Service, Town of Halton Hills or Ministry of Natural Resources. A review of the issues addressed, including issues raised in the JART Status Report may be found in the body of this Report. Noise While the aggregate processing plant is proposed to remain in its current location, the proposal would result in changes to noise generation as additional areas are extracted and as new, portable processing facilities come into operation. The noise working group has raised a number of issues and Dufferin s consultant has responded. All of the technical noise issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the nuisance impacts working group and the peer reviewer, subject to the inclusion of certain conditions on the ARA site plan. Air Quality Dust generation would also change with the locations of aggregate operations and processing. Overall there should be some improvement as new Best Management Practices are implemented. Dufferin has committed to undertake further mitigation as extraction proceeds, and air quality issues are resolved. The JART s peer review has been endorsed by MOE, noting that the proponent should ensure that the updating and reporting requirements under the Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval (now Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA)) are followed for the new undertakings at the Acton Quarry site. The final version of the Best Management Plan (BMP) will require MOE review and approval, as per the BMP requirements of the ECA. The JART is satisfied with recommendations that Dufferin s air quality consultant has made to its client, and Dufferin has made a commitment that these recommendations will be implemented. Cultural Heritage Issues related to built cultural heritage have now been resolved. Heritage Halton Hills has requested an opportunity to investigate two buildings. Since the initial review in 2009 there has been a turnover in the membership of Heritage Halton Hills, therefore the current Committee has not proceeded with an in depth review of or Third Line and neither of the properties has been listed on the Town s Heritage Register. Should Dufferin proceed with a demolition of either property, Heritage Halton Hills will review the Demolition Permit through the mandatory review process and provide additional comments at that time. No further issues remain with regard to Dufferin s archaeology assessments. Visual Impact Dufferin has provided a visual impact report at the JART s request, however a number of issues were raised by the NEC and the proponent has submitted a memo update. Dufferin and the NEC continue to work together to resolve outstanding concerns in consideration of the change in quarry footprint. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 9

14 Agriculture Dufferin s agricultural impact report has been reviewed by the Halton Agricultural Advisory Committee and a number of issues were raised by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Dufferin has replied to the OMAFRA comments and the Ministry has now confirmed that it has no outstanding issues. Conclusion The comments made by the public at the first two Public Information Centres (PICs) conducted as part of the JART review have been considered in preparing this Report. The public will have further opportunities to comment on the proposal through a third JART Public Information Centre and the Aggregate Resources Act, Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and Planning Act processes. Comments were solicited from Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources (POWER) and they were invited to make a presentation to the JART but this did not occur. This Report, with any further supplements, will go forward for consideration by the JART member agencies that may use it in developing advice and reaching conclusions and decisions under each of their legislative and policy mandates. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 10

15 1.0 INTRODUCTION Dufferin Aggregates, part of the Holcim Group of Companies ( Dufferin ), has submitted applications to permit an extension to the Acton Quarry in the Town of Halton Hills. Public agencies that provide input and/or would reach decisions on the applications have formed a Joint Agency Review Team (JART) to undertake a technical review of the Dufferin applications and supporting technical materials. The proponent and the JART agreed that an interim report on the review would be prepared during this process to list outstanding issues, and this Status Report was released in November 2010, prior to a Public Information Centre held by the JART on November 29, In January 2012, Dufferin circulated documentation to objectors regarding its attempts to resolve objections and to initiate a 20-day period for objectors to respond under the ARA process. The timing of this JART Report is intended to provide a resource that will assist JART agencies and the public to formulate these responses. In this context, the purpose of this JART Report is therefore: To provide updated plain language summary descriptions of the proposal, the JART review process and the applicable policy framework; To provide JART s description of its technical review process; To identify technical matters that have been raised during the JART review, and any that still have not been resolved; To be a resource for the JART agencies to provide advice and reach conclusions and decisions under their respective legislative and policy mandates; and, To inform the public. In this report, where a technical issue is stated to be resolved, or where consensus has been reached, this means that in the opinion of the relevant JART working group and the peer reviewer, the proponent has shown that, at a minimum, its proposal is able to meet regulatory approval requirements, subject to satisfying required conditions. In addition, consensus may have been reached on issues that lie outside or beyond the regulatory framework. In other instances, there may be consensus that the proponent has provided sufficient information, but JART s interpretation of the information may be different to that of the proponent. It is up to each agency to provide advice, reach conclusions and/or make decisions as to whether the proposal meets its own policy or other expectations within its mandate. This was originally intended to be a Final JART Report that would provide conclusions on all of the identified issues. While the reviews for most of the technical disciplines under consideration are complete or almost complete, some reviews have been delayed. The reasons for this are summarized as follows: Recent proposed changes to the extraction footprint and operations related to Phase 7 of the quarry extension (i.e. the southernmost phase) and recent changes to other parts of the extraction footprint that have not yet been reviewed by the JART; New MNR mapping of Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs); Mapping for Regulated Habitat under the ESA. Dufferin has applied for a Permit under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to allow for removal of JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 11

16 Regulated Habitat. These developments are resulting in further changes to the proposed extraction footprint and operations; The MNR has not provided mapping of significant habitat (as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)) of Jefferson Salamander; Possible changes to Dufferin s proposed extraction boundary as a result of Significant Woodland mapping provided by Halton Region; Further information and analysis that Dufferin has agreed to provide that has not yet been made available (some of this will be provided once the extraction footprint has been finalized). Further details as they relate to each discipline are discussed in the body of this Report. The JART has agreed with Dufferin to provide this JART Report based on the original quarry expansion application, as modified by Dufferin s proposals for Phase 7 but not addressing the most recent changes to the footprint received on January 30, This JART Report may be used by the agencies as a technical resource in providing advice and recommendations and reaching decisions, taking into account the information provided by Dufferin to date and the extent to which resolution or consensus has been reached for each discipline. The JART will continue to consider new information and to reach further findings that may be reported in one or more supplements to this Report, and these supplements would be made available to the public. Alternatively, the individual agencies may consider new information, provide advice and reach decisions without recourse to review and consideration by the JART. 2.0 THE EXISTING QUARRY The Cultural Landscape Study and Built Heritage Assessment submitted in support of the applications indicate that aggregate extraction commenced in this area with the introduction of limekilns in Today, Dufferin Aggregates extracts and processes dolostone at the Acton Quarry to provide materials for the construction industry. The existing operation is licensed under the ARA and permitted under various land use planning designations and other approvals. It does not form part of the requested approvals discussed in this Report. The current licensed area covers an area of approximately hectares (549 acres). Extraction to date has been undertaken in three phases: Phase 1 is located north of 22 nd Sideroad and east and south of Third Line, and Phase 2 is located to the south of 22 nd Sideroad and to the east of Third Line. These two phases have been depleted, and extraction is now taking place in Phase 3, located south of Phase 1 and 22 nd Sideroad, and west of Phase 2 and Third Line. Dufferin has estimated that at present extraction rates the existing quarry will be depleted within 3-4 years. Part of the processing area for the quarry lies within Phase 1 and the remainder lies outside the licensed area with entrances onto Fourth Line and 22 nd Sideroad. There are also crossings of 22 nd Sideroad and Third Line that enable quarry trucks to move from one part of the quarry to another. The existing quarry and the proposed extension are shown on Figure 1. Land uses in the area around the quarry are generally rural, with rural residences and commercial uses primarily fronting onto Regional Road 25 to the west, a cluster of residences located on Third Line to the south, and residential and commercial uses located below the brow JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 12

17 of the Niagara Escarpment on Fourth Line to the east, as shown on Figure 2. The built-up area of the community of Acton begins less than one kilometre to the north. To extract the dolostone, holes are drilled in rows parallel to the working face of the quarry and these are charged with explosive material. Blasting is controlled for safety and to control noise and vibration while providing a suitable size of rock. Each blast brings a face of broken rock down to the quarry floor. Materials of suitable size are taken to the processing facility for crushing and screening, while oversize rock is broken up further prior to haulage and processing. At the Acton Quarry blasting takes place roughly once per week. The same method of extraction would be used for the proposed extension. The depth of extraction in the existing quarry is approximately metres (72-77 feet) below grade, which is below the level of the water table. To keep the working area of the quarry dry, water that collects in the excavation must be pumped out and released as surface water. This can affect the surrounding groundwater and surface water systems. Some water is used for washing gravel and is stored in settling ponds before it is released. At the processing area the rock is crushed, graded by size, washed and stockpiled prior to being shipped by truck. According to the proponent s Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) (January 2009) some aggregate is shipped south along Fourth Line and east along 17 th Sideroad and some to the west along 22 nd Sideroad to Highway 25. During the spring season (March to April) quarry traffic only uses 22 nd Sideroad because Fourth line is subject to a half load restriction. The TIA indicates that under average conditions, a total of 124 in and out truck movements would be generated during the morning peak hour (the busiest peak). Under maximum load conditions (which are infrequent) this figure could rise to 262 truck movements per hour. In October 2006 an amendment to the licence for the existing quarry was granted to increase the annual extraction tonnage limit from 3.5 to 4 million tonnes. This approval was subject to a prohibition of left-turn movements exiting the easterly Quarry entrance onto 22 nd Sideroad, a truck traffic ban on 22 nd Sideroad from Fourth Line to 450m west of Fourth Line, a parking restriction on Regional Road 25, subject to approval by Halton Region, and a requirement that all additional tonnage in excess of the current 3.5 million tonnes per year be transported west on 22 nd Sideroad to Regional Road 25 and south to Highway THE PROPOSED EXTENSION The proponent is Dufferin Aggregates, which was a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc. when the applications were submitted and is now part of the Holcim Group of companies. The following is intended to be a summary description of the proposal it is described in more detail in the proponent s Aggregate Resources Summary Statement and Planning Report (February 2009), and in the supporting technical documentation. 3.1 Description of the Proposed Extension Dufferin is proposing to expand the Acton Quarry through four additional phases, shown on Figure 1 and as amended for Phase 7 as described below. Phase 4 is located north of Third Line and the existing quarry, and is a freestanding phase that would require a new sinking cut, i.e. a new excavation from the existing surface, to create a working face, a working area and an access ramp to the excavation. The current land use of Phase 4 is an abandoned farm and agricultural lands. Phase 5 east and west would extend the existing excavation south on the east and west sides of Third Line. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 13

18 Phase 6 west would comprise an expansion of the Phase 5 west excavation to the south, whereas Phase 6 east would be separated from Phase 5 east to the north by a 30m wide rock pillar or wall of dolostone and fill that will be left in place to separate the two phases, and would require a sinking cut. Phase 7 would be a freestanding excavation to the south of Phase 6 West and west of Third Line, also requiring a sinking cut. On November 25, 2011 MHBC (Dufferin s planning consultant) notified the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Region of Halton, the Town of Halton Hills, Conservation Halton and the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) that Dufferin is committed to reducing the proposed Phase 7 extraction area by 6% to protect significant habitat for Jefferson Salamander, to preserve an on-site barn for potential habitat for Barn Swallow and other wildlife, and to increase buffers from adjacent features. The revised footprint provided by Dufferin as part of its ARA response on January 30, 2012 is shown on Figure 13 to this Report. Also, Dufferin now proposes to use a conveyor to transport aggregate from a portable primary crusher at Phase 7 to Phases 5/6 West within the licensed areas adjacent to Third Line. The material would then be trucked to the stationary processing facility. This change would eliminate haul trucks along that section of Third Line. Dufferin proposes to leave the existing processing plant in place to use for processing aggregate from the extension lands. It is also possible that Phases 5 and 6 would have their own portable crushing equipment. While Dufferin is not proposing to increase the total 4 million tonnes per year extraction limit for the existing and expanded quarry, the pattern of truck traffic generation may change when the Phase 5 and 6 crushing facilities are brought into operation. Dufferin has recently proposed further changes to its proposed extraction footprint in its responses to objections under the ARA (see Figure 13), but no changes have been made to the actual applications to date. The JART has not evaluated the implications of any modifications to the extraction footprint boundary since its original applications. Dufferin stated in the Summary Statement and Planning Report that it has assembled land generally north and south of the existing Acton Quarry but the revised footprint showing areas to be extracted is more recently described in the January 30, 2012 Dufferin ARA response letters. The areas subject to applications under the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and the Planning Act comprise the proposed licensed areas plus areas in the NEP proposed to be redesignated from Escarpment Rural Area to Escarpment Natural Area, plus an area outside the NEP to be redesignated to Greenlands B (Halton Region Official Plan) and Greenbelt Greenlands (Halton Hills Official Plan). The proposed extension in the original application would enable extraction of about 71 million tonnes of dolostone, and it was anticipated by Dufferin that it will extend the life of the quarry by years. These numbers would be reduced with the changes now proposed for the extraction limits. JART understands that Dufferin Aggregates has proposed a number of agreements which they are interested in negotiating with relevant agencies to potentially address technical issues and the requirements of the agencies. These agreements are not within the scope of the JART process. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 14

19 3.2 The Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Dufferin proposes to mitigate the effects of the proposed quarry extension on ground and surface water, including water supplies and natural heritage features that depend on water resources, using a flexible approach that can be responsive to conditions as they evolve, rather than a fixed set of rules and conditions. Dufferin s proposed approach is described in its Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) (November 2008). AMPs are used in some quarry applications to deal with uncertainties in the predicted impacts by providing a framework for adjusting monitoring and mitigation approaches, when necessary, to make best use of new information. The proposed AMP requires active monitoring of surface and groundwater levels against performance-based targets (PBTs) (i.e. quantitative water-based criteria such as ground and surface water levels), and mitigation of the potential effects of extraction. Supplementary monitoring of ecological community composition and structure would also be undertaken. Mitigation would include pumping water from a reservoir to add water to features including wetlands located on the proponent s property but outside the licensed area. The AMP focuses on areas lying within a green line that encompasses features considered to be sensitive to the groundwater draw down effects of the quarry, as shown in Figure 3. Water would be discharged at the surface to protect most of these surface water features, whereas injection wells are proposed to discharge directly into the aquifer along the north side of Phase 4, and as a possible contingency in other parts of the extension. Dufferin would also monitor wells along the Green Line, and would undertake supplementary monitoring for selected areas beyond the line. A number of locations where groundwater and surface water levels would not be affected by the quarry or the extension will also be selected for background monitoring, to form a baseline against which any changes at the quarry monitoring locations can be assessed. The mitigation measures are also intended to protect private wells, and Dufferin has developed a Well Management Plan to respond to any complaints of well interference. 3.3 Net Gain Dufferin has proposed off-site enhancements and rehabilitation of the proposed Acton Quarry Extension that it states will compensate for loss of features within the extraction area and result in an overall net ecological gain. As of the time of the original application, these enhancements would include 49.4 ha of new woodlands, 56.7 ha of active forest management, 0.3 ha of new wetland that, it is stated, will provide amphibian breeding habitat, 6.5 ha of new wetland located between the proposed lakes and surrounding natural areas, enhancement of 4.0 ha of existing wetlands; 2.7 km of limestone cliff, 680m of talus slope; and 90 ha of lakes including aquatic habitat (such as a future fisheries resource), and 1.8 ha of grassland/thicket management. The Ministry of Natural Resources, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Halton Region, the Town of Halton Hills and the Conservation Authorities will evaluate these proposals in relation to their own legislative and policy frameworks. 3.4 Rehabilitation The applications include rehabilitation proposals; however these would be part of a larger rehabilitation plan that would incorporate the entire quarry. Whereas the previous plan for the existing quarry involved continuous pumping to achieve a dry bowl, the new proposal involves allowing the excavations to ultimately fill with water while continuing to protect surface water resources and natural features. The excavations would form individual lakes with levels ranging from around 338m above sea level in Phase 2 to 356.5m in Phase 4, as shown in JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 15

20 Figure 4. The proponent s consultants have estimated a lake filling time of approximately 52 years; however JART agencies caution that such an estimate should be accompanied by confidence intervals to recognize the substantial uncertainty associated with such estimates. Some wetlands that would be supported by replenishment of water as part of the AMP would once again be supported by groundwater as the lakes refill with water. Development of the rehabilitation plan is still ongoing through a separate process. The rehabilitated site will still require pumping of water, for example to maintain the levels of some lakes and to distribute water to the Black Creek and Sixteen Mile Creek watersheds. If the application is approved and agreements are reached the public entity(ies) that ultimately take possession of these lands would be responsible for the remaining pumping, monitoring, mitigation and contingency requirements, and financial resources would be provided by Dufferin for this long term care. The creation of the final lakes would involve the use of hydraulic buttresses in a number of locations to limit the flow of water between the various quarry lakes. These landforms typically would comprise compacted soil material placed along the quarry face up to the level of the original ground surface creating a lake with a maximum water level that would not exceed the ground surface. However in some limited locations, the soil level may be raised above the level of the original ground surface which creates a water retention structure much like an earthen berm/dam. While Dufferin has committed to ensuring that these structures are appropriately engineered, they have not yet provided detailed technical analysis in their geotechnical report that fully describes what would be involved in the proposed hydraulic buttresses/rocks as a method to hold back water. The implications of these buttresses should be considered including whether they will function as dams and the possible associated long-term monitoring and maintenance requirements, including security arrangements. Part of the JART s concern with the hydraulic buttresses is that there is limited information with which to evaluate the long-term operating cost of the proposed mitigation and rehabilitation measures. JART has received Dufferin s January 25, 2012 response to a January 11, 2012 letter from Halton Region. The JART is satisfied with Dufferin s proposed approach for providing additional technical information regarding the engineering design and believes that this will likely provide agencies with the information they require to assess the hydraulic buttresses/rock pillars. 3.5 Potential Effects of the Proposed Extension As an extension to an existing aggregate extraction use, the proposal has the potential to cause a range of environmental effects, both by itself and in conjunction with the existing use. A number of these potential effects would be interconnected and cumulative. The JART process is intended to identify these effects and to identify the extent to which they would be mitigated, and whether they could be significant or comply with standards. Consideration is also given to the long-term effectiveness of mitigation and the governance structures that would be involved in the implementation of the excavation and rehabilitation of the extension. The potential effects of the proposed extension may be summarized as follows: Effects on water resources (ground and surface water) and private water supplies; Effects on water-dependent natural heritage and hydrological natural features including watercourses and wetlands; Removal of woodlands and other vegetation in the extraction area; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 16

21 Effects on fisheries and fish habitat and habitat of species at risk (such as Jefferson Salamander); Noise and vibration impacts on sensitive uses through equipment operation, blasting and traffic; Air quality impacts on sensitive uses, primarily from dust; Impacts on cultural heritage, built heritage features and cultural heritage landscapes; Effects on agriculture; Visual and landscape effects; and, Traffic effects on haul routes. At the same time, Dufferin states that the extension would have beneficial effects. These include making a substantial volume of aggregate material available close to market in accordance with provincial policy, and ensuring the continued operation of a local industry that employs approximately 60 people. Also, Dufferin advises that its proposal includes environmental enhancement in addition to mitigation of these effects, and that a large amount of its land will ultimately be transferred into beneficial public ownership. 4.0 THE ACTON QUARRY JART 4.1 Role and Function of JART Joint Agency Review Teams for Aggregate Applications The need for integrated review of aggregate applications was recognized by Halton Region in 2001 when it originally established its Mineral Aggregate Review Protocol for the sharing of technical information between agencies and proponents for complex aggregate extraction proposals. The Protocol includes the establishment of JARTs to coordinate the technical review of aggregate applications. A team leader or chair is selected for each JART, to coordinate the JART comments and to track and respond to public and agency input. This approach was further refined in 2004 and has now been applied to several aggregate applications in Halton Region, in addition to being adapted for use elsewhere. The current model includes the proponent and participating agencies posting technical information on their websites, JART endorsement of a work program with timelines and milestones, an extensive pre-consultation process (i.e. prior to submission of the applications) including review of detailed terms of reference for major studies, expert peer review of technical reports in conjunction with the JART agencies, joint public information meetings (with the applicant), and the production of a report by the JART as a technical resource for the participating agencies. It should be noted that the JART process does not bind any of the individual agencies to a predetermined outcome or decision. The agencies will make their own individual decisions on the planning applications, based on their mandates. Also, public consultation undertaken by the JART enables the dissemination of information and the receipt of input, but it does not confer any rights on individuals or other stakeholders in terms of formal commenting or appeal opportunities related to required approvals under, say, the Planning Act or the ARA. Comments provided to the JART and records of the two Public Information Centres held to date are included as Appendices 3 and 4 in this Report. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 17

22 4.1.2 Technical Review of Aggregate Extraction Applications The process of reviewing aggregate extraction proposals can be complex and involve several reviewing and commenting agencies. For example, the Acton Quarry extension proposal that is the subject of this Report would ultimately require around ten planning and technical approvals under at least five pieces of legislation from two provincial Ministries, the regional and local municipalities and the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC), with additional review and comment from two further provincial Ministries, Peel Region and two conservation authorities. The responsibilities and expertise of these agencies vary based on their mandate and legislative authority, whether they make policy or detailed technical decisions, and the parts of the site that are under their jurisdiction. In addition to the actual extraction proposal, if approved, recommendations must also be made as to the long term management of surface and groundwater, the extraction area and surrounding land as the existing quarry and the extension are ultimately required to be rehabilitated and converted into other uses. The required resources and the landowners or agencies that would be responsible for this transition are an important part of this discussion. The technical review of aggregate extraction proposals also benefits from an integrated approach, with cooperation between the different disciplines involved. For example, surface and groundwater is inextricably linked with the ecology of wetlands, and locating the boundary of an extraction area to address, say, a natural heritage issue can affect noise impact as well. In such a situation it is clearly preferable for the various involved agencies to work together in reviewing the technical issues that arise from the proponent s applications and focusing communications with the proponent and the public. This will help to ensure that they have clear, complete and consistent information on which to base the advice given to decision-makers within each agency, based on their respective mandates. 4.2 Structure of the Acton Quarry Extension JART The JART that has been assembled to review the Acton Quarry extension proposal is advised by a team of independent peer review consultants that assist in reviewing technical materials and an Aggregate Planning Advisor to advise the JART and help coordinate its activities. All of these are responsible to the JART but funded by the proponent. Issues and technical document review related to particular areas of expertise are discussed by working groups comprising JART members with interest or expertise in each of those areas, advised by the relevant peer review consultants. Working Groups dealt with each of the following: Water resources including the AMP; Natural environment including the AMP; Traffic and transportation; Noise and air quality; Land Use Planning (including visual impact, agriculture, cultural heritage and archaeology). The JART may be divided into core members and those that are involved in an advisory capacity. The core members of the JART, the individuals representing the agencies (as of January 2012) and their roles are as follows: JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 18

23 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) MNR s role as part of the JART is as follows: The approval authority for the required licence(s) to operate and rehabilitate the quarry extension under the ARA, and for any future amendments to the licence(s); Manages the processing of the ARA application in accordance with the Act and Regulation and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards, 1997 (AROPS); Provides advice and input to JART regarding the ARA process and quarry design, operations and rehabilitation; Provides advice and input regarding surface and groundwater matters as they affect natural heritage features (in accordance with a May 2008 agreement between MNR and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and a related Operational Procedure); Provides advice and input to JART on general natural heritage matters; Identifies the regulated habitat of Species at Risk (under the ESA), identifies significant habitat of endangered and threatened species, (under the PPS) and assesses and makes a recommendation to the Minister on the Permit that Dufferin has applied for under the ESA; Designates Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), which require special consideration under the PPS and other planning policy; Monitors and enforces the requirements of any future licence(s). The MNR representatives at the JART table comprise Steven Strong, District Planner, Aurora District; John Pisapio, Management Biologist, Aurora District and Oleg Ivanov, Regional Hydrogeologist, Southern Region. Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) The NEC is the approval authority for a required amendment to the NEP and Development Permit (applies to the part of the proposed site located within the Niagara Escarpment Plan area, i.e. Phases 4 and 5 east, 6 east and part of Phase 7); Provides the JART leader/chair and coordinates the Status and JART Reports (with the JART members); Provides advice to the JART on the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) and NEP and PPS policy, input on natural heritage matters, and peer review of visual assessment. The NEC representative and Chair of the JART as of January 2012 is Nancy Mott-Allen, Senior Strategic Advisor, supported by Lisa Grbinicek, Senior Strategic Advisor and David Johnston, Planner. Regional Municipality of Halton Is the approval authority for the required amendment to the Halton Region Official Plan (Planning Act application applying to that part of the proposal lying outside the NEP Area); JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 19

24 Comments to the other approval agencies regarding the other applications under the Planning Act and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act; Identifies land use conformity with the Regional Official Plan; Implements provincial policies and guidelines on behalf of the Province; Provides input to the JART on the policies of the Halton Regional Official Plan including transportation, air quality, water resources, source water protection and natural heritage; Identifies significant woodlands and assesses policy requirements for their protection; The Halton Region Health Department provides input to the JART on such matters as water quality and air quality. The Halton Region representatives on JART comprise Brian Hudson, Senior Planner; Tom Renic, Regional Hydrogeologist; Paul Burgher, Supervisor, Healthy Environments, Environmental Health, Peter Steer, Senior Policy Analyst, Environmental Health, and Alicia Jakaitis, Transportation Coordinator. Town of Halton Hills The Town of Halton Hills is the approval authority when exempt from Regional approval for the required amendment to the Halton Hills Official Plan (applies to that part of the proposal site lying outside the NEP); It is the approval authority for the required amendment to the Halton Hills Zoning By-law; Identifies land use conformity with the Halton Hills Official Plan; It provides input to the JART regarding transportation, long term planning and rehabilitation, visual impact and land use compatibility. The Halton Hills representatives on the JART are Mark Kluge, Senior Planner; Warren Harris, Manager of Parks & Open Spaces; Steve Grace, Manager of Development Engineering; and Matthew Roj, Traffic Coordinator. Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) Provides input regarding groundwater, surface water, natural hazards and natural heritage matters to the JART and municipal planning processes within the part of the proposed site within the CVC jurisdiction. The information provided by Dufferin identifies that the current drainage conditions for Phase 4 of the proposed extraction drains to the Black Creek within the CVC watershed; Related activities include consideration of possible permits under the Conservation Authorities Act for areas outside of the licensed area. CVC representatives on the JART comprise Dan Banks, Manager, Hydrogeology and Liam Marray, Manager, Planning Ecology. Conservation Halton Provides input regarding groundwater, surface water, natural hazards and natural heritage matters to the JART and municipal planning processes within the part of the proposed site lying within Conservation Halton s jurisdiction (Phases 5-7). It should be noted that portions of Phase 4 historically drained to the Sixteen Mile Creek; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 20

25 Potentially related activities include consideration of possible permits under the Conservation Authorities Act for areas outside of the licensed area. Conservation Halton representatives on the JART comprise Raymond Guther, Manager, Watershed Engineering Services; Brenda Axon, Manager, Watershed Planning Services; Kim Barrett, Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, and Samantha Mason, Senior Aquatic Ecologist. Region of Peel Provides input regarding traffic/transportation matters affecting Peel Region (haul route). Peel Region is represented by Kennedy Self, Manager of Development Services. The following JART members are involved in an advisory capacity: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Coordinates and manages the one window Planning Act process involving input from other provincial Ministries regarding a proposed amendment to the Halton Region Official Plan, for which Halton Region is the approval authority (applies to part of the proposed site). Provides input on interpretation of provincial policy related to Planning Act based matters including the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Greenbelt Plan. The MMAH contact for the JART is Andrew Doersam, Planner. Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Provides advice and input to the MNR regarding any effects of the proposed quarrying and related water management on drinking water supplies, local domestic wells and nearby surface water features (in accordance with a May 2008 agreement between the MNR and MOE and a related Operational Procedure). This input would be provided at the later stages of the ARA process. Subsequent approvals and other related activities include: The MOE is the approval authority for Permits to Take Water (PTTWs) under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). Temporary PTTWs may be granted for testing related to the extension proposal. There have been no PTTW application(s) to date for the extension this will likely be integrated with the PTTW for the quarry as a whole based on the rehabilitation plan; The MOE is also the approval authority for Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) (formerly called Certificates of Approval (C of A)) that may be required for industrial sewage works under the OWRA and for noise (extraction, processing and on-site haulage), rock blasting and air quality (primarily dust) under the Environmental Protection Act. An ECA is a single, multi-media approval that recently replaced Certificates of Approval (C of As). The existing quarry had C of As (now ECAs) for industrial sewage works, noise and air quality, and it is possible that these could be integrated into a single ECA for the entire quarry. The existing Comprehensive ECA for air and noise requires the site to update their emission and noise inventory and impact assessments for the expansion. Dufferin is also required to report changes on an annual basis (by July 15). The submission and MOE approval of a Best Management Plan for air was a requirement under the existing ECA. Any changes to that plan must also be approved by MOE; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 21

26 The MOE is involved in enforcement of ECAs (formerly C of As) and PTTWs, including Best Management Plans, and response to complaints regarding air quality and stationary noise sources, and water resources. The MOE contacts for the JART are Dan Minkin, Environmental Resource Planner, and Ross Hodgins, Hydrogeologist. Other Contributors The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA Jackie Van de Valk, Rural Planner) has commented on agricultural matters; however this Ministry is not directly represented on the JART. In addition, some of the above agencies may be signatories to agreements now proposed by Dufferin for different aspects of the operation and rehabilitation of the quarry. These agreements are not part of the scope of the JART process. 4.3 The Peer Review Consulting Team The consulting peer review team is as follows: Aggregate Planning Advisor: Steven Rowe Environmental Planner (Steven Rowe, Principal); Water Resources: S.S. Papadopulos & Associates Inc (Chris Neville, Associate, Senior Hydrogeologist - team leader and groundwater), AquaResource Inc. (Sam Bellamy, Senior Water Resources Engineer - surface water), and Daryl L. Cowell & Associates Inc. (Daryl Cowell - karst/dolostone hydrogeology); Natural Environment: Dougan & Associates (Jim Dougan - team leader and terrestrial biology, and Karl Konze terrestrial biology), C. Portt & Associates (Cam Portt - aquatic biology); Traffic and Transportation: IBI Group (Matt Colwill, Associate); Noise/blasting: SS Wilson Associates Inc. (Hazem Gidamy, Principal); Air Quality: AMEC Americas Ltd. (Tony Van der Vooren, Manager, Air Quality); Built Cultural Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape: The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. (Owen Scott, President); Archaeology: Archaeological Services Inc. (Robert Pihl, Partner & Senior Archaeologist). 5.0 THE JART PROCESS This section of the Report describes the activities undertaken by the JART, comprising the preparatory and pre-consultation activities that took place before the applications were submitted by the proponent, the process of reviewing the actual applications and technical materials, and the role of public consultation in the JART process. 5.1 Pre-Application Activities (June 2006 to March 2009) The JART conducted the following activities prior to the submission of the Aggregate Resources Act, Planning Act and Niagara Escarpment and Planning and Development Act applications on March 19, 2009: JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 22

27 Initial formation of the JART, which held its first meeting on June 29, Twelve JART meetings were held during the pre-submission period; Review of work plans submitted by the proponent in June 2006 for the Planning Report and ARA Summary Statement, and in the areas of planning, hydrology/hydrogeology, natural heritage, traffic, archaeology and built heritage, noise and blasting, air quality and visual impact. The JART provided a coordinated response to the applicant in January 2007 and there was a subsequent exchange of correspondence including a combined proponent response in December Some issues remained unresolved at the time the applications were submitted; Consideration of a Timelines and Milestones schedule initially provided by Dufferin in August Dufferin requested that the JART formally endorse the schedule which provides for the application review to take place within a 2-year timeframe. Dufferin felt that this was warranted since there had been extensive pre-consultation, and the financial resources it was providing for the peer review should facilitate a more streamlined process. The JART agreed to work with the two-year timeframe on a best efforts basis, but the view was expressed that the timeline was optimistic and the JART did not formally commit to it; Retainer of Aggregate Planning Advisor (April 2007) and peer review consulting team (February and March 2008); A site visit held for JART agencies on May 10, 2007 ; The JART held its first PIC on the Dufferin applications at the Acton Arena on March 4, 2008, to introduce the review process and to describe the JART s role. A record of this meeting is included with this Report as Appendix 3; Completion of a JART Public Consultation Guideline; A pre-submission meeting held by Dufferin for agencies and peer reviewers on June 12, 2008 in advance of an anticipated submission date for applications during the last week of June; A site visit held by Dufferin for JART agencies and peer review consultants on June 26, Dufferin also conducted its own public consultation activities during this period. 5.2 Post Submission Activities to Date (March 2009 to January 2012) Dufferin submitted ARA, Planning Act and NEC Applications and supporting materials on March 19, The supporting materials included: ARA site plans; An ARA summary statement and planning report and an Application Package; Water resources, natural environment, archaeological, cultural landscape and built heritage, noise, air quality, blasting and transportation technical reports; A Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) that proposes to monitor groundwater and surface water within defined areas around the proposed extraction, and to replenish water as required to sustain the ecology of wetlands and other surface water features, regional groundwater levels and private water supply wells. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 23

28 All of these documents are more fully referenced, with a link to postings on the Internet, in the Bibliography found in Appendix 2 to this report. Also, in July 2010 Dufferin provided a Visual Impact Assessment and in March 2011 they provided a Discharge and Mitigation Report relating to the existing quarry. On November 25, 2011 MHBC proposed changes to the extraction boundary of Phase 7 of the proposed extraction on behalf of Dufferin, including a proposal to transport aggregate from Phase 7 parallel to Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck. This was followed up with a December 23, 2011 figure showing schematics of the proposed watermain, conveyor and access road along Third Line. On January 30, 2012 Dufferin provided a revised extraction footprint as part of their ARA response. The JART is evaluating the implications of any proposed changes to the extraction boundary subsequent to the original application. Additional applications are anticipated for an ECA regarding noise, air quality, and industrial sewage works (i.e. water pumping and storage) after any planning approvals are obtained. Also, on September 9, 2011 Dufferin submitted an application to the MNR for a Permit under the ESA. These would not be reviewed under the JART process, though any changes to the quarry design and operations arising from the Permit application and review may be reviewed by the JART. Following the submission of applications, the JART undertook the following: Coordinated and expedited the review of technical reports through the JART Chair and the Aggregate Planning Advisor under JART s direction. In most cases, the peer review consultant provided a draft review of the relevant application materials. This was reviewed by the JART agencies belonging to the relevant working group, and a response was forwarded to the proponent. There was usually more than one cycle of review as the peer reviewer and the JART initially identify additional required information and issues, followed by review of additional materials provided by the proponent s team. The working groups may communicate directly with the proponent and its team before reporting back to the JART. Cross-disciplinary issues are addressed through the Chair and Aggregate Planning Advisor and through meetings among disciplines, as appropriate; Attended at a site visit to the Acton Quarry held by Dufferin for agencies and peer review consultants on June 10, 2009, and at a site visit to Dufferin s Milton Quarry on September 20, 2011 to observe the quarry s water management system; A total of six JART meetings and twenty-eight working group meetings plus three water resource technical group meetings to date since submission; A meeting of JART Chair and natural heritage members with the MNR and Dufferin on April 23, 2010 to discuss wetlands and endangered species (under the ESA and PPS) evaluation processes; Individual JART agencies were able to provide formal comments on the ARA application during the prescribed 45-day review period starting May 4, 2010 based in part on JART reviews undertaken to date; Completed the November 2010 Status Report; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 24

29 Held the second Acton Quarry Extension JART PIC (November 29, 2010) to present progress of the review to date and receive input to be considered in further review and completion of the JART Report; Received written comments on the applications from the public; Reviewed additional technical information provided by Dufferin and completed the JART technical reviews to the extent possible; Distributed this JART Report, which identifies areas of concurrence identified to date on technical matters between the JART and the proponent team and any outstanding, unresolved issues. It also includes documentation of comments received from the public, stakeholders and the proponent; At Dufferin s request, it was provided with a draft of the JART Report for review in relation to matters of accuracy and consistency. The JART has the final say on the contents of its report. During this period Dufferin Aggregates conducted a number of public open houses, and the formal public information session prescribed under the ARA, held on June 1, The JART Chair provided an update on JART activities at the June 1 event. On June 30, 2010 Dufferin provided the JART with its summary of responses to the ARA circulation, received from agencies and members of the public this is outlined in Section 5-4, Public Consultation, below. 5.3 Next Steps The completion and distribution of this JART Report typically marks the end of the formal JART process, as originally envisaged. The agencies will utilize the report to inform their recommendations and advice to decision-makers. Decisions can be appealed, resulting in a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board or a Joint Board. Given the remaining unresolved issues and the potential for changes in impacts arising from changes to the quarry footprint as outlined above, the JART will continue to review new technical material and provide supplements to this JART Report. 5.4 Public Consultation While the JART process is a technical review and not a legislated approval or consultative process, the public had an opportunity to provide input directly to the JART at its first Public Information Centre held on March 4, 2008 and at the second Public Information Centre held on November 29, The JART Chair met with Protect our Water and Environmental Resources (POWER), a local community group with an interest in aggregate issues, in 2009 and 2010 and with the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE) in A further JART Public Information Centre is to be held in March Public involvement at the March 4, 2008 Public Information Centre preceded the actual applications and related primarily to requests for information, however, some technical concerns were raised. These comprised: Claims of property damage from blasting at the existing quarry; Claims regarding interference with domestic wells by the existing quarry. While blasting and potential for well interference is being reviewed as part of the JART review, the focus is on the new applications rather than the existing quarry operation. A record of this JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 25

30 first JART Public Information Centre comprises Appendix 1 to this report. In addition, JART has been kept apprised of the issues generated through the ARA process and through Dufferin s consultation efforts. The following is a summary of identified issues recorded by Dufferin through its statutory consultation on its ARA application: Concern that a project of this size should go through a complete planning process; Stress on water tables and residential wells from excavation below the water table; Increased nitrates in groundwater; Lack of assurance that municipal water supplies will be protected; Deforestation effects on carbon sinks and negative effects on natural habitat and the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area; Effects on the natural environment from spills and leakages of toxic fuels; Effects on wetlands, downstream watercourses and aquatic life; Jefferson Salamander habitat protection; Noise and vibration from blasting and the quarry operation and lack of response to existing concerns; Adverse effects of quarry operations on wildlife; Effects of truck traffic and quarry equipment and related noise on public safety and wildlife; Loss of enjoyment of use of property and interference with normal conduct of business; Impact of quarry operations and trucks on air quality including quartz, silica, toxic emissions; Lack of incentive to recycle aggregates; Decrease in property values; Concern at lack of control of quarrying under the Greenbelt Plan; Permanent alteration of the Escarpment landscape; Effects on cultural features and landscapes; Long-term nature of quarry impacts and need for reasonable rehabilitation timelines, and, Lack of corporate social responsibility. These matters will be responded to by Dufferin as part of the ARA process. The issues identified by Regional and Town Councillors and members of the public during the second Public Information Centre November 29, 2010 comprise: Continuing concerns from Fourth Line residents regarding well water interference from the quarry. As noted above, this concern relates primarily to the existing quarry. Dufferin has indicated to the JART that the AMP will protect domestic wells from any effects from the proposed extension, and it has provided a Well Management Plan to deal with any interference complaints; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 26

31 Lack of follow-up by Dufferin on previous commitments. Again, this relates to the existing quarry. It is proposed that, if the extension is approved, both the AMP and long term mitigation and rehabilitation will be covered by agreements with the respective agencies; Lack of comfort with consultation, transparency. For its part, the JART is doing its best to provide information and respond to public concerns through its JART Reports and Public Information Centres; Need to bind Dufferin to promised actions. If the extension is approved Dufferin s actions would be governed by both conditions on approvals and legally enforceable agreements; Meaning of the word resolved in the Status Report In response to this concern, this term is now defined on page 11 of this JART Report; Concerns regarding blasting and vibration effects on residences and wells. These aspects of the extension proposal have been reviewed by the JART and any issues have been resolved between the proponent s consultants and the peer reviewers. Residents have the opportunity to lodge complaints with the Quarry Manager and MOE regarding any specific incidents; Public access to JART Peer Reviews. The JART Status Report and this JART Report are intended to present the results of the peer reviews in a form that is accessible and understandable to the public. Any questions will be responded to at Public Information Centres and in the JART Reports, as appropriate. In the past the JART has offered to make its experts available to experts retained by POWER for the exchange of information and opinions, however this has not occurred; Public involvement in generating the AMP and future monitoring of the AMP. The public has an opportunity to provide input to the development of the AMP through the JART and through the ARA process. The AMP Report does not address making the AMP annual or 5-year reports available to the public, and this could be requested of Dufferin; Traffic issues in general, and specifically on Third Line and Fourth Line. Any concerns regarding Third Line will likely be reduced with current proposals to transport aggregate along Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck. Haul routes and requisite agreements are currently being discussed between Dufferin, the Town of Halton Hills and Halton Region. This could result in reduction or elimination of truck traffic on Fourth Line. Traffic related issues can be reported to the Halton Regional Police Service, Town of Halton Hills or Ministry of Natural Resources; Commitment to vacate residences owned by Dufferin. The JART is satisfied with Dufferin s commitments that Dufferin-owned residences would be vacated as extraction proceeds towards them; Length of time required to fill quarry lakes with water. This, and the transition from support of wetlands through discharges under the AMP to passive support from groundwater in association with rising lake levels has been identified as an issue and is still under review by the peer review team; Niagara Escarpment impact issues. Protection of the Escarpment according to the objectives and policies of the NEPDA and NEP is being pursued by NEC staff as part of the review process; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 27

32 Need for and implications of water pumping in perpetuity This has been raised as a significant issue and is still under review by JART; A single written comment from the public asked for a full explanation of the Adaptive Management Plan. The explanation of the AMP in Section 3.2 of this report has been expanded from the description provided in the Status Report. The AMP itself is available online at In addition to the JART Public Information Centre to be held in March 2012, further opportunities for public involvement will occur through the statutory processes undertaken by Dufferin and by the NEC, Region of Halton and the Town of Halton Hills to review their respective applications. Also, applications for detailed technical approvals such as ECAs and PTTWs would ultimately be posted on the Environmental Registry at for public comment. 6.0 THE APPLICATIONS As noted in Section 4 above, the proposed extension would require several approvals in order to proceed. The actual applications submitted to date are provided in the Application Package for Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension, February 2009 and further described in the Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement and Planning Report, both dated February 2009 and submitted with the technical documentation. They are described in the Application Package for Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension (see Bibliography, Appendix 2) and summarized below. Class A Licence under the Aggregate Resources Act A Class A Licence is required to extract more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate per annum in the part of Ontario that includes the Acton Quarry. This proposal falls under Category 2, i.e. a quarry (extraction of rock) as opposed to a pit (sand and gravel), that would extract material from below the water table in the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards (AROPS). The AROPS prescribes the contents of a licence application, minimum conditions that would be included in a licence, and notification and consultation standards. The existing Acton Quarry already has a Class A Licence. While Dufferin has applied for a new licence for the extension, MNR could decide to integrate the two licences if a second licence is approved. The application requirements include the licence drawings, the ARA Summary Statement included as Appendix C to the ARA Summary Statement and Planning Report, and supporting technical information. While Dufferin submitted its application on March 19, 2009 and MNR confirmed that Dufferin s application was complete on April 14, 2009, Dufferin did not trigger the formal review process under the ARA until May 4, This began with a 45-day notification period expiring on June 18 during which individuals, stakeholders and agencies were required to lodge formal Written Notices of Objection and reasons if they wish these to be considered. Dufferin held the required public information session on June 1, Since the JART agencies had not completed their reviews of the application and there were outstanding issues that had not been resolved, all of the agencies with the exception of the MOE (which works with the MNR in terms of water resource effects) submitted objections in advance of the deadline. Dufferin is now proposing to amend its applications to modify the extraction boundary for Phase 7 and to transport aggregate from Phase 7 on Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck, as described in Section of this Report. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 28

33 Dufferin responded to all the objectors on January 30, 2012, including further proposed revisions to the footprint. The applications have not yet been amended to reflect these changes. Objectors will be given a further opportunity to indicate if their concerns have been addressed. If not, objectors must notify the MNR who then takes that input and information from Dufferin and must make a recommendation to the Minister within 30 days as to whether or not the licence should be approved. The ARA process for considering aggregate licence applications is fully described in the AROPS, which can be accessed through an Internet link in the Bibliography to this report, Appendix 2. Amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Niagara Escarpment Development Permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act Dufferin has applied for an amendment to the NEP for lands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan area which includes all of Phases 1 and 2 of the existing quarry, and Phase 4, 5 east, 6 east and the south part of Phase 7 of the proposed extension. The proposed amendment would change the designation of land within the proposed licensed area from Escarpment Rural Area to Mineral Resource Extraction Area. Additional land southeast of Phase 6 and adjacent to Phase 7 would be re-designated from Escarpment Rural Area to Escarpment Natural Area (i.e. a more protective designation). The proposed changes are shown on Figure 5. Dufferin also requires a Development Permit for the proposed extension. The application is for the mineral aggregate operation in accordance with the ARA, environmental mitigation on and off site in accordance with the AMP, and ecological enhancements as described in the Level I and II Natural Environment Technical Report. The application also describes a proposed naturalized pond for amphibian habitat. It is proposed that the permit apply to four areas including and adjacent to the proposed extension as shown on Figure 6. Dufferin also provided to the NEC a completed NEC Comprehensive Application Checklist and Reviewer s Checklist of Critical Issues although the latter document is intended for internal use by NEC staff reviewing the applications. Amendments to the Halton Region Official Plan, Halton Hills Official Plan and Halton Hills Zoning By-law under the Planning Act A formal pre-submission meeting between the proponents and Halton Region and the Town of Halton Hills was held as required by the Planning Act, prior to the March 19, 2009 submission of the amendment applications. The requested amendment to the Halton Regional Official Plan requests the re-designation of lands on Schedule 2 from Escarpment Rural Area, Agricultural Rural Area and Greenlands A and B to Mineral Extraction Resource Area. This application also requests the re-designation of lands from Agricultural Rural Area to Greenlands B, from Greenlands B to Escarpment Natural Area, and from Escarpment Rural Area to Escarpment Natural Area (see Figure 7). While the proposed amendment includes changes to the Regional Official Plan designations within the area of the NEP, the Regional Official Plan amendment must conform to the NEP. Dufferin s amendment application precedes the Region s adoption of ROPA #38, a major amendment that included bringing the Plan into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan that was adopted on December 16, The amendment was approved with modifications by MMAH on November 24, 2011 but it is under appeal. Several of the appeals relate to ROPA #38 in its entirety. As such, while the policies contained within ROPA #38 are Regional Council's position, the Amendment is currently not in effect. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 29

34 The application to amend the Town of Halton Hills Official Plan post-dates the approval by the Region of the Town s new Official Plan on March 7, 2008, which incorporates the Greenbelt Plan. Therefore the application is subject to the new Official Plan. The application requests that lands designated Escarpment Rural Area, Protected Countryside Area, Greenbelt Greenlands, Greenlands A and B be re-designated to Mineral Resource Extraction Area, Escarpment Natural Area, and Greenbelt Greenlands, as shown on Figure 8. The map shows a deferral of an OMB approval on two parts of the Dufferin property ( D4 ) that has now been resolved. The requested amendment to the Halton Hills Zoning By-law proposes to rezone those parts of the proposed licensed area lying outside the Niagara Escarpment Development Control Area from Rural (RU) Zone and General Residential Special (RG-1) Zone to the Extractive Industrial (M2) Zone. 7.0 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND POLICY As indicated above there are a number of statutes, regulations and policies that address the potential effects of the proposed quarry extension. While the JART identifies and seeks resolution of the technical issues raised by the applications, it is the individual agencies that provide advice and make decisions as to whether requirements within their mandates are met. The following is intended to be a summary and not a comprehensive description of legislation and policies that may be relevant to the Acton Quarry proposal. The referenced documents may be accessed on the Internet via links provided in the Bibliography (Appendix 2) to this Report. 7.1 Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) The NEP was originally approved on June 12, 1985 under the authority of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, and has been reviewed and revised twice since that time. It was incorporated intact into the Greenbelt Plan which was approved in February It has also been subject to a number of amendments the reference version for this review is the April 1, 2011 consolidation. The NEP prevails over the PPS to the extent of any conflict. The applicable policies of the Plan are further described in the proponent s Summary Statement and Planning Report. The purpose of the NEP is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment substantially as a continuous natural environment and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment. Development that does not comply with the policies of the Plan or the applicable land use designation requires an amendment to the Plan. Development that does comply requires a Development Permit, unless exempt. Decisions on both of these approvals are made by the NEC. 7.2 Planning Act The Planning Act governs the land use approvals required to permit the proposed extension. One of the purposes of the Act (Section 1.1) is to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy. Section 2 of the Act itemizes a number of matters of Provincial Interest. A number of these are relevant to the current applications, including: JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 30

35 (a) (b) (c) (d) (h) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province; the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base; the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities; the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies; the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; the protection of public health and safety; the appropriate location of growth and development; the appropriate location of growth and development. 7.3 Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) The ARA requires licences for pits and quarries in designated parts of Ontario, wayside permits for extraction involving public construction projects, and permits for pits and quarries on Crown Land. The legislative and policy framework under the ARA comprises: The Act itself; General Regulation 244/97; Aggregate Resources of Ontario: Provincial Standards, MNR, June 1997; MNR Policies and Procedures. The following is a summary of the aspects of the framework that have the greatest relevance to the extension application. For accurate information, reference should be made to the specific documents, which are linked in the bibliography to this JART Report. Aggregate Resources Act Section 2 of the ARA sets out the purposes of the legislation: (a) to provide for the management of the aggregate resources of Ontario; (b) to control and regulate aggregate operations on Crown and private lands; (c) to require the rehabilitation of land from which aggregate has been excavated; and, (d) to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate operations. Part II of the Act deals with aggregate licences, which are required to operate pits (unconsolidated sand and gravel or shale) or quarries (bedrock) on private land in designated parts of the province, and the process required to obtain licences. The subject application is for a Class A, Category 2 licence. A Class A licence would involve extracting more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate per year. A Category 2 licence is required for a quarry that involves extraction below the water table. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 31

36 An application for a licence requires a site plan and a report, and prescribed supplementary information. If the application is considered to be complete in accordance with the Regulation, then the applicant is required to follow the prescribed notification procedures, which are found in the AROPS document referred to above. Dufferin has already followed part of this procedure since it has submitted its application and triggered the formal 45-day public and agency review process and held the required public information session. The remainder of the process involves attempts to resolve objections and a Decision of the Minister and/or a potential hearing before the OMB (or a Joint Board). The matters to be considered by the Minister or the OMB/Joint Board in considering whether a licence should be issued are found in Section 12. Section 72(1) of the Act prohibits operation of a quarry within 200 metres of the edge of the Niagara Escarpment, which lies adjacent to the subject application. Regulation 244/97 The Regulation sets out requirements for implementing the Act including tonnage fees and areas of Ontario where private lands are designated as subject to the Act. These areas include Halton Region. Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards, 1997 The AROPS document prescribes requirements for ARA applications, including site plan standards, standard conditions and reports, conditions and reporting requirements for particular types and scales of aggregate operations, operational requirements and annual reporting, and the consultation and decision-making process. MNR Aggregate Resources Policy Manual (AROPS) The Policy Manual provides details of the MNR s policies and procedures in implementing the Aggregate Resources Act. 7.4 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) The PPS states that the Vision for Ontario s Land Use Planning System may be further articulated through provincial plans. The subject applications are subject to two provincial plans that apply to different parts of the affected area the Greenbelt Plan 2005 and the NEP. The policies of the NEP are the policies of the Greenbelt Plan for the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area. At the same time there are PPS policies that still apply to the subject applications because they do not conflict with provincial plans or are referenced in the Greenbelt Plan. In particular, the policies in Section 2.5 of the PPS, Mineral Aggregate Resources, relating to availability for long term use are still generally applicable. This Section also includes policies that extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social and environmental impacts, and to require progressive and final rehabilitation. Also, as indicated in Section 4.3.2(d) of the Greenbelt Plan, an expansion to an existing mineral aggregate operation is subject to the natural heritage policies in the PPS (Section 2.1). 7.5 Greenbelt Plan 2005 The Greenbelt Plan came into effect retroactively on December 16, 2004 under the authority of the Greenbelt Act It incorporates the NEP and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan that were already in effect at that time. Also, it applies new policies to an additional area that includes those parts of the proposed Acton Quarry extension and related lands that are not subject to the NEP. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 32

37 Whereas decisions under the NEP are made by the NEC, the policies in the additional area affected by the Greenbelt Plan are implemented through decisions made by municipalities under the Planning Act. Municipalities are required to bring their Official Plans into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan. The required amendment to the Halton Region Official Plan has been approved but is subject to appeal, and the Halton Hills Official Plan has been amended to conform. 7.6 Municipal Official Plans Halton Region Official Plan The Halton Region Official Plan was adopted on March 30, 1994, however it has been subject to a number of amendments and the reference version for this review is a consolidation dated August 17, 2006, referred to as Halton Regional Official Plan In Halton s Planning Vision there are two classes of permanent landforms, the first class, which is meant to be maintained in their current form and extent with little or no displacement or encroachment as possible includes the Niagara Escarpment, environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands, streams and valley systems. Two further major amendments to the 2006 Plan, Nos. 37 and 38, have been adopted by the Region. Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 37 (ROPA 37) is An Amendment to Incorporate the Basic Requirements of the Places to Grow Plan. An OMB Decision was issued in November 2010 and Amendment 37 is now in force with the exception of three subsections that will be consolidated into a hearing regarding ROPA 38. On November 24, 2011 the Decision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on ROPA 38 was issued under Section 17(34) of the Planning Act and includes modifications made to the Region s Official Plan. Appeals have been made on the Minister s decision, including appeals to the entire Amendment. While the Amendment represents Regional policy, it is not in effect. Halton Hills Official Plan A new Halton Hills Official Plan came into effect on March 28, 2008, shortly before the Acton Quarry extension applications were submitted. Therefore the extension applications are subject to the Plan. It is consistent with the 2005 PPS and conforms to the Greenbelt Plan 2005 and the NEP. The reference document for this review is a May 2008 consolidation. The Plan states in its Introduction that it was prepared in accordance with the NEP and Greenbelt Plan. While these Plans prevail over any local plan or zoning by-law in cases of conflict, Town policies in the Official Plan that are more rigorous than the NEP are considered not to be in conflict. The Plan also contains detailed policies pertaining to environmental and open space lands, including the Greenland system, environmental management and mineral resource extraction. 8.0 JART REVIEW TO DATE 8.1 Introduction The following is a summary of the process and outcomes of the JART technical reviews to date, discussed with respect to each of the disciplines involved in the review and, in addition, the AMP which primarily involves the water resources and natural environment disciplines. The process of the review is structured around the process incorporated into the best efforts timelines. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 33

38 The JART is the coordinating entity for the review and has an overview role. The Working Groups comprise JART members with interest in each of the respective disciplines or subject areas, supported by the Aggregate Planning Advisor and specialist peer reviewers. Interdisciplinary matters are dealt with in the larger JART forum. 8.2 Water Resources Background Surface and groundwater resources are a key aspect of the JART review because quarrying below the water table could affect water supplies, as well as important natural environmental and aquatic features such as wetlands and amphibian breeding pools. The public has raised these issues as concerns and they are expressed through policy requirements that must be met by the ARA, NEPDA and Planning Act applications. The Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report, prepared by Conestoga-Rovers and Associates (CRA), dated November 2008 and submitted with the application package in March 2009 is intended to address these requirements. The AMP is another important document from a water resources perspective. It was prepared by Dufferin s water resources and natural environment consultants and sets out Dufferin s proposals to monitor and mitigate potential effects on water resources, private water supply wells and natural environment features that are dependent on ground and surface water. Both the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report and the AMP have been peer reviewed by the JART Process: Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review The water resources working group had already been established when the Acton Quarry extension applications were released, and it includes representatives from MNR, MOE, NEC, Halton Region including the Halton Region Health Department, Town of Halton Hills, CVC and Conservation Halton. MNR and MOE have a protocol whereby MOE comments on issues relating to the water resources are submitted through MNR, which deals with hydrological and hydrogeological effects on natural environment features, when reviewing aggregate applications. The working group is advised by a consulting team comprising S. S. Papadopulos & Associates (hydrogeology and water resources and team leader), AquaResource Inc. (surface water) and Daryl W. Cowell & Associates Inc. (karst [i.e. water movement through limestone/dolostone] review). The working group held its first meeting in June, In September 2009, JART provided its first phase of a two-phase review of the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report, mostly comprising requests for further information. Dufferin, Halton and S.S. Papadopulos & Associates met to discuss the comments in September 2009, and Dufferin provided a response to the comments in December Water resource-related issues identified as of November 2010 are summarized in the Status Report. JART s most recent peer review of the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report was completed on March 15, There followed a water resources working group meeting, held on April 18, 2011 to discuss the findings with Dufferin and its consulting team, then a series of three technical meetings between the JART and Dufferin consulting teams were held during May JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 34

39 In March 2011 Dufferin provided a Discharge and Mitigation Report that had been prepared for the MOE with regard to the existing quarry. On July 21, 2011 Dufferin provided a draft Reply to Final Peer Review Report in response to the Phase 2 peer review. On September 20, Dufferin hosted a site visit to its Milton Quarry so that the JART team could view the infrastructure and operation of the AMP for an approved extension to that quarry. Following a water resources working group meeting on September 25, 2011, the JART provided the Peer Review Team s Part 1 (follow-up comments and requests for clarification) and Part 2 (current appreciation of the implications of the proposed extension) of Dufferin s July 21, 2011 response on October 25, 2011 and November 8, 2011 respectively. On November 21, 2011 a water resources working group meeting with the Dufferin team was held to discuss JART s review of the October 16, 2011 responses. At that meeting Dufferin s consultant agreed to finalize its July 21, 2011 letter and provide a response table based on subsequent events and discussions, but this has not yet been received. On January 17, 2012 Dufferin s consultant provided memos of the same date on groundwater modelling of historic conditions and on a water balance sensitivity analysis Issues Raised in the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review The following is a summary of issues that have been raised to date with regard to the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report, as presented in the JART Phase 1 and 2 responses and discussed at the November 21, 2011 meeting. In Part 1 of the response to Dufferin s reply to the Final Peer Review Report, the water resources Peer Review Team noted a number of commitments by Dufferin that would need to be fulfilled for the Team to complete its work. These commitments are listed below, together with their current status: An additional sensitivity analysis of the water budget calculations In its July 21, 2011 letter, Dufferin s consultant committed to provide refined water budget calculations that would, among other things, incorporate the results of a further assessment of lake evaporation rates. Water budget information is important, for example, to confirm that sufficient water is available to run the water management system and to provide sufficient discharge to surface water streams. A report of the sensitivity analysis was submitted on January 17, The peer review team is presently working with Dufferin s consultants to ensure that the methods adopted for the analyses are appropriate, and the presentation of the results is clear and complete. The peer reviewers recommended that additional analyses be developed to confirm that the calibrated groundwater flow model is capable of reliable simulations of conditions other than the present, such as the late 1980 s or early 1990 s. A report of the additional simulations was submitted on January 17, The results of the additional simulations have been reviewed, and the peer reviewers are now of the opinion that the groundwater model is suitable for preliminary estimation of the amount of water that may be required on an ongoing basis to support the mitigation measures. The Adaptive Management Plan will include requirements to revisit the model at specified intervals during the development of the extension, to ensure that the assumptions of the analysis are consistent with new monitoring data. A report on the TW4-09 pumping test At the November 21, 2011 meeting, the Dufferin team committed to having this report completed. Dufferin has since indicated that this information will be provided but not in time for this JART Report. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 35

40 Monitoring of Ground and Surface Water North of Phase 4 JART recommended additional monitoring of groundwater levels and groundwater discharge north of Phase 4 in order to ensure that any changes in groundwater flow towards Black Creek and tributary springs would be identified and mitigated. Dufferin agreed to conduct the requested monitoring but has encountered problems in gaining access to property that would be suitable for this purpose. Dufferin is continuing to pursue access to the property to the north, while at the same time they are in discussion with the JART regarding an alternative approach. It was made clear at the December 15, 2011 meeting that the lands north of Phase 4 were still preferred. Availability of Water for Mitigation The Peer Review Team s October 25, 2011 letter accepted that the use of Phase 1 of the original quarry as a reservoir for the mitigation system largely alleviates concerns as to whether sufficient water will be available on a seasonal or monthly basis. At the same time, there were still some outstanding questions (regarding such matters as snow melt, lake evaporation and climate change) as to how estimates of the amount of water required for mitigation were generated, and about lag time in responding to deficiencies. At the November 21, 2011 meeting the peer review consultant was assured that, since the system would be automated, there would be no lag time between a water level discrepancy being identified within the green line and the system s response. Feasibility of Mitigation Measures The Peer Review Team agrees with the Dufferin consultant s intent that the mitigation measures must be implemented fully and demonstrated prior to extraction, but feels their finding that clearly the proposed mitigation measures are feasible is overstated. Components of the proposed mitigation measures will be required to operate in perpetuity. The implications of this requirement are discussed in the section Implications of the need for permanent mitigation measures. Karst Effects The Peer Review Team has raised an issue with karst (i.e. flow of water through fissures in dolostone and possible changes through water dissolving rock over time) including the way this information was incorporated into the development of the AMP. They disagree with a statement that karst processes are very slow, indicating that karst systems can advance and change over decades, which is well within the timeframe of this proposal. The proponent s experts have noted that some of the wetlands are drained by karstic features and agree that in the absence of mitigation these wetlands will dry out. Dufferin s consultants consider the proposed mitigation measures and final rehabilitation plan to be adequate to counter the effect of karstic drainage during and after quarrying. The peer reviewers appreciate the recognition of potential karst effects, and have indicated the need for all mitigation measures to be fully implemented and demonstrated prior to extraction in a particular area. The Peer Review Team s Part 1 response also identified the need for the revised AMP to recognize the potential for larger karst openings to occur within the excavations, along with specific mitigation measures that may be required. The proponent has indicated that a confirmatory karst evaluation was built into the AMP; however, it is still not clear whether this was based on specific karst considerations (the number and size of karst features), and whether the proposed mitigation measures will be adequate. This highlights the importance of JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 36

41 implementing fully the mitigation measures and demonstrating their effectiveness prior to extraction. In the November 8, 2011 (Part 2) letter the Peer Review Team raised eight major issues arising from the peer review: Fundamental changes in the conception of the operations of the extension quarry compared to existing operations This relates to the practice of releasing pumped water directly into surface water courses as part of the operation of the existing quarry, versus the proposed use of Phase 1 as a storage reservoir with a water distribution and discharge/injection system for the mitigation of effects when implementing the proposed extension, and following its completion. The peer review consultants accept that the presence of a storage reservoir would buffer the effects of long-term climate change. Implications of the need for permanent mitigation measures The peer reviewers note that the proposed expansion conceives of permanent mitigation measures as an integral part of the quarry design. It is assumed that the mitigation measures will function through quarry operations, and always as intended. Since active water management is proposed beyond the period of final lake filling, this approach further assumes that these measures will function effectively in perpetuity. According to the peer reviewers, it is not possible to guarantee that the mitigation measures proposed for the extension will work effectively forever. While the likelihood that the AMP will work successfully will be at its highest while there are still several years of active quarrying left, the peer reviewers are less certain that mitigation measures will be maintained effectively close to and beyond the period of active quarrying. The peer review notes that passive management (i.e. without pumping) of the site following final rehabilitation is not possible. Even if there is no extension, perpetual long-term active management is required to address the impacts of the existing quarry. For example, the existing quarry has caused watershed divides to move and without active pumping no water will be supplied from the quarry area to the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed. There would also be a possibility of reduced baseflows and increased risk of downstream flooding for Black Creek. Also, if the proponent were to simply leave the site at the end of existing operations, catastrophic impacts, likely including the permanent loss of wetlands and local flooding, are likely to arise according to Dufferin. The Peer Reviewers consider that it is essential that the proponent present an assessment of the risks inherent in operating mitigation measures in perpetuity. They raise a number of key questions that must be addressed: What are the on-going performance measures required of water management systems, in particular beyond the period of lake filling and final rehabilitation? How might water management systems fail over the long-term? What are the potential implications of failure of any of these systems, or components of these systems? How much might it cost to maintain and replace the water management systems given these potential failures? What are the environmental implications of failure? JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 37

42 What contingency measures may a long-term operator have to consider? and, What is a realistic worst-case scenario for failure of a component of a water management system? At the November 21, 2011 meeting Dufferin s consultant agreed to look into preparing a risk management chart that would set out potential impacts, mitigation measures designed to respond to these, and further responses in case of contingency situations. Requirements for analysis of potential impacts in the absence of mitigation The Peer Review Team had requested an analysis of the potential effects of the proposed extension in the absence of mitigation, whereas the Dufferin team considers mitigation to be an integral part of the quarry design. It was confirmed that these measures would be in place and demonstrated to be effective prior to any excavations. On this basis, the Peer Review Team concurs that the analysis of the proposed extension in the absence of mitigation is not absolutely necessary. Impacts from the existing quarry The Peer review Team gained additional insights regarding the impacts of the existing quarry from its review of the Discharge and Mitigation Report. In the Team s opinion, the key findings of this report are: The influence of dewatering of the existing quarry (Phases 2 and 3) is clearly evident at the Phase 2 seeps at the Escarpment face and at several Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), and is anticipated at a further PSW; The direct discharge of water for seep mitigation appears to be effective in maintaining flow at the seeps; Current Phases 2 and 3 discharge works do not operate effectively. The ineffective operation is exhibited in two ways: water can readily circulate back to the quarry, and Phase 2 can contribute to flooding issues along Third Line during high water and discharge flow conditions. Requirements for the development of a continuous surface water model The proponent s experts developed a simplified water budget analyses which was based on annualized modelling results to demonstrate that sufficient water was available to support mitigation measures through the active quarry period, and to develop estimates for the duration of the lake-filling period. This simplified water budget analyses incorporates a number of assumptions as to how rainfall and snowmelt would contribute to ground water recharge or runoff in local streams throughout the year. The peer reviewers expressed concern that the significance of these assumptions with respect to the objectives of the analyses has not been investigated. The peer reviewers initially recommended that a continuous surface water model be developed to address the significance of the assumptions in the simplified water budget analyses. A continuous surface water model provides a more rigorous interpretation of flow processes, by incorporating the major elements of the hydrologic cycle, seasonal variations, as well as being constrained by observed streamflow data. In the development of a continuous surface water model the simplifications of the water budget analyses would not be required, and it would be possible to assess whether the simplifications invoked by the proponent s experts were realistic. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 38

43 The peer reviewers withdrew the request for a model, based in part on the understanding that on-site storage of water was a fundamental component of the proposal which would buffer some of the variation in hydrologic response. The withdrawal of the request was also subject to the agreement that the proponent s experts would conduct sensitivity analyses to assess whether the results of the analyses would be affected significantly by the simplifying assumptions of the water balance analyses. The peer reviewers have conceived of analyses in which the water budget calculations are repeated with different assumptions regarding the generation of recharge from snowmelt and the rate of lake evaporation. Dufferin has submitted a sensitivity analysis during the final stages of the preparation of this JART Report. The Peer Review Team is currently reviewing the approach and results of the analysis. Requirements for the development of an additional groundwater modelling analysis to include conditions that are different from the present In its responses to the Water Resources Final Peer Review Report, Dufferin committed to providing this analysis, which the Peer Review Team considered important for building confidence that the understanding of the groundwater flow system is sufficient to support a reliable assessment of future mitigation requirements. Dufferin submitted a report on the additional analysis during the final stages of the preparation of this JART Report. The analysis and results have been reviewed, and the additional work meets the peer reviewers expectations, and satisfies their recommendation that the groundwater model be applied for conditions other than those observed near the present time. In the opinion of the peer reviewers, the analysis effectively demonstrates that the groundwater model can be used with confidence to develop predictions of future conditions. The allocation of quarry discharge between the Credit River and Sixteen Mile Creek watersheds The Peer review Team reiterates that perpetual pumping will be required to maintain the present allocation of flow between the Sixteen Mile Creek and Credit River watersheds. Without permanent active management, all surface and groundwater flows towards the existing quarry and proposed extension would be directed to the Credit River watershed. The footprint of the proposed quarry extension The Peer Reviewers note that the extent of impacts of the final proposal depends strongly on the phases that are developed. In particular, Phase 7 does not simply represent another relatively small quarry away from the main quarry (Phases 1, 2, 3 + Phases 4, 5, 6). The inclusion of this phase will extend the area that is potentially affected by operations and that will require mitigation to not only the footprint of Phase 7 but also any land between the main quarry and Phase 7. Therefore, depending on the timing, the inclusion of Phase 7 may also lengthen the time required to achieve final rehabilitation. Proposed Rock Pillars and Buttresses The JART s concern with the proposed rock pillars and buttresses is primarily related to the potential for leakage through and the potential for failure of the hydraulic buttresses. The failure is not necessarily related to catastrophic rock movement or rock pillar failure, but would be a long-term performance issue with such a structure. Due to the fact that this property will require active management in perpetuity, Dr. McCreath s feasibility study (Appendix I in the Geology and Water Resources Assessment) did not satisfy our concerns that the long-term performance of the buttresses had been considered in sufficient detail to justify the seepage quantities, time required to fill the lakes and long-term performance issues. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 39

44 Dufferin has (in a letter dated January 25, 2012) committed to providing a preliminary engineering assessment of the proposed hydraulic buttresses and rock pillars. The JART is satisfied with Dufferin s proposed approach for providing additional technical information regarding the engineering design and believes that this will likely provide agencies with the information they require to assess the hydraulic buttresses/rock pillars Process: Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Review The future protection of water resources and those components of the natural environment that are dependent on ground and surface water is the function of the proposed AMP, and this also is being peer reviewed by the JART. AMP issues have essentially been dealt with through the Water Resources Working Group and the JART itself rather than through a separate AMP working group. The JART agencies that have a direct interest in the AMP comprise the natural heritage, groundwater and surface water and planning oriented members of the team, advised by both the water resource and natural heritage peer reviewers. Although there is a degree of overlap, the groundwater and surface water aspects of the AMP will be dealt with here, and the natural environment and planning aspects will be discussed in the appropriate sections below. The AMP was submitted with the initial ARA, NEP and Planning Act applications in March In December 2009 Dufferin team members presented the AMP to the JART as a whole. In April 2010 the JART provided draft consolidated comments on the AMP to Dufferin, and Halton Region provided separate comments regarding water quality, private water supply wells in the vicinity of the quarry, and its Source Protection studies for municipal water supplies. A further meeting with Dufferin representatives to discuss water resources was held in June Dufferin provided responses to the JART and Halton Region comments in August Also, in August 2010, Dufferin was provided with JART s water resources peer review of the AMP. Dufferin responded to this review in September On January 6, 2011 Dufferin s water resources consultant provided three letters regarding private wells, recharge water quality and PBTs, respectively, to follow up on their memos provided in August JART s water resources consultant commented on the private well letter on January 7, In April 2011 Conservation Halton provided its review of the AMP and water resource issues. In September 2011, as noted above, Dufferin hosted a site visit to its Milton Quarry to view the operation of that water management system. The JART met with the Dufferin team on December 15, 2011 to discuss outstanding AMP issues. To a large degree, the AMP and water resources reviews have been conducted in parallel and a number of the issues raised are discussed above in relation to the general water resources review Water Resource Issues in the AMP The following is a summary additional water resource issues raised in the JART review of the AMP, with some references to Dufferin s responses. Domestic Wells Dufferin has committed to conducting a Baseline Survey of all private wells within 1000 m of the quarry extension, and has submitted a Well Management Plan. At the December 18, 2011 meeting, Dufferin indicated that when there are well interference complaints a no fault is assumed on the part of Dufferin and they will provide water until the situation is resolved. If JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 40

45 necessary, Dufferin can undertake a number of measures including deepening a well, providing new wells, and a cistern in extreme situations. They noted that MOE tends to be very responsive to water supply complaints. Dufferin confirmed its position that the evaluation of hydraulic conditions and the proposed mitigation measures will protect private water wells. Drinking Water Source Protection There were comments and responses by Dufferin regarding rehabilitated lake levels and the Region and CVC s ongoing Tier Three Source Protection studies. The results of recent field investigations and hydrogeologic analyses conducted for the Tier Three assessment of the Halton Region municipal groundwater supplies confirm that the buried bedrock valley overburden aquifer in which the Georgetown wells are located is not hydraulically connected to the portion of the Black Creek valley near the Acton Quarry. The valley was previously thought to be continuous, but there is a break near Limehouse. The reports that document the investigations and analyses are presently in review. The peer review team has access to these documents because they are either part of the team conducting the Tier Three studies (Sam Bellamy), or a peer review for the Tier Three Study (Christopher Neville). Surface Water JART recommended additional monitoring of groundwater levels and groundwater discharge north of Phase 4 in order to ensure that any changes in groundwater flow towards Black Creek and tributary springs would be identified and mitigated. Dufferin agreed to conduct the requested monitoring but has encountered problems in gaining access to property that would be suitable for this purpose. Dufferin is continuing to pursue access to the property to the north, while at the same time they are in discussion with the JART regarding an alternative approach. It was made clear at the December 15, 2011 meeting that the lands north of Phase 4 were still preferred. Mitigation Testing There was a question as to when detailed engineering design and testing of the mitigation measures would be undertaken. As indicated above, the JART team has received assurances that mitigation measures would be established and tested before extraction takes place. The Green Line and Performance-Based Targets JART requested information about the delineation of the green line, access to properties for environmental monitoring, details of the proposed monitoring, mitigation and the water levels that would be maintained, and use of additional monitoring wells further from the quarry. At the December 18, 2011 meeting Dufferin confirmed that during extraction, wetlands within the green line would be supported by adding water ( active management ). Monitoring would occur along the green line, and supplementary monitoring would occur outside the green line. Background monitoring would occur outside the area of influence of the proposed extension as a baseline the locations for this have not been established as yet. The same approach is being used at the Milton Quarry. The JART peer consultants raised a need to monitor wetlands for changes in the karst environment. Also at the December 15, 2011 meeting, Dufferin s consultant indicated that the information provided on performance-based targets had been conceptual, and that Dufferin is still seeking input on how the Performance-Based Targets (PBTs) should be defined. The consultant also indicated that there is usually no need for an upper PBT limit as most of the wetlands are on line and flooding is self-limiting. At the same time some wetlands need an opportunity to dry out. Overall Dufferin would not want to waste water the JART team should let Dufferin know JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 41

46 of any identified areas of sensitivity. It was acknowledged that pools may not dry completely in a really wet year, and that this was not a compliance issue. The peer reviewers have recommended that water levels in wetlands inside and outside the green line be monitored more frequently as the quarry faces advance towards them. Water Quality In response to concerns regarding the quality of recharge water, CRA indicated that the proposed mitigation measures will not affect the safety characteristics of the Amabel aquifer as a drinking water supply. As agreed, they followed up on January 5, 2011 with a letter providing water quality information relating to the recharge system at the Milton Quarry showing no adverse effect, and providing interpretation of this in the Acton Quarry context. Enforceability of the AMP The peer review consultant had concerns with the enforceability of the AMP as a legally binding document. This was discussed at the December 15, 2011 meeting and it was acknowledged that a formal agreement would be required between Dufferin and the agencies concerned, in addition to any enforcement by MNR under the licence conditions. Further discussion of water-resource-related AMP issues will take place after Dufferin has provided its promised response to the water resource peer review team s comments. On January 9, 2012 Dufferin provided a memo responding to a December 5, 2011 update to the JART Status Report, providing its understanding of the status of the peer review. It follows up on commitments made at Water Resource Working Group meetings and expresses Dufferin s understanding that while the JART has requested further information/analysis there are not fundamental issues with the proposed extension from a water resources/mitigation perspective. Dufferin concludes that it believes the JART can reach conclusions without receipt of these additional items by noting that they are outstanding items to be confirmed following completion. Of these items, Dufferin has now provided memos regarding information on conditions prior to development of the quarry and additional information on water budget sensitivity analysis, and these are reviewed above. The remaining outstanding items comprise finalizing Dufferin s July 21, 2011 response to JART comments and a summary response table to two recent JART letters, and a report documenting a pumping test conducted at Well TW4 in the vicinity of Phase Natural Environment Background Natural environment considerations and requirements are inherent in the consideration of the approvals sought under the ARA, NEP and Planning Act (including Greenbelt Plan) documents discussed above. The natural environment documentation submitted in support of the applications takes the form of a Level I and II Natural Environment Technical Report (December 22, 2008) prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., Ecoplans Limited and Goodban Ecological Consulting. The title of this document uses terminology from the ARA requirements, although it and the ARA Summary Statement and Planning Report, which summarizes the natural environment report, are also intended to address other approvals. Process: Level I and II Natural Environment Technical Report A natural environment working group comprising representatives of the MNR, NEC, Halton Region, Town of Halton Hills, CVC and Conservation Halton was established prior to receipt of JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 42

47 the applications in March The working group was advised and assisted by the natural environment expert peer review consultant (Dougan & Associates). Following submission of the applications Dufferin requested early review of its documents to determine any need for additional field studies during the upcoming field season. The working group considered initial comments from the peer reviewer and issued preliminary comments and questions following the first working group meeting, in May There followed an exchange of further questions, comments and responses between the working group and the proponent team, including attendance at a third working group meeting by Dufferin team members to discuss issues. During this period MNR initiated a new evaluation of the wetlands on and around the Dufferin lands, as well as a study of the habitat of the Jefferson Salamander and other species at risk under the ESA. Dougan & Associates provided preliminary peer review comments on the Level I and II Report in September 2009, and responses were received from Dufferin s consultants in January Between December 2009 and August, 2010, meetings were held between JART members and Dufferin s consultants to discuss particular concerns, and Dufferin s consultants have provided some additional data and clarification. In August 2010 Dufferin provided further information on rehabilitation, enhancement and net gain in the form of an interactive video, Advancing Opportunities. On October 12, 2010 Dougan & Associates provided JART s interim final comments on Dufferin s responses to the preliminary peer review comments on the Level I and II Report, pending the resolution of the PSW and Endangered Species issues. The response comprised a covering letter to JART and a matrix, which were forwarded to Dufferin. The covering letter expressed a number of overriding concerns, which are summarized in the November 2010 Status Report. Dufferin responded to these comments on June 7, 2011 with a letter, a response table and 5 attachments. The MNR provided Jefferson Salamander Regulated Habitat mapping (included under the ESA) and preliminary PSW mapping in April The PSW mapping was revised October 2011 and the JESA habitat mapping was revised by MNR. Following an exchange of correspondence regarding the implications of Dufferin s application for a permit under Section 17(2)(c) ( c permit ) under the ESA, Dufferin provided a letter and table responding to JART s October 2010 comments in June The Natural Heritage Working Group met with members of the Dufferin team to discuss this response in August Dufferin applied for a c permit on September 9, 2011 in order to allow aggregate extraction within the Regulated Habitat. The application will be reviewed by MNR and there will be a future posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public review. The MNR provided the JART with mapping of both of the PSW and Jefferson Regulated Habitat in November 2011 and respectively. Newer mapping is provided as Figures 11 and 12 to this Report, respectively. The wetland evaluation confirmed and refined some wetland boundaries that had earlier been identified. Dufferin states that the resulting mapping of the extraction footprint (Figure 13) shows no PSWs within the proposed extraction area for the Acton Quarry Extension. The MNR has also identified regulated Jefferson Salamander habitat in an area that includes part of the proposed extraction area. No development is permitted within the Jefferson Salamander regulated habitat without a Permit under the ESA. On November 22, 2011, the MNR provided a letter to Dufferin indicating that the habitat regulated under the ESA is not the same as significant habitat defined for the purposes of the JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 43

48 PPS (2005). The identification and delineation of significant habitat of endangered species under the PPS is also the responsibility of the MNR. While the MNR has provided mapping of the Regulated Habitat of Jefferson Salamander, they have not provided information and mapping on the significant habitat to the JART or Dufferin. JART has requested further clarification from MNR on this matter. On September 20, 2011, the JART natural heritage peer review leader and wildlife ecologist were included in the site visit to observe the water management system in operation at the Milton Quarry, hosted by Dufferin. On November 11, 2011 Dougan & Associates responded to Dufferin s June 2011 response with a letter summarizing those issues for which responses had been accepted, and for which consensus had not been reached. This was discussed with Dufferin at a working group meeting held on December 13, 2011 and a further meeting with Dufferin on the AMP was held on December 15, On November 25, 2011 the Region of Halton provided the JART with a technical assessment of significant woodlands on the Dufferin Acton expansion subject lands. The Region s final assessment varied from the technical assessment undertaken by Dufferin consultants in the Level I & II Natural Environment Technical Report (2008). The final mapping was provided to Dufferin on December 1, 2011 and was accepted by Dufferin. There are issues with respect to the removal of significant woodlands and the analysis by Dufferin consultants of the no negative impacts test required by the PPS contained within their Natural Environment Technical Report, however as described in this Report, the policy assessments will take place by the individual agencies as part of their review of the applications. On January 9, 2012 Dufferin provided a memo responding to a December 5, 2011 update to the JART Status Report, providing its understanding of the status of the peer review. It follows up on commitments made at the December 13, 2011 meeting regarding information on the proposed conveyor and confirming their consultant s opinion that certain identified birds were not breeding on the property. Dufferin concludes that it has provided the JART with adequate information to make technical recommendations as they relate to the natural environment. The JART maintains that additional information from Dufferin could help resolve some of their outstanding concerns, which are described in the following sections along with approaches recommended for their resolution Remaining Issues The following summary of the status of the remaining issues is based on the November 11, 2011 letter and the notes of the December 13, 2011 meeting. Inadequate documentation of existing disturbances and their relevance to the natural environment reporting and AMP. In their October 12, 2010 letter Dougan & Associates had recommended that existing levels of disturbance to wetlands and hydrology (from the existing quarry) should be documented in the Level I and II Report in order to understand how the system will perform under expanded quarry conditions. This concern was described in JART Status Report. At the December 13, 2011 meeting the peer reviewers indicated that disturbance had been noted during their field visits, and that evidence of wetland disturbance was reported in CRA monitoring of Phase 1-3. The Discharge and Mitigation Report (CRA, February 2011), prepared as part of Phases 1-3 permitting, summarized monitoring of wetlands from and described impacts including: lower seasonal water levels, reduced hydroperiods, and abnormal JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 44

49 summer peaks in water levels (due to pumping) in key wetlands. It is the JART s position that this information should have been part of the baseline characterization for the quarry extension. Instead, the data was not referenced; in the NE Level I & II report some of the affected wetlands were described as degraded, recommended for removal from the PSW, and fell within the proposed quarry extension footprint. The reviewers need to know if disturbed areas/features will be restored through the AMP, preferably to pre-quarry conditions. Dufferin s consultant indicated that for areas within the green line around both the existing quarry and the expansion wetlands can be controlled through adjustments to targets. Dufferin is unwilling to adjust the green line to encompass disturbed areas, but there is a commitment in the AMP to undertake baseline monitoring of wetlands located outside the green line, if private landowner access is provided. Dufferin has asked for input on targets for the disturbed features. Incomplete vascular plant and bird data Information on vascular plants was apparently collected using a running checklist and plants had not been listed on an area basis in Appendix B2 provided on June 7, 2011, although locally rare and/or vascular plant species of conservation concern were listed by area. The Dufferin team explained that they had attempted to summarize all plant species by area in response to questions from the peer reviewers, but they concluded that this was not possible. The peer reviewers noted that a comprehensive data set by area would be desirable as baseline information for monitoring. Dufferin s consultants indicated that new vegetation data would be collected through the AMP, through the establishment of fixed plots. The peer reviewers also noted that there were minor gaps in Appendix B1 to the Level I and II Report regarding certain bird species (i.e. Blue-winged Teal, Broad-winged Hawk, Rubycrowned Kinglet, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Canada Warbler, and Pine Siskin). Dufferin s consultant indicated that all of these birds were migrants and did not breed on site, but they have agreed to review and clarify the field data and a January 11, 2012 memo from Dufferin indicated that its consultant had confirmed that all of these birds would have been migrants. JART members have raised concerns with the apparent gaps in data collection for wildlife in Areas C and G. Vegetation data was collected, so presumably these areas were accessible. In a related matter, JART noted that the Halton Natural Areas Inventory includes a record for Azure Bluet (Enallagma aspersum), an S3 provincially significant species, recorded in the area proposed for extraction in Area N. Based on their other current commitments regarding data gaps, we assume that Dufferin will take note of these matters and include them in their relevant AMP baseline studies. The study approach and mitigation will be discussed with the agencies. This requires confirmation from Dufferin. Incorporation of MNR Wetland and Jefferson Salamander Habitat Mapping Based on the quarry footprint proposed by Dufferin in the NE Level I & II Report, along with the revised footprint for Phase 7 which was provided in November 2011, most of the lands proposed for extraction south of 22 nd Sideroad (i.e. Areas M, N & O) are contained within regulated habitat for Jefferson Salamander (as per MNR mapping dated October 25, 2011). Jefferson Salamander is currently designated as Endangered in Ontario according to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Clause 10(1)(a) of the ESA states that No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario [SARO] list as an endangered or threatened species. The Jefferson Salamander habitat regulation is the legal description of its habitat. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 45

50 MNR has also designated the wetlands that run through the middle of Area M (a proposed extraction area) as Provincially Significant (as per MNR mapping dated October 2011). Another much smaller wetland unit was also designated as a PSW in Area L, also proposed for extraction. Dufferin has interpreted this new MNR information in their revised footprint. However, as it was received by JART on January 30, 2012, the current JART comments will need to be further reviewed to reflect the new footprint information The identification and delineation of significant habitat of endangered species under the PPS is also the responsibility of the MNR. While the MNR has provided mapping of the Regulated Habitat of Jefferson Salamander, they have not provided information and mapping on the significant habitat to the JART or Dufferin. JART has requested further clarification from MNR on this matter. Third Line Haul Route The JART has not had an opportunity to review recent information that aggregate is now proposed to be transported from Phase 7 along Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck. Dufferin confirmed that the conveyor would run parallel to the road allowance, not within it, and indicated that it would not interfere with wildlife. A schematic figure provided by Dufferin on December 23, 2011 illustrates an 8.5 m utility, access and conveyor corridor that would run parallel to the Third Line road allowance. Significant Wildlife Habitat Methodology Concern over Significant Wildlife Habitat methodology was previously documented in the JART Status Report. On June 7, 2011 Dufferin provided a summary table of Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) as the peer reviewers had recommended in their October 2010 review. This clarified the basis of many of Dufferin s SWH interpretations, however some uncertainties remain. These uncertainties include the lack of clear data for assessing reptile hibernacula, application of clear and consistent thresholds for calling amphibians and/or egg mass counts; interpretation of habitat extent of area-sensitive birds, turtle nesting, and specialized raptor nesting habitat; and clear methodologies to determine highly diverse areas, and species of conservation concern. Dufferin is of the view that interpretation of significant amphibian breeding pools is trumped by consideration of Jefferson Salamander habitat; however, JART is of the opinion that Jefferson Salamander habitat requirements would not necessarily be appropriate for other significant species with different life histories. Adjacent lands (120 m for SWH) also have to be considered. The JART will continue to point out broader concerns with respect to the methodology and interpretation of data where appropriate. In response to a query from the JART, Dufferin has asserted that no locally significant species occur in the direct quarry footprint. Upon further communication with Dufferin s consultants, it became apparent that Dufferin and JART were not using the same sources of information to determine locally significant species. Although Dufferin has clarified their sources, they did not identify the thresholds that they apparently applied to establish local significance. Until this information is provided, JART cannot verify the Dufferin position that no locally significant wildlife species occur within the proposed quarry footprint. Local Landscape Connectivity With respect to concerns raised by the JART peer reviewer regarding inadequate mapping and definition of Animal Movement Corridors, Dufferin s June 7, 2011 response document provided JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 46

51 further discussion and a table summarizing background source information on mammal species only, and their reliance on movement corridors. They concluded that White-tailed Deer are the only species that exhibit significant movements within the study area, and they contend that these movements are currently restricted to wooded areas outside of the proposed extraction areas. The JART considers that movements of animals other than deer will be affected by the quarry footprint, and that Dufferin has not provided adequate site data to justify its assertions regarding animal movement corridors. Significant Woodlands On December 1, 2011, the Region of Halton, as the planning authority responsible for the identification of significant woodlands, provided Dufferin with a letter summarizing the review and conclusions with respect to the Region s identification and delineation of significant woodlands on and adjacent to the proposed extension. Dufferin has accepted the Region s final assessment. The Region s final delineation of the boundaries of each woodland polygon differed slightly from Dufferin s assessment within the Level I & II Natural Environment Report. The Regional assessment applied a minimum woodland size of 0.5 ha, and a woodland width of 60 meters or greater in order to determine significance (Regional Official Plan 2006) which resulted in a greater number of woodlands being assessed for significance by the Region. Only one significant difference between the two assessments was identified; woodland WD-2 (located in Area B, west of Phase 4 extraction area), was identified as a significant woodland (at 10 ha in size), while Dufferin concluded that WD-2 would only be considered significant if the woodland met the criterion of containing woodland patches over 99 years old. The JART has noted that there will be direct impacts to identified significant woodlands (i.e. removal), irrespective of Dufferin s proposal to undertake reforestation and donate offsite lands. Cumulative Impacts/Effects Notwithstanding Dufferin s position that the existing quarry is an approved land use, JART is of the opinion that an assessment of the cumulative impact/effect resulting from the existing and proposed quarries is relevant. This issue will be further assessed by the JART agencies in their review of the applications with respect to their policy frameworks. Further, the cumulative impact should also be considered with respect to ecological conditions associated with the Niagara Escarpment Additional Points from the Status Report The Status Report indicated concern with proposed habitat enhancement including the proposed deepening of a dug pond (W1) in a PSW. This matter is under MNR jurisdiction and will be further considered by them; Regarding the effects of noise and blasting on wildlife, JART members have requested that Dufferin provide literature or evidence of research from other quarries in Ontario, demonstrating that indirect impacts of quarrying are well understood. This information has not been provided to date; The Peer Reviewers requested that Dufferin s statement that healthy and functional wildlife habitat can co-exist with an active quarry should be qualified. Dufferin has asserted that the noise levels associated with truck traffic and equipment operating within the quarry would be below the masking effect level on birds (i.e. background noise JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 47

52 loud enough to disable birds from communicating with each other), and that their supplemental (2010) bird survey work determined that the existing quarry is not having a negative effect on adjacent breeding bird densities. Despite concerns regarding the 2010 bird study design and interpretation of findings, the Peer Reviewers have reviewed the information used to support Dufferin s position on noise impacts and conclude that noise levels should not result in significant impacts to adjacent bird populations. On December 1, 2011, JART was notified that Dufferin intends to employ an elevated conveyor to move aggregate along Third Line, rather than using trucks. A conceptual design for the conveyor was provided on January 3, 2012 but it did not provide any information on the levels or type of noise; It has been recommended that restoration of degraded wetlands should take priority over attempting to create new Jefferson Salamander habitat. Scientifically documented studies were requested to demonstrate that habitat creation is effective; no such evidence has been provided to date. The Dufferin team committed to engage JART members to review a more detailed enhancement plan that Dufferin is preparing. This subsequently took the form of the Advancing Opportunities video released by Dufferin in Spring The video included conceptual approaches that address some target habitat questions raised in the draft peer review. The video provides general summaries of the extent of habitats targeted for creation, however it does not answer key technical questions such as what portion of new cliff and talus habitats could be located below future lake levels. Further, the video does not discuss key impact concerns such as the effect of the extension on existing Provincially Significant Wetlands and Jefferson Salamander regulated habitat New Issues Additional Species at Risk, including Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow, were listed as Threatened as of January These species were documented from and likely breeding within or adjacent to the proposed extraction areas. Dufferin should provide a response that acknowledges anticipated impacts on these species and what they propose to do to address these impacts. Summary The JART s technical review of Dufferin Aggregates application for the Acton Quarry has greatly expanded available information and its interpretation regarding the proposal, information that is critical to the JART agencies ability to formulate an informed response to the application. This has taken place through a series of written exchanges between the JART, its peer reviewers, and Dufferin Aggregates, where questions were posed, and in most cases, answered. This discourse was further clarified through meetings between the parties. The culmination of all this effort has been that the majority of issues raised in the original peer review have been addressed. A number of issues remain such as unevenness of data collection and thresholds of criteria for significant wildlife habitat. These can likely be addressed during the detailed monitoring as part of the AMP, beginning three years prior to extraction of phases. Certain matters require further design and impact clarification, such as the Third Line conveyor system and AMP infrastructure. The Significant Woodland calculations will require further review and discussion given the change in proposed extraction footprint. The most significant outstanding matters relate to Dufferin s intentions to address MNR s mapping of PSW s and Jefferson Salamander habitat, the proposed creation of new breeding pools, and the approach regarding recently listed Threatened Species. The JART is committed to pursuing discussions JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 48

53 with Dufferin on all the outstanding matters, especially given the release of a revised extraction footprint by Dufferin on January Natural Environment Issues in the AMP The history of JART s review of the AMP to date is outlined in the Water Resources Section, above. The main outstanding issues from a natural heritage perspective: The large scale of the AMP undertaking and infrastructure to support the relatively limited timeframe of extraction yet creating the need for active management in perpetuity in order to sustain key ecological resources and functions; Despite comprehensive responses from Dufferin to the peer reviewers questions, there are still differences regarding data collection and analysis supporting the identification of significant wildlife habitat and baseline conditions for the AMP. Dufferin has indicated that any gaps will be addressed through new monitoring to be undertaken in consultation with JART agencies as part of the implementation of the AMP; There is a lack of clarity as to how ecological monitoring will integrate with the waterfocused monitoring for the AMP. Ecological monitoring can t be automated and changes may occur over several years. This points to the need for strong baseline information. More specifics are needed on ecological sampling, timescales and connections to the water side of monitoring and mitigation. The Dufferin position is that the primary focus of the AMP is on water monitoring and control because that is what can be actively managed. They assert that if habitat is maintained, it can be used by wildlife and vegetation in different ways at different times; There is a question as to how the natural heritage system can be maintained over the long term whether there are any models as to how this would be achieved, and who would take over after Dufferin; There was discussion as to which features and functions will be actively monitored as part of the AMP, as there are discrepancies between the scope as described in the Level I and II Natural Environment Technical Report, and in the AMP Report; JART requested (January 22, 2010) that papers supporting the following statement in the Natural Environment Report (Section 6.3.4, page 6.9) be provided: potential indirect environmental impacts from quarrying are well understood and can be mitigated using methods that have proven to be effective in aggregate operations adjacent to sensitive features. To date, no papers or other findings have been provided. This issue was further discussed at the December 15, 2011 AMP meeting, where Dufferin confirmed that to date, monitoring of quarry impacts in Ontario has been focused primarily on water-related impacts as opposed to ecological monitoring; There was also discussion of the need to manage the transition between wetlands being replenished through surface water discharge artificially under the AMP and then being supported by groundwater as excavated lakes fill with water over time. JART members specifically question how the introduction of groundwater into a feature formerly fed only by surface water flows would impact water chemistry, temperature, biota, etc; Dufferin has indicated that the target hydroperiods in the AMP can be modified to extend the wet period for wetlands affected by the existing quarry, but this approach would need JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 49

54 to be established through discussion among the JART members. There is concern with the effectiveness of hydrologic management of vernal pools; JART is of the opinion that there should be a clearer description of the proposed AMP water management system infrastructure (e.g. pumps, water dispersal features, service roads, pipelines) and potential impacts due to construction and operation. Dufferin has recently provided a description and this will be further reviewed. A September 20, 2011 tour of the Milton Quarry site confirmed that the necessary infrastructure is extensive and can be expected to have its own set of impacts Additional Natural Heritage/AMP issues The following is a summary of the current status of other natural environment issues raised through the AMP review process to date with some reference to the responses received from Dufferin: Concern regarding degraded hydrologic conditions due to the existing quarry. The JART has requested that information on degraded hydrologic conditions be provided as part of existing conditions in the natural environment report and that PBTs should be developed to remediate such conditions where feasible. Dufferin argues that the existing quarry is being operated in accordance with current approvals and that it is proposing enhancements. As noted above, Dufferin has indicated that there will be an opportunity to provide water to wetlands affected by the existing quarry if the agencies so choose; Issues regarding the scope of the AMP beyond surface and groundwater-based features including such matters as landscape ecology functions, beaver damming, vegetation removal, protection of terrestrial features, impacts from noise, vibration and dust, microclimatic changes, and increased traffic. As noted above, Dufferin considers the primary purpose of the AMP is to monitor and manage water; only factors which interplay with quantitative water monitoring, such as beaver damming, will be actively addressed and managed under the AMP; The delineation of the green line and the potential need for monitoring, remediation and mitigation of features beyond the green line. Dufferin s Discharge and Mitigation Report (CRA, February 2011), prepared as part of Phases 1-3 permitting, summarized monitoring of wetlands from and described impacts to some wetlands outside the green line. Dufferin has agreed to collect baseline data in these disturbed features where access is permitted, but will not establish PBTs or routinely monitor them, relying rather on the monitoring of hydrologic conditions along the green line supplemented with qualitative ecological observations outside the line, if property access by other landowners is provided; JART needs more information on the development of PBTs, how they would be set, how seasonal fluctuations would be addressed and how any changes would be reviewed (i.e. thresholds of acceptable change). JART anticipates further consultation to discuss site specific PBTs; There is concern that trends in changes to ecological features and systems will not be detectable using PBTs and the proposed Response Action Framework timeframe. JART is unclear what thresholds of change would be used to determine when management intervention would be required. Ecological systems are inherently dynamic and variable, and there needs to be agreement on how to differentiate normal levels of variation from JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 50

55 Summary longer term trends requiring intervention. This is particularly relevant for the sections dealing with General Wetland Field Reconnaissance (6.2.2), Fixed-Point Photography (6.2.3), Wetland Vegetation Communities (6.2.4) and Amphibian Breeding Habitats (6.2.5); More information is needed to show how the continuous PBT monitoring will relate to the ecological monitoring so that responses will be prompt and effective. As noted above, Dufferin is of the view that it is sufficient to maintain habitat and that it would not be practicable to determine whether ecological variability from year to year can be traced to effects of quarrying and the AMP. Where significant changes are identified these can be reviewed against the PBTs and changes can be made if necessary; Where surface water is to be discharged directly into wetland features, Dufferin will need to address issues related to water quality, temperature etc. Similar issues arise where ponds or wetlands are proposed to be deepened into the groundwater table. Dufferin has indicated that it will be compliant with provincial water quality standards, however this may not address the concerns related to specific biota; Lining ponds and deepening wetland features may not be acceptable mitigation responses to quarry impacts; again, this matter will be considered by MNR; Artificial water supplies to natural habitats may be vulnerable to failure at critical times and may not replicate normal habitat conditions, especially in early spring when salamanders are breeding. Dufferin has indicated that its systems will be designed for year-round operation and will rely on natural hydrologic conditions except where these are insufficient to maintain PBTs; More information is required on how the proponent would respond to AMP incidents, including possibly ceasing or reducing the rate of extraction. A compendium of possible incidents and responses would be helpful. Dufferin has questioned the value of such a compendium given the disconnect between long term ecological monitoring and active hydrologic monitoring. Significant uncertainties remain with the ability of the proposed AMP to monitor and maintain key natural heritage resources potentially affected by the quarry extension, and their perpetual management after extraction is completed. The uncertainties relate to the quality and perceived value of the baseline information on the vegetation and wildlife resources present, the ability of the AMP to detect and respond to changes affecting biological resources in a timely manner, and the long term consequences of artificial intervention in natural systems and processes. The JART agencies will continue to work with Dufferin to improve the predictive and protective systems of the AMP. 8.4 Transportation Background Haul routes are among the matters considered by the MNR as part of the Ministry s review of the ARA application, and by the NEC in its review of the NEP amendment and Development Permit applications. Halton Region and the Town of Halton Hills (as well as Peel Region) have an interest in haul routes on roads under their respective jurisdictions. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 51

56 The materials submitted with the proponent s applications in March 2009 include a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared by MMM Group Limited, Dufferin s traffic consultant, that is the subject of the JART review. While haul routes have been identified as a public concern in relation to this proposal based on public input to the JART process and Dufferin s ARA circulation, the Acton Quarry extension would extend the duration of existing truck trip generation rather than creating increasing traffic volumes. No changes are proposed to the existing permitted annual volume of extraction (4 million tonnes per year) or the haul routes currently utilized. As indicated in Section 8.3.2, the proponent is proposing to amend its application so that aggregate would be transported along Third Line by conveyor, rather than by truck. There may be some change in trip origins from the quarry with trucks hauling gravel directly from portable crushing facilities in Phase 5 and 6, rather than from the existing processing facilities. At the same time, the pattern and intensity of development around the haul routes, the volume of traffic and condition and capacity of existing roads, and future traffic patterns and potential distribution of markets continues to evolve. Also some sections of the roads which support the haul route are being transferred from Regional to Town of Halton Hills jurisdiction, which could impact the applicable by-laws Process: Traffic Impact Assessment Review A traffic and transportation working group comprising representatives from the MNR, the NEC, Halton Region and the Town of Halton Hills and advised by IBI Group, the JART s traffic and transportation peer reviewer, was established before the receipt of the applications. An initial review of the Traffic Impact Assessment was provided by IBI Group for review at the first working group meeting in June 2009 and, following further review and discussion, a compilation of comments from Halton Region, Halton Hills and IBI Group was provided to Dufferin in August MMM Group provided a response to these comments in November 2009, with further comments in February The JART provided its response to these comments in April, and MMM provided a response to these immediately prior to a meeting held between the working group and MMM in May 2010, and a further response in August. JART s response to these comments was provided to Dufferin in October The issues remaining in November 2010 are summarized in the Status Report. Following an exchange of correspondence regarding the JART s expectations for additional work, Dufferin s traffic consultant provided an Update to its Traffic Impact Assessment (including ten appendices) in June 2011, and an Addendum Letter on July 4, This response was discussed among the JART members at a working group meeting on July 5, JART traffic comments were consolidated and sent to Dufferin on September 8, 2011, and Dufferin provided an update and addendum to its Traffic Impact Assessment with two attachments on September 29, Issues: Traffic Impact Assessment Review The following are the issues raised in the September 8, 2011 consolidated letter, with Dufferin s comments and responses: JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 52

57 Overall Conclusions The JART indicated that, with the exception of the requested sightline analysis, it is unlikely that disclosure of the related information would significantly alter the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Update acknowledges the 1999 condition for increasing the permitted annual extraction tonnage from 3.5 million tonnes to 4.0 million tones, but it does not reflect this condition in the haul truck trip distributions and traffic analysis; No discussion of the feasibility of using alternative transportation modes (e.g., rail) to move extracted aggregates to market was included in the Update; The collision analysis identifies an elevated collision rate for River Drive between Maple Avenue and 10 th Line, including collisions involving dump trucks, but no mitigation is proposed to address the issue; As part of the road safety section of the Update, the authors should have included an updated assessment of haul route sightlines, using appropriate design criteria, and related mitigation. The JART requested a comment on the sightline analysis, and Dufferin s consultant responded with their view that they fully expect and are confident that all road safety issues are appropriately addressed by the respective agencies. The discussion of the proposed new quarry accesses from Third Line south and across Third Line north should have been more specific about what mitigation will be provided to ensure that those accesses operate safely. Circumstances have changed now with Dufferin s proposal to move aggregate along Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck, and no further information has been provided about the traffic implications of this change. Based on the information available, it appears that this has no impact on the crossing of Third Line north, but does appear to address concerns related to trucks at the Third Line south at 22 nd Sideroad intersection. The authors have not provided any indication of having conducted early morning truck queuing observations in the vicinity of Trafalgar Road at 17 th Sideroad, nor have they proposed any measures related to improving compliance with parking by-laws: Throughout the analysis, the authors attempt to downplay the impacts of Acton Quarry haul traffic on network operations; however, no analysis reflecting network traffic operations without Acton Quarry traffic is ever presented for comparison; The analysis of future traffic conditions was conducted assuming that a series of road network improvements would be implemented by the responsible road authorities prior to each horizon year; no do nothing scenarios were analyzed to illustrate the potential worst case ; Several potential additional improvements were identified for, both, existing and future traffic conditions; however, little assessment of the feasibility of those improvements appears to have been conducted. Dufferin s consultant concurred that the identified information is unlikely to significantly alter its conclusions, and gave additional commentary on the sightline issue as indicated above. Municipal Comments In addition, specific comments were provided by individual municipalities, and Dufferin s consultant responded to these: JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 53

58 Peel Region commented that this is not a typical traffic impact assessment, and requested the haul route within Peel Region be identified including where they enter and exit the Region, to assist with ongoing road EA projects. Dufferin s consultant responded that the study area had already been established with the JART in 2009 and extends well beyond typical requirements. They noted that the relatively low volume of trucks that enter Peel from the quarry are generally destined to northwest Brampton and that volumes dissipate as the trucks move towards their destinations. Peel Region is still seeking more detailed information regarding volumes of trucks related to the Acton Quarry on its roads; Halton Region acknowledged that the haul route is an existing route under a previous licence and that the routes involved are designed to facilitate all types of traffic including trucks, and that any remedial work or road improvements cannot be directly attributed to Acton Quarry truck traffic. Halton noted that Maple Avenue is to be transferred to the Town of Halton Hills, that this may involve additional transportation improvements/requirements. Also, a 1993 transportation review concluded that staff could not consider any form of truck prohibition or load restriction on Maple Avenue. Dufferin concurred with these points; The Town of Halton Hills requested a number of technical changes and corrections to the Update and the Addendum, Dufferin concurred with these and provided material incorporating the requested corrections; In addition, Dufferin s consultant agreed to review and assess points provided in the JART response regarding components that could be included in a haul route mitigation agreement. Other Issues Identified in the Status Report The following are additional issues raised in the November 2010 JART Status Report that are not addressed above: Assessment of the potential queues at 5 critical intersections to be identified by the working group (although the working group has requested that this information be provided for all study intersections). A queuing analysis was included in the TIA Update; Updated speed limits and road jurisdictions reflecting changes that have been implemented since the first report was prepared; Review of additional background studies including: o EA Study along Trafalgar Road from 10th Sideroad to Highway 7; o Sustainable Halton; o Halton Transportation Master Plan to 2031; o o Halton/Peel Boundary Area Transportation Study; GTA West Corridor Study. Sensitivity analyses to reflect two sets of truck distributions with respect to the quarry and potential future markets. The sensitivity analysis was conducted, and it was concluded that the impact of a shift in trip distribution would not have a significant impact on traffic operations; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 54

59 Examination of the individual collision reports related to the problematic areas which were identified in the original TIA (where collision reports are available). This was completed; no collisions involving quarry trucks were identified. The working group took a firm position on two further matters in the JART Status Report and Dufferin decided to initiate further studies to respond to these points. These are: Evaluation of traffic conditions based on afternoon peak hour conditions. This issue was addressed in Dufferin s June 2011 response; Assessment of two additional intersections on River Drive in Georgetown. This was addressed in Dufferin s July 4, 2011 addendum. The working group has also requested that the existing haul route be evaluated against any alternatives that develop based on future new road construction and improvements, and Dufferin has agreed to discuss mechanisms by which this might be achieved. The JART has discussed with Dufferin whether they would consider changing the existing haul route should new Regional roads become available during the life of the quarry. The JART traffic peer review consultant confirmed on October 6, 2011 that while his previous comments and concerns still apply the information provided in the TIA Update has not given reason for any further comments or concerns. The OMAFRA had specific comments regarding traffic and agriculture, and these are discussed in Section 8.8 below. The Region of Peel has requested additional information from Dufferin with respect to the distribution of truck traffic from the Acton quarry onto their Regional roads. This matter remains in discussion. 8.5 Nuisance Impacts: Noise and Blasting Background A number of operations related to quarrying can generate noise, including drilling, blasting, equipment movements, rock crushing and haulage. Noise has been raised as an issue by the public as part of the review process for the proposed extension under the ARA. The AROPS requires a noise assessment report for a quarry below the water table if extraction and/or processing facilities are within 500 metres of a sensitive receptor, and a blast design report if a sensitive receptor is within 500 metres of the limits of extraction. Both of these conditions apply in this instance, and Dufferin provided both these reports (prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Limited and Golder Associates, respectively) in March 2009 as part of its application package. The recommendations in these reports are reflected on the proposed site plans. The existing quarry and processing facilities already have an ECA (formerly C of A) under the Environmental Protection Act. The PPS requires that extraction be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social and environmental impacts. The NEP includes policies that must be addressed relative to minimization of adverse impact on nearby agricultural and residential land uses and parks, open space and the Bruce Trail as objectives to minimize the effects of new mineral extraction operations on the Escarpment environment. The current Halton Region Official Plan requires that proposals for new Mineral Resource Extraction Areas be evaluated in relation to existing land uses. The Halton Hills Official Plan requires that Official Plan and zoning amendments for aggregate uses be supported by JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 55

60 information that addresses the impact of the noise, odour, dust and vibration generated by the proposed use on adjacent land uses and that demonstrates that noise impacts would be minimized. Also, both Conservation Halton and CVC have expressed concern regarding potential noise effects on wildlife. Both noise and blasting have been identified by the public as issues in relation to the existing quarry and the proposed extension Process: Noise and Blasting A noise and air quality JART working group was established before the applications were submitted, comprising representatives from MNR, NEC, MOE, Halton Region and Town of Halton Hills. The group was advised in relation to noise and blasting matters by SS Wilson Associates. The first working group meeting was held in July 2009, shortly followed by a request, prepared by SS Wilson, for further information from Dufferin on noise and blasting. A response was received from Dufferin in August 2009, and a peer review was provided to Dufferin in February Dufferin s response to this review was received in May 2010, and the final JART peer review was provided to Dufferin in July Also in July 2010 the OMAFRA commented on the quarry extension proposal, requesting further information of noise effects on agricultural uses. This letter was further reviewed by JART s peer reviewer, and Dufferin has provided a response to OMAFRA. On November 3, 2011 OMAFRA confirmed that there are no outstanding issues in relation to its mandate. In September 2010 a joint meeting was held between the noise working group and representatives from the Dufferin team to discuss the issues raised. Dufferin agreed to prepare revised versions of its noise and blasting reports. The November 2010 Status Report indicates that the JART and Dufferin were approaching consensus on noise and blasting issues, however final information that would confirm that any remaining issues are resolved was still awaited from Dufferin. The recent proposal by Dufferin to amend its application so that aggregate from Phase 7 would be hauled along Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck may have implications for noise impacts, and the JART is awaiting further information from Dufferin on this matter. Issues: Noise and Blasting The following issues raised by the working group have been addressed by Dufferin and their consultants: Dufferin agreed to provide an evaluation of potential noise impacts on agricultural uses, which is currently under review by the JART; Concern was expressed by the working group as to the potential cumulative effects of the Dufferin and the nearby CBM aggregate operations. The Dufferin team indicated that its MOE approval relates only to Dufferin operation and does not require such effects to be considered. In any case, it is unlikely that both operations would operate at a worst case level, which is the level used for the evaluation, at the same time; Traditionally, residences on the property owned by a quarry operator have not been subject to MOE noise requirements; however the working group expressed concern at JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 56

61 the potential noise exposure to residences owned by Dufferin. Dufferin and its consultants have provided assurances that residences on the Dufferin property will be vacated or removed before the extraction approaches those locations. They have proposed an approach to how residences would be vacated as the extension proceeds, and this has been accepted by the JART peer reviewer; The working group expressed concern at the complexity of the extraction operation and the corresponding noise mitigation measures, and requested that their feasibility and effectiveness be confirmed through monitoring. Dufferin agreed to include a program for snapshot monitoring when significant changes are made to the operation in the revised version of the report. This program has been received and endorsed by JART s peer reviewer; The site plan drawings allow for recycling activities in Phases 5-7. Dufferin has committed to include a provision in the noise report that it will not pursue this without further consultation with stakeholders; There was discussion as to whether all of the proposed noise mitigation measures are included on the ARA site plan drawings. Dufferin s consultants confirmed that they were, however any changes arising from current work will need to be added; At JART s request, Dufferin s consultant provided an evaluation of the occasional use of a hoe-ram to break up oversize rock at the working face of the quarry. This has been endorsed by the JART peer reviewer. In March 2011 there was an exchange of correspondence between the JART peer review consultant and the Town of Halton Hills as to the applicability of the Town s municipal noise Bylaw to the Acton Quarry operation. In the view of the Town the By-law does not apply to the Acton Quarry, and the reviewer was requested to amend his peer review accordingly. This was determined not to be necessary as the peer reviewer accepted the Town s position. At the time of writing this report communications to date indicate that the JART and Dufferin are approaching consensus on technical issues relating to noise and blasting, subject to the inclusion of certain conditions in the licence. 8.6 Nuisance Impacts: Air Quality Background Air quality issues raised by aggregate operations relate primarily to dust from extraction operations, aggregate processing and storage, and haulage of aggregate products. In this instance, the existing processing facility would continue to operate and haulage from this facility would continue, but the proposed extension may change impacts during extraction in new areas and increase emissions through the use of portable processing facilities as proposed for Stage 7 and possibly for Stages 5 and 6. These facilities and haulage of materials from these facilities may generate dust impacts. The recent proposal by Dufferin to amend its application so that aggregate from Phase 7 would be hauled along Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck will likely reduce air quality impacts. The JART is awaiting further information from Dufferin on this matter. The AROPS does not specify a requirement for air quality studies in relation to quarry applications but it does require that dust will be mitigated on site and components of the Best Management Plan are included on the Site Plans. The Air Quality Assessment prepared by RWDI and submitted with the application package indicates how air emissions would be JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 57

62 controlled from the quarry extension; including improvements to the existing processing plant operations. Conditions relating to dust are proposed in the submitted Site Plans. A Basic Comprehensive Environmental Compliance Approval (formerly Certificate of Approval (C of A)) under the Environmental Protection Act is in place for Dufferin s current extraction and processing facilities. The existing Comprehensive ECA for air and noise requires the site to update their emission and noise inventory and impact assessments for the expansion. The site is also required to report any changes on an annual basis (by July 15) to MOE. The submission and MOE approval of a Best Management Plan for air was a requirement under the existing ECA. Any changes to that plan must also be approved by MOE. As such, both MOE and MNR will enforce compliance for the Best Management Plan. The PPS requires that (aggregate) extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social and environmental impacts. The NEP includes minimization of adverse impact on nearby agricultural and residential land uses and parks, open space and the Bruce Trail as objectives to minimize the effects of new mineral extraction operations on the Escarpment environment. The Regional Official Plan requires that extraction and accessory operations be conducted in a manner which minimizes environmental pollution in accordance with Provincial requirements, Regional policies, and in consultation with Conservation Authorities, and that proposals be evaluated in relation to adjacent land uses. The Halton Hills Official Plan requires that Official Plan and zoning amendments for aggregate uses be supported by information that addresses the impact of the noise, odour, dust and vibration generated by the proposed use on adjacent land uses. The public has raised air quality as an issue in its responses to the proposed extension Process: Air Quality The RWDI air quality report was included with the application materials submitted in March 2009, and the first meeting of the air quality and noise working group was held in July The JART s air quality peer review consultant, AMEC Americas Ltd, provided a list of comments and questions for clarification that was forwarded to Dufferin in August RWDI responded to these questions and provided a number of attachments on behalf of Dufferin in November AMEC s peer review was submitted to Dufferin in January RWDI s response was provided in April 2010, followed by a modelling summary in July The JART provided its comments on the RWDI response in May 2010 and responded to the modelling summary by requesting additional modelling information. At a meeting in September 2010, RWDI committed to undertaking further modelling of dust impacts. This work was provided in October 2010 and the JART peer reviewer has completed his review. On October 27, 2011 the MOE provided clearance regarding the JART peer review of Dufferin s air quality report Issues: Air Quality The following is a summary of the issues and responses identified in the May 2010 RWDI response: The peer reviewer raised the issue of the portable aggregate crushing plants, and RWDI confirmed that this had been evaluated and that the crushers would be operated with no adverse effects. The response was found to be acceptable. (Note: Dufferin is currently proposing to use a conveyor system to move material from Stage 7 to the processing JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 58

63 plant. This would further reduce air quality impacts by removing the need for trucking of the quarry material.); The peer reviewer requested monitoring information to demonstrate that current operations are acceptable and not causing adverse effects. RWDI responded that the current approval does not require monitoring, but that they would undertake dispersion modelling that goes beyond C of A modelling including truck traffic and background dust. It will include consideration of fine particulates. As described above, a second version of this modelling has now been reviewed and the consultant s findings are summarized below; The results of the remodelling were found to be conservative and appropriate; The consultant agrees with the RWDI recommendation to undertake silt loading measurements of the site. The silt content of roadways is one of the most critical parameters in determining particulate emissions. Control of the silt loading is essential in reducing dust impacts. RWDI has agreed to undertake a silt loading assessment in the spring of 2012, and this should be included in any conditions of approval and Dufferin accepts this; The consultant also recommends that direct sampling be undertaken to verify the Best Management Plan at key receptors near the processing area and as the development moves into Phases 5, 6 and 7 RWDI has proposed an initial monitoring program for residences along Fourth Line to measure current levels. This will include upwind measurements as well to understand the impact of the Quarry itself. Subsequent years would have a 3 to 4 week monitoring program (3-day cycle) to show the impact of extraction and processing. Again, upwind monitoring would occur. Reports will be provided after each monitoring program. The JART would like to see these reports distributed to MOE, MNR and Halton Region, at a minimum; The silt loading measurements and ambient sampling requirements should be included as conditions in the ARA Licence, if approved; AMEC asked for any records of discussion with local residents regarding air quality. RWDI responded that the issue had not been raised at Community Liaison Meetings. They provided a Q and A from a Public Information Centre held in October 2009, with responses to questions regarding blasting gases and carbon dioxide emissions from blasting. The response was found to be acceptable; Dufferin was provided with the Best Management Plan (BMP) for the site (prepared in support of the current C of A) at AMEC s request. The BMP was found to be generally acceptable, with some suggested changes; AMEC suggested that the BMP include consideration for limiting air quality effects from blasts by staging them in accordance with wind direction and the location of nearby receptors. Provisions in the BMP regarding overburden stripping, monitoring stockpiles, roads and operations and complaint response procedures were found to be acceptable; Provisions in the BMP regarding equipment maintenance and monitoring systems and off-site road impacts were also found to be acceptable; Modifications to the MOE approved BMP as a result of the review and discussions will also need to be approved by the MOE. In accordance with their ECA, the BMP Dufferin uses must have MOE approval; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 59

64 At AMEC s request, RWDI provided further information regarding silica sampling results and these were found to be acceptable; An issue was raised regarding on-site residents, and assurance was given that all onsite residences would be vacant when operations move into those areas (also see commitments re: noise, above). Based on Dufferin s response to the JART s October 2010 review of the dust modeling information, the technical issues in relation to the potential air quality impacts of the proposed quarry extension are considered to be resolved, subject to conditions to be included on the licence and maintaining ECA compliance. JART is satisfied with recommendations that Dufferin s air quality consultant has made to its client on January 11, 2012 and the JART has received a final commitment from Dufferin that these recommendations will be implemented. 8.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Background The AROPS report standards for an application for a quarry below the water table require a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Background Research) to determine if there are existing Aboriginal and/or Euro-Canadian archaeological resources on the property, and/or the potential for them to exist, followed by a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (Property Survey), and, if recommended, follow-up Stage 3 (Site-Specific) Assessments and/or Stage 4 Mitigation (Excavation). There are no equivalent AROPS requirements regarding built cultural heritage. In the NEP, the criteria for extractive operations include protection of sensitive historic and archaeological sites or areas and there is a separate section regarding the protection of cultural heritage features. The Halton Regional Plan includes policies to protect heritage features, which are defined to include both archaeological and built features. The Halton Hills Official Plan requires applications for Official Plan and zoning amendments for aggregate extraction to be supported by information addressing the built or cultural heritage resources in the area, and it also includes separate policies to protect cultural heritage resources. The application package for the proposed Acton Quarry extension includes a Stages 1, 2 and 3 Archaeological Assessment for Phase 4 of the proposed extension, and a separate Stages 1, 2 and 3 Archaeological Assessment as well as a Stage 4 Archaeological Assessment for the remainder of the proposal. In addition, a Cultural Landscape Study and Built Heritage Assessment was provided for a study area that includes the existing quarry and the entire proposed extension. All of these reports were prepared by Archaeologix Inc. which is now part of Golder Associates. Public comments on the proposed extension include concerns regarding impacts on cultural heritage including archaeological remains, built heritage features and cultural heritage landscapes Process: Archaeology Archaeological and cultural heritage matters were considered by a single working group of JART which included representatives from MNR, NEC, Halton Region and Town of Halton Hills. The working group met once, in August The JART peer reviewer of the archaeological reports was Archaeological Services Inc (ASI). JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 60

65 An archaeological peer review was provided to Dufferin in January 2010, and Dufferin provided Golder s response in the following April In July 2010 a revised ASI peer review was sent to Dufferin Issues: Archaeology The following issues are summarized from the Dufferin response provided in April 2010: ASI noted several areas where the three archaeological reports did not follow the Draft Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists issued in 2006 by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (and superseded by the draft 2009 guidelines). Golder responded to this and a number of specific comments by stating that its reports follow the Ministry s technical guidelines that were issued in 1993 and are the only ones officially approved for use in the Province, and that this is confirmed by letters of acceptance from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture; Regarding Stage 4, archaeological mitigation, there were no officially approved standards or guidelines. Whereas ASI asked whether the 2006 draft guideline was followed implicitly, Golder responded that the report reflects the standard of care current at the time. ASI responded in July 2010 that while there was no legislated standard to use the 2006 Draft Standards and Guidelines (and now the more recent 2010 version, which will be officially implemented on January 1, 2011) they have been implemented by many consultants including ASI on a volunteer basis as best practice for conducting and reporting on fieldwork. In any case, ASI found that the Golder Associates reports were generally compliant with the draft 2006 Draft Standards and Guidelines. On this basis, and because the reports have been accepted by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture into the Provincial registry for Archaeological Reports, they recommended acceptance of the reports by the JART Process: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage As noted above, archaeological and cultural heritage matters were considered by a single working group of JART which met once, in August The JART peer reviewer of the Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage Report was Landplan. A peer review was provided to Dufferin in October 2009, and Dufferin responded with an updated and revised Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage Assessment in April Following an exchange of documents and discussions with Dufferin s consultant, Landplan completed its final comments and these were provided to Dufferin in July Issues: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage The issues raised in the October 2009 review are summarized as follows: The report does not provide an adequate assessment of the cultural heritage landscape or its significance; The criteria that define significant of cultural heritage features and how boundaries of cultural heritage landscapes are determined are not addressed; Cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources should be shown on a map; Proposals as to what would be done with built heritage resources should be specified, and no mitigation measures other than documentation are provided; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 61

66 Landplan recommended that the report be circulated to the Heritage Halton Hills committee for its review. Heritage Halton Hills reviewed the report on December 15, They provided a recommendation that they be provided the opportunity to investigate two properties further: a barn at Third Line and a house and barn at Third Line, and that the Third Line property be entered in the Town s Heritage Register. Since the initial review in 2009 there has been a turnover in the membership of Heritage Halton Hills, therefore the current Committee has not proceeded with an in depth review of or Third Line and neither of the properties has been listed on the Town s Heritage Register. Should Dufferin proceed with a demolition of either property, Heritage Halton Hills will review the Demolition Permit through the mandatory review process and provide additional comments at that time. Landplan s July 2010 final comments indicate that all of its matters had been resolved with the exception of the need to clearly identify and map the cultural heritage landscape. Dufferin provided the requested mapping in November 2010 and Landplan confirmed that the mapping was suitable, thus resolving the only outstanding concern. The letter from MHBC of November 25, 2011 regarding changes to the extraction boundary of Phase 7 notes that Dufferin now proposes to preserve the on-site barn for potential habitat for reptiles, barn swallow and other wildlife and increased buffers to other features. This barn is at Third Line and is in poor condition. The JART Peer Reviewer notes that the structure is a potential hazard because of its precarious condition, and that it might be advisable to at least partially demolish it to stabilize it. 8.8 Agriculture Background The AROPS requires that an application for a quarry involving extraction below the water table includes information on the agricultural classification of the proposed site; however no actual studies or reports on agriculture are required. The PPS has policies relating to aggregate extraction on prime agricultural land in prime agricultural areas. Although part of the Acton Quarry extension would take place on prime agricultural land, it is not in a prime agricultural area, as defined. The Greenbelt Plan is focused on protection of Specialty Crop Areas in relation to aggregates this designation does not occur on the Dufferin lands. The NEP includes the maintenance of agricultural areas, in accordance with the Agricultural Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the minimization of the adverse impact of extractive and accessory operations on existing agricultural or residential development as criteria for mineral extraction operations. The Halton Regional Plan includes a policy to evaluate each proposal for new Mineral Extraction Areas based on consideration of the surrounding farming and rural communities. The Halton Hills Official Plan requires an application for an Official Plan Amendment or zoning amendment for mineral aggregate extraction to include information to address the impact of the operation of the mineral aggregate operation on agricultural resources and activities. The public concerns expressed through the ARA process include effects on agriculture. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 62

67 8.8.2 Process: Agriculture Dufferin provided an Agricultural Impact Analysis prepared by MacNaughton Hermsen Britten Clarkson (MHBC) as part of its March 2009 application package. This was reviewed through the JART s Planning working group. It was provided to OMAFRA though the Ontario Government s one window review process, and it was also reviewed by the Halton Agricultural Advisory Committee (HAAC). The JART does not have a peer reviewer for the agricultural impact analysis. Comments were provided by the Chair of HAAC in November 2009, and OMAFRA provided comments in July These were reviewed by the JART noise and blasting consultant as they relate to noise effects on agriculture. Dufferin s consultant MHBC provided a response to these comments in October 2010, and in November 2011 OMAFRA responded, indicating that it has no outstanding concerns Issues: Agriculture The HAAC comments included the following issues: Any loss of productive farmland must be viewed with concern; Present and future quarry operations should be carried out in a manner that is least disruptive to the neighbouring farming operations; There have been complaints in the past about groundwater supplies and wells in the area, the impact of truck traffic on local roads, and difficulties experienced by farmers operating slow moving farm vehicles. The issues raised in the OMAFRA review, as responded to by MHBC, are summarized below: Despite the use of outdated mapping in the Agricultural Impact Analysis, it was confirmed that the extension site is not in a Prime Agricultural Area; The OMAFRA requested more detailed information and mapping of agricultural infrastructure, farm operations and land uses. Revised mapping as well as photographs and information on agricultural buildings was provided by MHBC; The OMAFRA said that technical reports prepared to address potential effects of blasting, traffic and water resources, for example, need to specifically consider impacts on farm animals/fish and agricultural operations to support MHBC s contention that agriculture and aggregate operations are compatible. MHBC responded that, given the characteristics of the surrounding area including buffering by natural areas and the lack of agricultural buildings or livestock operations, the impact of the quarry extension on surrounding agricultural land uses is negligible; There are concerns regarding compatibility of future after-uses of the quarry lands with agricultural uses; Regarding water resources, MHBC indicated that no privately owned wells would be impacted, and that the AMP includes a monitoring and mitigation program; Regarding possible blasting effects on the Cedar Hill Trout Pond, MHBC noted that this operation had been discontinued; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 63

68 Regarding traffic effects on slow-moving agricultural equipment, MHBC indicated that current traffic patterns will not change except for on Third Line and 22 nd Sideroad, which are unlikely to be used by agricultural equipment. On November 3, 2011 the OMAFRA confirmed in a letter to MHBC that there are no outstanding issues in relation to its mandate. 8.9 Visual Impact Background The purpose of the NEP is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment substantially as a continuous natural environment and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment. The NEP includes criteria relating to the visual aspects of development, and the specific criteria for mineral extraction operations in the NEP include the preservation of the natural and cultural landscapes as much as possible during extraction and rehabilitation. The Plan includes requirements for screening aggregate operations. The NEC has Visual Assessment Guidelines to aid in the implementation of the NEP. The Halton Hills Official Plan has a number of policies to protect open landscape character and scenic values Visual Impact: Process The reports accompanying the initial package of applications for the proposed extension did not include a visual component, however the JART identified the need for a visual impact assessment, terms of reference were established and a Visual Impact Assessment report was prepared by MHBC and submitted in July The MHBC report was provided to the Planning working group. Written reviews were prepared by the NEC and the Town of Halton Hills and provided to Dufferin in October The NEC requested that the visual impact assessment be revised in accordance with its comments and the terms of reference. In November 2010, a site visit was held, attended by representatives from Dufferin, the NEC and the Town of Halton Hills to discuss visual aspects of the proposal. The Town of Halton Hills provided comments in June 2011 and there was a further exchange of correspondence in August and September Visual Impact: Issues The issues raised in the NEC and Town of Halton Hills responses are summarized as follows: Staff of the NEC and staff of the Town of Halton Hills concur that due to the existing topography and wooded areas, this proposal has limited visibility except in proximity to the various phases of mining proposed. Therefore the investigation of visibility and viewshed mapping was not required to go beyond the more immediate area, nor was a digital viewshed component required; Additional photographs of existing conditions and labeling of features were requested; The visual impact assessment does not address all of the applicable objectives and policies in the NEP; The proposed physical changes to existing conditions are not identified in an accurate and objective manner, therefore the assessment does not demonstrate that the JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 64

69 proposed changes will not affect the Purpose and Objectives of the NEP and the Terms of Reference have not been met; The proposal includes the use of berms for visual screening. This is discouraged, except where required for noise attenuation. The provision of berms on the scale of those proposed by Dufferin (i.e. 2-3m) is unacceptable. Vegetative screening is preferred, both for quarry operations and as part of progressive rehabilitation. The Town of Halton Hills also expresses concern over the use of berming; The report does not include cross sections and photographic simulations that would identify the change to the landscape, as required by the TOR. Photographs should show in-field staking of road rights-of-way and the thirty metre setbacks, and trees and vegetation to be retained and removed should be shown; Line of sight cross-sections and photographic simulations are to be provided in accordance with the NEC Visual Assessment Guidelines; Insufficient information has been provided about vegetation inventory and preservation; Additional information is required regarding the visibility of portable processing plants in Phases 5 and 6 and Phase 7; Further information is required regarding road widenings. Changes to the extraction footprint will necessitate a further consideration of visual impact as some of the above-noted issues may have been addressed Planning Background The Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement and Planning Report submitted as part of Dufferin s application package in March 2009 includes a review of applicable planning policies and the ways these relate to the applications. While each of the approving agencies is responsible for interpreting and applying its own policy and regulatory framework, a planning working group was established by the JART comprising representatives from MMAH, MNR, NEC, Halton Region, Town of Halton Hills and the two Conservation Authorities as a forum to consider policy issues of mutual interest. The group has held a total of six meetings to date, three of them attended by representatives from the Dufferin team. In November 2009 the planning working group provided Dufferin with a number of questions to consider, and MHBC provided a response in December The questions related to: The rationale for the proposed licence boundary, which closely follows the perimeter of the extraction area and excludes other areas where mitigation would take place; The mitigation infrastructure required to implement the AMP that would be located outside the licensed areas; The proposed regulatory framework for monitoring and mitigation on the proposed buffer lands and the roles of agencies and municipalities that might have a mandate for feature protection; Analysis of the demonstration of no negative impacts to features and functions of significant woodlands; The concepts of compensation and net environmental gain for environmental impacts; JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 65

70 The habitat regulation for Jefferson Salamander under the Endangered Species Act; Identification and protection of wetlands in the areas covered by the NEP and the Greenbelt Plan (Dufferin provided further supporting material for its calculations); The requirement for a visual impact analysis; The application of minimum standards and the requirement to minimize social and environmental effects; Current use of part of the site for vehicle storage. In addition, in April 2010 the NEC provided a letter to Dufferin, describing its interpretation on the application of development criteria in the NEP to Dufferin s applications. There was an exchange of correspondence between the JART and Dufferin regarding the policy implications of the proposed ESA C Permit application, PSWs, woodlands, fish habitat and net gain and environmental compensation. In June 2011 members of the Dufferin team attended a Planning Working Group meeting. The discussion included differences of interpretation between the JART and Dufferin regarding the policy consideration of net gain. Dufferin provided JART with new information, including limitations of the rehabilitation provisions of the current licence approval in protecting base flow for Black Creek. Other issues discussed to date include: Whether the applications comprise an extension or a new quarry proposal (or a mixture of both); Whether the proposed ecological enhancement plan (including a DVD Advancing Opportunities ) provided by Dufferin addresses provincial and municipal policies; Implications of the changes to the quarry footprint for the planning applications submitted to date; Consideration of regulated habitat under the ESA in relation to significant habitat under the PPS 2005; Analysis of demonstration of no negative impact on significant wildlife habitat under the PPS CONCLUSION The comments made by the public at the first two Public Information Centres conducted as part of the JART review have been considered in preparing this Report. The public will have further opportunities to comment on the proposal at the third Public Information Centre to be held in March 2012 and through the Aggregate Resources Act, Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and Planning Act processes. This Report, with any further supplements, will go forward and may be considered by the JART member agencies for consideration in developing advice and reaching conclusions and decisions under each of their legislative and policy mandates. JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 66

71 FIGURES The following Figures are referred to in the text and have been copied from Dufferin s supporting materials for its applications. The source for each figure is specified below: JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 67

72 Figure 1: Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension Phasing Plan JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 68

73 Figure 2: Land Use JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 69

74 Figure 3: Preliminary Green Line Alignment and PBT Monitored Features JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 70

75 Figure 4: Rehabilitation Concept, Acton Quarry Extension JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 71

76 Figure 5: Niagara Escarpment Plan Proposed Amendment JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 72

77 Figure 6: Niagara Escarpment Plan Development Permit JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 73

78 Figure 7: Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan Proposed Amendment JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 74

79 Figure 8: Town of Halton Hills Official Plan Proposed Amendment JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 75

80 Figure 9: MHBC and Dufferin Proposals for Revised Extraction Limit for Phase 7 JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 76

81 Figure 10: Region of Halton Significant Woodlands JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 77

82 Figure 11: Ministry of Natural Resources Mapping, Provincially Significant Wetlands JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 78

83 Figure 12: Ministry of Natural Resources Mapping: Regulated Habitat under the Endangered Species Act JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 79

84 Figure 13: Revised Quarry footprint Dufferin JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry 80