Annotated Table of Contents: Acton Quarry JART Status Report

Transcription

JOINT AGENCY REVIEW TEAM (JART)
PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ACTON
QUARRY, TOWN OF HALTON HILLS, BY
DUFFERIN AGGREGATES
JART REPORT
MARCH 2013
JOINT AGENCY REVIEW TEAM (JART)
PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ACTON QUARRY, TOWN
OF HALTON HILLS, BY DUFFERIN AGGREGATES
JART REPORT
MARCH 2013
Prepared by:
JART Agencies in consultation with Peer Reviewers
Cover Photo:
Brenda Axon, Conservation Halton
JART Report for Proposed Extension to the Acton Quarry
March 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ...................................................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................5
1.0 Introduction - Updated .....................................................................................................13
2.0 THE EXISTING QUARRY - UPDATED ......................................................................................14
3.0 THE PROPOSED EXTENSION - UPDATED ...............................................................................14
3.1
Description of the Proposed Extension - Updated ....................................................15
3.2 The Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan - Updated.................................16
3.4 Rehabilitation - Updated.....................................................................................................17
3.5 Potential Effects of the Proposed Extension - Updated..................................................18
4.2 Structure of the Acton Quarry Extension JART - Updated ..........................................20
4.3 The Peer Review Consulting Team ................................................................................24
5.0 THE JART PROCESS - UPDATED..........................................................................................24
5.1 Pre-Application Activities................................................................................................24
5.2 Post – Submission Activities ..........................................................................................24
5.3 Next Steps - Updated .......................................................................................................24
5.4 Public Consultation - Updated ........................................................................................25
6.0 THE APPLICATIONS - UPDATED ............................................................................................25
7.0 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND POLICY - UPDATED ..............................................................26
7.1 Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) ..................................26
7.2 Planning Act .....................................................................................................................27
7.3 Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) ....................................................................................27
7.4 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) .......................................................................28
7.5 Greenbelt Plan 2005 .........................................................................................................29
7.6 Municipal Official Plans ...................................................................................................29
7.7 The Growth Plan 2006 ........................................................................................................30
7.8 Roles and Responsibilities of the Conservation Authorities..........................................30
8.0 JART REVIEW TO DATE .......................................................................................................32
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................32
8.2 Water Resources - Updated ...............................................................................................32
8.2.1 Process: Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review ...................33
8.2.2 Issues Raised in the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review 34
8.2.3 Process: Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Review .........................39
8.2.4 Water Resource Issues in the AMP .............................................................................40
8.3 Natural Environment - Updated .........................................................................................42
8.3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................42
8.3.2 Remaining Issues ..........................................................................................................42
8.3.2.1
Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) ...............................................................43
8.3.2.2 Noise Impacts......................................................................................................45
8.3.2.3 Incomplete Vascular Plant and Bird Data .........................................................46
8.3.2.4 Local Landscape Connectivity ..........................................................................46
8.3.2.5 Species at Risk.....................................................................................................46
8.3.2.5.1 Jefferson Salamander (Endangered) ..............................................................46
8.3.2.5.2 Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow (Threatened)............................................48
8.3.3 Inadequate documentation of existing disturbances and their relevance to the
natural environment reporting and AMP.....................................................................49
8.3.4 Significant Woodlands - updated ..................................................................................49
8.3.5 Wetlands - updated .......................................................................................................50
8.3.6 Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP) ..........................................................................51
1
8.3.7 Cumulative Impacts/Effects – updated .......................................................................53
8.3.8 Natural Environment Issues in the AMP - updated ....................................................53
8.4 Transportation - Updated ...................................................................................................56
8.4.1 Background .....................................................................................................................56
8.4.2 Process: Traffic Impact Assessment Review ..................................................................56
8.4.3 Issues: Traffic Impact Assessment Review .....................................................................56
8.5 Nuisance Impacts: Noise and Blasting - Updated ..........................................................57
8.6 Nuisance Impacts: Air Quality - Updated ........................................................................58
8.6.1 Background .....................................................................................................................58
8.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage - Updated .................................................................59
8.7.1 Background .....................................................................................................................59
8.7.2 Process: Archaeology ....................................................................................................59
8.7.3 Issues: Archaeology ........................................................................................................59
8.7.4 Process: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage .............................................................59
8.7.5 Issues: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage ...............................................................59
8.8 Agriculture – refer to February 2012 JART Report ..........................................................60
8.9 Visual Impact - Updated .....................................................................................................60
8.9.1 Visual Impact: Process ...................................................................................................60
8.9.2 Visual Impact: Issues ...................................................................................................60
8.10 Planning - Updated ..........................................................................................................61
8.10.1 Background .....................................................................................................................61
8.11 Rehabilitation/Site Plans .................................................................................................62
9.0 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................65
FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................66
APPENDIX 1: ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT ...........................................................................71
APPENDIX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................72
APPENDIX 3: DUFFERIN ACTON QUARRY EXPANSION JART PIC #3..................................76
APPENDIX 4: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ..........................................................................82
APPENDIX 5: DUFFERIN APPLICATIONS .................................................................................91
2
DISCLAIMER
The Acton Quarry Joint Agency Review Team (JART) has been established to coordinate the
technical review of applications submitted in March 2009 and revised in March 2012 (Planning
Act applications) and June 2012 (Niagara Escarpment Plan applications) 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. Not all individuals listed participated in the writing of this report; however, the report is
based on the involvement of all the agencies listed below in the JART process.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
Steven Strong, District Planner, Aurora District;
John Pisapio, Management Biologist, Aurora District (until December 2012)
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
Linda Laflamme, Landscape Architect
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
Richard Clark, Senior Planner – Environmental
Ron Reinholt, Regional Forester
Town of Halton Hills
Mark Kluge, Senior Planner – Development Review
Warren Harris, Manager of Parks & Open Space
3
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
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.
Original Signed By:
Nancy Mott-Allen MCIP, RPP
JART Chair
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Joint Agency Review Team (JART) was established to coordinate the technical review of
applications submitted by Dufferin Aggregates, a Division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. (“Dufferin”) to
extend the Acton Quarry in March 2009 and revised in 2012.
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.
This Report supplements the JART Report, released in February 2012, 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.
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 and a proposed Ecological
Enhancement Plan (EEP) which outlines how Dufferin would propose to enhance ecological
features and functions of the Regional Greenlands System on and off-site if the quarry
applications were to be approved.
The JART members comprise:




 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. 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:

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
quarry operations. The JART has not yet received the advice of the MNR with respect to
the ESA permit application;
5

The 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 (for Jefferson Salamander) has been discussed but remains unresolved and
requires further clarification as it relates to this site;

Further discussion between Dufferin and the JART is required with respect to Dufferin’s
proposed AMP and EEP.
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 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; Outstanding requirements include:
o
Agreements to address long term ownership operation and financial securities
for water management
o
Agreements and provisions to ensure implementation of the Adaptive
Management Plan for all phases of the project
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;
Outstanding requirements include:
o
Establishment of target methodology and locations for the Adaptive Management
Plan Performance Based Targets (PBT), and targets for ecological supplemental
monitoring.
o
Agreement on the specific monitoring locations (groundwater, surface water,
ecological) where PBT’s will be implemented in order to ensure that water
resources and natural features are appropriately protected from potential impacts
Potential impacts on natural heritage features and functions including proposed removal
of habitat of species at risk and significant woodlands and adequacy of proposed buffers
to significant features..
o
The MNR has not yet identified the significant habitat of endangered and
threatened species both on and adjacent to the site. The identification of
significant habitat is required to assess the planning applications.
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
6
incorporation of recommended conditions in the Site Plan, Best Management Plan for air
quality, agreements and other provincial and municipal 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
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 “Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report”, prepared by Conestoga-Rovers and
Associates (CRA), dated November 2008 and submitted with the original application package in
March 2009 is intended to address these requirements. There also have been several
subsequent technical submissions prepared by CRA including the Adaptive Management Plan
(AMP).
Both the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report and the AMP have been peer
reviewed by the JART. The AMP was subsequently updated in draft form in April 2012 and the
updated draft AMP report has formed the basis for several meetings between the JART and
Dufferin’s consulting team.
The water resources peer review team has identified a number of outstanding issues in relation
to the applications:

The need to address long term mitigation and operational aspects of the Water
Management System

The need to establish of on-going performance measures and targets (called
Performance Based Targets in the AMP)

The need to ensure monitoring is adequate, representative of the features to be
protected, implementable over the long-term and appropriately utilized in decisionmaking concerning mitigation and quarry operation

The need to ensure long term implementation of the Adaptive Management Plan through
the license, Development Permit conditions and agreements because legislation does
not refer to AMP’s

The need to address long term operation, ownership and financial requirements to
maintain and operate the water management systems at no cost to the public
The following reflects the current status of water resource issues in relation to the AMP:

There is agreement that Dufferin’s proposed mitigation measures as outlined in the
AMP are expected to protect private wells and that private well supply provisions with
the updated Adaptive Management Plan contains appropriate measures to address
private wells and to respond to potential complaints
7

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;

The 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 if necessary,
mitigated.

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;

Definition of the Performance-Based Targets (PBTs) methodology has not yet been
completed and should be defined;

The JART and the peer review consultant agree that it is unlikely that issues will arise
with respect to the quality of water that is recharged through the use of a proposed
groundwater mitigation system; ecological issues with respect to the quality of water
discharged directly to wetlands were described in Section 8.3.

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. While these agreements will not be
subject to JART review and are not part of the licence they are a key component in the
agencies’ consideration of the quarry.
Other issues raised in the JART Report are discussed in the body of this Report.
Natural Environment
Following numerous meetings and exchanges of information between the JART natural
environment working group and Dufferin and their Consultants, several issues have been
resolved to the satisfaction of the JART, and a number of issues remain, requiring additional
information and further discussion with Dufferin. For some identified issues Dufferin has
acknowledged and indicated that additional information is forthcoming.
The key natural environment issues remaining include: inadequate documentation of existing
disturbances and their relevance to the natural environment reporting and the AMP, Third Line
haul route (conveyor), local Landscape Connectivity, assessment of cumulative impacts/effects,
the adequacy of proposed buffers to natural features (significant woodlands and wetlands),
revisions to the Draft EEP to improve clarity and its overall performance; incomplete data on
biological resources, the identification of the significant habitat of endangered and threatened
species by the MNR, and potential impacts to these species, additional Species at Risk listed as
Threatened since the applications have been made.
8
Key Natural Environment Issues related to the AMP
Uncertainties remain with the ability of the proposed AMP to monitor and maintain key natural
heritage features and their functions which may be potentially affected by the quarry extension,
and their perpetual management after extraction is completed. There remains a need to
continue discussions with Dufferin on those aspects of the AMP that are related to PBT setting,
the Supplemental Ecological Monitoring Program Framework, the utilization of supplemental
monitoring data in decision-making concerning mitigation, implementation of additional
contingency measures, and some aspects of the proposed rehabilitation. Dufferin has agreed to
further collaboration with agencies concerning PBT matters and discussions regarding AMP
finalization.
The following natural environment issues have been raised in relation to the AMP:

Concern remains regarding degraded hydrologic conditions due to the existing quarry,
and the need for additional discussion on the PBTs;

Additional discussions on the Supplemental Monitoring Program in the AMP including
requirement to finalize targets and thresholds;

Further agreement on how ecological monitoring will be integrated with water-focused
monitoring;

Further discussion required of monitoring of water quality parameters as it relates to
biota, where surface water is proposed to be discharged directly into wetland features;

Level of uncertainty identified with 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;

Requirement for a clearer more detailed description of the AMP water management
system infrastructure as it relates to potential impacts to natural features and their
associated buffers;

Long-term monitoring of the artificial water management system will be required to
determine its success;

Need for additional information on how the proponent will respond to AMP failures to
meet targets;
The information generated by the natural environment review to date may be utilized by the
JART agencies in formulating their recommendations and decisions.

How the PBT monitoring will identify and address ecological impacts without
corresponding ecological data.
The following commitments have been made by Dufferin to help resolve the JART’s remaining
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 property access; qualitative ecological monitoring outside the “green line” but
no commitment to establish PBT’s for these features;
9

Addendum to the NE Level I and II Report to adequately address potential negative
impacts to the proposed removal of significant woodlands.

Additional information on the proposed conveyor along the Third Line road allowance as
related to wildlife corridors.
Transportation
The JART agencies have reviewed the technical reports and have no technical issues with the
continued use of the existing haul routes, as currently proposed. Any specific conditions
regarding the haul route will addressed by the Town and the Region.
While the technical merits of the haul route have been satisfied, the JART does recognize that
members of the public continue to voice concerns regarding traffic volume and traffic safety and
the impacts of truck traffic on the quality of rural life in relation to the Dufferin Quarry and
generally as it relates to the rural area.
The JART notes that discussions between Dufferin, Halton Region and the Town of Halton Hills
are ongoing regarding potential changes to the haul route.
A review of the issues addressed, including issues raised in the JART Report may be found in
Section 8.4 of this Report.
Noise
The JART concludes that there are no remaining technical noise-related issues, with the
exception of potential noise effects on wildlife, provided that Dufferin operates the proposed
extension pursuant to the “Blasting Beyond Compliance” procedure and the conditions of the
ARA licence.
The complaint protocol for noise and blasting is that concerns by area residents can be directed
to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the quarry operator for investigation and resolution.
See Section 8.5.
Air Quality
Dufferin’s consultant RWDI stated in a memo of February 2012 that the proposed conveyor
between Phases 5/6 West and Phase 7 is a preferable option with respect to air quality and the
recommended conditions will be included in updated ARA Site Plans. The JART is satisfied that
the conveyor is acceptable from an air quality standpoint provided that the conveyor details will
be added to the ARA Site Plans as part of the approval of the ARA licence.
RWDI concluded that the reduced quarry footprint and the use of a conveyor instead truck
shipments between Phase 7 and Phases 5/6 West would be an improvement on predicted air
quality impacts, provided that spray bars and enclosures be used on the primary crusher and
conveyor transfer points. Dufferin has committed to providing more details regarding the
proposed crusher and the JART will have an opportunity to determine if the RWDI
recommendations are in place.
Dufferin has stated that they will operate in accordance with a Best Management Plan
(approved by the MOE in 2010) to support the Certificate of Approval for the site. Provided that
the site plans are approved with the reference to the BMP, the JART is satisfied in this respect.
See Section 8.6
10
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
There are no outstanding archaeology issues. Conditions pertaining to archaeology will be
addressed by the respective agencies in their staff reports.
There is one outstanding concern regarding the barn at 11762 Third Line. Dufferin advised that
it is in the process of applying for the required permits (NEC, Town of Halton Hills) to demolish
the structure. Dufferin is agreeable to the hiring of a company that specializes in ensuring that
salvaged materials be protected and donated to the appropriate organization(s) as part of the
demolition of the barn located at 11762 Third Line (Phase 7).
The Halton Hills Heritage Committee met on January 16, 2013 and discussed the matter. The
Committee still has an interest in both properties and will be dealing with Dufferin directly to
discuss those matters.
The JART accepts the sign-off of its Peer Reviewers regarding Archaeological and Cultural
Heritage matters. The Town will address any further issues in its review of the applications.
See Section 8.7
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.
See Section 8.8
Visual Impact
Most of the issues identified within the February 2012 JART Report have been resolved or are
in the process of being addressed by the applicant. The deletion from the original application of
Phase 6 East and the majority of Phase 5 East, within the NEP, has resulted in a significant
change to the visual impact of the overall proposal. These phases if implemented had presented
a number of visual impact concerns both individually and with regard to cumulative effect within
the Escarpment environment.
The outstanding matters Dufferin has agreed to address are:
o The details associated with timing of planting and the specifics of the vegetation
to be planted or preserved.
o The details associated with the layout of berming to serve both as screening and
storage of topsoil (not acoustic).
The level of rehabilitation associated with Phase 4 and Phase 7 remains of concern from a
visual perspective. The ARA drawings show a minimal approach to the rehabilitation to address
the results from the mining operation and could be improved.
These matters may be addressed in further consultation with the applicant and through the staff
reports of the JART agencies.
See Section 8.9
11
Planning
Issues still under discussion include:

Whether the proposed EEP provided by Dufferin addresses provincial and municipal
policies;

Implications of the changes to the planning applications submitted in 2012 ;

Consideration of regulated habitat of threatened and endangered species under the ESA
and significant habitat of threatened and endangered species under the PPS 2005;

Analysis of demonstration of no negative impact on significant natural heritage features
under the part 2.1.4 of the PPS (2005);

Need and timing for an additional JART Public Information Centre;

Sequence of decisions by approval authorities.
See Section 8.10
Rehabilitation/Site plans
In April 2012 Dufferin submitted updated ARA Site Plans that were intended to address the
comments that have been provided by the JART review process and the individual Agencies to
date.
On September 7, 2012, the JART, with the exception of MNR representatives, met to review
Dufferin’s updated April 2012 ARA Site Plans.
The JART’s comments (red-lined drawings) were forwarded to Dufferin and the MNR on
October 19, 2012 in advance of a meeting on November 7, 2012 between the JART, Dufferin
and staff from MNR to review the updated ARA Site Plans.
Dufferin has indicated that they will further revise the site plans once the MNR has provided its
position with respect to the quarry footprint and the permit under the ESA. The JART will review
any revised site plans to determine if previous issues raised have been addressed by those
changes.
See Section 8.11
Conclusion
The comments made by the public at the first three 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, the Niagara
Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) and Planning Act processes. This Report
may be used by the JART member agencies in developing advice and reaching conclusions
and decisions under each of their legislative and policy mandates.
12
1.0 INTRODUCTION - UPDATED
Dufferin Aggregates, a division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. (“Dufferin”), has submitted revised
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 formed a Joint
Agency Review Team (JART) to undertake a technical review of the Dufferin applications and
supporting technical materials.
This JART report is intended to be an addendum to the February 2012 JART report.
Where content has been changed from that report, the relevant section is identified as
“Updated”. Otherwise, the original content remains valid and the reader is to refer to the
February 2012 report.
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 since
February 2012, 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
the 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 their respective policy frameworks or other expectations within their mandates.
This Report is an Addendum to the February 2012 JART Status Report. While the reviews for
most of the technical disciplines under consideration are complete or almost complete, some
technical matters for final review remain. The reasons for this are summarized as follows:

Mapping for Regulated Habitat under the ESA. Dufferin has applied for a Permit under
Section 17 (2) (c) of the ESA to allow for removal of Regulated Habitat of Jefferson
Salamander. The issuance of a c Permit and related required overall benefit activities
may result in further changes to the proposal however the recommendation and
technical rationale of the MNR staff to the Minister on the Permit and the quarry footprint
has yet to be released to the JART agencies;

The MNR has not provided mapping of significant habitat of endangered and threatened
species (as defined in the PPS (2005) (e.g. for Jefferson Salamander; Eastern
Meadowlark and Barn Swallow).
13

The JART agencies will be having further meetings with Dufferin and its technical team
regarding the Adaptive Management Plan and Performance-based targets identified in
that document.
Further details as they relate to each discipline are discussed in the body of this Report.
This JART Report is based on the revised quarry expansion application, as modified on March
30, 2012 (Region of Halton and Town of Halton Hills Official Plan amendments) and May 31,
2012 (Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment and Development Permit) by Dufferin.
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 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 - UPDATED
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 1872. Today, Dufferin Aggregates extracts and processes dolostone at the Acton
Quarry to provide materials for the construction industry. The existing quarry operation is
licensed under the ARA and permitted under various land use planning designations and other
approvals. It does form part of the requested approvals discussed in this Report as the
processing operation in the existing quarry will be used for the proposed quarry. The water
management system for the proposed quarry is linked operationally to water management in the
existing quarry and amendments to the existing site plan will be necessary to address the
proposed rehabilitation plan for the quarry expansion.
The current licensed area covers an area of approximately 222.3 hectares (549 acres).
Extraction to date has been undertaken in three phases: Phase 1 is located north of 22nd
Sideroad and east and south of Third Line and Phase 2 is located to the south of 22nd 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 22nd Sideroad, and west of Phase 2 and
Third Line. Dufferin has stated that based on current production, the existing quarry will be fully
mined by 2015/16. The existing quarry does not require minimum production rates and it is likely
that current production levels will be reduced in order to extend the life of the quarry in an effort
to provide a transition from the existing quarry to the proposed extension.
3.0 THE PROPOSED EXTENSION - UPDATED
The proponent is Dufferin Aggregates, which was a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc. when
the applications were submitted and is a division of Holcim Canada Inc.
The following is intended to be a summary description of the proposal – it is described in more
detail in the proponent’s “Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement &Planning Addendum
Report” (MHBC, June 2012), and in the supporting technical documentation.
14
3.1 Description of the Proposed Extension - Updated
Dufferin is proposing to expand the Acton Quarry through four additional phases, shown on
Figure 1. Phase 4 is proposed to be located north of Third Line and the existing quarry. The
current land use of Phase 4 is agricultural.
Phase 5 East would be a small extension of Phase 2. The balance of the lands that were
formerly proposed for extraction in Phase 5 and 6 East, are no longer part of the proposal.
Phases 5 and 6 West would comprise an expansion of the Phase 3 excavation to the south of
the existing quarry. There has been a small reduction in the extraction footprint from the
previous proposal.
Phase 7 would be a freestanding excavation to the south of Phase 6 West and west of Third
Line, also requiring a sinking cut. The revised footprint provided by Dufferin as part of its
revised applications and ARA site plans dated April 17, 2012 is shown on Figure 1 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.
The areas subject to applications under the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and the Planning
Act comprise the proposed licensed areas plus areas outside the proposed licensed 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).
For the text of the proposed amendments and zoning by-law, see Appendix 5.
Changes to Size of Extraction Area in Hectares by Phase
Extraction Area
March 2009
November 2011
April 2012
27.7
27.7
26.5
Phase 5/6 East
24
24
0.6
Phase 5/6 West
29
29
22.2
18.3
17.2
17.2
99
97.9
66.5
Phase 4
Phase 7
Total Extraction
Area
Licensed Area
124.4
90.6
The proposed extension in the new application would enable extraction of about 50 million
tonnes of dolostone, and it is anticipated by Dufferin that it will extend the life of the quarry by
approximately 25 years [MHBC, 2012].
15
The 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.
3.2 The Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Updated
Dufferin proposes to mitigate the effects of the proposed quarry extension on ground and
surface water, including domestic 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
draft “Updated Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan” (AMP) (April 2012). 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 AMP proposes to use what Dufferin terms “Performance Based Targets” (PBTs) as triggers
to determine when mitigation measures may need to be implemented. PBTs are prescribed
surface water and groundwater levels that are to be achieved at pre-established locations for
the protection of water resources and related ecological features. There are three categories of
PBT’s proposed for Acton: 1) Surface water PBT’s; 2) Groundwater PBT’s; and 3) ‘green line’
(groundwater) PBT’s. PBTs are established to maintain average seasonal conditions based on
the proceeding three years of water level and climate data and in consideration of baseline data
and background conditions.
Supplementary monitoring of ecological community composition and structure is also proposed.
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 encompass features considered to be sensitive to the
groundwater drawdown 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 in the area
of Jefferson Salamander pools inside the Green Line around Phases 5, 6 and 7 as well 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 Water Supply Interference Complaint Response Procedure to respond to any complaints of
well interference.
3.3 Net Gain - Updated
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 a result of the JART review to date, and revisions to the
extraction area, Dufferin submitted an updated Draft Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP),
prepared by Goodban Ecological Consulting (May 2012), which describes these off-site
16
enhancements and rehabilitation measures. See Table below. JART understands that the EEP
is being revised. The extent of habitat restoration is subject to change.
The JART has undertaken a technical review of the updated EEP (see Section 8.3.3). The
MNR, NEC, Halton Region, the Town of Halton Hills and the Conservation Authorities will
evaluate the updated EEP in relation to their own legislative and policy frameworks. JART
understands that the EEP is being revised. The extent of habitat restoration proposed is subject
to change.
On and Off-Site Rehabilitation and Enhancements (as reported by Dufferin)
Woodlands
Active Forest Management
New Wetlands
Shoreline Wetlands
Wetlands Enhancements
Limestone Cliffs
Talus Slopes
Lakes
Grasslands
March 2009
49.4 ha
56.7 ha
0.3 ha
6.5 ha
4.0 ha
2.7 km
680 m
90 ha
1.8 ha
April 2012
47.9 ha
39.0 ha
0.4 ha
4.0 ha
0.5 ha
2.0 km
Not specified
55 ha
10 ha
3.4 Rehabilitation - Updated
The applications made by Dufferin 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 Figure 2. The proponent’s consultants have estimated an overall lake filling time of
approximately 55 years after completion of extraction in Phase 4. The completion of sequential
lake filling within each phase of the overall time frame will vary by extraction/lake area. The
overall time line for lake filling may also be affected by variations in meteorological conditions
and the relative amount of water budget allocated to lake filling. 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
17
ground surface. However in one location, the proposed lake level is up to 3 metres above
ground surface, so the grade may be raised above the level of the original ground surface to
create 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.
The 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 - Updated
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;

Effects on the habitat of species at risk (including Jefferson Salamander);

Noise and vibration impacts on breeding birds 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 states that its proposal includes environmental
18
enhancement in addition to mitigation of these effects, and that a large amount of its land will
ultimately be transferred into public ownership and provide opportunities to the public and the
municipalities for recreation, conservation and water management.
4.0 THE ACTON QUARRY JART
4.1 Role and Function of JART
4.1.1
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 JART 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. A record of the most recent Public Information Centre held to date
is included as Appendix 3 and comments provided to the JART are in Appendix 4 in this Report.
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 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
19
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 - Updated
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 consultants were 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:
The 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 the 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 the JART on general natural heritage matters;
20

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 recommendations to the Minister on any Permits that Dufferin has applied for
under the ESA;

Designates Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs);

Monitors and enforces the requirements of any future licence(s).
The MNR representatives at the JART table included Steven Strong, District Planner, Aurora
District; John Pisapio, Management Biologist, Aurora District and Oleg Ivanov, Regional
Hydrogeologist, Southern Region.

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 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.

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);

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; Ron Reinholt, Regional Forester, Richard Clark, Senior
Planner – Environmental, Paul Burgher, Supervisor, Healthy Environments, Environmental
Health, Peter Steer, Senior Policy Analyst, Environmental Health, and Alicia Jakaitis,
Transportation Coordinator.
21

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;

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).
22

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;

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.
23
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 - UPDATED
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
Refer to February 2012 JART Report
5.2 Post – Submission Activities
The JART process up until early 2012 is documented in the February 2012 JART Report. Since
that time, Dufferin revised its planning applications and submitted additional technical
information. The JART has met on many occasions on its own and with Dufferin and their
consultants to discuss water resources, natural heritage, visual impact and site plan issues
primarily. Additional site visits were conducted by some of the JART members. The statutory
public meetings were held in September 2012.
5.3 Next Steps - Updated
The completion and distribution of a JART Report typically marks the end of the formal JART
process, as originally envisaged. The agencies may 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.
24
Given the remaining unresolved issues and the potential for changes in impacts arising from
changes to the quarry footprint as outlined above, the agencies will continue to review new
technical material.
5.4 Public Consultation - Updated
While the JART process is a technical review and not a legislated approval or consultative
process, the public has had opportunities to provide input directly to the JART at Public
Information Centres held on March 4, 2008 on November 29, 2010 and March 20, 2012.
At the March 20, 2012 Public Information Centre the following concerns were raised. These
included:
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 the
most recent JART Public Information Centre can be found in Appendix 3 to this report. In
addition, the 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 the JART:

Endangered Species Act process and posting on the Environmental Registry

What kind of rehabilitation is proposed and will there be value to what is left?

What are the implications for the Jefferson Salamander?

Was rail transportation for aggregate considered?

Truck traffic is of concern – cracked windows, speed, trucks not stopping at stop signs

What is karst?

Will there be a water supply if people’s wells are impacted?

What area is included within the Green Line?

Biosphere Reserve should be protected and not mined
In addition to the March 2012 JART PIC, further opportunities for public involvement have also
occurred and continue to occur through the planning applications undertaken by Dufferin and
the review by the NEC, Halton Region and Town of Halton Hills of these applications.
The Town of Halton Hills and NEC held a joint Public Meeting on September 24, 2012, while
Halton Region held their Public Meeting on September 26, 2012. Final Recommendation
Reports to their respective Councils and NEC are pending.
JART will advise the public of the release of this final report and it will be posted along with the
February 2012 report on the various JART Agency websites.
6.0 THE APPLICATIONS - UPDATED
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 were
updated as described in the June 2012 “Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement &
Planning Addendum Report”, (MHBC). (See, Appendix 5). The change to the extraction
area as a result of the revised applications is summarized in the table below.
25
Changes to Size of Extraction Area in Hectares by Phase
Extraction Area
March 2009
November 2011
April 2012
27.7
27.7
26.5
Phase 5/6 East
24
24
0.6
Phase 5/6 West
29
29
22.2
18.3
17.2
17.2
99
97.9
66.5
Phase 4
Phase 7
Total
Licensed Area
124.4
90.6
7.0 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND POLICY - UPDATED
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.
Legislation and policies that may be relevant to the Acton Quarry proposal are listed below in
addition to those included in the February 2012 JART report. 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
2005. 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.
26
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:
(a)
the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;
(b)
the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;
(c)
the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;
(d)
the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological
or scientific interest;
(h)
the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(l)
the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its
municipalities;
(m)
the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;
(n)
the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;
(o)
the protection of public health and safety;
(p)
the appropriate location of growth and development;
(q)
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.
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.
27
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.
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 three provincial
plans that apply to different parts of the affected area – the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 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
28
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 2005. 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.
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 2006. 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.
The Region reserves the right to refer to ROPA 38 in its Planning report as it is Council policy.
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.
29
The Plan also contains detailed policies pertaining to environmental and open space lands,
including the Greenland system, environmental management and mineral resource extraction.
7.7 The Growth Plan 2006
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, (GGH) 2006 is a provincial plan that was
prepared and approved under the authority of the Places to Grow Act, 2005. This Plan is to
guide decisions on a wide range of issues-transportation, infrastructure planning, land use
planning, urban form, housing, natural heritage and resource protection-in the interest of
promoting economic prosperity in the GGH (1.1). The Growth Plan is also intended to
complement the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS-2005), which provides general guidance on
land use planning matters for which the Province has an interest. The PPS, 2005 applies in the
GGH and the provisions of this Plan are to be read in conjunction with all applicable provisions
of the PPS, 2005 and other applicable documents. The Growth Plan has been designed to build
on other key government initiatives such as the Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Growth Plan states that “A balanced approach to
the wise use and management of all resources, including natural heritage, agriculture, and
mineral aggregates, will be implemented” (4.1). Where there is conflict between the Greenbelt
or Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Growth Plan “regarding natural environment or human
health, then the direction that provides more protection to the natural environment or human
health prevails” (1.4).
7.8 Roles and Responsibilities of the Conservation
Authorities
The Conservation Authorities are not an approval authority with respect to the Dufferin
applications but rather their role is as commenting agencies. Their comments address issues
and concerns with respect to their Memorandum of Understanding with the municipalities in
providing plan review services, the Memorandum of Understanding with Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Natural Resources with respect to Natural Hazard Policies
of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005), their agreements with Fisheries and Oceans Canada
with respect to Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries Act and their role as an environmental
agency in dealing with matters of interest within their watershed.
Under a “Memorandum of Understanding on Procedures to Address Conservation Authority
Delegated Responsibility” between Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Conservation Ontario, Conservation Authorities are responsible for the review of
planning applications with respect to the Natural Hazards Policies of the Provincial Policy
Statement (2005). These policies address the issues of public health and safety related to
development in or adjacent to hazardous lands impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards.
Conservation Halton and Credit Valley Conservation have also entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Region of Halton and area municipalities, entitled “An Integrated Halton
Area Planning System”. This agreement sets out the Conservation Authority’s role in providing
the provincial plan review function with respect to the Natural Heritage policies of the Provincial
Policy Statement and the implications of these policies with respect to planning applications.
30
This agreement also sets out Conservation Authority’s role in providing a peer review function
with respect the Region’s environmental and resource management responsibilities.
Further detail with respect to the Conservation Authorities Act and the Federal Fisheries Act is
found below:
7.8.1
Conservation Authorities Act
The Acton Quarry extension is located within two different watersheds, Sixteen Mile Creek and
Black Creek. As a result, the lands of the extension are under the jurisdiction of two
Conservation Authorities; Conservation Halton for the lands within the Sixteen Mile Creek
watershed and Credit Valley Conservation for the lands within the Black Creek watershed.
The two Conservation Authorities were established pursuant to the Conservation Authorities
Act. Section 28 of the Act allows Conservation Authorities to make regulations in the area
under its jurisdiction. These regulations require permission of the Authority to alter a
watercourse, to interfere with a wetland or to develop if, in the opinion of the authority, the
control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be
affected by the development. Permission is not required for an activity that has been approved
under the Aggregate Resources Act.
7.8.2
Federal Fisheries Act
The two Conservation Authorities, through an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO), are responsible for reviewing development proposals to ensure that they will not result in
a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat as per Subsection 35(1) of the
Fisheries Act. Conservation Halton and Credit Valley Conservation have Level 2 agreements
with DFO which includes the review of applications to determine whether potential impacts to
fish habitat can be mitigated. DFO approval is necessary for applications which would require
authorization.
To date, the review of the submitted information by the Conservation Authorities has not
identified an impact to fish habitat which would require authorization from DFO.
7.9 Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) came into force in 2008. The purposes of the ESA are to
identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information
obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge; to protect species
that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk; and,
To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at
risk.
When a species is newly listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario
(SARO) list, its habitat is automatically protected under the ESA. The area of habitat protected
is based on a general habitat definition found in the Act. The definition of general habitat
applies to areas that a species currently depends on. These areas may include dens and nests,
wetlands, forests and other areas essential for breeding, rearing, feeding, hibernation and
migration. A species-specific habitat regulation is the legal description of a species habitat.
Once a species-specific habitat regulation is created it replaces the general habitat described
above.
31
The ESA 2007 contains tools that provide opportunities for the government to enter into
agreements, make regulations and issue permits for a range of activities otherwise prohibited
under the Act. These tools enable activities that would not otherwise be permitted, as long as
the intent is stewardship, protection, or rehabilitation of the species. These tools may also allow
for social and economic issues to be addressed. Permits under the ESA may be granted when:




The activity is necessary for the protection of human health or safety,
The purpose of the activity is to help protect or recover the species at risk,
The activity will result in significant social or economic benefit to Ontario (Even in these
cases, the activity must not jeopardize the survival or recovery of a species at risk.), or:
An activity, which through specific conditions outlined in the permit, will result in overall
benefit to the species within a reasonable time (“C” Permit) 1
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.
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 - Updated
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. There also have been several subsequent technical submissions prepared by
CRA, primarily in response to questions and/or concerns raised by the JART and JART water
resources peer reviewers (see Bibliography). 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
1
Ministry of Natural Resources
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/STEL01_131232.html
32
Report and the AMP have been peer reviewed by the JART. The AMP was subsequently
updated in draft form in April 2012 and the updated draft AMP report has formed the basis for
several meetings between the JART and Dufferin’s consulting team. The JART technical peer
reviewers did not participate in the AMP discussions in 2012 due to limitations of the budget for
their services but did attend a meeting to discuss the additional technical information provided
by CRA in response to their earlier comments on September 19, 2012.
8.2.1
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 the MNR, MOE,
NEC, Halton Region including the Halton Region Health Department, Town of Halton Hills, CVC
and Conservation Halton. The 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 (peer reviewers)
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).
As outlined in the February 2012 JART report, the peer reviewers and the JART had identified a
number of issues. Since that time Dufferin’s consultants provided a response to the February
2012 JART report in May 2012 as well as additional hydrogeologic information and analyses
which were presented in the following reports/correspondence. These documents informed the
latest reviews and comments from the JART water resources peer reviewers. These reports
generally were not considered in the February 2012 JART report but now have been considered
in the preparation of this report:






Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2012: Historic Conditions Groundwater Model
Analyses, Dufferin Acton Quarry Extension, Region of Halton, January 17, 2012.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2012: Additional Geology and Water Resources Field
Investigations, Acton Quarry Extension, Town of Halton Hills, Ontario, February 2012.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2012: Groundwater Model Update – Refinement and
Calibration, Acton Quarry Extension, Town of Halton Hills, August 22, 2012.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Groundwater Model and Quarry Water Budget Update,
Acton Quarry Extension, Town of Halton Hills, August 23, 2012.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Responses to Region of Halton comments (May 15,
2012 and June 21, 2012), Comments Concerning Draft AMP Review for Acton Quarry
(April 2012), Memorandum of December 14, 2012
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Response to JART Regarding Peer Review Sign-off
Letter of December 6, 2012 Acton Quarry Extension, Town of Halton Hills, Ontario,
Memorandum of January 18, 2013
In response to the 2012 reports from CRA and previously submitted information, the JART
water resources peer reviewers provided JART with the following review documents, which
were also provided to Dufferin:

S.S. Papadopulos and Associates. Comments on Dufferin Response to JART Report:
August 7, 2012

S.S. Papadopulos and Associates. Acton Quarry Extension Peer Review Sign Off,
December 6, 2012.
33
The peer reviewers recommended that for completeness that a number of the CRA memoranda
should be consolidated into a single document.
Dufferin has responded and agrees that updated and integrated documentation for the
proposed Extension would be of assistance for future reference. Dufferin indicates that it will
consider the appropriate timing for such document preparation and production prior to a Hearing
and will consult with the agencies on this matter.
The JART is of the opinion that the production of consolidated reports would be beneficial to the
agencies and municipalities in the preparation of their recommendation reports and so believes
that the consolidation of Dufferin technical information should occur before planning decisions
are made, not in preparation for any future hearing that may ensue.
8.2.2
Issues Raised in the Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report Review
The following is a summary of issues related to groundwater that were either unresolved as of
the completion of the February 2012 JART Report, or were subsequently raised by the water
resources peer reviewers or the JART.
Confirmation that the groundwater flow model can simulate conditions other than present
conditions
The peer reviewers recommended that additional analyses be developed to confirm that the
groundwater flow model is capable of reliable simulations of conditions other than the present,
such as representing conditions during earlier development of the existing quarry footprint. A
report of the additional simulations was submitted by CRA on January 17, 2012. The analysis
and results were 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 following is an excerpt from the peer reviewers’ December
6, 2012 letter to JART:
The peer review suggested that a weakness of the groundwater modeling was that the
model was calibrated only for current conditions [July 2007] (although we note that the
model was also used to simulate the 72-hour pumping test at TW3-07). This is important
because the model was used to conduct predictive analyses, with no confirmation that
the model provided reliable impressions of large-scale groundwater flow for different
conditions. Additional groundwater modeling is reported in CRA (2012b, 2012i, 2012j).
Reasonable results are obtained for the simulation of pre-quarry conditions [pre-1962]
and a relatively close match is obtained to groundwater levels observed in 1987. In our
opinion, the results of these additional analyses are sufficient to confirm that the
groundwater model developed for the site can be applied for predictions.
Additional sensitivity analysis of the water budget calculations and demonstration of availability
of Water for Mitigation
Throughout the peer review, attention has been directed towards assessing the reliability of the
water budget analyses. In particular, concern was expressed that assumptions underlying the
water budget analyses might yield systematic overestimates of the amount of water available for
mitigation. Extensive additional analyses have been conducted since the final peer review was
submitted in 2011. The conclusion from these analyses is that there will be sufficient water to
34
meet the estimated mitigation requirements under a variety of climatic conditions. The peer
reviewers and the JART have reviewed the additional analyses, and concur with this conclusion.
CRA submitted a memorandum documenting the analyses that illustrated the sensitivity of the
water budget calculations to varying methodologies and climate conditions, Water Budget
Sensitivity Analyses (CRA; January 17, 2012). In addition to the CRA memorandum, a meeting
between the peer reviewers and Richard Murphy of CRA was held on September 19, 2012. The
purpose of this meeting was to present an overview of the August 9, 2012 memorandum and to
discuss how the peer review comments in Mr. Bellamy’s February 7, 2012 letter had been
addressed.
The primary conclusion from CRA’s memoranda and e-mail correspondence was that there
would be a sufficient volume of water available on-site to meet mitigation requirements under
average and drought conditions during all phases of the extension. The assessment included
consideration of future climate change. The peer reviewers concur with this primary conclusion
that there will likely be sufficient water to meet mitigation requirements.
A report on the TW4-09 pumping test:
This information had not been reviewed in detail in time for the January 2012 JART Report. The
TW4-09 pumping test results were reported on by CRA, Additional Geology and Water
Resources Field Investigations, Acton Quarry Extension, Town of Halton Hills, Ontario,
February 2012. The results and analysis for the pumping test were reviewed by the JART water
resources peer reviewers, as reported on in the December 2012 letter from S.S. Papadopulos
and Associates. The water resources peer reviewers indicated that the analysis and reporting
for the TW4-09 pumping test met their expectations, and also that some of the pumping test
findings (such as estimated values for transmissivity, which indicates the amount of
groundwater that can move through an aquifer horizontally) demonstrate the need for additional
testing of hydrogeologic conditions as new wells (such as recharge system wells) are drilled and
installed. The following is an excerpt from the peer reviewers’ December 6, 2012 letter to JART:
The proponent has conducted extensive additional analyses and field investigations in
response to the peer review. In our opinion, the additional work has been conducted with
appropriate methods and the interpretations are supported adequately. We concur with
the conclusions that have been drawn from the analyses. In our opinion, the
groundwater model that has been developed is an appropriate basis for assessing the
proposed extension, provided that the model results are reviewed at specified
milestones during the development of the extension and that the model is updated as
new data become available. Requirements to update the model should be mandated in
the Adaptive Management Plan for the proposed extension.
A pumping test was conducted at well TW4-09 during February 2010. This well is
located in a sensitive area where large-scale tests have not been conducted previously.
We recommended previously that the results of the test be reported formally. The results
of the test are reported in CRA (2012e; Appendix C). The transmissivity of the bedrock
inferred at this location is about 70 m2/d. Transmissivity estimates for tests conducted
previously at TW2 and TW3-07 were about 2 m2/d and 20 m2/d, respectively (CRA,
2008). The significant variability of the transmissivity provides a direct indication of the
likely variations in groundwater flows across the site. The implications of the variability
are important with respect to the assessment. It is impossible to know exactly how the
properties of the rock vary, but the range of estimates developed from the three tests is
35
certainly typical of other sites in southern Ontario. The groundwater model has a
deliberately simplified distribution of transmissivity, and the results of the pumping tests
highlight that the model provides a general impression of what is likely to happen on
average. The model can never be a replacement for additional testing as new wells are
installed and mitigation measures are implemented or the long-term monitoring and
evaluation.
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. The groundwater discharge in this area
is important to supporting aquatic habitat and streamflow along this reach of Black Creek.
Dufferin agreed to conduct the requested monitoring but encountered some problems in gaining
access to property that would be suitable for this purpose. Dufferin continued to pursue access
to the property to the north, and were also in discussion with the JART regarding an alternative
monitoring approach. It was made clear at the December 15, 2011 meeting that the lands north
of Phase 4 were still preferred. During 2012 Dufferin reported that they had arranged for access
to the property to the north and that additional groundwater monitoring wells and a streamflow
gauge (referred to as location SM45) would be installed to monitor conditions north of Phase 4.
Currently JART is waiting to learn of finalization of the property access arrangement and the
installation of the proposed monitoring locations. JART agency staff and the peer reviewers
agreed that the additional monitoring location north of Phase 4 would help to ensure that any
potential impacts from quarry expansion to this reach of Black Creek north of Phase 4 would be
identified and mitigated.
Upon completion of installation of the monitoring locations, JART agency staff and Dufferin will
discuss how the location should be incorporated into the AMP, including whether PBTs should
be set for some, or all, of the new monitoring locations. The following is an excerpt from the
peer reviewers’ December 6, 2012 letter to JART:
The flow in Black Creek must be maintained to assimilate discharge from the Acton
Waste Water Treatment Plan. The maintenance of groundwater discharge to Black
Creek was raised as a concern during the peer review. To address this concern, Dufferin
has committed to monitor streamflow at monitoring location SM45. The data from SM45
quantifies the groundwater seepage north of Phase 4 that contributes flow to Black
Creek. If regular, long-term monitoring at SM45 is not already included in the Adaptive
Management Plan, the Adaptive Management Plan should be revised to include it. A
PBT should also be developed for this location.
Dufferin has committed to installing some monitoring wells between Phase 4 and Black
Creek. This commitment is important, as the data from these wells could serve to identify
any potential impacts to groundwater levels north of the expansion that may in turn lead
to a decrease in the discharge from the springs to Black Creek upstream of monitoring
location SM45. The streamflows at SM45 may be affected by natural and man-made
processes in addition to the quarry expansion. The proposed groundwater monitoring
wells may help to identify whether the quarry is the actual cause of any suspected
changes in flows at SM45. The wells could also allow for detection of decreased
groundwater levels around the quarry expansion before the influence extends as far as
Black Creek.
36
Implications of the need for permanent mitigation measures
The existing approved Acton quarry requires permanent long term water management.
Currently the existing quarry does not include financial securities to operate the required long
term water management system.
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 existing quarry
and the extension 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. As part of the proposed
extension, Dufferin has informed the JART that they have offered financial securities to operate
both the water management system for the existing quarry and the proposed extension to
assure their continued function for the long-term.
The following is an excerpt from the peer reviewers’ December 6, 2012 letter to JART:
It is important to bear in mind that our sign-off does not constitute implicit endorsement
of the proposed extension. Our final conclusions are that the site has been characterized
following appropriate practices and that the analyses that have been conducted provide
an appropriate basis for decisions regarding management of the site. During our peer
review we identified important long-term implications of the proposed extension. It is
particularly important to recognize that the proposed final rehabilitation plan for Acton
Quarry will require active water management in perpetuity.
As outlined in the February 2012 JART report the peer reviewers raised a number of questions
relating to:

Identification of the on-going performance measures required of water management
systems,

How water management systems might fail over the long-term including identification of
a realistic worst case failure scenario

Potential operational and environmental implications of failure

Cost to maintain and replace the water management systems
37

Identification of contingency measures
As of February 2012 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. While a risk management chart has
not been provided to this point, these issues have been incorporated to some extent into the
updated AMP which outlines the full range of contingencies measures, as well as outlining
performance requirements and response activities and timelines if performance targets are not
achieved. The JART recommends that there be further discussions on the inclusion of the risk
management chart as it is a means of further clarifying who is responsible for what in the event
of an unanticipated occurrence. Further, the JART recommends inclusion of these issues in
agreements relating to the AMP and long term operation of the Water Management System.
The peer reviewers have concluded that the ability of the mitigation measures to maintain PBTs
in the geological setting of the Acton Quarry, either in the short or long term, has not yet been
confirmed and they believe it is not appropriate for anyone to offer assurances that the
mitigation measures will work at this site. Further they suggest that it is important to recognize
that providing this assurance will require two steps. First, the proponent must demonstrate that
the mitigation measures are likely to function as designed. The proponent has committed to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures in each phase of the extension prior
to quarrying. Second, the long-term effectiveness of the measures must be confirmed by
ongoing, regular monitoring mandated in an Adaptive Management Plan. All involved parties
should recognize that the proposed final rehabilitation plan for the Acton Quarry will require
permanent active water management (i.e. perpetual pumping).
The JART members have also identified the need to address the issue of active water
management for the long term inclusive of operation and financial assurances (i.e. agreements
and securities) as well as to evaluate the performance of the mitigation system.
Dufferin has agreed to provide further information as part of the AMP to address demonstration
of performance and to elaborate on a means to address long term operational issues.
Dufferin has also initiated discussions to negotiate agreements with the Town, Region and
Conservation Authorities to address the long term ownership, financial securement and
operational management of the Water Management System as well as agreements relating to
the Adaptive Management Plan. Specifically Dufferin’s response states that;
“Dufferin acknowledges the long-term management responsibilities and financial
implications of the proposed Extension. Dufferin is committed to meeting these
responsibilities through the implementation of legal agreements and financial
assurances as are currently being negotiated with the agencies. It is noted that the
Existing Quarry rehabilitation conditions will also require long-term management and the
proposed Extension arrangements provide certainty for agencies and the public how
such obligations will be met.” [CRA Memorandum, January 18, 2013]
At this time the agreements are not yet finalized and the JART is of the opinion that this is a
crucial matter that must be resolved. Further, the JART recommends that the agreements
pertaining to long term water management should be based on the principle that costs and
38
financial liabilities for all phases of the quarry, during and post extraction, including on-going
operational costs, should be secured and borne by Dufferin.
Water allocation 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 the proposed extension would be directed to the Credit River watershed.
As part of the on-going agreement negotiations CVC and Conservation Halton have agreed that
an allocation strategy for discharge between the Credit River and Sixteen Mile Creek will be
required. This allocation is proposed to become a requirement of the long term agreements
relating to the project.
Dufferin has been supportive of these allocation provisions and has provided technical
assistance in development of the allocation strategies and has presented an analysis of surface
water and ground water allocations between the two watersheds. The JART is currently
reviewing this allocation. Additional information has been requested on the surface water
component on this allocation analysis.
As water budget calculations are based on average annual levels, the JART recommends that
the establishment of PBT target methodology should include ensuring that the target levels
support the water budget and water allocation analysis.
8.2.3
Process: Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Review
The AMP was updated in draft form in April 2012 and the updated draft AMP report has formed
the basis for recent discussions with the JART agencies. Several meetings to discuss the
updated draft AMP were held between the JART and Dufferin’s consulting team.
Agency staff provided comments to Dufferin on the AMP through several meetings during 2012
and also through written correspondence. Halton Region staff provided comments to Dufferin in
May and June 2012. CRA provided a response to Halton Region comments on the AMP in
December 2012.
“Enforceability” of the AMP
The peer review consultant had concerns with the “enforceability” of the AMP as a legally
binding document. Dufferin has 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 because AMP’s are not required under the ARA or any planning
legislation. It is also not known at what point in time that the MNR would accept surrender of the
licence once extraction had concluded in a particular phase of the quarry and what impact that
would have on licence conditions relating to the AMP.
JART recommends that this issue be addressed in a requirement for agreements to ensure
implementation of the AMP.
39
8.2.4
Water Resource Issues in the AMP
The following is a summary additional water resource issues raised in the JART review of the
AMP, with references to Dufferin’s responses.
The “Green Line” and Performance-Based Targets
The AMP discussion to date have focused on the appropriate monitoring and mitigation
methods that would be required to protect the natural features and domestic wells in the vicinity
of the quarry expansion. Associated with the monitoring and mitigation measures are
performance based targets (PBTs), which are monitoring thresholds or triggers intended to
indicate that mitigation measures may need to be implemented or adjusted.
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 –
most of these monitors have not yet been installed, however, the proposed locations are
identified in the AMP (Part II, Section G). A similar approach is being used at the Milton Quarry.
The JART peer reviewers raised a need to monitor wetlands for changes in the karst
environment and also recommended that water levels in wetlands inside and outside the green
line be monitored more frequently as the quarry faces advance towards them.
The peer reviewers, provided a final recommendation, that it is important to recognize that the
ability of the mitigation measures to minimize impacts to local water resource features will be
highly dependent on the setting of the Performance Based Targets (PBTs). As the PBTs have
not yet been set, they have not been addressed in the peer review.
An additional unresolved issue for the JART is whether the targets should be established based
on existing conditions (which may reflect drawdown from the existing quarry) or whether the
PBTs should be modified based on a preferred water level target which is based on ecological
habitat needs.
The JART agrees that the establishment of the PBTs is an important outstanding requirement
and recommends that Dufferin provide a proposed methodology for JART review prior to any
new discussions. It is anticipated that additional meetings and exchange of information and
comments between the JART and Dufferin will be required. This need has been recognized by
Dufferin as indicated in their January 18, 2013 response:
“Dufferin acknowledges that further refinement of the conceptual PBTs is warranted and looks
forward to discussing this with the agencies in the near future as part of finalizing the AMP.”
[CRA Memorandum, January 18, 2013]
Mitigation Testing and Long Term Feasibility
There was a question as to when detailed engineering design and testing of the mitigation
measures would be undertaken. The JART team has received assurances that mitigation
measures would be established and tested before extraction takes place.
40
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.
The following is an excerpt from the peer reviewers’ December 6, 2012 letter to JART:
The ability of the mitigation measures to maintain PBTs in the geological setting of the
Acton Quarry, either in the short or long term, has not yet been confirmed. It is not
appropriate for anyone to offer assurances that the mitigation measures will work at this
site. It is important to recognize that providing this assurance will require two steps. First,
the proponent must demonstrate that the mitigation measures are likely to function as
designed. The proponent has committed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures in each phase of the extension prior to quarrying. Second, the longterm effectiveness of the measures must be confirmed by ongoing, regular monitoring
mandated in an Adaptive Management Plan
All involved parties should recognize that the proposed final rehabilitation plan for Acton
Quarry will require permanent active water management (i.e., perpetual pumping).
Domestic Wells
Private well-related concerns have been raised by some local residents since the mid-1990s
and were again re-iterated at the September 26, 2012 public meeting at Halton Region and in
correspondence with the Agencies regarding the proposed expansion. The comments ranged
from general concern with the potential impacts of the proposed expansion on private water
supplies to specific concerns that historical impacts on private wells are related to the existing
quarry.
Specific private well-related concerns have mainly been clustered around the homes to the east
of the Dufferin-owned lands along Fourth Line. Between 17 Sideroad and the rail line to the
north, private wells are typically bedrock wells drilled into the Cabot Head and Queenston Shale
formations, with some using the Reynales or Whirlpool formations as a source of water. In
general, well-related complaints have been attributed to the relatively poor capacity of the shale
bedrock formations to provide sufficient capacity to be used as a reliable source of water,
particularly under drought conditions. Water quality-related issues have generally been related
to the operation of the private wells resulting in excessive drawdown during dry periods and
resulting in degradation of the shale bedrock when exposed to air causing sediments in well
water.
North of the rail line, wells are typically screened in the overburden of a buried bedrock aquifer.
Complaints in this area have been generally related to turbidity and have been attributed
primarily to well construction issues. There have been no confirmed reports of quarry-related
impacts to those wells screened in the buried bedrock valley.
In the April 2012 AMP, Dufferin has committed to conducting a baseline survey within 1000 m of
the Extension extraction limit prior to the commencement of extraction below the water table.
Dufferin has also committed to a more detailed private well assessment within 500 m of the
41
Expansion extraction limit. Within this area, Dufferin has committed to preemptively augmenting
water supply wells prior to the commencement of below-water table extraction.
As in the past, Dufferin has confirmed its commitment to respond to private water supply
interference complaints with the procedure outlined in Part II, Section C of the April, 2012 AMP.
JART concludes, with the assistance of the peer review consultants, that the proposed quarry
expansion, inclusive of mitigation, will not have an impact on private wells but that in the event
there are impacts, Dufferin has proposed an AMP that includes a well response procedure to
investigate those impacts. Provided that the AMP is satisfactorily resolved with the agencies,
referred to on the ARA site plans and bound by an agreement to enforce the commitments
within it, the AMP could be an acceptable means of addressing private well issues.
Furthermore there is “An Agreement to Address Roles and Responsibilities of the MNR and
MOE Regarding Extraction Operations Within the Province of Ontario” (2008) which deals with
ensuring the timely, effective and efficient resolution of complaints regarding water, noise,
blasting, dust, and other issues. (A link to the Agreement is provided in the Bibliography.)
8.3 Natural Environment - Updated
8.3.1
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. In addition to the
Natural Environment Report, Dufferin Consultants also provided supplementary information
described in Appendix 2.
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 2010.
On October 12, 2010 Dougan & Associates provided the 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 Following this, on
November 4, 2011, Dougan & Associates provided the JART with a letter describing the status
of comments on Dufferin Aggregates June 7, 2011 responses to their 2009 Peer Review. Due
to resource constraints, this was the last input that the JART was able to receive from the Peer
Reviewers. The review continued with the technical expertise of the JART members.
8.3.2
Remaining Issues
The following is a summary of issues related to natural heritage that were either unresolved as
of the completion of the February 2012 JART Report, or were subsequently raised by the JART.
The summary of the status of the remaining issues is based on the November 20, 2012 table
called “JART Ecology Discussion Comments”, which was provided to Dufferin.
42
February 2012 JART Report Identified Issues and 2013 Status:

Inadequate documentation of existing disturbances and their relevance to the natural
environment reporting and the AMP

Incomplete vascular plant and bird data

Third Line Haul Route (conveyor) – see below discussion in Significant Wildlife Habitat

Local Landscape Connectivity

Cumulative Impacts/Effects

Adequacy of buffers to natural features (significant woodlands and wetlands)

Revisions to the Draft EEP to improve clarity and its overall performance
8.3.2.1 Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH)
The February 2012 JART report identified the following issues in relation to Significant Wildlife
Habitat:
 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;
 clear methodologies to determine highly diverse areas, and species of conservation
concern; and
 lack of evidence to support the claim that indirect impacts of quarrying are “well
understood” in relation to the effects of noise and blasting on wildlife.
A series of meetings was held in 2012 specifically to address outstanding concerns related to
significant wildlife habitat. Dufferin submitted additional supporting materials that were reviewed
by JART. The status of these concerns is as follows:
Reptile Hibernacula
 JART is satisfied with the additional information that Dufferin provided.
Amphibian Breeding Pools
 The designation of ponds as SWH was inconsistent in terms of how the stated criteria
were applied. For example H26, which is identified as SWH, is a small pond from which
the only amphibian species ever identified is Wood Frog. By contrast H5, which is not
identified as SWH, is a medium-sized wetland that has supported 6 frog species (3 in full
chorus) and three salamander species, including Jefferson-dominated polyploids.
 Notwithstanding disagreement on Dufferin’s consistent application of methodologies,
JART is of the opinion that SWH (woodland amphibian breeding pools), are being
protected, provided appropriate mitigation measures are provided for in the AMP, in
addition to appropriate buffers.
 The JART is of the opinion that the impacts to H1 as a result of the current extraction
have resulted in the loss of function and seasonal hydroperiod and therefore is no longer
43




Amphibian rescue should be undertaken for all breeding pools that will be lost to the
quarry footprint (H1, H18, H21), should it be approved. The rescue should take place in
early fall, with tadpoles/larvae being relocated to the closest possible suitable habitat.
Ponds should remain dewatered or be isolated with fencing that would prevent spring
recolonization.
Further discussion with Regulatory Agencies regarding wetland creation will be
necessary.
The principle of amphibian pools/wetland creation in open areas (i.e. Proposed pool
locations F, I, J, K and L identified in Dufferin’s Draft Updated Ecological Enhancement
Plan (EEP) May 7, 2012) may be considered provided impacts on adjacent natural
features are satisfactorily addressed and all applicable policies are met. However, policy
conformity issues may exist. Prior to the ponds being created, Dufferin would be
required to provide additional detailed design for applicable agency approvals.
Agreements should include clauses that explain this requirement and establish the
mechanisms for implementation.
Proposed amphibian pools/wetland creation (i.e. proposed pool locations A-E identified
in the EEP) within Escarpment Natural Area, ANSIs, ESA, and PSW is not supported by
the JART.
Area Sensitive Birds
 With respect to area sensitive birds, the JART is of the opinion that the existing quarry
has resulted in a reduction in the amount of area sensitive bird habitat; therefore, there is
no longer significant wildlife habitat for area sensitive birds within the proposed quarry
footprint. Noise impacts of extraction remain unknown for birds in adjacent significant
wildlife habitat, including those that are area sensitive.
 Provided the EEP is satisfactorily revised in response to the JART’s comments of
November 20, 2012 (discussed below), the reforestation proposed in the EEP, if
successfully implemented by Dufferin, would result in an increase to habitat for area
sensitive birds over time compared to the existing condition.
Turtle Nesting Areas
 Dufferin provided a June 6, 2012 discussion paper on SWH. In this discussion paper,
Dufferin provided rationale for why they did not identify any SWH for turtle nesting. The
JART agreed with the rationale provided with respect to identification of SWH, however
recommends that because identification of nesting sites have not been established by
Dufferin, that for H16 and H19, which are being maintained, the EEP should identify that
additional nesting sites will be established.
 In addition, the JART recommends that turtle rescue be undertaken at H1 in spring/early
summer, should extraction in this area be approved. Any turtles captured should be
relocated to the closest available suitable habitat. The pond should remain dewatered to
prevent recolonization.
Specialized Raptor Nesting Habitat
 The JART is satisfied with the additional information that Dufferin provided (June 6, 2012
SWH Discussion Paper).
44
Highly Diverse Areas
 As discussed at a number of technical meetings, the table of Ecological Land
Classification (ELC) communities was initially requested in the JART’s January 22, 2010
letter as a means of characterizing and quantifying the community types that would be
lost as a result of the quarry operation. The initial request and ensuing discussion took
place in the context of the SWH category of “highly diverse areas”.
 The JART has identified that a table of ELC communities lost and gained would help
demonstrate how diversity in community types is achieved in the final rehabilitated
configuration. The JART Ecology Group continues to request that such a table be
provided to clearly demonstrate how elements of the existing biodiversity will be
maintained and, where possible, enhanced. To clarify, the JART is not suggesting that
additional area is required in order to demonstrate net gain; rather, the JART is seeking
an understanding of the ecological functions of the landscape as they exist now in
comparison with what would be achieved in the final rehabilitated configuration. Dufferin
has not provided this information in the format requested to date.
Species of Conservation Concern
 The JART is satisfied with the additional information that Dufferin provided on this issue
(June 6, 2012 SWH Discussion Paper).
8.3.2.2 Noise Impacts
 The 2012 JART Report was inconclusive regarding noise impacts on breeding birds. In
Dufferin’s June 6, 2012 SWH Discussion Paper, Dufferin identified that the only potential
indirect effect on habitat of area sensitive birds would be due to noise. In discussions
with Dufferin it was agreed that in the absence of monitoring information the conclusion
that the extension will not have any noise impacts on wildlife remains unsubstantiated.
 Dufferin agreed to consider monitoring noise impacts on breeding birds at the June 12,
2012 Ecology meeting, and further to this, it is noted that in Dufferin’s Summary of
Position on SWH, Aug. 22, 2012, that “it is proposed that a pilot study be implemented in
Phase 4 on breeding birds…”
 On August 23, 2012, Dufferin identified that they wish to discuss the need for monitoring
noise impacts on wildlife further, because Dufferin was of the opinion that it was an issue
where not all agencies were in agreement, and suggested that the Peer Reviewer
concluded that noise was not anticipated to be an issue.
 The JART has clarified to Dufferin that this is in fact an area where there is agreement
between JART members, and it remains the JART’s collective expectation that a noise
study will be undertaken as discussed with Dufferin. The JART has identified that the
Terms of Reference should be further discussed with Conservation Halton, Credit Valley
Conservation, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Halton Region and the Ministry of
Natural Resources. Results would be used to inform extraction in later phases as part of
5 year review.
 Given that the AMP (April 2012) now has an expanded to include a supplementary
monitoring section, the JART feels it could be appropriate to include the monitoring of
noise impacts on breeding birds in the AMP.
45
8.3.2.3 Incomplete Vascular Plant and Bird Data
The February 2012 JART report stated that Dufferin's consultants had indicated that new
vegetation data would be collected through the AMP with the establishment of fixed plots- this is
acceptable to the JART. Minor data gaps related to bird species lists were also resolved to the
JART's satisfaction. The JART previously requested that concerns with the apparent gaps in
data collection for wildlife in Areas C and G be addressed through inclusion in the relevant AMP
baseline studies. Dufferin has identified that data collection in Area G was not possible due to
restricted access to private lands. The JART continues to request that supplemental monitoring
be undertaken in Area G subject to access being obtained. With respect to Area C, given that
the footprint has been modified, the JART no longer requires that further baseline data in this
area be collected.
8.3.2.4 Local Landscape Connectivity
In the 2012 JART Report, the JART indicated it was not satisfied with Dufferin's assessment of
wildlife movement corridors to date because it addressed only mammals. In response, Dufferin
provided a detailed discussion paper on amphibian and reptile movement patterns. As
discussed in the species at risk and SWH sections, the JART is of the opinion that Phase 7
(Area O) does not pose a barrier to the movement of amphibians. As the February 2012 JART
Report was near completion, Dufferin proposed the use of a conveyor between Phases 7 and
5/6 West adjacent to Third Line. On January 3, 2012 Dufferin provided a general conceptual
plan, cross section and image of the conveyor system. The JART awaits additional
specifications on the conveyor to address concerns about physical dimensions, noise, vibration,
and barrier effect and wildlife movement. Dufferin has indicated that this more detailed
information on the conveyor is forthcoming.
8.3.2.5 Species at Risk
The identification of significant habitat of endangered and threatened species under the PPS
2005 is the responsibility of the MNR. The JART identified the need for the MNR to identify the
significant habitat of endangered and threatened species as an issue in the February 2012
Report, however the significant habitat have not been identified by the MNR.
The JART has not received final confirmation, in writing, from the MNR that significant habitat of
Jefferson Salamander, Eastern Meadowlark, Barn Swallow, Butternut, or Whip-poor-will will not
be negatively impacted by the proposed extraction. The JART requests that Dufferin provide
updates with respect to all species at risk status changes and issues with the proposed footprint
on a continuous basis. For example, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario
(COSSARO) 2012 update has resulted in the uplisting of the Little Brown Bat to endangered,
and this species is identified in Dufferin’s Level I and II NE Report. Addressing changes in
status of species at risk identified on the subject lands, and potential impacts to these species
and their habitat is required prior to any planning approvals.
8.3.2.5.1 Jefferson Salamander (Endangered)
Jefferson Salamander is currently designated as Endangered in Ontario, and the species and its
habitat regulated under the ESA 2007. The majority of the lands proposed for extraction south
of 22nd Sideroad remain within the regulated habitat for Jefferson Salamander (as per MNR
mapping dated February 2012). The Jefferson Salamander habitat regulation as described by
Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA defines the habitat. The proposed extraction of
Phases 5/6 West and 7 will result in the direct loss of regulated habitat and specifically may
46
result in the loss and/or fragmentation of migration and dispersal habitat. Additionally there is
potential for impacts to the hydrology of adjacent breeding ponds. Further discussion on the
AMP as it relates to mitigation measures to support adjacent breeding ponds is required
between the JART and Dufferin.
Dufferin has applied to the MNR for a Permit under Section 17 (2) (c) of the ESA to allow for
removal of a portion of the regulated habitat. The JART does not review this Permit application
(this is under the jurisdiction of the MNR); however the proposals in the application may have
the potential to result in further and/or additional changes to the proposed extraction footprint,
operations and proposed activities under the EEP. Dufferin has shared some level of detail with
respect to the proposals to achieve overall benefit to the species, as related to the EEP. The
JART understands that Dufferin has submitted proposals which include the creation of breeding
ponds and tree planting as key components of the proposed overall benefit to the species. The
JART has requested details on the technical merits of the overall benefit application from
Dufferin and the MNR in order to understand how overall benefit for this species may be
achieved, and to determine if these proposals are consistent with the prescriptions proposed
within the EEP (i.e. to ensure the potential activities proposed under the ESA overall benefit
Permit and net-gain under the EEP are not in conflict with one another).
At the JART’s request, Dufferin Consultants provided the JART with the Amphibian and Reptile
Movement Discussion Paper (June 5, 2012). After review of this paper the JART requested that
the scope of the study be expanded to include discussion of Jefferson Salamander. Dufferin
responded and revised the paper (August 21, 2012), to include discussion of potential impacts
to Jefferson Salamander movement. The paper concluded that there should be no effects on
the movement patterns of the Jefferson Salamander as a result of the proposed quarry. The
JART is concerned with the disruption of juvenile dispersal and migration habitat if Phase 7 is
approved, and does not agree with some of the conclusions of the paper respecting the
movement patterns of juvenile Jefferson Salamander. The JART noted during a September 28,
2012 site visit that the forested unit in the centre of Phase 7 contained numerous outcroppings
and fissures that would provide suitable refuge for salamanders. Given the presence of this
feature, in conjunction with well developed hedgerows and mature cultural meadow, the JART
does not agree with the statement by Dufferin that proposed Phase 7 poses a barrier to the
movement of Jefferson Salamander. Again, the JART has expressed that technical input from
the MNR would be beneficial to assist in evaluating this issue.
In Sections 3.4 and 5.0 of the EEP (May 2012), Dufferin identifies proposed enhancement plan
benefits for Jefferson Salamander. These include wetland creation (for breeding ponds) tree
planting/reforestation. JART has expressed concerns with the extent of proposed intervention
which includes digging pools, tree planting, mulching, thinning and shrub removal, in the
regulated Jefferson Salamander habitat. For example; potential disruption to small mammal
burrows used for cover/hibernation; compaction of soils from machinery; introduction of mulch
and/or disturbance to existing leaf litter.
The JART is of the opinion that it may be preferable in a number of areas, to allow for natural
succession to take place, as the resident population of Jefferson Salamander appear to be well
established despite these perceived deficiencies of the landscape components. Dufferin has
responded that the majority of the enhancement measures proposed that may benefit the
Jefferson Salamander are situated outside of mature woodlands and are predominantly within
open old field habitat, where concerns about small mammal burrows used for cover/hibernation,
soil compaction and introduction of mulch to existing leaf litter are not of concern. JART
understands that this will be addressed in the next iteration of the EEP.
47
With respect to amphibian pool/wetland creation proposed by Dufferin in the EEP, the JART
disagrees with Dufferin’s statement that breeding ponds are the greatest limiting factor to the
Jefferson Salamander in the study area (EEP, 2012 p.7).
There is generally good
understanding of the physical attributes, dimensions and characteristics of ponds and wetlands
that are suitable Jefferson Salamander breeding habitat. The matter of why some ponds are
selected over others, in areas where there are numerous ponds is a different issue and may
involve density related breeding behavior as opposed to habitat suitability. This is demonstrated
by the fact that there are 50 wetlands in the study area, but only 13 of which support confirmed
Jefferson/complex breeding and the reasons are not fully understood. As such, it is the JART’s
opinion that the creation of additional breeding pools will not necessarily result in an increase in
the population size for this species.
Dufferin proposes to construct between 6 and 8 new pools. While the JART is of the technical
opinion that it is reasonable to support some experimentation on habitat creation (as is being
undertaken as part of the pilot pond study undertaken in fall 2011 with the MNR, CH and
Dufferin’s participation), the overall benefit component of the ESA 17 (c) Permit requires the
achievement of actual and measureable improvements or bolstering of the local SAR population
to the extent that the population grows or is strengthened as a result of the overall benefit
actions taken.
Jefferson Salamander breeding habitat creation is still fundamentally
experimental. The JART supports the principles of amphibian pools/wetland creation in open
areas to provide habitat for other amphibians however, the JART has identified that a higher
priority should be given to protecting existing wetlands.
8.3.2.5.2 Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow (Threatened)
Additional Species at Risk, including Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow, were listed as
Threatened as of January 2012. These species were documented from and likely breeding
within or adjacent to the proposed extraction areas. Eastern meadowlark prefer grassland
habitats, as well as non native pastures, hayfields and weedy meadows, grass cover is
important for breeding habitat and nest building. Barn Swallow requires open, grassland types
of agricultural habitats for foraging and often human-made structures for nesting (i.e. barns).
Dufferin was requested to provide a response that acknowledges anticipated impacts on these
species and how these impacts will be addressed. One of the on-site barns that is identified as
Barn Swallow habitat is in a dilapidated state and Dufferin has applied to the NEC to demolish
the barn for health and safety reasons. Dufferin responded to the JART that they have
discussed the matter of Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow habitat with the MNR. An
“Information Gathering Form” (IGF) was submitted by Dufferin at the request of the MNR on
August 10, 2012. Dufferin has indicated that there will be further discussions with the MNR and
if determined to be necessary, will submit ESA Permit applications. The JART does not have
MNR’s final position on this issue. The JART has requested that clarification/commitment to the
long-term maintenance of grassland habitat (e.g. who will be responsible for mowing this area,
and do they have the appropriate equipment?). The EEP Section provides additional details on
recommended approaches to address grassland habitat creation and management.
48
8.3.3 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 2007-2010 and
described impacts including: lower seasonal water levels, reduced hydroperiods, and abnormal
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 JART still needs 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.
8.3.4 Significant Woodlands - updated
The April 2012 revised site plan illustrates that 5.5 ha of significant woodlands (Unit WD-4 in
Phase 5 West) are to be removed to accommodate proposed extraction. The JART has
identified that there will be direct impacts to significant woodlands. It is JART’s opinion that it
may be possible to remove a portion of the significant woodland without resulting in negative
impacts to the significant woodland and its ecological function. To facilitate the review of the
applications by the individual agencies with regard to this matter, the JART recommends that
Dufferin provide an addendum to the Level I and II NE Report that provides a more detailed
analysis of potential impacts not only at the regional scale but also at the local and site level,
and consider all of the ecological functions that may be impacted by removal of significant
woodlands. The recommendation to provide this addendum was presented to Dufferin through
JART comments provided on November 20, 2012. On January 4, 2013, Dufferin indicated a
willingness to provide this information. On February 11, 2013, Dufferin provided a letter to the
Region, the Town and the NEC regarding significant woodlands. The agencies addressed in the
letter may respond to this letter.
The JART also noted a concern with respect to the buffers proposed between the significant
woodlands and the extraction footprint. The JART has asserted that significant woodland
buffers should be considered “no touch” areas and be a minimum of 10m in width. Dufferin has
agreed to consider the JART’s buffer recommendations subject to understanding the agencies
49
position on the remainder of the proposed footprint. The JART has identified that consideration
of buffers is a technical matter that is not related to the extent of the footprint ultimately
approved.
Dufferin’s current proposal is to provide a 15m extraction setback, but to allow for development
in the form of infrastructure associated with the water management system and access roads
within the first 10m of this zone adjacent to the extraction footprint. The JART recognizes that in
some limited circumstances exceptions to the 10m no touch buffer standard may be warranted
to allow certain specific components of the water management system (i.e. discharge mains to
wetlands) to access less disturbed portions of the surrounding lands. However, such
encroachments would not be appropriate for the more impactful components, such as main
water lines and service huts. The JART has requested that Dufferin identify all proposed
encroachments, provide a justification as to why each encroachment is necessary, and explain
the mitigation measures proposed.
Dufferin has agreed to consider the JART’s
recommendations related to buffers.
In comments of July 10, 2012, the JART identified a concern with respect to the proximity of the
proposed Phase 5 East extraction area to a portion of woodland unit WD-4 and wetland U6
located to the south. In response, Dufferin indicated that the proposed extraction area in the
vicinity of these features is disturbed and currently accommodates the Phase 2 settling pond
and berms. Further they identified that the abutting significant woodland is young and
successional, except for a few declining hedgerow trees. The JART has acknowledged the
existing disturbance in this area but has requested clarification as to what the proposed buffer
will be and has requested that an assessment of the proposed mitigation measures be provided.
Dufferin has not yet responded to these requests as they were provided in the JART’s most
recent correspondence of November 20, 2012.
8.3.5
Wetlands - updated
The MNR provided revised the provincially significant wetlands (PSW) mapping in November
2011 which confirmed and refined wetland boundaries that had been identified earlier. Based
on this mapping, Dufferin updated the boundary of the proposed quarry footprint to ensure that
no PSWs occurred within the extraction area for the Acton Quarry Extension. This addressed
the JART’s previous concerns regarding PSWs occurring within the proposed extraction area.
The one issue which continues to remain outstanding is JART’s requirement for no touch
buffers from the PSWs. JART has recommended that a 30 metre no touch buffer (including
roads and infrastructure) with the exception of enhancements (e.g. plantings) be applied to all
PSWs. Dufferin has responded by only offering a 20 metre no touch buffer and within the 10
metres closest to the extraction would be used to accommodate the water management system.
Dufferin agreed to consider the JART’s buffer recommendations subject to understanding the
agencies position of the remainder of the footprint. They contend that they have already made
significant revisions to their extraction footprint. It is the JART’s position that the buffers are a
technical matter that is not related to the extent of the footprint and that Dufferin’s buffers
continue to require revision to address the JART’s comments.
Ensuring that the PSW’s are maintained and continue to function over the long term will be
dependent on the success of the AMP including achieving the final approved PBTs. This is
further addressed in the AMP natural heritage section.
50
There are five other wetlands totaling approximately 6 ha which occur within the proposed
expansion footprint (three within Phase 4 and two within Phase 5/6 West) which were evaluated
but were not included in the PSW complexes identified by the MNR. The JART agrees that
these other wetlands were either naturally low functioning or have been compromised and/or
degraded due to the following factors:

Largely isolated from the other wetlands in the PSW complexes due to surrounding
agricultural lands, mown lawn, and adjacent residential and agricultural buildings, no
longer an identified surface water connection between wetlands.

Physically disconnected from the rest of the wetlands in the complex due to the
extraction (and associated dewatering) operations in existing Phase 3 of the Acton
quarry.

Reduced hydroperiod, due in part to existing quarry operation and/or realignment of
Third Line.

Wetlands are small in size and degraded do not perform, or perform very limited function
(biological or physical).
8.3.6
Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP)
Dufferin has submitted a Draft Updated Ecological Enhancement Plan (EEP, May 2012) in
support of their applications for amendments to the Regional and Local Official Plans. This
report, prepared by Goodban Ecological Consulting, documents the measures to be
implemented onsite as part of progressive and final rehabilitation associated with the new
licence, and the offsite restoration and reforestation proposed to provide an overall net gain. It
is Dufferin’s position that the proposed rehabilitation and ecological enhancement proposals will
provide a considerable net ecological gain and will more than offset any potential impacts
resulting from the removal of wetlands and significant woodlands due the proposed expansion.
The JART met with Dufferin and their consultants on several occasions to discuss the updated
EEP.
The JART provided comments to Dufferin on the draft updated EEP (May 2012), on July 10,
July 27, and August 9, 2012. Dufferin provided a response to comments on August 23, 2012,
and JART provided additional comments in response on November 20, 2012. Subject to
required refinements identified in comments of November 20, 2012, the JART is generally
supportive of the location, quantity and types of habitat enhancements documented in the EEP.
However, the following points summarize outstanding issues regarding the EEP based on the
JART review of the document, meetings between JART and Dufferin/their consultants, and the
correspondence referred to above:

The main purpose of the EEP is to demonstrate how the proposal will provide for a net
gain for the removal of features contained in the Regional Greenlands System. The
JART is of the opinion that revision to the EEP is required to more clearly demonstrate
how a net gain is achieved. The JART believes principles related to net environmental
gain contained in ROPA 38 (110[7.2]c of the Council-adopted ROPA 38, December 16,
2009) provide a useful framework for demonstrating how a net environmental gain will
be achieved. As such, the JART recommended that Dufferin consider adopting these
technical principles in the EEP and suggested an approach for satisfactorily
demonstrating how net gain will be achieved in comments provided to Dufferin on July
51
It is noted that Dufferin is not required to achieve all of these ROPA 38 principles;
however Dufferin agreed at the July 12, 2012 meeting to consider including these
principles as goals/objectives for the final version of the EEP.

With regards to the draft EEP principle related to providing a net gain in biological
diversity of habitat types, the JART requested a table that summarizes vegetation
communities present before and following extraction to clearly demonstrate that this
principle is achieved. This request was initially provided in comments to Dufferin on July
10, 2012. To date, Dufferin has not indicated their intention to provide this table.
For clarity, distinction between rehabilitation proposed to mitigate impacts on significant
woodlands and the restoration proposed to achieve an overall net gain in the EEP was
requested by JART. On February 11, 2013 Dufferin submitted a letter to planning approval
authorities regarding impacts on significant woodlands. This letter will be reviewed by the
relevant agencies.
 The JART requested revisions to the Draft EEP to improve clarity and its overall
performance. These are documented in detail in the JART’s comments to Dufferin of
July 10, July 27, August 9, and November 20, 2012, and include increasing the amount
of active thicket and forest management, revising tree planting densities, and revising
the planting timelines. Dufferin has indicated that they would be willing to consider
incorporating the recommended improvements into the revised EEP.

Consistency between the EEP and the ESA Overall Benefit measures is an issue. The
JART notes the presence of other Endangered and Threatened species (e.g. Eastern
Meadowlark, Barn Swallow, Butternut, Whip-poor-will). The JART requires that the MNR
clarify permitting requirements, if any (under the ESA), for these species so that any
potential habitat improvements required under the ESA are not in conflict with treatments
proposed in the EEP.

The JART has identified that the principle of amphibian pools/wetland creation in open
areas (e.g. Dufferin proposed locations identified as F, I, J, K and L identified in the EEP,
2012), may be considered, provided impacts on adjacent natural features are
satisfactorily addressed and all applicable policies are met. Design details and
mechanisms for implementation will be required to meet applicable agency approvals.
Proposed amphibian pools/wetland creation within Escarpment Natural Areas, Areas of
Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), and
Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) is not supported by the JART.

The JART has noted that in order to be considered appropriate, rehabilitation and
enhancement works proposed in the EEP should be evaluated based on, among other
things, their implementation feasibility. Evaluation of feasibility for rehabilitation and of
enhancement works should be described in the EEP. The JART recommends that all
measures not deemed feasible be removed from the EEP.
52

The JART requested that the updated EEP be revised to specify a suitable grass/forb
mix for the grassland area proposed northeast of Phase 4 to ensure appropriate habitat
for target species. Additionally, the JART requested clarification regarding who would be
responsible for long-term maintenance of the grassland habitat proposed in the draft
EEP.

The JART requests confirmation as to whether all of the mitigation measures proposed
in the Level I and II NE Report have been carried over into the EEP. For example, the
JART has raised a concern that the NE Report describes Hooded Warbler habitat
mitigation measures for the area northeast of proposed Phase 4; which conflicts with the
grassland habitat proposed in the draft EEP. Where conflicts are identified, the EEP
should be updated and revised accordingly.

The JART recommended that cultural thickets be created in the existing Acton Quarry
(i.e. along the edges of the forest approximately 15 m in depth, plus larger contiguous
patches where possible with at least one patch of 1 ha or larger). Creation of cultural
thickets in the existing railway land processing yard should also be considered. These
require ongoing management (i.e. periodic cutting) and so would be ideal on lands to be
managed by Halton Hills. Dufferin agreed to consider the request subject to confirmation
from the Town of Halton Hills that this is desired. If agreement is reached, this will form
part of a future site plan amendment to the existing quarry to integrate the extension.
8.3.7
Cumulative Impacts/Effects – updated
An assessment of overall cumulative impacts was submitted by Dufferin in the Planning
Addendum Report (June 2012). With respect to the natural environment, Dufferin’s assessment
concludes that implementation of the EEP and the AMP will address cumulative impacts. These
documents, and other issues (e.g. species at risk habitat, buffers) are still under discussion and
Dufferin’s conclusions will require further evaluation by the JART. Furthermore, the individual
agencies will address cumulative impacts in a policy context in their individual assessments.
8.3.8
Natural Environment Issues in the AMP - updated
As part of additional 2012 reviews of the AMP's area management plans (AMP, April 2012), and
review of up-to-date water level data, concerns were raised relating to PBTs and the utilization
of supplemental monitoring data. The JART and Agency staff provided comments to Dufferin
on the AMP through several meetings during 2012 and also through written correspondence.
The JART natural environment technical peer reviewers did not participate in the AMP
discussions during the 2012 review (due to limitations in the budget for their services). Dufferin’s
consultants responded to the comments received in December 2012. Further elaboration is
required concerning PBT matters and area-specific management plans to ensure that they are
appropriate before AMP could be finalized. Additional history of the JART’s review of the AMP
since February 2012 is outlined in the Water Resources Section, above.
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:
53

Concern remains 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 Level I and II Natural Environment Report
and that PBTs should be developed to remediate such conditions where feasible.
Dufferin has responded by identifying that in accordance with existing Permit To Take
Water Condition 4.6, a Discharge and Mitigation Report was submitted by Dufferin on
February 28, 2011. Dufferin asserts that this report provides a comprehensive analysis
of the existing quarry’s effect on wetlands and presents an assessment of the wetland
monitoring data, supported by hydrographs and appendices. In addition, Dufferin notes
that the Discharge and Mitigation Report also proposes measures to mitigate some of
the impacts. This report also presents details on the proposed mitigation measures
including conceptual designs. Dufferin has indicated they will implement the mitigation
measures upon receipt of agency approval.
This response does not address the
JART’s original concern (to incorporate characterization of existing degraded conditions
in the Level I and II NE Report), and the JART continues to request that the Level I and
II NE Report incorporate this information. With respect to the mitigation of existing quarry
effects, the JART recommends ongoing consultation and discussion on the PBTs.

The JART has provided some initial feedback to Dufferin on the Supplemental
Ecological Monitoring Framework, including the need for finalized monitoring locations,
quantitative targets, thresholds and timing of responses and methodologies for the
assessment of results. The JART identified an issue with respect to the lack of clarity as
to how ecological monitoring will be integrated with the water-focused monitoring for the
AMP. More information is needed to show how the water-based PBT monitoring will
relate to the ecological monitoring so that mitigation will be appropriate, prompt and
effective. It is anticipated that discussions on this issue will continue as part of sitespecific PBT consultation. Dufferin has identified that they consider the primary purpose
of the AMP to monitor and manage water however they have included a Supplementary
Monitoring Program which includes ecological monitoring of natural features and
functions (e.g. wetland vegetation communities, amphibian breeding habitat, fish and
benthics). The JART recommends further discussion on how these monitoring efforts
will be integrated with water resource monitoring.

The JART raised issues regarding the scope of the AMP beyond surface and
groundwater-based features. Dufferin responded that they consider the JART-raised
issues respecting landscape ecology functions, vegetation removal, protection of
terrestrial features, impacts from noise, vibration and dust and micro climatic changes to
be beyond the scope of the AMP. Dufferin has responded that matters such as noise,
vibration and dust are suitably addressed through the Site Plans and related ongoing
monitoring requirements. Vegetation removal and micro-climatic changes are also dealt
with through the Site Plans (e.g. edge management, avoiding clearing during the
breeding bird season, etc). Dufferin identifies that the EEP will contribute to the
Greenlands System and improve landscape ecology functions and that there will be no
increase in traffic as a result of the proposed extension.
The JART has indicated to
Dufferin that the noise impact (wildlife) study being discussed would be appropriate to be
identified and included in the AMP, in the Supplemental Monitoring Program section.
The JART believes that potential impacts related to dust and vibration could also be
addressed through this monitoring. The JART is satisfied that the other issues
pertaining to landscape ecology functions and vegetation removal should be addressed
through the EEP and ARA Site Plans. Pending further information on the conveyor, the
54

Where surface water is proposed to be discharged directly into wetland features, the
JART has indicated that Dufferin will need to address issues related to water quality,
temperature and other parameters. Dufferin has responded that they will be compliant
with Provincial Water Quality Standards however the JART has indicated that this
approach may not address the concerns related to specific biota. Dufferin has
requested the JART to identify which biota and water quality parameters are of particular
concern and the rationale. The JART continues to request further discussion of
monitoring of water quality as it relates to biota, as the JART identifies that the AMP only
proposes limited monitoring of dissolved oxygen (in salamander breeding ponds) and
total suspended solids.

The JART raised concerns with lining ponds and deepening wetland features as a
mitigation response to potential quarry impacts. Based on input from the agencies, and
particularly from the MNR, the mitigation plan in the AMP has been further modified to
limit the potential disturbance of wetland areas that would be caused by proposed
deepening of wetlands, by providing limited seasonal pumping to some of these features
in the long term. The updated AMP now reflects this change in the mitigation and
rehabilitation approach. The JART is satisfied with this response.

The JART still has concerns with respect to 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.
Dufferin has indicated that there are no negative impacts associated with future water
quality, providing representative water quality information from the Milton quarry. The
JART identifies that there is a level of uncertainty associated with this issue and the
single recent example provided by Dufferin may not be predictive of the outcomes at
Acton.

The JART identified in the 2012 JART Report that there should be a clearer, more
detailed description of the proposed AMP water management system infrastructure (e.g.
pumps, water dispersal features, service roads, pipelines) and potential impacts to
natural features and their associated buffers due to construction, operation, and
maintenance. The JART has provided recommendations on these matters to Dufferin
(information was provided through review of ARA Site Plans), and are waiting for further
information.

The JART raised concerns respecting the use of artificial manipulation of water supplies
to natural habitats, identifying that this mitigation technique 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 thee water
management system will be constructed to ensure very high reliability and low incidence
of interruption and identified that the potentially affected habitats are naturally subject to
a high degree of variation. Dufferin asserts that the mitigation will tend to buffer extreme
conditions which will tend to provide an overall enhancement of habitat functions and
temporary contingency measures can be implemented to protect key habitat/seasonal
functions if necessary. Dufferin has stated that potential short-term interruptions are
highly unlikely to result in any long-term negative impacts. The JART still has concerns
and notes that long-term monitoring of the artificial water management system will be
required to confirm Dufferin’s position.
55

The JART requested more information on how the proponent would respond to AMP
“incidents” (failure to meet targets), including possibly ceasing or reducing the rate of
extraction. The updated AMP includes provisions for responding to “incidents” and
supplemental monitoring results. Dufferin has agreed to provide a table summarizing
hypothetical issues and responses per the AMP, and the JART awaits this information.
8.4 Transportation - Updated
8.4.1
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.
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.
8.4.2
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 to review the material. .
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
appendices) in June 2011, and an Addendum Letter on July 4, 2011. This response was
discussed among the JART members at a working group meeting on July 5, 2011.
The 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, 2011.
The JART traffic peer review consultant (IBI Group) 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.
On May 18, 2012 Dufferin released its response to the February 2012 JART Report. A working
Group of JART met with Dufferin and their Planning Consultant to review the responses in
November 2012.The following are the issues discussed and Dufferin’s responses.
8.4.3
Issues: Traffic Impact Assessment Review
Issue:
“The discussion of the proposed new quarry accesses….across Third Line north should have
been more specific about what mitigation will be provided to ensure that those accesses operate
safely.” (JART Report February 2012)
Dufferin’s Response:
The crossing is proposed to function similar to the crossing on 22nd Side Road between Phase 2
and 3. The crossing is proposed to be controlled with a stop light. The details will be
implemented in the legal agreement with the Town of Halton Hills.
56
Issue:
Peel Region is still seeking more detailed information regarding volumes of trucks related to the
Acton Quarry on its roads;
Dufferin has provided sufficient detail to the Region of Peel and the scope of the traffic study is
well beyond a typical traffic study, particularly for an existing approved haul route.
Issue:
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.
Response:
Dufferin has entered into discussions with the Region of Halton and the Town of Halton Hills.
Issue:
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 existing haul route has been confirmed to be technically satisfactory. Despite this, Dufferin
continues to discuss alternative haul routes with the Region of Halton and the Town of Halton
Hills. The next step is for the Region or Town to identify a potential alternative route for
Dufferin’s consideration. If changes to the haul route are contemplated, this can be addressed in
the haul route agreement with the Region and the Town.
Conclusion:
The JART agencies have reviewed the technical reports and have no technical issues with the
continued use of the existing haul routes, as currently proposed. Any specific conditions
regarding the haul route will addressed by the Town and the Region.
While the technical merits of the haul route have been satisfied, the JART does recognize that
members of the public continue to voice concerns regarding traffic volume and traffic safety and
the impacts of truck traffic on the quality of rural life in relation to the Dufferin Quarry and
generally as it relates to the rural area.
The JART notes that discussions between Dufferin, Halton Region and the Town of Halton Hills
are ongoing regarding potential changes to the haul route.
8.5 Nuisance Impacts: Noise and Blasting - Updated
Aercoustics Engineering Limited, consultant to Dufferin Aggregates, provided a memo to
Dufferin dated May 18, 2012 stating that the proposed conveyor to transport aggregate between
Phase 7 and Phases 5/6 West, is predicted to satisfy MOE noise guidelines.
57
Dufferin has confirmed that any residences on their property would be vacated prior to the
commencement of extraction and this is reflected on the proposed ARA drawings dated April
17, 2012.
Recycling operations will not be a part of the proposed quarry and reference to this has been
deleted from the site plan drawings.
Issues: Noise and Blasting
The following issues raised by the working group have been addressed by Dufferin and their
consultants:

The JART natural environment members have expressed concern regarding potential
noise effects on wildlife. Refer to Section 8.3. Natural Environment.
Both noise and blasting have been identified by the public as issues in relation to the existing
quarry and the proposed extension.
The JART concludes that there are no remaining technical noise-related issues, with the
exception of potential noise effects on wildlife, provided that Dufferin operates the proposed
extension pursuant to the “Blasting Beyond Compliance” procedure and the conditions of the
ARA licence.
The complaint protocol for noise and blasting is that concerns by area residents can be directed
to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the quarry operator for investigation and resolution.
8.6 Nuisance Impacts: Air Quality - Updated
8.6.1
Background
Dufferin has now amended its application so that aggregate from Phase 7 would be moved by
conveyor
northward
to
Phases
5/6
West,
rather
than
by
truck
on
Third Line. This will likely reduce air quality impacts. Dufferin’s consultant RWDI stated in a
memo of February 2012 that the conveyor is a preferable option with respect to air quality and
the recommended conditions will be included in updated ARA Site Plans. The JART is satisfied
that the conveyor is acceptable from an air quality standpoint provided that the conveyor details
will be added to the ARA Site Plans as part of the approval of the ARA licence.
For additional information regarding Air Quality, refer to the February 2012 JART report.
The JART received a Memorandum dated February 10, 2012 from RWDI Consulting Engineers
and Scientists, consultants to Dufferin, with respect to the proposed changes in the quarry
footprint and the proposed use of the conveyor. RWDI concluded that the reduced quarry
footprint and the use of a conveyor instead truck shipments between Phase 7 and Phases 5/6
West would be an improvement on predicted air quality impacts, provided that spray bars and
enclosures be used on the primary crusher and conveyor transfer points. Dufferin has
committed to providing more details regarding the proposed conveyor and the JART will have
an opportunity to determine if the RWDI recommendations are in place.
Dufferin has also indicated on the April 2012 ARA drawings that it will operate in accordance
with a Best Management Plan (approved by the MOE in 2010) to support the Certificate of
Approval for the site. Provided that the site plans are approved with the reference to the BMP,
the JART is satisfied in this respect.
58
8.7 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage - Updated
8.7.1
Background
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 2009. The JART peer reviewer of the archaeological
reports was Archaeological Services Inc (ASI).The JART peer reviewer of the Cultural
Landscape and Built Heritage Report was Landplan.
Dufferin’s consultant on Archaeological and Cultural Heritage issues was Archaeologix Inc. now
part of Golder Associates.
8.7.2
Process: Archaeology
An archaeological peer review was provided to Dufferin in January 2010, and Dufferin provided
Golder’s response in April 2010. In July 2010 a revised ASI peer review was sent to Dufferin.
8.7.3
Issues: Archaeology
ASI advised the JART that Archaeologix’s reports having been accepted by the Ministry of
Tourism and Culture into the Provincial registry for Archaeological Reports and recommended
acceptance of the reports by the JART.
There are no outstanding archaeology issues. Conditions pertaining to archaeology will be
addressed by the respective agencies in their staff reports.
8.7.4
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 2009. 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 2010.
Following an exchange of documents and discussions with Dufferin’s consultant, Landplan
completed its final comments and these were provided to Dufferin in July 2010.
8.7.5
Issues: Cultural Landscape and Built Heritage
There is one outstanding concern regarding the barn at 11762 Third Line. Landplan noted that
the structure was a potential hazard because of its precarious condition and that it might be
advisable to at least partially demolish it to stabilize it.
Dufferin advised that it is in the process of applying for the required permits (NEC, Town of
Halton Hills) to demolish the structure. Discussion amongst the JART working group was to
encourage Dufferin to explore the possibility of documenting and salvaging of historically
significant material.
Dufferin responded in December 2012 to the NEC that it was agreeable to the hiring of a
company that specializes in ensuring that salvaged materials be protected and donated to the
appropriate organization(s) as part of the demolition of the barn located at 11762 Third Line
(Phase 7).
The Halton Hills Heritage Committee met on January 16, 2013 and discussed the matter. The
Committee still has an interest in both properties and will be dealing with Dufferin directly to
discuss those matters.
59
The JART accepts the sign-off of its Peer Reviewers regarding Archaeological and Cultural
Heritage matters. The Town will address any further issues in its review of the applications.
8.8 Agriculture – refer to February 2012 JART Report
8.9 Visual Impact - Updated
8.9.1
Visual Impact: Process
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, including open landscape character and visual attractiveness. 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.
Based on the May 2011 Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) submission and with consideration of
the revisions to the extraction area, a draft NEC letter was issued March 13, 2012 for the
purposes of a discussion at a meeting held March 29, 2012; representatives of the Town of
Halton Hills, NEC, MHBC, MNR and Dufferin attended.
A final JART letter was issued March 30, 2012 with revisions based on the March 29th
discussion.
A revised VIA was submitted by MHBC in August 2012; revisions include those resulting from
the revised application and transferring part of the required matters to be addressed per the
Terms of Reference to the MHBC ARA Summary Statement and MHBC Planning Addendum
Report of June 2012.
November 7, 2012 interagency review of ARA Drawings (MNR Aurora); visual impact correlated
to natural heritage and other matters prompt need for changes to VIA.
November 27, 2012 meeting held to discuss outstanding matters associated with VIA, ARA
Drawings and revisions resulting from November 7, 2012 meeting. Attending were
representatives of MHBC, Dufferin, Town of Halton Hills and NEC.
January 7, 2013 MHBC advises revised VIA would not be available prior to preparation of the
2013 JART Report.
8.9.2
Visual Impact: Issues
Most of the issues identified within the February 2012 JART Report have been resolved or are
in the process of being addressed by the applicant. The deletion from the original application of
Phase 6 East and the majority of Phase 5 East, within the NEP, has resulted in a significant
change to the visual impact of the overall proposal. These phases if implemented had presented
a number of visual impact concerns both individually and with regard to cumulative effect within
the Escarpment environment.
The following is a summary of issues related to visual impact that were either unresolved as of
the completion of the February 2012 JART Report, or were subsequently raised by the JART:
60
The proposed physical changes to existing conditions are largely identified in an accurate and
objective manner. However additional detail regarding the proposed screening of the extraction
areas (during mining and rehabilitation stages) is outstanding for the 30 metre setback zones
along Third Line. The conceptual design for the visual berms, screen planting and vegetation
preservation areas have been agreed upon; the outstanding matters Dufferin has agreed to
address are:
o The details associated with timing of planting and the specifics of the vegetation
to be planted or preserved.
o The details associated with the layout of berming to serve both as screening and
storage of topsoil (not acoustic).
Dufferin agreed that these details will be added to the Visual Impact Assessment report and the
report referenced on the relevant ARA site plan drawings.
In conclusion the assessment does not yet fully demonstrate the affect of the proposed changes
with regard to the Terms of Reference;

The visual impact of the 7 - 8 metre+/- high acoustic berming for Phases 4 (NEP) 5W,6W
and 7 (outside NEP) visible from Third Line remains of concern;

The NEC remains concerned with the level of rehabilitation associated with Phase 4 and
Phase 7 from a visual perspective. The ARA drawings show a minimal approach to the
rehabilitation to address the results from the mining operation and could be improved by
the following measures including, but not limited to:
o
o
o
o
Provision of more extensive shoreline and wetland areas to mitigate the visual
impact of the water-filled excavation areas.
Works associated with the proposed rehabilitation need to be described with
sufficient detail to ascertain the full scope of work to be implemented.
Phase 4: the visual impact of the mined out areas and bare slopes during the
decades before the water level rises to the zones where shoreline/wetland planting
can occur.
Phase 4 shoreline wetland zone on the south face: further details and transition
from a screened area to shoreline wetland are needed. Visual impact will increase
in this zone as a view to the mined out area will be available with the removal of
the screen.
These matters may be addressed in further consultation with the applicant and through the staff
reports of the JART agencies.
8.10 Planning - Updated
8.10.1 Background
The “Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement & Planning Addendum Report” submitted
as part of Dufferin’s application package in June 2012 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
61
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 held three meetings in 2012, two of them
attended by representatives from the Dufferin team.
Issues still under discussion include:

Whether the proposed EEP provided by Dufferin addresses provincial and municipal
policies;

Implications of the changes to the planning applications submitted in 2012;

Consideration of regulated habitat under the ESA and significant habitat under the PPS
2005;

Analysis of demonstration of no negative impact on significant natural heritage features
under the PPS 2005;

Need and timing for an additional JART Public Information Centre;

Sequence of decisions by approval authorities.
It is not the role of the JART to make conclusions about the conformity of the Dufferin planning
applications with the relevant provincial, regional and local policy regime. Once the JART
process has concluded, the JART agencies will bring recommendation reports to their
respective Boards, Councils and Niagara Escarpment Commission and the public will have
further opportunities to make comments regarding the proposed quarry expansion.
8.11 Rehabilitation/Site Plans
The JART met with Dufferin to discuss the proposed ARA site plans. Issues raised include:
ARA Site Plans
In April 2012 Dufferin submitted updated ARA Site Plans. These updated plans superseded the
original site plans that were submitted with the original application in March 2009. Dufferin
advised that the revisions made to the April 2012 site plans were intended to address the
comments that have been provided by the JART review process and the individual Agencies to
date.
In their letter of April 17, 2012 Dufferin provided a summary of the major items that had been
updated on the site plans, but not limited to the following:

Provincially Significant Wetlands updated as mapped by MNR on all site plan pages;

License Boundary and Limit of Extraction have been updated on all site plan pages. The
total licensed area has reduced from 124.4 ha to 90.6 ha. The total area to be extracted
has reduced from 99.0 ha to 66.5 ha;

Visual Berm details and locations have been updated on Operational Plan pages;
62

Acoustic Berm details have been updated on Operation Plan pages;

“Provincially Significant Wetland Setback and Watermain System Mitigation Detail”
added to Operational Plan Page 2;

“Provincially Significant Wetland/Woodland Setback on Watermain System Mitigation
Detail” added to Operational Plan Page 6 (fully replaces “Typical Acoustic Barrier &
Extraction Setback Detail” on March 3, 2009 site plans);

Silt Fencing details have been updated on Operational Plan pages;

Site Plan Phasing Notes have been updated on Operational Plan pages to include more
detail and reflect the updated Adaptive Management Plan;

Natural Environment, Hydrogeology, Noise, Dust and Blasting technical
recommendations have been updated on Operational Plan pages to address updated
extraction footprint and comments received from the JART review process;

Hydraulic Buttress locations and associated site plan requirements have been updated;

Updated Interim Watermain Alignment, Watermain Feeder and Control Hut Locations
associated with the overall Water Management System added to Operational Plan
pages;

Updated Final Watermain Alignment, Watermain Feeder and Control Hut Locations
associated with the overall Water Management System added to Rehabilitation Plan
pages;

“Planting Enhancement Area (Ecological)” detail identifying areas within the licence to be
planted within the first 5 years of issuance of licence added to Operational Plan pages,
along with corresponding site plan notes. These areas are also identified on the
Rehabilitation Plan pages;

“Vegetation Protection Zones and Visual Mitigation Planting Areas” detail and
corresponding site plan notes added to Operational Plan pages. These areas are also
identified on the Rehabilitation Plan pages;

“Jefferson Salamander Habitat” detail and corresponding site plan notes added to
Operational Plan Page 7;

“Hydraulic Buttress” detail added to Cross-Sections page 8;
63

“Tree Planting/Reforestation” detail added to Rehabilitation Plan pages;

“Wetland Soil Salvage” area for off-site ecological enhancements and the construction of
new amphibian ponds identified on Operational Plan page 2;

“Forest Soil Salvage” area for off-site ecological enhancements and reforestation
identified on Operational Plan page 6;

A 50m zone which identifies the area not to be extracted until an Engineering Inspection
has been completed in Phase 4 has been added to Operational Plan page 2;

A 50m zone which identifies the area not to be extracted until an Engineering Design for
Phases 5-7 has been submitted to MNR has been completed has been added to
Operational Plan page 6;

A placeholder for the “Conveyor Detail” has been added to Operational Plan page 6.
Once the size, location, dimensions and orientation of the proposed conveyor are
confirmed, this information will be provided to the Agencies when it becomes available;

Phase 5 East proposed licence boundary has been reduced to 1.3 ha (all that remains is
a small linear portion located immediately south of Phase 2 of Licence No. 5492);

Phase 6 East has been deleted from the site plans in its entirety; and

Notes on aggregate recycling have been deleted from the site plan in their entirety.
On September 7, 2012, the JART with the exception of MNR representatives met to review
Dufferin’s updated April 2012 ARA Site Plans.
The JART’s comments (red-lined drawings) were forwarded to Dufferin and MNR on October
19, 2012 in advance of a meeting on November 7, 2012 between the JART, Dufferin and staff
from MNR to review the updated ARA Site Plans.
Dufferin has indicated that they will further revise the site plans once the MNR has provided its
position with respect to the quarry footprint and the permit under the ESA. The JART will review
any revised site plans to determine if previous issues raised have been addressed by those
changes.
64
9.0 CONCLUSION
The comments made by the public at the first three 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 the Niagara
Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) and Planning Act processes. This Report
may be used by the JART member agencies in developing advice and reaching conclusions
and decisions under each of their legislative and policy mandates.
65
FIGURES
The following Figures are referred to in the text and some have been copied from Dufferin’s
supporting materials for its applications. The source for each figure is specified below:
Figure 1: Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension Phasing Plan
Figure 2: Rehabilitation Concept, Acton Quarry Extension
67
Figure 3: Preliminary Green Line Alignment and PBT Monitored Features
68
Figure 4: Region of Halton Significant Woodlands
69
Figure 5: Ministry of Natural Resources Mapping, Provincially Significant Wetlands
70
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT
AMP: Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan
ARA: Aggregate Resources Act
AROPS: Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards, 1997
BMP: Best Management Plan
CONE: Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment
C of A: Certificates(s) of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water
Resources Act (now replaced for new applications by ECAs)
CRA: Conestoga-Rovers Associates (water resources consultant to Dufferin)
CVC: Credit Valley Conservation
ECA: Environmental Compliance Approval
EEP: Ecological Enhancement Plan
EPA: Environmental Protection Act
ESA: Endangered Species Act
JART: Joint Agency Review Team
MHBC: MacNaughton Hermsen Britten Clarkson (planning consultant to Dufferin)
MMAH: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
MNR: Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE: Ministry of the Environment
NEC: Niagara Escarpment Commission
NEP: Niagara Escarpment Plan
NEPDA: Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act
OMB: Ontario Municipal Board
OMAFRA: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
OWRA: Ontario Water Resources Act
PBT: Performance-based target (in the AMP)
POWER: Protect our Water and Environmental Resources
PPS: Provincial Policy Statement
PSW: Provincially Significant Wetland
PTTW: Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act
SAR: Species at Risk
SWH: Significant Wildlife Habitat
TIA: Traffic Impact Assessment
71
APPENDIX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Supporting Documentation for the Dufferin Applications
Posted at http://www.dufferinactonquarry.com/en/whatsnew/whats_new.asp
“Application Package for Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension”, Dufferin Aggregates,
February 2009
“Aggregate Resources Act Site Plans - Acton Quarry Extension”, MHBC Planning, January
2009.
“Aggregate Resources Act Site Plans – Acton Quarry Extension”, MHBC Planning, April 2012
“Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement and Planning Report”, MHBC Planning,
February 2009”
“Aggregate Resources Act Summary Statement & Planning Addendum Report”, MHBC
Planning, June 2012
“Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report (3 Volumes) Acton Quarry Extension Town
of Halton Hills, Ontario”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, November 2008
“Geology and Water Resources Assessment Report – Phase 1 Report for Halton Acton Quarry
JART”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, December 2009
“Water Budget Sensitivity Analyses, Dufferin Acton Quarry Extension, Region of Halton”,
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, January 2012
“Historic Conditions Groundwater Model Analyses, Dufferin Acton Quarry Extension, Region of
Halton”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, January 2012
“Reply to Final Peer Review Report, March 15, 2011, Halton Acton Quarry JART (final)”,
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, February 2012
“ Response to October 25, 2011 Follow-up #1 and November 8, 2011 Follow-up #2 to Reply to
Final Peer Review, Halton Acton Quarry JART”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, February
2012
“Additional Geology and Water Resources Field Investigations, Acton Quarry Extension, Town
of Halton Hills, Ontario”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, February 2012
“Additional Information on Phase 7 Hydrogeology and Mitigation, Acton Quarry Extension”,
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, June 2012
“Hydrologic Water Balance Update, Sensitivity Analyses and Responses to Comments, Dufferin
Acton Quarry Extension, Region of Halton”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, August 2012
“Off-site Supplemental Monitoring Locations North of Phase 4, Dufferin Acton Quarry Extension,
Region of Halton”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, August 2012
“Groundwater Model Update – Refinement and Calibration”, Acton Quarry Extension, Town of
Halton Hills”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, August 2012
“Groundwater Model and Quarry Water Budget Update, Acton Quarry Extension, Town of
Halton Hills”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, August 2012
“Response to JART Technical Report Acton Extension Application”, Dufferin Aggregates, May
2012
“Response to JART Regarding Peer Review Sign-off Letter of December 6, 2012, Acton Quarry
Extension, Town of Halton Hills”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, January 2013
“Level 1 and II Natural Environment Technical Report Acton Quarry Extension Town of Halton
Hills, Ontario”, Stantec Consulting Ltd., Goodban Ecological Consulting and Ecoplans Limited,
December 2008.
“Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension Project Noise Impact Study”, Aercoustics
Engineering Limited, November 2008.
“Blasting Impact Assessment Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Proposed Extension”, Golder
Associated Ltd., November 2008.
“Air Quality Assessment Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension Halton Hills, Ontario”,
RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, December 2008.
Traffic Impact Assessment Proposed Acton Quarry Extension Town of Halton Hills”, MMM
Group, January 2009.
Traffic Impact Assessment Proposed Acton Quarry Extension Town of Halton Hills”, MMM
Group, June, 2011.
“Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2 & 3) Dufferin Aggregates, a Business Unit of St.
Lawrence Cement Inc. Acton Quarry Extension Part of Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3
and Part of Lots 20, 21 & 22, Concession 4 Town of Halton Hills Region of Halton, Ontario”,
Archaeologix Inc., November 2008.
“Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4) Dufferin Aggregates, a Business Unit of St. Lawrence
Cement Inc. Acton Quarry Extension Part of Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3 and Part of
Lots 20, 21 & 22, Concession 4 Town of Halton Hills Region of Halton, Ontario”, Archaeologix
Inc., November 2008.
“Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2 & 3) Dufferin Aggregates, a Business Unit of St.
Lawrence Cement Inc. Acton Quarry Extension Part of Lot 24, Concession 3 Town of Halton
Hills Region of Halton, Ontario”, Archaeologix Inc., October 2008.
“Cultural Landscape Study and Built Heritage Assessment Dufferin Aggregates, a Business Unit
of St. Lawrence Cement Inc. Acton Quarry Extension Part of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24,
Concession 3 and Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 4 Town of Halton Hills Region of
Halton, Ontario”, Archaeologix Inc., November 2008, Revised April 2010.
“Agricultural Impact Assessment, Acton Quarry Extension”, MHBC Planning, January 2009.
“Dufferin Aggregates Acton Quarry Extension Addendum Response to Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs”, MHBC Planning, October 19, 2011.
“Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan Acton Quarry Extension – Town of Halton
Hills, Ontario”, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Stantec Consulting Ltd., Goodban Ecological
Consulting and Ecoplans Limited November 2008.
“Visual Impact Assessment, Dufferin Aggregates Proposed Extension of the Acton Quarry,
MHBC Planning, July 2010
“Visual Impact Assessment, Dufferin Aggregates Proposed Extension of the Acton Quarry,
MHBC Planning, May 2011
Discussion on Area-Sensitive Breeding Birds, Prepared by Gray Owl Environmental Inc.,
Stantec Consulting Limited & Goodban Ecological Consulting Inc. Final Draft June 7, 2012.
Discussion on Amphibian Species Observations. Stantec Consulting., Gray Owl Consulting,
Goodban Ecological Consulting. June 6, 2012.
73
Discussion on Amphibian and Reptile Movement Patterns. Prepared by Gray Owl
Environmental Inc., Stantec Consulting, Goodban Ecological Consulting Inc. June 5, 2012.
Discussion on Amphibian and Reptile Movement Patterns.
Prepared by Gray Owl
Environmental Inc., Stantec Consulting Ltd, and Goodban Ecological Consulting Inc. Final Draft
August 21, 2012.
Discussion on Significant Wildlife Habitat Prepared by Gray owl Environmental Inc., Stantec
Consulting & Goodban Ecological Consulting Inc. May 3, 2012
Discussion on Significant Wildlife Habitat. Prepared by Gray Owl Environmental Inc., Stantec
Consulting & Goodban Ecological Consulting Inc. Revised June 6, 2012 Version 2.
Supplemental Monitoring Program Decision Flow Chart Figure 2. Dufferin Aggregates. June 14,
2012
Table 1 (AMP Part II Section G) Ecological Triggers – Supplemental Monitoring Results Dufferin
Aggregates, June 14, 2012
Legislation
Aggregate Resources Act:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a08_e.htm
Conservation Authorities Act
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c27_e.htm
Endangered Species Act
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm
Greenbelt Act
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05g01_e.htm
Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90n02_e.htm
Planning Act:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a08_e.htm
Policy Documents
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx
Region of Halton Official Plan, 2006 Consolidation:
http://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=26798#PDF_Version
Town of Halton Hills Official Plan May 2008 Office Consolidation
http://www.haltonhills.ca/planning/policy-op-new-plan.php
Aggregate Resources of Ontario: Provincial Standards, Ministry of Natural Resources, 1997
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Aggregates/Publication/STEL02_173877.html
MNR Aggregate Resources Policy Manual
74
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Aggregates/2ColumnSubPage/266561.html
Greenbelt Plan 2005, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page187.aspx
Niagara Escarpment Plan
http://www.escarpment.org/landplanning/plan/index.php
75
APPENDIX 3: DUFFERIN ACTON QUARRY EXPANSION JART
PIC #3
March 20, 2012 6:30 to 9:30 pm
Acton District High School
Nancy Mott Allen (NMA) opened the PIC
Slide 1 Intro
Slide 2 Objectives for the Meeting
Slide 3
Events to date
Introductions:
Steve Rowe
Environmental Planner, JART
Liam Marry
CVC
Dan Banks
CVC
Ray Guther
Conservation Halton
Jim Dougan
Dougan & Associates, JART
Chris Neville
S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, JART
Lisa Grbinicek
NEC
Brian Hudson
Halton Region
Mark Kluge
Halton Hills
John Pisapio
MNR
Brian Zeman
MHBC (Dufferin)
Andrea Bourrie
Dufferin
Richard Murphy
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (Dufferin)
Enzo Bertucci Dufferin
Slide 4 JART Activities to date – JART is NOT a decision making body
Slide 5 The Existing Quarry
Slide 6 The Original Proposal
Slide 7 The Original Proposal continued
Slide 8 Who is represented on JART
Slide 9 Other JART participants
Slide 10
Purpose of JART & JART Review
Slide 11
Applications submitted to date
Slide 12
Policy Context
Slide 13
Other Approval Required (after JART Review and Planning decisions)
Slide 14
Review of Dufferin’s Technical Documents
Slide 15
Background Water Resources
Slide 16
Review Team Water Resources
Slide 17
Findings & Issues: Water Resources
Slide 18
Findings & Issues: Water Resources – ground water related issues
Slide 19
Findings & Issues: Water Resources – domestic well supply, groundwater quality
Slide 20
Findings & Issues: Water Resources – AMP/Green Line – feasibility of mitigation
measures
Slide 21
Findings & Issues: Water Resources – Karstic Geology
Slide 22
Findings & Issues: Water Resources – Rock pillars & hydraulic buttresses
Slide 23
Findings & Issues: Water Resources – Successor to manage water??
Slide 24
Natural Environment Lisa G
Slide 25
Natural Environment New Developments – wetlands and species at risk
Slide 26
Natural Environment (Map) – MNR regulated, permits required from MNR –
Slide 27
New Developments: Significant Woodlots Brian Hudson
On going discussion between Region and Dufferin
Slide 28
Natural Environment: Significant Woodlands – rehab plans and setbacks
Slide 29
Other Findings & Issues: Natural Environment
Lisa G
Cumulative Impact Analysis, Jefferson, Regulated vs. Significant Habitat
Slide 30
Natural Environment
Slide 31
Natural Environment - Dufferin has committed to providing baseline data
Slide 32
Interim Findings & Issues: Adaptive Management Plan
Slide 33
AMP Issues continued
Ray Guther & Dan Banks
NMA
77
Slide 34
Findings & Issues: Transportation
NMA
Opportunities for further dialogue, on-going discussions
Slide 35
Transportation continued
Slide 36
Findings & Issues:
Noise and Blasting
NMA
Slide 37
Findings & Issues:
Air Quality
NMA
Slide 38
Findings & Issues:
Cultural Heritage, Agriculture, Visual Impact NMA
Slide 39
Findings & Issues:
Planning
Slide 40
Summary:
Side 41
Remaining JART Process
Slide 42
Post JART
Slide 43
Revised Dufferin Applications
Current Status
NMA – concept of Net Gain
NMA
Andrea Bourrie & Brian Zeman presented the following 7 slides
Slide 1
Title Page
Slide 2
Dufferin Aggregates is listening to Public/Agency Comments – Revised
Footprint
Slide 3
Revisions to Applications Map
Slide 4
Enhanced Water Supply Complaint Procedure
Slide 5
Application Exceeds Policy Requirements
Slide 6
Next Steps
Slide 7
Dufferin Logo
Slide 44
Questions & Comments
Q.
Brian Zeman
NMA
Phase 7 - is that the last phase or is there Phases 8, 9 and 10?
Brian Zeman
No additional phases – Dufferin is conveying the lands to public ownership
and applying for restrictive designations to prevent future quarrying
78
Leslie Adams
Requested a copy of all the slides – will be provided
Permit for Endangered Species – posted on EBR?
How does the Public Comment?
John Pisapio/Brian Zeman
Permit filed in September 2011
Delay in posting
Long term process
Dufferin will let the Public now when the information is posted
on the Environmental Registry?
Leslie Adams
Dufferin not using the Region’s Policy of “Net Gain” – why not?
Brian Zeman
Active discussions with the Region on this matter
Leslie Adams on behalf of POWER
Brian Zeman
Sent in an objection letter September 2010 on ARA
application – received a response, but still looking for
some clarity on our issues as some were not
addressed
Dufferin is prepared to continue the dialogue with POWER
NMA
No agency or municipality has made a decision or formed an opinion on the applications
– all wrote objection letters too.
Q.
What will the site look like when it’s all done? Does the Community end up with
something of value?
NMA
A Rehabilitative Plan was submitted – no certainty as to the final use (NEC)
Andrea Bourrie
Q.
There is a vision for the end of the Quarry; Dufferin is committed that the
rehab of the quarry does not take forever. The rehab can start as early
as 5 years after approval.
Jefferson Salamander
Andrea Bourrie:
Working with MNR to protect the Jeffy – revised footprint
Applied for permit, to ensure the requirements of MNR are put in place
Dufferin recognizes the importance of the species
Creation of breeding ponds.
Chris Rumley (Ms.) letter read out – see attached
Ann Lawlor
NMA
Was rail transportation looked at?
not feasible, rail infrastructure is not in place
Brian Zeman
End delivery of aggregate is by truck, only logical route is by truck, rail lines do
not go to the end user.
79
Q.
Define Greenbelt?
NMA brief explanation – high level overview, part of the application is in the Greenbelt.
Q.
NMA
What has the Ministry of Transportation not commented? I live on the 17th Side Road and
I am fed up with truck traffic, the speed at which the trucks travel, causes my windows to
rattle and cracks have formed in my house. LIMIT the number of vehicles on the 17th Side
Road
MTO does not have jurisdiction over these roads – Region and Town do. Referred to
the Transportation slide – not all the trucks belong to Dufferin – Contractors. The Police
and Municipality cover enforcement.
Andrea Bourrie
Dufferin does training with drivers
Protocol and Code of Conduct
If not followed there are sanctions – suspension of rights to pick up gravel
at any Dufferin Quarry for a specified amount of time (a day or more)
Public should contact the Quarry office
Dufferin supports on-site truck, safety and load inspections
Q.
Police and the Quarry
Who do my heirs sue when I am hit by a truck and killed?
I can’t get the licence plate
Trucks are NOT following the rules of the road
There is no law to protect us
There should be a relocation of resources to monitor the situation
Trucks have radios and warn other drivers when the police are out.
Q.
4th Line and 17th Side Road
Trucks run the Stop sign
I’ve called the Quarry with licence plate and nothing is done
17th Side Road – a group of residents got together and got the speed limit reduced from 80
to 60km/h – can it go lower?
Nancy Mott-Allen
Appreciate your bringing these concerns to our attention
Will refer them to the appropriate agencies for follow up
Q.
Q.
Karstic – what is it?
Chris Neville
Richard Murphy
Q.
gave a brief explanation - The movement of water through limestone
Dufferin looked at the Karstic formations but it was of low significance
You get a JART report at the end of the day – but there is nothing in the report that gives
the Town all the ammunition to answer all the questions. How does the Town and Region
answer all the questions?
80
NMA
The JART Peer Reviewers reviewed Dufferin’s work, they need to be satisfied that the
work was properly done, all the information was there, complies with standards, there
are conditions imposed
JART agencies worked together so that everyone was on the same page – it was
economies of scale so that everyone did not have to go out and hire their own Peer
Reviewers.
Q.
Water supply for wells?
Chris Neville Dufferin has proposed an Early Warning System for wells
Q.
What is your RING DISTANCE - the Green Line?
Richard Murphy outlined the Green Line – the ring of monitoring wells
Q.
Do you have an algorithm for the well monitoring?
Q.
Water is the BIG issue?
Andrea Bourrie
Different aquifers above and below the Niagara Escarpment
Annual Monitoring Information is available to the Public
Surface Water Monitoring Information also available – some monthly
9:15PM (Approx.)
LAST STATEMENT MADE – then NMA closed the meeting by
thanking everyone.
If residents still have issues they could fill in a Response Form – no response forms
printed so Mark Kluge of the Town handed out his business card and advised people to
send in their comments to him and he would distribute accordingly.
PIC ended at 9:30PM
81
APPENDIX 4: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Individual
Comment
JART response
JART PIC #1 - March 04, 2008
March 4, 2008
1. Resident of 22
Sideroad
-
-
Experience problems with blasting
Object to the new license
Experiencing water shortages since
2005 when Quarry stopped
pumping in top settling ponds
Last 2 years water delivered
No solutions to the water problem
on 4th Line
JART has addressed the
issue of private wells in
Section 8.2 of the JART
report.
The MOE is responsible for
addressing issues under the
Permit to Take Water for the
existing quarry.
Your objection to the quarry
is noted. Public will have
additional opportunities to
express their concerns when
the agencies consider the
applications.
Notice of Received (by Town) Application(s) – April 01, 2009
April 6, 2009
2. Resident of 4th
Line
-
-
April 6, 2009
-
3. Resident of 4th
Line
-
Live just south of the quarry
See above response
Object to the new license
Experiencing water shortages since
2005 when Quarry stopped
pumping in top settling ponds
Last 2 years water delivered
No solutions to the water problem
on 4th Line
Damage the Quarry blasting is
doing to homes, foundations and
wells
Crack in our well – Dufferin
covered cost to fix
March 2009 water in the basement
– out of pocket to fix foundation as
a result of the blasting
Dufferin has a “Blasting
Beyond Compliance”
Protocol in place to ensure
that blasting meets or
exceeds MOE standards
JART had a peer review of
the blasting study prepared
by Dufferin; peer reviewer
concluded that proposed
expansion could meet MOE
standards subject to
82
April 22, 2009
4. Resident of
4th Line
April 30, 2009
-
Since 2007 experienced well
problems
- Level of water down 6m
- Quality of water has decreased
- Damage is due to the quarry
activity
- From 1999 to 2007 not 1 week
without blasting
- The house shakes terribly
- Several meetings between Dufferin
& 4th Line Residents but no positive
results
- Quarry states this activity does not
have any environmental impact –
so nature is guilty if there are
problems with the well water
- Since the problem with the well
water became public 2 years ago
housing process have dropped –
no one wants to buy property in the
area,
- Is there any protection plan for
affected property owners on 4th
Line from the Quarry regarding
water and property value?
Counter enquiry requested to be notified
conditions requiring ongoing
monitoring through the ARA
license
Complaints can be directed
to MNR or Dufferin
JART has addressed the
issue of private wells in
report.
existing quarry.
Your objection to the quarry
is noted. Public will have
additional opportunities to
express their concerns when
the agencies consider the
applications.
See above regarding
blasting.
Noted.
5. Resident of Hwy
24
May 13, 2009
-
6. Resident of
Acton
-
-
-
-
Disturbing to see the size of the
expansion
How does the law allow this –
complete destruction of natural
habitat east of Hwy 25
West of Hwy 25 Conservation
Halton keeps strict rules and
regulations in place
The expansion means more daily
explosions, heavy truck traffic and
potential water problems that could
make our now protected wetlands
a little dryer
The landscape south of Acton will
Dufferin needs approval for
the proposed expansion
from the NEC, the Region
and the Town
JART has been studying all
the technical reports with the
help of peer review experts
including the review of the
proposed mitigation system
to prevent impacts on
wetlands
Public has opportunity to
share concerns with
approval authorities before
83
June 4, 2009
Resident of 4th Line
-
-
June 17, 2009
7. Resident of 4th
Line
Live 200m from the Quarry
Impacted by the blasting; well
collapsed, house shakes
Dufferin placed monitoring
equipment on my property but then
disconnected/removed without any
notice
QUESTION – Why did Acton
Quarry remove this equipment from
my property just (the) day before
(they) start blasting again without
any witnesses?
Dufferin has not solved our water
concerns (ERT Case No. 08124/08 -125/08-126) all they have
done is lower the pump
- If the quarry did not tamper with the
water supply, our pump would not
have to have been lowered
- 2005 our swamp lands started to
dry up taking away animal habitat
- Stream at the back started to dry
up that fills our pond at the front
- We no longer have a pond at the
back of our property
- Why did the seeps on the south
side of our driveway no longer run?
- Blasting has adversely affected our
house with cracked outside walls,
widow seals have broken, holes
appearing in our yards (not animals
burrowing)
- Now we are constantly on guard
without water consumption and
holes that continue to appear in our
yard.
- Our property has been devalued
- The Quarry should be severely
restricted of stopped.
- The Quarry should pay restitution
to the residents of the 4th Line for
what we have been put through
any decisions are made and
can appeal a decision if not
satisfied
license
to MNR or Dufferin
Concern noted. Private well
issues are discussed in
Section 8.2 of this report.
Your objection is noted.
Public has opportunity to
share concerns with
approval authorities before
any decisions are made and
can appeal a decision if not
satisfied
existing quarry.
84
-
-
August 12, 2009
The Quarry should be held
responsible for water loss
The environmental impact - loss of
vegetation and wildlife habitat loss
and destruction of the Niagara
Escarpment which has been
created by the continuous
expansion of the Dufferin Quarry
I am strongly opposed to the
application by Dufferin to expand
the existing Dufferin Quarry
Requested to be notified
Noted
Requested to be notified
Noted.
8. Resident of
Etobicoke
August 27, 2009
9. Citizen group
JART PIC #2 - November 29, 2010
10. Anonymous
Public Comment
Form
From Nov 29/10
PIC
11. Resident of
Acton area
From Nov 29/10
PIC
Explain the AMP; sounds like changing the
rules after the game has started
Object strongly to proposal
Quarry will permanently disrupt
groundwater distribution
Proposal for continuous intervention by
pumping water is fundamentally unsound
and prone to failure
Risk is high, benefit to society is low
Adaptive Management Plan
is proposed to address
unforeseen impacts to water
and natural heritage; it was
updated in 2012
Would be enforced through
licence and an agreement;
these are still under
discussion between Dufferin
and the agencies
Objection noted
Groundwater features such
as natural features and
private wells are proposed to
be protected by the
monitoring and mitigation
system as part of the AMP
JART has recommended
that all mitigation measures
are to be tested before
quarrying proceeds in an
area and that long term
management of water
resources and financial
securities to support that be
addressed in separate
85
agreements
JART PIC #3 - March 20, 2012
13. March 20,
2012
Letter read out @
PIC
-
Resident of Acton
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Niagara Escarpment is the
jewel of our community
UN recognizes its unique
characteristics – a world biosphere
reserve
Over the years ancient trees have
been cut, wetlands drained,
watersheds and tables have been
altered , habitats lost and the rock
that makes up the feature removed
one truck load at a time
Watersheds and water tables
disrupted and mechanical pumping
now necessary to ensure the
viability of the 16 Mile & Black
Creeks
The new mine will be different we
are told - we (Dufferin) have new
ways
When the NE was first created it
wasn’t protected to ensure the
aggregate industry a stockpile of
gravel
What was the intent of the
UNESCO to recognize the NE as a
World Biosphere Reserve – the
area is and unusually complex
ecosystem of plants and animals
where water is the key
Companies explain their reason for
quarrying on the NE is cheap
accessible aggregate – the Milton
Quarry has a license to mine an
unlimited amount of rock
If approved we may end up leaving
future generations with the burden
of maintaining an ecosystem that
can no longer support itself
The damage is done, pumping will
continue
Do we really need to continue to
mine aggregate in one of the most
unique parts of the planet?
Dufferin is the largest industrial
activity in HH – it contributes more
The Biosphere Reserve
designation does not prohibit
quarry applications
A mitigation system is
proposed as part of the
Adaptive Management Plan
for this application; JART is
still working out the details of
the AMP with Dufferin.
The Provincial Policy
Statement requires that
provision of aggregate be
considered for locations
throughout the province but
policies of the Niagara
Escarpment Plan must also
be satisfied.
Applications can be made for
amendments to the NEP but
the Purpose, Objectives,
policies and development
criteria of the NEP must be
satisfied.
A future report to the NEC
will address whether
provincial, regional and local
policies have been satisfied
by the Dufferin application.
86
-
We must reclaim the NE
April 01, 2012
e-mail
-
14. Resident of
Hwy 24
-
Concerns are the blasting (effects
on) my water well and home
foundations
Excessive noise at night from water
pumps running
Truck traffic noise, engine brakes
Garbage in the ditch
What is the certainty that the land
will be donated by Dufferin?
Should be negotiated before
extension is approved
Blasting predicted to comply
with MOE guidelines; JART
peer reviewers signed off on
noise and blasting subject to
conditions
Quarry is not to operate at
night according to licence
Dufferin and the Town of
Halton Hills are discussing
entering into a land
conveyance agreement to
deal with the donation of
land
Object to the quarry expansion
Jefferson Salamander is
endangered and requires
protection
Annihilation of existing habitat
proposed
No guarantee new habitat will be
successful
Last permit for quarry has not been
honoured so no new one should be
granted until past problems
addressed, particularly regarding
4th Line wells
Would like more time to comment
on the issues
Experienced problems on my
property that interferes with my
right of peaceful enjoyment of my
home caused by the Acton Quarry
Cracks in the foundation caused by
the blasting
Well Water, decreased quantity
Everyone must have adequate
clean water for our daily lives – if
not the quarry must compensate
and provide water for those of us
who do not have it.
Concern noted
Still time to comment and
opportunities for further
comment will be available at
future meetings of the Town,
Region and NEC before
decisions are made
April 2, 2012
e-mail
-
15. Resident of
Acton
July 23, 2012
Letter
16. 4th Line
resident
-
-
August 2012
Letter
-
17. 4th Line
resident
-
Concern noted
license
87
August 1, 2012
Letter
18. 4th Line
Resident
-
-
August 23 2012
Letter
19. Acton resident
-
-
-
-
-
August 24, 2012
Letter
20. 4th Line
-
Experienced problems on my
property that interferes with my
right of peaceful enjoyment of my
home caused by the Acton Quarry
Water table has been lowered
forcing pump to be lowered to
maximum depth
Seals broken in thermal panes,
cracks in block work
Wetlands have dried up
Jefferson Salamander no longer
has habitat
President of Blue Circle promised a
[water] pipe for residents
We should be on town water if
quarry goes ahead
New licence and expansion will
make things worse
Opposed to quarry expansion
Impact of existing quarry evident
with areas of 4th Line, 3rd Line and
22 Sideroad dewatered despite
mitigation plans
Environment and residents have
suffered
endangered species, important
forests and wetlands are in the
proposed expansion area
Further degradation cannot be
permitted
Impacts on surrounding area will be
a domino effect; less natural
environment can be sustained
Unlimited amounts can be mined
from the Milton quarry; Dufferin
should be required to demonstrate
need
World Biosphere Reserve should
be protected like a park
If needed, a proposal could be
approved in the future when
engineering will have a better
understanding of the issues
Rehabilitation should be initiated
instead
Strongly object to quarry
expansion, particularly Phase 7
Rehabilitation: plans have changed
to MNR or Dufferin
Official Plan policy does not
permit the extension of
urban services to the rural
area.
JART acknowledges the loss
of function to wetlands from
the existing quarry and the
resulting loss of Jefferson
Salamander habitat.
JART has asked Dufferin to
address impacts from the
existing quarry in the AMP.
Objection noted.
Revised footprint does
include regulated habitat, a
small amount of significant
woodland but no provincially
significant wetlands
UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve Designation does
not prohibit aggregate
extraction
Additional studies of water
issues done by Dufferin are
available on their website
88
Resident
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
September 11,
2012
e-mail
21. 4th Line
resident
-
Wells: Jagger Hims report said
there had been well interference
with 2 wells on 4th Line
They lost water in their well
between 2007 and 2009; had to dig
second well, had sediment in well;
others on the road have also had
problems (wells replaced, trucking
in water, well collapse, lower yield)
Want to see copy of new water
studies done by Dufferin
Blasting: will negatively affect
livestock, dust will impact farm,
livestock, wildlife and woodland
Jefferson Salamander: go to same
breeding grounds every year in the
area Dufferin proposes to quarry;
how will they be protected; what
kind of government gives out
licences for extinction
Conveyor: how will it affect wildlife
(deer, coyotes)
Aggregate: Milton quarry supplying
local aggregate so no need for
Acton quarry to continue; more
aggregate needs to be recycled; let
Peel get aggregate from Peel
Loss of property enjoyment: water
issues, trucking, blasting, going to
all the meetings means we have
lost our enjoyment of our property
Niagara Escarpment: quarrying
should not be allowed, World
Biosphere should be protected for
future generations
Ask for more time to submit more
information later
Well went dry September 6/12
Peer review consultants on
water and blasting believe
the quarry can proceed
subject to conditions in the
licence and the Adaptive
Management Plan
UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve Designation does
not prohibit aggregate
extraction
PPS does not allow an
evaluation of need for
aggregate or require that it
be provided locally
Conveyor design still under
discussion
Still time to comment and
opportunities for further
comment will be available at
future meetings of the Town,
Region and NEC before
decisions are made
Issue noted.
report addresses private well
issues.
89
existing quarry.
NOTE: Any comments received from the public after the statutory meetings under the
Planning Act and Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act on September 24
and 26, 2012, will be assessed by the respective agencies in their staff reports as these
events were not part of the JART process.
90
APPENDIX 5: DUFFERIN APPLICATIONS
Class “A” Licence under the Aggregate Resources Act
Dufferin has modified the extraction boundary for Phase 7 and proposes to transport aggregate
from Phase 7 on Third Line by conveyor rather than by truck and revised the ARA site plans in
April 2012 as described in Section 8.3.1 of this Report.
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.
Proposed Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment

Change in designation from Escarpment Rural Area to Mineral Resource Extraction Area
for the lands proposed to be extracted in Phase 4 and Part of Phase 7

Change in designation from Escarpment Rural Area to Escarpment Natural Area in Part
of Phase 7 and lands in the former Phases 5 and 6 East for the lands that are in the
ANSI

Removal of Phases 5 and 6 East from the area to licensed and extracted (small portion
of Phase 5 East remains as a southerly extension of Phase 2)

Reduction of Phase 4 to exclude PSW and Phase 7 to protect the significant habitat for
Jefferson Salamander and provide increased buffers to adjacent natural features

Site specific exception to Part 2.8.1 to permit mineral resource extraction and associated
activities in endangered species habitat in accordance with a permit issued under the
Endangered Species Act and Part 2.6.10 to permit mineral resource extraction in nonPSW wetlands

Site specific policy to permit existing processing facility in Phase 1 to serve the proposed
quarry while the two sites are actively operated by a single licensee as an integrated
operation

Site specific policy to propose that once the licence is surrendered and if the lands are
conveyed to a public authority, the Dufferin lands will be added to the Niagara
Escarpment Parks and Open Space System (NEPOSS)

Site specific policy to permit the use of lands designated as Escarpment Rural that
would serve as the proposed buffer for the Mineral Resource Extraction Area for
berming, stockpiling, accessory facilities associated with extraction and the water
management and mitigation system

Site specific policy to permit the existing office, maintenance buildings, facilities for
washing processing and stockpiling aggregate, truck washing facility, recycling facilities
and the entrance on Fourth Line to be used to support the extraction of aggregate from
the proposed quarry
91

92
Proposed Niagara Escarpment Development Permit

Boundary of the area subject to the Development Permit includes the existing quarry and
processing area outside the existing licence to reflect that the existing and proposed
quarries will operate together in terms of processing of aggregate and the operation of
the water mitigation system

Mineral aggregate operation including rehabilitation, mitigation, monitoring and
accessory structures and facilities in accordance with Aggregate Resources Act Site
Plans dated April 17, 2012

Installation and servicing of infrastructure, structures and facilities relate to the water
management and monitoring system for the proposed quarry in accordance with the
“Performance-Based Adaptive Management Plan” dated April 2012

Continued use of the existing office, maintenance buildings, facilities for washing
processing and stockpiling aggregate, truck washing facility, recycling facilities (concrete
and asphalt) and the entrance on Fourth Line to support the extraction of aggregate from
the proposed quarry

Taking and discharge of water, including the installation and servicing of infrastructure,
structures and facilities for an integrated water management system with the existing
quarry and proposed quarry extension in accordance with the Permit to Take Water and
Certificate of Approval issued under the Ontario Water Resources Act

Installation and servicing of infrastructure, structures and facilities of the aggregate
processing plant in accordance with the Environmental Compliance Approval issued
under the Environmental Protection Act

Implementation of mitigation measures in accordance with a Permit issued under the

Implementation of the Off-site Ecological Enhancement Plan, dated March 31, 2012
93
94
Region of Halton Proposed Official Plan Amendment
March 30, 2012
The following amendment is proposed by Dufferin to update the Region of Halton Official Plan
Amendment application originally dated March 2, 2009 and filed with the Region of Halton on
March 3, 2009.
The updated amendment includes both a change in designation and site specific exceptions to
policies of the Region of Halton Official Plan.
The Revised Amendment
The Region of Halton Official Plan, 2006 is hereby amended as follows:
Item I
Map I - The Regional Structure - is hereby amended by:
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lots 19 and 24, Concession 3, Part
of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 4, in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as
shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 2
The lands designated as Agricultural Rural Area in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3 in
the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 3
The lands designated as Greenlands A in Part of Lots 21, 22 and 24, Concession 3 in the Town
of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to
Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 4
The lands designated as Greenlands B in Part of Lots 21, 22 and 24, Concession 3 in the Town
of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to
Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 5
95
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lot 19, Concession 3 in the Town of
Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to
Escarpment Natural Area.
Item 6
The lands designated as Greenlands B in Part of Lots 20 and 21, Concession 4 in the Town of
Item 7
The lands designated as Agricultural Rural Area in Part of Lots 20 and 21, Concession 3 in the
Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Greenlands B.
Item 8
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lot 19, Concession 3 and Part of
Lots 20 and 21, Concession 3 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as
shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Greenlands B.
Item 9
The lands designated as Greenlands A in Part 24 Concession 3 in the Town of Halton Hills,
Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Escarpment
Rural Area.
Item 10
The lands designated as Greenlands B in Part of Lot 24 Concession 3 in the Town of Halton
Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to
Escarpment Rural Area.
Item 11
96
The lands designated as Greenlands A in Part of Lots 21 and 22 Concession 3 in the Town of
Agricultural Rural Area.
Item 12
The lands designated as Greenlands B in Part of Lots 21 and 22 Concession 3 in the Town of
Agricultural Rural Area.
Item 13
The lands designated as Escarpment Protection Area in Part of Lot 24 Concession 4 in the
Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Greenlands A.
Item 14
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lot 24 Concession 3 and Part of
shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Greenlands A.
Item 15
The lands designated as Escarpment Natural Area in Part of Lot 19, Concession 3 and Part of
Lots 20, 21, and 22 Concession 4 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton,
as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Greenlands A.
Item 16
The lands designated as Agricultural Rural Area in Part of Lot 20, Concession 3 in the Town of
Greenlands A.
Item 17
That the following permitted use is added to Section 100, Permitted Uses:
97
The Escarpment Rural Area and Agricultural Rural Area lands in Part of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22 and
24, Concession 3, Part of Lots 22 and 23, Concession 4, in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional
Municipality of Halton, forming the buffer and setback for the Mineral Resource Extraction Area
associated with Amendment ____ to this Plan may be included within the licence area approved
under the Aggregate Resources Act, and may be used for berming, screening, temporary
stockpiling of earthen material, accessory structures and facilities normally associated with a
mineral extraction operation, and facilities and servicing for, and related to the water
management and monitoring system for the quarry extension. Extraction shall be prohibited in
this area.
98
99
Town of Halton Hills Proposed Official Plan Amendment
March 30, 2012
The following amendment is proposed by Dufferin to update the Town of Halton Hills Official
Plan Amendment application originally dated March 2, 2009 and filed with the Town of Halton
Hills on March 3, 2009.
The updated amendment includes both a change in designation and site specific exceptions to
policies of the Town of Halton Hills Official Plan.
The Revised Amendment
The Town of Halton Hills Official Plan, 2008 is hereby amended as follows:
Item I
Schedule A2 – Greenbelt Plan - is hereby amended by:
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lots 19 and 24, Concession 3, Part
of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 4, in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as
shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 2
The lands designated as Protected Countryside Area in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession
3 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 3
The lands designated as Greenlands A in Part of Lot 24, Concession 3 in the Town of Halton
Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Mineral
Resource Extraction Area.
Item 4
100
The lands designated as Greenlands B in Part of Lot 24, Concession 3 in the Town of Halton
Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Mineral
Resource Extraction Area.
Item 5
The lands designated as Greenbelt Greenlands in Part of Lots 21and 22, Concession 3 in the
Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Mineral Resource Extraction Area.
Item 6
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lot 19, Concession 3 in the Town of
Item 7
The lands designated as Greenlands B in Part of Lots 20 and 21, Concession 4 in the Town of
Item 8
The lands designated Protected Countryside Area in Part of Lots 20 and 21, Concession 3 in
the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Greenbelt Greenlands.
Item 9
The lands designated Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lot 19, Concession 3 and Part of Lots
21 and 22, Concession 4 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown
on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Greenlands B.
Item 10
101
The lands designated as Greenlands A and B in Part of Lot 24 Concession 3 in the Town of
Escarpment Rural Area.
Item 11
The lands designated as Greenbelt Greenlands in Part of Lots 21 and 22 Concession 3 in the
Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Protected Countryside.
Item 12
The lands designated as Escarpment Protection Area in Part of Lot 24 Concession 4 in the
Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, as shown on Schedule “A” are redesignated to Greenlands A.
Item 13
The lands designated as Escarpment Rural Area in Part of Lot 24 Concession 3 and Part of
shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Greenlands A.
Item 14
The lands designated as Escarpment Natural Area in Part of Lot 19, Concession 3 and Part of
Lots 20, 21, and 22 Concession 4 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton,
as shown on Schedule “A” are re-designated to Greenlands A.
Item 15
The lands designated as Protected Countryside in Part of Lot 20, Concession 3 in the Town of
Greenbelt Greenlands.
Item 16
That the following permitted use is added to Section B4.2.3.3, Permitted Uses:
102
The Escarpment Rural Area lands in Part of Lots 19 and 24, Concession 3, Part of Lots 21 and
22, Concession 4, in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, forming the
buffer and setback for the Mineral Resource Extraction Area associated with Amendment ____
to this Plan may be included within the licence area approved under the Aggregate Resources
Act, and may be used for berming, screening, temporary stockpiling of earthen material,
accessory structures and facilities normally associated with a mineral extraction operation, and
facilities and servicing for, and related to the water management and monitoring system for the
quarry extension. Extraction shall be prohibited in this area.
Item 17
That the following permitted use is added to Section E2.3, Permitted Uses:
The Protected Countryside lands in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22 Concession 3, in the Town of
Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, forming the buffer and setback for the Mineral
Resource Extraction Area associated with Amendment ____ to this Plan may be included within
the licence area approved under the Aggregate Resources Act, and may be used for berming,
screening, temporary stockpiling of earthen material, accessory structures and facilities normally
associated with a mineral extraction operation, and facilities and servicing for, and related to the
water management and monitoring system for the quarry extension. Extraction shall be
prohibited in this area.
Town of Halton Hills Proposed Zoning by-law Amendment
March 30, 2012
The following amendment is proposed by Dufferin to update the Town of Halton Hills Zoning Bylaw application originally dated March 2, 2009 and filed with the Town of Halton Hills on March
3, 2009. The updated Zoning By-law is prepared based on the Town of Halton Hills new Zoning
By-law 2010-0050 since it has been approved since the filing of the Zoning By-law application.
The updated Zoning By-law amendment includes both a change in zoning and site specific
provisions related to the both the existing quarry and proposed extension.
The Revised Zoning By-law Amendment
The Town of Halton Hills Zoning By-law 2010 – 0050 is hereby amended as follows:
Item I
Schedule A2 is hereby amended as follows:
The lands zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One (MAR1) in Part of Lot 22, Concession 3,
Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton are re-zoned to Mineral Aggregate
Resource One (MAR1) – Exception (____).
103
Item 2
The lands proposed to zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One (MAR1) – Exception (_____) in
Part of Lot 22, Concession 3, Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton, in Zoning
By-law 2010 – 0050 is amended to add the following special provision:
The lands zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One (MAR1) – Exception (_____) on Schedule
A2 in Part of Lot 22, Concession 3, Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton shall
have a minimum required Rear Yard and Interior Side Yard of 0.0 m.
Item 3
The lands zoned as Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System Two (PC- NHS2 in Part of
Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton,
as shown on Schedule “A” are re-zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One (MAR1) – Exception
(____).
Item 4
The lands proposed to zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One (MAR1) – Exception (_____) in
Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3, Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton,
in Zoning By-law 2010 – 0050 is amended to add the following special provision:
The lands zoned Mineral Aggregate Resource One (MAR1) – Exception (____) on Schedule A2
in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3, Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of
Halton is exempt from the Zone Standards in Table 9.2.
Item 5
The lands zoned as Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System Two (PC- NHS2) in Part
of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton,
as shown on Schedule “A” are re-zoned Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System Two
(PC- NHS2) – Exception (____).
Item 6
The lands proposed to zoned Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System Two (PC- NHS2)
– Exception (____) in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3, Town of Halton Hills, Regional
Municipality of Halton, in Zoning By-law 2010 – 0050 is amended to add the following special
provision:
The lands zoned Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System Two (PC- NHS2) –
Exception (____) on Schedule A2 in Part of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3, Town of Halton
Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton may be included within the licensed area approved under
the Aggregate Resources Act, and may be used for berming, screening, temporary stockpiling
104
of earthen material, accessory structures and facilities normally associated with a mineral
extraction operation, and facilities and servicing for, and related to the water management and
monitoring system for the quarry extension. Extraction shall be prohibited in this area.
Furthermore, the Zone Standards in Table 10.2 do not apply.
Item 7
The lands zoned as Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System Two (PC- NHS2) in Part of
Lots 20, 21 and 22, Concession 3 in the Town of Halton Hills, Regional Municipality of Halton,
as shown on Schedule “A” are re-zoned Protected Countryside Natural Heritage System One
(PC- NHS1).
105
106

Annotated Table of Contents: Acton Quarry JART Status Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Jart Tourney Flyer 2015 Draft

Grand Opening poster - the Town of Halton Hills

PARK DAY

Flyer

Artz Info Network notice - Grand Valley Public Library

Russ Rothney – Neechi Commons

DAC Artsletter Sept 2014

C •1 - Gazzola Paving

DAC Artsletter June 2014