Aldershot Quarry Community Liaison Committee Meeting Update - March 2022

Aldershot/Meridian Quarry
Written By

*ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: On Oct. 23, 2023, Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith sent a letter to the Tyandaga Environmental Coalition. View a copy of that letter here: Letter from Mayor and Ward 1 Councillor to TEC. 

Aldershot Quarry Community Liaison Committee 

Meeting Minutes

March 29th, 2022 

Purpose:The Aldershot Quarry Community Liaison Committee (AQCLC) is a group of community stakeholders, city staff and quarry representatives that meet twice per year to share questions, concerns, ideas, and new information related to the quarry’s ongoing activities. The committee is not an advocacy group – advocacy rests with external organizations or individuals. Read the Terms of Reference here.Present: (for all or part of the meeting)

  • Mayor Marianne Meed Ward, City of Burlington
  • Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith, City of Burlington
  • Victoria Langdon, Mayor’s Chief of Staff, City of Burlington (scribing today)
  • Stephanie Venimore, Business Performance Advisor, City of Burlington (moderator)
  • Mike Greenlee, Manager of Corporate Strategic Partnerships, City of Burlington
  • John Lourenco, Mining and Technical Manager, Canada Brick (formerly Meridian Brick) – called away by quarry business part way through the meeting after presenting their information
  • Robert Campolo, Area Operations Manager, Canada Brick (formerly Meridian Brick) – called away by quarry business part way through the meeting after presenting their information
  • Amy Schnurr, Executive Director, BurlingtonGreen
  • Fran Fendelet, Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) co-chair
  • Roger Goulet, Executive Director, Protect Escarpment Rural Land (PERL)
  • Charles Page, Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) co-chair

Regrets: 

  • Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan, City of Burlington

Agenda & Minutes: NOTE: Minutes are not intended to be a verbatim capture of the discussion, but a focus on key themes, information shared, and action arising.

  • Welcome and attendance/introductions – Mayor
  • New agenda items – Stephanie Venimore (Moderator).
    • No new agenda items were submitted ahead of the meeting.
  • Update on action items identified from previous meeting (notes of which can be found here)
    • Items and action arising detailed below

Update on Action Items: Item: What is the requirement from MNRF to have the Amended Site Plan posted to the ERO Website?Owner: Mayor Meed WardDiscussion: There is no requirement to post the amended site plan, but it is strongly recommended. A number of other quarries post theirs. Once the plan has been amended, completed and approved by the Ministry, Canada Brick has committed to posting it on the Aldershot Quarry website and notifying the city. Timing is uncertain. The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) have yet to visit the site. That is expected in spring and would enable Canada Brick to post the plan within the next year (noting other approvals are required after MECP as well).It was noted that recent amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act permit site plan amendments without public engagement/approvals. AQCLC community group members encourage quarry operators to involve the public early in the site plan amendment process; one useful tool to that end is posting with the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO). The Mayor, with council colleagues, offered to meet separately from this group on any advocacy matters, as advocacy is out of scope for the AQCLC.Item: Share report on shale received from development (dig out) sites at next meetingOwner: Canada BrickDiscussion: There is no formal report on the shale received, but logs from the trucking companies indicate receipt of 55K metric tonnes from the Martha Street ADI project in south Burlington and a site around Trafalgar/Dundas in Oakville. Receiving this shale locally reduces carbon emissions, give the closest alternative depot is about 75km away. The quarry has gotten 4-5 inquiries for shale deposits but not all the shale is the type they need (Queenston Shale).Item: Air Emissions Monitoring ReportOwner: Canada BrickDiscussion: The report has been circulated to the city and posted on the Aldershot Quarry website. They have uploaded compliance reports to the quarry’s website and are still waiting for MECP to look at the proposal for air and dust monitoring.Item: Provide the city with a copy of the current Operational PlanOwner: Canada BrickDiscussion: The Operational Plan is on the quarry website and has not changed. See page 4 of the 2017 newsletter. The site plan is available here: Site PlanItem: Invite new owners to the next meetingOwner: Canada BrickDiscussion: Canada Brick staff have not yet met new owners yet themselves so will look at that in the future.Item: Invite Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry to the next meeting.Owner: Mayor Meed WardDiscussion: Invitations have been routinely extended, on multiple occasions, including to Ministry representatives directly at the 2020 Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference (MPP Mike Harris of MNRF and the Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks). We have also sought the assistance of our local MPP’s office to secure participation. We will continue to extend the invitation.Item: How does the city's Tree Counting System work and are forecasts for tree canopy goals factoring in what will be lost due to this quarry’s activity in future?Owner: Mayor Meed Ward, with files from city forestry staffDiscussion:Additional information on this topic that was pre-circulated with the agenda is at the end of these minutes Correspondence.Staff will factor the changes to tree canopy on this site into our city-wide goal of 35% tree canopy coverage. Canada Brick will be replacing the 9000 trees impacted by quarry activity by approximately 25,000 trees. The types of replacement trees and where they go to restore the quarry to its original state as much as possible is dictated by the Ministry. No trees have yet been replaced in the Centre/West section, as quarrying activity is still ongoing here. Some rehabilitation is happening in the west quarry, but it is not at the tree planting stage yet.On aggregate sites there is also loss of habitat and ecosystems that are not replaceable. A question was raised about how that biodiversity loss factored in to quarry activities/rehabilitation.ACTION: The Mayor’s Office will follow up with the appropriate agency to get an answer to the biodiversity question.Item: Species at Risk ReviewOwner: TECDiscussion: At the previous meeting when concerns about the Species at Risk study were raised, TEC was requested to provide detailed concerns in writing about the existing Species at Risk Review, to give a focus and justification for a peer review of that work. That has not been done yet, but there are still plans to complete that work.Item: Briefing Note: Provide info about their request for the city to request and/or fund a peer review of the reports already done by a third party. Provide specifics on which studies need tobe redone and why (ex: specific findings or items in the existing reports that need to be re-reviewed)Owner: TECDiscussion:No specifics were provided to advance this item.The request was reiterated this meeting for general third-party peer reviews of all studies. The studies are completed by independent experts and reviewed by the appropriate Ministries.Methodology of the studies: As noted in previous meetings, city council would require some specifics related to why the studies would need to be reviewed (methodology) to successfully bring a request to fund a new study by an additional independent expert in the field.Results of the studies: If there are specific concerns about the results of any of the studies, these issues can be raised directly to the appropriate Ministries for response, or by the Mayor’s Office on behalf of residents, if requested.A concern was raised about the Sept. 2018 air quality assessment report. These studies are based on theoretical data and modelling. There was a concern about the findings related to certain particulate matter. A question was raised around whether baseline studies could be done.ACTION: TEC was requested to provide the specific page number in the 2018 study regarding the particulate matter concern. The concern was raised that an expert would need to be hired by TEC to provide this information. That is not necessary. There is no expectation that residents become experts or do their own peer reviews. The request is for the specific questions/concerns/page numbers to be forwarded, and the Mayor’s Office will endeavor to get the answers, knowing that sometimes those answers aren’t going to be ones we all like, especially when we bump up against the limits of our jurisdiction.Once that information is received, The Mayor’s Office will follow up with the appropriate agency for a response. Additionally, the Mayor and team have met with Ministry officials at AMO and ROMA conferences in past two years to discuss this quarry and quarries in Burlington in general. The Ministry oversees peer reviews of studies. Once we have specific details from TEC regarding concerns with the methodology or findings of the studies (page numbers are fine) we can seek additional meetings and raise these concerns with Ministry officials. We can also seek more detail on the nature of peer reviews.General discussion:Advocacy and Accountability: There is a high level of frustration with the aggregate industry in general. The industry is in general very closed in its operations, and Ministries facilitate that by not requiring certain things. (Noted that Canada Brick is willing to share information and participates in the AQCLC – not all quarries are willing to do that.) The community hopes to have an industry that better understands their public stewardship responsibilities and creating a context where they earn the right to operate and work with the communities they’re impacting. Residents want more involvement at the beginning of processes, not after reports are done. Aggregate operations have a wealth of data from decades of operations; there is no need to remodel it.Action: Advocacy is outside the mandate of the AQCLC; however, outside of this committee advocacy continues through the Mayor’s Office and council. The Mayor is a member of TAPMO (Top Aggregate Producing Municipalities of Ontario) due to our three quarries and we are at that table as well. The concerns about oversight and transparency and gaps in information are experienced by other municipalities and raised at that table.The summary of the Mayor’s participation at the 2022 TAPMO meeting is in this report covering the entire ROMA (Rural Municipalities of Ontario) 2022 conference. The summary of the 2021 TAPMO meeting is here in the ROMA 2021 report. More information about TAPMO can be found here.Jurisdiction: There is often frustration in the community on quarry-related issues because of a lack of communication and clarity of roles and responsibilities, expectations, and lack of understanding of whose domain each item is within (eg. Municipal, Regional, Provincial, Federal). The suggestion was made to provide more clarity on the city's responsibilities/purview and the context of city policies/goals/objectives that relate to issues raised when applicable.Through discussions before and with the establishment of the AQCLC, it is clear that the city is not the direct oversight body for quarries. That role falls to provincial Ministries. We are left to interpret the information, but we also share information with the quarry, such as the city’s goals for the tree canopy. We will continue to foster information-sharing between all stakeholders: city, quarry, and community.Action: The Mayor’s Office will attempt to integrate jurisdictional responsibility and linkages to city policies and plans into future communications on quarry issues (and it’s a good idea for other community issues outside of the mandate of this committee). We will also look into the request for a coordinated message about the city’s responsibilities and actions re: quarries in Burlington.Residents are asking about air quality, not just for the quarry-adjacent neighbourhood, and wondering where the city's responsibility comes into play and expressing that it would be helpful to know where the city's authority begins and ends.Action: The city is exploring a health protection bylaw. That work is underway through the City Manager's office. The Mayor's Office will report to the community when there is more to say. Additionally, the province, and to some extent, the Region has primary oversight authority for monitoring and regulating air quality.Next Meeting: This year is a municipal election year, and city committees typically stand down prior to the fall election period. As such, there will not be another meeting of the AQCLC this term of council. The Mayor and Councillors are willing to meeting informally with constituents throughout this period to address any questions or concerns.Related Links:

Correspondence:A: Information provided by city forestry staff: Quarry operations fall under the purview of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) and are technically exempt of any requirements of tree bylaws under section 135 of the Municipal Act. In order to obtain licenses under the ARA, the minister would consider impacts to the environment, and will rely on the applicant to provide reports to their satisfaction.  Summary of the requirements under the Provincial Policy Statement, for reference:Provincial Policy Statement, made under the Planning Act:Review Section 2.5: Mineral Aggregate ResourcesThe Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry – regulated pits and quarries in the provinceThis webpage has a lot of information on the process:  Ontario - Aggregate ResourcesUnder Site Standards:When applying – the site and those within 120 metres of the site are to be assessed which includes but not limited to:

  • Item 20. Significant natural features on or within 120 metresof the site – which follows the provincial policy statement/planning act.
  • Item 25. The location of existing tree cover (e.g., woodlots and hedge rows) on site and those within 120 metres

Under Technical Reports and Information Standards:When applying they must identify all applicable planning and land use considerations (e.g., greenbelt and protected countryside, escarpment etc.)One of the technical reports to supply is a Natural Environment Report:The report must identify any of the following natural heritage features and areas that exist on the site and within 120 metres of the site:

  1. a) significant wetlands
  2. b) other coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E,
  3. c) fish habitat,
  4. d) significant woodlands and significant valleylandsin Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Mary’s River)
  5. e) habitat of endangered species and threatened species,
  6. f) significant wildlife habitat,
  7. g) significant areas of natural and scientific interest,
  8. h) Within the area of one or more provincial plan(s), any key natural heritage features not included in (a) through (g)

Where any of the above features or areas have been identified, the report must identify and evaluate any negative impacts on the natural features or areas, including their ecological functions, and identify any proposed preventative, mitigative or remedial measures. The report must also identify if the site or any of the features, included in (a) through (g), are located within a natural heritage system that has been identified by a municipality in ecoregions 6E and 7E or by the province as part of a provincial plan. For the purposes of this section, “provincial plan” means any one of the following plans:

  • Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
  • Greenbelt Plan
  • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
  • Niagara Escarpment Plan
  • Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

Under Circulation Standards:There is a responsibility to circulate and provide public notice – this goes to the local and upper tier municipality, CA’s etc. including but not limited to indigenous consultation. Comments can be provided and would be tied to the OPApplications submitted prior to March 31, 2021 follow the old requirements, and those after April 1 are new requirements (above) – (Old is the level 1 and 2 reporting structure and may not have the tree cover aspect – it may just be the significant features as tied to the PPS as I don’t recall this requirement).The tree cover component is within the site plan standards report – natural environment pieces would be discussed within the NE report in addition to the site plan standards.Tree Counting System: The city currently uses an asset management application called ‘Treeplotter’ which integrates with iTree. iTree allows calculation of the ecological value that individual trees provide in dollars and cents. The city does not have data on private property, including the subject property, and subsequently are not in a position to provide that analysis for this site. B: Information provided by the Community Source: Gravel Watch OntarioGravel Extraction: Between a Rock and a Hard PlaceThe Province of Ontario must not issue any further Aggregate Resource Act Licenses or accept new applications until full information on the operation of the Ontario Aggregate Industry is made publicly available and a long-term plan for extraction is laid out. Given the number of existing licenses and stability of prices at the weigh scale over decades, we do not believe there is any indication we are in a crisis of supply that would prevent development while this information and plan is put in place.Current supply allows massive exports to the USA from extraction sites in Ontario, something that scarcity would prevent. For nearly two decades, Gravel Watch Ontario (www.gravelwatch.org) has advocated for a more open and transparent process for regulating the Aggregate Industry across the province. We have participated in multiple rounds of committee hearings, attempts at developing Industry Standards and many other initiatives with virtually no movement by provincial governments of any political stripe on the need for substantive change.Given the impact of Aggregate Operations on local communities and the environment, the public requires much more openly available information to justify the issuance of any further licenses.There is a lack of comprehensive and transparent information on:

  • Demand by lower tier municipal geographic area
  • Currently licensed reserves by upper tier municipality
  • A new long-term plan for aggregate supply in Ontario with all stakeholders

We understand that this flies in the face of the "No need to show need" policy that successive provincial governments have maintained over the years. We strongly believe this is an incorrect policy and that a more comprehensive plan for aggregate extraction province wide could reduce the conflicts that are endemic between the industry and communities/environmental advocates. These conflicts siphon millions of dollars from communities, municipalities, the province as well as the industry itself, in legal actions every year. This has to end.Previous attempts at transparency have failed due to the insistence on keeping local reserves private. We do not consider reserves to be a valid competitively protected piece of information. Other extractive industries such as mineral and petroleum regularly release their known and unconfirmed reserve information for specific sites. What makes aggregate from pits and quarries different? It cannot impact tenders/customer requests as a particular operator either can or cannot meet the needs of a particular contract from their operations and therefore either will or will not bid on it.It is far past the time to develop a comprehensive aggregate extraction plan for Ontario. There exists a trust gap between the various stakeholders and in today’s information society to construct a viable plan requires a completely open and transparent process with access to all relevant information, including detailed reserves and demand.We ask the Province to begin this work immediately and look forward to participating in the process.For more information, contact:Bryan Smith, President Gravel Watch Ontarioinfo@gravelwatch.org289 270 753 C: Halton Region Annual Aggregate ReportThere was reference in the meeting to the Halton Region annual aggregate resources report. The most recent report (2021) can be found here: 2021 State of Aggregate Resources in Halton D: A number of new reports have been added to the Aldershot Quarry website. Visit: aldershotquarry.ca 

 

Previous

Mayor’s Monday Mailbag – April 4, 2022 – What Services Does Halton Region Have in Place to Support Ukrainian Refugees?
Next

Burlington Ward 6 Rural Broadband Internet Project Update: April 1, 2022