Aggregate extraction activities – their identification, siting, footprint design, operation, rehabilitation, and other ecological initiatives – are designed to protect, restore or improve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and to protect unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and integrity of the area and its connections to the regional landscape.
Core requirements:
a) Environmental Impact Assessment & Monitoring
Understanding baseline conditions
i. The applicant gathers/assesses data, for such number of years and seasons as is appropriate for the scale and intensity of operation, as part of the approval process and prior to operations, on the full range of expected water resource and environmental impacts such as an assessment of structural and functional changes regarding:
- Landscape/regional level values sensitive to impacts (i.e. connectivity and fragmentation, hydrogeology, biological diversity, provincially significant features and/or habitat for species at risk)
- Site-level values sensitive to impacts (i.e. water quality & quantity, noise levels, traffic flow and safety, air quality, etc)
Aggregate operations should be designed to appropriately protect, improve or restore the quantity and quality of sensitive groundwater and sensitive surface water, groundwater recharge, natural stream form and flow characteristics and hydrologic functions. In some instances, changes (e.g.: change in hydroperiod that does not negatively impact significant ecological features and functions) can occur that are acceptable in the balanced development of resources as contemplated by the guiding Principles of these Standards.
For extraction below the water table, features such as fractured bedrock, highly heterogeneous permeability, karst features, headwaters, significant recharge areas, and watershed divides, can be more challenging to understand, resulting in greater unpredictability of the impact of extraction, and therefore additional data and analysis may be required to address if and how these conditions should be dealt with in the context of extraction proposals. Aggregate operations in Wellhead Protection Areas, especially in key bacteriological and pathogenic zones, in Intake Protection Zones, and in designated vulnerable areas, particularly in the Greenbelt where lake-based municipal drinking water extensions and expansions are prohibited, warrant similar careful analysis. In addition, some rehabilitative approaches, such as the formation of lakes in excavated areas, can introduce or influence surface water to groundwater interactions (i.e. GUDI) which require attention. These matters should be addressed in the process of understanding and evaluating baseline conditions and site development, mitigation, and rehabilitation plans.
Conducting Impact Assessments
i. The applicant has a credible methodology in place for conducting impact assessments that cover the entire proposed project life, including closure and rehabilitation. The methodology should include financial impact and the impact of management/enforcement mechanisms commensurate with the scale and intensity, and potential for impact, of the proposed aggregate site (ie: agreements, financial security)
ii. An assessment of impacts has been completed – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operation and specific to the uniqueness of the affected features – and the results integrated into management and mitigation systems
iii. The assessment process considers direct, indirect and cumulative impacts at multiple scales (landscape, regional and site level)
iv. Environmental impacts are assessed prior to the commencement of any aggregate extraction activities
v. Source protection plan analysis is recognized to have been conducted at the watershed/regional scale. Implementation of necessary restrictions, if any, on development and site alteration mean aggregate applications are to be evaluated at the sub-watershed and local scale, including at the WHPA impact level, through site specific field studies to be defined by SERA and as described in Appendix 4
vi. Karst features represent the enhancement of carbonate rock porosity and permeability caused by dissolution due to infiltrating slightly acidic rainwater and surface water infiltration. Appropriate karst identification and mitigation testing protocols/best practices are used
vii. Where an assessment has indicated that environmental impacts of proposed resource development activities pose significant risk, then:
- Proposed activities do not occur; or
- The applicant reduces the environmental impact to an acceptable level by implementing appropriate (to the scale and intensity of the operation) and proven mitigation measures
viii.The applicant regularly complies with, and makes publicly available a summary of the results of, assessment, implementation and monitoring activities
b) Avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts
i. The applicant acknowledges the complexity of factors that may cause environmental impact and is proactive in identifying possible problem areas, before incidents occur, and attempts to identify solutions with regulators and stakeholders
ii. The applicant has adopted and implemented an ISO certified Environmental Management System (EMS) or series of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure no negative environmental impacts associated with on-site and off-site activities within their control. The EMS and or SOPs will meet or exceed the standards to be established by the SERA governing body. Performance targets will be set consistent with best industry practices with respect to:
- Air quality – including dust and vehicle emissions
- GHG emissions – including best practices for reduction of carbon across the applicant’s facilities, in keeping with the Ontario GHG reduction target of 15% below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
- Noise – including from operations and transportation (e.g. idling, on and off-site transportation routes, etc)
- Water – including quantity, quality, and flows
- Significant wildlife habitat, and habitat for species at risk
- Other reasonable concerns of local communities/residents (i.e. hours of operation, traffic safety, etc)
- Fuel handling and storage, salt handling and storage, snow handling, spills contingency and others related to source water protection
iii. Workers have received comprehensive training in SOPs
iv. Monitoring program is in place to proactively determine non-compliance with SOPs
v. Where there have been instances of non-compliance with the SOPs, best efforts are made to rehabilitate the damaged sites/locations
vi. The applicant informs regulators and affected parties as soon as practicable of significant incidents, associated risks and the steps taken to remedy their impacts
vii. The applicant periodically issues public site condition reports
c) Conserving Natural Heritage
i. “No Go”, “Maybe” and “Go Carefully” Areas
The applicant cannot apply for SERA certification of new operations in “No Go” areas, and will comply/has complied with the criteria for extraction in the “Maybe” and “Go Carefully” areas as outlined in the chart below.
For the purposes of the chart below, the areas described (e.g. NEP, ORM etc.) are as they exist effective the date the applicant applies for SERA certification, or receives SERA certification, whichever is the more restrictive of the two.
This chart should be read in concert with the definitions in the Glossary at the end of the Draft SERA Standards.
| No Go
|
Maybe****
|
Go Carefully
|
| Natural Heritage System “Core”
|
Natural Heritage System “Linkage”
|
Other Lands
|
| 1. NEP (EN & EP)
2. ORM (Natural Core)
3. New Operations in the Greenbelt Protected Countryside NHS
4. Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW’s)
5. ANSIs** (excluding Earth Science ANSI’s designated as a result of the underlying geology and related resource uncovered by aggregate operations)
6. Specialty Cropland
7. Significant
8. Areas defined in Source Protection Plans as WHPA-A or IPZ-1
9. Significant Wildlife Habitat in NHS Core areas
10. Habitat of Endangered and Threatened species except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
|
1. Greenbelt Protected Countryside outside of NHS
2. NEP Rural (Plan amendment)
3. ORM Natural Linkage & Countryside
4. Existing operations in Greenbelt Protected Countryside NHS***
5. Key hydrologic features
6. Significant Valleylands
7. Sandbarrens, alvars, savannahs, and tall grass prairies
8. Habitat of rare and special concern species
9. Fish habitat in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
10. Areas defined in Source Protection Plans as WHPA-B/E/F or IPZ-2, WHPA-C (in Greenbelt) and designated vulnerable areas subject to study requirements to be defined
11. Significant Wildlife Habitat in NHS Linkage areas, subject to defined removal and replacement approach described in this document |
1. Agricultural Land
2.Hedgerows
3. Old Fields
4. Non-PSW *
5. Non-significant Woodlands
6. Areas defined in Source Protection Plans as WHPA- C (outside Greenbelt)/WHPA-D, or outside WHPAs or IPZs
7. Any other lands not covered by “No Go” and “Maybe”
|
*Wetland evaluation is completed by the applicant in accordance with standard wetland evaluation criteria. Such evaluation is shared with appropriate agencies and the public for information and next steps.
**Excluding Earth Science ANSI’s designated as a result of the underlying geology and related resource uncovered by aggregate operations. Protection of the representative geological or geomorphological attributes for which the interest was identified will be accomplished using an earth science heritage evaluation.
***Existing operations are permitted, as well as expansions of existing mineral aggregate operations, as per section 4.3.2.3(c) and (d) of Greenbelt Plan
****Subject to net gain provisions of the SERA governing body as outlined in Appendix 2
ii. Buffers
Ecologically appropriate buffers, supported by a peer-reviewed process managed by the SERA governing body, are applied to natural heritage features identified as no-go zones in order to conserve and maintain the value being protected
iii. Net Gain Provisions
“Maybe” and “Go Carefully” zones are eligible for certification provided that the applicant has demonstrated that:
- Water resource systems shall be protected, improved or restored to minimize potential negative impacts. Planning will be done on the watershed scale and necessary restrictions will be evaluated and implemented related to (proposed) operations and site alterations on the local scale
- Connectivity between key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features will be maintained, or enhanced, before, during and after extraction
- Any significant habitat on the site that cannot be protected during aggregate extraction activities will be offset through protection or restrictions on development or enhancement of an area adjacent to the site or in the same eco-region that is of greater ecological value (a larger area of similar ecological value or equivalent sized area with higher ecological values) (see Glossary and Appendix 2 for a table of expected net-gain ratios for different ecological values impacted by aggregate operations)
- In an area of “linkage” within a municipally designated Natural Heritage System or Greenlands, or similarly designated or functioning area with significant natural features and functions close to designated population centres, to the fullest extent practicable, these offsets will maintain, replace or enhance the ecological features, functions and linkages being lost on-site e.g. wildlife corridor, forest connection, etc.
iv. “Peer-Review” Provisions
“Maybe” zones may be eligible for certification provided that the net gain provisions above have been peer-reviewed by professionals with significant experience in the following areas: hydrogeology, hydrology and conservation biology/ecology, and using a process managed by the SERA governing body.
d) Rehabilitation
i. Progressive and final rehabilitation will be done expeditiously. Creation of the final rehabilitated landform shall generally be done within two years following final operations (except lake filling and other water dependent features), consistent with the provisions for rehabilitation below
ii. The disturbed area of a site will be rehabilitated to a state of reasonably acceptable ecological value as defined by SERA
iii. The use of a Land Conservation Act “Conservation Easement” and progressive land use re-designation e.g. Protected Countryside NHS, NEP “Natural” and/or “Protection”, Natural Heritage System (“NHS”) etc. will be pursued to ensure that long-term ecological integrity will be maintained or restored and improved for end-of-quarry-life land use
iv. Lands disturbed or occupied by aggregate operations are rehabilitated with the goal of returning the land to a meaningful agricultural, ecological, or naturally sustaining vegetated, or other appropriate and approved land use and to improving the biodiversity of the area
v. The applicant has developed rehabilitation and after use plans, after having provided affected stakeholders and community an opportunity to provide input, prior to commencing operations
vi. The applicant, its assignees or successors, makes the necessary provisions/financial security, commensurate with the scale and intensity and potential for impact of the proposed aggregate site, to cover, in perpetuity, the full costs, liabilities and governance requirements of rehabilitation, especially atypical rehabilitation (ie: ongoing water management infrastructure) and any monitoring or treatment that may be required after final cessation of operation. These provisions/financial security shall be in a form that can be reviewed and/or audited by the local community. Alternatively, the applicant can deposit the necessary funds into a rehabilitation trust account, with oversight provided by the SERA governing body
vii. The applicant can demonstrate that its accounting for the full costs of rehabilitation and monitoring are consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or any successor principles