Cursory Comments and Recommendations regarding the Proposed Site Alteration By-law
Date: January 24, 2017
For: Staff, Town of Whitby
By: Carmela Marshall on behalf of the Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
Note: Explicitly include that the site-alteration application must reconcile to the MOECC BMP—have found this helpful when by-law challenged in places like the NFPPB and this wording can help defend requests for additional documentation
-Definitions
Qualified person definition-Section 1.15-reconcile it to the MOECC BMP (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Best management Practices for Excess Soils 2014) —“environmental consultant” has no accountability to any governing body-not appropriate for making review and attestations for soil reports and fill management plans
Site alteration guidelines---recommend explicitly indicating that they form part of the by-law along with any other appendices
-Section 3 Exempted Activities
topsoil for farms-would still recommend permit however can soften requirements depending on proposed works size and scale-see 3.3 below-also should mention in by-law or guidelines about requiring a farm plan by professional agrologist as per the MOECC BMP and the recently released OMAFRA fact sheet regarding excess fill
section 3.1.3—was the intent to require a “site plan” for repaving of a driveway?
section 3.1.9-recommend removing second half of that section
“or a waste, waste disposal or waste management system that is exempted by regulation from Part V of the Environmental Protection Act”;
Inert fill is considered a waste but it is exempt from part 5 of the EPA so technically one could dispose of “inert fill” in quantity and be exempt from the by-law
-section 3.1.10-recommend rephrasing—the term “associated” could be interpreted as allowing the removal and consequent dumping of fill elsewhere without the receiving site having to get a permit-don’t believe this was the intent
-section 3.3-recommend removing the word “placement”… of topsoil as an incidental part of a normal agricultural practice”-recommend including language from the municipal act which deals only with removal of topsoil-permits should still be required for soils going to farmland as quantities can be large
-4.5.1 –regarding operating times-recommend including provisions to further restrict operating hours
and recommend ability to restrict truckloads per day
-5.7 and 5.8-regarding source site soil reports and on-site soil reports-after looking at the site alteration guidelines dealing with this, we recommend more detailed language regarding mandatory testing frequencies on site once the fill has been deposited along with a mandatory fill management plan at the source and the receiving site along with clear direction on documentation that should be gathered and documentation that needs to be reported or available to the Town-a QP, not a “consultant” should be signing off that the fill management plan, test results and volume are appropriate –we recommend these sections, along with their complimentary sections in the Guidelines need to more comprehensive and reconciled to the MOECC BMP
-5.12-Public meetings-we recommend there be a cut-off for public meetings and not simply left to the discretion of the Commissioner
-6 Section Regarding Enforcement and Penalties—we recommend the Guidelines include a Section where there is a clear plan laid out regarding Township oversight-we recommend the Township have their own plan for frequent testing on site at the expense of the application—see fees section-we also recommend “special fine” penalties and fines for continuous offences as per the municipal act
Guideline Document
Fees—we recommend, at a minimum, a larger application fee for “multi term” permits or those applying for approval of very large quantities as more in depth studies should be required, for example hydrological assessments, storm water drainage and erosion plans etc.---beyond just the chance for peer review of source site report documentation mentioned in the guidelines
Part 2-Exemptions—was it the intent to require citizens to fill out a permit noting the exemptions if they were exempt?—we are unclear as to why someone would come in to do that if they were exempt
“Documentation (sketches, photographs, description of work, proposed duration, copy of other agency Permit, etc.) to support any of the noted exemptions shall be appended to the back of the Permit Application Form.”
3.1 Regarding allowances for slopes etc. of filled areas and the allowance for 3:1 slope—we question and have concerns as to why this would be appropriate especially if there previously was not a 3:1 slope on the property-also, the 10:1 slope along property line has no value without a specified minimum distance from the property line-there is also concern that if a sloping property is filled to the highest level however no maximum level is specified for the lowest part of the property, thiswill result in a significant “wall” of fill at the low end especially when you have a blanket statement that allows a 3:1 slope-we foresee erosion and drainage issues here-the whole concept of “levelling off” and allowing filling to 1 metre above adjacent properties and expecting drainage to remain the same appears counter intuitive—we have serious concerns with this whole section and recommend looking at applications on a case by case base
6.4 Category 4 Large Site Alteration
Security fees—6.4.6 f)
“On-site soil testing and peer review of any documents related to the permit “-as securities will be returned, we recommend using this language for the 2$ per cubic metre you will be collecting which seems to just go to roads-the Township should use some of the money to do its own audits-very clear that this is necessary reviewing the Greenbank situation in Scugog as well as several other sites
-6.4.7 Source Site Soil Report-we recommend this section bemore comprehensive and better reflect the MOPECC BMP for source site and receiving sites—there is not mention of fill management plans-source site soil reports should automatically be peer reviewed by the Town and approved before fill is brought to the receiving site MOECC legal staff repeats the importance of a town peer reviewer- we agree--only a QP as defined by Reg 153/04 should be signing off on any such documentation
Table 1 standard is appropriate if the ambient soil is of that quality—if you are going to allow anything else, a risk assessment should be done-it is not clear (according to your paragraph after you mention Table 1, what should be done or what quality you will allow, leaving it up to the discretion of the “consultant” for the receiving site—Please note: MOECC BMP indicates no contamination up
There is also no mention of a contingency plan for fill that fails audit test on site-that should be clear
-6.4.15 On site soil testing—not enough—for large scale filling equate to 1 test every two months or every 500 truckloads—is that in total or from each source site??—we recommend a much more comprehensive and frequent on-site testing regime-a minimum of 1 test every day for each source site is recommended for large scale filling above and beyond source site testing and frequent Township testing
-we recommend a review of our Model Fill Management Plan which can be accessed through our OSRTF website
-6.4.8 Underground Water Monitoring Program
It appears that groundwater monitoring will only be required if vac trucks come on site-we recommend you expand this provision to large scale fill dumping where soils are dumped
General
It does not appear that the by-law requires baseline sampling of soils or groundwater-we recommend this be included in the by-law or guidelines as per recommendation in the MOECC BMP
Recommend more clarity regarding reporting and what exactly reports are to contain.
Consider areas to prohibit filling activities, particularly large scale filling such as, environmental protection areas, high aquifer vulnerability areas, Cass 1,2 or 3 farmland except for topsoil of the same quality, etc.