The following letter of…

The following letter of objection was submitted to the NEC on Dec 3 2010: Nelson Aggregate has reviewed Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) Amendment PC 183 10 dealing with “significant woodlands” and objects to this amendment. The following is a summary of our main concerns: • As stated in the amendment, the basis for the amendment is to align the NEP with the Greenbelt Plan and to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Despite this intent the draft amendment does not achieve this objective. For example the Greenbelt Plan only prohibits new aggregate extraction (not expansions) within Significant Woodlands (except early successional habitat and young plantations) within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System (which is equivalent to the Escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area). Outside of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System (which is equilavant to the Escarpment Rural Area) aggregate extraction is permitted within significant woodlands provided the decision is consistent with the PPS. • In the Initial Staff Report it is suggested that the NEC will rely on criteria to identify significant woodlands as established by Regional or Local jurisdictions and then apply the NEP policy. This is inappropriate since some jurisdictions have policies that define most woodlands as significant but then include policies that allow for consideration of aggregate extraction within these areas. • The other concern is where the NEC is not satisfied with the criteria established by Regional or Local jurisdictions, it would apply “case specific assessments.” This approach would lead to conflicting policy approaches and may be subjective in nature. • There needs to be clarification in the amendment that the no negative impact test does not mean no impact and that ecological rehabilitation and restoration can be taken into account when assessing no negative impact as provided for by the PPS. • The definition of Environmental Impact Study makes it clear that opportunities for enhancement, impact avoidance and mitigation are all to be considered. For clarification, these considerations should be added to the policy and development criteria sections of the proposed amendment. • The proposed objective 4 in Development Criteria 2.7: Fragmentation of wooded areas shall be avoided is not an appropriate objective. Instead, the objective should be tied back to the no negative impact requirement of the PPS. • The proposed NEP Amendment PC 183 10 should not be applied retroactively to existing applications under consideration. Please ensure that Nelson receives any future notice of NEC consideration of proposed Amendment PC 183 10 (including staff reports and related materials). Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely Nelson Aggregate Co. Norm Elmhirst, P.Eng. President