December 6, 2010 Lisa…

December 6, 2010 Lisa Grbinicek Senior Strategic Advisor Niagara Escarpment Commission 232 Guelph St. Georgetown, ON L7G 4B1 Submitted via email (lisa.grbinicek@ontario.ca) and mail Re: Proposed NEP Amendment PC 183 10 – Significant Woodlands ___________________________________________________________________________ The Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association is pleased to be able to comment on the Proposed NEP Amendment PC 183 10 – Significant Woodlands. Who Are We? The Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (OSSGA) is a non-profit industry association representing the sand, gravel, and crushed stone producers of Ontario. We represent over 250 sand, gravel, and crushed stone producers and suppliers of valuable industry products and services. Producing members supply the vast majority of the province's 157 million tonnes of aggregate consumed annually. OSSGA exists to promote the wise management of Ontario’s aggregate resources in a manner which is conducive to conserving the natural and social environment while maintaining a healthy and competitive aggregate industry. Comments OSSGA believes that the proposed amendment in its current form contradicts provincial policy. As a result, OSSGA strongly opposes the proposed amendment. OSSGA believes that it is more appropriate for the consideration of Significant Woodlands to be implemented by local upper tier municipalities in their official plans. If the NEC conducts case specific assessments where they deem the local plan criteria regarding significant woodlands “not rigorous enough” the proposed NEP policy will create confusion and a burden of overlapping and conflicting policy. In terms of specific policies, the following changes are recommended: 1. In the draft amendment proposed by the NEC it is suggested that “New Development within Wooded Areas” should be amended to include new subsections 2.7.4 through 2.7.7. OSSGA suggests that these new policies be added to section 2.11. 2. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Second Edition) makes it clear that in assessing negative impacts under the PPS, that consideration is to be given to mitigation. In addition, under certain circumstances, consideration can be given to environmental enhancements, compensation and net gains, both on site and off site. The proposed amendment should include these concepts when considering negative impacts. 3. It is implied in the NEC initial staff report dated September 15, 2010 that the “adjacent lands” to significant woodlands should also be subject to a prohibition on development and site alteration. This is contrary to the PPS which allows consideration of development and site alteration both within significant woodlands, but also on adjacent lands, subject to a “no negative impact test.” 4. It is proposed that Section 1.5 Development Policies for Mineral Extraction, subsection 1 a) be amended by adding “significant woodlands” to the list of features to be “protected.” There should be recognition that this is not a prohibition and that significant woodlands are to be subject to a “no negative impact” test as set out in the PPS. It is vital that this clarification be made in order to bring the proposed amendment in line with provincial policy. 5. It is proposed that Development Criteria for Woodlands (Section 2.7) be amended to add a new objective to “protect and maintain Significant Woodlands.” It should be clarified that this is not a blanket prohibition and there should be a recognition that development and site alteration is subject to a “no negative impact” test. Further, it should be clarified that the objective is to minimize impacts on significant woodlands. Again, it is important that this policy be clarified to ensure that provincial policy objectives regarding the “no negative impact” test be met. 6. It is proposed that Development Criteria for Woodlands (Section 2.7) be amended to add a new objective: “Fragmentation of wooded areas shall be avoided.” This should be deleted from the amendment as it will be used to prohibit any woodland removal. 7. The amendment has failed to correctly summarize how aggregate extraction is dealt with in the Greenbelt Plan (2005). In section 4.3.2.3 D) of the Greenbelt Plan it is stated that expansions of existing operations are permitted in the natural heritage systems and key natural heritage features if consistent with the PPS. In addition, outside the Natural Heritage System both new pits and quarries and expansions are permitted within Significant Woodlands. Further, there is no exception provided for early succession woodlands and young plantations. Thus, the proposed NEP amendment is not consistent with the Greenbelt Plan in terms of its treatment of new pits and quarries. Accordingly, the Greenbelt Plan says the following about young plantations: “Notwithstanding the Natural System policies of section 3.2 of this Plan, within the Natural Heritage System, mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries are subject to the following: a. No new mineral aggregate operation and no wayside pits and quarries, or any ancillary or accessory use thereto will be permitted in the following key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features: i. Significant wetlands; ii. Significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species ; and iii. Significant woodlands unless the woodland is occupied by young plantation or early successional habitat (as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources). In this case, the application must demonstrate that the specific provisions of policy 4.3.2.5 (c), (d) and 4.3.2.6 (c) have been addressed, and that they will be met by the operation; “ 8. The definition of Environmental Impact Study should be expanded to clarify what it intended to demonstrate and what it is to contain. Recommendations OSSGA is very concerned about this amendment. There are still many sections which are inappropriate and which do not conform to provincial policy and we do not support the amendment in its current form. The changes outlined in this letter will significantly improve the amendment and its intent. Please ensure that OSSGA receives any further notice of NEC consideration of proposed Amendment PC 183 10.