First I would like to thank…

First I would like to thank you for including "permanent and intermittent streams" in the definition of "Surface Water Features", but I would also like to mention that this definition is not listed in the proposed PPS Chapter 4: Wise Use and Management of Resources list of associated definitions.

My thoughts on the Natural Heritage Polices: I am pleased with this policy overall as it appears very similar to the previous policy but I believe the Natural Heritage Policies should include stronger language and requirements for the Municipalities and Counties to follow. The wording of "shall" in Section 4.1-1 is excellent, but then in 4.1-2 the word "should" is used. In Section 4.2-3 the word "encouraged" is used. I feel there is too much leeway for interpretation.

I also think that there should be requirements for Municipalities/Counties to pass a Site Alteration By-Law as most of the policies in the Natural Heritage section include the words "Development and Site Alteration". There are by-laws for development but some Municipalities/Counties use the excuse that they can't stop stream diversions, filling in wetlands or site alterations because they do not have a site alteration by-law, and they are continuously stalling to implement one. I would like to see this as a requirement in the PPS.

I would also like to see stronger guidance/requirements for Municipalities/Counties in regards to the evaluation criteria and procedures required to prove no negative impacts. These reports are paid for by the Developers and in our experience have included many errors and overlooked facts.

I see that "Provincial and Federal requirements" are still included but I question the removal of "Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Foresty" from the definition of "Significant" and it again refers to evaluation procedures. In my experience these procedures are not followed by some Municipalities/Counties.

I would like the PPS to prevent the destruction of our natural environment.

Thank you