EXAMPLES OF DRAFT SITING REQUIREMENTS. ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 2 Siting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Acton Quarry – Proposed Extension Natural Environment Pre-Submission Liaison Committee Information Session January 22, 2009.
Advertisements

1 Current Issues in NEPA Lessons Learned in Appeals and Litigation Jackie Andrew R6 Assistant Director RPM Lessons Learned in Appeals and Litigation Jackie.
1 Flat-rates for indirect costs Ex-ante assessment by DG Employment, Social affairs and Equal Opportunities and DG Regional Policy Myrto Zorbala- DG Regional.
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS for ANTIDEGRADATION
Maryland Department of the Environment Restoration and Regulation Discussion Presented by: Wetlands and Waterways Program Maryland Department of the Environment.
Not to be Considered as a Regulatory Submittal Pre-Decisional DRAFT 19438_1 Preferred Alternative Recommended by Core Team Environmental Impact Statement.
FARM BILL UPDATE. LAST FARM BILL: A LOT ACCOMPLISHED ON WORKING LANDS.
Native Vegetation Act operation in practice and biodiversity protection in fire prone areas Craig Whisson Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation.
$100 $200 $300 $400 $100 $200 $300 $400 $100 $200 $300 $400 $100 $200 $300 $400 $100 $200 $300 $400.
State Waters and Stream Buffers
1 Watershed Planning: A Key to Integrated Planning FHWA Environmental Conference Ann Campbell Wetlands Division.
Measure 76 Parks and Natural Resources Fund 15% Lottery Revenue Parks Subaccount Natural Resources Subaccount Grant Fund 65% Operating Fund 35%
Overview of Mitigation Banking Program December 10, 2009 Robert M. Brown, Director Environmental Resource Regulation Department Robert M. Brown, Director.
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.
Demand and Supply: TV Set (Australia)
Meadowbank Gold Project Cumberland Resources Ltd. Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut March 30, 2006.
Environmental Assessment in Nova Scotia
Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Master Program Update: Process Overview City of Benton City August 30,
FINDING THE BALANCE A presentation of the draft CSC Responsible Aggregate Standard.
1 Environment Canada Environnement Canada Bill C-5, Species at Risk Act November 2002.
Stream Corridors Christine Hall Natural Resources Conservation Service North Jersey RC&D Slides 1-12.
1 Stormwater Program Videoconference April 23, 2013 Bill Cole, Water Quality Standards Unit.
MCM 5 – Post-Construction Runoff Control (DRAFT) YES NO Post-construction stormwater management for that construction activity is in compliance with MCM5.
Post-construction rates and volume of stormwater runoff on-site will be equal to or less than that of pre-development rates and volume of stormwater runoff?
Presented to: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce October 1, 2012.
Watershed Staff Videoconference October 17, 2012.
A tool to protect Minnesota's waters Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Sept. 10, 2012.
City Council Meeting Agenda Items October 28, 2013.
Ecological Systems Maintaining and Enhancing Natural Features and Minimizing Adverse Impacts of Infrastructure Projects Course Review.
Number bonds to 10,
RIVERBEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT JANUARY 15, 2008 Environmental Consulting & Design, Inc.
General Permit for Low Hazard Potential Impounding Structures By Robert J. VanLier, P.E. Regional Dam Safety Engineer 900 Natural Resources Drive, Charlottesville,
2014 Farm Bill Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 2 FRPPGRP WRP Easements.
EXAMPLES OF DRAFT CSC CORE REQUIREMENTS. ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 2 Reading.
1 Child Care Regulation Legislative Audit Bureau January 2010.
Environmental Project Commitments The Alberta Experience
MINING OPERATIONS ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND APPROVING, MONITORING, AND RECLAIMING OPERATIONS MINING OPERATIONS ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND APPROVING,
BUILDING STRONG ® Mitigation in a Modern World or 33 CFR 332 and You Presented by Jayson M Hudson To the Texas Association of Environmental Professionals.
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
What is an In Lieu Fee Program ? Clean Water Act - Section 404 : “no overall net loss” of wetland acreage and functions. One mechanism for providing Compensatory.
Methodology Used by Manitoba Infrastructure & Transportation to Identify Mitigation Costs for Wetland Impacts KIMBER OSIOWY, M.Sc., P.Eng. Manager of Environmental.
1 Wetland Regulatory Programs Department of Natural Resources Legislative Audit Bureau July 2007.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Coordinating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Permits with Species Conservation Plans November 16,
Every Acre Counts The Newfound Watershed Master Plan Land Conservation Priorities In the Newfound Lake Watershed January 23, 2015 Dan Sundquist GreenFire.
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
WETLANDS and ODOT Environmental Services Oregon Department of Transportation.
A division of Holcim (Canada) Inc. Public Information Session Proposed Extension of the Acton Quarry May 5, 2009.
Bureau of Watershed Management Regulatory Proposal Chapter 105 Dam Safety and Waterway Management February 21, 2007.
Chumstick Creek Salmon Habitat Conditions* Land development, road construction, and other human activities have affected channel migration and sediment.
Spatial mapping as a tool for mainstreaming biodiversity values Subregional Workshop for South America on Valuation and Incentive Measures Santiago de.
UNEP Training Resource ManualTopic 7 Slide 1 The purpose of mitigation is to: F find better ways of doing things F enhance environmental and social benefits.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
Stormwater Overview Board of County Commissioners Planning Conference March 1, 2007.
Mitigation and Impact management
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN Prince George’s County MNCPP-C Draft: December, 2004.
Impact/Compensation Assessment Method (ICAT) Application for Utility Corridors.
Bureau of Watershed Management Regulatory Proposal Chapter 102 [Erosion and Sediment Control] Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Management February 21,
Hohnloser De novo review of proposed boundary line adjustment at and South Highway One, Gualala, Mendocino County (APN ) Item F12a.
Nutrient Management Planning for CAFO & AFO Fundamentals Nutrient Management Training Dec. 16 &17, 2009 Tom Basden WVU Extension Service.
Wetlands Focus Group. Responsibilities and Goals   Growth Managements Act (Chapter 163, FS) of 1985   Included the adoption of the State Comprehensive.
OPEN SPACE/ CONSERVATION
Integrating Wetlands and Watershed Management: Lessons from the U.S.
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Involuntary Resettlement 0P 4.12: Planning Instruments
Wetland Mitigation.
Thom Unrau KLT Land Stewardship Coordinator
Mitigation.
Guidance on Non-energy extractive industries & Natura 2000
Presentation transcript:

EXAMPLES OF DRAFT SITING REQUIREMENTS

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 2 Siting – Core Requirement 5.3 Core Requirement 5.3 describes siting requirements that proposed aggregate operations must meet to be certified. ‘Siting’ relates to the rules determining whether CSC will certify proposed aggregate operations that are within designated natural heritage areas or features and, if certification is allowed, what additional measures, if any, should be required of the applicant. The siting requirements of the standards designate specific natural heritage features or values as either: Certifiable – Features/areas that can be disturbed; Non-Certifiable (NCA) – Features/areas that cannot be disturbed; or Certifiable Subject to Additional Requirements (CSAR) – Features/areas that can be disturbed if additional requirements are met. Additional restrictions can include: Implementing a peer reviewed biodiversity plan Implementing an enhanced biodiversity plan in sensitive areas Meeting requirements related to rehabilitation (e.g. return to a similar state) Meeting regulatory conditions/approvals

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 3 Principle 5: Biodiversity plan requirements for CSC Candidate sites Candidate sites whose licensed area contains, or is immediately adjacent to, key natural features that are designated “CSAR – Requiring a Biodiversity Plan” under the CSC Siting Requirements must develop, implement and periodically have audited a biodiversity plan The main goals of a biodiversity plan are to: maintain or enhance the biodiversity of the subject site and surrounding area; maintain or enhance connectivity between key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features; protect, improve or restore water resources systems. Biodiversity plans are developed following a mitigation hierarchy of: 1.Avoid/Protect 2.Minimize 3.Restore 4.Offset C ORNERSTONE S TANDARDS C OUNCIL

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 4 C ORNERSTONE S TANDARDS C OUNCIL Principle 5: Biodiversity plan requirements for CSC Candidate sites Where biodiversity values cannot be protected or impacts minimized, values are offset in keeping with the following: No net loss of biodiversity at any particular point in time Establishment of offsets occurs prior to disruption of the feature being impacted Offsets are established iteratively based on the total area of biodiversity values to be disturbed in the subsequent 10 years The amount of land to be offset is based on either: A)For existing forest cover at a sub-watershed scale of: (i) > 50%: compensating lands will be at 1:1 ratio (ii) 40 – 50%: compensating lands will be at 1:1.5 ratio (iii) 30 – 40%: compensating lands will be at 1:2 ratio (iv) < 30%: compensating lands will be at 1:3 ratio or B)A scientifically supported alternative approach to the above that provides a stronger conservation rationale

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 5 License Area: 100 Acres NCA features: 20 Acres CSAR features: 0 Acres Extraction area: 80 Acres NCA features plus buffer undisturbed Biodiversity plan required before extraction begins Rehabilitation Progressive rehabilitation to biodiversity plan Final rehabilitation completed within 2 years Extraction Area Progressive Rehabilitation Biodiversity plan example 1: NCA features on site 7.5 Acres (NCA PSW) Acres buffer 7.5 Acres (NCA PSW) Acres buffer 7.5 Acres (NCA Alvar) Acres buffer

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 6 License Area: 100 Acres NCA features: 0 Acres CSAR features: 5 Acres Compensating lands required for CSAR feature (1:1 = 5 Acres) Efforts to place offset (5 acres) in protective easement Extraction area: 100 Acres Biodiversity plan required Rehabilitation Progressive rehabilitation to biodiversity plan Final rehabilitation completed within 2 years Extraction Area Progressive Rehabilitation 5 Acres CSAR - Non-PSW wetland 5 Acres CSAR - Non-PSW wetland Biodiversity plan example 2: CSAR features on site – subwatershed forest cover >50% (offset 1:1) 5 Acre Offset

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 7 License Area: 100 Acres NCA features: 0 Acres CSAR features: 5 Acres Compensating lands required for CSAR feature (1:3 = 15 Acres) Efforts to place offset (15 acres) in protective easement Extraction area: 100 Acres Biodiversity plan required Rehabilitation Progressive rehabilitation to biodiversity plan Final rehabilitation completed within 2 years Extraction Area Progressive Rehabilitation 5 Acres CSAR - Non-PSW wetland 5 Acres CSAR - Non-PSW wetland Biodiversity plan example 3: CSAR features on site – subwatershed forest cover <30% (offset 1:3) 15 Acre Offset

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 8 CR 5.3 – Request for specific input on the GB NHS CR 5.3 includes a request for specific input on siting within Natural Heritage Systems, including Ontario’s Greenbelt Natural Heritage System (GB NHS). This has been one of the most challenging issues for CSC and a a diversity of views exists the CSC Board regarding this issue. Views range from those who feel that the GB NHS should be treated the same as other natural heritage system under CR 5.3, to those who feel that any proposed aggregate operations in the GB NHS should be ineligible for certification. To inform ongoing discussions CSC is requesting input on the following questions: 1.Should the GB NHS be treated differently than other natural heritage systems in Ontario? If so, in what way and why? 2.Should CSC consider declaring an interim moratorium on the certification of proposed operations in the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and re- open the discussion following the government’s policy review? 3.If CSC does proceed with allowing certification of proposed operations within GB NHS, what is your reaction to the “enhanced biodiversity” approach outlined in Appendix 9? 4.Should this “enhanced biodiversity” approach be applied to Natural Heritage Systems across the province?

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 9 C ORNERSTONE S TANDARDS C OUNCIL Understanding the “enhanced biodiversity” approach Extraction is exclusively within areas absent of Natural Heritage Features (e.g. woodlands, wetlands) Sites must maintain or improve connectivity between key natural heritage features and hydrologic features Compensating lands at a ratio of 1:2 are progressively established in advance of operations Efforts are made to place the lands containing the improved habitat under some form of protection (lands rehabilitated to agricultural use are exempted from this) or public ownership The maximum disturbed area for the site, at any one time, is: Limited to 33% for pits >100ha Limited to 50% for quarries >100ha

Slide 10 License Area: 100 Acres NCA features + buffers: O Acres CSAR features: 100 Acres (GB NHS) Offset: 200 Acres offsite Total extraction area: 100 Acres BioD plan: Required Rehab: Progressive rehabilitation includes a BioD plan seeking to improve biodiversity 300 Acres - Public ownership or easement 100 Acres Offset: 200 Acres (in advance of extraction) Offset: 200 Acres (in advance of extraction) Rehab as per CR 5.6 Public Ownership or Easement Enhanced Biodiversity approach example 1: Located within the GB NHS with no NCA features onsite

Slide 11 License Area: 100 Acres NCA features + buffers: 20 Acres CSAR features: 0 Acres Total extraction area: 80 Acres Offset: 80 1:2 ratio = 160 Acres Progressive rehabilitation includes Biodiversity Plan approach 260 Acres - Public ownership or easement 7.5 Acres Buffer NCA – Sig. Woods 5 Acres + 5 Buffer NCA – PSW Offset 160 Acres (in advance of extraction) Progressive Rehab + BioD Plan Public ownership or protective easement Enhanced Biodiversity approach example 2: Located within the GB NHS with NCA features onsite

ConsultationCSC certification Siting Requirements Contact usOperational & Planning Requirements Slide 12 C ORNERSTONE S TANDARDS C OUNCIL Contact Information Visit us online at Lorne Johnson, Executive Director, Maia Becker, Implementation Lead, Nic Schulz, Director of Outreach,