September 15th - Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority

Transcription

NOTICE TO
CLOCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Please find enclosed the Agenda and supporting documents for the CLOCA Board of Director’s meeting on
Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 4:00 p.m., at the Authority’s Administrative Office, Boardroom.
The list below outlines upcoming meetings and events for your information.
UPCOMING MEETINGS & EVENTS
DATE
TIME
EVENT
Tuesday, September 15/15
4:00 pm
CLOCA Board of Director Meeting
Tuesday, September 15/15
5:00 pm
CLOCA Board of Director
Strategic Plan Meeting
Thursday September 24/15
1:00 pm to 1:30 pm
Waterfront Trail Media Event
Thursday September 24/15
9:00 am to 4:00 pm
Friday October 2/15
9:00 am to 12:00 noon
Wednesday October 7/15
11:00 am – 11:30 am
Intact Insurance Buckthorn
Management Event
Deloitte Impact Day Trail Work and
Planting
The Ontario Aggregate
Rehabilitation Corporation Media
Event
LOCATION
100 Whiting Avenue
Authority’s Office Boardroom
100 Whiting Avenue
Authority’s Office Boardroom
Lynde Shores Conservation Area
1225 Victoria Street, Whitby
Lynde Shores Conservation Area
1225 Victoria Street, Whitby
Heber Down Conservation Area
500 Lyndebrook Road, Whitby
Heber Down Conservation Area
500 Lyndebrook Road, Whitby
Check Out our Website! www.cloca.com
Discover your local Conservation Area.
Register as a Conservation Volunteer Programs & Services
Mobile access to online information with CLOCA’s new mobile website and Free Conservation Areas App
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
AGENDA
AUTHORITY MEETING
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 4:00 P.M.
MEETING LOCATION: 100 WHITING AVENUE, OSHAWA
AUTHORITY’S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, BOARDROOM
CIRCULATION LIST
Authority
Members:
Municipalities:
Don Mitchell, Chair
Bob Chapman, Vice-Chair
John Aker
Lorne Coe
Shaun Collier
Joe Drumm
Adrian Foster
Ron Hooper
Joe Neal
John Neal
Gerri Lynn O’Connor
David Pickles
Nester Pidwerbecki
Tom Rowett
Elizabeth Roy
Town of Ajax, Clerk
Municipality of Clarington, Clerk
City of Oshawa, Planning
City of Pickering, Clerk
Town of Whitby, Public Works
Town of Whitby, Planning
Township of Uxbridge, Clerk
Authority
Staff:
C. Darling, Chief Administrative Officer
H. Brooks, Director, Watershed Planning & Natural Heritage
R. Catulli, Director, Corporate Services
G. Geissberger, Marketing & Communications Coordinator
D. Hope, Land Management & Operations Supervisor
C. Jones, Director, Planning & Regulation
P. Lowe, Director, Stewardship, Education & Communication
P. Sisson, Director, Engineering & Field Operations
M. Stauffer, Administrative Assistant/Recording Secretary
Media:
Ajax Pickering News Advertiser
CHEX TV
CKDO
Compton Cable TV
94.9 The Rock
KX-96 Radio
Orono Times
Oshawa Express
Oshawa/Whitby/Clarington This Week
Rogers Cable TV
The Scugog Standard
Region:
Region of Durham, Clerk
Region of Durham, Planning & Economic
Development Commissioner
AGENDA ITEM:
1.
DECLARATIONS of interest by members on any matters herein contained
2.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES of July 21, 2015
3.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & REGULATION
(1)
Staff Report #5307-15
Re: Permits Issued for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to
Shorelines and Watercourses – July 1 to August 32, 2015
4.
5.
DIRECTOR, STEWARDSHIP, EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION
(1)
Re:
Education Programs – Report September 2014 to August 2015
DIRECTOR, WATERSHED PLANNING & NATURAL HERITAGE
(1)
Re:
Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper
CLOCA Review and Comments
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
3-1 to 3-6
4-1 to 4-5
5-1 to 5-8
(report attached
separately)
cont’d….2
AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 – PAGE 2
AGENDA ITEM:
5.
DIRECTOR, WATERSHED PLANNING & NATURAL HERITAGE (continued)
(1)
6.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
CONFIDENTIAL Staff Report #5305-15
Re:
Property Matter
5-9
(Members & Staff only)
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
(1)
Re:
Conservation Authorities Act Review
6-1 to 6-16
(2)
6-17 to 6-28
CLOSPA Staff Report #SP-012-15
Re:
Approval of CTC Source Protection Plan
7.
MUNICIPAL AND OTHER BUSINESS
8.
ADJOURNMENT
(report attached
separately)
AGENDA
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
MEETING OF: Authority
DATE:
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
TIME:
4:00 P.M.
LOCATION:
100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa,
Administrative Office, Boardroom
Schedule 3-1 of September 15, 2015
REPORT
_______________CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DATE:
FILE:
S.R.:
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 3, 2015
RPRG3974
5307-15
Chair and Members, CLOCA Board of Directors
Chris Jones, Director, Planning & Regulation
Permits Issued for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines
and Watercourses – July 1 to August 31, 2015
Attached are Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses
applications, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 42/06, as approved by staff and presented for the members’
information.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report 5308-15 be received for information.
CJ/ms
Attach.
Permits Issued from 7/1/2015 to 8/31/2015
Row
No.
Municipality
Owner/Applicant
Street Name/
Lot/Con
Permit No
Description
1
AJAX
MEJJ ENTERPRISE INC/MOHAN
ROOPCHAND
639 KINGSTON ROAD/LOT
02 CON 01
A15-194-GH
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
DEWATERING AND BACKFILLING OF A POND
2
CLARINGTON
MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON/CIMA
NASH ROAD AND GREEN
ROAD/LOTS 15-19 CON 2/3
C15-132-GAW
3
CLARINGTON
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
DURHAM /JSW + ASSOCIATES
REGIONAL ROAD 57/ LOTS
16/17 CON 8
C15-147-GA
PHASE 1 (2015) - WIDENING AND REHABILITATION OF
NASH ROAD; MAPLE GROVE ROAD TO REGIONAL ROAD
57 WITH REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CROSS CULVERT
AT GREEN ROAD (CROSSING 1C) & EXTENSION
OF&NBSP;EXISTING CROSS CULVERT&NBSP;(CROSSING
1E) PHASE 2 (2016) - GREEN ROAD WIDENING AND
REHABILITATION - FUTURE LONGWORTH ROAD TO NASH
ROAD
REPLACE EXISTING 1200 MM CROSS CULVERT
4
CLARINGTON
MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON/CIMA
143 SIMPSON AVE. (SOPER
CREEK PARK) LOT 08 CON
01
C15-160-A
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION/EROSION
CONTROL/CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AT THREE
LOCATIONS ALONG SOPER CREEK WITIN SOPER CREEK
PARK
5
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON/CIMA
NASH ROAD/LOT 32 CON 23
C15-133-A
INSTALL NEW CONCRETE INVERT LINER ALONG WITH
THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS AND ACCUMULATED
SEDIMENT AT THE UPSTREAM END OF EXISTING
DETERIORATED 1600 MM CSP.
6
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
OF DURHAM
NANCY BARNOSKI/HARD-CO
93 PORT DARLINGTON
ROAD/LOT 09 BFC
121 CEDARCREST BEACH
RD/LOT 12 BFC
C15-134-A
RELOCATE AND EXTEND EXISTING CULVERTS AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE PORT DARLINGTON WPCP
REPAIR TO AN EXISITING ARMOR STONE WALL AS PER
ATTACHED PLANS
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
DURHAM/JSW + ASSOCIATES
ROBERT OWENS HOLDING
LIMITED/TREVELYAN
ARCHITECT INC
DAVE VAILLANCOURT
REGIONAL ROAD 57/LOT 18
CON 08
2728 COURTICE ROAD/LOT
29 CON 02
C15-146-GA
1792 NASH ROAD/LOT 28
CON 03
C15-148-GB
7
8
9
C15-140-GBH
C15-149-GB
10
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
11
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION
INC.
3048 CONCESSION ROAD
3/LOT 02 CON 03
C15-155-GBH
12
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
JUSTIN P GEORGE
2046 HIGHWAY 2/LOT 23
CON 02
C15-157-GAH
INSTALLATION OF A NEW CULVERT LINER (2700 MM)
INTO EXISTING 3300 MM CULVERT.
ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETATCHED 40 FT X 24 FT
GARAGE
INSTALLATION OF THE GAS SERVICE PIPELINE UNDER
CREEK CROSSING
INSTALLTION OF HYDRO, GAS AND WATER SUPPLY
Row
No.
Municipality
Owner/Applicant
Street Name/
Lot/Con
Permit No
Description
13
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
PORT DARLINGTON HARBOUR
CO.
125 PORT DARLINGTON
ROAD/LOT 09 BFC
C15-156-GHF
DREDGING OF PORT DARLINGTON HARBOR AND
TEMPORARY STOCKPILING FOR DE-WATERING
PURPOSES ON THE EASTERLY BANK OF THE HARBOUR
14
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
HOLLAND HOMES INC/KATRINA
METENER
160 KING lANE/LOT 19 CON
05
C15-170-GBH
DEMOLISHION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND SEPTIC AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND SEPTIC
15
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
VEYANCE TECHNOLOGIES
CANADA INC/GRECK AND
ASSOCIATES LIMITED
C15-173-A
ALTERATION OF LOCATION OF ARMOUR STONE AT THE
FISHWAY OUTLET TO IMPROVE FISH PASSAGE
PERFORMANCE
16
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
BEN NIEUWENHUIS/HARD-CO
CONSTRUCTION
GOODYEAR DAM,
WESTSIDE OF
BOWMANVILLE CREEK/LOT
12 CON 01
2587 TAUNTON ROAD/LOT
12 CON 05
C15-177-GHL
PLACEMENT OF 40,000 METRES CUBED OF CLEAN FILL
17
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
JUDITH KREPS HAWKINS &
BART HAWKINS KREPS
50 WEST BEACH ROAD/LOT
10 BFC
C15-178-GBFH
ADDITION OF A COVERED, ENCLOSED, UNHEATED
PORCH OVER EXISTING DECK ON WEST SIDE OF
EXISTING DWELLING
18
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
JOHN DUGWELL
45 PERRY AVENUE/LOT 18
CON 05
C15-179-GBH
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME, DETACHED GARAGE,
WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM ON A VACANT LOT
19
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
OCCO VAN TIJN
9500 GRASSHOPPER PARK
ROAD /LOT 14 CON 09
C14-130-GBH
20
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
BRYAN NORRIS
2820 MAPLE GROVE
ROAD/LOT 19 CON 02
C15-187-GBH
21
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
4560 REGIONAL ROAD
57/LOT 15 CON 04
C15-188-GBH
22
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
DALE AND LOYD
HOSKIN/ENBRDIGE GAS
DISTRIBUTORS
REGION OF DURHAM WORKS
DEPARTMENT
CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FT X 24 FT DETATCHED
GARAGE
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOAITED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND SEPTIC
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH AN
ENBRIDGE INTEGRITY DIG
COURTICE ROAD- 850 M
SOUTH OF BLOOR
STREET/LOT 29 CON 01
C15-195-A
EXCAVATE AND REMOVE EXISTING 900 MM DIAMETER
CSP CROSS CULVERT AND REPLACE WITH NEW 1200
MM DIAMETER CSP
23
CLARINGTON
DARLINGTON
1494339 ONTARIO LTD (THE
FOLEY GROUP)/D.G.BIDDLE &
ASSOCIATES
LOT 31 CON 03
C15-196-GB
FINAL GRADING OF THE SITE AND INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND SERVICES
24
OSHAWA
CITY OF OSHAWA/MMM GROUP
SOUTH SIDE OF BRITANNIA
AVENUE, EAST SIDE OF
SIMCOE STREET/LOT 11
CON 05
O15-143GFAW
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOICATED WITH OSHAWA
CREEK TRIBUTARY E1 DOWNSTREAM OF BRITANNIA
AVENUE EAST TO REDUCE EROSION POTENTIAL
Row
No.
Municipalit
y
Owner/Applicant
Street Name/
Lot/Con
Permit No
Description
25
OSHAWA
MINTO METROPIA
(WINDFIELDS) GP INC./MMM
GROUP
EAST SIDE OF SIMCOE
STREET NORTH, NORTH
OF BRITANNIA
AVENUE/LOT 12 CON 05
O15-144GFAW
(REVISED)
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH OSHAWA
CREEK TRIBUTARY E1 UPSTREAM OF BRITANNIA
AVENUE EAST TO REDUCE EROSION POTENTIAL
26
OSHAWA
DONALD LEGREE/IVORS
KULITIS
210 GREENWOOD
AVENU/LOT 12 CON 01
O15-154-RH
CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNHEATED PORCH ENCLOSURE
27
OSHAWA
MIKE AND OWEN GEORGE
1400 RAGLAN ROAD/LOT 02
CON 09
O15-139-GBH
DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE, NEW
SEPTIC INSTALLATION AND WELL
28
OSHAWA
ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION
INC.
LOT 10 CON 05
O15-165-GBH
29
OSHAWA
REGION OF DURHAM
LOT 09 CON 04
O15-172GFHA
INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED NPS 4 PE IP GAS
PIPELINE CROSSING ABOVE A TRIBUTARY OF OSHAWA
CREEK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SYMINTON AVENUE,
APPROX. 285M WEST OF BRIDLE ROAD
MINOR CREEK REALIGNMENT AND SLOPE
REHABILITATION USING FILTREXX FILTER SOXX,
COBBLE STREAM LINING, AND LIVE STAKING
30
OSHAWA
2007 ARBORWOOD
DRIVE/LOT 01 CON 04
O15-171-GBH
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCAITED WITH THE
INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND POOL
31
OSHAWA
CHRIS AND JENNIFER
CAMERON/NATURE BOUND
POOLS
MINTO METROPIA
(WINDFIELDS) GP INC./MMM
GROUP
O15-175-GA
32
OSHAWA
SILWELL DEVELOPMENTS LTD
& 1229403 ONTARIO LIMITED
C/O THE METRONTARIO
GROUP/GHD
EAST SIDE OF SIMCOE
STREET NORTH, NORTH
OF BRITANNIA
AVENUE/LOT 12 CON 05
GRANDVIEW ROAD/LOT 03
CON 04
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH SITE
SERVICING AND CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS FOR PHASE
4B OF THE KINGSMEADOW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
(S-O-2006-02)
ROUGH SITE GRADING, TOPSOIL STRIPPING AND
PLACING OF ENGINEERED FILL FOR THE LOTS AND
ROADWAYS AS WELL AS FOR THE TEMPORARY STEEL
PLATE CREEK CROSSING IN ORDER TO TRUCK THE
TOPSOIL TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
33
OSHAWA
1850875 ONTARIO/CONEX
ONTARIO INC
LOT 15 CON 04
O15-184GHWL
PLACEMENT OF 5000M3 OF TOPSOIL ON AN EXISTING
AGRICULTURAL FIELD TO ALLOW FOR CROPPING
34
OSHAWA
1850875 ONTARIO/NICK
CONFORTI
LOT 15 CON 04
O15-182GHWL
PLACEMENT OF 2180 M3 OF FILL AND TOPSOIL
35
OSHAWA
CITY OF OSHAWA/DAVID ADAM
155 ARENA STREET/LOT 12
CON 02
O15-185-BH
CONSTRUCTION OF A SCOREBOARD SIGN
36
OSHAWA
JASON AND VICTORIA
BEST/JONES POOLS
1253 SLAWMERS
DRIVE/LOT 02 CON 04
O15-186-GBH
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND POOL
37
SCUGOG
DOUG SUMMERS
90 CHALK LAKE/LOT 01
CON 02
S15-164-GBH
CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING SEPTIC AND WELL
O15-112GBFH
AMENDED
Row
No.
Municipalit
y
Owner/Applicant
Street Name/
Lot/Con
Permit No
Description
38
WHITBY
TOWN OF WHITBY
LOT 31 CON 02
W15-135-GF
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND SEDIMENT
REMOVAL (POND PD23-02)
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
39
WHITBY
1519448 ONTARIO INC/MAURICE
TREMBLE
35 MEADOW
CRESCENT/LOT 18 CON 02
W15-138-R
40
WHITBY
JOHN AND CAROLEA PINEDA
44 ENDEAVOUR
COURT/LOT 31 CON 03
W15-137-GBH
41
WHITBY
STEVE PEONIDIS/SMITH POOLS
INC
171 TORMINA BLVD/LOT 28
CON 04
W15-142-GBH
42
WHITBY
KELLY AND JASON GARANT
1 WYTHE COURT/LOT 29
CON 03
W15-151-GBH
INSTALLATION OF AN IN-GROUND POOL
43
WHITBY
BELL CANADA/GLEN
THOMPSON
PART LOT 24 & 25 BROKEN
FRONT CONCESSION
W15-141-GBH
44
WHITBY
FARHAN KHAN
29 SHEPHERD ROAD/LOT
31 CON 05
W15-158-GB
45
WHITBY
GRANT SIMPSON/GHD (ANDREW WATSON)
4145 COUNTRY LANE
ROAD/LOT 29 CON 04
W15-163-G
DIGGING OF A TRENCH FOR APROXIMATELY 200M AND
INSTALLATION OF CONDUIT
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND POOL AND
SURROUNDING FENCE.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH TOPSOIL
STRIPPING OF A RESIDENTIAL PLAN OF SUBDIVISION,
AND PRELOADING OF A BLOCK WITHIN SAME.
46
WHITBY
STELIANA DAVIDSON/JUSTIN
DAVIDSON
33 PETALUMA COURT/LOT
24 CON 08
W15-153-GBH
INSTALLATION/CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND
SWIMMING POOL
47
WHITBY
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWN OF WHITBY/VALDOR
ENGINEERING - (PETER
ZOURNTOS)
650-690 GORDON
STREET/LOT 29 BFC
W15-167-GB
RECONSTRUCTION OF A SECTION OF STORM SEWER
WITHIN/ADJACENT GORDON STREET.
48
WHITBY
BARRY WILLIAMS
6 CAMBER COURT/LOT 24
CON 06
W15-174-GBH
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATE WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND POOL,
LANDSCAPING, SHED AND GAZEBO
49
WHITBY
COUGS (THICKSON) LTD.
4295 THICKSON ROAD
NORTH/LOT 20 CON 04
W15-189-GB
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND SERVICES RELATING
TO A NEW RESIDENTIAL PLAN OF SUBDIVISION.
50
WHITBY
BEN VILLANI
MYRTLE ROAD WEST/LOT
34 CON 08
W15-190-GB
51
WHITBY
MARMIKE FARMS/ASTRO
EXCAVATING INC
1535 BRAWLEY ROAD/LOT
35 CON 07
W15-193-GHL
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE, PRIVATE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM, INGROUND POOL AND DETACHED
WORKSHOP.
PLACEMENT OF 30817 METRES CUBED OF CLEAN FILL
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND POOL AND
ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING
CONSTRUCTION/INSTALALTION OF A 16 X32 FT
INGROUND POOL AND WATERFALL
Row
No.
Municipality
Owner/Applicant
Street Name/Lot/Con
Permit No
13
OSHAWA
CAMERON MCLEAN
1048 STONE COTTAGE
CRESCENT/LOT 04
CON 03
O15-115GBH
14
OSHAWA
CITY OF OSHAWA / HOSS HELE
15
OSHAWA
TRANSCANADA PIPELINE LTD
2520 RITOSN RD N.
PT LOT 09 CON 05
16
OSHAWA
TRANSCANADA PIPELINE LTD
LOT 06 CON 05
O15-114GBH
EXPOSING AND CUTTING INTO THE PIPELINE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION OF A TEST HEAD
DEVELOPEMNT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH INTEGRITY
DIG AT MLV 133+19.72
17
OSHAWA
KHALED KATTEN/JACLYN RODO
997 HARMONY ROAD
NORTH/LOT 04 CON 03
O15-122GBH
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE RE SITE MP-302.6-2015
18
OSHAWA
CITY OF OSHAWA/TERRI LYNN
LAROCQUE
GOODMAN CREEK
SOUTH OF BERMUDA
AVE./LOT 16 CON 03
O15-130GFHA
CREEK BANK STABILIZATION.&NBSP; 45M ENCAPSULATED
SOIL POLYPROPYLENE BAGS - ENVIROLOK OR EQUIV.,
BOULDERS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTINGS
19
OSHAWA
CITY OF OSHAWA/TERRI LYNN
LAROCQUE
O15-129GFHA
CREEK BANK STABILIZATION, SANITARY SEWER
PROTECTION, GABION RESTORATION, 200M ARMOUR
STONE REVETMENT
20
OSHAWA
SILWELL DEVELOPMENTS LTD &
1229403 ONTARIO LIMITED C/O
THE METRONTARIO
GROUP/MALONE GIVEN PARSONS
LTD.
HARMONY CREEK
BRANCH 1 FROM
DARCY STREET TO
OSHAWA BLVD N/LOT
09 CON 03
GRANDVIEW
ROAD/LOT 03 CON 04
O15-112-G
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROUGH
SITE GRADING, TOPSOIL STRIPPING AND PLACEMENT OF
ENGINEERED FILL FOR THE LOTS AND ROADWAYS
21
WHITBY
ROGERS COMMUNCATIONS
DUNDAS STREET
EAST/LOT 24 CON 01
W15-106GBH
DIRECTIONSL BOREHOLE 1-4" CONDUIT
22
WHITBY
JASON YOSHIDA
283 CACHET BLVD/ LOT
20 CON 06
W15-107GBH
INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND POOL
23
WHITBY
ELAINE KING/SEAWAY POOLS
6 ANAVITA COURT LOT
28 CON 04
W15-108GBH
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCAITED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND POOL
24
WHITBY
TOWN OF WHITBY
GARDEN ST./BURNS
ST./LOT 24 CON 1
W15-072-G
TEMPORARY STORAGE OF PULVERIZED GRANULAR AND
ASPHALT MATERIAL (APPROX. 2,300 CUBIC METRES).
25
WHITBY
DAVID TURNER/PETER KAISER
116 RAGLAN
STREET/LOT 30 CON 09
W15-125GBH
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH
INSTALLATION OF A PREFAB CABANA
O15-126GFHA
O15-110GBH
Description
INSTALLATION OF AN INGORUND POOL, LANDSCAPING
AND POOL CABANA
BEAVER DAM/DEBRIS REMOVAL
REPORT
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DATE:
FILE:
S.R.:
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 3, 2015
ACEH22
5306-15
Patricia Lowe, Director –Stewardship, Education & Communications
Cathy Grant, Education Instructor
Education Programs – Report September 2014 to August 2015
For the past 27 years, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has delivered formal and informal education programs
to ensure environmental literacy for students and constituents in our jurisdiction. The following is a summary of our
accomplishments from September 2014 to August 2015.
CURRICULUM PROGRAMS
In Your Watershed
Staff continue to prepare new programs and upgrade old ones to fit into the new public education curriculum. “In Your
Watershed” now offers 16 programs to elementary schools and 3 programs to secondary schools in CLOCA’s jurisdiction.
Within these programs we deliver a variety of hands-on, see and do activities, to reach a variety of curriculum
expectations. Teachers are able to select the program and location for delivery – either one of Enniskillen, Lynde Shores,
Purple Woods or Heber Down Conservation Areas. The Enniskillen Conservation Area continues to be the most popular
choice, this in part because of its modern facilities, indoor classroom space, and accessibility to water features, trails and
indoor plumbing. We generally service the Durham District, Durham Catholic, Peterborough Victoria Northumberland
Clarington Catholic, Kawartha Pineridge, Toronto District School Boards and various Montessori schools.
We engaged just over 7,200 students during the 2014/2015 school year, up from 6,700 students last year. This increase in
numbers, in part, is a result of the continued government funding for outdoor education which has seen a growth in the use
from the Catholic school board.
Education staff continue to work with Ducks Unlimited Canada education staff to deliver their Project Webfoot wetland
program. Project Webfoot is funded through the Royal Ashburn Golf Club annual golf tournament, which raises funds to
cover the costs of sending a classroom to a Project Webfoot program. This year 9 classes took part in Durham Region.
With the high cost of bussing, staff continue to build on programs they can deliver at local schools. Currently we have 5
programs that can be delivered at the schools. The in-school program, “Watershed In My Backyard”, gives students an
opportunity to explore their local creeks and valley lands and the animals that live there. Staff deliver the program to
incorporate single and multiple grades as well as special needs classes.
Promotion
Our promotional activities continue to rely on the annual August mailing of our “In Your Watershed” brochure to all
schools within our watershed. Programs are broken down by grade level to make it easier for teachers to see what is
available to their specific grade. Emails are also sent out to our School Board contacts as well as reminder postcards
which are sent in advance of special program registration like the Purple Woods Maple Syrup Festival.
Purple Woods Maple Syrup 2015
The Sugar Bush Tours continue to be well received by students, teachers and parents. In 2015, we were booked to
capacity with just over 1,500 students participating over 10 days. The pancake lunch option continues to be a popular
choice with schools booking the 10:45 am or 1:00 pm tours.
FILE: ACEH22
S.R.: 5306-15
September 3, 2015
Page 2
Winter Feels Good, Winter Snowshoe Program
The snow shoeing program continues to be a huge draw providing the snow
conditions are favourable. To assist with rising bus costs, staff will go to the school
and offer 1 hour programs for each grade at the school. The 1 hour program allows
us to see several classes over the course of a day; however, it is weather dependent
in our more urban areas of the watershed. We delivered our winter programs to
1,540 students.
Farm Connections
On April 7, 8 and 9, Central Lake Ontario Conservation participated in the
10th annual Durham Farm Connections held at the Luther Vipond Arena in
Whitby. Organized by the farming community, Farm Connections gives
Grade 3 students the opportunity to be a “farmer for a day.” and discover
how farming puts food on their table. Consisting of 8 activity centres,
CLOCA hosts the Soil & Water Centre and has been coordinating this
activity since 2007. Through the Soil & Water activity students gain an
increased awareness of watersheds and stewardship and what they can do
to protect the watershed in which they live. More than 1,200 Grade 3
students attended the event along with over 850 visiting the Wednesday
evening public open house.
Garlic Mustard Management Program – Purple Woods Conservation Area
Garlic Mustard is an invasive plant with the ability to displace native plants like Trilliums, Blue Cohosh, Wild Leeks and
Trout Lily’s. Six culinary and environmental classes of high school students were invited to help remove this invasive
species from the Purple Woods Conservation Area sugar bush by pulling and bagging the plants. Following the pull,
students were treated to a culinary experience in the kitchen with help from a local chef, making some delicious garlic
mustard pesto and appetizers using the harvested plants. Monitoring of the Garlic Mustard is on-going with over 120 kg
of this plant being removed from this site to date. This program is a joint initiative between education and natural heritage
staff.
NON CURRICULUM PROGRAMS
CLOCA Watershed Wilderness Nature Hikes (sponsored in part by Ontario Power Generation - Darlington)
These free programs are offered to the general public to engage them in hands-on family experiences at our Conservation
Areas. Our goal with this program is to take advantage of seasonal changes in our watershed and provide our participants
with the skills and comfort to explore natural environments on their own. The following is a list of programs offered
through the Watershed Wilderness Nature Hikes program in 2014/2015.
DATE
ACTIVITY
LOCATION
ATTENDANCE
Saturday February 14/15
Valentine Snowshoe
Purple Woods
40
Saturday May 9/15
Garlic Mustard Management Event
Purple Woods
20
Friday June 19/15
Summer Solstice
Purple Woods
90
FILE: ACEH22
S.R.: 5306-15
September 3, 2015
Page 3
Participants in our Valentine Snow Shoe and Garlic Mustard Management Watershed Wilderness Events
Tuesdays On the Trail
Every summer CLOCA education staff assist Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Darlington, with delivery of their summer
outdoor environmental education program. This year, due to construction at OPG, the Tuesdays on the Trail summer
program was hosted at Enniskillen Conservation Area. The program is offered 3 Tuesdays in July and 3 in August. This
change of venue allowed for us to reach a new audience of an estimated 100 participating families and OPG has requested
to run the programs here again in 2016. The programs are themed and have 6 different guests providing aboriginal,
environmental and health and wellness in the Conservation Area. CLOCA education staff delivered one of these events
with a focus on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife on our trails and in the pond. We had 80 participants for our program.
Summer Day Camp Bookings
Staff continue to deliver their education programs to various summer day camps in July and August from the Town of
Ajax, Durham District School Board, Day Care Centres and the Robert Bateman Get To Know Program.
Butterfly Art created by participants in the Robert Bateman
Get To Know Day Camp hosted by A Gift of Art and Ontario
Power Generation
FILE: ACEH22
S.R.: 5306-15
September 3, 2015
Page 4
Nature Ways Day Camp
This year we opened the Enniskillen Education Centre up to the Nature Ways Day Camp. The Camp ran for 3 weeks
Monday-Friday from July 27-August 14. Nature Ways Outdoor Education summer camp programs are based on
environmental education, which promotes stewardship and fosters awareness of the natural landscape to campers ages 413, high school volunteers, and staff. This includes leaving no footprint and campers are required to bring a litterless
lunch. Campers also incorporate arts and crafts and cultural programs which focus on aboriginal and early settler themes.
The camp had 20-25 children registered each week. In exchange for a reduced rental fee, the camp was responsible for
their own clean up and maintenance supplies. They also participated in the removal of the invasive European Frog-bit
from the Enniskillen Pond and conducted litter pickups along the trails.
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Enniskillen Education Centre
A $2,882 grant was received from TD Friends of the Environment and $1,500
from St. Mary’s Cement to install a stone learning circle at the Enniskillen
Conservation Area in October 2015. A fresh coat of paint was added to the tables
to start off the new school year. Participants from the Nature Ways Day Camp
made stone plant markers for the pollinator garden at Enniskillen Conservation
Area.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Stream of Dreams
Following a Stream of Dreams Training Workshop, staff obtained permission to
use the trademark license to deliver this program in Durham Region. We have one school on the Oshawa Creek with 400
students committed for the program in September. We have received generous donations from corporate sponsors for
paint and wood. High school students from Henry Street High School cut and sanded 400 fish shapes using templates for
a species found in Lake Ontario and CLOCA creeks. Staff submitted a proposal in July to TD Friends of the Environment
to pilot this project in the 2015 and 2016 school year with 5 additional schools. The program introduces students to their
watersheds, including local creeks, and storm drains. After they have learned about the watershed and its importance
students paint wooden fish. Once painted, these wooden fish become “dreamfish,” the artwork is then displayed along a
chain-link fence in their neighbourhood to remind everyone that we are connected to our creeks and the lake.
FILE: ACEH22
S.R.: 5306-15
September 3, 2015
Page 5
Farms at Work – Pollinator Workshop
Staff attended this one-day workshop in November 2014 to learn about native bees and beneficial insects. Led by
pollination biologist, Susan Chan, we were introduced to the fundamentals of bee biology, the inner workings of
pollination systems, and the importance of healthy, diverse populations of native pollinating species on human ecology.
This workshop gave us insight into the decline in our pollinators and ways to incorporate the discussion with our school
groups and the public. Education staff are responsible for the maintenance and ongoing management of two interpretive
pollinator gardens at our Conservation Areas.
Pollinator Garden at Purple Woods CA
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report #5306-15 be received for information.
PL/ms
Campers find Swallowtail caterpillar and Monarch egg
REPORT
DATE:
FILE:
S.R.:
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 21, 2015
ACAF49
5304-15
Heather Brooks, Director, Watershed Planning & Natural Heritage
Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper
CLOCA Review and Comments
In August, 2015, the Province released “Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper” (attached
separately) to focus discussion and input in the development of a Provincial Wetland Strategic Plan. This
discussion paper has been posted on the EBR and is available for review and comment until October 26, 2015.
The paper provides information on wetlands, offers an overview on wetland conservation in Ontario, introduces
the concept of no net loss, and poses seven questions.
Staff has reviewed the discussion paper and provided responses to the seven questions (attached) which has
been forwarded to Conservation Ontario for inclusion in a collaborative submission to the Province.
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Staff Report #5304-15 be received; and,
THAT CLOCA’s comments be endorsed and circulated to the Region of Durham and watershed
municipalities
HB/ms
Attach.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Taylor Knapp, Conservation Ontario
cc:
Chris Darling, Chris Jones, Kathy Luttrell, Heather Pankhurst
From:
Heather Brooks, Director, Watershed Planning & Natural Heritage
File:
ACAF49
Date:
August 28, 2015
Re:
Wetland Discussion Paper – CLOCA Comments
The Province has taken a positive step in the protection of wetlands. The establishment of a strategic
plan that includes vision, goals and objectives as well as a number of actions that the province will
take to improve wetland conservation and stop the net loss of wetlands in Ontario is applauded.
CLOCA looks forward to the release of a Provincial Wetland Strategic Plan and the supporting
implementation documents. The following is prepared in response to the 7 questions posed in
“Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper” with input provided by a number of CLOCA
staff.
Questions:
1) Do you think there are current challenges related to wetland conservation in Ontario? If so,
what are the challenges?
There are many challenges facing wetland conservation, with competition for land being the most
significant challenge.
The legislative and policy gaps which facilitate wetland removals for land conversion through
urban development or agricultural activity under grandparented Planning Act applications or for
activities viewed as ‘normal farming practices’ such as tile draining or cropping must be
addressed. Many Municipal zoning by-laws have not been updated to ensure consistency with
Municipal Official Plans. This creates a “loop-hole” where existing zoning permissions continue to
be legal (prevail) despite lack of conformity with Municipal Official Plans. The Province should
require municipalities to update zoning by-laws in a realistic and reasonable time frame.
Page 1 of 7
Central Lake Ontario Conservation
August 18, 2015
Infrastructure projects in Ontario have a veto when it comes to locating within, though, or
adjacent to wetlands. A recent example is the Highway 407 East project which has been
approved passing through wetlands including PSWs. Through the EA, the impact to PSWs was
reduced significantly, but the approved alignment still removes a small amount of PSW.
Compensation is being provided. but at a 1:1 ratio. Wetlands cannot always be replicated,
particularly fens, bogs and swamps and 1:1 compensation does not replace value, only area.
Currently there exists disparate legislative, regulatory and policy contexts and standards for
wetland conservation in Ontario. For instance, there are many “categories” of wetlands
including; provincially significant wetlands, coastal wetlands, Oak Ridges Moraine wetlands,
Greenbelt wetlands, and other wetlands. Unevaluated wetlands are at risk from development
pressures in urban, urbanizing and near-urban areas and the lack of consistent protected status
for these types of wetlands in land use planning under the 2014 PPS and Provincial Plans makes it
difficult to protect these wetlands. The different standards applied to these wetlands in the
various provincial legislation, regulations, and policies creates conflict and misunderstanding
when communicating the importance and value of wetlands and the need to protect these
valuable features on the landscape. This is made worse by the fact that required amendments to
Official Plans and Zoning By-laws to implement provincial wetland policies expose local planning
authorities to OMB appeals under the current Planning Act framework and act as a disincentive to
implement Planning Act protections.
Wetland policies focus on impacts of a specific project and not the cumulative impacts of
development on wetlands. The very nature of wetlands makes them particularly susceptible to
additional stresses and the cumulative effects of non-adjacent development can result in
significant loss of wetland habitat and function. Further effort is needed to ensure that
cumulative impact is adequately and consistently addressed. More emphasis is needed on
identifying hydraulically connected areas which support and maintain groundwater recharge to
wetland areas. CLOCA has conducted an Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Area
(ESGRA) study which identifies groundwater recharge areas critical to wetlands and streams.
Protection of these ESGRA areas will help to ensure that groundwater inputs to wetlands will not
be sterilized. Additional effort needs to be made to protect adjacent wetland areas and
associated upland habitats used by so many wetland species for breeding, hibernation, and
rearing. To protect the wetland area, but not the associated and important adjacent upland
habitat will significantly impact wetland function.
Page 2 of 7
August 18, 2015
Regulation of Great Lake water levels preventing natural variation in water levels has had a
tremendous impact on the health of coastal wetlands. This variation in water levels keeps coastal
wetlands healthy and dynamic. In an attempt to restore this natural variation in water levels,
Conservation Authority staff (and others) are undertaking wetland restoration projects. These
projects, once completed, require continuous management and monitoring. Long term, secure
resources are required to undertake this important work.
Many landowners identify wetlands as “wastelands” and are of the opinion that they have no
value whatsoever. These same people will not take advantage of important tax saving programs
such as CLTIP. There seems to be a general lack of public support and/or awareness of the
importance of wetlands. Increasing public support and awareness will help to reduce and
minimize the contrasting opinions that exist amongst land owners and those involved in wetland
protection, regulation and management. Greater emphasis is needed on improving awareness of
the importance of wetlands through education, outreach and stewardship.
Focusing and co-ordinating the efforts of various sectors on wetlands conservation have also been
a challenge. Lastly, there has been a lack of a strong operational relationship/capacity at the
Province in support of Conservation Authorities with respect to Section 28 regulations policy,
interpretation, enforcement and prosecution under the Conservation Authorities Act and the
Provincial Offences Act.
2) Three priority areas of focus for wetland conservation in Ontario are proposed: strengthen
policy, encourage partnership and improve knowledge. What do you think of these three focus
areas? Do you have other ideas for additional focus areas?
These are all equally important, but with the addition of an incentive package and funding for
wetland securement will see that the Province’s goals are more fully realized. An incentive
package could include funding for securement of priority wetlands and perhaps even some
improved income tax incentives. Indeed, property tax incentives already exists, as does the tax
incentives available to land owners through the federal Ecogifts program, but there are many
landowners where these programs are of no benefit. In the past, there were a number of
organizations that had substantial funding set aside for land securement. These funding
opportunities no longer exist and recent experiences in attempts to secure significant wetlands
through donation and/or split receipts (cash and charitable receipt) have not been very
successful. In CLOCA’s experience the vast majority of willing vendors are not interested in tax
relief programs; their only interest seems to be full cash payment for the value of the property.
The adoption of an incentive program which includes funding for wetland securement would be a
positive step in the protection of wetlands by the Province.
Page 3 of 7
August 18, 2015
3) Considering the three priority areas of focus, what are some actions and activities that
government, organizations, and individuals could take to improve wetland conservation in
Ontario? What partnerships should the Ontario Government explore to stop wetland loss?
Strengthen Policy – Improving the requirements and standards for wetland protection and
restoration will have a positive impact. This should come with improved monitoring and
enforcement to ensure that policies are being appropriately implemented.
The extended time lag that occurs between Official Plan Approval and Zoning By-law updates (see
response to question 1) is a significant gap in ensuring that the latest wetland policies are
implemented appropriately. There are zoning by-laws from the 1980’s (and before) that still
prevail over updated Official Plans.
The Province needs to address wetland loss through land use change not regulated by the
Planning Act. For example, the conversion of wetlands to agriculture is one of the largest factors
in wetland loss (more details are provided in response to question 1).
Encourage Partnership – Conservation Authorities are the local agencies and “first responders” to
receive questions about wetlands, identification of wetlands, wetland interpretation, and
enforcement of wetland regulations and legislation. As MNRF administers the Conservation
Authorities Act and regulations, a capacity building needs to take place at the ministry in order to
provide timely and robust legislative, policy and operational support to CA’s to renew this
longstanding partnership. The Province should encourage municipalities to utilize and adopt CA
generated wetland mapping, ground-truthing exercises and wetland interpretation, in
combination with MNR OWES mapping.
Improve Knowledge – Promote ground-truthing by local agencies (Conservation Authorities) that
have experience in wetland identification. Adopt and promote education programs for all ages,
ethnicities, etc. on the value and importance of wetlands.
4) What do you think about Ontario’s current wetland policy framework? Can it be improved?
Can it be made more effective? If so, how?
It can be confusing trying to navigate the different policies and determining which applies; having
policies that are clear and concise will reduce misinterpretation. However, having one overarching policy may not be the best for protecting Ontario wetlands as the local value of wetlands
in a region could be lost. Regional variation in wetlands, including rarity and stresses (land
use/climate change) will range and having one policy fits all may result in wetland loss in certain
parts of the Province. Please see comments made in question 1, 2 and 3 for more on improving
wetland protection.
Page 4 of 7
August 18, 2015
Preparation of technical guidance to support effective implementation of Section 28 with respect
to wetlands, “conservation of land” and “interference in any way” is needed. This guidance
document must address all of the many functions and values of wetlands.
5) Should targets be considered to help achieve wetland conservation in Ontario? If so, what form
should these targets take?
The adoption of targets not only gives something to strive for, but generates something tangible
to measure and evaluate how well we are doing in the protection of wetlands. Due to varying
pressures, targets should be set regionally with timelines included for realization of the targets.
These targets should include assessing functionality of wetlands, not just number of wetlands or
overall wetland area. Many poorly functioning and unhealthy wetlands do not make up for the
loss of healthy, high quality wetlands.
6) The Ontario government is considering approaches to achieve no net loss of wetlands.
a. What do you think of the establishment of a mitigation/compensation hierarchy to achieve
no net loss? Are there other approaches?
It is difficult to properly bound and scope a no net loss approach in the land use planning
context. Traditionally, Ontario has taken a prohibitive approach to development in
provincially significant wetlands for Planning Act applications in Ecoregions 6E and 7E. A no
net loss approach should not undermine the strong protections in place for provincially
significant wetlands. A no net loss approach could be considered for qualifying nonprovincially significant wetlands. An exception may be linear infrastructure projects
approved through the E.A. process provided a robust compensation process is established.
In order to achieve a balance between growth and protection of wetlands, there needs to be
an appropriate mechanism set up that can be fairly easily implemented. A policy that
includes a hierarchy for decision making to include: 1) avoid; 2) minimize any potential
disturbance; 3) provide mitigation; and 4) lastly, if the first 3 are not possible, provide
compensation, should be adopted and heavily weighted to 1) avoidance.
The standardization of criteria to assess impacts, mitigation and compensation in evaluation
of project need vs. wetland value would be beneficial. DFO had for years operationalized a
risk matrix decision making framework to address HADD’s. A similar approach could be used.
The self-assessment process recently established by other government agencies for
evaluation of ecological value and project impact is NOT recommended.
Page 5 of 7
August 18, 2015
b. What tools (e.g. policy) could be used to implement approaches to achieve no net loss?
The legal authority for no net loss should be established in legislation that would harmonize
with all corresponding statutes that seek to regulate/influence wetland protection. The
administration and decision making authorities should be clearly set out along with a
transparent process for approvals. Policy, education, and incentives could also be used. If
enforcement is necessary, it is because there has already been a violation of a Conservation
Authority Section 28 regulation. In the case of violations, stronger penalties need to be
applied along with remediation measures.
c. What might the role of government, partners, private landowners and others be if no net
loss approaches are implemented?
Educate and Enforce – People need to know what the cost is if wetlands are destroyed.
Many people don’t realize the importance of wetlands for improving and maintaining water
quality, habitat diversity, flood storage and erosion control. The loss of wetlands and the
implication to future generations needs to be conveyed to residents of Ontario. Education
and stewardship are key in conveying this information.
If no net loss is NOT ENFORCED, then people will continue to fill in, destroy and adversely
impact wetlands. If the Province is really committed to no net loss, then they need to be
ready to act on their commitment and provide timely and consequential enforcement.
Given the current role of Conservation Authorities in wetland regulation and protection it
makes sense that no net loss decision making be made through the Section 28 Regulation
permit process.
d. Should no net loss approaches be applied uniformly across Ontario? Or, only where the risk
of wetland loss is greatest?
In southern Ontario where more than 70% of wetlands have already been lost, a “net gain”
approach should be considered. Again, not all wetlands should qualify for no net loss
consideration, with the primary determinant being wetland significance ranking and ability to
replicate on the landscape. The lessons learned in southern Ontario should not be ignored
and as such, a no net loss approach should be taken in northern Ontario.
Page 6 of 7
August 18, 2015
7) Do you have any additional suggestions for improving wetland conservation?
The proposed strategic plan should lead to specific legislative and operational streamlining and
enhancement. For example, the definition of a wetland in the Conservation Authorities Act and
Planning Act/Provincial Policy Statement should be harmonized. In addition to policy and
process, agencies with the capacity to operate locally on a site-by-site basis to deliver wetland
management/regulation should be supported through any proposed legislative and policy change.
In addition, more funding needs to be provided to the local agencies, including Conservation
Authorities, as CA’s are the first responders to address questions about wetlands, including
identification, interpretation, and enforcement. CA’s also provide education programming,
outreach and stewardship activities, and assist landowners in developing conservation plans.
As noted in question 1), more emphasis is needed to protect adjacent upland habitat areas,
ESGRAs, and assessing cumulative impact of development on wetlands. Wetlands exist and work
in a broader landscape, with many receiving water from upstream drainage areas or groundwater
recharge areas located kilometres away. Wetlands provide critical habitat for essential life cycle
stages for many wildlife species, including water fowl, amphibians and reptiles.
Other Comments
The Durham Region supports a distinct concentration of coastal wetlands on the shores of Lake
Ontario. These wetlands provide unique ecological functions including flood control, sediment and
nutrient filtration, and habitat for wildlife. They also provide recreation opportunities, shoreline
protection and water quality improvements. This makes the protection of these ecosystems
especially important. Mention of the Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project (DRCWMP)
in the discussion paper is appreciated. This is an important program that enables the consequences
of human activities on wetland health to be assessed. It has also established the role and purpose of
a long term and standardized monitoring program in evaluating health and in assessing restoration
needs and success.
S:\Heather\Wetlands\August 28 2015_Memo to Conservation Ontario_Knapp_Wetland Discussion Paper_Revised.doc
of 7
Page 7
REPORT
DATE:
FILE:
S.R.:
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 3, 2015
IMS: ASLA3
5308-15
Chris Darling, Chief Administrative Officer
Conservation Authorities Act Review
On November 4, 2014 the Province made public for the first time provincial mandate letters. Eleanor
McMahon, Parliamentary Assistant with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), received a
mandate letter from Minister Bill Mauro which gave her responsibility to:
Engage with ministries, municipalities and stakeholders to initiate a review of the Conservation Authorities
Act, including addressing roles, responsibilities and governance of conservation authorities in resource
management and environmental protection.
MNRF states that the objective of the review is to ‘identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory,
and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation, and activities of conservation authorities
that may be required in the face of a constantly changing environment.’
As a first step in the review, a discussion paper (attached separately) has been developed by the Ministry and
has been posted on the provincial government’s Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. Feedback is being
received by the Province until October 19, 2015. The purpose of the discussion paper is to seek feedback on the
following three areas:
1. Governance – the processes, structures, and accountability frameworks within the Act which direct
conservation authority decision-making and operations;
2. Funding Mechanisms – the mechanisms put in place by the Act to fund conservation authorities; and,
3. Roles and Responsibilities – the roles and associated responsibilities that the Act enables conservation
authorities to undertake.
In addition to the discussion paper, MNRF is holding a number of engagement sessions with ministries,
municipalities, conservation authorities and stakeholders.
The Ministry has indicated that if specific changes to the existing legislative, regulatory or policy framework
are considered in the future, further public consultation will occur as appropriate.
Attachment 1 provides a staff response to the specific questions posed in the discussion paper. Generally, the
responses to the questions relate to five main themes:
1. The current conservation authority mandate as outlined in the Conservation Authorities Act which is the
conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources is appropriate and should
be confirmed by the Ministry.
cont’d…..2
FILE: IMS: ASLA3
S.R.: 5308-15
September 3, 2015
Page 2
2. There is a need to formalize and expand the conservation authority working relationships across Ontario
provincial ministries in order to capitalize on the important contributions of CA programs and services,
and to more widely leverage and support CA efforts in local watersheds. Attachment 2 provides a
summary of the programs and services provided by conservation authorities that support provincial
priorities.
3. The current governance model works well. Any discussion of changes to the governance model should
only occur in relation to the funding model.
4. CAs have the necessary local knowledge and are well positioned to provide a “one-window” approach
to effective an streamlined implementation of resource management programs and policies.
5. There is a need to develop a sustainable funding formula that captures and reflects the actual range of
CA programs and services that support multiple provincial objectives.
It is recommended that Attachment 1 be endorsed as CLOCA’s responses to the discussion paper and that the
responses be forwarded to MNRF and to Conservation Ontario for inclusion in a collaborative submission to the
Province.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report #5308-15 be received for information;
THAT the comments contained in Attachment 1 to this report be endorsed as CLOCA’s comments on the
Provincial Discussion Paper – Conservation Authorities Act; and,
THAT a copy be forwarded to our watershed municipalities, and the Durham Region MPPs.
S:\REPORTS\2015\sr5308_15.docx
Attachment 1
CLOCA’s Comments on the Provincial Discussion Paper
- Conservation Authorities Act
QUESTION #1: In your view, how well is the current governance model as provided in the Conservation
Authorities Act working?
a. What aspects of the current governance model are working well?
Governance is the dual process of decision-making and holding those that make decisions to account.
The Conservation Authority governance model is guided by the fundamental principles of local decision-making, cost
sharing, and watershed jurisdictions. It is these principles that provide the foundation for CAs to be innovative, solution
driven, efficient, transparent and accessible at the grass roots in relation to decision-making, which in turn, enables our
governance to be effective.
The watershed based governance model fosters effective and innovative solutions to environmental management
issues (e.g. flood management, drinking water and Great Lakes water quality, climate change, rapid
urbanization/growth). Effective programs focused on watershed health have been initiated due to the flexibility provided
in the Conservation Authorities Act. The CA Act provides that the province has broad oversight for the programs and
services funded by the province. The broad oversight by the province allows for the development of programs and
services that are adaptable to fit local circumstances.
The governance model facilitates the ability for conservation authorities to establish partnerships at various levels of
government and most importantly local watershed stakeholders. These partnerships are critical in successful locally
driven actions aimed at improving watershed health.
The governance model based on watershed jurisdiction also facilitates localized expertise and allows for local decision
making. Progressive CA Boards of Directors have recognized the significant contribution of a watershed management
approach for integration of water quantity and water quality and green infrastructure (e.g. rural stormwater
management, Low Impact Development) for greater environmental and economic benefit. The governance model
provides for efficient use of local, on the ground local service delivery for environmental management.
The CA Act provides for the number of representatives that can be appointed to the Board by each municipality. The Act
does not provide direction on criteria or directives on who should be appointed. This works well as it provides the
municipality the flexibility to appoint who they deem appropriate to represent them. Having municipal representatives
as the members on a watershed Board provides an effective mechanism for municipalities to have a greater say in
defining issues, and their solutions, that lie outside their municipal administrative boundary. CLOCA’s model of
appointing elected municipal councillors works well as it provides a measure of accountability.
b. What aspects of the current governance model are in need of improvement?
An enhanced Conservation Authority and Provincial Ministry relationship is needed. Conservation Authorities
undertake work that supports and benefits provincial objectives. Closer collaboration would be jointly beneficial.
To achieve this enhanced relationship, it is suggested that a Provincial Directive/Policy is necessary and that it would
mandate coordinated, multi-ministry engagement with Conservation Authorities towards an integrated watershed
management approach to environmental and resource management that delivers local program needs while meeting
cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives. This coordination would be premised on a return to a more
equitable cost sharing partnership between the province and municipalities. This provincial directive could be given
effect at the provincial level through some type of Provincial Watershed Governance Body (e.g. one ministry, or a lead
CLOCA’s Comments
/1
Attachment 1
agency, or a multi-ministry Secretariat or Steering Committee or even a standing agenda item for existing multi-ministry
initiatives such as Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy, and Climate Change Strategies). Such a formalized relationship would
result in more efficient and effective approach to environmental and resources management and recognizes the
contributions CA programs make to achieving multiple provincial objectives. In addition, the establishment of some type
of Watershed Governance Body could provide centralized legal support for enforcement of Section 28 Regulations.
With regard to provincial oversight for the water related natural hazard (e.g. flood, regional control, wetlands)
prevention and management programs, there are legislative, policy and technical guideline and tool support that is
necessary from the MNRF for consistency and modernization. It is noted that this requires a renewed commitment
within the MNRF to provide this policy support (leveraging Conservation Authority expertise) to the modernized delivery
of this program, and, other provincial partners are key such as MEDEI for infrastructure management, MMAH for land
use planning policies to prevent development in hazard lands, EMO/MCSCS for flood emergency management and,
MOECC for green infrastructure/LID approaches to stormwater management.
The Governance model should be discussed in the context of the funding model. Assuming more and continued
provincial interest in integrated watershed management and funding then provincial representatives/appointees on
the CA Boards may have merit. Another approach the Province could consider is the model established under the Clean
Water Act whereby provincial liaison officers played an important role to the source protection committees and to the
Province by establishing and communicating provincial regulations and standards and funding for those regulations to be
met for consistent program delivery.
The following specific amendments to the CA Act are suggested as governance improvements:
Section 14 (4) of the CA Act refers to a members appointment for no more than 3 years. This needs to be updated to 4
years to reflect municipal councillor’s term.
Section 30 of the CA Act provides that an authority shall make administration regulations providing for calling of
meetings and procedure at those meetings. The administration OF Board meetings could be improved by including
additional direction in Section 30 similar to the content of the Municipal Act as it relates to municipal council meetings.
Section 37 refers to OMB approval for members’ salaries, expenses and allowances. Requirement for OMB approval is
not required as little to no provincial money is used to compensate CA members expenses.
c. In terms of governance, what should be expected of:
a. The board and its members?
 Meet current best practices of and requirements for any not-for-profit corporation Board
 Voting should be done in accordance with the best interest of the watershed
 Adhere to Municipal Conflict of Interest legislation, and Board approved policies, and protocols
 Direct and undertake performance review of the Chief Administrative Officer
 Setting strategic direction and operational policies
 ensure fiscal stability, approving budgets
 Making decisions that are consistent with the mandate to further the conservation, restoration, development, and
management of natural resources. In this regard, the CA Act could be amended to include a provision requiring that
CA Boards make decision consistent with Section 20 of the CA Act and that the Board act in the best interest of
furthering the conservation, restoration, development, and management of natural resources.
b. The general manager or chief administrative officer?
 Attending to day to day operational needs in accordance with approved policies
 Manages staff and programs
 Implements Board resolutions
CLOCA’s Comments
/2
Attachment 1


Engages participating municipalities in budget development and approval process
Acts as spokesperson for the Authority in the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board.
c. Municipalities?
 Appoint members
 Engage CAs in the budget development and approval process
 Engage and collaborate with CAs in the development and implementation of strategic initiatives (eg. Municipal
Climate Adaptation strategies, water/watershed management strategies)
 Partner in projects with common goals and objectives.
d. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry?
 Lead the modernization/update of the provincial policy, science and standards that guide the natural hazards
program in Ontario to address current environmental issues
 Address the shortfall in transfer payments for this delegated program responsibility
e. Other provincial ministries?
 Participate on a Provincial Watershed Governance Body to ensure coordination of delivery of cross-ministry science,
policy, and legislative objectives
 Further to the first bullet, proactively fund programs supporting provincial environmental sustainability
f. Others?
 Various watershed stakeholders to participate in development and implementation of local projects (eg. Wetland
restoration projects, watershed educational and outreach programs.)
d. How should the responsibility for oversight of conservation authorities be shared between the
province and municipalities?
Oversight of conservation authorities is generally defined in the Conservation Authorities Act and appropriately provides
for oversight by both the province and municipalities. Provincial oversight could be improved by establishing a
Provincial Watershed Governance Body. Such a body would also ensure coordination of delivery of cross-ministry
science, policy, and legislative objectives and a return to a more equitable cost sharing partnership between the province
and municipalities. It would create better efficiencies between programs and avoid duplication of efforts in on-theground delivery with complimentary benefits.
Municipalities provide oversight through the appointment of municipal representative(s) to the Board with each
member having a vote. The Board is responsible to carry Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for their decisions
around the programs delivered (including permits) and the budget. CAs are accountable to municipalities through the
municipal budget process and request for levy through provision of accountability reports that could include detailed
budget submissions outlining work completed in previous year and work to be completed and detailed breakdown of all
revenue sources and expenditures. Finally, CAs are also accountable through the Section 25(2) of the CA Act allowing
municipal councils to make an appeal of a levy apportionment. It is these processes that, in part, prevent duplication
between CA and municipal services as well as up to date MOUs that outline the municipal/CA technical service
agreements in support of municipal decision-making under the Planning Act.
Oversight on permit decisions by the CA Board under Ontario Regulation are appropriately adjudicated (on appeal) by
the Mining and Lands Commissioner as delegated by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. This must remain a
provincial responsibility to ensure the integrity of the natural hazards management program in Ontario.
CLOCA’s Comments
/3
Attachment 1
e. Are there other governance practices or tools that could be used to enhance the existing governance model?
Improvements from the proposed Ontario Not for Profit Corporations Act and other legislation that institutes best
practices (e.g. Municipal Conflict of Interest Act) could be integrated into the CA Act.
Enhanced provincial policy supporting integrated watershed management with the establishment of some type of
Provincial Watershed Governance Body would strengthen the ability to provide local resource management programs
(e.g. one ministry, or a lead agency, or a multi-ministry Secretariat or Steering Committee or even a standing agenda
item for existing multi-ministry initiatives such as Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy, and Climate Ready Strategy).
QUESTION #2: In your view, how are the programs and services delivered by conservation authorities best
financed?
a. How well are the existing funding mechanisms outlined within the Act working?
The Conservation Authorities Act establishes a number of mechanisms which conservation authorities can use to fund
programs. The Act allows the MNRF to provide conservation authorities with funding to support Ministry approved
programs. A conservation authority may also apply for funding from the province to deliver programs on its behalf. Local
resource management programs and services can be funded through municipal levies. Conservation authorities can
generate revenue through service and user fees, resource development and fundraising. Conservation authority funding
needs vary depending on watershed size, population levels, and watershed characteristics (such as the amount of hazard
land and the potential for flood, drought, etc.). The number of water and erosion control structures owned or operated
by a conservation authority has a significant impact on its budget requirements.
One of the foundational principles of the Conservation Authority model is cost sharing; by the municipalities within the
watershed jurisdiction and the provincial government. With the decline of provincial funding, Conservation Authorities’
budgets are largely dependent on the size of the watershed and the available municipal tax base. CA programs and
services are both locally and regionally beneficial, and as a result, it is appropriate for the funding of watershed-based
programs to be derived from the local tax base (the municipal levy). Equally, as much of the benefits are in the broader
public interest and therefore require provincial leadership and financial support, it is appropriate for the funding to be
derived from the provincial tax base.
Municipal Funding:
The funding partnership between the Province and Municipalities has undergone many changes over time. It has
gravitated from a 50/50 partnership to a point where, today, Conservation Authorities derive the majority of their
budgets from local municipalities through the levy process defined in Ontario Regulation 670/00 and enabled through
Section 27(16). Funding for Conservation Authorities is derived from a variety of sources, but on the average 48% is
provided through municipal levies; 40% comes from self-generated revenues; 10% comes from the Province [i.e. flood
management (s.39 of Conservation Authorities Act) and source water protection (Clean Water Act) programs] and 2% is
provided by federal grants or contracts (2013 Conservation Ontario Survey). The reduction in provincial contributions to
a cost sharing philosophy has resulted in municipal criticisms of provincial downloading which would diminish if the
province returned to at least 50:50 cost sharing and considered inflation and the local ability to pay.
Enabling the Conservation Authority through legislation to levy municipalities within the watershed is consistent with the
recognition that management of the natural resources is most effectively done a watershed basis. There are
accountabilities in the municipal budget process which are respected and make this arrangement work through
councillor appointees to a CA Board and through detailed budget submissions outlining work completed in previous year
and work to be completed and detailed breakdown of all revenue sources and expenditures.
CLOCA’s Comments
/4
Attachment 1
Provincial Funding:
Since the mid-1990s, MNRF has only approved provincial funding for the water related natural hazard prevention and
management role of Conservation Authorities which includes flood and erosion control. Funding for this program area
has been cut since the mid-1990s with no inflationary increases let alone increases to address the increasing demands in
managing the current and future impacts of more frequent flood events. Currently there is a significant shortfall in
provincial transfer payments for the operation of the flood management program under the Conservation Authorities
Act estimated to be approximately $5.1 million annually in Conservation Ontario’s 2013 Flood Management Business
Case.
In 2015, Conservation Ontario requested an interim amount of $5.9 million to address the shortfall and to enable
Conservation Authorities to improve floodplain mapping, conduct strategic asset management planning, and improve
delivery of cost effective flood programs that warn residents and prevent flooding.
It is noted that in the delivery of this program, other provincial partners are key such as MEDEI for infrastructure
management, MMAH for land use planning policies to prevent development in hazard lands, EMO/MCSCS for flood
emergency management and, MOECC for green infrastructure/LID approaches to stormwater management thus
reinforcing the need for the transfer payment for this program area to be more than an MNRF responsibility. Other
notable co-benefits include provincial priorities around climate risk and resilience, and Great Lakes water quality.
In addition to an updated understanding of what’s needed for an effective natural hazards program in Ontario, other
CA programming initiatives should be reviewed in the context of an updated funding formula. For example, CAs
provide services beyond flood management for MNRF, such as those related to natural heritage and species at risk;
these may tie to addressing the Provincial (planning) Policy Statement or meeting targets under stewardship/biodiversity
strategies thus reinforcing the need to potentially expand the transfer payment for other programs within MNRF.
Notably, natural heritage systems are a component of green infrastructure referenced in the previous point.
As well, provincial recognition of the role that Conservation Authorities play in areas of outdoor education, recreation
and quality of life that contribute significantly to the health and well-being of our residents and visitors thereby reducing
provincial health care costs would be of benefit. Many CAs provide extensive facilities and land base for recreational
trails tied to existing communities and new growth areas. Similar discussions should involve MTCS for greenspace and
recreational trail planning, and MMAH, MTCS, and MAA for aboriginal engagement with respect to conservation land
management.
With regard to MOECC Clean Water Act funding, the Discussion Paper indicates that “Future levels of funding are
expected to move to a steady state once current source protection plans are approved” (p.16 Discussion Paper). The
Province is encouraged to ensure a minimum level of capacity at the CA level to support the municipal implementation
and the success of the program. With a $220 million investment of public funds it is imperative to keep the knowledge up
to date and the expertise developed. The ongoing CA technical support function for implementation of this program is
critical.
The ‘delegated’ programs and other partnership agreements with the Province generally provide more services than
recognized and financially supported by the Province. Funding for ongoing operation of programs has diminished
significantly and also does not adequately reflect the diversity, complexity and range in CA capacity. The Province is
encouraged to review basic operational activities/programs of CAs that support multiple provincial priorities and
provide a broader public benefit with a view to providing long term funding to CAs and increasing the efficiency of
environmental and resource management in Ontario. The Province should consider ‘operational costs’ in the delivery
of all locally based programs to protect taxpayer investment. The previously referenced Provincial Watershed
Governance Body is necessary to assist in addressing this issue.
CLOCA’s Comments
/5
Attachment 1
Finally, Section 4 of the Discussion Paper illustrates the wide diversity of CAs’ Revenue, Area, population and the ability to
locally fund programs and services. Developing a more equitable means of allocating provincial funding to
Conservation Authorities based on an analysis of the aforementioned factors should be considered a high priority.
Self-generated revenue:
On average, 40% of the Conservation Authorities’ budgets come from self-generated revenues. The ability to charge fees
and to enter into partnerships has made the difference in the ability of many of the Conservation Authorities to operate
effectively and in a business-like manner. However, self-generated revenue has limitations and generally cannot
generate more that 40% of a CA overall budget. In addition, self-generated revenue is not a consistent revenue source
and as such should not be considered a sustainable source.
b. What changes to existing funding mechanisms would you like to see if any?
An inter-ministry approach to transfer payments in support of the water related natural hazard prevention and
management (which includes flood and erosion control) program transfer payment from MNRF is needed.
As well, CAs provides a tremendous amount of work and value for the province. To achieve the greatest environmental
and economic benefit for the residents of Ontario, the Province should develop a sustainable multi-ministry (e.g.
MNRF, MOECC, MMAH, MEDEI, OMAFRA, MTCS) funding formula for basic operational activities of Conservation
Authorities that support multiple provincial objectives. Without this investment, there will continue to be varying
capacity to deliver on existing and any additional Provincial priorities. This is one of the most critical changes necessary
to level the playing field and enable an equitable and effective program.
Conservation Authorities are very good at leverage revenue for projects that support watershed health. However, too
much reliance is put on one time financial grants/donations to fund projects. Without a sustainable funding source these
one-time funded projects result in short term benefits and fall short of their potential for positive impacts to watershed
health.
Land Securement is an important tool in protecting natural heritage features and for providing opportunities for people
to enjoy and appreciate nature. CLOCA has been CLOCA has been very active in land acquisition in the last decade. In the
past the Province was a key partner in land acquisition through the provision of land securement funding. However,
recently this funding has diminished significantly. The Province should reintroduce grants for conservation land
securement.
c. Which funding mechanisms, or combination of funding mechanisms, are best able to support the long term
sustainability of conservation authorities?
The existing municipal levy funding tool is essential for CA survival. Its use is time tested and effective and when used
with discretion and full communications, it is well received and supported by municipalities. Levy is the only secure form
of funding available to CAs.
There must be continued property tax (municipal) and income tax (provincial) funding to support the core operating
capacity of Conservation Authorities. The cost-sharing formula must take into account the local ability to pay.
Carbon pricing revenues should be used as a potential new source of provincial revenue that could be used to support
growth planning and climate change mitigation and adaptation activities of Conservation Authorities.
d. Are there other revenue generation tools that should be considered?
CLOCA’s Comments
/6
Attachment 1
Recognizing the need for a new source of provincial revenue, consideration should be given to use of carbon pricing
revenues to support growth planning and climate change mitigation and adaptation activities of CAs.
There also needs to be recognition of the financial value of the ecological services that conservation authorities
provide. These ecological services help support clean water and mitigate infrastructure costs. Accordingly, other
sources of revenue that could be facilitated through legislative amendment or policy for CA eligibility include:
Development Charges Act, enactment of the Sustainable Water and Sewage System Act (i.e. recoverable cost from
water rates), stormwater fees/rates (e.g. Peel Region), Trillium Foundation, Infrastructure funding for recreational /
outdoor education.
QUESTION #3: In your view, what should be the role of conservation authorities in Ontario?
a. What resource management programs and activities may be best delivered at the watershed
The Conservation Authorities Act enables conservation authorities to undertake a wide range of activities on behalf of
provincial, municipal and other interests. Conservation authorities are the only resource management agencies in
Ontario that are organized on a watershed basis. The Act provides conservation authorities with the power to develop
their own programs and services tailored to the local needs and interests they serve. This flexibility allows conservation
authorities, and the municipalities that fund them, to focus their resources on areas of greatest need to the local
population. It also results in variability in the scale and range of programs and services delivered by any individual
conservation authority. Recent years have seen an increased interest in reviewing conservation authority roles in
resource management in Ontario. The Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Service in particular called on the
province to undertake a review of the programs and services delivered by both the MNRF and conservation authorities to
clarify responsibilities and eliminate any duplication. In 2007 the provincial government created a Conservation
Authorities Liaison Committee with representatives from the building industry, province, municipalities, conservation
authorities, Conservation Ontario and environmental organizations. MNRF approved the 2010 ‘Policies and Procedures
for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities’ developed by the committee that clarifies the role of
conservation authorities in the municipal planning process, and in issuing conservation authority permits.
From a science perspective the watershed unit is the appropriate scale for the management of water for all uses and
inputs to the Great Lakes and for modeling watershed responses to various land use and climate change scenarios.
Conservation Authorities use this frame of reference to engage their local watershed residents in support for integrated
watershed management. They provide science-based advice and to deliver services within their watersheds including:
watershed/sub-watershed planning, water quality/quantity monitoring and modeling, natural hazards management
and regulation, natural heritage and forestry, source protection, watershed stewardship and restoration, technical
input and review for municipal land use planning and development, as well as, outdoor education and recreation.
The CA Act serves to define CAs as watershed management bodies that are separate from the land use planning process,
yet grants them the ability to administer a regulation which affects planning matters (including infrastructure and
servicing). This is consistent with other environment and natural resource management legislation that issues permits.
CAs as public commenting bodies under the planning and environmental assessment processes, play a significant role
in managing the local natural resources of watersheds for the benefit of the municipalities that fall within them and
for broader public benefit. The issues that CAs raise in the development review process are integral to environmental
sustainability. Additionally, accountabilities are in place as per the 2010 ‘Policies and Procedures for Conservation
Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities’, which indicate the provincial expectation that “CAs should give public
notice and undertake public and stakeholder consultation prior to submission for CA Board approval of all proposed
policies, watershed and subwatershed plans, guidelines or strategies that are intended to be used by the CA to comment
on future land use and land use planning and inform CA review of applications made pursuant to the Planning Act.”
CLOCA’s Comments
/7
Attachment 1
Conservation authorities have forged many successful working relationships with their participating municipalities, which
appreciate the efficiency of utilizing watershed-based specialized science and technical expertise that many individual
municipalities do not possess in-house, e.g., floodplain management, stormwater management, hydrogeology, fluvial
geomorphology, ecology, and natural heritage systems planning. These services are delivered as outlined in MOUs with
municipalities as part of planning and technical staff’s day-to-day work under the planning and environmental
assessment processes, and ultimately in these projects’ detailed design stage where they may require a section 28
permit. CAs pride themselves in ensuring coordination of applications under the Planning Act and the CA Act to eliminate
unnecessary delay or duplication in the process. CLOCA has a service agreement with Durham Region to provide
technical input and advice on matters related to the assessment or analysis of water quality and quantity,
environmental impacts, watershed science and technical expertise associated with activities near or in the vicinity of
sensitive natural features, hydrogeology and storm water studies. This agreement has served CLOCA and our
municipal partners well in assisting in making informed decisions under the Planning Act.
Individually, Conservation Authorities generally operate at a tertiary watershed scale, but collectively, 36 CAs operate on
a Great Lakes basin/watershed scale. Environment and natural resource management program efficiencies can be
gained by examining opportunities to look at programs across individual watersheds. To date, the provincial
modernization and transformation of provincial environment and natural resource management programs have focused
on increasing efficiencies for an individual agency’s processes through computerization and proponent self-assessment.
The ultimate effectiveness of these processes in meeting provincial environment and natural resource mandates is
undetermined as are the cumulative impacts. CAs observe that overall these individual processes are less efficient in that
applicants are having to wade through multiple processes and to make decisions for which they may have limited or no
qualification to assess. Partnering with the CAs on environment and natural resource management programs best
delivered on a watershed basis, could serve as the basis for more clarity and a ‘one window’ service delivery model.
There is no agency responsible for coordinating and implementing the myriad of resource management programs by the
provincial ministries and conservation authorities. The previously referenced need for a watershed governance body
could address the coordination gap. In terms of implementation, conservation authorities are well structured to serve
as the primary agency for implementing resources management programs of provincial agencies and ministries.
Conservation authorities have the necessary local knowledge that is required for effective implementation of resource
management programs and policies. This “one-window” approach would also help streamline and coordinate
approvals.
b. Are current roles and responsibilities authorized by the Conservation Authorities Act appropriate? Why or why not?
What changes, if any, would you like to see?
The legislation provides a broad mandate and suite of responsibilities which empower Conservation Authorities to set
local programs and priorities in collaboration with member municipalities, government ministries and partners. Section
21 of the CA Act outlines the ‘Powers of Authorities’ including the ability “to study and investigate the watershed” and
“to cause research to be done” and to establish watershed-based resource management programs. These ‘powers’ have
resulted in innovations by Conservation Authorities in partnership with municipalities and the provincial and even federal
governments that have raised the respect for watershed management to the point that it is recognized in the PPS of the
Planning Act and in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. As well, other ‘powers’ necessary for effective delivery of
watershed management are included in Section 21 such as the ability to charge fees for services approved by the
Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry; and to enter into agreements with other implementers. The current
Conservation Authority ‘mandate’, as broadly outlined in sections 20 (objects) and 21 (powers) of the Conservation
Authorities Act, remains as relevant today as when it was envisioned in 1946 because these sections have enabled
integrated watershed management.
While Sections 20 and 21 enable integrated watershed management they could be made more explicitly supportive
with inclusion of updated language that reflects current roles and responsibilities best undertaken at a watershed
scale. For example, the “roles and activities” which the 2010 ‘Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan
CLOCA’s Comments
/8
Attachment 1
Review and Permitting Activities’ states, “CAs may undertake” should be embedded in the CA Act. This would clarify
confusion surrounding CAs’ ‘mandate’. The provincially recognized roles in plan review and permitting include: regulatory
authorities (s.28) and delegated provincial interest in plan review for natural hazards management, resource
management agency (with clear emphasis on watershed-based), public commenting bodies, service providers, and,
landowners. Overall, the challenge in the drafting of these clauses will be to ensure that they clarify the Conservation
Authority mandate without having the unintended consequence of being limiting for effective and innovative local
environmental and resource management on a watershed basis. It is proposed that to achieve this ideal definition and
better CA/provincial coordination of implementation, a Provincial Directive/Policy should mandate coordinated, multiministry engagement with Conservation Authorities towards an integrated watershed management approach to
environmental and resource management that delivers local program needs while meeting cross-ministry science, policy,
and legislative objectives.
c. How may the impacts of climate change affect the programs and activities delivered by conservation authorities? Are
conservation authorities equipped to deal with these effects?
Impacts of climate change including rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns in Ontario have already
reduced river flows, warmed surface waters and impacted wetlands. These impacts will likely continue and other threats
to environmental, public health and our economy are expected to materialize including increased flooding and reduced
quantity and quality of drinking water and disruption to businesses and costly damage to infrastructure.
As leaders in natural resource protection in Ontario, Conservation Authorities are uniquely positioned to support
measures to conserve, preserve, restore, mitigate and adapt to climate change. Conservation Authorities cannot deal
with these effects alone. They need the Province to take a leadership role in providing funding to support CA programs
related to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
d. Is the variability in conservation authorities’ capacity and resourcing to offer a range of programs and services a
concern? Should there be a standard program for all authorities to deliver? Why or why not?
The funding inequity for Conservation Authority programs accounts for the financial variability in Conservation
Authority capacity to deliver on existing and any additional Provincial priorities unless they are funded (see more
details on Funding and local ability to pay in responses to question #2).
Better funded and more consistent Conservation Authority watershed management programs around both water and
land resources ensures clean and sustainable water and land resources needed for our daily lives and our economy.
Provincial priorities (e.g. climate change, Great Lakes protection, source water protection, natural hazards management,
growth, economy) that are best delivered at the watershed scale should be funded as such with standard program
design for all Conservation Authorities to deliver.
Any rigid legislative program standards for all CAs to follow would adversely affect the ability of a CA to develop unique
programs required for their specific watershed. Beyond the standard requirements for provincially delegated programs
referenced above, the intent or origins of the conservation authority movement is to allow for local watershed issues and
concerns to be addressed. This should not change; the existing flexibility should be retained for CA Board approved
programs that support local watershed needs.
e. What are some of the challenges facing conservation authorities in balancing their various roles
and responsibilities? Are there tools or other changes that would help with this?
The Provincial funding shortfall for the natural hazards management program is considered to be a major challenge in
delivery of that role and responsibility; as well as, the need for the MNRF and partner ministries to provide leadership and
support in modernizing the Provincial technical guidelines.
CLOCA’s Comments
/9
Attachment 1
The lack of a sustainable funding formula that recognizes the multi-ministry benefits of the Conservation Authority
watershed management program in general is another major challenge.
As previously referenced, there are a myriad of government bodies that have objectives towards protecting and
managing natural resources. Conservation authorities are well positioned to as a “one-window” service delivery that
would enhance the ability to protect natural resources and natural heritage systems.
In terms of tools or other changes, as described in more detail above, funding and a provincial directive for coordinated
multi-ministry engagement with Conservation Authorities towards an integrated watershed management approach to
environmental management that delivers local program needs while meeting cross-ministry science, policy, and
legislative objectives would be helpful.
Enforcement of Section 28 Regulations is compromised by not having the ability to issue stop work orders. Stop work
orders are required to minimize continuing violations, environmental damage and to gain confidence quickly.
Section 28 (16) refers to fines for contravention to the regulation. Fines need to be increased significantly to be
consistent with other environmental legislation. Increased fine should also provide for a method of cost recovery for the
conservation authority.
Section 28 (25) defines wetlands. The definition should be updated to reflect more frequently used definitions such as
provided in the Planning Act and Provincial land use plans.
Section 28 (10) uses the term interfere. This section should be amended to provide that no regulation made under this
section shall “prohibit”. There are many activities that fall under exceptions that have implications on natural hazards
and the environment. In these cases, the authority should be able to issue permissions with conditions to ensure impacts
are minimized.
There are many terms used throughout Section 28 that require definitions. For example, the term conservation of land
should be defined. Conservation of land should be defined as the protection, management, or restoration of lands within
the watershed ecosystem for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing the natural features and hydrologic and ecological
functions within the watershed. This provides for the much needed support of the provincial policy protecting wetlands.
The definition of wetlands in the Conservation Authorities Act is different than the definition found in the Provincial Policy
Statement and the various Provincial Plans which creates challenges when undertaking various programs and services
aimed at protecting wetlands. The definition in the CA Act should be harmonized with other provincial policy and
planning documents.
f. Are there opportunities to improve consistency in service standards, timelines and fee structures? What are the
means by which consistency can be improved? What are some of the challenges in achieving greater consistency in
these areas?
Conservation Authorities have a shared commitment to improve information sharing and networking and to develop
templates and guidelines for greater consistency. For example, in 2015, Conservation Ontario hosted a Section 28
Regulations workshop on the 2008 “Draft Guidelines to Support Conservation Authority Administration of the
Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation”. Further to this
workshop, work is underway with the CO Section 28 Regulations Committee to update the 2008 Guidelines. In general,
having updated guidelines that are endorsed by the Province would lead to more consistency.
CLOCA’s Comments
/10
Attachment 1
To further drive consistency, additional training sessions for the municipal and development sectors should be provided
by the Province to remind them of the provincial expectations of Conservation Authority service delivery and fees. As
well, MNRF could undertake more CA audits/reviews where complaints are most prevalent.
Challenges in achieving greater consistency include: differences in CA Board direction with regard to an expectation of
100% cost recovery through fees versus an expectation that the services be delivered through the municipal levy and
provincial transfer payment; the amount and complexity of development applications within a watershed; regional
differences in costs (e.g. wages, consultants); and, the amount and severity of natural hazards existing within a
Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction thus contributing to complexity of review.
In general, provincial leadership regarding minimum standards would assist and the establishment of a provincial
watershed governance body could also help address any potential gaps in minimum standards regarding policy
requirements, programs and processes to support integrated watershed management and local delivery of
environmental and resource management. Key areas for minimum standards such as Section 28 fees, asset and risk
management, and administrative by-laws, to name a few, would be helpful to ensure that all 36 CAs are operating at the
same basic level. As well, as previously indicated, it is critical to have a sustainable funding formula that recognizes, the
multiple benefits of CA programs to provincial priorities, inflation and the local ability to pay. The concern of consistency
amongst CAs is an on-going criticism of the CA Program and it would be most helpful to determine the priority programs
that will be supported by a sustainable funding formula and then to communicate to stakeholders, partners and the
general public where they can expect some consistency across all CAs.
QUESTION #4: Are there any other areas, questions or concerns regarding the Conservation Authorities Act or
conservation authorities in general that you feel should be considered as part of the review?
The CA Act is dated and needs to be refreshed to reflect todays realities and needs. There needs to be some effort put
towards harmonizing the Act with other legislation such as the Planning Act, ORM Act, and Provincial Offences Act.
Harmonization includes ensuring that CAs are recognized and legally defined consistently and their roles and
responsibilities are recognized.
The CA Act still has old provisions dating back to the time when MNR provided 70% of the CA project funding. Section 50
(3) (e) of the Planning Act (CA land Acquisition) requires approval of a project by the Minister under Section 24 of the CA
Act.
“ the land or any use of or right therein is being acquired for the purposes of flood control, erosion control, bank
stabilization, shoreline management works or the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands under a project
approved by the Minister of Natural Resources under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act…..”
Ministry staff has interpreted Section 24 of the CA Act such that approval can only be given by the Minister if there is
grant money provided by the Province in accordance with Section 39 of the Act.
The effect of Section 24 would seem that a CA could only receive approval for acquisition purposes only if the Province
also contributes financially to that project. The problem is, the Ministry no longer provides funding for
securement/acquisition of lands for erosion control, bank stabilization, shoreline management or preservation of
environmentally sensitive lands. The Ministry should consider amending the CA Act to specify that Section 24 approval to
activate Section 50 (3) of the Planning Act does not require Section 39 approval.
CLOCA’s Comments
/11
ATTACHMENT 2
ADDING VALUE
How Conservation Authorities support provincial priorities
Climate change
Local adaptation strategies such as green infrastructure, urban and rural
stormwater management, tree planting
Flood management programs to address climate change
Data collection, monitoring, modelling and research
Healthy Great Lakes
Rural stewardship, urban and rural stormwater management, nutrient management,
green infrastructure and other programs reduce nutrient impact on Great Lakes
Great Lakes Guardian Fund projects
Data collection, monitoring, modelling and research
Growth and urbanization
Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 regulations control development in
and near wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes and Great Lake shorelines
Advice to municipalities to ensure development is compatible with a
healthy and sustainable environment and consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement and provincial plans (e.g. Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe)
Flood warning and protection
$2.7 billion worth of public infrastructure including more than 900 dams,
dikes, channels and erosion control structures
Floodplain mapping, flood monitoring and warning systems to protect lives
and properties
Flood damage reduced $100 million annually
Conservation Ontario | 120 Bayview Parkway | Newmarket, ON | L3Y 3W3 | 905-895-0716
conservationontario.ca
ATTACHMENT 2
ADDING
VALUE
How Conservation Authorities support provincial priorities
Natural heritage and biodiversity
146,000 hectares of natural land protected through CA ownership
Tree planting, forest management, river habitat and wetland protection and
improvements
Support provincial efforts to protect Species at Risk and manage Invasive Species
Recreation, health and tourism
250 Conservation Areas attracting 6.8 million visitors annually
2,500 kilometres of trails connecting people to nature
Education
Close to 50 outdoor education facilities serving more than 400,000 students
annually at 3,800 schools in partnership with 50 of the province’s 72 district
school boards
Partners in Water Festivals: fun, interactive way for kids to to learn about water issues
Partners in Specialist High Skills Major Program
Water quality
Implementing the Clean Water Act for drinking water source protection
Stewardship programs protect water quality on farm and rural land
Water supplies
Implement Low Water Response Program during dry conditions
Water budgets and other research guide informed decisions on municipal
water supplies
Some CAs operate reservoirs used to maintain river flows in summer and fall
Monitoring and reporting
Partner in Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network and Provincial
Groundwater Monitoring Network, Hydrometric Network and others
CA Watershed Report Cards provide an overview of watershed health
Conservation Authorities are proud to work with these ministries:
Natural Resources & Forestry, Environment & Climate Change, Municipal Affairs & Housing, Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs,
Economic Development, Employment & Infrastructure, Health, Tourism Culture & Sport, Education, Northern Development & Mines
REPORT
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY
DATE:
FILE:
S.R.:
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 3, 2015
NSPG1
SP-012-15
Chair and Members, CLOSPA Board of Directors
Chris Darling, C.A.O.
Approval of CTC Source Protection Plan
Background
The Credit Valley – Toronto and Region – Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan (SPP) was approved by
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on August 14, 2015. The SPP applies to the
Credit Valley Source Protection Area, Toronto and Region Source Protection Area (TRSPA) and the Central
Lake Source Protection Area which collectively form the CTC Source Protection Region. In order to allow
time to prepare for implementation, the SPP will take effect on December 31, 2015.
The SPP contains both mandatory and have-regard-for policies, per the requirement of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and Ontario Regulation 287/07 that were developed to address both water quality and water quantity
threats to groundwater and water quality threats to surface water sources (in this case Lake Ontario) from
existing or potential future activities. The province’s focus is on protecting sources of municipal drinking water
from threats from 21 prescribed activities. With provincial approval, a source protection committee could add
potential threat activities to the list if there was a local activity of concern. In the CTC Source Protection
Region, two additional activities were added: spills from petroleum pipelines; and releases of tritiated water
from nuclear generating stations.
The SPP policies specify how drinking water threats will be reduced, eliminated, or monitored; who is
responsible for implementing the policies and taking action; timelines; and how progress will be measured. The
plan considers both existing and future threat activities and future water uses, and is aimed at preventing threats
from developing and not just responding to current threats. The SPP contains policies to protect source water
against all the significant and some of the moderate and low drinking water threats identified in the Central
Lake Ontario Protection Authority Assessment Report (CLOSPA).
During the development of the SPP, the CTC Source Protection Committee undertook extensive public
consultation per the requirements of the CWA. This included meetings with municipalities and the public, as
well as electronic postings of the documentation. All public feedback was considered by the CTC Source
Protection Committee in developing and amending policies. The consultation comments were also compiled
and submitted with the proposed SPP to the Minister in October 2012 and again when the amended proposed
plan was submitted in December 2014.
cont’d…..2
FILE: NSPG1
S.R.: SP-012-15
Page 2
September 3, 2015
The SPP contains 110 policies for the protection of municipal water systems. The member municipalities have
been identified as implementers of approximately forty five (45) groundwater quality policies, six (6)
groundwater quantity policies and one (1) Lake Ontario-related policy. Within CLOSPA the majority of
applicable policies relate to Lake Ontario drinking water threats. The CTC SPP contains several policies to
protect Lake Ontario drinking water sources focusing on activities where the potential has been demonstrated
for a land based activity to contaminate the lake in the vicinity of a municipal water intake. Such activities
include:





Municipal sewage treatment plants disinfection failures;
Municipal trunk sewer breaks;
Tritium releases from nuclear generating stations;
Spills of fuel at bulk storage facilities; and,
Petroleum product pipeline breaks.
These Lake Ontario policies generally address improved spill notification and response, enhanced monitoring of
lake conditions to aid in predicting where contaminants may move in the event of a spill and to aid in preparing
spill response protocols; and use and ongoing improvement of three-dimensional models as risk management
and decision-making tools.
Next Steps
The implementation of the SPP policies directed at municipalities, source protection authorities and specific
provincial ministries and agencies is required by law under the CWA. As of December 2015, all such
stakeholders identified as implementers of specific policies must ensure that the requirements are met per the
established deadlines.
Every policy which addresses a significant drinking water threat also has a monitoring policy which requires the
implementing body to report to the Source Protection Authority (SPA) every February on the actions taken in
the previous calendar year to implement the policy. In turn the Authority must report to the Minister each May
(starting in 2018) on progress. The Minister has also set November 30, 2018 as the date for submission of
Terms of Reference for the review and update of the SPP including any updates to the assessment report as
required.
Staff of the CLOSPA and the CTC Source Protection Region have been working with member municipalities
since 2012, consulting on the plan and holding workshops and meetings to assist with understanding and
implementation of the plan. The CTC and CLOSPA staff will continue during the early implementation period
to work with municipal (and other) personnel to ensure that they fully understand their responsibilities under the
SPP and to provide support and tools as necessary. This includes training workshops and exercises. The CTC
has also developed a web-based interactive tool designed to aid in this process, whereby municipalities and land
owners are able to check land parcels on a map, and identify the specific policies that may apply to them
(www.ctcswp.ca).
cont’d…..3
FILE: NSPG1
S.R.: SP-012-15
Page 3
September 3, 2015
The province has fully funded the source protection authorities and municipalities to undertake the technical
work and development of the initial source protection plan. Cost of implementation is the responsibility of the
implementing body and the affected property or business owner.
For its role in assisting the municipalities with implementation, the three conservation authorities in the CTC
Source Protection Region have been entirely funded through grant funding agreements administered between
the TRCA and the province. Currently funding has been committed until March 31, 2016.
Staff salaries and benefit costs related to the development and implementation of the SPP are also covered by
funding from the province. With approval of many of the source protection plans, the province is currently
reviewing the future funding that it will provide to source water. The Source Protection Authority has ongoing
responsibilities to administer the program, maintain data and provide support as well as undertake future
reviews and updates. It is expected that the province will continue to fund this liability but the amount of
funding is expected to be substantially reduced in line with the lowered effort required.
Attached are a series of questions and answers provided by the province that accompanied the plan approval
announcement for the CTC and the Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Regions that may be useful to the
municipalities and the public.
RECOMMENTATION:
THAT Staff Report #SP-012-15 be received for information.
CD/ms
Attach.
Attachment 1
CTC Region and Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Region —
Source Protection Plan Approval
Questions and Answers
Local announcement: August 14, 2015
KEY MESSAGES
 Ontario has approved action plans to protect the water sources that supply municipal drinking
water systems in the GTA, and Halton-Hamilton areas. These plans pertain to three adjacent
source protection areas — Central Lake Ontario, Toronto and Region, and Credit Valley —
collectively known as the CTC source protection region (“CTC”), and the Halton-Hamilton
source protection region.
 After years of work and public consultation, the CTC and Halton-Hamilton source protection
committees have developed sound plans that protect their municipal drinking water systems,
and in so doing, provide numerous actions to defend the integrity of Lake Ontario.
 The Clean Water Act ensures communities protect their drinking water supplies through
prevention — by developing collaborative, watershed-based source protection plans that are
locally driven and based on science.
 Local leadership continues to play a key role in protecting our drinking water sources now and
in the future.
 Protecting our local drinking water sources is part of Ontario’s drinking water safety net.
Thanks to our strong framework with safeguards at every step of the process, Ontarians can
be confident in the quality and quantity of their drinking water.
Q1. What’s the news?
Ontario has approved action plans to protect the water sources that supply municipal drinking
water systems in the GTA, and Halton-Hamilton areas. These plans pertain to three adjacent
source protection areas — Central Lake Ontario, Toronto and Region, and Credit Valley —
collectively known as the CTC source protection region (“CTC”), and the Halton-Hamilton source
protection region. Both plans come into effect December 31, 2015.
Source protection planning and implementation is all about protecting existing and future
sources of drinking water. Protecting local drinking water sources is part of Ontario’s drinking
water safety net that starts at the source and continues until you turn on your tap.
Q2. Where is the CTC source protection region?
The CTC source protection region is situated in southern Ontario. It is comprised of three source
protection areas: Central Lake Ontario, Toronto and Region, and Credit Valley.
The source protection region is complex and diverse – it spans from Oak Ridges Moraine in the
north to Lake Ontario in the south. It also includes portions of the Niagara Escarpment, the
Greenbelt, and Canada’s most densely populated area: the Greater Toronto Area. It borders
several source protection regions including Halton-Hamilton to the southwest; Lake Erie to the
west; South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe to the north; and Trent Conservation Coalition to the
east.
The region contains 25 watersheds and measures over 10,000-square kilometres, and is home
to approximately 6.78 million people. Almost half reside in Toronto.
The area has 27 municipal residential drinking water systems – 17 draw from 66 groundwater
wells, and 10 draw from Lake Ontario. Over 95% of the population in the region is served by
these systems.
Q3. Where is the Halton-Hamilton source protection region?
The Halton-Hamilton source protection region is situated in southern Ontario along the north
shore and western end of Lake Ontario.
It includes parts of the Niagara Escarpment and borders a number of source protection regions
including Lake Erie to the west and CTC to the northeast, as well as Niagara Peninsula source
protection area to the south.
The region measures over 1400 square kilometres and is home to approximately 900,000
people. Urban areas in the region include the City of Burlington, Town of Oakville, Town of
Milton, and the City of Hamilton.
The area has ten municipal residential drinking water systems – six draw from an aquifer, and
four draw from Lake Ontario. Over 90 per cent of the population in the region is served by these
systems.
Q4. How were these source protection plans developed?
The plans are the result of many years of work and public consultation.
The source protection committee led scientific evaluations of their drinking water sources, and
mapped out vulnerable areas around each of these sources. Then they assessed activities in
these areas with the potential to pose a risk to these local water supplies. Members then led
local discussions with key stakeholders and the public on the best way to address these risks,
using this input to develop the source protection plans.
The CTC source protection committee consists of a chair and 21 members speaking for the local
interests of the area. This source protection committee is one of 19 established through the
Clean Water Act.
The Halton-Hamilton source protection committee consists of a chair and 15 members speaking
for the local interests of the area. This source protection committee is one of 19 established
through the Clean Water Act.
Q5. Was the public consulted in the development of these source protection plans?
Community engagement is a very important part of plan development.
The CTC source protection committee held public meetings, posted the draft plan on the
internet, then the proposed plan, and consulted again with the public on proposed amendments.
The Halton-Hamilton source protection committee held public meetings, posted the draft plan on
the internet, then the proposed plan, and consulted again with the public on proposed
amendments.
The committees met their public consultation requirements.
Q6. What areas are identified in the CTC area plans?
Source protection plans protect the lakes, rivers and aquifers that supply water to municipal
drinking water systems. These plans outline actions to protect the 27 local municipal drinking
water systems in the region — 17 that draw from 66 groundwater wells, and 10 that draw from
Lake Ontario.
The area where policies address water quality represent 2 per cent of the region, and the area
where policies address water quantity represent 16 per cent of the region.
Q7. What areas are identified in the Halton-Hamilton area plans?
Source protection plans protect the lakes, rivers and underground aquifers that supply water to
municipal drinking water systems. These plans outline actions to protect the ten local municipal
drinking water systems in the region — six that draw from an aquifer, and four that draw from
Lake Ontario.
The area where policies address water quality represent 6.5 per cent of the region, and the area
where policies address water quantity represent less than 1 per cent of the region.
Q8. How serious are the risks to the CTC drinking water supply?
The CTC source protection committee identified significant risks that could occur in the
protection zones of their municipal drinking water systems.
The committee identified the following existing activities as potential significant risks:
 waste disposal
 sewage facilities
 application and storage of manure
 management of aquaculture
 application, handling and storage of biosolids, pesticides and commercial fertilizers
 livestock grazing and pasturing including farm-animal yards
 application, handling and storage of road salt
 storage of snow
 handling and storage of fuel, dense non-aqueous phase liquids and organic solvents
 consumptive water taking
 activities that reduce the recharge of aquifers in the region
 spills from pipelines transporting petroleum products across tributaries, rivers and streams
that flow into Lake Ontario
 Tritium spills from a nuclear generation station in the region.
There are also a number of similar activities that are prohibited in the future if they are close to
municipal intakes.
Q9. How serious are the risks to the Halton-Hamilton drinking water supply?
The Halton-Hamilton source protection committee identified significant risks that could occur in
the protection zones of their municipal drinking water systems.
The committee identified the following existing activities as potential significant risks:
 sewage facilities
 application and storage of manure
 handling and storage of commercial fertilizers
 application of pesticides




livestock grazing and pasturing including farm-animal yards
application of road salt
handling and storage of fuel, dense non-aqueous phase liquids
conveyance of oil in pipelines
There are also a number of activities that are prohibited in the future if they are close to
municipal intakes, such as waste disposal sites, gas stations, salt storage, and snow storage.
Q10. Why are you taking extra steps to protect source water through the Clean Water Act?
We learned from the events in Walkerton that the first step in ensuring safe drinking water is to
protect the local supply of drinking water at the source.
The Clean Water Act ensures communities protect their drinking water supplies through
prevention — by developing collaborative, watershed-based source protection plans that are
locally driven and based on science.
Source protection planning and implementation helps to ensure that local drinking water is
protected in communities across the province.
Q11. What do the CTC plans include?
Protecting Ontario’s sources of drinking water is a shared responsibility. The CTC source
protection plan gives responsibilities to municipalities, several provincial ministries, and the local
conservation authorities.
Examples of municipal actions include:
 establishing risk management plans for the following:
o storage of fuel and organic solvents
o handling and storage of manure and pesticides if located in protection zones closest to
municipal wells, and commercial fertilizers, known to contain nitrate, in broader
protection zones
o generators of hazardous and liquid industrial and PCB waste storage
o application of pesticides
o application, handling and storage of road salt
o chemicals used in de-icing aircraft
o activities that reduce aquifer recharge
o farm yards known to have nitrates and pathogens in run-off
o handling, application and storage of manure, biosolids, livestock grazing, commercial
fertilizers, and pesticides, in certain identified parts of the protection zones.
 developing or updating water conservation plans, and collaborating with other municipalities
that share the same groundwater sources to plan and manage their water supply.
 developing and implementing a drought management plan for York Region.
 requiring salt management plans to accompany development applications
 delivering education and outreach programs to raise awareness and promote best
management practices for handling and storage of small quantities of hazardous and liquid
industrial wastes; handling, storage and application of commercial fertilizers, pesticides, and
road salt; storage of snow; and handling and storage of fuel and organic solvents.
 Working with the conservation authority to investigate the sources of sodium and chloride
that contribute to drinking water issues in the Orangeville and Georgetown area, and sample
the raw water at affected drinking water systems monthly.

Conducting research with the local conservation authority to determine how Orangeville’s
wastewater treatment plant affects the sodium and chloride levels in aquifers in the area.
Q12. What do the Halton-Hamilton plans include?
Protecting Ontario’s sources of drinking water is a shared responsibility. The Halton-Hamilton
source protection plans give responsibilities to municipalities, several provincial ministries, and
the local conservation authorities.
Examples of municipal actions include:
 establishing risk management plans for the following:
o application of manure
o application, handling and storage of commercial fertilizer
o fuel storage
o Handling and storage of organic solvents
o Outdoor livestock yards, including grazing and pasturing
 implementing septic inspection and maintenance programs
 update their salt management plans to include wellhead protection areas and other
vulnerable areas, and enhance their best management practices
 implement education and outreach plans to promote:
o best management practices for the application or storage of commercial fertilizers by
golf course operators, fertilizer application technicians, home and business owners,
and retail establishments.
o proper pesticide use and storage methods, and their impacts on drinking water
sources.
o effective spill response protocols for homeowners with home fuel tanks
o impacts of road salt, and the use of best management practices.
o hazardous waste disposal and waste reduction.
o the broadening of best management practices to septic system users.
Q13. How were the local First Nations involved in the CTC plan?
There are no First Nations reserves in the CTC source protection region.
None of the policies in the plans are directed at First Nations, nor do the policies impact
Aboriginal or Treaty rights.
Q14. How were the local First Nations involved in the Halton-Hamilton plan?
There are no First Nations reserves in the Halton-Hamilton source protection region.
None of the policies in the plans are directed at First Nations, nor do the policies impact
Aboriginal or Treaty rights.
Q15. Ontario has given money to municipalities for source protection. Did anyone in the CTC
region receive a grant?
Ontario is giving grants to small, rural municipalities to help offset start-up costs associated with
implementing their source protection plans and collaborating with each other in this regard. In
this region, 14 municipalities met the eligibility criteria when the program was launched in
November 2013, and received over $572,000 in total.
The province also invested over $24.6 million in the scientific assessment and development of
the plans for the CTC source protection region.
As well, Ontario gave approximately $1.3 million to residents living in the source protection
region, under the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program. This program helped
landowners make voluntary changes to reduce or remove potential drinking water risks on their
properties, in advance of the approval of the source protection plans.
Q16. Ontario has given money to municipalities for source protection. Did anyone in the
Halton-Hamilton region receive a grant?
Ontario is giving grants to small, rural municipalities to help offset start-up costs associated with
implementing their source protection plans and collaborating with each other in this regard. In
this region, two municipalities met the eligibility criteria, and received over $90,000 in total.
The province also invested over $8.5 million in the scientific assessment and development of the
plans for the Halton-Hamilton source protection region.
As well, Ontario gave about $507,000 to residents living in the source protection region, under
the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program. This program helped landowners make
changes to reduce or remove potential drinking water risks on their properties, in advance of the
approval of the source protection plans.
Q17. How do the CTC plans help protect the Great Lakes (Lake Ontario)?
The plans include policies that call for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to reconvene the Lake Ontario Collaborative working group to help further protect the lake. In the
past, this working group brought together municipal and provincial representatives, and local
scientists, to identify how to work together to protect Lake Ontario.
The ministry is continuing to work through existing collaborative approaches such as the
Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health (COA), and
the proposed Great Lakes Protection Act. If passed, the Act would enable various watershed
approaches to help solve the complex problems in the Great Lakes. The COA includes
commitments to take action with the Great Lakes community to address priority lakewide and
nearshore issues. With the approval of these source protection plans the ministry will continue to
seek opportunities to address the objectives of these policies through ongoing work on the Great
Lakes.
Q18. How do the Halton-Hamilton plans help protect the Great Lakes (Lake Ontario)?
The plans include policies that call for the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to
share information of water resources obtained through source protection planning with
Environment Canada, to enhance the knowledge of Lake Ontario’s shoreline.
As well, the plans request the ministry reach out to Environment Canada, New York State, and
the United States government agencies, to discuss the findings and policies of the source
protection planning process, to encourage collaboration on protecting the Great Lakes, and
raising the profile of Lake Ontario.
The ministry is continuing to work through existing collaborative approaches such as the
Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health (COA), and
the proposed Great Lakes Protection Act. If passed, the Act would enable various watershed
approaches to help solve the complex problems in the Great Lakes. The COA includes
commitments to take action with the Great Lakes community to address priority lakewide and
nearshore issues. With the approval of these source protection plans the ministry will continue to
seek opportunities to address the objectives of these policies through ongoing work on the Great
Lakes.
Q19. What does source protection planning in CTC and Halton-Hamilton do to address the risk
of spills to Lake Ontario from oil pipelines, such as the Enbridge Line 9 B Project?
The plans ask the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to work with pipeline owners
and provincial and federal regulators to update spill prevention and contingency plans to include
source protection. Interprovincial pipelines, such as Enbridge’s Line 9B, are federally regulated
and subject to the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board (NEB).
The plans also ask the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to include maps of
protection zones and locations of known significant risks to municipal sources of drinking water,
and modify existing procedures to ensure that operators of all water treatment plants that could
be affected by oil pipeline spills are notified. The ministry has revised all its spills response and
notification procedures to reflect these suggestions, for all source protection areas within the
province.
The Ontario Government actively participated in the NEB hearing process to ensure that
Ontario’s concerns, including potential environmental impacts arising from the Enbridge Line 9B
Project, were fully considered by the NEB in its decision. Pipeline companies and first
responders must be prepared to respond to pipeline spills in a timely and effective manner to
protect people, property and the environment.
The ministry has ensured that Enbridge (and other pipeline owners) have access to source
protection mapping information to use in developing their watercourse crossing and emergency
management plans. Enbridge has confirmed in their regulatory filings with the NEB that their
analysis of “High Consequence Areas” was re-drafted to incorporate vulnerable areas identified
in source protection plans, and that this information is being added to their emergency response
plans. This analysis includes considering drinking water sources that could be affected in the
event of a pipeline rupture.
On October 6, 2014, the NEB requested additional information from Enbridge related to two
conditions (16 and 18) outlined in the NEB decision to approve Line 9B which relate to the
placement of valves and the company’s water crossing management plan for Line 9B. Enbridge
provided this on October 28, 2014 for the NEB’s review.
On February 5, 2015, the NEB approved Enbridge’s revised filings for conditions (16 and 18).
The NEB found that Enbridge has adequately demonstrated that its methodology for the number
and placement of valves is currently appropriate and has approved Enbridge’s water crossing
management plan. The Board also imposed new conditions on Enbridge in order to consider and
assess the ongoing valve placement needs on Line 9B. Within the next 12 months, Enbridge
must submit engineering studies and analyses relating to whether additional valves are required.
In addition, the NEB appointed Dr. Ron Wallace – a member of the Board – to review all future
filings for this project.
The NEB has granted provisional “Leave to Open” (approval to operate the pipeline), once
Enbridge completes hydrostatic testing of certain stretches of Line 9B.
Q20. What does source protection planning in CTC do to address the risk of spills to Lake
Ontario from bulk fuel storage?
The plans include policies that call for the ministry to work with owners and operators of bulk fuel
storage facilities to develop risk management plans, and with the Ministry of Consumer Services,
and the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, to develop information materials about fuel
storage and handling, for delivery to municipalities and industry associations. Additionally,
policies call for this ministry to work with the appropriate authorities to develop, review, update,
and test spill prevention, spills management, risk reduction and contingency plans along
shipping lanes and certain areas along railways and highways.
Q21. What does source protection planning in Halton-Hamilton do about the blue-green algae
in the western part of Lake Ontario?
The Halton-Hamilton source protection committee reviewed water quality data for the drinking
water intakes that draw from Lake Ontario when developing their local assessment reports.
While there is some evidence of blue-green algae in the western basin of Lake Ontario, it has
not impacted any of the drinking water intakes in the region that draw from Lake Ontario.
Recent confirmed blue-green algae blooms in the Halton area of Lake Ontario were confined to
the shorelines and did not impact the drinking water intakes, which are as far as a kilometre from
the shoreline. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has never
detected algal toxins in any of the treated drinking water samples at these intakes at or above
the Ontario drinking water quality standard level of 1.5 micrograms per litre.
This summer, the ministry is continuing with implementing precautionary monitoring in the area.
In addition to these local actions, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has
implemented a 12-point blue-green algae plan to diminish algal blooms in the Great Lakes and
other lakes and rivers. To learn more about the plan, please visit:
https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/blue-green-algae
Q22. Why is blue-green algae a concern to drinking water safety?
Cyanobacteria, commonly called blue-green algae, occur naturally in ponds, rivers, lakes and
streams. Usually the algae are not visible, until they become a bloom.
Typically, blooms form when nutrients are readily available in the water. Nutrients come from
agricultural or urban runoff, effluent from sewage treatment and industrial plants, and leaching
from septic systems. Reducing or eliminating these nutrient inputs is a proactive way to reduce
the occurrence of blue-green algal blooms.
Some blooms produce toxins — a real threat to water quality, and human and animal health.
Blooms may also produce compounds that affect how the water tastes and smells, and clog
filters at drinking water treatment plants.
Q23. When do the CTC and Halton-Hamilton source protection plans take effect?
The effective date for the CTC and Halton-Hamilton source protection plans is December 31,
2015. This timing will allow source protection partners, including municipalities and the local
conservation authorities, to continue to work together and effectively prepare for plan
implementation.
Q24. Will the CTC source protection plans be updated in the future?
The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change requires the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, the lead source protection authority, to work with the two other source
protection authorities in the region, the source protection committee, the ministry, and the
municipalities in the area, to develop a workplan outlining the future plan’s review. The workplan
will also have regard for the first annual progress report on the implementation of the source
protection plans, which is due in May 2018. The workplan is due in November 2018.
Q25. Will the Halton-Hamilton source protection plans be updated in the future?
The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change requires the Halton Region Conservation
Authority, the lead source protection authority, to work with the Hamilton Region Conservation
Authority, the source protection committee, the ministry, and the municipalities in the area, to
develop a workplan outlining the future plan’s review. The workplan will also have regard for the
first annual progress report on the implementation of the source protection plans, which is due in
May 2018. The workplan is due in November 2018.
Q26. How do the source protection plans relate to sewage bypass notification?
The CTC and Halton-Hamilton source protection plans require the ministry and municipalities to
take action to protect sources of municipal drinking water from sewage spills and bypasses. The
ministry is required to review environmental compliance approvals for wastewater treatment
plants that discharge into Lake Ontario to ensure they protect these sources, as well as updating
protection zone mapping to ensure that drinking water system operators and the public are
notified in the event of a spill or bypass. The ministry has updated this mapping information.
Municipalities will be required to update emergency response and contingency plans in the event
of spills or bypasses. The plans take effect on December 31, 2015.
The ministry recognizes that during significant storms or wet weather events, bypasses may be
required to prevent flooding of a sewage treatment system and streets and homes. Bypasses
are meant to be temporary, emergency measures and not part of a treatment system’s normal
operation.
The ministry monitors incidents at sewage facilities to confirm contingency plans are in place to
reduce bypasses and overflows.
The ministry believes the public should be made aware of potential impacts to water quality
following storms. Having real-time information on sewage bypasses and any associated health
risks will better protect the public.
The ministry is looking at developing a provincial approach that is more transparent and includes
real-time public reporting by municipalities of bypasses and overflows. Right now, we are
consulting with the City of Toronto on a public notification plan that could be used as a model for
other municipalities. We will be looking for the best ways to make sure the public has detailed
and real-time information on bypasses which could include amendments to the City’s approvals.
We are committed to undertaking this work now and expect to develop a public notification plan
in the coming months.

September 15th - Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

New Study Shows ʺCollapseʺ of Worldʹs Largest

St. Andrew`s Jr. H.S. High Performing Athletes` Program

Kids Committed to Conservation

TBDHU.COM/CAREERS

COMMUNITY - Ol Pejeta Conservancy

Fire-bellied Toads

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

AN EXPERIENCE OF Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS)

poolplayers.ca - CPA Southern Ontario