BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
for
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2012
7:00 p.m.
Hamilton Conservation Authority 838 Mineral Springs Road, Ancaster
AGENDA FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DECEMBER 6, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER ~ Howlett
2. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. DELEGATIONS
4.1 Dundas Lioness Club – Cheque Presentation ~ Linda Carey 4.2 Hamilton-Wentworth Stewardship Council – Cheque Presentation ~ Lorraine Norminton
5. APPLICATIONS – Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses
5.1 Applications for December 6, 2012 ~ Kenny
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
6.1 Minutes – November 1, 2012
7. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
7.1 2013 HCA Operating Budget ~ McDougall 7.2 Westfield Heritage Village – Volunteer Co-ordinators Position ~ Mackenzie
8. PRE-DISTRIBUTED CORRESPONDENCE
9. OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
10. REPORTS
10.1 Conservation Advisory Board (Minutes – November 8, 2012) ~ Topalovic 10.2 Foundation Chairman’s Report ~ McInnis
11. OTHER STAFF REPORTS/MEMORANDUMS
11.1 2013 Fee Schedule ~ Mackenzie 11.2 2013 Mileage Rate ~ Burnside 11.3 Amendment to the Conservation Act – Regulation 161/06 ~ Kenny 11.4 Upcoming Events
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. IN-CAMERA ITEMS FOR MATTERS OF LAW, PERSONNEL AND PROPERTY
14. NEXT MEETING – Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
The Board of Directors meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 3, 2013 will be rescheduled to Thursday, February 7, 2013. To be discussed.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Memorandum
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Darren Kenny, Watershed Officer
DATE: November 20, 2012
RE: Summary Enforcement Report – Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 161/06 Applications for December 6, 2012
HCA Regulation applications approved by staff between the dates of October 23, 2012 and November 20, 2012 are summarized in the following Summary Enforcement Report (SER- 10/12).
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Board of Directors endorses Summary Enforcement Report SER-10/12 as presented. HAMILTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS November 20, 2012 Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Applications Report to the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, December 6, 2012 The proposed works are subject to HCA Regulation 161/06 under Ontario Regulation 97/04, and in particular Section 2, Subsection (1). SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT REPORT SER-10/12 Application No. Date Received Date Permit Issued Applicant Name Location Application Description Recommendation/Conditions
A/F,C,A/12/35 June 22, 2012 October 23, 2012 City of Hamilton Pt Lt 49, Con 2 and Pt Lts 45, 46, Con 3 Maintenance of stormwater management ponds 8, 13 and 14 (Contract Application approved subject to City of Hamilton C-15-40-12(S)) in a regulated area of Tiffany and Ancaster Creek standard conditions (Former Town of Ancaster) DFO approval obtained
SC/F,C,A/12/46 July 19, 2012 November 7, 2012 Wentworth Condominium 484 Millen Rd Repair and remediation of an existing shoreline retaining wall in a regulated Application approved subject to Corporation No. 379 Pt. Lot 18, BFC area of the Lake Ontario shoreline standard conditions City of Hamilton DFO approval obtained (Former City of Stoney Creek)
SC/F,C,A/12/52 August 22, 2012 November 13, 2012 Pierre Sullivan and Ying Lu 55 Church St Construction of an armourstone toe revetment for the protection of an Application approved subject to Pt Lt 21, BFC existing shoreline retaining wall in a regulated area of the Lake Ontario standard conditions City of Hamilton shoreline DFO approval obtained (Former City of Stoney Creek)
SC/F,C,A/12/53 August 22, 2012 November 13, 2012 Dave Robertson 57 Church St Construction of an armourstone toe revetment for the protection of an Application approved subject to Pt Lt 21, BFC existing shoreline retaining wall in a regulated area of the Lake Ontario standard conditions City of Hamilton shoreline DFO approval obtained (Former City of Stoney Creek)
SC/F,C,A/12/54 August 22, 2012 November 13, 2012 Hugh Dick 59 Church St Construction of an armourstone toe revetment for the protection of an Application approved subject to Pt Lt 21, BFC existing shoreline retaining wall in a regulated area of the Lake Ontario standard conditions City of Hamilton shoreline DFO approval obtained (Former City of Stoney Creek)
F/F/12/59 September 4, 2012 November 9, 2012 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Pt Lt 10, Con. 6 Completion of two pipeline integrity digs in a regulated area of Flamborough Application approved subject to City of Hamilton Creek and the Hayesland-Christie Provincially Significant Wetland Complex standard conditions (Former Town of Flamborough)
D/C/12/62 September 13, 2012 October 24, 2012 James Vincelli 125 Watsons Ln Construction of deck in a regulated area of the Borer’s Creek Application approved subject to Pt Lt 20, Conc. 1 standard conditions City of Hamilton (Former Town of Dundas) HAMILTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS November 20, 2012 Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Applications Report to the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, December 6, 2012 The proposed works are subject to HCA Regulation 161/06 under Ontario Regulation 97/04, and in particular Section 2, Subsection (1). SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT REPORT SER-10/12 Application No. Date Received Date Permit Issued Applicant Name Location Application Description Recommendation/Conditions
D/A/12/63 September 15, 2012 November 14, 2012 Dundas Valley Golf and 10 Woodley's Ln Installation of a new watermain by directional bore in a regulated area of Application approved subject to Curling Club Pt Lt 10, Con. 1 Ann Street Creek standard conditions City of Hamilton DFO approval obtained (Former Town of Dundas) NEC approval obtained
F/F,C/12/70 October 10, 2012 November 15, 2012 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Pt Lt 28, Con 2 Completion of two pipeline integrity digs in a regulated area of Application approved subject to City of Hamilton Middle Spencer Creek standard conditions (Former Town of Flamborough)
D/F,C/12/72 October 26, 2012 November 1, 2012 Claudio and Donna Silvestri 27 Pimlico Dr Installation of an in-ground swimming pool in a regulated area of Spring Application approved subject to Pt Lt 51, Con. 1 Creek standard conditions City of Hamilton (Former Town of Dundas)
P/F,C/12/73 October 26, 2012 November 16, 2012 Michael Shadforth 7486 Gore Rd Construction of a major addition to an existing horse stable in a regulated Application approved subject to Pt Lt 38, Gore Con. area of Fletcher Creek and the Fletcher Creek Swamp Provincially standard conditions Township of Puslinch Significant Wetland HAMILTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MINUTES
Board of Directors Meeting
November 1, 2012
Minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at Woodend Auditorium, 838 Mineral Springs Road, Ancaster, Ontario at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Brian McHattie, in the Chair Chad Collins James Howlett Tom Jackson Santina Moccio Robert Pasuta Duke O’Sullivan Maria Topalovic Brad Whitcombe
David McInnis, Foundation Chair
REGRETS: Dan Bowman and Brad Clark
STAFF PRESENT: Joan Bell, Elizabeth Berestecki, Hazel Breton, Rondalyn Brown, Lisa Burnside, Bruce Harschnitz, Tony Horvat, Judy Love, Bruce Mackenzie, Neil McDougall, Kathy Menyes, and Steve Miazga – HCA Staff
OTHERS: Richard Leitner – Media Daniel Nolan - Media
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order and welcomed members and staff present.
2. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Chair asked members to declare any conflicts under the Board's Governance Policy. There were none.
Board of Directors -2- November 1, 2012
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Chair requested any additions or deletions to the agenda. The Chair indicated that there was an additional item under 13) - In-Camera items.
BD12,1750 MOVED BY: Santina Moccio SECONDED BY: James Howlett
THAT the agenda be approved as amended.
CARRIED
4. DELEGATIONS
There was none.
5. APPLICATIONS - DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES (Copies of the supporting staff report are available from the Authority's Administration Office)
Elizabeth Berestecki presented the report and answered Board member’s questions.
BD12,1751 MOVED BY Brad Whitcombe SECONDED BY Duke O’Sullivan
THAT the Board of Directors endorses Summary Information Report SER – 9/12.
CARRIED
6. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (October 4, 2012)
BD12,1752 MOVED BY: Maria Topalovic SECONDED BY: Robert Pasuta
THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting held on October 4, 2012 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
Board of Directors -3- November 1, 2012
7. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
7.1 2013 HCA Major Maintenance and Capital Budget
Neil McDougall presented the report and indicated that HCA staff met with City staff requesting the $2 M levy be directed to HCA capital budget and requested Public Works to fund Confederation Park and Westfield Heritage Village. City staff prefers HCA to keep within the $2 M budget.
The $2 M will be distributed:
$1.5 M - HCA Capital Budget $450,000 - Confederation Capital Budget $100,000 - Westfield Heritage Village
HCA staff are meeting with City staff to request funding for major projects such as Squirt Works at Wild Waterworks. HCA staff will also apply for a loan with the City to complete all infrastructures at Fifty Point Marina with water and sewer connections. Board members requested staff to provide a detailed report on the work that needs to be completed at Fifty Point and bring forward to the December meeting.
BD12,1753 MOVED BY: Duke O’Sullivan SECONDED BY: Maria Topalovic
THAT the HCA staff recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the 2013 Major Maintenance and Capital Budget be approved for the Hamilton Conservation Authority, Westfield Heritage Village and Confederation Park, as outlined in this report; and further
THAT these documents be forwarded to the City of Hamilton for review and approval.
CARRIED
7.2 10 Year Major Maintenance and Capital Budget Forecast
Tony Horvat presented the report.
BD12,1754 MOVED BY: Tom Jackson SECONDED BY: James Howlett
THAT the HCA staff recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the 10 year capital forecast attached be approved; and further Board of Directors -4- November 1, 2012
THAT this document be forwarded to the City of Hamilton.
CARRIED
8. PRE-DISTRIBUTED CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence was received:
Thank You Letter from Ann Crawford and David Tysdale re Watershed Stewardship Program Thank You Letter from Alan Hansell re Clean Up of Ancaster Creek at Binkley Hollow
BD12,1755 MOVED BY Maria Topalovic SECONDED BY Brad Whitcombe
THAT the pre-distributed correspondence be received.
CARRIED
9. OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence was received:
Letter from Green Leaf Environmental Communications – Congratulations to Fifty Point Marina – received 5 Green Anchor Diamond Rating
BD12,1756 MOVED BY: Duke O’Sullivan SECONDED BY: Maria Topalovic
THAT the other correspondence be received.
CARRIED
10. REPORTS
10.1 Conservation Advisory Board (Minutes – October 18, 2012)
Maria Topalovic presented the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Board meeting held on October 18, 2012 and indicated that there were no motions requiring Board of Directors approval.
Adoption of the Report
Board of Directors -5- November 1, 2012
BD12,1757 MOVED BY: Maria Topalovic SECONDED BY: Santina Moccio
THAT the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Board held on October 18, 2012 be approved.
CARRIED
10.2 Foundation Chairman’s Report
David McInnis reported on the following:
October Donations - $48,900 Fall Ask Appeal was mailed to 2,055 previous donors Vista Newsletter will be sent out in November
11. OTHER STAFF REPORTS/MEMORANDUMS
11.1 Specific Agreement with the Haudenosaunee
Steve Miazga presented the report.
BD12,1758 MOVED BY: Santina Moccio SECONDED BY: James Howlett
THAT the HCA staff recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the Board of Directors approve the signing of the attached agreement allowing for a deer harvest in an area of Dundas Valley Conservation Area generally bounded by Martin Road to the east, Jerseyville Road to the south, Paddy Green Road to the west, and Powerline Road to the north on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday between November 13 and December 20, 2012 and January 7 – January 17, 2013 inclusive.
CARRIED
11.2 Fifty Point Marina Summer Mooring Fees for 2013
Bruce Mackenzie presented the report.
BD12,1759 MOVED BY: Santina Moccio SECONDED BY: Brad Whitcombe
Board of Directors -6- November 1, 2012
THAT the HCA staff recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the 2013 Summer Mooring Fees for the Fifty Point Marina be set at:
Plan A - with hydro per foot $75.00 Plan A - no hydro per foot $69.50 Plan B – with hydro per foot $93.75 Plan B – no hydro per foot $86.90
Plan B is applied to customers who do not store their boats at the marina in the previous winter. The recommended rates are for Docks B, C, D, F, G, H, and J.
CARRIED
11.3 Westfield Heritage Village Volunteer Co-ordinator Position
Bruce Mackenzie presented the report. Brian McHattie indicated that he would like to table this motion and bring it forward to the December Board of Directors meeting. Brian indicated that HCA staff will be meeting with City staff in November to discuss the operating budget.
BD12,1760 MOVED BY: Robert Pasuta SECONDED BY: Duke O’Sullivan
THAT the HCA staff recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the Board of Directors approve an additional $51,324 to the operating budget of Westfield Heritage Village for a full time Volunteer Co-ordinator position, including salary and benefits. The role of this position will be to provide for greater resources for the co-ordination, management and training of volunteers.
NOT CARRIED
BD12,1761 MOVED BY: Robert Pasuta SECONDED BY: Duke O’Sullivan
THAT the Board of Directors approve the following recommendation:
THAT this motion be tabled and brought forward to the December Board of Directors meeting.
CARRIED Board of Directors -7- November 1, 2012
11.4 Vendor Listing Report
Neil McDougall presented the vendor listing report.
BD12,1762 MOVED BY: James Howlett SECONDED BY: Duke O’Sullivan
THAT the Vendor Listing report be received.
CARRIED
11.5 Quarterly Financial Reports
Neil McDougall presented the quarterly financial reports. James Howlett commented that he had received such a well constructed financial report.
BD12,1763 MOVED BY: Robert Pasuta SECONDED BY: James Howlett
THAT the quarterly financial reports be received.
CARRIED
11.6 Upcoming Events
The upcoming events are included in the agenda package.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12.1 Farewell to Kathy Menyes
Brian McHattie indicated that Kathy Menyes is leaving HCA and has accepted a position at Conservation Halton. Brian McHattie thanked Kathy for all her hard work over the past years and said it was a great loss for HCA but a great gain for Conservation Halton. Board members congratulated Kathy on her promotion.
13. IN-CAMERA ITEMS FOR MATTERS OF LAW, PERSONNEL AND PROPERTY
BD12,1764 MOVED BY: Brad Whitcombe SECONDED BY: Robert Pasuta
THAT the Board of Directors moves in camera for matters of law, personnel and property.
CARRIED Board of Directors -8- November 1, 2012
There was one legal and one personnel matter discussed during the in camera session.
13.1 Appointment of Auditors
Neil McDougall provided a verbal update on the audit proposal.
BD12,1765 MOVED BY: Chad Collins SECONDED BY: Santina Moccio
THAT the Board of Directors approve the following recommendations:
THAT Grant Thornton be appointed as Auditors of the Hamilton Conservation Authority for a 5-year term.
CARRIED
13.2 Confidential Report BD/Nov 01-2012
Lisa Burnside presented the report.
BD12,1766 MOVED BY: James Howlett SECONDED BY: Santina Moccio
THAT the Board of Directors approve the following recommendations:
THAT Report BD/Nov 01-2012 be approved and remain in- camera.
CARRIED
BD12,1767 MOVED BY: James Howlett SECONDED BY: Santina Moccio
THAT the Board of Directors moves out of in camera.
CARRIED
14. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Board of Directors will be held on Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at Woodend Auditorium, 838 Mineral Springs Road, Ancaster, Ontario.
15. ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned.
Report
TO: Budget & Administration Committee Members
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
PREPARED BY: Neil McDougall, Secretary-Treasurer
DATE: September 14, 2012
RE: 2013 HCA Operating Budget
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Budget & Administration Committee recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the Board of Directors approve the preliminary 2013 HCA Operating Budget; and further
THAT the 2013 HCA Operating Budget of $11,105,000 be forwarded to the City of Hamilton and the Township of Puslinch for inclusion in their budget deliberations with a requested levy amount of $3,569,300 and $10,000 respectively, representing no increase in levy from both those of 2012 and 2011.
BACKGROUND
The City of Hamilton has again requested that Boards and Agencies limit their requested levy to less than the current inflation rate and only ask for the amount granted in the previous year.
STAFF COMMENT
The attached proposed budget provides for total operating expenditures of $11,105,000. These expenditures, as projected, are actually lower than last year’s budget by $246,000. The conservation areas collectively are down by $255,000. Incorporated in the 2013 budget is a 2% economic increase and an overall 1% merit increase for salaries and wages. It is felt the 2% economic increase, which approximates inflation, will keep the salaries close to the 50th percentile, which is the target established as part of the 2011 salary review exercise, and the average merit of 1%, while small, allows some recognition of the staffs’ efforts. One new fulltime position is being added and one contract position is being made fulltime. In both cases, the move is to attract and hold qualified people. No other fulltime changes are anticipated and only minor adjustments are to be made to temporary positions.
In respecting the guidelines requested by the City of Hamilton to hold the levy requirement at 2011 levels, the levy request of the City of Hamilton and the Township of Puslinch are in the amounts of $3,569,300 and $10,000 respectively. There were expectations of improved fee collection as a consequence of the revamped fees schedule in Watershed Planning and Engineering and that did occur, just not to the degree desired. Consequently, it necessitated a reduction to the revenue projection in this area for 2013. Fortunately this was offset by lower expenses and the balanced budget is still attainable without reductions in service levels of deliverables.
The HCA is currently in the process of developing its new 5 Year Strategic Plan. The objective of this exercise is to provide clarity of purpose for the organization. The outcome of the Strategic Planning exercise may reinforce all our current activities, modify some, add some and potentially remove some. The implications of the completed Strategic Plan will be implemented more fully in the 2014 budget while only adjustments that can be accomplished within the funding envelope described herein will be accomplished in 2013.
The 2012 operating performance is projected to be essentially on budget. The good weather has helped the conservation areas and generated funds which offset the Regulation and Planning fee shortfall. At time of writing, there have been no major surprises that would upset this balance.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed budget is conservative, recognizing the constraint on funding while still attempting to advance the activities that rest at the core of the Authority’s mandate.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed operating budget is in line with the Authority’s mandate, realistic, and achievable. Therefore, it is appropriate that the HCA Operating Budget, as detailed in the accompanying document, be approved.
-2-
Hamilton Conservation Authority
2013 Preliminary Operating Budget
Executive summary:
The Hamilton Conservation Authority is responsible for ensuring the health of the Hamilton Watershed and its associated sub watersheds and green space. The Authority owns, leases and manages in excess of 4,000 hectares (10,000 acres) of environmentally significant land, of which more than 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres) are open to the public free of charge. Upon these lands lie vast trail systems that allow and encourage the local population to experience nature and benefit their health.
While created by the provincial government in 1959, the funding for its ongoing operation have over time been shifted to the local municipalities which house the watershed to the point that less than $200,000 comes from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for operations. As the municipalities have also been burdened with other downloading from the provincial and federal governments the Authority has been active in its attempts to find independent funding sources and reduce its dependence on the City of Hamilton and the Township of Puslinch.
The Authority has been successful to the point that the Conservation Areas no longer budget for funding from the general levy but collectively survive, given good weather, on the admissions they collect and goods and services they sell. In addition, with new events and expanded offerings on stream, it is expected that the Conservation Areas will contribute towards the other divisions of the Authority, allowing operations to continue without reduction in service levels or deliverables. In 2013, inflationary pressures on all goods, services and remunerations will be absorbed by these expanded activities. The general levy request will be for $3,579,300 which represents a second year of no increase. This will be accomplished through the dedication and hard work of very committed staff. At this point, for 2013, it does not appear that there will need to be any reduction in services provided.
For the current year, revenues for 2012 are projected to meet or exceed the approved budget in the conservation areas as the mild winter led into a warm spring and hot summer. This collection of good weather encouraged people to enjoy the out of doors. Unfortunately, even with the revamped fee schedule, the revenue generated from permits, licenses and plan reviews failed to meet its target. Costs have been constrained were possible and it is expected that a breakeven will be achieved.
Introduction:
The format of this report is to provide a consolidated budget for each division, followed by a more detailed summary for each section within the division as follows:
A) Watershed Planning and Engineering ‐ Regulation, Application IS and General Watershed Stewardship Flood Forecasting and Flood Control Ecology and Special Projects
B) Conservation Areas ‐ Fifty Point Christie Lake Valens Dundas Valley Hamilton Mountain C) Historic Sites
D) Corporate Support ‐ General Administration Human Resources Community Relations & General Promotion Land Management and Central work centre Education Foundation Administration
Definitions:
Within the financial statements there appear a few short forms and terms that require explanation:
Other Revenues – Depending on where it appears this is a grouping of various revenue accounts, none of which is large enough to stand on their own and for conciseness of the report appear together. If there is something unusual it is identified underneath the statement as a “Special note”.
Other Expenses – Similar to Other Revenues, this is a grouping of varied accounts that have been summarized. Again, should there be something that is unusually large on a one time basis it is noted below the statement.
Contribution – This is the difference between the revenues din an expenses out
COGS – Cost of Goods Sold which is the cost of products purchased for resale at our stores and concession stands. Flood Forecasting & Flood Control
Description:
Develop and maintain appropriate water quality monitoring for the purposes of forecasting Construction and maintenance of HCA flood control structures Contribute to development of municipal Land Use Plans in accordance with provincial requirements Oversee major capital projects, such as Crooks Hollow dam decommissioning
Staffing: Amongst the Division’s 15 total staff there are 3 Water Resources Engineering individuals that dedicate a significant portion of their time to this area. In addition, some maintenance work is carried out by Parks’ operations staff on the dam and weir structures when the tasks are within their skill set in an tattemp to reduce the use of outside, higher cost, contractors.
Funding: Funding for these programs come from the General Levy and augmented by provincial grants. Unique projects are often funded through a Special City Levy and / or provincial grant.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 320.2 )$ ( 309.9 )$ ( 312.9 )$ $ ( 320.0 ) $ ( 320.0 ) City Levy - Special ( 9.6 ) ( 544.2 ) 369.4 ( 20.0 ) - Federal & Prov. Grants ( 154.2 ) ( 643.1 ) ( 290.0 ) ( 162.5 ) ( 120.0 ) Other / Reserves - 970.0 ( 645.5 ) ( 7.5 ) - ( 483.9 ) ( 483.9 ) ( 527.2 ) ( 879.0 ) ( 510.0 ) ( 440.0 ) Expenses Staff 303.1 323.5 358.0 417.5 400.0 Consultants & Contractors 42.5 97.3 444.1 46.5 15.0 Supplies 32.9 20.7 25.9 24.8 15.0 Other 105.3 85.6 39.4 21.2 10.0 483.9 527.2 867.4 510.0 440.0
Contribution $ - $ - $ ( 11.6 ) -$ -$
Hamilton – Halton Watershed Stewardship Program (HHWSP)
Description:
Joint venture with landowners in both the Hamilton and Halton watersheds Goal is to achieve improved ecosystems by providing guidance to private landowners so they can enhance and restore the natural areas on their properties Accomplished through education ( workshops on specific topics); communication ( newsletters sharing successes and providing real life examples); and actual on‐the‐ ground restoration projects (serve as working examples for others)
Staffing: The organizational structure is a Manager, 2 Stewardship Technicians (1 dedicated to each watershed) and 1 Restoration Technician (implements projects as identified in either watershed).
Funding: The primary funding comes through the General Levys of both the Hamilton Conservation Authority and the Halton Conservation Authority, on an equal basis. The intention is to grow the levy at such a rate that in 4 years the administration of the program, being the 3 permanent staff and their expenses, will be funded, requiring $115,000 in levy from each Authority. Currently, much productive time is invested in finding funding to pay base wages rather than fulfilling the mandate of improving the watershed. The Restoration Technician and actual project costs are to be funded through provincial grants and program reserves. ------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy$ ( 0.2 ) $ ( 65.8 ) $ ( 194.2 ) $ ( 81.0 ) ( 91.0 )$ Federal & Prov. Grants ( 102.9 ) ( 72.6 ) ( 18.4 ) ( 50.0 ) ( 55.2 ) Fees - - - - - Conservation Foundation ( 3.8 ) ( 0.0 ) ( 40.6 ) ( 30.0 ) ( 30.0 ) Other / Reserves ( 92.8 ) ( 93.3 ) ( 25.1 ) ( 197.4 ) ( 172.3 ) ( 199.6 ) ( 231.7 ) ( 278.2 ) ( 358.4 ) ( 348.5 ) Expenses Staff 185.4 194.9 233.1 278.0 295.0 Consultants & Contractors - 0.9 - 25.0 22.0 Supplies 8.1 21.3 15.4 27.6 20.5 Other 7.7 14.6 25.8 27.8 11.0 201.2 231.7 274.3 358.4 348.5
Contribution $ 1.6 -$ $ ( 3.9 ) -$ -$
Special note: The contributions from the Halton Conservation Authority are recorded in Other Revenue. Regulation, Applications, Information Services and General Expenses
Description:
Watershed and subwatershed planning, municipal plan input and review Administration and enforcement of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Waterways Regulation Delivery of HCA’s information technology systems, including geographic information systems (GIS) Management of the division and central costs, such as computer hardware and software maintenance costs, are included in this section
Staffing:
Much of the program work is carried out by the Watershed Officers, Ecology staff, IT manager and division Director. As previously mentioned , with a small staff, individuals work across all sections and apply their individual skill set wherever needed and best applied.
Funding:
Funding for these programs comes primarily from General Levy and Fees charged for application processing and document review. In 2012, a new fee schedule was implemented with the intention of moving towards a higher percentage recovery of costs incurred for plan review work and regulations related work. While fee revenue has improved, the level of activity remains insufficient to cover all costs thus requiring a higher levy allocation to this area.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy$ ( 369.5 ) $ ( 369.5 ) $ ( 493.8 ) $ ( 482.8 ) $ ( 592.8 ) Federal & Provincial Grants ( 5.1 ) ( 6.5 ) ( 6.8 ) ( 6.2 ) ( 6.0 ) Fees ( 284.6 ) ( 242.8 ) ( 228.4 ) ( 515.0 ) ( 350.0 ) Other ( 7.0 ) ( 10.7 ) ( 0.5 ) ( 5.0 ) ( 6.2 ) ( 666.2 ) ( 629.5 ) ( 729.5 ) ( 1,009.0 ) ( 955.0 ) Expenses Staff 690.9 695.2 756.0 948.6 900.0 Consultants & Contractors 36.9 5.4 6.3 3.0 5.0 Supplies 5.4 11.9 9.2 21.4 15.0 Other 30.5 43.9 58.4 36.0 35.0 763.7 756.4 829.9 1,009.0 955.0
Contribution $ 97.5 126.9$ $ 100.4 -$ -$
Special note: Other expense is composed of primarily computer equipment and legal expenses Ecology and Special Projects
Description:
Source protection planning, water quality monitoring and floodline mapping Natural Areas Inventory (NAI), Forest management, conservation services Climate Change Impact Study, Floodplain mapping and Lake Ontario Shoreline study
Staffing:
A Watershed Planner and Project Planner, along with others, work on a variety of projects and manage the seasonal staff whom is dedicated to the various ecological monitoring programs. Again, all staff are utilized in a variety of programs which reside in different sections of the division.
Funding:
The projects are funded through the General Levy, provincial and federal grants and donations. Some projects qualify for funding under a Special City Levy, as in the case of the Floodplain mapping and Shoreline study. 2013 is year 3 of the 3 year NAI project, funded by the City of Hamilton,r othe Hamilton CA’s , Hamilton Naturalists club and federal and provincial grants. In order to wrap up the project in 2013 an additional levy has been allocated to the project.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy$ ( 74.3 ) $ ( 62.6 ) $ ( 60.1 ) $ ( 92.1 ) $ ( 106.8 ) City Levy - Special - - - ( 120.0 ) - Federal & Prov. Grants ( 44.4 ) ( 28.0 ) ( 23.7 ) ( 176.0 ) ( 161.6 ) Other / Reserves ( 97.0 ) ( 112.8 ) ( 336.9 ) ( 176.0 ) ( 256.0 ) ( 215.7 ) ( 203.3 ) ( 420.7 ) ( 564.1 ) ( 524.4 ) Expenses Staff 117.2 160.4 197.5 308.0 272.3 Consultants & Contractors 93.6 84.7 241.6 202.3 209.5 Supplies 2.7 2.5 2.6 21.7 11.7 Other 11.7 9.0 28.0 32.1 30.8 225.1 256.7 469.6 564.1 524.4
Contribution $ 9.4 53.4$ 48.9$ -$ -$
Special note: Other revenue is a combination of donations from various Foundations and City of Hamilton departments that sponsor individual projects.
A) Watershed Planning & Engineering Division
Description:
The Division administers and implements all aspects of the HCA’s Planning, Regulations Engineering, Stewardship and Information Technology projects and programs. More specifically, this involves watershed and subwatershed planning, municipal plan input and review, flood forecasting and drought response, management of flood control structures, administration and enforcement of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Waterways Regulation, private landowner watershed stewardship program and the administration and delivery of the organizations information technology systems, including geographic information systems (GIS).
Funding:
The General Levy from the City of Hamilton and the Township of Puslinch provide primary funding for the ongoing operation of the division. When larger, special projects are proposed, funding is secured, in advance, usually from a partnership of the province and the City or the individual requestor of the work.e In 2012 th division took a more aggressive stance on pricing its services for permits and development applications in an attempt to closer align the fees paid with the costs incurred for that work. While this was partially successful, a realistic projection of fees for 2013 leaves a gap in funding for the program that can only be filled through a higher allocation of the annual levy to this division or reduction in program deliverables.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy$ ( 764.1 ) ( 807.8 )$ $ ( 1,060.9 ) $ ( 975.9 ) $ ( 1,110.6 ) City Levy - Special ( 9.6 ) ( 544.2 ) 369.4 ( 140.0 ) - Federal & Provincial Grants ( 306.5 ) ( 750.1 ) ( 338.8 ) ( 394.7 ) ( 342.8 ) Fees ( 284.6 ) ( 242.8 ) ( 228.4 ) ( 515.0 ) ( 350.0 ) Other ( 200.5 ) 753.2 ( 1,048.6 ) ( 415.9 ) ( 464.5 ) ( 1,565.4 ) ( 1,591.8 ) ( 2,307.4 ) ( 2,441.4 ) ( 2,267.9 ) Expenses Staff 1,296.6 1,374.1 1,544.6 1,952.1 1,867.3 Consultants & Contractors 173.0 188.3 692.0 276.8 251.5 Supplies 49.0 56.5 53.1 95.4 62.2 Other 155.2 153.2 151.6 117.1 86.8 1,673.8 1,772.0 2,441.3 2,441.4 2,267.9
Contribution $ 108.5 180.3$ $ 133.9 -$ -$
Special note: Other revenues include transfers between years when required to match the timing of funding with the associated spending as in 2010 to 2011 for Crook’s Hollow Dam decommissioning. Watershed Planning & Engineering Division
Staffing Complement: 16 fulltime; 3 contract; Up to 7 seasonal
The Division carries out its responsibilities with a small group of talented professionals. Personnel are utilized in a variety of programs and only that portion of their wages is reflected in the individual department report. The Stewardship program is the only exception, the four people involved in that department work exclusively in that department.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Summary: Revenues$ ( 1,565.4 ) $ ( 1,591.8 ) $ ( 2,307.4 ) $ ( 2,441.4 ) $ ( 2,267.9 ) Expenses 1,673.8 1,772.0 2,441.3 2,441.4 2,267.9 Net Operations$ 108.5 180.3$ $ 133.9 -$ -$
Regulation, Application IS and General Revenues $ ( 666.2 ) $ ( 629.5 ) $ ( 729.5 ) $ ( 1,009.0 ) $ ( 955.0 ) Expenses 763.7 756.4 829.9 1,009.0 955.0 Net Operations$ 97.5 126.9$ $ 100.4 -$ -$
Watershed Stewardship Revenues $ ( 199.6 ) $ ( 231.7 ) $ ( 278.2 ) $ ( 358.4 ) $ ( 348.5 ) Expenses 201.2 231.7 274.3 358.4 348.5 Net Operations$ 1.6 -$ $ ( 3.9 ) -$ -$
Flood Forecasting and Control Revenues $ ( 483.9 ) $ ( 527.2 ) $ ( 879.0 ) $ ( 510.0 ) $ ( 440.0 ) Expenses 483.9 527.2 867.4 510.0 440.0 Net Operations$ - -$ $ ( 11.6 ) $ ( 0.1 ) -$
Ecology and Special Projects Revenues $ ( 215.7 ) $ ( 203.3 ) $ ( 420.7 ) $ ( 564.1 ) $ ( 524.4 ) Expenses 225.1 256.7 469.6 564.1 524.4 Net Operations$ 9.4 53.4$ 48.9$ -$ -$
Valens Conservation Area
Description:
Area: 300 hectares, incl. 76 hectare man‐made lake; Trails: 10 kilometres; Pavilions: 2 Camping sites: Electrical services – 110 sites; Non‐serviced – 112 sites 1 Comfort station – Open all year with laundry, showers, sink and toilets; 2 Comfort stations – Open Easter to Thanksgiving with showers, sinkd an toilets; 3 Washrooms – Open Easter to Thanksgiving with sink and toilets Campground store – Open mid ‐ May to Thanksgiving Beach store – Open mid‐June – Labour Day Lake fishing: Summer and ice with seasonal restrictions Sand beach and Swimming area; Boat rentals; Day use areas; 1,000 picnic tables Wetland boardwalk (300 metres) and wetland observation tower Wildlife management area Beverly swamp and Fletcher Creek Conservation Areas maintained by Valens staff Residential rental properties: 3
Staffing Complement: 4 fulltime; Up to 25 seasonal
Highlights: Home to the Oakville YMCA summer camps Hold the John Burns fishing derby, July Hold ice fishing derby, February Successful winter camping program On‐line campground reservation system since 2012
2013 Improvements: Full year with 24 new serviced campsites in place (electrical sites provide weather proofing) Installing electronic sign at entrance to improve communications Upgrade to onee of th seasonal comfort stations
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Camping$ ( 492.2 ) $ ( 488.7 ) $ ( 510.9 ) $ ( 549.0 ) $ ( 565.0 ) Admissions ( 212.3 ) ( 204.2 ) ( 192.3 ) ( 218.0 ) ( 200.0 ) Concessions ( 147.6 ) ( 133.7 ) ( 154.4 ) ( 157.3 ) ( 160.0 ) Other ( 128.9 ) ( 106.1 ) ( 92.3 ) ( 80.3 ) ( 90.0 ) ( 981.0 ) ( 932.7 ) ( 949.9 ) ( 1,004.5 ) ( 1,015.0 ) Expenses Staff 430.4 432.6 412.8 469.1 480.0 COGS 89.0 72.9 86.6 78.5 100.0 Supplies 101.7 114.8 202.7 118.0 100.0 Equipment 126.8 106.8 16.1 101.3 70.0 Other 87.2 85.6 74.4 72.3 80.0 835.1 812.7 792.6 839.2 830.0
Contribution$ ( 145.9 ) $ ( 120.0 ) $ ( 157.4 ) $ ( 165.3 ) $ ( 185.0 )
Fifty Point Conservation Area
Description:
Area: 80 hectares; Pavilions: 2; Day use areas; Sand beach and Swimming area; Beach change rooms and washrooms; Pet beach; Boat ramp; Stocked trout fishing pond; Landing Restaurant (leased); Historic Ingledale House (1812); Residential rental properties: 2
Marina : 330 slips with electrical service; Fuel Dock; Sewage pump out facilities; Marina store: Open all year ‐ laundry, coffee shop, washrooms Boat storage: 260 boat capacity; 24 hr security; Boat hoist, mast crane, other boat handling equipment capable of handling up to 20 tonne & 50 ft.
Recreational Vehicle Park: 71 sites – full service sewer, hydro, water, WiFi, laundry & comfort station;
Staffing Complement: 9 fulltime; Up to 16 seasonal
Highlights: Home to the Outdoor Ball Hockey League Installed new box culvert at mouth of Fifty Creek Wheelchair accessible fishing pond
2013 Improvements: Gatehouse expansion Fishing pond bridge replacement Day use parking expansion and road resurfacing
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Marine$ ( 998.8 ) $ ( 1,034.4 ) $ ( 1,052.8 ) $ ( 1,068.5 ) $ ( 1,100.0 ) Camping ( 187.7 ) ( 220.8 ) ( 228.0 ) ( 275.0 ) ( 275.0 ) Admissions ( 232.1 ) ( 270.5 ) ( 266.0 ) ( 272.3 ) ( 275.0 ) Concessions ( 219.9 ) ( 253.9 ) ( 240.0 ) ( 287.1 ) ( 260.0 ) Other ( 108.0 ) ( 55.1 ) ( 51.5 ) ( 69.3 ) ( 55.0 ) ( 1,746.4 ) ( 1,834.8 ) ( 1,838.2 ) ( 1,972.2 ) ( 1,965.0 ) Expenses Staff 825.2 828.9 790.8 827.7 810.0 COGS 172.3 195.0 201.3 215.6 240.0 Supplies 162.4 195.1 208.9 168.6 170.0 Equipment 172.7 131.7 196.8 152.0 130.0 Other 251.1 253.6 272.9 215.1 215.0 1,583.8 1,604.5 1,670.7 1,579.0 1,565.0
Contribution $ ( 162.7 ) $ ( 230.3 ) $ ( 167.5 ) $ ( 393.2 ) $ ( 400.0 ) Special note: Other expense includes an $80,000 payment on the marina wall loan in each year Dundas Valley Conservation Area
Description:
Area: 1,200 hectares; Pavilions: 2; Day use areas; Trails: 40 km. within conservation area and manage 32 km. of the Hamilton to Brantford Rail Trail; Trail Centre: Snack bar, washrooms, trail maps, facility rentals
Maplewood Hall rental facility (under review due to potential significant repair requirements) Borer’s Falls and Tiffany Falls Conservation Areas, Woodend and main office parking lots, all maintained by Dundas Valley staff Location of the Hermitage Gatehouse Museum, Hermitage ruins and Griffin House, a National Historic Site Residential rental properties: 7
Staffing Complement: 5 fulltime; Up to 12 seasonal
Highlights: Home to the HCA Environmental Education Program, 9,000 students per year Home of the annual Equestrian Trailathon Home to the Giant’s Rib Interpretation Program Home to the Bright Run charity event and others Home of “4 Day Evening Walk” new in 2012
2013 Improvements:
Installation of self serve fee boxes at Gatehouse museum, Old Ancaster Road and Tiffany Falls in Fall of 2012 Complete assessment and resolve future of Maplewood Hall Complete road work around the new Trail Centre gatehouse
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Admissions$ ( 141.6 ) $ ( 146.0 ) $ ( 171.9 ) $ ( 167.3 ) $ ( 205.0 ) Concessions ( 25.1 ) ( 24.8 ) ( 23.5 ) ( 28.0 ) ( 25.0 ) Other ( 238.3 ) ( 217.3 ) ( 141.9 ) ( 79.5 ) ( 110.0 ) ( 405.0 ) ( 388.1 ) ( 337.3 ) ( 274.8 ) ( 340.0 ) Expenses Staff 332.8 315.9 328.2 324.4 375.0 COGS 14.4 10.7 15.2 11.5 15.0 Supplies 61.5 51.7 100.5 52.7 50.0 Equipment 61.1 62.7 64.5 54.5 55.0 Other 118.1 90.9 27.7 75.5 40.0 587.9 531.8 536.1 518.6 535.0
Contribution $ 182.9 143.8$ 198.8$ 243.8$ $ 195.0
Special note: Other revenue includes rental of Maplewood and revenue from film companies Christie Lake Conservation Area
Description:
Area: 336 hectares; Trails: 13 kilometres ; Pavilions: 5; Sand beach and Swimming area; Boat rentals; Day use areas; Washrooms – Open all year Beach store – Open mid‐May – end of October Lake fishing, with seasonal restrictions; Stocked trout fishing ponds Large event field, capacity of 10,000 people; Parking capacity for 3,600 vehicles Residential rental properties: 2 Spencer Gorge, Webster’s Falls and Tews Falls maintained by Christie Lake staff Spencer adds an additional area of 54 hectares and 5 kilometres of trails
Staffing Complement: 5 fulltime; Up to 25 seasonal
Highlights: Home to the Burlington YMCA summer camps Home of the Christie Lake Antique Show Home to the Harvest Fest Picnic (launched in 2011) Home to CYO and school cross‐country runs hosting up to 20,000 students annually Home of the Punisher Adventure Race (new event in 2012) Home of the Disc Golf Course
2013 Improvements: Study potential for new wells for drinking water Examine viability of single track mountain bike trail on lesser used south side of Christie Lake Christie Lake Antique show contribution improved with expiry of consultant fee ------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Admissions$ ( 392.2 ) $ ( 444.7 ) $ ( 509.6 ) $ ( 493.0 ) $ ( 520.0 ) Concessions ( 38.7 ) ( 38.6 ) ( 25.0 ) ( 30.5 ) ( 30.0 ) Events ( 212.0 ) ( 185.9 ) ( 638.2 ) ( 630.5 ) ( 475.0 ) Other ( 198.4 ) ( 140.1 ) ( 108.9 ) ( 127.0 ) ( 110.0 ) ( 841.2 ) ( 809.3 ) ( 1,281.8 ) ( 1,281.0 ) ( 1,135.0 ) Expenses Staff 418.4 442.3 435.9 462.3 490.0 COGS 17.8 18.8 14.7 16.3 15.0 Supplies 84.2 89.6 182.6 86.0 85.0 Equipment 115.1 132.6 51.9 118.0 120.0 Events 123.5 192.0 639.6 561.3 290.0 Other 68.3 71.7 72.8 57.3 65.0 827.5 946.9 1,397.5 1,301.2 1,065.0
Contribution$ ( 13.7 ) 137.7$ 115.7$ 20.2$ $ ( 70.0 ) Special note: Other revenue includes revenue from summer “Y” camps, school runs, etc. Hamilton Mountain Conservation Areas
Description:
Eramosa Karst Conservation Area Size: 73 hectares; Trails: 5 kilometres ; Washroom – Open all year; Residential rental properties: 1
Other Small Areas: Devil’s Punch Bowl; Felker’s Falls; Iroquois Heights Conservation Area; Meadowlands Conservation Area; Mount Albion Conservation Area
Other Trails: Dofasco Trail, 10 km., including 1.6 km. boardwalk through Vinemount Swamp Chippawa Trail, 15 km;
Staffing Complement: 1 fulltime; Up to 2 seasonal
Highlights: Recently entered into lease arrangement for Eramosa Karst feeder lands with Infrastructure Ontario
2013 Improvements:
Complete parking lot for Eramosa Karst Generate revenue through self serve fee station installed at Eramosa Karstl in Fal of 2012
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Admissions$ ( 0.6 ) $ ( 0.9 ) $ ( 0.8 ) $ ( 40.9 ) ( 30.0 )$ Donations ( 6.1 ) ( 5.5 ) 0.3 ( 6.0 ) - Other ( 24.6 ) ( 12.0 ) ( 34.8 ) ( 8.2 ) ( 25.0 ) ( 31.4 ) ( 18.4 ) ( 35.3 ) ( 55.1 ) ( 55.0 ) Expenses Staff 118.0 123.9 128.9 135.5 125.0 COGS - - - - - Supplies 15.1 21.6 14.8 19.7 18.0 Equipment 34.4 66.9 49.9 48.0 50.0 Other 5.7 22.5 27.1 24.6 22.0 173.2 234.9 220.6 227.7 215.0
Contribution$ 141.9 216.5$ 185.3$ 172.6$ $ 160.0
Special note: Other revenue is primarily residential tenant rent
Conservation Areas
Summary:
The five conservation areas provide a variety of environmental and recreational experiences for the residents of the Hamilton community and beyond. They rely on user fees from park admissions, space rentals from the marina and camping grounds, the proceeds from concession stands, as well as special events. The financial strengths eof th various conservation areas, therefore, are dependent on what marketable services they have to offer, which is why the various areas range from profit in some and losses in others. The financial goal is for the conservation areas to collectively achieve more than a breakeven and contribute towards the promotional and administrative support provided centrally.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Summary: Revenues $( 4,005.0 ) $( 3,983.2 ) $( 4,442.5 ) $( 4,587.6 ) $( 4,510.0 ) Expenses 4,007.6 4,130.9 4,617.5 4,465.6 4,210.0 Contribution$ 2.5 $ 147.6 175.0$ ( 121.9 )$ ( 300.0 )$ Fifty Point Revenues $( 1,746.4 ) $( 1,834.8 ) $( 1,838.2 ) $( 1,972.2 ) $( 1,965.0 ) Expenses 1,583.8 1,604.5 1,670.7 1,579.0 1,565.0 Contribution$ ( 162.7 ) $ ( 230.3 ) $ ( 167.5 ) $ ( 393.2 ) $ ( 400.0 ) Christie Lake Revenues$ ( 841.2 ) $ ( 809.3 ) $ ( 1,281.8 ) $ ( 1,281.0 ) $ ( 1,135.0 ) Expenses 827.5 946.9 1,397.5 1,301.2 1,065.0 Contribution$ ( 13.7 ) 137.7$ 115.7$ 20.2$ $ ( 70.0 ) Valens Revenues $ ( 981.0 ) $ ( 932.7 ) $ ( 949.9 ) $ ( 1,004.5 ) $( 1,015.0 ) Expenses 835.1 812.7 792.6 839.2 830.0 Contribution$ ( 145.9 ) $ ( 120.0 ) $ ( 157.4 ) $ ( 165.3 ) $ ( 185.0 ) Dundas Valley Revenues$ ( 405.0 ) $ ( 388.1 ) $ ( 337.3 ) $ ( 274.8 ) $ ( 340.0 ) Expenses 587.9 531.8 536.1 518.6 535.0 Contribution$ 182.9 143.8$ 198.8$ 243.8$ $ 195.0 Hamilton Mountain Revenues $ ( 31.4 ) $ ( 18.4 ) $ ( 35.3 ) $ ( 55.1 ) $ ( 55.0 ) Expenses 173.2 234.9 220.6 227.7 215.0 Contribution$ 141.9 216.5$ 185.3$ 172.6$ $ 160.0
B) Conservation Areas
Summary:
The conservation areas are not allocated any City Levy and rarely receive operational grant money. Their revenue is to be derived primarily through user fees. On an annual basis, the Board and staff review the fee structure to ensure there continues a proper balance between cost recovery and fair market price relative to similar offerings in neighbouring jurisdictions. The costs associated with delivering this service are, as is the case in most service and maintenance organizations, highly weighted towards staffing costs. Through wages and staff expenses over $ 2 million dollars annually are returned to the local economy. A further $135,000 is returned directly to the area through property taxes as only one half of the combined acreage held by the Authority is exempt from municipal tax.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Admissions$ ( 978.8 ) $ ( 1,066.4 ) $ ( 1,140.6 ) $ ( 1,191.5 ) $ ( 1,230.0 ) Camping ( 679.9 ) ( 709.5 ) ( 738.9 ) ( 824.0 ) ( 840.0 ) Marine ( 998.8 ) ( 1,034.4 ) ( 1,052.8 ) ( 1,068.5 ) ( 1,100.0 ) Concessions ( 431.3 ) ( 451.1 ) ( 443.0 ) ( 502.9 ) ( 475.0 ) Events ( 212.0 ) ( 185.9 ) ( 638.2 ) ( 630.5 ) ( 475.0 ) Other ( 704.3 ) ( 536.1 ) ( 429.1 ) ( 370.2 ) ( 390.0 ) ( 4,005.0 ) ( 3,983.2 ) ( 4,442.5 ) ( 4,587.6 ) ( 4,510.0 ) Expenses Staff 2,124.8 2,143.5 2,096.6 2,219.0 2,280.0 COGS 293.6 297.5 317.8 321.9 370.0 Supplies 425.0 472.9 709.5 444.9 423.0 Equipment 510.1 500.7 379.1 473.8 425.0 Other 654.1 716.3 1,114.5 1,006.0 712.0 4,007.6 4,130.9 4,617.5 4,465.6 4,210.0
Contribution 2.5$ 147.6$ 175.0$ $ ( 121.9 ) $ ( 300.0 ) 2012 Highlights:
Good weather from March through to August supported good attendance in all areas Admission revenues on budget or above in all areas New campsites available at Fifty Point, all year and Valens starting July Swimming beaches at Valens, Christie and Fifty Point had good water quality throughout the summer with few closures and were well attended Webster’s Falls area had operational changes put in place which softened revenues but addressed community issues Marina operations healthy but low water levels and channel filling will necessitate dredging next year (budgeted for in capital budget) Christies special events were successful throughout year with notable exception of Fall Christie Antique Show which had poor weather but carried on and still had 4,300 attendees C) Historic Sites
Summary:
The Hamilton Conservation Authority has several historic sites on its various properties. They include: the Valen’s Log Cabin, at Valens CA
The Griffin House at the Dundas Valley CA
The Hermitage ruins and gatehouse at Dundas Valley CA
The Ingledale home at Fifty Point CA.
Funding:
All repair and maintenance costs are funded from the General Levy. There is no separate admission to the various historic buildings.
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 56.9 )$ ( 59.5 )$ ( 59.5 )$ ( 59.5 )$ ( 59.5 )$ Other / Reserves ( 1.1 ) ( 0.7 ) ( 0.3 ) - - ( 58.0 ) ( 60.2 ) ( 59.8 ) ( 59.5 ) ( 59.5 ) Expenses Staff 20.7 15.6 11.5 22.6 23.0 Supplies 5.2 4.9 3.0 8.7 10.0 Other 15.6 2.7 11.7 28.2 26.5 41.5 23.2 26.2 59.5 59.5
Contribution ( 16.5 )$ ( 37.0 )$ ( 33.6 )$ $ ‐ $ ‐
D) Corporate Support
Description:
Several functions have been centralized in order to minimize redundancies and maximize the efficiencies of the Hamilton Conservation Authority’s operations. The functions which fall under this category are: General Management and Administration which includes legal, audit, banking and accounting; Human Resources; Community Relations and General Promotions; Foundation Administration; Central workshop dan equipment maintenance; and Conservation Education.
Staffing Complement: 37 fulltime
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 1,952.6 )$ ( 2,286.7 )$ ( 2,594.9 )$ ( 2,543.9 )$ ( 2,409.2 )$ Management Fees ( 540.4 ) ( 563.3 ) ( 541.6 ) ( 488.4 ) ( 478.1 ) Equipment rentals ( 910.5 ) ( 953.6 ) ( 891.1 ) ( 608.0 ) ( 900.0 ) Other ( 304.6 ) ( 1,278.8 ) ( 623.2 ) ( 633.6 ) ( 491.5 ) ( 3,708.1 ) ( 5,082.4 ) ( 4,650.9 ) ( 4,273.9 ) ( 4,278.8 ) Expenses Staff 2,341.5 2,365.9 2,505.8 2,400.3 2,547.0 Consultants 108.9 134.9 133.9 208.4 126.8 Equipment 357.5 570.0 311.2 282.9 340.0 Supplies 322.6 373.5 382.2 405.4 351.2 Other 846.0 1,346.3 3,225.7 856.5 972.2 3,976.4 4,790.5 6,558.7 4,153.5 4,337.1
Contribution$ 268.3 ( 291.9 )$ $ 1,907.8 ( 120.4 )$ $ 58.4
General Administration
Description:
This department includes the operation of the CAO office and all finance, banking and accounting functions. This includes Conservation Ontario membership fee, audit and bank processing fees. Also in this area are the costs of operating and maintaining the Woodend office location. Such costs as computer software and hardware, photocopiers, office supplies, heat, hydro and telephone are expensed here.
The management fee revenue from Confederation Park and Westfield Heritage Village is recorded in this department as is the general levy for corporate support and a portion of the Ministry of Natural Resources Section 39 grant.
Staffing Complement: 9 fulltime; Up to 2 seasonal
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy $ ( 1,077.6 ) $ ( 1,378.8 ) $ ( 1,563.5 ) ( 1,552.2 )$ ( 1,417.5 )$ Management Fees ( 475.5 ) ( 495.7 ) ( 476.6 ) ( 390.7 ) ( 420.0 ) Other ( 147.9 ) ( 880.6 ) ( 191.0 ) ( 60.7 ) ( 60.0 ) ( 1,701.1 ) ( 2,755.1 ) ( 2,231.2 ) ( 2,003.6 ) ( 1,897.5 ) Expenses Staff 904.8 885.4 903.0 975.7 950.0 Consultants 45.9 39.5 45.1 12.5 40.4 Supplies 111.6 115.5 101.6 131.8 110.0 Other 527.4 855.9 2,778.2 380.7 354.4 1,589.7 1,896.3 3,827.9 1,500.7 1,454.8
Contribution $ ( 111.3 ) $ ( 858.8 ) $ 1,596.8 ( 502.9 )$ ( 442.7 )$
The 2010 and 2011 Actuals “Other” expense include amounts of $580K and $2,385K, respectively, related to the windup of the HCA Defined Benefit pension plan.
Human Resources
Human resources handle all personnel issues and provide counsel to HCA managers. The central training budget is managed here as is the oversight of the benefits program. Staffing Complement: 2 fulltime; 1 seasonal ------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues $ (2.7) $ (16.7) $ (0.1) $ (16.7) $ ‐ Expenses Staff 331.0 306.6 239.6 282.0 270.0 Training 28.3 23.3 16.9 17.8 20.0 Consultants 3.0 23.1 9.0 25.9 10.0 Other 14.8 17.6 15.7 17.8 20.0 377.1 370.6 281.2 343.6 320.0
Contribution $ 374.4 $ 353.9 $ 281.1 $ 326.9 $ 320.0
Community Relations & General Promotion
This department coordinates the online, print, radio and television awareness campaigns for all conservation areas as well as handles the community inquiries and main reception at the Woodend office. Interaction with the film industry and development of new events and projects, such as the Harvest Festival, are also responsibilities of this department. Sales of wedding packages and corporate events are dealt with here as well. Wild Waterworks and Westfield marketing programs are developed and executed from this department with those properties charged for the service. Staffing Complement: 9 fulltime; 1 seasonal ------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 145.9 )$ ( 146.9 )$ ( 170.6 )$ ( 170.6 )$ ( 170.6 )$ Other ( 2.5 ) ( 23.0 ) ( 0.1 ) ( 10.3 ) - ( 148.4 ) ( 169.9 ) ( 170.7 ) ( 180.9 ) ( 170.6 ) Expenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Staff 258.9 280.2 327.1 252.8 310.0 promotional material 94.6 77.0 70.7 110.0 65.0 Supplies 14.4 40.0 23.4 20.0 25.0 Other 39.6 23.4 31.6 18.0 20.0 407.6 420.6 452.8 400.8 420.0
Contribution$ 259.2 $ 250.7 $ 282.1 $ 219.9 $ 249.4
Education
The Conservation’s Education program is now operated from one location at the trail centre in Dundas Valley. The program is delivered by one fulltime HCA employee with contributions from other staff and outside contractors. ------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 88.2 )$ ( 62.9 )$ ( 76.8 )$ ( 64.9 )$ ( 64.9 )$ School fees ( 89.9 ) ( 83.8 ) ( 81.1 ) ( 86.5 ) ( 86.5 ) Donations ( 7.6 ) ( 68.9 ) ( 49.5 ) ( 49.3 ) ( 49.3 ) Other - - - - - ( 185.7 ) ( 215.6 ) ( 207.4 ) ( 200.7 ) ( 200.7 ) Expenses Staff 115.4 143.1 125.1 128.4 128.4 Contracts 58.2 59.7 58.2 56.4 56.4 Supplies 10.0 10.8 10.7 11.2 11.2 Other 3.0 2.0 9.6 4.7 4.7 186.6 215.6 203.6 200.7 200.7
Contribution$ 0.9 $ ‐ ( 3.8 )$ $ ‐ $ ‐
Foundation Administration The Foundation’s administration costs are paid for by the HCA, with a 20% contribution, which began in 2011, towards the personnel costs coming from the Foundation. All major events and fund raisers are coordinated from this department of 3 fulltime staff. All major grant applications are coordinated within this department. ------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 45.3 )$ ( 70.5 )$ ( 207.2 )$ ( 179.3 )$ ( 179.3 )$ Donations ‐ ( 37.4 ) ( 41.0 ) ( 61.8 ) ( 30.7 ) Other ( 0.6 ) ( 4.5 ) ( 74.0 ) ( 175.0 ) ( 75.0 ) ‐ ( 45.9 ) ( 112.4 ) ( 322.2 ) ( 416.1 ) ( 285.0 ) Expenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Staff 15.9 23.6 157.6 171.5 180.0 Contracts 1.9 12.6 21.6 134.5 25.0 Supplies 19.2 23.9 38.4 47.5 15.0 Other 10.8 54.7 100.5 62.6 65.0 47.9 114.7 318.0 416.1 285.0
Contribution $ 2.0 $ 2.3 ( 4.2 )$ $ ‐ $ ‐
Land Management and Central Work Centre
This department houses the senior management of the Land Management Division; project engineering; fleet management, maintenance and repair; operation of the central work centre and residential rentals. 20% of the management fee from Confederation Park and Westfield Heritage Village is recorded here to help fund replacement of vehicles and heavy equipment. e Us of all vehicles and equipment is charged to the department using the equipment and from this internal revenue all replacement equipment is purchased. The central workcrew, which are composed of the skilled trades workers also charge their time to the location where they work in order to recover their costs.
Staffing Complement: 13 fulltime; Up to 8 seasonal
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues City Levy ( 595.6 )$ ( 627.6 )$ ( 576.9 )$ ( 576.9 )$ ( 576.9 )$ Management Fees ( 64.8 ) ( 67.6 ) ( 65.0 ) ( 97.7 ) ( 58.1 ) Equipment rental ( 910.5 ) ( 953.6 ) ( 891.1 ) ( 608.0 ) ( 900.0 ) Other ( 53.4 ) ( 164.0 ) ( 186.3 ) ( 190.0 ) ( 190.0 ) ( 1,624.3 ) ( 1,812.7 ) ( 1,719.3 ) ( 1,472.6 ) ( 1,725.0 ) Expenses Staff 715.5 726.9 753.4 688.4 795.0 Equipment 357.5 570.0 311.2 282.9 340.0 Supplies 167.3 183.3 208.2 194.9 190.0 Other 127.3 292.4 202.5 217.4 400.0 1,367.6 1,772.7 1,475.2 1,383.6 1,725.0
Contribution ( 256.8 )$ ( 40.1 )$ ( 244.1 )$ ( 89.1 )$ $ ‐
Consolidated HCA
------Actuals------Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Conservation Areas$ (4,005.0) $ (3,983.2) $ (4,442.5) $ (4,587.6) $ (4,510.0) Watershed P & E (1,565.4) (1,591.8) (2,307.4) (2,441.4) (2,267.9) Corporate Support (3,708.1) (5,082.4) (4,650.9) (4,262.8) (4,267.4) Historic Sites (58.0) (60.3) (59.5) (59.5) (59.5) $ (9,336.5) $ (10,717.7) $ (11,460.3) $ (11,351.3) $ (11,104.8)
City Levy included in revenues Watershed P & E (764.1) (807.8) (1,060.9) (975.9) (1,110.6) Corporate Support (1,952.6) (2,286.7) (2,458.8) (2,543.9) (2,409.2) Historic Sites (56.9) (59.5) (59.5) (59.5) (59.5) (2,773.6) (3,154.0) (3,579.2) (3,579.3) (3,579.3)
Expenses Conservation Areas 4,007.5 4,130.8 4,617.5 4,465.7 4,210.0 Watershed P & E1,673.9 1,772.0 2,441.3 2,441.4 2,267.9 Corporate Support 3,976.4 4,790.5 6,558.7 4,153.5 4,337.1 Historic Sites 41.6 23.1 59.5 59.5 59.5 New Loans ‐‐ ‐ 231.2 230.3 9,699.4 10,716.4 13,677.0 11,351.3 11,104.8 Contributions Conservation Areas 2.5 147.6 175.0 (121.9) (300.0) Watershed P & E108.5 180.3 133.9 ‐ ‐ Corporate Support 268.3 (291.9) 1,907.8 (109.3) 69.8 Historic Sites (16.4) (37.2) ‐ ‐ ‐ Loan principle ‐‐ ‐ 231.2 230.3 $ 362.9 $ (1.2) $ 2,216.7 $ ‐ $ ‐
Loans: Veldhuis brownfield, marina loan (operating only) and the pension wind‐up loan
Report
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
PREPARED BY: Bruce Mackenzie, Manager Customer Services and Operations
DATE: October 16, 2012
RE: Westfield Heritage Village Volunteer Co-ordinator Position
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors approve an additional $51,324 to the operating budget of Westfield Heritage Village for a full time Volunteer Co-ordinator position, including salary and benefits. The role of this position will be to provide for greater resources for the co-ordination, management and training of volunteers.
BACKGROUND
Westfield Heritage Village is a 165 hectare property (363 acre) property belonging to the City of Hamilton and operated by the Hamilton Conservation Authority by agreement.
The village has 44 historic buildings on display dating from 1775 to 1925. The village is staffed and open on a year round basis. Volunteers are involved in nearly every aspect of the site’s operation. The dream began in 1960 with the private purchase of 30 acres by the founders and became reality when it opened to the public in 1964. The HCA has operated the Village since 1988.
Westfield Heritage Village is a living history museum and follows the Museums Standard Guidelines as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
Westfield Volunteers
The backbone of Westfield is volunteers. Volunteers are involved in historical interpretation, building maintenance, historical research, locomotive and train equipment maintenance and grounds maintenance. They assist in programme development and customer service from collecting admission fees to directing traffic. The volunteers have been critical in acquiring buildings and artifacts. Volunteers promote the Village and take it out into the community providing greater awareness. They provide connections to businesses, service clubs, corporate sponsors, foundations, donors and other extension opportunities in the community.
The village has a total of 408 names on the volunteer list with 337 being active and in 2011 there were 127 volunteers with over 40 hours of work registered. Of these 127 very active volunteers 24 are youth.
In 2011 there was 20,412 hours of volunteer work recorded. To the end of June in 2012 there was 10,806 hours recorded.
In 2011 the 20,412 hours represents $209,223 in wages if the minimum wage of $10.25 is applied. Minimum wage does not reflect the quality and experience of the workers involved.
Between 2000 - 2011 there were 209,367 hours recorded. This would represent with today’s minimum wage $2,146,011.00 in wages.
The volunteer with the most hours has 12,922 hours to the end of 2011 with 1,394 in 2005 alone. This represents a 27 hour week.
In addition to the regular Westfield Volunteers, there are hundreds of other volunteers that are involved in the site. Re-enactor groups, service clubs, spinning and weaving groups, horse and carriage organizations; antique tractor clubs and many other local community organizations participate in events and activities throughout the year providing countless hours.
Supervising the number of volunteers at Westfield is equivalent to managing 10 fulltime staff and the equivalent of scheduling 50 to 100 people.
Staff fully recognize that the support that the present volunteers require is not sufficient today. The ability to maintain the participation of the present volunteers and to attract and train new volunteers is critical to the existence of Westfield. Without the proper resources being available to them the volunteer programme is jeopardized.
Westfield Staff
The present five full time staff are employees of the Hamilton Conservation Authority.
Site Manager Programme Co-ordinator Administrative Assistant Artifact Collections Officer Building and Grounds Leadhand
There are several casual staff. There is a present volunteer co-coordinator is a casual staff person who works 3 days a week. It is intended to maintain this casual position to support the Site Manager, Programme Officer and the new full time Volunteer Co-ordinator.
The necessity of having a full time Volunteer Co-ordinator is to further allow other staff, primarily the Site Manager and Programme Co-ordinator to concentrate on programme management and revenue generation.
Position Description of Full Time Volunteer Co-ordinator
The proposed position is intended to:
Develop recruitment strategies for new volunteers and respond to volunteering enquiries.
Interview prospective volunteers, check references and screen as required.
Provide general orientation to all new volunteers.
Provide safety training. This is critical from the perspective of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. Ensure the volunteers comply with the Health and Safety Policies of the HCA.
Update volunteer handbook and related volunteer management materials on a regular basis.
Schedule volunteers for the special event days and the regular Sunday public visit days for all of the village’s buildings and facilities.
Schedule volunteers and paid interpreters for both the Public and Education Programmes.
Keep accurate records of volunteer hours accumulated.
Ensuring that the Volunteer Programme Policies and procedures are adhered to.
Resolve challenges that arise between volunteers.
Contact and secure volunteers for media days and other outreach programmes.
Provide and organize ongoing Professional Enrichment programmes throughout the year for volunteers and staff alike.
Organize the Forum in January and the Volunteer Recognition Dinner and Awards in summer or fall. Organize the Christmas luncheon/dinner in December.
Assist other staff in creating and maintaining a proper work environment for the volunteers.
Attend WHV and HCA meetings as required.
Prepare nominations for Volunteer Awards annually and special volunteer awards e.g. Lifetime Achievement Awards. Programming
Westfield Heritage Village’s goal is to bring to the public a unique historical interpretive experience highlighting the day to day life in Wentworth County from 1775 to 1925. The Village is open to the public seven days a week. On Sundays and Holidays from March to October the village and buildings are open with volunteers acting as historical interpreters for the public.
Special events take place almost every month from February until December. Some events such as Maple Syrup in March and Christmas events in December take place throughout the entire month.
In addition to Special Events the Village is visited by school and youth groups throughout the year. The Village designs programmes for corporate events.
Weddings and corporate events also make use of the village and its unique setting with the Ironwood Hall and the Mountsberg Church.
The Village is often used as a field location for movies and TV shoots. Some of the best known are Anne of Green Gables and Murdoch Mysteries.
Attendance
Annually the village can expect to see approximately 42,000 documented visitors using the different programes as shown:
Regular Days and Special Events 22,000 Telling Tales 6,000 School Groups 11,000 Weddings 1,500 Corporate Events 1,200 41,700
Visitors pay a user fee to attend Westfield. Each year these fees are reviewed and adjusted. The Westfield Budget has remained in a balance between revenues and expenses. The fees charged at Westfield are in line with the fees charged at similar facilities operated by the City and in the marketplace. Additional revenues could be obtained by increasing fees but staff are cautious about recommending the large fee increases that would be needed to raise the amount of money required. Staff are concerned about making the Village less attractive to the consumer and less available to groups that will have trouble paying the extra fees such as school groups.
Friends of Westfield
The community group that lobbied to reopen Westfield in the mid-1980’s promised to provide assistance in fundraising and volunteer participation. The Friends of Westfield organization officially formed from this group shortly after the HCA took over the management of the facility. The Friends have over one hundred members with a hardworking Executive who very generously volunteer their time towards the fundraising activities. Their hours are additional to the recorded Westfield volunteer hours.
The Friends contribute annually on average $17,000 to the operation of Westfield. For the new Westbrook House the Friends will have provided $72,152.00 as compared to the $57,500 contributed from the Westfield capital budget.
Westfield Donor Programme
Westfield has its own fund raising programme and donations are processed through the Hamilton Conservation Foundation. There are many donors who have supported Westfield over the years. These funds are separate from the funds provided by the Friends of Westfield. Cash donations are received in addition to materials for buildings and artifacts for the collection. Recent donation levels are shown in the budget sheet. On average since 2009 $36,000 is raised annually.
The monies raised generally are directed to the specified capital projects including restorations, additions and new buildings. The funds raised through this programme do not support the day to day staffing. Together the Friends of Westfield and the Donors Programme have raised an astonishing amount of $191,188 since 2009.
Grants
The networking of the volunteers has been crucial in the grant application process and approvals. Westfield staff regularly apply for grants and have been fortunate to have received numerous grants. Some of the major grants were received from TD Friends of the Environment and Trillium Ontario.
These grants and funds raised through the fund raising programme have all gone to build and support Westfield Heritage Village, a City of Hamilton asset.
The management and administration of the Friends of Westfield, the Donors and application for grants do not have dedicated staff associated with them.
Westfield Artifact Collection
Specially trained volunteers assist the Artifacts Collection Officer with the care of the 44 historical buildings and the artifact collection of over 24,000 items. The artifacts are documented, cared for and carefully selected for use in the village.
Telling Tales
In 2013, Telling Tales will be back for its 5th year. The organizers of Telling Tales estimate that 5000 volunteer hours go into Telling Tales by volunteers outside of the Westfield volunteers. A celebration of Canadian literacy for children this event brings the entire Hamilton community and more together for a free day of reading, books, authors and history together. The area Rotary Clubs and 65 sponsors put this event on together. It is recognized as one of the best 100 Festivals in Ontario and the top children’s literacy event in Canada. It brings $200,000 in “in kind” marketing to the event with a budget of $70,000.
Tomorrow’s Potential
Our largest challenge is to provide the volunteers with the resources and management that they deserve. Telling Tales is the type of event that staff see as the new tomorrow for Westfield. New events will be looking at Westfield’s unique layout for their venue and there is a proven potential to bring these new events to Hamilton. Adding events to the existing schedule of programmes at Westfield is stretching the resources of staff and volunteers. Our goal is continue to draw events and the public to Westfield.
Westfield Budget Breakdown
Westfield is owned by the City of Hamilton and operated by the HCA. The budget for Westfield stands on its own and is treated separately from the HCA and the City of Hamilton.
Revenue Highlights
Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Visitor generated fees 285,100 349,500 269,700 261,600 265,400 Levy 535,800 546,000 546,000 546,000 546,000 Donations 102,598 26,587 44,003 * 15,830 ** * donations for 2012 shown as to date, not complete for the year. ** The level of donations for these years is undetermined at this time.
Effects of 0% increase on operating budget of Westfield
Westfield generated between 37% and 42% of its own revenues for the years shown. Compared to other museums and similar projects operated by various levels of government this level of revenue generation is highly significant.
As a stand alone unit it is treated as an outside agency by City Council and is normally restricted to 0% budget changes from year to year. The Hamilton Conservation Authority and many City departments are held to the same budget pressures.
The difference between Westfield and the HCA conservation areas is primarily that Westfield is mandated to act as a living museum, an education facility and a curatorial project.
Even though the HCA conservation areas have responsibilities that do not generate revenue they are designed to generate overall revenues and are designed and equipped for it. The HCA conservation areas are expected to generate $300,000 in excess revenue in 2013.
With Westfield carrying its mandated programmes it is not designed to generate net revenues.
Westfield is a stand alone facility and it does not have the ability of drawing from a larger pool of resources from a City department or from within the HCA. It stands as an island.
The HCA, where it sees promise and potential in a particular conservation area or programme, has the ability to and does redirect resources and budget to that facility or need. This allows it to capitalize on a sites potential, the changing marketplace and need. This allows the HCA to remain sustainable. This happens as well within City departments.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Westfield Heritage Village operating budget would be increased by $51,324 through an increase of 9.4% over 2012 in the levy provided by the City of Hamilton. Since 2009 this increase would represent a 2.3 % per year over the last five years.
Increasing fees and reviewing how marketing dollars are allocated for advertizing and staff may be an alternative as to how some of the $51,324 is captured but every dollar of fee increase or reduction in marketing reduces the ability of attracting visitors.
CONCLUSIONS
Staff have recognized a crucial need to add the position of a full time Volunteer Co-ordinator to the staff complement of Westfield Heritage Village. Westfield has shown and proven its potential, its worth in the community and its value to the educational system and culture of Hamilton. The addition of new staff resources for the management and training and provision of resources to volunteers at Westfield Heritage Village will allow the City of Hamilton and the HCA to further enhance the ability of Westfield to continue to grow as an education facility, living museum and tourist attraction in the City of Hamilton and to enhance its revenue potential from visitors and donors.
HAMILTON CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Conservation Advisory Board
MINUTES
November 8, 2012
Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Board meeting held on Thursday, November 8, 2012 at the HCA’s Woodend Administration Building, commencing at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maria Topalovic, Chair Kristen Brittain Lydia Cartlidge James Howlett Cheryl Larocque Santina Moccio Duke O’Sullivan Morgan Pirie
REGRETS: Rob Booth, Chris Michels, Marie Robbins, and Mary Tice
STAFF PRESENT: Sandy Bell, Darren Kenny, Lesley McDonell, Kathy Menyes, and Scott Peck - HCA Staff
OTHERS: Chris Firth-Eagland - New HCA Chief Administrative Officer Richard Leitner - Media
1. CHAIR’S REMARKS
Maria Topalovic, Conservation Advisory Board (CAB) Chair, welcomed the members to the meeting and passed on regrets from those members not able to attend as well as from Steve Miazga. Maria then welcomed and introduced Chris Firth-Eagland, the new HCA Chief Administrative Officer. Chris informed the members that he would be assuming the position officially on December 3, 2012 and job-shadowing Steve Miazga until the end of the year.
2. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none.
1
Conservation Advisory Board November 8, 2012
3. DELEGATIONS
3.1 Mike Sheehy regarding Webster’s Falls
Mr. Sheehy passed on regrets earlier in the evening that he could not attend the meeting.
4. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTIONS
There were no recommendations from the October 18 meeting.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
5.1 Minutes - Conservation Advisory Board (October 18, 2012)
CA1219 MOVED BY: Cheryl Larocque SECONDED BY: Santina Moccio
THAT the minutes of the Conservation Areas Advisory Board meeting held on October 18, 2012 be accepted.
CARRIED
6. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
6.1 CAB Tracking Report
Darren Kenny briefly reviewed the November tracking report. No new updates on recent items.
6.2 HCA Strategic Plan Development – Status (verbal update)
Kathy Menyes updated the members on the recent strategic planning workshop held at the HCA on October 20, 2012 and thanked those members of the CAB for attending. The HCA has received the workshop report from EcoStride and the Strategic Planning Committee met on November 7, 2012 to discuss the report findings. HCA staff will now prepare a Draft Strategic Plan by the end of November for review by the Strategic Planning Committee as well as Steve Miazga and Chris Firth-Eagland.
Following the presentation, Morgan Pirie asked what the process will be following review of the draft plan. Kathy responded that staff would await further direction from Steve and Chris with regard to the timing for the draft plan revision and approval process going forward.
2 Conservation Advisory Board November 8, 2012
6.3 Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan
Sandy Bell provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members outlining the history of the plan development to-date. Sandy also spoke to the feedback received at Public Information Centres (PICs) held since the Board of Directors referred the matter back to staff for further review due to neighbourhood opposition to the proposed trail development. Sandy also mentioned that during the last PIC, the potential for development of a Friends of the Meadowlands Conservation Area group was raised and at least one of the attendees expressed interest in starting such a group.
Sandy then presented the new recommended trail layout which keeps the loops in the northeast end of the property as well as the main trail through the utility corridor, but removes the loops in the south west end. He then requested CAB endorsement of the report recommendation.
Morgan Pirie asked what the timing on the completion of the trail system would be. Sandy replied that the project would likely not be completed for at least 3 years as there are other projects that currently take priority over the plan implementation. The HCA is also exploring cost-sharing for the project with the City of Hamilton as the trail development would serve to implement a portion of the City of Hamilton Trail Master Plan.
Duke O’Sullivan asked if a bike route would be established on along the utility corridor. Sandy responded that the trail would be a compacted granular trail suitable for cycling.
CA1220 MOVED BY: Duke O’Sullivan SECONDED BY: Morgan Pirie
THAT the Conservation Advisory Board recommends to the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors:
THAT the Meadowlands Conservation Area Master Plan be adopted; and further
THAT the proposed trail system be approved as shown on Map 3 of this report.
CARRIED
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project
Sandy Bell provided a PowerPoint presentation including the main topics from his report.
3 Conservation Advisory Board November 8, 2012
The presentation spoke to the background of the project and the method of governance for the project to-date. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding is to formally establish the park system, establish a formal governance structure going forward and outlines a 3 year program plan. The report also detailed the proposed staff and financial resource commitment to the project on behalf of the HCA of $46,200 for the next three years ($15,400 each year).
Cheryl Larocque asked if the staff salary and benefits commitment was for one staff person. Sandy confirmed that it was for one staff person and the money pays for administration costs. The $10,000 allocation is to be used for administrative items and land appraisals.
CA1221 MOVED BY: Santina Moccio SECONDED BY: Lydia Cartlidge
THAT the Conservation Advisory Board recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors endorses the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding as outlined in the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System Memorandum of Understanding” document within the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project Report dated October 3, 2012; and further
THAT the Board of Directors authorize staff to participate in the development of the Memorandum of Understanding; and further
THAT the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of Hamilton Conservation Authority; and further
THAT the Board of Directors endorses the stated intention to pursue provincial and/or federal government legislation and authorizes the partners to work towards this objective as appropriate; and further
THAT the Board of Directors endorses the proposed three year budget and commits to release the funds outlined in the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project Report dated October 3, 2012.
CARRIED
4 Conservation Advisory Board November 8, 2012
7.2 Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program
Scott Peck introduced Lesley McDonnell, HCA Terrestrial Ecologist to the CAB and Lesley provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed components of the Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program.
The presentation provided details on the rationale for monitoring the terrestrial environment including: tracking changes in ecosystem health, detecting the impact of invasive species, future forests and climate change. In addition, information on site selection, monitoring methodology and the aspects of the forest ecosystem to be monitored were discussed.
In addition to the main forest ecosystem focus of the monitoring, the HCA will also be conducting monitoring of:
• Wetlands • Meadows • Species at Risk • Non-native Invasive Species
After the presentation Scott then stated that the monitoring program will assist the HCA with ecosystem restoration efforts, maintenance of a healthy watershed and with acquisition of funding.
CA1222 MOVED BY: Santina Moccio SECONDED BY: Cheryl Larocque
THAT the Conservation Advisory Board recommends to the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors:
THAT the HCA Board of Directors approve the October 24, 2012 Hamilton Conservation Authority Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program report.
CARRIED
8. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Darren Kenny mentioned to the members that he will endeavour to schedule CAB meetings at various HCA conservation areas in 2013 as requested by Lydia Cartlidge at the previous CAB meeting.
Morgan Pirie informed the members that the HCA watershed had just been taken out of Level 1 Low Water Condition by the Low Water Advisory Team and that we are now in a normal condition.
5 Conservation Advisory Board November 8, 2012
Jim Howlett informed the CAB that Kathy Menyes was leaving the HCA to take a position at Conservation Halton at the end of November. Jim spoke to Kathy’s qualifications, accomplishments and knowledge, thanked her for her assistance with the advisory committees and wished her well in her new position. The same sentiments were echoed by several of the committee members.
9. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the CAB is scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Please be reminded that this meeting will also be a Public Information Centre for the Spencer Gorge/Webster’s Falls Master Plan.
10. ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
6
Report
TO: Conservation Advisory Board
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
DATE: October 30, 2012
RE: Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Conservation Advisory Board recommends to the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors:
THAT the Meadowlands Conservation Area Master Plan be adopted; and further
THAT the proposed trail system be approved as shown on Map 3 of this report.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of July 7, 2011, the Board of Directors tabled the Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan report and directed staff to consult with the neighbouring public to review the location of the proposed trail and discuss the establishment of a “Friends of the Meadowlands Conservation Area” community working group.
Subsequently, two meetings have been held on September 25, 2012 which was attended by 12 neighbours and on October 29, 2012 which was attended by 3 neighbours. The original plan presented for trail development is shown on Map 1 attached to this report. At the Conservation Advisory Board meeting of June 9, 2011, the recommended plan from the Conservation Advisory Board to the Board of Directors is shown on Map 2. Subsequently, as a result of the meeting with the residents, the proposed trail is recommended for approval as shown on Map 3.
STAFF COMMENT
The Meadowlands Conservation Area Master Plan and public discussion essentially centred on the proposed trail system. As a result of the substantial amount of public discussion, the proposed trail system as shown on Map 3 is being recommended by staff as a compromise plan. Councillor Lloyd Ferguson supports the compromise plan.
Staff will continue to monitor over the coming years the other natural areas in proximity to the public areas to ascertain if there are any impacts from public use. If there is a need to reconsider additional trails in this area in the future, then the public would be consulted at the appropriate time.
Also, to date, there have been two residents who have volunteered to become members of a “Friends of the Meadowlands Conservation Area”.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed trail system (Map 3) is estimated to cost approximately $100,000.
CONCLUSIONS
It is appropriate that the Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan with the revised trail system be adopted for consideration in future budgets for implementation.
-2-
Report
TO: Conservation Advisory Board Members
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
RECOMMENDED BY: Tony Horvat, Director of Land Management
PREPARED BY: Sandy Bell, Manager of Design & Development
DATE: October 3, 2012
RE: Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Conservation Advisory Board recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors endorses the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding as outlined in the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System Memorandum of Understanding” document within the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project Report dated October 3, 2012; and further
THAT the Board of Directors authorize staff to participate in the development of the Memorandum of Understanding; and further
THAT the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of Hamilton Conservation Authority; and further
THAT the Board of Directors endorses the stated intention to pursue provincial and/or federal government legislation and authorizes the partners to work towards this objective as appropriate; and further
THAT the Board of Directors endorses the proposed three year budget and commits to release the funds outlined in the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project Report dated October 3, 2012.
-1- BACKGROUND
In January, 2010 the HCA Board of passed the following motion:
THAT the findings of the Cootes to Escarpment Conservation and Land Management Strategy project and its concept of a Cootes to Escarpment Park System as outlined in the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System: A Conservation Vision” be approved in principle; and further
THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the representatives of the other land owning agencies on advancing the “Cootes to Escarpment Park System” with the overall objective of preparing an agreement as to how the management of these natural areas with their ecological and recreational values will be implemented, and to continue to seek third party funding for the appropriate aspects of the proposed park system and its management.
Project Overview
The Cootes to Escarpment Park System (CEPS) is a collaborative initiative among ten local government and NGO partners to protect, enhance and connect natural lands in the Hamilton- Burlington region.
Bruce Trail Conservancy City of Burlington City of Hamilton Conservation Halton Halton Region Hamilton Conservation Authority Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Hamilton Naturalists’ Club McMaster University Royal Botanical Gardens
The proposed Cootes to Escarpment Park System covers an area of about 3,400 hectares (8,500 acres) between the Niagara Escarpment and Cootes Paradise/Hamilton Harbour. The core of the park system is the approximately 2,000 hectares (5,000 acres) of park lands and open space currently owned or managed by the CEPS partners. Another approximately 600 hectares (1,400 acres) of potential additional park lands have been identified – these are lands that are important to protecting the core natural heritage system or Bruce Trail Corridor and that could be voluntarily brought into the public realm through ownership, easement or handshake agreement. Surrounding the core areas are complementary stewardship lands – lands that provide ecological linkages and support the ecological function of the park system. Owners of these complementary stewardship lands can make voluntary positive contributions to the overall health and integrity of the surrounding system through stewardship or positive management activities on their lands.
The vision for the park system arose from extensive background research and community and stakeholder engagement. It is articulated in the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Conservation and Land Management Strategy, which was released in October 2009 and contains the vision,
-2- mission and objectives for the park system, as well as a number of implementation actions. This document, often referred to as the Phase II report, was endorsed by the boards and councils of the partner agencies and continues to serve as the primary strategy for the park system.
Implementation and governance
Since the Phase II report was released, the partners have continued to work together via a Steering Committee to realize the park system vision, including through creation of a land securement strategy, communications and marketing plan, brand identity, and governance model. The land securement strategy and communications and marketing plan have been completed and approved as working documents by the Steering Committee, and brand development is well under way. Governance model development has involved background research, expert consultation, a full-day retreat in June 2011 to explore the functions that would be undertaken by a fully realized park system, discussions with staff and decision-makers from the partner agencies, and preparation of draft memoranda of understanding and background reports. Based upon this work, the Steering Committee proposes an initial/interim governance model that will allow formal creation of the park system and provide a framework for joint decision-making and accountability without requiring changes to existing plans and legislation, creating a new agency, or requiring the partners to give up ownership and control of their lands.
This initial governance structure is shown in Figure 1. Oversight and strategic governance will be provided by a Governing Council consisting of senior decision-makers or elected officials from each of the participating partner agencies. Tactical level management will be provided by a Management Committee of management-level staff from each of the partner agencies, playing a role similar to that of the current Steering Committee. A small Secretariat office of dedicated staff will lead and coordinate park system activities.
The initial governance structure will not involve the creation of a new stand-alone agency. This means that any funds obtained for the park system will be held and managed by individual partners on behalf of the others. Similarly, park system staff, contracts and resources will be hired/held and managed by individual partners on behalf of the others. This will be undertaken on a voluntary basis, and with the approval of the Governing Council.
This initial governance structure is proposed as a first step, as the minimum level of agreement and collaboration among the partners to permit formal establishment of the park system. It will provide a framework for the participating agencies to work together in jointly planning and managing the park system. Over time, the partners may find that this governance structure is suitable for long-term management of the park system, or they may decide that an alternative model, such as a stand-alone agency, is needed. In the latter case, the initial governance structure will provide a framework to allow the partners to collectively develop and implement a new governance structure for the long-term.
-3- STAFF COMMENT
The Steering Committee proposes a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the partners to serve as a founding agreement to formally establish the park system. The contents of this MOU are outlined in the attached “Cootes to Escarpment Park System MOU” document. Once the partner boards and councils have approved the contents of the MOU, the appropriate staff from the partner agencies will work together to develop the actual agreement.
Legal and other appropriate staff from the partner agencies will work together to develop a Memorandum of Understanding document that is acceptable to all of the partners. It is suggested that one partner volunteers its staff to draft the agreement, which would then be reviewed and refined by staff in the other partner agencies. The Cootes to Escarpment Park System Project Manager would provide support as needed, and facilitate the development and review of the agreement.
In order to expedite the process of endorsing the Memorandum of Understanding, it is suggested that each partner authorize an official to sign the MOU on its behalf, once the MOU has been finalized and is acceptable to all parties.
The Steering Committee requests the approval of the partners to pursue discussions with provincial and federal government officials, to explore options for special purpose legislation to implement the vision for the park system and assist in securing funding. Options will be brought back to the partners for discussion and approval as appropriate.
The secretariat is proposed based on the successful experience of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan, in which a small secretariat office coordinates and supports a large and complex collaborative program involving numerous partners. This model leverages a modest investment to attract new resources and generate activities that could not be undertaken by the partners on their own.
A program plan has been prepared for the next three years (2013-2015). In this period, efforts will continue to focus on foundation-building, including securing new resources, pursuing special purpose legislation, engaging community members and stakeholders, fostering land securement and stewardship, and preparing joint management plans for core areas of the park system. Progress will also be made towards harmonization of policies, regulations and land classification on park system lands and creation of new joint initiatives to enhance existing programs and fill in gaps related to habitat restoration, invasive species control, ecological inventories and environmental monitoring, education and interpretation, and cultural heritage inventory and protection.
Annual financial contributions are requested from the partners, to cover the costs of the secretariat and associated activities for the three years 2013-2015, as shown in the budget in Table 1. Contributions are equal among most of the partners, at $15,400 per year, for a total contribution of $46,200 (please see Table 2). The exception is much smaller contributions requested from the Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club. The smaller contributions are in recognition of the relatively limited financial resources of the two
-4- organizations and the significant non-financial contributions they make to the park system initiative. The three years of committed support will enable the partners to begin to implement the park system and achieve its objectives, and in so doing, be better able to define the long-term requirements of park system implementation.
Table 1: Operating Budget 2013 – 2015 2013 2014 2015 Total Staff salaries and benefits Park System Coordinator 81,250 82,000 82,800 246,050 Land Stewardship and Securement 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Operating supplies & expenses Office space leasing cost (in‐kind 0 0 0 0 contribution) Office supplies, postage 1,050 1,000 1,000 3,050 Communications materials 5,000 7,000 6,500 18,500 Telephone and Internet 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000 Computer costs 4,000 1,000 1,000 6,000 Meeting expenses 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 Travel 1,000 1,300 1,000 3,300 Finance and administration 2,700 2,700 2,700 8,100 Total: Operating supplies & expenses 18,750 18,000 17,200 53,950 TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 110,000 110,000 110,000 330,000
Table 2: Financial contributions from partner organizations 2013 ‐ 2015 2013 2014 2015 Total Bruce Trail Conservancy 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,300 City of Burlington 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 City of Hamilton 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Halton Conservation Authority 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Halton Region 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Hamilton Conservation Authority 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Hamilton Naturalists’ Club 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,300 McMaster University 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Royal Botanical Gardens 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 110,000 110,000 110,000 330,000
-5- AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As noted, if this project is given approval, there would be a financial commitment from the HCA of $46,200 for the next three years, $15,400 each year. The other substantial commitment is for the in-kind contribution of staff resources to participate as part of the Governing Council and the Management Committee. Over the past three years, approximately 160 hours annually of HCA staff time have been provided to the Project.
CONCLUSIONS
HCA staff have supported this special collaborative approach for the protection and management of natural heritage lands that are owned and managed by a number of agencies and organizations. The unique approach looks beyond the different land ownerships and focuses on a system approach for this significant area that includes the Niagara Escarpment, several watersheds, large forest areas and nationally significant flora and fauna species protection. While looking to expand the protected areas and encourage the stewardship of private lands, the plan also incorporates the provision of important recreational and educational opportunities for the local and regional communities.
-6-
Figure 1: Proposed Interim Governance Structure
Cootes to Escarpment Park System
Governing Council
• Senior staff or elected officials from partner Partner organizations (or designates) organizations • Responsible for decisions concerning governance and strategic planning
Management Committee Community • Management‐level staff members from partner organizations • Responsible for implementation of strategic directions, objectives and activities identified Stakeholders by the Governing Council and decisions taken by the Governing Council
Secretariat • Park System Coordinator and other staff as needed • Reports to Chair of Management Committee • Responsible for managing administration, projects and programs for the Cootes to Escarpment Park System • Guided by decisions of Governing Council and Management Committee.
Memorandum-7- of Understanding articulates responsibilities and relationships among the Parties. Cootes to Escarpment Park System Memorandum of Understanding
This document provides the substantive content (but not the specific wording) of a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Cootes to Escarpment Park System.
Purpose of MOU Establish the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Establish a framework for joint decision-making among the parties Affirm the intention of the parties to seek special recognition provincially, federally and internationally as may be appropriate and to seek outside funding for projects and programs supportive of the park system as a collaborative of the partner agencies Affirm commitments of financial and in-kind support from each party
Cootes to Escarpment Park System The Cootes to Escarpment Park System is a collaborative initiative amongst the parties to protect, connect and restore natural lands between the Niagara Escarpment and Cootes Paradise/Hamilton Harbour, and to provide ecologically compatible recreation, education and research opportunities on lands within park system.
The parties acknowledge the definition of park system lands set out in the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Conservation and Land Management Strategy and acknowledge that new lands will be added to the park system from time to time.
Each party commits to participate as a partner in the Cootes to Escarpment Park System, which involves participating in the Governing Council and the Management Committee, making cash and in-kind contributions, and participating in Cootes to Escarpment Park System initiatives.
Framework for joint decision-making Cootes to Escarpment Park System will inform but not replace or supersede the land management and other responsibilities of the parties and will not supersede the legal rights and responsibilities of private and public land owners.
Each party determines how park system matters and decisions link to its internal organizational and decision structure, including consultation with and approvals from its board or council.
Park system governed by two bodies: Governing Council and Management Committee. Each party has one representative on each of the two bodies, respectively.
Governing Council: One senior decision-maker or elected official from each of the parties, with authority to make significant decisions and secure commitments on behalf of partner organization Responsible for governance and strategic planning, significant legal or financial matters Meets 2-3 times per year
-8- Management Committee: One management-level representative from each of the parties, with authority to make operational decisions and commitments on behalf of partner organization Responsible for implementation of strategic directions, objectives and activities set by the Governing Council and decisions taken by the Governing Council Meets regularly (e.g., monthly)
Framework for joint decision-making, continued Secretariat consisting of Park System Coordinator (and other staff as needed) coordinates and undertakes administration, projects and programs. Reports to Chair of Management Committee
Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Coordinator while not a party to MOU is invited to be nonvoting resource member of both the Governing Council and Management Committee.
Special legislation Parties agree to seek special legislation from the Ontario and federal governments for one or more of the following: Officially create/recognize park system Recognize significance of natural and cultural heritage Designate particular geographic area as the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Confer particular powers on parties for application on park system lands through specific park/protection area legislation (e.g., powers under the Ontario Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act)
Contributions Parties agree to commit cash and in-kind resources as needed. Cash contributions specified in schedule to agreement (see schedule 1 below).
Cash contributions will be held by one of the parties on behalf of the others. Funds will be managed by Park System Coordinator subject to policies and procedures of party holding the funds. Park System Coordinator will produce detailed financial report annually.
Work Plans Work plans will be prepared by the Management Committee and Park System Coordinator to achieve the vision, mission and objectives articulated in the Cootes to Escarpment Park System Conservation and Land Management Strategy.
Reporting and review There will be regular reporting and review of progress.
Term of agreement 3 years, renewable with written consent of parties.
Termination 90 written notice for party to leave agreement; immediate if party becomes insolvent or ceases operations.
-9- Schedule 1
Financial contributions from Parties: 2013 ‐ 2015 2013 2014 2015 Total Bruce Trail Conservancy 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,300 City of Burlington 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 City of Hamilton 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Halton Conservation Authority 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Halton Region 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Hamilton Conservation Authority 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Hamilton Naturalists’ Club 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,300 McMaster University 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 Royal Botanical Gardens 15,400 15,400 15,400 46,200 TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 110,000 110,000 110,000 330,000
Operating Budget 2013 – 2015 2013 2014 2015 Total Staff salaries and benefits Park System Coordinator 81,250 82,000 82,800 246,050 Land Stewardship and Securement 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Operating supplies & expenses Office space leasing cost (in-kind contribution) 0 0 0 0 Office supplies, postage 1,050 1,000 1,000 3,050 Communications materials 5,000 7,000 6,500 18,500 Telephone and Internet 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000 Computer costs 4,000 1,000 1,000 6,000 Meeting expenses 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 Travel 1,000 1,300 1,000 3,300 Finance and administration 2,700 2,700 2,700 8,100 Total: Operating supplies & expenses 18,750 18,000 17,200 53,950 TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 110,000 110,000 110,000 330,000
-10- d
a
o Highway 5 t
e
R
e
r s
t
n S
a
v
n
E o
t
l i
m
Cedar Springs Road
Highway 6
a H Highway 5
N I M E N T A G C A R P A R A E S Sydenham Road Clappison - Grindstone Heritage Lands Borers - Rock Chapel Waterdown - Sassafras Woods Heritage Lands Heritage Lands
Yo rk Ro ad Brant Street
rive mpic D Oly
Cootes Drive
West 7 40 Pond y a w h ig Cootes Paradise H Heritage Lands
Waterdown RoadWaterdown Highway 403
Cootes Paradise Burlington Heights Lower Grindstone Heritage Lands Heritage Lands
y
a d r a W v e Highway 403 l u
o h t
B e
k b r o
Y za
i
l
E
n
e
e u
Hamilton Harbour Q
Legend Study Area MAP: COOTES TO ESCARPMENT PARK SYSTEM Conservation & Land Management Strategy
Lake Royal Botanical Gardens - Conservation Halton - Hamilton Conservation Authority Ontario Hamilton Naturalists' Club - City of Burlington - City of Hamilton - Region of Halton Current Park Lands Potential Additional Complementary The Bruce Trail Conservancy - Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Park Lands Stewardship Lands
With generous funding support: Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation 0 250 500 750 1,000 Proj : UTM NAD 83 Zone 17 Highway Water Bodies Date : November, 2008 Regional Road Hydrography © Queen's Printer for Ontario Meters Railway Parcel Boundaries Complementary Link
This mapping is produced by Conservation Halton and should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed are derived from sources with varying accuracies and all boundaries should therefore be considered approximate. Data on this map is used under license with the Hamilton Conservation Authority, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Geological Survey, City of Hamilton, Region of Halton,Teranet Enterprises Inc. and other agencies. Copyright 2008.
Report
TO: Conservation Advisory Board
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
RECOMMENDED BY: Kathy Menyes, Director, Watershed Planning & Engineering
PREPARED BY: Scott Peck, Manager, Watershed Planning Services Lesley McDonell, Terrestrial Ecologist
DATE: October 24, 2012
RE: Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Conservation Advisory Board recommends to the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors:
THAT the HCA Board of Directors approve the October 24, 2012 Hamilton Conservation Authority Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program report.
BACKGROUND
The Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) will be implementing a terrestrial resource monitoring program starting in 2013. Recently, the Watershed Planning & Engineering Division hired a Terrestrial Ecologist to undertake ecological study reviews submitted in support of planning and regulation applications, to initiate and undertake a formal terrestrial monitoring program and to implement the managed forest program within the watershed area of the Hamilton Conservation Authority. The Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program (TRMP) is to be undertaken in addition to the HCA’s existing Aquatic Resource Monitoring Program (ARMP).
STAFF COMMENT
HCA staff have developed the attached HCA Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program (TRMP). It establishes a long term consistent approach to monitoring terrestrial systems throughout the HCA’s watershed and will include site specific stations within selected conservation areas. The resulting program will provide HCA staff and our partners with valuable information for tracking terrestrial ecosystem changes over time. In addition, the information derived from this program will serve as an additional tool in determining areas where terrestrial restoration projects could, or should, be undertaken in the future. Permanent monitoring stations will be strategically chosen throughout HCA’s watershed jurisdiction and within specific conservation areas. Based on current resources, the first 5-year cycle will focus on the health of hardwood forests with subsequent cycles adding monitoring of wetland and meadow health.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Allocations have been made in the 2013 budget that will cover the costs associated with implementing the Terrestrial Resource Monitoring Program. No legal implications are evident.
CONCLUSIONS
In time, the implementation of this program will allow the HCA to understand the health of our terrestrial environment, identify where improvements can be made, and establish restoration goals for its watersheds. HCA staff believes implementation of this program will assist us in better serving the needs of our watershed communities and our watershed resources.
-2- TERRESTRIAL RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAM
HAMILTON CONSERVATION AUTHORITY OCTOBER 24, 2012
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Hamilton Conservation Authority Current Programs...... 3 1.2.1 Aquatic monitoring program ...... 3 1.2.2 Natural Areas Inventory...... 4 1.2.3 Marsh Monitoring Program ...... 4 1.2.4 Forest Bird Monitoring ...... 5 1.2.5 Deer Browse Monitoring ...... 5 1.2.6 Species at Risk and Provincially Rare Species ...... 6 2 Goals and Objectives ...... 7 3 Monitoring ...... 8 3.1 Importance of Long Term Monitoring ...... 8 3.2 Ecological Integrity ...... 9 4 Primary Monitoring Questions ...... 10 5 Site Selection and Methodology...... 11 5.1 Site Selection and Plot Establishment ...... 11 5.2 Methodology ...... 11 5.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots ...... 11 5.2.2 Red‐backed Salamander Monitoring ...... 12 5.2.3 Forest Bird Monitoring ...... 13 5.2.4 Soils ...... 13 6 Index of Biotic Integrity and Selected Metrics ...... 14 6.1 Hardwood Forests ...... 14 6.1.1 Landscape Structure ...... 14 6.1.2 Forest Structure ...... 15 6.1.3 Forest Composition ...... 16 6.1.4 Forest Function ...... 17 6.2 Wetlands and Meadows ...... 17 7 Index of Biotic Integrity Metric Thresholds ...... 18 8 Monitoring Frequency ...... 19 8.1 Panel Design ‐ Vegetation Monitoring (Tree health, Restocking and Vegetation) ...... 19 8.2 Forest Bird Monitoring and Red‐Backed Salamander Monitoring ...... 19 8.3 Soils ...... 20 9 Species at Risk ...... 20 10 Non‐Native Invasive Species...... 21 11 References ...... 22
2 HCA would like to thank Kata Bravrlic (Credit Valley Conservation Authority) and Sue Hayes
(Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) for their assistance in the development of this program. 1 INTRODUCTION
There are four conservation authorities that provide watershed management services within the City of Hamilton boundaries ‐ Conservation Halton in the north, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority in the east, Grand River Conservation Authority in the south and west, and the Hamilton Conservation Authority, which encompasses most of the City’s jurisdiction. The Hamilton Conservation Authority is responsible for 479 square kilometers (299 square miles) of watershed area. Currently Hamilton Conservation Authority holds or manages 4,400 hectares (10,872 acres) of land. This includes large tracts of deciduous forest, escapement brow and cliff, wetlands and meadows. These community types are distributed throughout the watershed (NAI .2010) This developing monitoring program will assess and monitor the health of hardwood forests, wetlands and meadows. The components of this monitoring program will be phased in over time and the results presented in a 5 year cycle in line with the watershed report card.
Increased development within the City of Hamilton boundary has exerted great pressures on this watershed, with a watershed population of almost 400,000. These pressures include increased recreation, invasive species and climate change which is common throughout the province (Larson, 1999). The purpose of the long term terrestrial monitoring program is to detect regional spatial and temporal trends in the ecological integrity of our natural systems. Through the use of standardized scientific data collection protocols, the response of the terrestrial system to various landscape changes such as increased natural cover through reforestation efforts or to increased use of the natural area due to recent nearby urbanization can be quantitatively documented. The assessment of changes in these natural systems can then be used to better guide management actions on site with the aim of improving overall biodiversity. Early detection of potential problems such as tree disease and exotic invasive plant species can be provided through long term monitoring that occurs at regular intervals (EMAN 1999). Exotic species are considered particularly valuable to monitor in ecological integrity. This is due to their relationship with human disturbance, relevance to all floristic communities and their ability to cause changes in biodiversity and ecological processes that are undesirable (LaPaix, et. al. 2009).
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 HAMILTON CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CURRENT PROGRAMS It is important to review the natural heritage monitoring and inventory programs in which the HCA is currently involved. This provides a good basis in order to design a terrestrial monitoring program that incorporates information already available and reflects priorities identified in other monitoring programs.
1.2.1 AQUATIC MONITORING PROGRAM The Hamilton Conservation Authority has created an Aquatic Resource Monitoring Program (ARMP) to allow the routine monitoring of fish, fish habitat, and benthic macroinvertebrates throughout its watershed. This program assists conservation authority staff in identifying areas within the watershed where net gains in fish habitat (restoration or development) can be undertaken, thereby increasing productive capacity of the fishery within its jurisdiction. The ARMP was also developed to provide a framework for other conservation authorities to build and implement their own aquatic resource monitoring program in their watershed (if needed), thereby encouraging partnerships between CA’s in
3
Ontario. Funding from Fisheries and Oceans Canada was provided to the HCA in 2004 and 2005 to develop the ARMP, for that purpose.
The ARMP focuses on monitoring parameters that are indicators of ecological health. The integration of chemical (water chemistry via benthic macroinvertebrate community composition), biological (fish populations and communities) and physical (fish habitat, channel morphology) assessments allows for the simultaneous analysis and quantification of these inter‐related parameters such that an integrated assessment of the health of a given system can be obtained and compared with other results over time.
1.2.2 NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY In 1990 and 1991, the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club (HNC) organized and conducted a biological inventory of over 80 natural areas in the City of Hamilton. A team of professional biologists identified the plants, animals, birds, butterflies, fish and other significant species living in the area in order to identify important habitats for protection. The study, published in two volumes as the Hamilton‐Wentworth Natural Areas Inventory, establishes a biological benchmark against which to measure future changes in the City’s environmental health.
The Hamilton‐Wentworth Natural Areas Inventory (NAI) collected data on many (but not all) local natural areas, and provided a framework for determining which areas qualified as environmentally significant areas (ESAs). Significant natural areas identified through this work led to 67 ESAs being designated in the former Regional Municipality of Hamilton‐Wentworth’s 1995 Official Plan (Note: the 1990 Official Plan had contained only 37 ESAs). In 2000, a number of areas recommended in the 1991 NAI for further field work were inventoried, resulting in an Official Plan Amendment containing 14 additional ESAs. Ten years passed since the first NAI was completed, and with the amalgamation of six area municipalities into the new City of Hamilton, the HNC and project partners, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Conservation Authority, embarked upon the Nature Counts project over the 2001 and 2002 field seasons in which it was completed in a similar manner to the 1991 NAI. Some limited Ecological Land Classification was also completed in 2007.
When field work began for the Nature Counts 2 program in 2010 it was 10 years since the last comprehensive biophysical inventory. Natural areas will be examined again to see if conditions have changed within them, to find out whether the rare species reported in previous studies are still present, to check for the presence of additional rare species, and to update plant community information and site boundaries. This project will finish in 2013 with a comprehensive report updating the findings from 1990.
1.2.3 MARSH MONITORING PROGRAM There are currently 25 Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) stations within the watershed incorporated into approximately 10 routes of 2 to 5 stations each. These are competed specifically for the NAI program currently to be completed on the fall of 2013. They are distributed from north to south and east to west. This is part of a larger bi‐national, long‐term volunteer monitoring program managed by Bird Studies Canada (BSC, 2012). This program collects information about the presence and abundance of bird and amphibian species in Great Lakes coastal and inland marshes. This contributes to the national understanding of these species and their habitat needs (BSC 2012). Currently, only the amphibian portion of this monitoring program is completed in the HCA watershed, because amphibians are relative easy to identify and the protocol is easy to implement and complete by citizen scientists.
4
In addition, HCA works closely with the Urban‐Rural Bio‐monitoring Network (URBAN) based out of McMaster University which provides volunteers and coordination for six stations within the watershed, based on HCA owned properties. These stations include monitoring of both amphibians and marsh birds. One of the goals of the terrestrial monitoring program is to implement the marsh bird portion of the MMP, watershed wide.
A review of the MMP program for the watershed will be required to determine what stations will be utilized between those completed currently under the NAI and those completed through the URBAN monitoring program. This will be completed when the wetland portion of the monitoring program is implemented in the next 5 years.
1.2.4 FOREST BIRD MONITORING Forest bird monitoring based on the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Forest Bird Monitoring Protocol (FBMP) has been occurring in the western end of the Dundas Valley Conservation Area since 1998. This survey route has been monitored by successive HCA ecologists. This provides 14 years of data for this location. Inquiries were made with CWS in regards to other FBMP monitoring stations within the watershed. The CWS identified two other stations in our watershed that have been surveyed inconsistently since 1989. One was centered along the main trail loop in the Dundas Valley Conservation Area near the trail center. The second is located in the Beverly Swamp just south of Valens Conservation Area. The last time either of these was survey was in 2001 and 2005, respectively. One additional monitoring route was identified less than 1 km outside the watershed boundary on the northern end, near Guelph. This monitoring route has been consistently surveyed since 1996.
1.2.5 DEER BROWSE MONITORING In fall 2008, HCA erected four fenced exclosure structures (3 in Dundas Valley Conservation Area, 1 in Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area) to help quantify the effects of deer on forested habitats. Each structure is 4m (16ft) x 4m x 2.5m (8ft), and is constructed of fixed knot high‐tensile cattle fencing and 3m (10ft) steel U‐flanges. The structure is constructed so that other animals still have free access to the study area, and that deer (and most humans) are the only excluded variables.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the population of deer in the Dundas Valley and Iroquoia Heights conservation areas is exceeding the carrying capacity of these forested natural areas, therefore detrimentally affecting the forest’s overall health and plant biodiversity. As the health of these systems decline, the health of other plant and animal populations decline correspondingly. Once HCA has accumulated enough data to draw statistically significant conclusions from their data, recommendations will be made as to how the deer population in these areas should be managed in the future.
In 2009, HCA also undertook an aerial deer census with the Ministry of Natural Resources which included the Dundas Valley and Iroquois Heights conservation areas. These adat will be compared to those acquired from the deer exclosure surveys to help make future decisions about the management of deer in these areas.
It is understood that one deer exclosure within IHCA does not fully represent the area as well as its diverse habitats. Therefore, to obtain sufficient data regarding the influences that the deer population has on forest health, HCA chose three additional sites at the IHCA to erect deer exclosures. The three additional exclosure sites are situated within various habitat areas of the IHCA and were erected in 2011.
5
1.2.6 SPECIES AT RISK AND PROVINCIALLY RARE SPECIES Species at risk include those species considered endangered, threatened or special concern in the province of Ontario or nationwide. The designation of these species is decided by provincial and national panels of experts, COSSARO and Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Provincially rare species include those ranked S1, S2 or S3 in the province of Ontario, meaning, less than 5 (S1) and up to 80 (S3) occurrences of the species province wide. Other than surveys completed through the NAI and incidental observations, HCA has not done any directed terrestrial species at risk monitoring. That being said, HCA doese hav substantial information on species at risk and rare species in the watershed but often the location of the population, its health and size is unknown.
6
2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES It is important for a watershed wide monitoring program to set goals and objectives to strive towards. The national parks ecological integrity monitoring program encourages this important step (Parks Canada 2011). The goals and objectives of the terrestrial monitoring program for HCA are as follows: 1. To determine the status and trend of the three following terrestrial indicators of ecological integrity (EI) through time and throughout the watershed: a. Hardwood Forests b. Wetlands c. Meadows
2. To determine if the EI of the watershed differs between the urban (lower watershed ‐ Hamilton and Stoney Creek area) and rural portions (upper watershed ‐ Flamborough and Dundas areas);
3. To determine the status and trend of EI within four conservation areas scattered through the watershed including, Dundas Valley, Valens, Iroquois Heights and Felker’s Falls Conservation Areas;
4. Locate national and provincial Species at Risk and provincially ranked S1 – S3 species on Conservation Authority owned lands identified through the Natural Areas Inventory and other sources; a. Determine current population size for these species and monitor changes in status (population size) and trend at 5 year intervals ‐ prioritize and advise management through time;
5. Locate and delineate invasive plant species within Conservation Authority owned lands; a. Determine current population size for these species and monitor changes in status (population’s size) and trend at 5 year intervals – prioritize and advise management through time.
7
3 MONITORING In order of effectively and efficiently roll out the terrestrial monitoring program, HCA has determined that the optimum approach is to focus the first 5 years of the program on hardwood forests. Other than the monitoring that is occurring in other ecosystem types (i.e. MMP), the remainder of this report will focus on the development and implementation of a monitoring program for hardwood forests. This indicator was chosen to initiative a formal terrestrial program because hardwood forests are a large component that occurs in all areas of the watershed; there are a variety of indicators that can be used in this ecosystem type; and, some key monitoring stations have already been established. In addition, the HCA intends to implement a precautionary approach to the development of the terrestrial monitoring program. This will ensure that all aspects can be accomplished, the goals and objectives of the overall program can be achieved, and monitoring questions can be effectively answered, all of which can be accomplished with the existing staff resources allotted to this program.
The implementation of the wetland and meadow component of this program will occur within the next five years. A monitoring program and design will be developed for these habitat types. They occur less frequently on the HCA landscape and more research in needed into applicable metrics for effective and efficient monitoring..
The monitoring methodology employed by HCA is very closely based on that which is used by Environment Canada in its Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN), the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC), Terrestrial Monitoring Program (TEMO), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP) and Conservation Halton’s Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LEMP) (EMAN 2004a, EMAN 2004b, CVC 2010, TRCA 2011, HRCA 2010). By implementing the same monitoring protocols as other agencies, especially those nearby, a larger data set is available for comparison. This is truly advantageous as the data collected in the HCA jurisdiction can be validated by being placed into a larger context in the Greater Toronto Area or south‐central Ontario which could strengthen data analysis for certain applications.
3.1 IMPORTANCE OF LONG TERM MONITORING Land use changes in Southern Ontario have been dramatic since the arrival of European settlers. Removal of natural vegetative cover of mainly forests and fragmentation of other habitats by roads, agriculture and development has led to a much altered landscape (Larson 1999). Since this settlement, more than 80% of Ontario’s original hardwood forest cover has been lost (Ontario Nature 2012), in addition approximately 70% of the original wetland cover has also been lost (Environment Canada 2004). These changes have isolated forest patches, caused the loss of interior forest, reduced gene flow and increased edge effects (Environment Canada 2004). In addition, logging of our forest systems over time and repeatedly has homogenized species, simplified the forest structure and resulted in younger forests with an average age in southern Ontario of 60 years (Larson 1999).
It is important to monitor forest health in order to track changes brought about by human disturbance. These impacts nca include non‐native flora, climate change and tree disease and pests. Non‐native and invasive flora reproduces aggressively and some chemically alter the soil effectively pushing out native flora and reducing biodiversity (Ontario Invasive Plant Council 2010). In addition, they can affect the reproduction other native species. For example Monarch butterflies (species of special concern) lay its eggs on Dog Strangling Vine (invasive non‐native species). The larvae hatch and die because they are host specific to Milkweed species. Climate change also has the potential to negatively alter forest
8 ecosystems through accelerated tree mortality due to extreme weather events and by shifting species ranges as the climate warms (Bloomfield 2009). Introduced pests and pathogens are such as Chestnut blight, Emerald Ash Borer and Butternut Canker have and are changing the structure of southern Ontario Forests and have resulted in the decline dominant tree species in our forest systems. (COSEWIC 2003 and 2004)
3.2 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Ecological integrity can be defined as “the maintenance of... structure, species composition, and the rate of ecological processes and functions within the bounds of normal disturbance regimes” (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). Parks Canada provides a good definition of EI monitoring in which “EI monitoring measures changes over time in ecological variables of interest, in a repeatable manner, in relation to some standard or reference level of the ecological variable” (Parks Canada 2005). The difficulty with measuring ecological integrity is that ecosystems are continually changing and evolving. Shackell et al. (1993) identifies the following characteristics of ecosystems which have integrity: resilient to stress biodiverse structurally and functionally complex a component of a natural sere (e.g. successional sequence) that is stable over the long‐ term These characteristics are not easy to assess. One approach that has been recently built upon is the Index of Biotic integrity (IBI). IBI was originally interpreted for stream health and based on 12 metrics that reflect health, reproduction, composition and abundance of a fish community (Karr 1981). These metrics were then measured in comparison to relatively unimpaired conditions. These scores where then aggregated into a total score. This foundation has been used to suggest that such an IBI should be created for the whole suite of ecosystem types using the key biological, physical, and functional attributes of those ecosystems (Andreasen et al . 2001; Parrish et al. 2003).
It is important to identify the stressors on a particular ecosystem and then determine what metrics might be used to measure particular ecosystem attributes and determine how they respond to human caused disturbance. A selection of comprehensive metrics is important and should ensure to incorporate ecosystem composition, structure, and function across ea rang of spatial scales.
As a result, HCA must ask: “What are the key stressors on the terrestrial ecosystems in the watershed?” Key stressors or agents of change known or suspected to be acting upon the watershed and key Conservation Area ecological resources for hardwood forests include: Invasive species and tree pathogens Hyper‐abundant deer Climate change Human disturbance (agriculture, development)
HCA will develop 3‐4 EI indicators in relation to the stressors indicated above (Parks Canada 2007). In addition, HCA will ensure that the monitoring program incorporates structure, composition and function on a variety of spatial scales. This would include developing Indices of Biotic Integrity thresholds based on those in the literature to indicate, based on monitoring results, if the health of various Conservation Areas was good, fair or poor. The three main areas would be forest health, forest bird monitoring and salamander monitoring. Invasive species and species at risk could also be monitored within the Conservation Areas but more background work is needed to establish location and size of current
9 populations. There is also potential that these will occur within the monitoring plots and measured in this manner.
4 PRIMARY MONITORING QUESTIONS In order to begin this monitoring program in Conservation Areas and watershed wide it is essential to design the plots based on concrete monitoring questions. This comes from what is it that the Conservation Authority wants to know about its properties and if and how they are being impacted over time? As stated previously EMAN is used by various National Parks to monitoring the overall health of their systems. This may not be the best method for assessing visitor impacts, but it will give HCA a clear idea of the current status of forest ecology in the Conservation Area system and watershed wide and how it changes over time. This information could then be correlated back to possible impacts to that system. The primary monitoring questions that this terrestrial monitoring program hopes to answer include the following:
1. Is the health of the watershed changing over time?
2. Does Hamilton Conservation Authorities Watershed have ecological integrity based on the metrics chosen?
3. Does the health differ across the urban and rural zones of the watershed?
4. How does the health of Valens, Dundas Valley, Iroquois Heights and Felker’s Falls Conservation Area compare to the remainder of the watershed?
The questions will be answered with a variety of metrics that can be measured watershed wide. These would include tree health, tree mortality, ground cover diversity and cover, sapling regeneration, shrub diversity and cover, salamander populations and bird population diversity.
10
5 SITE SELECTION AND METHODOLOGY
5.1 SITE SELECTION AND PLOT ESTABLISHMENT As hardwood forests are the focus for the beginning of the monitoring program, HCA reviewed the Ecological Land Classification as it relates to HCA property ownership and distribution. Sites were selected based on their distribution in the watershed and occurrence of hardwood forests, regardless of condition. In addition, it is desirable to place monitoring plots at least 150 m from the edge in order to reduce edge effects. The goal was to select an equal number of sampling locations within the north, south, east and west sections of the watershed. Therefore, 10 monitoring plots will be set up at each of the following Conservation Areas ‐ Valens, Dundas Valley, Iroquois Heights and Felker’s Falls. These four Conservation Areas have sections of hardwood forest large enough for the monitoring plots to be located 150 m from the forest edge. All plots will be set 50 m apart as recommended by EMAN. An additional 10 monitoring plots will be scattered throughout the watershed to assist in randomization and statistical robustness of the program. These will be located as much as possible on city and conservation authority owned lands for security and access reasons. This is a long term monitoring program, at least 25 years in length, and private property ownership changes too often to guarantee access for that length of time. This will result in 50 monitoring plots throughout the watershed. Clusters of 10 were chosen as it is recommended by the EMAN monitoring program that if stand‐alone plots are used than 10 such plots should be set in each forested area or neighbouring forests (Roberts‐Pichette and Gillespie 1999). This will allow for the monitoring of less frequently occurring variables such as dead standing wood (snags). These plots will be established over the next two years.
5.2 METHODOLOGY
5.2.1 VEGETATION MONITORING PLOTS Forest plots will be set up according to standards developed by Environment Canada’s Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN 2004a, EMAN 2004b, Roberts Pichette and Gillespie 1999), with slight modifications. This protocol is almost identical to that used by the Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for forest monitoring (CVC 2010 and TRCA 2012).
Each forest vegetation plot consists of a 20 x 20m square plot (400 m2) for monitoring tree health (Figure 1). The corners are marked by permanent stakes. All trees with the plot are labeled with tree paint and their numbers recorded. The following variables are collected in each 20x20m plot in relation to tree health ‐ Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), tree status and condition (alive or dead, standing, leaning or broken), crown class (location in the canopy), crown vigour (% dieback) and stem defects (fungus, cankers, wounds, scars). These variables will allow for a measure of snag abundance, tree health (stem defects), and severe crown decline. These measures are annually collected between July and August.
Five 2x2m subplots (4m2) are placed around the perimeter and in the plot center for monitoring sapling regeneration and shrub recruitment. Trees and shrubs that are over 16 cm in height but less than 10 cm dbh are recorded. Stem counts by 6 height classes (16‐35, 36‐55, 56‐75, 76‐95, 96‐020 cm and over 2 m) are recorded for each species. In addition, surveyors obtain a percentage cover estimate based on those stems that originate within the subplot. This information will allow for measures of tree regeneration and restocking and deer browse. These measures are also taken annually between July and August.
11
Nestled within these plots are the 1x1m (1 m2) subplots to measure components of ground vegetation. In order to increase the data captured for ground vegetation timed survey of all herbaceous plants within the 20 x 20m plot will be conducted. The summation of this information will provide data on percentage of native and non‐native species, number of spring ephemerals, proportion of annuals, and mean coefficient of conservatism. The coefficient of conservatism is a measure between 0 – 10 that represents the probability that a plant species is likely to occur in landscapes unaltered from pre‐ settlement times. These values are only applied to native species (These measures are completed in May and again in August/September to measure spring ephemerals and late flowering species.
Figure 1. 20x20 m Plot design with nested 2x2m and 1x1m subplots (TRCA, 2011).
In addition, downed woody debris transects will be implemented at a selected number of 20x20 m plots, these are 45.15 m long transects. Any downed woody debris 7.5 cm or more in diameter is recorded and the species as well if possible. The end of each transect will be marked with a permanent stake. This gives a volume of woody debris in the monitored area (m2/ha) and relates to nutrient cycling and habitat for a variety of species as this relates to forest health.
5.2.2 RED‐BACKED SALAMANDER MONITORING (Red‐backed Salamanders are good useful indicator species because they have long life species (10+ year), high annual survivorship and low birth rates which typically results in stable population sizes under normal conditions. They also display site fidelity and have small home ranges (Zorn 2004)).
12
One set of salamander monitoring boards will be set up in each of the four Conservation Areas and one additional in the more urban section of the watershed. The monitoring boards are comprised of 40 simple non‐layered cover boards, 30 x 25 x 5 cm which are generally made from hardwood. They are laid 5 m apart to accommodate the territories of Red‐back Salamanders and checked four times per year in the spring. The number of Red‐backed Salamanders and other species observed are recorded, along with whether they are adults or juveniles (based on a general length).
5.2.3 Forest Bird Monitoring Additional forest bird monitoring routes will be developed in conjunction with each plot. A route consisting of 1 – 5 stations, each station will be 250 m apart and at least 150 m in from the edge of the forest. These are monitored twice per year, once between May 24 – June 17 and June 17 – July 10th. This monitoring is based on the Canadian Wildlife Service Forest Bird Monitoring Program. Species and number of birds heard/seen are recorded within a 100m diameter circle around the monitoring location. Markers will be used for each station so that the same location is monitored regularly. This information will provide data eon th percentage of birds that are residents, canopy nesters, generalists, forest specialist, ground nesters and shrub nesters.
5.2.4 SOILS Soils samples will be taken in each of the 4 Conservation Areas in association with the monitoring plots and then at one of the scattered urban monitoring locations. These will be sent to a lab to be analyzed for carbon and nitrogen ratios and heavy metals. This will be completed every e5 years. Se section 6.1.3 for the importance of soil monitoring.
13
6 INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY AND SELECTED METRICS
6.1 HARDWOOD FORESTS Hardwood forests form a significant portion of the HCA watershed and therefore an important factor to monitor at the beginning of this watershed wide program. The index of biotic integrity will be developed through a set of metrics. The metrics selected to monitor forest health should assist HCA in answering the questions posed in section 3.3. In addition many other questions will be answered through the implementation and ongoing monitoring of this habitat type.
Forest monitoring plots will be designed to: Determine the health of forests in the HCA jurisdiction and at specific Conservation Areas; o In relation to crown decline, tree mortality and snag abundance Determine regeneration rate and species composition of understorey saplings and shrubs; Determine if the population and abundance of flora species are changing over time; Determine the floristic quality of the site; Determine if non‐native invasive species are replacing native species; Determine the proportion of monitoring locations with tree pathogens and their effects; Track region‐wide changes in the status of Red‐backed Salamanders ; Facilitate identification of any regional trends in the status of forest‐associated bird species, and in particular to identify any changes in the various bird guilds present at forest monitoring plots Determine the influence deer have on tree regeneration and flora diversity
Monitoring programs as indicated earlier in this report should encompass structure, composition and function. In order to achieve this metrics must be chosen that span a range of landscape values and scales.
6.1.1 LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE Landscape structure will be measured through, patch size, natural cover and urbanization surrounding patches. Forested areas in Eastern North America generally occur in a matrix of managed, rural, and urban habitats that limit the ability of species to forage, interbreed, and disperse, and also creates “edge” habitats that differ from forest interiors in many ways (Tierney et al 2009). Three metrics have been chosen to monitor forest structure watershed wide. These include, patch size, percent natural cover and percent anthropogenic cover. Patch size based on patterns of fragmentations strongly impacts habitat suitability for a variety of taxa (Fahrig 2003). Large forest patches tend to support larger populations of fauna and more native, specialist, and forest interior‐dwelling species. Metrics are available to determine appropriate patch sizes for forested habitats. Percent natural cover and percent anthropogenic cover relate the amount of natural cover and human developed cover watershed wide. The rates of these types of cover can influence and affect the integrity of natural areas through the introduction of non‐native species, chemical, light and noise pollution and increased human use etc. Increasing natural cover in a region can potentially buffer some of these observed negative impacts and may reduce sensitivity to patch size reduction (i.e. some area sensitive bird species are known to occur in smaller patches that are nested in primarily forested landscapes) (Tierney, ????) . Tierney also states that “habitat fragmentation has negative impacts on biodiversity‐ large habitat patches and areas
14 nested within forested landscapes support larger populations of fauna and more native, specialist and forest interior species” 2009.
Table 1 Landscape Structure metrics Metric Reporting Metric available frequency Forest Patch size (ha) 5 – 10 years Yes – to be determined More research is required into the most appropriate metric. % Natural Cover 5 – 10 years Yes – to be determined % Anthropogenic cover 5 – 10 years Yes – to be determined.
HCA will use data provided through the MNR NIRVIS layer and the Ecological Land Classification through the Natural Areas Inventory to determine forested areas and urban land uses throughout the watershed. Acceptable thresholds are detailed in the literature but, more research is needed to develop ones specific to this area. This work would also be in conjunction with Credit Valley Conservation, Conservation Halton and Niagara Escapement Commission to determine watershed and southern Ontario forest patch and urbanization thresholds.
6.1.2 FOREST STRUCTURE Defining ecological structures and functions to monitor in forested ecosystems is a difficult task for ecologists to perform (Aubin 2007) and picking the correct one is a daunting task. It is based on identifying the structures and process that define the natural functions in the forests of this watershed (Aubin 2007). Forest structure is important to biodiversity because it provides a variety of habitats for differing species in multiple taxa. The loss of a single species may not necessarily signal a decrease in the overall integrity of the ecosystem, if the function of the ecosystem remains the same (King 1993). In order to address this in the terrestrial monitoring program, HCA will monitor the following structural components in the forest; snag (standing dead trees) abundance, downed woody debris (DWD) volume, regeneration and restocking of the canopy and red‐backed salamanders.
Dead wood, in the form of snags and fallen DWD, is an important structural component. Both of these provide necessary habitat for many forest taxa including birds, mammals, herptiles, invertebrate decomposers and tree seedlings to name a few . Snags are particularly important for cavity‐nesting birds. Silviculture and land management often reduce the quantity and quality of dead wood (Keeton 2006). Regeneration and restocking of the canopy is important as the quantity and composition of regeneration impacts future canopy condition (McWilliams et. al. 2005). Red‐backed salamanders are a target monitoring species because they are good indicators of forest ecosystem conditions predominately due to their 1) life history traits, 2) sensitivity to anthropogenic stresses and 3) high densities and stability in counts (Zorn et al. 2004).
Table 2 Forest Structure metrics Metric Reporting Metric available frequency Snag abundance 5 years Yes – Percent of monitored standing trees which are dead
Course woody 5 years Yes – volume of downed woody debris in a monitored area (m2/ha) debris Regeneration and 5 years Yes – to be determined. restocking (tree Stocking index calculates number of stems of different height classes saplings) available to contribute to the canopy of the forest communities over
15
time, will be based on McWilliams et al 2005. Red‐backed Annual Yes – Abundance of red‐backed salamanders at monitoring plots salamanders
6.1.3 FOREST COMPOSITION Species composition within forest types is unique and this composition is constantly changing in relation to stress, succession and human impacts. In order to monitor these changes, HCA proposes to monitor forest composition in two categories, vascular plants and birds. For vascular plants HCA would monitor the following, tree health (cankers and fungus), non‐native species, native species, and mean coefficient of conservatism (Mcc)1, spring ephemerals and annuals. All of these metrics relate to quality of forest composition. With shorter life spans than regeneration and canopy layers, ground vegetation species tend to have different survival tactics. These tactics result in rapid turnover rates and changes in ground vegetation community composition when compared to the other forest vegetation (Roberts‐Pichette and Gillespie 1999; Johnson et al. 2008). Therefore, it is important to monitor this component of forest vegetation. For birds the percent of individual birds detected that are resident birds, canopy nesters, generalists birds, forest specialists, ground nesters and shrub nesters will be monitored. Forest birds, with a special emphasis on songbirds, have often been used as surrogates for the health and status of wildlife species and natural communities. This is because individual bird species, populations and communities are sensitive to habitat changes that have been shaped by reduced forest cover, habitat fragmentation and land‐use practices. Relative to other taxons, forest birds are easily surveyed and the habitat requirements and sensitivities are well known for many of the species, making them ideal indicators of ecosystem health. 1 Coefficients of conservatism (cc) range from 0 to 10 and represent an estimated probability that a plant is likely to occur in a landscape relatively unaltered from what is believed to be a pre‐settlement condition. For example plants in the 0 – 3 range have high range of ecological tolerancesd an are found in a variety of plant communities. Whereas those with a range of 9‐10 have a high degree of fidelity to a narrow range of habitats. Calculating the Mcc or mean coefficient of conservatism for a site then gives ecologists a general idea as to the relative disturbed or undisturbed quality of the site based on the plant species present.
Table 3 Forest Composition metrics Metric Reporting Metric available frequency Tree health Yes ‐ proportion of trees with cankers or fungus Annual Non‐native species 5 years Yes ‐ The percent non‐native species at a site Native species 5 years Yes ‐ The number of native species at a site Mcc 5 years Yes – mean coefficient of conservatism (Mcc) Spring ephemerals 5 years Yes – The number of species at a site that correspond to a limited list of spring ephemerals Annuals 5 years Yes – The proportion of species at a site that are annuals Resident birds* Annual Yes – the percent of individuals detected that are resident birds Canopy nesters* Annual Yes – the percent of individuals detected that are canopy nesters Generalist birds* Annual Yes – the percent of individuals detected that are generalists Forest Specialist* Annual Yes – the percent of individuals detected that are forest specialists Ground nesters* Annual Yes – the percent of individuals detected that are ground nesters Shrub nesters* Annual Yes – the percent of individuals detected that are shrub nesters * These guilds will be determined by a local bird expert.
16
6.1.4 FOREST FUNCTION The long term monitoring of trees in permanent plots provides important information on the structure and function of forest systems (Roberts‐Pichette and Gillespie 1999). The metrics to be monitored for forest function will be severe crown decline and annual mortality; deer browse impacts and soil chemistry. Monitoring tree health indicators hsuc as severe crown decline and mortality rates can provide early warning of potential threats which can then influence management decisions. Deer browse is a significant impact on native vegetation within portions of HCA’s watershed (HCA 2011). HCA as described above has an enclosure/exclosure monitoring program. Additional monitoring of the metric will occur within the larger terrestrial monitoring program. It is important within any monitoring program to monitor both biotic and abiotic factors within ecosystem function. Soil chemistry monitoring is an important abiotic factor in plant growth and ecological integrity. There is some evidence to suggest that nutrients in forest soils are declining due to both pollution (e.g. acid rain deposition and heavy metals) and tree harvesting (Watmough and Dillon 2003). The acidity of soils has also begun to rise which is of concern as soil pH influences the availability of nutrients to plant species (Lambers et al. 1998; Watmough and Dillion 2003). Elevated levels of heavy metals are problematic, although this can result from natural processes; it may also be caused by car exhaust, road dust, waste leachate and manufacturing facilities (Brady and Weil 1996; Li et al. 2001).
Table 4 Forest Function metrics Metric Reporting Metric available frequency Severe crown decline Annual Yes – percent of dominant and co‐dominant trees with severe (> 50%) crown dieback Tree mortality Annual Yes ‐ proportion of dominant/co‐dominant trees >10 cm Diameter at Breast Height that have died in one year Deer browse 5 years Yes ‐ Compares ratio of deer preferred and moderately preferred to unpreferred species in plots ‐ partitioned into two height categories. Soils – nitrogen 5 years Yes – Carbon to Nitrogen ratio saturation Soils ‐ heavy metals 5 years Yes – percentage of Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cobalt, lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Zinc in the soil
6.2 WETLANDS AND MEADOWS Monitoring programs for these terrestrial ecosystem types will be developed over the next 5 years. These will incorporate some of the same indexes of biotic integrity noted above.
17
7 INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY METRIC THRESHOLDS Thresholds are available in the literature for the majority of the metrics described in section 6. More research is needed to incorporate more Eastern North American or Southern Ontario specific metrics for hardwood forests. Appendix A presents the thresholds available in the literature for the various metrics noted above. This appendix also proposes a potential red, yellow and green light warning system for monitoring watershed health.
18
8 MONITORING FREQUENCY
8.1 PANEL DESIGN ‐ VEGETATION MONITORING (TREE HEALTH, RESTOCKING AND VEGETATION) In order to implement this monitoring program and ensure it is statistically robust, a large number of monitoring locations have been proposed for the forest vegetation monitoring portion. In order to appropriately monitor the proposed locations within one field season a panel design is being recommended. This would involve rotating the monitoring of the various metrics over a five year period. In order to compare rural and urban locations it is recommend that monitoring be spread out with 2 plots being monitored at each location per year. This would allow for the plots to be summed over the 5 year period and analyzed as one sample. This would result in 10 plots monitored per year. The summation of the five years of monitoring would coincide with the Watershed Report Card. The initial rotation would be as follows:
Table 5 Grouped locations for each year over 5 years Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Valens 1 Valens 3 Valens 5 Valens 7 Valens 9 Valens 2 Valens 4 Valens 6 Valens 8 Valens 10 Dundas Valley 1 Dundas Valley 3 Dundas Valley 5 Dundas Valley 7 Dundas Valley 9 Dundas Valley 2 Dundas Valley 4 Dundas Valley 6 Dundas Valley 8 Dundas Valley 10 Iroquois Heights 1 Iroquois Heights 3 Iroquois Heights 5 Iroquois Heights 7 Iroquois Heights 9 Iroquois Heights 1 Iroquois Heights 4 Iroquois Heights 6 Iroquois Heights 8 Iroquois Heights 10 Felker’s Falls 1 Felker’s Falls 3 Felker’s Falls 5 Felker’s Falls 7 Felker’s Falls 9 Felker’s Fall 2 Felker’s Fall 4 Felker’s Fall 6 Felker’s Fall 8 Felker’s Fall 10 Scatter plot 1 Scatter plot 3 Scatter plot 5 Scatter plot 7 Scatter plot 9 Scatter Plot 2 Scatter Plot 4 Scatter Plot 6 Scatter Plot 8 Scatter Plot 10
Table 6: Panel design over 5 years Grouped locations Year 1 2 3 4 5 A x t B x t C x t D x t E x x – full suite of metrics measured t – tree mortality only
8.2 FOREST BIRD MONITORING AND RED‐BACKED SALAMANDER MONITORING The data for these metrics are best collected yearly and comparisons for sites can be done yearly and after 5 years. Further, the number of sites to visit each year (5) is considerable lower than for the vegetation monitoring.
19
8.3 SOILS Due to the cost of sampling, soils will be sampled once every 5 years at each of the four conservation area locations and then in one urban plot in the scattered samples.
9 SPECIES AT RISK As noted earlier in the report, HCA plans to implement a species at risk monitoring program for provincially and federally designated species at risk and those ranked S1 – S3 in the province of Ontario. This will be restricted to HCA owned properties. Currently, a minimum of data in regards to eth exact location and populations sizes of these species has been documented. HCA plans over the next 5 years to search for all noted SAR and provincially rare species observed in the NAI and through other surveys. All of these species will then be placed on a rotational list with each monitored over a 5 year period. This will allow HCA to monitor the populations and health of these species in a general manner. The process will occur as time permits. Land managers will also be advised of the location and conservation priorities of species located on HCA owned properties.
20
10 NON‐NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES Non‐Native invasive species are an issue throughout HCA’s watershed and throughout Ontario (OIPC, 2012). These comprise a wide variety of species, some more aggressive than others, such as Dog Strangling Vine (DSV). DSV is an aggressive vine that can out complete and dominate open and semi‐ open forested habitats quickly. It is important to monitor and control these species on Conservation Authority lands. A priority list of the most aggressive non‐native invasive species will be developed. Information gathered through the NAI and the ground knowledge of the superintendents will be used to create this list. Management techniques will be investigated and implemented as appropriate. This monitoring and implementation program will be initiated within the next 5 years.
21
11 REFERENCES
Andreasen JK, O’Neill RV, Noss R, and Slosser NC. 2001. Considerations for the development of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecol Indic 1: 21–35.
Bloomfield, J. 2000. The Potential Impacts of Global Warming on America’s Forests: Critical Findings for Forest Lands from the First National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. US Environmental Defence. http://www.climatehotmap.org/impacts/forests.html
Brady, N.C. and Weil. R.R. 1996. The nature and properties of soils. Prentice Hall Inc.,
BSC 2012 http://www.bsc‐eoc.org/volunteer/glmmp/index.jsp [Accessed October 12, 2012]
COSEWIC 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the butternut Juglans cinerea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm)
COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American chestnut Castanea dentata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 19 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm)
CVC 2010. Credit Valley Conservation Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program 2008. Summary Draft Report. Credit Valley Conservation. January 2010.
EMAN 2004a. Tree Health – EMAN Monitoring Protocols and Standards. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN). Environment Canada. Available on‐line at: http://emanrese. ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/terrestrial/tree_health/tree_health.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2012].
EMAN 2004b. Regeneration and Sapling Survey – EMAN Monitoring Protocols and Standards. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN), Environment Canada. Available online at: http://eman‐ rese.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/terrestrial/sapling/sapling.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2012].
Environment Canada 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough, Second edition.
Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34: 487–515. HCA, 2011. Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area White‐tailed Deer Final Report of the Deer Management Advisory Committee September 21, 2011
Keeton WS. 2006. Managing for late‐successional/old‐growth characteristics in northern hardwood‐ conifer forests. Forest Ecol Manage 235: 129–42.
Lambers, H., Pons,L., T. Chapin, F.S. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer‐Verlag Inc. New York, NY, United States.
Larson, B.M., J.L. Riley, E.A. Snell and H.G. Godschalk. 1999. The Woodland Heritage of Southern
22
Li, X., Poon, C.S., Liu, P.S. 2001. Heavy metal contamination of urban soils and street dusts in Hong Kong. Applied Geochemistry 16: 1361‐1368.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and Jerry F. Franklin, 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity. A comprehensive multiscaled approach, Island Press, xiii+351 pp.
McWilliams, W.H., Butler, B.J., Caldwell, L.E., Griffith, D.M., Hoppus, M.L., Laustsen, K.M., Lister, A.J., Lister, T.W., Metzler, J.W., Morin, R.S., Sader, S.A., Stewart, L.B., Steinman, J.R., Westfall, J.A., Williams, D.A., Whitman, A., Woodall, C.W., 2005. The forests of Maine: 2003. Resource Bull. NE‐164. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 188 p.
Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Ecology and Environment 7: 308‐316.
Oldham, M. J., W.D. Bakowshy, and D. A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.
Ontario Invasive Plant Council, 2012. Landowners Guide to Controlling Invasive Woodland Plants.
Ontario Nature 2012. Protection Priorities. Accessed October 17, 2012 [http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/habitat/priorities.php]
Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Ontario: A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Don Mills, Ontario. 262 pp.
Parks Canada Agency, 2005. Monitoring and Reporting Ecological Integrity in Canada’s National Parks Volume 1: Guiding Principles.
Parks Canada, 2011. Consolidated Guidelines for Ecological Integrity Monitoring in Canada’s National Parks.
Parrish JD, Braun, DP and Unnasch RS. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53: 851–60.
Roberts‐Pichette P. and Gillespie L. 1999. Terrestrial vegetation biodiversity monitoring protocols: Ground Vegetation Biodiversity Monitoring Protocols. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment (EMAN) Occasional Paper Series. Report Number 9. 142 pp. Available on‐line at: http://www.eman‐ rese.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/terrestrial/vegetation/e_veg_protocol.pdf [Accessed 10 October, 2012].
Sajan R. 2006. Tree Health Data Analysis – EMAN Monitoring Protocols and Standards. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network. Environment Canada. Available on‐line at: http://www.emanrese.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/terrestrial/tree_health/Tree%20health%20t reshold_final.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2012].
23
Shackell, N.L., Freedman, B., Staicer, C. 1993. National environmental monitoring: A case study of the Atlantic Maritime region. In: Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. Woodley, S., K. James and G. Francis. eds. St. Lucie Press. Florida. pp. 131‐153.
Tierney, G.L., Faber‐Langendoen, D., Mitchell, B.R., Shriver, W.G., Gibbs, J.P. 2009. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States
Watmough, S.A. and Dillon, P.J. 2003. Base cation and nitrogen budgets for seven forested catchments in central Ontario, 1983‐1999. Forest Ecology and Management 177 :155‐177.
Zorn, P., V. Blazeski and B. Craig. 2004. Joint EMAN/Parks Canada National Monitoring Protocol for Plethodontid salamanders.
24
Appendix A – Index of Biotic Integrity ‐ Threshold indicators Scale Metric Description Threshold Good Fair Poor Landscape Forest patch size tbd tbd tbd structure % Natural cover tbd tbd tbd % Anthropogenic cover tbd tbd tbd Forest Snag abundance Percent of monitored >10 % standing trees <10% standing trees <5 med‐lg* snags/ha structure trees which are dead are snags, >10% of are snags, <10% med‐lrg trees are standing trees are snags snags Course woody debris Volume of dead wood >15% live tree 5‐15% live tree <5% live tree volume >7.5 cm diameter volume volume Regeneration and Number of stems of tbd tbd tbd restocking different height classes available to contribute to the future canopy Red‐backed Salamanders % change in population tbd tbd tbd over 5 years Forest Tree health (Trees with The percent of living <10% N/A >10% composition fungus or canker) trees with fungus or canker Non‐native species Percent of species at a <2% 2‐20% >20% site that are non‐native Native species Number of native species >20 10‐20 <10 at a site mCC Mean coefficient of >4 3.3‐3.99 <3.3 conservatism at the site (Oldham et. al 1995) Spring Ephemerals Number of species at a >6 2‐5 <2 site which correspond to a limited list of spring ephemerals Annuals Proportion of species at a <0.1 0.1‐0.8 >0.8
25
site which are annuals Resident birds Percent of detected <28% 28‐41% >41% individuals which are resident birds Canopy nesters Percent of detected >36% 32‐36% <32% individuals which are canopy nesters Generalist birds Percent of detected 36% 44% 31% individuals which are generalist birds Forest specialists Percent of detected 80% 65‐80% <65% individuals which are forest specialists Ground nesters Percent of detected >18% 5‐18% <5% individuals which are ground nesters Shrub nesters Percent of detected <18% 18‐24% >24% individuals which are shrub nesters Forest Severe crown decline The percent of dominant <5% 5‐25% 25% function and codominant trees with severe (>50%) crown dieback Tree mortality Annual tree mortality >1% 1‐3% >5% Deer browse Ratio of deer preferred, tbd tbd tbd to moderately to unpreferred plant species Soils – nitrogen saturation Yes – Carbon to Nitrogen tbd tbd tbd ratio Soils ‐ heavy metals Yes – percentage of tdb tbd tbd Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cobalt, lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Zinc in the soil
26
*Med‐lg trees are ≥ 30 cm diameter‐at‐breast‐height HCA is still in the process of finalizing indicators and the frequency of which these will be monitored. This is dependent on the statistical validity of a panel design and the ability to use threshold monitoring over 5 years. In rorde to calculate a final IBI for the watershed the following procedure will be followed:
Individual values will be calculated for each metric for each site. These values will then be compared to the established thresholds shown above. As a result these are ranked as either ‘good’, ‘fair’ or ‘poor’. Each site was assigned 1 point for metrics which ranked as ‘poor’, 2 points for those that ranked as ‘fair’, and 3 points for those ranked as ‘good’. A final IBI score will be calculated for each site by summing its scores for each metric and dividing that by the final number of metrics. This will result in a number between 1 and 3. Therefore, a site with an IBI scores closer to 1 may represent sites with lower forest integrity than sites with IBI scores closer to 3.
27
Report
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
PREPARED BY: Bruce Mackenzie, Manager of Customer Services and Operations
DATE: November 16, 2012
RE: 2013 Fee Schedule for Conservation Areas, Westfield Heritage Village, Confederation Park/Wild Waterworks and Watershed Planning and Engineering - Plan Review Services Fees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT HCA staff recommends to the Board of Directors:
THAT the 2013 Fee Schedule as presented be approved.
BACKGROUND
The revenues obtained from the collection of fees at the Conservation Areas, Confederation Park, Wild Waterworks, Westfield Heritage Village are integral to the financial sustainability of the Hamilton Conservation Authority. Each year the major fees are brought to the Board of Directors for approval.
The Conservation Authority is continuing to move strongly towards marketing and selling daily admission tickets to Westfield Heritage Village, Wild Waterworks, and special events in Conservation Areas, HCA memberships and Wild Waterworks season passes over the internet through the HCA websites.
STAFF COMMENT
The recommendations for 2013 continue with the trend of establishing fees that take into account the ever increasing cost of operating the HCA projects and providing excellent customer service. As presented, they attempt to maximize revenues within the context of user acceptability. This report reflects the most significant changes to fees. Appendix A shows the Proposed Fees for 2013 and the recent history of the fees in conservation areas and parks.
Staff are recommending that most fees be increased in the area of 2%. Exceptions to this range are noted.
Highlights 2013 Fee Schedule
Daily Admission Fees to Conservation Areas
The base rate of $9.00 for car and driver for Valens, Christie Lake, and Fifty Point is proposed to remain the same. The additional passenger rate for these areas is proposed to be increased from $4.75 per passenger to $5.00.
In the Dundas Valley Conservation Area, the fee is proposed to remain at $9.00 per car per day.
At Webster’s Falls and Tews Falls the fee is proposed to remain at $10.00 per car per day.
At Tiffany Falls and Eramosa Karst Conservation Areas the fee is proposed to remain at $2.00 per hour.
At Devil’s Punch Bowl the fee is proposed to change to $2.00 per hour from $2.00 per day.
HCA Annual Membership Passes
The price for the HCA membership pass is proposed to remain at $99.95.
Camping - Valens and Fifty Point Conservation Areas
Electrical campsites are proposed increased by $1.00 per night to $41.00 at Valens Lake and $42.00 at Fifty Point. The current rate for a non electrical site is $35.00.
Pavilions
Pavilion fees range from $200 to $500 depending on the conservation area, size of pavilion, and facilities provided and it is proposed that these fees remain the same. At Confederation Park the fees for the Willow Cove Pavilion will increase to $385.00 from $285.00 and the Edgewater Pavilion is proposed to remain at $490.00.
Fifty Point Marina Fees
The summer mooring fees for all docks except “A” dock were previously approved. The summer mooring fees for “A” are to remain the same as 2012 fees with a new 18’ minimum for the non hydro docks. The fees for winter storage will be increased by approximately 2%.
-2- School Groups
School groups visit the conservation areas for field trips, cross country runs and other events without involvement from HCA staff. The fee is proposed to increase to $2.75 per student per day from $2.50. Most school groups making use of the Environmental Education Programme and major school events at Christie Lake are covered by user agreements.
Wild Waterworks
It is proposed that general admission fees be increased on average by 4.2%. The fee for seniors would be increased by 10%. The marketing of Wild Waterworks is designed to attract customers to either purchase a season pass or to purchase discounted tickets on the internet. The customers still enjoy the removal of the parking fee at Confederation Park which provided for a reduction of $9.50 per car in 2012. The general admission fees were not raised in 2012.
In 2012 the season pass for all ages was $69.95 which was a major reduction from the 2011 rate of $99.95. It is proposed that the season pass be $71.95 in 2013. The discounts for group tickets and on line tickets are proposed to remain at $3.00 and $2.00 respectively.
Fees 2012 2013 with HST General Admission $20.80 $21.67 $24.49 Children (3 to 10) $13.63 $14.15 $15.99 Seniors $17.26 $19.01 $21.49 Sundown Adult $11.06 $11.50 $13.00 Sundown Child $9.74 $10.18 $11.50
Season Pass $69.99 $71.99 $81.35
Watershed Planning and Engineering Plan Review Service Fees
The HCA implemented a new Plan Review Fee Schedule in 2012 that implements a 100% cost recovery scenario. This Fee Schedule is a joint fee schedule with Conservation Halton and the City of Hamilton to provide consistency in this regard to the City. Implementation has been successful and cost recovery and revenues have increased significantly over those generated in 2011. HCA staff will be working with our partners (Conservation Halton, the City of Hamilton, the Development Community and others) in 2013 to assess the overall effectiveness of the Fee Schedule and may provide recommendations for improvement/fine tuning for 2014. We believe another year of the existing fee schedule framework is necessary in order to properly assess its overall effectiveness. At this time, HCA staff are recommending a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase in 2013 Fees over 2012 of 2.1%. Appendix B reflects the recommendation.
-3- AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed fee increases for 2013 are projected to result in approximately $68,000 of additional revenues for the HCA conservation areas.
For Wild Waterworks the 2013 fee schedule is expected to provide approximately $45,000 of additional revenues.
CONCLUSION
The revenues obtained from the customers and permit holders of the Conservation Areas and for our services are important to the sustainability of the Hamilton Conservation Authority. Staff feels that the above recommendations provide for a satisfactory fee schedule for 2013 to remain competitive and attractive to the marketplace.
Attachments:
Appendix “A” - HCA 2013 Fee Chart
Appendix “B” – Plan Review Service Fees
-4- Hamilton Conservation Authority Appendix A
2013 Fee Chart
HST included unless shown.
Daily Admission Fees Valens, Christie Lake, Fifty Point Conservation Areas 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 as of July 1 HST Car and Driver $8.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 Each Passenger $4.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.75 $5.00 Tokens $12.00 $13.50 $13.50 $13.75 $14.00
Spencer Gorge per car $5.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $10.00
Dundas Valley per car $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $9.00
Walk -in fee $3.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 n/a Horse Fee daily $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $13.00 $14.00
Confederation Park Regular Admission $8.50 $9.50 $9.50 0 0 Senior/disabled $6.50 $7.50 $7.50 0 0 Sunset $7.00 $8.00 $8.00 0 0 Bus Rate $39.00 $47.00 $47.00 0 0
Lakeland Pool Adult $5.65 $6.25 $6.25 $6.45 $6.60 Child / Disabled $3.85 $4.25 $4.25 $4.35 $4.45 Senior $3.85 $4.25 $4.25 $4.35 $4.45 Family $13.00 $13.50 $13.75
Westfield Heritage Village Public Programme Days $7.50 $8.50 $8.50 $8.50 $8.50 Special Events $9.75 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00
Fees with HST added.
Annual HCA Membership Pass 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Regular Pass $90.00 $95.00 $95.00 $99.95 $99.95 Senior $63.00 $68.00 $68.00 $71.50 $74.00
Camping Valens Electrical Site $36.00 $37.00 $39.00 $40.00 $41.00 Fifty Point Full Serviced Site $37.00 $38.00 $40.00 $41.00 $42.00
Fifty Point Marina Summer Mooring Fees Plan A hydro $70.75 $72.17 $73.60 $73.60 $75.00 Plan A no hydro $65.50 $66.81 $68.15 $68.15 $69.50 Plan B hydro $88.50 $90.27 $92.00 $92.00 $93.75 Plan B no hydro $81.90 $83.54 $85.20 $85.20 $86.90
Winter Storage Fees Sailboats $4.40 $4.40 $4.55 $4.70 $4.80 Powerboat per sq.ft $4.05 $4.05 $4.15 $4.25 $4.30
Conservation Areas and Westfield All areas( per student) $1.75 $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75
Wedding Pictures All Areas $145.00 $155.00 $155.00 $160.00 $160.00 Fifty Point $200.00
Wild Waterworks
General Adult $20.00 $20.44 $20.80 $20.80 $21.67 Child $13.10 $13.36 $13.63 $13.63 $14.15 Seaon's Pass $99.95 $99.95 $99.95 $69.99 $71.99 Appendix B WATERSHED PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW SERVICE FEES 2013 Hamilton Conservation Authority - Conservation Halton City of Hamilton
Application Type Category Before Tax With HST Subdivision and Condominiums Minor $1,084.07 $1,225.00 Intermediate $4,336.28 $4,900.00 Major $8,132.74 $9,190.00 Applicant Driven Revision $2,712.39 $3,065.00
Clearance Fees Minor $544.25 $615.00 Intermediate $2,168.14 $2,450.00 Major initial $4,066.37 $4,595.00 Per Phase Charge (on top of Major clearance fee above) $769.91 $870.00
Consents Minor $632.74 $715.00 Major $1,353.98 $1,530.00
Minor Variances Minor $389.38 $440.00 Major $769.91 $870.00
Official Plan Amendments Minor $632.74 $715.00 Major $3,163.72 $3,575.00
Zoning By-law Amendments Minor (including H-Zone Removal) $632.74 $715.00 Major $3,163.72 $3,575.00
Site Plan Approval Application Minor $902.65 $1,020.00 Intermediate $3,433.63 $3,880.00 Major $4,513.27$ 5,100.00
Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendments - Applicant-Driven $ 2,712.39 $ 3,065.00
Complex Applications $8,132.74 $9,190.00 The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. All subdivisons, vacant land condominiums, major and complex site plans (ie. Community living projects, golf courses, cemetaries, etc.), continue to be circulated to the Conservation Authority.
Aggregate Extraction Applications $ 45,132.74 $ 51,000.00 The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. This fee relates to large aggregate extraction applications.
Notes and Definitions:
Subdivisions/Condominiums/Site Plans: Major – The area is equal to or greater than 4.5 hectares in size and technical studies (ie. SWM, EIS or Geotechnical) are required. Intermediate - The area is less than 4.5 hectares in size and technical studies (ie. SWM, EIS or Geotechnical) are required. Minor – In the area of interest to the CA.
Other Applictions: Major - Technical studies (ie. SWM, EIS or Geotechnical) are required. Minor - In the area of interest of the CA.
Combined Applications - Combined applications will be charged at 100% of the highest fee rate and 50% of the combined fee rate for other review categories. Complex Applications - Complex applications are Planning Act (e.g. OPA/ZBA) and/or Site Plan or development permit approval applications for larger commercial/industrial/residential applications greater than 4.5 hectares in size such as golf courses, trailer parks, campgrounds and cemetaries, etc.
Area of Interest – Natural Heritage, Natural Hazard areas on a CA screening map, checklist, OP and/or ZB.
Subdivision Revision and Clearance Fees will be paid directly to the Conservation Authority and must be paid prior to issuance of revised draft conditions or the final Conservation Authority clearance letter. A draft plan modification fee will be applicable to developer driven amendments to a subdivision or condominium application.
Note 1: ThThe Conservation Authority may provide a refund directly to the applicant if it is found that an application charged at the "major" rate only. required the level of review normally associated with the minor or intermediate rates. In such cases, the minor or intermediate rate will be retained and the difference refunded.
Note 2: The Conservation Authority will charge a fee directly to the applicant when engineering reviews of technical studies and plans, drawings and models go beyond the first submission and 2 resubmissions. The fee will be based on the hourly review charged by the affected Conservation Authority. Preliminary stormwater reports, submitted with development applications, are not considered as part of this review and and penalty fee. Note 3: The Conservation Authority will charge a fee of $510 to provide preliminary preconsultation comments on all proposed planning applications. This fee will be deducted from the application fee when a formal application is submitted. Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses 2013 Fee Schedule
Pursuant to Hamilton Conservation Authority Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 161/06 under Ontario Regulation 97/04, within HCA regulated areas, a permit is required for:
.Development .Interference with Wetlands .Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses
1. Minor Development:
Is considered to be minor landscaping works and minor filling and grading activites, (between 0.05 m and 0.3 m in depth) OR minor additions to an existing structure (including decks) that involves less than a 50% increase in size of the original ground floor area, or an accessory structure to a maximum area of 28m2.
Before Tax With HST Basic applications ( no technical studies required) $340.71 $385.00 Applications involving review of technical studies $814.16 $920.00 Fee for service over first 10 hrs. min.review time per hour $106.19 $120.00
2. Major Development:
Is considered to be the construction, reconstruction, and erection of a new building or structure, OR the construction of an addition to an existing structure that involves a 50% or greater increase in size of the original ground floor area, OR any change to an existing building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure or increase the number of dwelling units, OR site alterations involving the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of fill material resulting in significant grade changes.
Basic applications (no technical studies required) $1,353.98 $1,530.00 Applications involving review of technical studies. $2,712.39 $3,065.00 Fee for service over first 10 hrs. min. review time, per hour $106.19 $120.00
3. Interference with Wetlands, Alterations to Watercourses and Shorelines: Alteration to Watercourse includes: straightening, changing, or diverting a watercourse channel, installation or replacement of culverts and bridges, bank re-grading or stabilization. Alteration to Shoreline includes: installation or replacement/repair of retaining walls, other slope stabilization works and bank regrading. Interference with Wetlands includes: buildings and structures to be located within 120 metres of a Provincially Significant Wetland or within 30 metres of all other wetlands; vegetation removal, grading, filling, hydrological changes
Minor - works not requiring supportive technical studies such as minor repairs or adjustments to existing shoreline protection/watercourse structures, simple culvert replacements, small full-span pedestrian bridges, buildings and structures, fill placement, jack and bore and directional drill activities. $676.99 $765.00
Intermediate - works limited in scope/extent which may require supportive technical studies such as moderate-scale repairs to shoreline protection works, localized watercourse alterations and strean bank stabilization, buildings and structures fill placement $1,809.73 $2,045.00
Major - wrks requiring supportive technical studies such as channel re-alignments and natural channel design, major repairs to existing shoreline protection works or new shoreline protection works, new large-scale bridge crossings, buildings and structures, fill placement $3,615.04 $4,085.00 Fee for service over first 10 hrs. min. review time, per hour $106.19 $120.00
4. Multi-lot/Unit Development ( 10 or more lots or units) and Major Infrastructure Works:
Before Tax With HST Infrastructure works (storm water management ponds, services, roads, bridges, etc.), new golf courses and major alterations to existing golf courses. $4,513.27 $5,100.00 Fee for service over first 10 hrs. min. review time, per hour $106.19 $120.00
5. Violation Surcharge
75% surcharge will be applied when activities which require a permit under Regulations are undertaken without a permit
6. Minor Revisions to Permits $225.66 $255.00 NOTES: Permits are issued for a two (2) year period. Significant alteration or changed ownership subject to new permit application. All fees are to be made payable to the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority.
Report
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
PREPARED BY: Lisa Burnside, Human Resources Manager
DATE: November 5, 2012
RE: 2013 Mileage Rate
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
THAT HCA staff recommend to the Board of Directors:
THAT, the current mileage rate of 52 cents per kilometre be increased to 53 cents per kilometre for 2013.
BACKGROUND
As approved by the Budget & Administration Committee in June 2007 and the Board of Directors in July 2007, a yearly review of mileage is to take place with any change effective January 1. The rate of mileage compensation shall be subject to an annual adjustment based on the year-over-year change in the Consumer Price Index for Private Transportation in Ontario. An increase will take place only if the change would result in a minimum half cent increase in the rate. Staff will also monitor mileage rates from area conservation authorities to ensure our rate does not fall below the average.
STAFF COMMENT
CPI Index
The September 2012 year over year CPI for Private Transportation in Ontario stood at 1.3%. This would increase the current HCA mileage rate from 52 cents per km to 53 cents per km.
Area Conservation Authority Mileage Rates
The table below shows a summary of mileage rates from area conservation authorities:
Conservation Authority Rate - cents per km
Halton 52 Grand River 48 Credit Valley 53 Niagara 51 AVERAGE 51
Note: CITY of HAMILTON reimburses 53 cents per km
Canada Revenue Agency Canada Revenue Agency publishes a guideline for calculating what is a "reasonable allowance" that would not be deemed to be taxable income. For 2012, that guideline is 53 cents for the first 5000 km and 47 cents per km thereafter. 2012 guidelines have yet to be released.
Based on the above information, a one cent increase in the mileage rate to 53 cents per km is recommended to match the CPI Transportation Index increase and align with Halton & Credit Valley conservation authorities’ mileage rates as well as the City of Hamilton. The Grand River and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authorities are currently undertaking a review of their mileage rates.
This increase is to become effective January 1, 2013.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Using 2011 mileage reimbursement figures, the one cent increase would increase annual mileage costs by approximately $1,100.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above information, it is recommended that the 2012 mileage rate of 52 cents per kilometre be increased to 53 cents for 2013.
Report
TO: HCA Board of Directors
FROM: Steve Miazga, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
RECOMMENDED BY: Kathy Menyes, Director of Watershed Planning & Engineering
PREPARED BY: Darren Kenny, Watershed Officer
DATE: November 15, 2012
RE: Finalizing the Amendment of the Individual Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Whereas an ‘amending’ regulation to the individual Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 ‘Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation’ has been prepared in conformity with the provisions in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and the amended Ontario Regulation 97/04;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Hamilton Conservation Authority adopts the subject ‘amending’ regulation that will amend the individual Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 ‘Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation’; O. Reg 161/06
AND THAT the said ‘amending’ regulation be submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources for consideration by the Minister of Natural Resources for the Minister’s approval.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the provincial government and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) approved a number of actions that have impacted the Conservation Authorities Act and related regulations, policy and operations of conservation authorities. MNR also proposed changes to four statutes administered by MNR through Bill 68 including the Conservation Authorities Act. The amendments to the Act were specifically to add clarity and streamline the approvals process for certain land dispositions related to municipal and provincial infrastructure and utility purposes, update the limitations period for offences from six months to two years from the date on which evidence of the offence is discovered or first comes to the attention of officers, and to clarify that terms of a permit must be adhered to and not doing so would be an offence. Additionally, an amendment to the Act provides for regulation making authority to the Ministry to define any term in the Act that is currently not defined. Bill 68, the Open for Business Act, received Royal Assent on October 25, 2010 and is now in force.
Continuing with the Open for Business initiative, MNR proposed amendments to O. Reg. 97/04, the “Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under Subsection 28 (1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” under the Conservation Authorities Act. The proposed amendments were intended to simplify and streamline the permitting process that conservation authorities undertake under S. 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act through the 36 individual Conservation Authorities Act S. 28 regulations. Conservation Ontario and conservation authorities proposed, and were in favour of, the two amendments, and the proposed amendments were endorsed by Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC). The amendments will rationalize the permit process for simple or straight forward permit decisions that would meet authority approvals, would reduce the time required by conservation authority boards to deal with straight forward permit applications and streamline the process for the public and the development industry.
Conservation Ontario has expressed that the ability to delegate positive decisions to staff and the ability to extend the validity of permits past two years under specific circumstances will result in increased efficiency and improved client service while maintaining the integrity of the regulations. Ministry staff worked with Conservation Ontario and conservation authorities on the regulation amendments for the delegations and consulted on criteria to consider in extensions of the validity of permits.
A Regulation Amendment Package developed by MNR went before the Legislature and Regulation Committee on February 28, 2011 and the amendments were approved. The amendments to O. Reg 97/04 were filed with the Registrar of Regulations on March 4, 2011 through a new regulation O. Reg. 46/11, titled ‘Ontario Regulation made under the Conservation Authorities Act Amending O. Reg. 97/04’. The amended O. Reg 97/04 was posted on March 8, 2011 on eLaws, O. Reg 46/11 on eLaws (under Source Law) and on March 19 was published in the Ontario Gazette.
The Ministry is streamlining the permitting process by:
- Enabling the conservation authority to delegate its powers under the regulation including the power to make positive permit decisions to the conservation authority’s executive committee or conservation authority employees.
- Extending the maximum period of validity of a permit from 24 months to 60 months under certain criteria and conditions.
The O. Reg. 97/04 under the Conservation Authorities Act is a Lieutenant Governor in General (LGIC) approved template or ‘generic’ regulation that dictates the form and content of each individual Conservation Authorities Act S. 28 regulation. . Pursuant to Sect. 28 of the Act and O.
-2- Reg. 97/04, each conservation authority has developed individual regulations, the “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations”, (O. Reg. 42, O. Regs. 146 -182, and O. Reg. 319) all of which conformed to the previous O. Reg. 97/04 and were approved by the Minister to come into force. With the newly approved amendments to O. Reg 97/04 in place, each individual regulation under S. 28 of the Act must be subsequently amended and approved by the Minister to reflect and enact the new amendments to the O. Reg. 97/04.
The Ministry is proposing three types of amendments for consideration in this round of proposed regulatory amendments to the individual Conservation Authorities Act S. 28 regulations:
1. CA Act S. 28 regulation amendments to conform to the amended O. Reg. 97/04.
2. MNR required amendments.
3. ‘Housekeeping Amendments’ confirmed through a survey of conservation authorities by Conservation Ontario in 2010 and considered eligible by the Ministry.
At the HCA Board of Directors meeting of October 6, 2011, the members approved a resolution to submit a draft revised O. Reg. 161/06 to the MNR for review and approval. Over the past year, MNR has reviewed the revised regulations submitted by the 36 Conservation Authorities and issued a “Procedure to Finalize Amending the Individual Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations” document.
Much as was done in 2011 for the content regulation, O.Reg.161/06 will be amended by an amending regulation and it is this amending regulation that the members are being asked to approve as per the staff recommendation. This process will not change our current regulation number (O.Reg.161/06). Please refer to the attachment for the changes proposed to O. Reg. 161/06.
Once the amending regulation is endorsed by the Board, a package will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources for approval. It is anticipated that the new regulation will be enacted by early spring, 2013.
STAFF COMMENT
The amending regulation requires Board of Director’s approval so it can be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources. Tied to approval of the amending regulation are a number of policy and procedural changes/additions that the HCA will have to undertake to formally “operationalize” the new regulation. The MNR is directing the CAs to have these policies developed and board-approved by the time the new regulation is enacted.
Among these policy/procedural changes are:
-3- formal delegation of permit approvals to specific HCA staff method for allocating HCA permits to 24 or 60 month validity periods criteria for extension of permit validity periods clarification on shoreline setbacks
With the spring 2013 timeline in mind, HCA staff proposes to draft the above-noted policies and include these in a report to the Board for consideration at the January or February 2013 meeting.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Not applicable.
LEGAL/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no appreciable financial implications to the HCA to bring our regulation into compliance with recent legislative amendments. As the Conservation Authorities Act forms the basis of the CA mandate and the Section 28 regulation governs the CA regulatory process with regard to watershed development and natural hazard/heritage protection, it is imperative that our regulation be brought into conformity with recent legislative amendments.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of the above, HCA staff recommend that the HCA Board of Directors approve the staff recommendation.
-4- UPCOMING HCA EVENTS ‐ DECEMBER
‘Twas the Night Before Christmas Saturdays December 1, 8 & 15, 2012 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Westfield Heritage Village 1049 Kirkwall Road, Rockton, Ontario L0R 1X0 Enjoy Westfield by candlelight and feel the warmth of the season through music, food samples, fireworks and a visit from Father Christmas. Christmas shopping is available at the Gift Shop and the restaurant features light meals and refreshments. Runs from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Special event pricing applies. Adults: $11, Seniors/Disabled: $10, Children: $6.50. Children 5 and under are free. Parking is free. For more information, please call 1‐ 800‐883‐0104 or visit www.westfieldheritage.ca
Christmas in the Country Sunday, December 16 12:00 noon – 4:00 p.m. Westfield Heritage Village 1049 Kirkwall Road, Rockton, Ontario L0R 1X0 Enjoy an old fashioned Christmas and celebrate the season where traditions of an earlier time are brought to life with horse and wagon rides, carol singing and Father Christmas. Seasonal refreshments are available at the restaurant, candies at the Confectionery and one‐of‐a‐kind shopping at the Gift Shop. Runs from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Special event pricing applies. Adults: $11, Seniors/Disabled: $10, Children: $6.50. Children 5 and under are free. Parking is free. For more information, please call 1‐ 800‐883‐0104 or visit www.westfieldheritage.ca
Christmas Table Sunday, December 9, 2012 Westfield Heritage Village 1049 Kirkwall Road, Rockton, Ontario L0R 1X0 Experience an old fashioned Christmas show, bonfire and a four‐course historical dinner. Limited seating. Tickets go on sale on September 4, 2012. For more information, please call 1‐800‐883‐0104