Board of Directors Meeting Package June 20, 2019
ERCA BoD 1 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:00 PM Essex County Civic Centre, Council Chambers
Pages
1. Land Acknowledgement
2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
3. Approval of Agenda 2-8
THAT the Agenda for the Thursday, June 20, 2019, Meeting of the Board of Directors be approved.
4. Hearings
(a) Hearing Board
THAT the Board of Directors sit as the Hearing Board in respect of an application(s) under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.
(b) Hearing Board
THAT the Board of Directors reconvene as ERCA Board.
5. Adoption of Minutes
(a) ERCA Board of Directors 9-20
THAT the Minutes of the Thursday, April 11, 2019 Meeting of the Board of Directors and the recommendations therein be approved as distributed.
ERCA BoD 2 of 219 (b) ERCA Executive Committee 21-24
THAT the Minutes of the Friday, May 3, 2019 Meeting of the Executive Committee and the recommendations therein be approved as distributed.
(c) ERCA JRPH Advisory Board 25-33
THAT the Minutes of the February 25, 2019 and the May 13, 2019 Meetings of the JRPH Advisory Committee and the recommendations therein be approved as distributed.
(d) ERCA Finance and Audit Advisory Board
Report and recommendations from the Finance and Audit Advisory Board to be provided at Board meeting
(e) Conservation Ontario (CO) Council
THAT the Minutes of the Monday, April 1, 2019 Conservation Ontario Council meetings* be received.
* distributed via email per report BD 37/09
6. Business Arising from Previous Minutes
(a) ERO Postings and Legislative Updates 34-35
THAT the correspondence to CAOs at ERCA Member Municipalities and Members of Provincial Parliament be received for information.
7. Announcements
8. Delegations
9. Presentations
10. Reports for Approval
(a) BD 11/19 2018 Draft Audited Financial Statements, Financial Sustainability and Condition (to be provided as an Addendum following the June 17, 2019 Meeting of the Finance and Audit Advisory Board)
ERCA BoD 3 of 219 THAT Report BD 11/19, 2018 Draft Audited Financial Statements and Financial Condition Review, be received as distributed for Member’s information and further,
THAT the draft audited Financial Statements of the Essex Region Conservation Authority, for the year ended December 31, 2018, be approved and released as final audited Financial Statements.
(b) BD12/19 Legislative Update 36-84
THAT ERCA continue to work with Conservation Ontario, municipalities, and the development sector in understanding implications to the functions that ERCA provides as a result of the More Choices, More Homes Act 2019; and further,
THAT Administration provide updates to the Board as additional information on these implications are better known and as new information, or proposals for consultation are introduced.
(c) BD13/19 Meeting Provincial Priorities for Reducing Regulatory Burden – 85-88 Update
THAT ERCA continue to work with Conservation Ontario and the Conservation Ontario Timely Review and Approvals Task Force to develop Templates for CA/Municipal MOUs/Service Agreements and other tools for application by conservation authorities; and further,
THAT ERCA work with municipalities to develop local MOUs/Technical Service Agreements based on templates developed through Conservation Ontario; and further,
THAT ERCA continue consultation and development of the Place for Life Policies within the context of the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019; and further,
THAT Administration report to the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors on its actions related to these commitments.
(d) BD 14/19 Peche Island Aquatic Habitat Project 89-93
THAT administration enter into an agreement with the City of Windsor to build the Peche Island Aquatic Habitat project as described in BD 14/19.
ERCA BoD 4 of 219 (e) BD15/19 Demonstration Farm Update 94-98
THAT ERCA continue to seek out new partnerships, undertake new applied science initiatives and transfer knowledge about these projects to the farming community.
(f) BD16/19 2018 Risk Management Services Annual Progress Report 99-115
THAT Report BD16/19 be received for information
(g) BD 17/19 John R. Park Homestead Strategic Plan 116-148
THAT the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area Strategic Plan: 2019-2021, endorsed by the John R. Park Homestead Advisory Board, be approved; and further
THAT the Strategic Plan be included in ERCA’s Community Museums Operating Grant of Ontario grant application.
(h) BD 18/19 Lake Levels, Flooding, and Flood Risk Assessments 149-160
THAT Report BD18/19 be received for Members’ information; and further,
THAT Administration explore opportunities to complete Watershed- Based Flood Risk Assessments, as a first step towards updating Flood/Hazard Land Mapping, in collaboration with municipal partners.
(i) BD 19/19 Modification of Fee Schedule 161-162
THAT the current permit fee schedule be modified to clarify charges for breakwall maintenance, repair and new construction as described in Report BD19/19, and further
THAT the modified fee schedule be posted and distributed to consultants and contractors.
11. Environmental Registry Reports for Comment
ERCA BoD 5 of 219 12. Reports for Information
(a) BD 20/19 Watershed Management Services Activities Report for 163-167 April and May 2019.
THAT the review of Regulations and Planning Applications, as presented in Report BD20/19 be received for Members’ information.
(b) BD21/18 Statement of Operating Activities for the 4 months 168-175 ended April 30, 2019
THAT BD21/19, Statement of Operating Activities for the 4 months ended April 30, 2019 be received for Member’s information.
(c) Correspondence
i. Ministry of Forestry and Natural Resources, Notification of 2019-20 176 Transfer Payment Funding – Section 39Eligible Natural Hazard Management Grant April 12, 2019
ii. Ministry of Forestry and Natural Resources, Summer Employment 177 Opportunities – Youth Employment, April 12, 2019
13. Committee of the Whole
(a) Confidential Property Related Matters
14. New Business
(a) Board Resources:
i. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks: Taking Care 178-205 of Your Drinking Water: A Guide for Members of Municipal Councils
ii. Western Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom Early Season Projection: 65 206 June 2019, Projection 06
iii. J. H. Hartig, C. Sanders, R. J. H. Wyma, J. C. Boase & E. F. Roseman (2018) 207-219 Habitat rehabilitation in the Detroit River Area of Concern, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 21:4, 458-469, DOI: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437
ERCA BoD 6 of 219 15 Other Business
(a) The next meeting of the ERCA Board of Directors will be held on Thursday, September 12, 2019 starting at 6:00PM in Council Chambers, Essex County Civic Centre, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON.
16. Adjournment
Richard J.H. Wyma CSLA General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
UPCOMING EVENTS
June 22, 2019 Citizen Science Tree Survey Florence Avenue and Wyandotte St. E in Windsor
June 23, 2019 Hunt Draw: Hillman Marsh and Cedar Creek Hillman March Conservation Area
July 18, 2019 31st Annual Essex Region Conservation Golf Tournament Point West Golf Club
July 27 & 28, 2019 Explore the Shore John R. Park Homestead and Holiday Beach Conservation Area
August 11, 2019 Lost Arts Festival John R. Park Homestead
August 18, 2019 Hunt Draw: Holiday Beach Conservation Area Harrow/Colchester S. Recreation Complex, 243 McAffee, Harrow, ON
September 12, 2010 Board of Directors Meeting Essex Civic Centre
September 14, 2019 Festival of Hawks Day 1, Holiday Beach Conservation Area
September 15, 2019 Festival of Hawks Day 2, Holiday Beach Conservation Area
September 21, 2019 Festival of Hawks Day 3 Holiday Beach Conservation Area
September 22, 2019 Festival of Hawks Day 4 Holiday Beach Conservation Area
ERCA BoD 7 of 219 September 28, 2019 Essex Region Conservation Bike Tour Mettawa Park, Kingsville
October 10, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting (*At the Call of the Chair) Essex Civic Centre
October 20, 2019 Harvest & Horses John R. Park Homestead
October 25, 2010 John R. Park After Dark – Tragic Tales & Pioneer Perils John R. Park Homestead
November 7, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Essex Civic Centre
November 16, 2019 Super Santa 5K Run/Walk Amherstburg
November 23, 2019 Deck the Holidays Workshop John R. Park Homestead
December 8, 2019 Christmas in the Country John R. Park Homestead
December 10, 2019 Candelight Christmas John R. Park Homestead
December 12, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Essex Civic Centre
ERCA BoD 8 of 219
MINUTES
Minutes for the Board of Directors Meeting held Thursday, April 11, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Essex County Civic Centre, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON.
Members Marolyn Morrison Larry Patterson Kieran McKenzie Morley Bowman Tracey Bailey Ed Sleiman Present: Chris Vander Doelen Len Janisse Dayne Malloch Laura Lucier Mark Carrick John Jacobs Sue Desjarlais Larry Verbeke
Absent: None
Regrets: Irek Ksumierczyk (Chair) Tania Jobin (Vice-Chair) Joe Bachetti Chris Holt Peter Courtney
Staff: Richard Wyma, General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer Nicole Kupnicki, Corporate Services: Executive Assistant Tim Byrne, Director, Watershed Management Services Shelley McMullen, Director, Finance & Corporate Services Kevin Money, Director, Conservation Services Danielle Stuebing, Director, Community Outreach Services Claire Sanders, Climate Change Specialist
Guests: Assorted Media Patricia Morand Jennifer Poisson Joe Poisson Kendra Summerfield Chad Summerfield Chris Gosselin, KWP Design Shane Wilson Jeff Wirch
ERCA BoD 9 of 219
1. Acting Chair for April 11, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting
Due to unexpected circumstances, both the Chair and Vice-Chair will be unavailable to attend the April 11 Board Meeting. In keeping with the 2018 Administrative By-Laws: 4.16.1 Absence of Chair and Vice-Chair(s)
In the event of the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair from any meeting, the Members shall appoint an Acting Chair who, for the purposes of that meeting has all the powers and shall perform all the duties of the Chair. If the Chair does not preside at meetings of the Advisory Board or a committee then the members of those committees shall appoint a Presiding Officer from its member if the chair and vice-chair of the committee are absent from a meeting.
To that end, the Chair and Vice-Chair are recommending the following:
Resolution BD 38/19 Moved By Laura Lucier
Seconded By Tracey Bailey - CARRIED
THAT the Board appoint Len Janisse to act as Chair for the April 11, 2019 meeting of the ERCA Board of Directors
2. Call to Order Comments from Acting Chair, Len Janisse
Good evening everyone, and welcome. We have regrets tonight from:
• Chair, Irek Kusmierczyk • Vice Chair, Tania Jobin • Deputy Mayor Joe Bachetti • Councillor Chris Holt • Councillor Peter Courtney
We also have regrets from Chris Holt, who will be stepping down from our Board due to changes in professional obligations. The City of Windsor will be re-appointing a Councillor to take his place.
I would also like to welcome ERCA staff who have joined us this evening.
ERCA BoD 10 of 219 3. Land Acknowledgement
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations, comprised of the Ojibway, the Odawa, and the Potawatomie
To recognize the land is an expression of gratitude and appreciation to those whose territory you reside on, and a way of honouring the Indigenous people who have been living and working on the land from time immemorial.
We value the significant historical and contemporary contributions of local and regional First Nations and all of the Original Peoples of Turtle Island - North America.
4. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
None
5. Approval of Agenda
Resolution BD 39/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Larry Patterson - CARRIED
THAT the Agenda for the Thursday, April 11, 2019, Meeting of the Board of Directors be approved.
6. Hearings
(a) Hearing Board
Resolution BD 40/19 Moved By Larry Verbeke
Seconded By Tracey Bailey - CARRIED
THAT the Board of Directors sit as the Hearing Board in respect of an application(s) under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.
We are now going to conduct hearings under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act in respect of five applications.
ERCA BoD 11 of 219 • Chad Summerfield is requesting relief from access requirements to construct a new dwelling;
• Joe and Jennifer Poisson are requesting relief from access requirements to construct a new dwelling;
• Jeff Wirch is requesting relief from access requirements to construct a new dwelling;
• Shane Wilson is requesting relief from access requirements to construct a detached structure; and,
• Patricia Morand is requesting relief from the freeboard policy component of the regulatory floodproofing elevation to construct a detached structure.
We, as the Hearing Board, are unaware of the matters being brought forward and we are only now receiving and reviewing the information provided by staff this evening.
The Authority has adopted regulations under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act which requires the permission of the Authority for development within an area regulated by the Authority in order to ensure no adverse affect on (the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or conservation of land) or to permit alteration to a shoreline or watercourse or interference with a wetland.
The Staff has reviewed this proposed work and a copy of the staff report has been given to the applicant.
The Conservation Authorities Act (Section 28 [12]) provides that:
"Permission required under a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or 8) shall not be refused or granted subject to conditions unless the person requesting permission has been given the opportunity to require a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so directs, before the authority’s executive committee."
In holding these hearings, the Authority Board is to determine whether or not a permit is to be issued. In doing so, we can only consider the application in the form that is before us, the staff report, such evidence as may be given and the submissions to be made on behalf of each applicant.
The proceedings will be conducted according to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Under Section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act, a witness may refuse to answer any question on the ground that the answer may tend to criminate the person, or may tend to establish his/her liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.
ERCA BoD 12 of 219 The procedure in general shall be informal. However, this is a quasi-judicial process, and provides for evidence to be given in response to members’ question. Therefore, staff and applicants will be asked to swear an oath or provide an affirmation to speak the truth.
In accordance with section 28 of the Act, an applicant who has been refused permission or who objects to conditions imposed on a permission may, within 30 days of receiving the reasons, appeal in writing, to the Minister who may refuse the permission, or grant permission with or without conditions. Through Order in Council, the responsibility for hearing the appeal has been transferred to the Mining and Lands Tribunal.
If the applicant has any questions to ask of the Hearing Board or of the Authority representative, they must be directed to the Chair of the board.
Staff will first introduce the applicant, his/her owner, and others wishing to speak, and then present the staff position. The applicant and/or their agent may then speak and make any comments on the staff position if they so desire. I would also remind everyone that the Hearing Board is open to the public, and therefore we will allow others to speak and, if necessary, the applicant in rebuttal. We, as the Hearing Board, will question, if necessary, both the staff and the applicant/agent.
Before I ask Tim Byrne, Director of Watershed Management Services to introduce the applications, I would ask that he swear an oath or provide an affirmation to speak the truth.
If by Oath (Bible): do you solemnly swear that the evidence which you are about to give in these proceedings will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
If by Affirmation: Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence which you are about to give in these proceedings will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you.
Tim Byrne, Director of Watershed Management Services took an oath.
Tim Byrne introduced applications and context for the applications. In each instance, the Chair asked applicants (or agents for applicants) to swear oath or provide affirmation to speak the truth (as above).
ERCA BoD 13 of 219 i. Chad Summerfield
Resolution BD 41/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Larry Verbeke - CARRIED
THAT the application from Chad Summerfield to request relief from access (ingress and egress) policy requirements to construct a new dwelling be approved.
ii. Joe & Jennifer Poisson
Resolution BD 42/19 Moved By Ed Sleiman
Seconded By Marolyn Morrison - CARRIED
THAT the application from Joe & Jennifer Poisson to request relief from access (ingress and egress) policy requirements to construct a new dwelling be approved.
iii. Jeff Wirch
Resolution BD 43/19 Moved By Mark Carrick
Seconded By Morley Bowman - CARRIED
THAT the application from Jeff Wirch to request relief from access (ingress and egress) policy requirements to construct a new dwelling be approved. iv. Shane Wilson
Resolution BD 44/19 Moved By Larry Patterson
Seconded By John Jacobs - CARRIED
THAT the application from Shane Wilson to request relief from access (ingress and egress) policy requirements to construct a detached structure be approved.
ERCA BoD 14 of 219 v. Patricia Morand
Resolution BD 45/19 Moved By Tracey Bailey
Seconded By Kieran McKenzie - CARRIED
THAT the application from Patricia Morand to request relief from the freeboard policy component of the regulatory floodproofing elevation to construct a detached structure be approved.
(b) Delegation of Authority
Resolution BD 46/19 Moved By Larry Verbeke
Seconded By John Jacobs - CARRIED
THAT, if there is a requirement that the Hearing Board meet during extended periods between regularly scheduled Board of Directors meetings, the Board of Directors delegate the authority to act as Hearing Board to the Executive Committee as provided for in the Conservation Authorities Act.
(c) Hearing Board
Resolution BD 47/19 Moved By Marolyn Morrison
Seconded By Morley Bowman - CARRIED
THAT the Board of Directors reconvene as ERCA Board of Directors.
7. Adoption of Minutes
(a) ERCA Board of Directors
Resolution BD 48/19 Moved By Ed Sleiman
Seconded By John Jacobs - CARRIED
THAT the Minutes of the Thursday, February 21, 2019 Meeting of the Board of Directors and the recommendations therein be approved as distributed.
ERCA BoD 15 of 219 8. Announcements
As with each spring season, there is a great deal of activity happening to sustain our region as the Place for Life.
Development and planning activities continues to be brisk with numbers of permit applications exceeding last year.
Staff are engaged with all municipalities regionally, participating in and leading Hazard Planning and Coastal Protection studies. Lake levels continue to elevated and staff are actively monitoring the ongoing threat of flooding and erosion.
Invasive shrub species removal in Spring Garden will be ending this week with wetland invasive species control beginning in June.
Staff are preparing to plant and distribute over 60,000 trees this spring, including over 2,200 trees at Earth Day Tree Planting Celebrations on April 28. Hoping you can all come to celebrate Earth Day.
On March 27, the John R. Park Homestead was recognized as the Best Museum or Heritage site at Tourism Windsor-Essex-Pelee Island’s ‘Best of Windsor-Essex’ Awards.
We were excited to learn that the cottage at Holiday Beach achieved Premium Partner status from CanadaStays due to consistent 5 star ratings, demonstrating excellence in quality and customer service.
Also at Holiday Beach, the new boardwalk will be completed this week in time for the Park’s spring opening on April 13.
All of our Conservation Areas are open and ready for visitation. Trilliums will be blooming within a few weeks at Kopegaron Woods, and the Shorebird Celebration at Hillman Marsh kicks off on May 1.
We also wanted to be sure to invite all of you to join us at the Essex Region Conservation Foundation’s Fundraising Golf Tournament on July 18. Later tonight, we’ll hear more about all the Foundation has done to support environmental projects this past year, and I would encourage everyone to attend this wonderful event.
9. Delegations
None
ERCA BoD 16 of 219 10. Presentations
None
11. Reports for Approval
(a) BD 07/19 Meeting Provincial Priorities for Reducing Regulatory Burden
Resolution BD 49/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Kieran McKenzie - CARRIED
WHEREAS the provincial government intends to increase the supply of housing and streamline the land use planning and development approval process to achieve this goal; and
WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities play an important role in the planning and development review process with respect to watershed protection and hazard lands; and
WHEREAS Conservation Authorities support and can help deliver the Government’s objective not to jeopardize public health and safety or the environment;
THEREFORE THE Board of Directors endorse the three key solutions developed by the Conservation Ontario working group: to improve client service and accountability; increase speed of approvals; and reduce ‘red tape’ and regulatory burden; and further,
THAT Administration be directed to continue to work with Conservation Ontario and our clients to identify additional improvements; and further,
THAT Administration be directed to implement these solutions as soon as possible; and further,
THAT Administration share this report and resolution to local Municipal Councils and Members of Provincial Parliament.
ERCA BoD 17 of 219 (b) BD 08/19 Establishing a Climate Collaborative for Essex Region
Resolution BD 50/19 Moved By Laura Lucier
Seconded By Ed Sleiman - CARRIED
THAT report BD 08/19 and the Establishing a Climate Collaborative for Essex Region: Post-Workshop Summary report be received for information; and further,
THAT ERCA continue working towards establishing a climate collaborative for the region.
(c) BD 09/19 Greenway Etiquette
Resolution BD 51/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Marolyn Morrison - CARRIED
That administration continue to work with greenway users to create awareness about trail etiquette and respect for each other.
12. Environmental Registry Reports for Comment
None
13. Reports for Information
(a) BD 10/19 Watershed Management Services Activities Report for February and March 2019.
Resolution BD 52/19 Moved By Mark Carrick
Seconded By Ed Sleiman - CARRIED
THAT the review of Regulations and Planning Applications, as presented in Report BD 10/19 be received for Members’ information.
ERCA BoD 18 of 219 (b) Correspondence Response from the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada Resolution BD 53/19 Moved By Larry Verbeke
Seconded By John Jacobs - CARRIED
THAT the correspondence be received for Members’ information.
14. New Business
(a) Essex Region Conservation Foundation
15 Other Business
(a) The next meeting of the ERCA Board of Directors will be held on Thursday, June 20, 2019 starting at 6:00PM in Council Chambers, Essex County Civic Centre, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON.
16. Adjournment
Resolution BD 45/19 Moved By Larry Patterson
Seconded By Mark Carrick - CARRIED
THAT the meeting be adjourned.
Irek Kusmierczyk Richard J.H. Wyma CSLA Chair General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
UPCOMING EVENTS
April 28, 2019 Earth Day Community Tree Planting, Ganatchio Trail Windsor
May 1-20, 2019 Shorebird Celebration, Hillman Marsh Conservation Area
May 4, 2019 Rotary Legacy Forest Planting, Iler Road and Dolson Road
May 5, 2019 Friends of the Homestead Yard Sale, J.R. Park Homestead
ERCA BoD 19 of 219 May 7, 2019 Garlic Mustard Pull at Camp Cedarwin, Camp Cedarwin Sawmill Entrance
May 11, 2019 Forests Ontario’s 2019 Community Tree Plant, Cherry Blossom Drive, Windsor
May 13, 2019 The Nature of Music, Hillman Marsh Conservation Area
May 14, 2019 Garlic Mustard Pull, J.R. Park Homestead
June 9, 2019 Reid Funeral Home Celebration of Life, Hillman Marsh Conservation Area
June 15, 2019 South Coast Adventure Race Championship, Various sites
June 20, 2019 Board Meeting, 6:00PM Essex County Civic Centre, Council Chambers
June 22, 2019 Citizen Science Tree Survey, Florence Avenue and Wyandotte St. E in Windsor
July 18, 2019 31st Annual Essex Region Conservation Golf Tournament, Point West Golf Club
August 11, 2019 Lost Arts Festival, J.R. Park Homestead
ERCA BoD 20 of 219
MINUTES
Minutes for the Executive Committee, ERCA Board held Friday, May 3, 2019, at 1:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, Essex County Civic Centre, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON.
Members Present: Irek Ksumierczyk (Chair) Tania Jobin (Vice-Chair) John Jacobs Len Janisse Joe Bachetti
Absent: None
Regrets: None
Staff: Richard Wyma, General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer Nicole Kupnicki, Corporate Services: Executive Assistant Kevin Money, Director, Conservation Services
Guests: None
1. Land Acknowledgement
2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
None
3. Approval of Agenda
Resolution EC 01/19 Moved By Len Janisse
Seconded By John Jacobs - CARRIED
THAT the Agenda for the Friday, May 3, 2019, meeting of the Executive Committee be approved.
4. Hearings
None
ERCA BoD 21 of 219 5. Tenders
Overview of ERCA’s Procurement Policy
(a) Vehicle Purchase: 1500 Series Pick Up Truck
Resolution EC 02/19 Moved By Joe Bachetti
Seconded By Tania Jobin - CARRIED
THAT Administration enter into an agreement to purchase a 1500 Series Pick Up Truck.
(b) Vehicle Purchase: 3500 Series Chassis Truck
No bids were received. Administration was directed to re-submit a Tender later in the year when 2020 vehicle orders are being received.
(c) Construction Tender: Holiday Beach Road Resurfacing
Resolution EC 03/19 Moved By Len Janisse
Seconded By Tania Jobin - CARRIED
THAT Administration receive the sole bid for the Holiday Beach Road Resurfacing, and open pending approval of sole bid process from bidder.
(d) Group Purchasing
Open discussion regarding purchasing practices across various municipalities and Essex
County. Executive Committee members to explore the potential for entering into group purchasing agreements. ERCA Administration to speak with County of Essex to determine if there are existing group purchasing programs that ERCA could participate in, or if there is interest or benefit in exploring group purchasing options with the County, municipalities, and regional agencies.
6. Reports for Approval
(a) EC 01/19 Environmental Registry Posting 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations
Resolution EC 04/19 Moved By John Jacobs
Seconded By Tania Jobin - CARRIED
ERCA BoD 22 of 219 THAT Report Number EC01/19 Environmental Registry Posting 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations be received as information; and further,
THAT Essex Region Conservation Authority Executive Committee Report EC01/19 be submitted to the Province through the Environmental Registry.
(b) EC 02/19 Proposed Amendment to Conservation Authorities Regulations for Development Permits (ERO Posting #013-4992)
Resolution EC 05/19 Moved By Len Janisse
Seconded By Tania Jobin - CARRIED
THAT Report Number EC02/19 Proposed Amendment to Conservation Authorities Regulations for Development Permits (ERO Posting #013-4992) be received as information, and further,
THAT ERCA Report EC02/19 be submitted to the Province through the Environmental Registry.
7. New Business
(a) Open Discussion on recent announcements related to ERCA Programs and services. (see attached Conservation Ontario Blog Post: What do Conservation Authorities Want from the Province? An Effective Partnership that Prevents Flooding Impacts).
Administration will share reports/ERO postings with municipalities and MPPs and arrange meetings with MPPs and members of the Executive to review ERCA’s position on proposals, and actions/activities of Conservation Authorities and Conservation Ontario to further streamline processes while ensuring public safety and environmental values are protected, and potential impacts to municipalities, delivery of local programs and services, and municipal levy supports for provincial programs (e.g. Clean Water Act, Flood Program)
(b) A discussion was held with respect to the role of ERCA’s Administration and Board Members in responding to public announcements regarding recent cuts to Provincial funding that impact programs delivered by ERCA.
It was determined that part of ERCA’s mission as an evidence-based organization is to educate and inform. Comments regarding funding cuts may be interpreted as political if they are in any way critical in nature. However, refraining from commenting to a request from the media could be seen as abdicating our role.
ERCA BoD 23 of 219 Administration will review and update its Media Policy for information at the next board meeting.
8. Other Business
(a) Farm Foodcare Ontario: Breakfast on the Farm, sponsored by Jobin Farms will be held on Saturday, June 22, 2019. 2500 people are invited for breakfast at the farm as Farm & Food Care Ontario brings farmers, agricultural professionals, related businesses, government organizations and other groups together with a mandate to provide credible information on food and farming in Ontario. Tickets are free but advanced registration is required: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/ontarios- breakfast-on-the-farm-june-22-2019-tickets-59711744435.
9. Adjournment
Resolution EC 06/19 Moved By Len Janisse
Seconded By John Jacobs - CARRIED
Richard J.H. Wyma CSLA General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
ERCA BoD 24 of 219 Essex Region Conservation Authority
Minutes of the John R. Park Homestead Advisory Board meeting held February 25, 2019 at the Essex Civic Centre.
Present: S. Poth, Member L. Baker, Chair R. Rogers, Member L. Bauer, Member D. Waffle, Member P. Courtney, Board Member K. Ives, Staff S. Desjarlais, Vice Chair D. Stuebing, Staff L. Lucier, Board Member
R. Ossington, Member R. Rogers, Member
Regrets: K. Schmidt, Member
Chair L. Baker called the meeting to order at 9:31am and welcomed everyone in attendance. Baker also welcomed the new ERCA Board Representatives, P. Courtney and L. Lucier. Roundtable introductions.
Minutes – Moved by R. Rogers, seconded by S. Poth that the minutes of the meeting of November 19, 2018 be approved. Carried.
Business Arriving from the Minutes – None Correspondence – None
Old Business – 1. JRPHAB Terms of Office – a. Update on Board Structure Review – D. Stuebing reported that a new Terms of Reference for the JRPH Advisory Board was distributed and discussed at the last meeting. Members of the JRPH Advisory Board noted some oversights and some areas for language clarification. These suggested changes were brought to the ERCA Board of Directors, at their December meeting, for a vote. The suggested edits to the language in the Terms of Reference (specifically clarifying Advisory Board membership) was approved by the Board. b. Review term status and receive Nomination Report- The Chair, L. Baker, provided a Nomination Report, and advised of the Advisory Board’s elections process. 2. Annual election for positions of Chair and Vice Chair – The Chair was turned over to staff person, K. Ives, for the conducting of elections for the positions of Chair and Vice Chair. Nominations for the position of Chair: L. Baker, nominated by S. Poth, seconded by R. Ossington Nominations for the position of Vice Chair: S. Desjarlais, nominated by S. Poth, seconded by R. Rogers. Motion: R. Rogers moved that nominations be closed. Seconded by: L. Lucier. Carried L. Baker is acclaimed to the position of Chair. S. Desjarlais is acclaimed to the position of Vice Chair. K. Ives congratulates the Chair and Vice Chair, and turns the Chair over to L. Baker. Motion: S. Desjarlais moves that R. Ossington be appointed to the Advisory Board as a Member from the community. Seconded by R. Rogers. Carried. Advisory Board Members discussed terms of office. D. Stuebing advised that the current two year, alternating terms aligns well with ERCA’s Board Membership process. Motion: R. Rogers moves that the Terms of Office for the John R. Park Homestead Advisory Board remain at two years. Seconded by D. Waffle. Carried.
ERCA BoD 25 of 219 3. ERCA’s Annual General Meeting – View Annual Report materials at https://essexregionconservation.ca/agm D. Stuebing provided an overview of ERCA’s Annual General Meeting, and provided highlights from the Annual Report. Stuebing thanked the Advisory Board Members for their continued support.
New Business – 1. Update on Museum Activities – K. Ives (attached) – K. Ives provided an overview of the highlights in the Update on Museum Activities, with special emphasis on attendance trends, special projects, and the Museum’s 2019 Annual Report of Activities. Members discussed barriers to participation in outdoor education opportunities, including the increasing cost of transportation/bussing. D. Stuebing advised that there is a stipend available through the ERC Foundation, and noted that the public Board and the Ministry of Education has a current focus on experiential education. Our Conservation Areas are seeing increased education visits in 2019 as a result of this focus and corresponding financial support/grant programs. Motion: That the Curator’s report be approved. Moved by: R. Rogers, Seconded by: L. Bauer. Carried.
2. ERCA’s 2019 Operating Budget – D. Stuebing thanked the members of the ERCA Board who approved the budget at their last meeting. Stuebing also reported that funding for upgraded highway signage is included. Stuebing added that a major capital project for 2019 will be the Shoreline Erosion Study; D. Krutsch of Landmark Engineering has been hired to undertake this work. R. Rogers asked if it would be possible to add a launch point for personal watercraft along the shore with the redevelopment of the break wall. Stuebing noted that opportunities will be discussed with the Engineering Firm, and that ideas such as this are a part of the current Site Management Plan that the Curator/Education Coordinator and the Director of Conservation Areas are in the process of developing. Action: D. Stuebing offered to share the link to a phragmites video to the Advisory Board Members. Stuebing added that the Essex Region Conservation Foundation will focus JRPH fundraising efforts on the development of an enhanced STEAM education program for the sawmill. Stuebing reported that the Windsor Symphony Orchestra has a summer concert planned for JRPH – details to follow. 3. Community Museum Operating Grant – K. Ives reported that the status of the grant is still unknown. Grant applications are normally open by this time on the provincial website, but are not yet accessible at this time. An update from our Regional Advisor, with 2019/2020 application requirements is expected soonest. Ives noted that all Standards are up-to-date, and a Strategic Plan was submitted last year to meet the requirements. Ives added that a special Advisory Board (AB) meeting (Monday, June 17th) may be required if new materials are required for the CMOG, which require AB approvals are necessary prior to submitting materials to the ERCA Board’s June 20th meeting. The CMOG application deadline is June 30th, 2019. 4. Report on Winter Closing – K. Ives reported that the winter closing was positive with the ability to maintain plumbing function through the winter months on-site, and no acts of vandalism. Ives also commented on the development of a new pilot Indigenous Education Program, in conjunction with the WECDSB, over the winter months for delivery February - March 2019. 5. Volunteer Opportunities – K. Ives reviewed the following volunteer opportunities: a. March public events: i. Maple Festival – March 2/3, 11am to 4pm
ii. Maple March Break – March 12th and 15th, 1:30pm sharp
iii. Maple Moon Evening Program – March 12th, 7:00pm (pre-registration required) b. Maple Fund Raising Dinner – Saturday, March 30th at Oxley Estate Winery th c. Collecting sale items for Friends yard sale – Set up Saturday, May 4 , Sale date - Sunday, May 5th
ERCA BoD 26 of 219 6. Capital Projects K Ives reported that the following capital projects have been identified for 2019: Shoreline Survey, Shutters for south side of historic house (with generous funding from The Hibiscus Foundation), house wooden eaves trough, and Horse Barn and house foundation repairs.
7. 2019 Advisory Board Meeting Dates
Monday, February 25th – 9:30am, Essex Civic Centre, Committee Room A Monday, May 13th – 9:30am, John R. Park Homestead CA; proposed new member site orientation Monday, June 17th – 9:30am (tentative – only if needed for CMOG approvals) Monday, September 16th – 9:30am (location TBA) Monday, November 18th – 9:30am, John R. Park Homestead CA Motion: That the Advisory Board adopt the slate of 2019 meeting dates. Moved by: S. Desjarlais, Seconded by: D. Waffle. Carried. Discussion – The Advisory Board visits another local heritage institution at its September meeting of the year; For 2019, The John Freeman Walls Historic Site was suggested. Action: K. Ives will reach out to Dr. Bryan Walls to see if arrangements can be made to visit the site for the Advisory Board’s September meeting.
Other Business - None
Adjournment – Moved by: L. Bauer, Seconded by: S. Desjarlais. Carried. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:20am.
ERCA BoD 27 of 219
MINUTES
Minutes for the John R. Park Homestead Advisory Board, ERCA Board held Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area, Visitor Center,
Members Present: Lynn Baker, Chair Rita Ossington Lisa Bauer, President JRPH Friends Laura Lucier, ERCA Board Member Susan Poth Sue Desjarlais, ERCA Board Member Ron Rogers Don Waffle
Absent:
Regrets: Ken Schmidt Peter Courtney, ERCA Board Member
Staff: Danielle Stuebing, Director, Communications & Outreach Services Kris Ives, Curator/Education Coordinator
Guests: None
1. Land Acknowledgement
2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
None
3. Approval of Agenda
Resolution JRPHAB 01/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Rita Ossington - CARRIED
THAT the Agenda for the Monday, May 13, 2019, Meeting of the JRPH Advisory Board be approved.
4. Business Arising from the Minutes
None
ERCA BoD 28 of 219 5. Old Business
(a) Report JRPHAB 01/19 Capital Projects Update
Resolution JRPHAB 02/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Lisa Bauer - CARRIED
THAT the JRPH Advisory Board receive an update on Capital Projects for information.
6. New Business
(a) Report JRPHAB 02/19 JRPH Advisory Board Process
Resolution JRPH 03/19 Moved By Susan Poth
Seconded By Ron Rogers - CARRIED
THAT the JRPH Advisory Board refer all recommendations of the JRPH Advisory Board to the Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors for approval.
(b) Report JRPHAB 03/19 Update on Museum Activities
Resolution JRPHAB 04/19 Moved By Rita Ossington
Seconded By Sue Desjarlais - CARRIED
THAT the Curator’s Report be received and recommended to the ERCA Board for approval.
7. Reports for information
(a) Report JRPHAB 04/19 Community Museum Operating Grant
Ontario Museums Association reported that the funds for the 2019-2020 CMOG are planned to remain stable this year. Applications to the grant are due June 30th, 2019. Staff are working to complete the required components. The submission will be circulated for comment to the Advisory Board when complete.
ERCA BoD 29 of 219 Resolution JRPHAB 05/19 Moved By Susan Poth
Seconded By Ron Rogers - CARRIED
THAT the Report JRPHAB 04/19 be received for information.
(b) Report JRPHAB 05/19 Staffing Report
Kris Ives updated the Advisory Board regarding the staffing compliment at JRPH.
Jessica Rose, Environmental Educator, is on a maternity leave. Samantha Keller is covering the Environmental Educator position for the duration of the planned 18 month leave. Duncan Wright has been hired on contract as the Interpreter to backfill Ms. Keller while she is in her interim role.
Resolution JRPHAB 06/19 Moved By Rita Ossington
Seconded By Sue Desjarlais - CARRIED
THAT the Staffing Report JRPHAB 05/19 be received for information.
(c) Report JRPHAB 06/19 Volunteer Opportunities
Tourism season has started and the Homestead is open May to October, Sunday through Thursday, 11am – 4pm.
Volunteers are needed to assist with guest reception and gift shop duties on Sundays from Noon – 3pm. Those interested may contact Kris Ives.
Summer events at the Homestead, in need of volunteers in all areas and include:
Explore the Shore on July 27 & 28, and The Lost Arts Festival on August 11th. Volunteers are needed for ERCA’s South Coast Adventure Race on Saturday, June 15th. Please contact Danielle Stuebing directly.
Resolution JRPHAB 07/19 Moved By Lisa Bauer
Seconded By Don Waffle - CARRIED
THAT the Report JRPHAB 06/19 be received for information.
ERCA BoD 30 of 219 (d) Correspondence None
8. Other Business
(a) JRPH Road Signs
A discussion was held regarding the JRPH CA road signs along County Road 20. Danielle Stuebing explained the process for replacement to the Advisory board.
Resolution JRPHAB 08/19 Moved By Sue Desjarlais
Seconded By Ron Rogers - CARRIED
THAT the a recommendation be made to the ERCA Board that approved signs be created and provided to the County of Essex for installation as soon as possible
(b) 2019 Advisory Board Meeting Dates
Monday, June 17, 9:30am – JRPH (Tentative – only if required for further CMOG recommendations)
Monday, September 16th, 10am – Tour: John Freeman Walls Historic Site, Puce, followed by business meeting and lunch
Monday, November 19, 2019, 9:30am - JRPH
9. Adjournment
Resolution JRPHAB 09/19 Moved By Laura Lucier
Seconded By Rita Ossignton - CARRIED
THAT the recommendations of the JRPH Advisory Board from the meeting held May 13, 2019 be forwarded to the Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors for approval; and
THAT the meeting be adjourned.
Kristin Ives, HBA, Cert. MMC Curator / Education Coordinator
ERCA BoD 31 of 219 Update on Museum Activities to May 13, 2019
Homestead Attendance Adult Child Events Casual Rentals, Total Offsite Groups Groups Visitors other JRPH #people #programs #people #programs attendance 2019 56 3 2201 71 3200 517 207 5981 3680
Museum Activities
The Homestead’s maple suite of programs and activities were record-breaking this year, with over 5000 people attending in the 30 day maple season. The Festival was expanded to two days and enhanced activities were added; each day welcomed over 1,000 visitors! Pure maple product sales were strong in the Homestead gift shop. Thank you to the Homestead volunteers, staff and partners who made the maple season so successful. The Homestead won TWEPI’s ‘Best of Windsor Essex’ award for ‘Best Museum or Heritage Space’ on March 28th. This is the second consecutive year that the Homestead has received this award. Oxley Estate Winery hosted another successful Maple Dinner in March, with a generous donation of $1100 to the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area. Thank you to the Wilsons and Oxley Estate Winery for their continued, generous support. French language education programs are increasingly requested in all areas of programming each year. The Homestead’s core education staff, K. Ives and S. Keller are continuing French language studies to increase our capacity in this area of increasing demand. We also have a new, fully bilingual, contract staff in our education team – Sarah Parsons. The Canada Summer Jobs grant application for the seasonal positions of: Heritage Interpretive Assistant and Heritage Events Assistant was successful. We have received funds to support the hiring of 3 student positions, at reduced weeks, for the 2019 season. The Ploughboy publication, by past Curator, Dr. John Carter, has been published – a book launch and signing event is planned for late June. The Friends of the Homestead have a suite of workshops planned for 2019. (Please see attached program for details). The Friends of the Homestead hosted their annual fundraising yard sale at the Homestead on Sunday, May 5th. Over $1200 was raised by the Friends. The Friends support the Homestead with matching funds for grant applications, with special project assistance, and more. The museum kicked off the tourism season on Sunday, May 5th. Open hours will be extended to Sunday through Thursday, 11am to 4pm. Group bookings or rentals are available anytime by advance appointment. Staff have been busy working to complete the Community Museums Operating Grant Application. Applications are due June 28th, 2019. Results of the application are anticipated to be received in November. Staff submitted nominations for the Provincial Volunteer Service Awards in January. There has been no word on the status of the Awards program to-date. Minor vandalism incident on May 5th – 4 window on north side of calf barn were broken, and have since been repaired. Staff continue work on the development of a Management Plan for the site.
ERCA BoD 32 of 219 Capital Projects Update
Continued high water levels and extreme wave action have pushed gabion stone along the shoreline up onto the lawn. Overtopping wave action has started to erode areas of lawn. An engineering firm has been hired, and work to reinforce the shoreline structure is planned for 2019. Shutters for the south side of the house are under construction. Staff are having difficulty obtaining the correct hardware for installation, which has delayed installation. Summer 2019 installation is planned. Restoration of the horse barn foundation is planned for completion in 2019. Cold, wet weather has delayed the work to date.
Respectfully Submitted, Kristin Ives Curator /Education Coordinator
ERCA BoD 33 of 219 [email protected] P.519.776.5209 F.519.776.8688 360 Fairview Avenue West Suite 311, Essex, ON N8M 1Y6
Amherstburg / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalleERCA BoD / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor 34 of 219 Thank you,
Richard J.H. Wyma csla General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, Essex Region Conservation Authority
Attch
Amherstburg / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalleERCA BoD / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor 35 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD12/19
From: Richard Wyma, General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
Date: June 11, 2019
Subject: Legislative Update
Strategic Action: 11.2 Complete ERCA’s Planning and Development Guidelines (i.e. Place for Life Policies) and work with partners to ensure implementation success 12.1 Improve efficiency for clients while ensuring that all development is undertaken in a sustainable manner 12.2 Advocate for adaptations to regulatory frameworks 12.3 Enhance communication of ERCA’s Watershed Management Services roles and responsibilities. Improve customer communication to help clarify expectations, timelines and processes 14.1 Expand our Customer Service initiative. Undertake a collaborative approach to develop and publicize new service standards.
Recommendation: THAT ERCA continue to work with Conservation Ontario, municipalities, and the development sector in understanding implications to the functions that ERCA provides as a result of the More Choices, More Homes Act 2019; and further,
THAT Administration provide updates to the Board as additional information on these implications are better known and as new information, or proposals for consultation are introduced.
Summary
Since the April Board of Directors meeting, ERCA has reviewed and provided comment on multiple proposals under the Environmental Registry of Ontario that proposed changes. These proposals were further reflects in the More Choices, More Homes Act 2019 which affects various Acts and processes that ERCA has a role in delivering including the Conservation Authorities Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act, and others.
The More Choices, More Homes Act 2019 will have significant implications for how the Essex Region Conservation Authority delivers and funds its programs and services on a watershed basis; what financial supports are available from the province to administer and deliver core-mandated programs and services; and how ERCA interacts with municipalities and development sector on planning and development.
ERCA BoD 36 of 219 The pace and magnitude of change has not allowed for a full exploration of those interactions and at this time, the nature and extent of the impacts to ERCA is currently unknown.
ERCA will continue to work with Conservation Ontario, municipalities, and the development sector in understanding implications to the functions that ERCA provides as a result of the More Choices, More Homes Act 2019; and continue to provide updates to the Board as additional information on these implications are better known and as new information, or proposals for consultation are introduced.
Discussion
Environmental Registry of Ontario
At the April Board of Directors meeting, ERCA General Manager provided a verbal summary of two proposals that had been submitted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) regarding Conservation Authority Operations, and Conservation Authority Development Permits.
Since that time, Administration did complete its review of both ERO Submissions (see attached) which were also discussed at an ERCA Executive Committee Meeting. In summary:
ERO 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations – ERCA raised concerns regarding the fragmentation of the core watershed principle that Conservation Authorities are based on (i.e. (1) Watershed-based, (2) locally lead, (3) Provincial Partnerships). Further, ERCA noted that the proposed changes to not consider CA roles in water management (Great Lakes, wetlands, water quality, Areas of Concern, Lake Erie Action Plan, watershed/natural resource management) as core, which would lead to inconsistent and inefficient program delivery rather than the intended efficiencies.
ERO 013-4992: Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the Protection of People and Property. ERCA supports the definition of key changes proposed, including definitions of terminologies, and further recommends that technical guidelines be developed to provide further clarity and consistency in application of amendments. Further, in light of provincial flooding and high water levels, CAs propose that flood standards be reviewed and updated to meet current and future realities.
ERCA Administration also provided comment on the 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed Changes which was posted on April 18, 2019.
ERO 013-5033: 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes. ERCA supports recommendations to modernize the effectiveness of the ESA and opportunities to undertake landscape and ecosystem-based approaches
ERCA BoD 37 of 219 to Species at Risk recovery where doing so would result in better outcomes for the natural heritage system. ERCA has raised concerns regarding monitoring species at risk, consideration of broader populations in determining risk to the species, the relaxing of the precautionary principle of the Act and the commitment to provide stringent protections for species at risk, and the establishment of a Species at Risk Conservation Fund to enable development in SAR habitats while supporting efforts to recover SAR in Ontario especially regarding impacts and benefits to local species.
On April 25th, the MECP posted two notices regarding environmental assessments in Ontario: A discussion paper on a ‘modern vision’ for Ontario’s environmental assessment process (ERO 013-5101) and a notice of proposed changes to the Environmental Assessment Act (ERO 013-5102). These changes are proposed to streamline infrastructure approvals. This includes adding several new sections related to class EAs, including exemptions for specific categories of ‘low risk’ provincial or municipal undertakings, and providing the Minister with authority to amend class EAs and issue orders to comply. Conservation Ontario has prepared comment (attached) related to these proposed changes and the associated changes put forward in Bill 108.
Bill 108/More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019
On May 2, 2019, the Province released Bill 108: An Act to amend various statutes with respect to housing, other development and various other matters. This Bill proposed sweeping changes to the land use planning regime in Ontario by repealing many of the amendments introduced in Bill 139 (the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017) and adding new modifications to 13 different statutes, including the Conservation Authorities Act.
Schedule 2 of the Bill includes proposed changes identified in the earlier ERO Submissions regarding Conservation Authorities as described above. The Bill and Schedule 2 was released within the consultation period for the ERO submissions, and as such, did not include any additional ERO consultation time. ERCA’s comments on the ERO were amended to include additional comments related to proposed legislative changes associated with Bill 108.
Changes proposed in the ERO submissions, and Schedule 2 of Bill 108 were included in the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 which received Royal Assent on June 6, 2019. Conservation Ontario did have opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy regarding Bill 108 (May 31, 2019). Like ERCA, Conservation Ontario asked for the inclusion of “conserving natural resources” (a role identified in the Made-In- Ontario Environment Act to describe conservation authority roles related to watershed planning/management) as a mandatory program that would recognize the important role that conservation authorities play in protecting the function and resilience of natural resources at the watershed level.
ERCA BoD 38 of 219 Though the final Bill did not include Natural Resource Management as a core-mandatory program, it did include a new category of mandatory programs and services that the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) could prescribe within one year of the other mandatory programs and services being enacted. This new category within the legislation contains no limitation regarding what the programs and services could be. This provision allows the Government to add additional programs and services that CAs could levy municipalities to provide.
Mandatory programs and services
21.1 (1) An authority shall provide the following programs or services within its area of jurisdiction: 1. A program or service that meets any of the following descriptions and that has been prescribed by the regulations:
i. Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards.
ii. Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority, including any interests in land registered on title.
iii. Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. iv. Programs and services related to the authority’s duties, functions and responsibilities under an Act prescribed by the regulations.
(2) A program or service, other than a program or service described in paragraph 1, that has been prescribed by the regulations on or before the first anniversary of the day prescribed under clause 40 (3) (h).
In addition, Bill 108 enacts or provides for regulations to be developed to implement other proposals contained in ERO submission including:
▪ duty of members to act in good faith with a view to furthering the objects of the authority, ▪ development of standards and services to be provided under 21.1 (1) ▪ development of memorandum of understanding/agreements with municipality(s) regarding programs and services delivered in municipality(s) and development of transition plans with municipalities ▪ appointment of investigator by the Province regarding authority finances, programs and services, audit, etc. and obligation of conservation authority to pay all or part of the cost ▪ ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and/or Minister to make regulation governing composition and qualifications of conservation authorities, programs and services, fees and fee schedules, apportionment of levy, prohibitions set out in
ERCA BoD 39 of 219 section 28 and definitions of ‘hazardous lands’, ‘development activity’, ‘wetlands’, ‘watercourse’, ‘pollution’, and other items described in Schedule 2.
Planning Act
Among other statues scheduled to be amended, the Bill also introduced changes to the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Assessment Act to reflect changes proposed in the associated ERO submissions described above. In addition, the Bill introduces changes to the Planning Act, which may also have implications to conservation authorities related to:
Streamlining development approvals processes by reducing decision timelines for official plans and amendments, zoning by-laws and amendments and for plans of subdivision. This will require changes to municipal, conservation authority and development sector internal processes, practices and operations to realize improvements. Meeting revised timelines will also require a multi-faceted approach with all parties involved in development review, which is not reflected in the Bill
Greater ‘investment’ in the pre-consultation process leads to more certainty, opportunities for innovation and timely planning approvals. ERCA encourages implementation of BMPs to facilitate pre-consultation, including efforts to integrate pre-consultation processes, prescreening of technical studies and enhanced communication between parties.
Improving quality of submissions which reflect agency requirements will result in shorter review times, more timely approvals, and cost reductions. This can also be achieved through improved pre-consultation, and municipal adoption and updating of technical checklists within Official Plans to reflect CA and other agency guidelines
Need for clearer provincial, municipal and agency policies and guidelines, technical guidelines, screening tools, etc.
These considerations are put forward in Conservation Ontario’s comments on Schedule 12 of Bill 108 (attached) and proposed amendments to the Planning Act (ERO# 019- 0016)
Next Steps
As described in this report, the pace and magnitude of changes to multiple pieces of legislation and regulation, has not provided opportunity to fully explore how the Act will impact development processes, or provided opportunity to identify and resolve some of the unintended consequences of change may be. These challenges may be further aggravated by the requirement to draft and subsequently consult on new or amended regulations that are required to implement the Act with similar urgency and pressures.
ERCA BoD 40 of 219 As a result, the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019 will have significant implications for how the Essex Region Conservation Authority delivers and funds its programs and services on a watershed basis; what financial supports are available from the province to administer and deliver core-mandated programs and services; and how ERCA interacts with municipalities and development sector on planning and development (e.g. as a result of changes to the Planning Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Endangered Species Act, response timelines, roles and responsibilities, etc.). At this time, the nature and extent of the impacts to ERCA are currently unknown.
ERCA will continue to work with Conservation Ontario, municipalities, and the development sector in understanding implications to the functions that ERCA provides, and continue to provide updates to the Board as additional information on these implications are better known and as new information, or proposals are introduced.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
Executive Committee Report ED01/19 - ERO Posting #013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations and Schedule 2 of Bill 108
Executive Committee Report ED02/19 - ERO Posting #013-4992: Proposed Amendment to Conservation Authorities Regulations for Development Permits
ERO Posting #013-5033: 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes
ERO Posting #019-0016 - Conservation Ontario’s Comments on “Bill 108 – (Schedule 12) – the proposed More Homes, More Choice Act: Amendments to the Planning Act”
ERO Posting # 013-5101 and ERO Posting # 013-5102 Conservation Ontario’s comments on: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program – Environmental Assessment Act (ERO#013-5102), Discussion paper: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program (ERO#013-5101), and Schedule 6 of Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019
More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019.
ERCA BoD 41 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Executive Committee EC01/19
From: Richard Wyma, General Manager
Date: May 16, 2019
Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations and Schedule 2 of Bill 108
Strategic Action: The Conservation Authorities Act informs all ERCA Actions, programs and services.
Recommendation: THAT Report Number EC01/19 Environmental Registry Posting 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations and Schedule 2 of Bill 108 be received as information; and further,
THAT Essex Region Conservation Authority Executive Committee Report be submitted to the Province through the Environmental Registry.
Summary
The province is proposing to introduce amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, which if passed, would help conservation authorities focus and deliver on our core mandate, and to improve governance as described in the Environmental Registry Posing: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations, released on April 5, and Schedule 2 of Bill 108, which was released on
The EBR comment period for the initial ERO runs from April 5 to May 21, 2019 (45 days). The ERO was amended to also include Schedule 2 of Bill 108 within the same comment period.
ERCA Administration has undertaken its own review (as described below, generally) and has additionally provided comments to Conservation Ontario who is coordinating a review on behalf of all Conservation Authorities.
Administration provided an initial overview of the EBR Postings to the Board at the April 2019 meeting. In its more fulsome review, Administration acknowledges the intent of the proposed changes, but raises concerns regarding:
the potential fragmentation of the core watershed principles that Conservation Authorities are based on which, as proposed, could lead to inconsistent and inefficient program delivery across the watershed (which is the intent of the proposed changes);
the importance of watershed management principles, water quality and the great lakes, and the relationship between core-mandated programs (i.e. natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation
ERCA BoD 42 of 219 authority lands, drinking water source protection, and protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed) and the importance of programs and services that support those core programs, but are identified as non-mandatory (e.g. restoration and natural hazards, water quality programs and drinking water source protection).
the need for continued provincial funding in support of delivery of core mandatory programs and services
Additionally, ERCA recommends that the province consider expanding opportunities for conservation authorities, where expertise and capacity exists, to streamline one- window review and facilitate growth and housing supply while risk is reduced and public safety and environmental protection are upheld (e.g. Environmental Compliance Approvals for stormwater, wetland evaluations and approvals, endangered species)
Discussion
The Province is proposing to make amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, an Act introduced in 1946 that would, if passed:
1. Clearly define the core mandatory programs and services provided by conservation authorities to be, natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation authority lands, drinking water source protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act), and protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed (as prescribed under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act)
ERCA Response: ERCA acknowledges the intent to clearly define core mandatory programs and services to be provided by conservation authorities; but notes that, as watershed management agencies, conservation authorities programs are integrated, and funded variously, and defining, and separating ‘core’ programs from supporting programs and services may unintentionally impact program delivery.
Specific comments on the four core areas identified by the Province include:
Natural hazard protection and management: ERCA recognizes hazard management as a provincially mandated program, and that conservation authorities have delegated authority to undertake watershed-based programs to protect people and property from flooding and other natural hazards both along heavily developed shorelines and inland. ERCA’s flood forecasting and warning systems are vital to keeping people safe from impacts of flooding, especially during times of high water levels which we are currently experiencing, and link with municipal emergency response plans that assist municipalities which depend on conservation authorities’ flood management programs.
ERCA’s flood program is watershed-based in that water resources/engineering and planning staff contribute to updating floodplain mapping, advising on official plan and long-range planning tools regarding natural hazard requirements.
ERCA BoD 43 of 219 Additionally, regulatory staff provide comment and approvals on permits to ensure people and property are protected from flood hazards. ERCA monitors water/lake/river levels, ice and snow conditions, weather and lake forecasts and manages a regional flood advisory program, issue warnings and watches and watershed conditions statements and are ‘first on the ground’ during a flood to monitor the situation, communicate with municipalities, emergency responders, landowners and others to respond to flood situations. Many other ERCA programs support and enhance the natural hazard program. Tree planting, restoring natural areas and wetlands, and conservation services programs are examples of conservation authority activities that improve the landscape and make the watershed more resilient to the variations in rainfall and snow melt patterns that result from climate change.
Conservation and management of conservation authority lands: ERCA supports the management of conservation authority land being identified as a core mandate. ERCA manages 19 conservation areas, which includes lands acquired and managed for environmental protection, restoration, and by extension, flood mitigation based on a Land Management Framework.
Drinking water source protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act): As the source protection authority for the Essex Region source protection region the ERCA has completed source protection plans for the region. Residents of the Essex Region get their drinking water primarily from Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and western basin of Lake Erie which are significantly impacted by harmful algal blooms, which are caused by phosphorous from land use in the watersheds of Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Lake Erie. To that end, ERCA develops and delivers water management and stewardship programs in partnership with municipalities and senior levels of government and industry that monitors and improves water quality in the watersheds. ERCA believes these programs should be included as core programs of conservation authorities because they protect drinking water quality and source water.
ERCA recommends the province maintain their financial and technical support for this program and that the identification of this program as a core mandate include the continued financial support from Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks for the role of the ERCA as prescribed under the Clean Water Act.
Protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed (as prescribed under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act) does not impact ERCA.
ERCA is concerned that these four core mandatory programs and services fail to recognize the critical role that Conservation Authorities play as a watershed and natural resource management agency. As outlined in the Conservation Authorities Act, the objects of an authority are to “provide, in the area over which it has
ERCA BoD 44 of 219 jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources…” (Sec. 20(1)). Further, for the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has the power to “study and investigate the watershed and to determine programs and services whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed” (Sec. 21(1)(a)). Watershed management has been the foundation for all CA programs and services since the inception of conservation authorities.
Since its establishment in 1946, the Act was predicated on responding to local issues on a watershed basis, which in the face of changing climate and severe weather, is needed more than ever.
ERCA recommends that Watershed Management, or Conserving Natural Resources (for which Conservation Authorities are recognized in the Made-In-Ontario Environment Plan) be identified as a new Core Mandatory program.
Watershed management provides the necessary understanding and knowledge of watershed natural resources to effectively make informed decisions and carry out natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation authority lands and source water protection. Watershed management involves examining the environment and human activities within a watershed area and assesses the relationships between these activities to determine how the natural hazards, conservation areas and water resources of the watershed should be managed to ensure the health and safety of people and the protection of property, that conservation lands retain and enhance their ecological integrity and source water is protected.
As a recognized program, it would include the key elements of watershed management such as water quality and water quantity and vegetative cover monitoring and modelling on a watershed basis to support multiple objectives that are relevant to the watershed jurisdiction, including improvements to Great Lakes water quality, watershed resilience to climate change (e.g. flooding, biodiversity) and land use change (e.g. urbanization, agricultural intensification). In addition to education programs and community engagement, and land acquisition considerations, it would also include other watershed scale programs such as rural and urban stewardship with local landowners and agencies that improves and protects water quality and quantity and watershed biodiversity through restoration, rehabilitation and green infrastructure.
For the Essex Region, this would provide an ability to recognize that ERCA delivers provincial programs in the Essex region watershed. For example, ERCA delivers the Federal-Provincial Detroit River Remedial Action Plan, is identified as a delivery agent in actions related to provincial commitments to reduce phosphorous in Lake Erie as described in the Lake Erie Action Plan related to western basin of Lake Erie, and the Leamington Tributaries, identified as Priority
ERCA BoD 45 of 219 Watersheds in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and undertakes specialized water quality monitoring on behalf of senior levels of government. ERCA would propose that those programs be considered core mandatory.
ERCA also recommends that Conservation Authorities be consulted in defining the scope of standards and requirements to be prescribed in regulations to ensure that they capture all the key elements of the mandatory program and service area, recognizing, for example, that each Conservation Authority has different natural hazards with different levels of risk based on the specific geography of their jurisdiction.
2. Increase transparency in how conservation authorities levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. Update the Conservation Authorities Act an Act introduced in 1946, to conform with modern transparency standards by ensuring that municipalities and conservation authorities review levies for non-core programs after a certain period of time (e.g., 4 to 8 years)
ERCA Response: ERCA supports efforts to continue to increase transparency and clarity in how conservation authorities levy municipalities for mandatory and support programs and services. ERCA clearly identifies sources of revenue for each of its programs, including levy, in its annual budgeting.
ERCA also supports the proposal to review levies for supporting programs after a certain period of time (e.g. 4 to 8 year review period). ERCA would also suggests that the outcome of this review may include future proposals to include supporting programs as core mandatory programs based on future provincial and municipal program priorities, or the inclusion of additional support programs to any agreements that may be developed between the conservation authority and the municipality during the proposed transition period (see below).
3. Establish a transition period (e.g. 18 to 24 months) and process for conservation authorities and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery of non- mandatory programs and services and meet these transparency standards.
ERCA Response: ERCA supports consideration of a transition period, but would propose that the transition period extend to the end of the current municipal election cycle. This would provide additional time that will be required to draft, and develop agreements with municipalities, and allow for consideration of how these new agreements may be implemented within the context of current levy approvals and apportionment processes, provide for consideration of capital/operational cost and associated apportionments.
As watershed based agencies, ERCA also strongly recommends that if municipal agreements for supporting programs are required, that they be developed jointly with all member municipalities within the watershed to ensure that program delivery, budgeting and fee schedules, and program development is developed and delivered
ERCA BoD 46 of 219 at the intended watershed scale. For example, absent a singe multi-member agreement, fee schedules would have to consider scenarios where municipalities may ‘opt in’ or ‘opt out’ which would create less efficient programs, which is not in keeping with the intents of the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, or the Government’s goal of simplifying review processes and adding clarity to review processes. Further, it removes the decision-making role of Conservation Authority Board Members, which is proposed to be strengthened in these proposals (see recommendation 5, below), and places components of key program and related budget decisions with municipal councils rather than the Board of Directors.
The proposal will consume resources and may unintentionally lead to financial inefficiencies and poor management of watershed resources. In effect it undermines the mandate, premise and value of the multi-municipality/watershed governance of conservation authorities and will work against the intents of the proposed changes to reduce red tape and find efficiencies in program delivery.
4. Enable the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority
ERCA Response: ERCA supports regulations that would enable the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority. ERCA would suggest that protocols or criteria be developed that investigations to guide or inform when investigations may take place (e.g. that investigations be undertaken at the request of 2/3 of a Board of Directors, or at the request of 2/3 of the member municipalities, etc.) to ensure that investigations address specific/identified issues, and further that investigations be reported on to the Minister, and to the Board of Directors of the Authority.
5. Clarify that the duty of conservation authority board members is to act in the best interest of the conservation authority, similar to not-for profit organizations.
ERCA Response: ERCA supports regulations that would clarify that the duty of conservation authority board members is to act in the best interest of the conservation authority, similar to not-for profit organizations.
6. Proclaiming ‘un-proclaimed’ provisions.
In addition, the province is proposing to proclaim un-proclaimed provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act related to:
fees for programs and services transparency and accountability approval of projects with provincial grants recovery of capital costs and operating expenses from municipalities (municipal levies)
ERCA BoD 47 of 219 regulation of areas over which conservation authorities have jurisdiction (e.g., development permitting) enforcement and offences additional regulations
ERCA supports the province’s intent to proclaim these un-proclaimed provisions of the Act, as it would promote consistency among conservation authorities, and clarity for municipalities and the public. ERCA has, in its earlier submissions related to the 2017 Conservation Authorities Act amendments has supported these provisions as well.
However, absent details on these provisions, ERCA recommends that Conservation Authorities be consulted and engaged in the development of these provisions to ensure an appropriate level of flexibility is in place, recognizing that, for example, fees for programs and services may vary based on region and associated operating costs, individual conservation authority efforts to raise funds, through fees, to reduce levy demands associated with the delivery of programs (e.g. development review, conservation areas, education programs, etc.). An alternative may be that fee provisions consider setting general principles that individual CA fee policies and associated schedules need to reflect to support transparent, full cost accounting and consultation with stakeholders. ERCA conservation areas and programs provide substantial support to our growing region and increased use which results in increased operational costs and increased need for land securement and asset management including long-term care, without opportunity to support this expansion or strengthening of infrastructure through development charges, or other means requiring that all revenue sources including fees and levy be considered.
7. ERCA Recommendation: Continued Provincial investment in core mandatory programs and services delivered by conservation authorities.
The Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan includes the following statement about the core role of conservation authorities: Work in collaboration with municipalities and stakeholders to ensure that conservation authorities focus and deliver on their core mandate of protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards, and conserving natural resources.
In addition to the core mandate, ERCA undertakes watershed-based programs that provide a wide range of benefits to watershed residents. Conservation Authority programs and services protect water, provide natural spaces, build watershed resilience and connect people to communities and the landscapes around them.
Conservation authority programs and services help their region and communities by ensuring the places we live in provide clean water and landscapes, are protected from flooding and erosion, and support healthy living through recreation and conservation. The investment in conservation authority programs helps us avoid future, more significant costs, associated with challenges such as flood damages,
ERCA BoD 48 of 219 business disruptions, drinking water closures (which occur regularly on Pelee Island, and more publicly in Toledo, Ohio as a result of harmful algal blooms) and other public health issues (being in nature restores people and helps them stay active and health); the economic values that our natural assets provide to communities to offset costs associated with drinking water, health care, and education; and support local and provincial economies.
For these reasons, ERCA recommends that the Province to continue to invest in core mandatory programs and services to be delivered by conservation authorities. The ‘Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan’ recognizes how issues such as climate change, flooding, and water quality can impact and threaten Ontario’s economic prosperity and the well-being of Ontarians, and states that addressing these challenges is a shared responsibility.
8. ERCA Recommendation: Expand opportunities for conservation authorities, where expertise and capacity exists, to streamline one-window review and facilitate growth and housing supply while risk is reduced and public safety and environmental protection are upheld
As important ‘on-the-ground’ delivery agents with expertise and knowledge that would not otherwise be available, the Province is encouraged to actually utilize Conservation Authorities more in the delivery of provincial programs where our involvement would create more efficient and streamlined ‘one-window’ processes that would facilitate more timely review and approvals from all sectors. This is especially important in areas like Windsor-Essex which is a high growth area in Ontario.
Conservation authority involvement in approving Environmental Compliance Approvals for stormwater management have lead to faster approvals. Similarly, conservation authorities, including ERCA, have expertise and capacity in evaluating wetlands including provincially significant wetlands, and are able to undertake the necessary assessments in keeping with provincial guidelines more efficiently based on local development priorities. Similarly, CA experience and knowledge of local habitats and species could lead to more effective and locally-supported recovery strategies for endangered species, habitat delineation, permit negotiation and overall benefit planning and implementation.
Conservation authorities are solution-oriented, and add value to growth planning processes by bringing a regional perspective to cross-boundary (i.e. watershed) issues and across legislative review and approvals processes and can be used, with support, to facilitate growth and housing supply while risk is reduced and public safety and environmental protection are upheld.
ERCA BoD 49 of 219 Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA
General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
Environmental Registry Posting 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations
Bill 108: An Act to amend various statutes with respect to housing, other development and various other matters. (Schedule 2: Conservation Authorities Act)
ERCA BoD 50 of 219 Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act
ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) number 013-5018 Notice type Act Act Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990 Posted by Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Notice stage Proposal Proposal posted April 5, 2019 Comment period April 5, 2019 - May 20, 2019 (45 days) Open
This consultation closes at 11:59 p.m. on: May 20, 2019
Proposal summary
We are proposing to introduce amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, which if passed, would help conservation authorities focus and deliver on their core mandate, and to improve governance.
Proposal details Conservation Authorities Act The Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27), an Act introduced in 1946, enables programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. Under the Act, 36 conservation authorities were created at the request of municipalities. They are governed by municipally appointed representatives to deliver local resource management programs at a watershed scale for both provincial and municipal interests.
The initial focus of conservation authorities was to prevent flooding, erosion, drought, and deforestation through improved land, water and forestry management practices. As extreme weather, particularly heavy rains and flooding becomes more frequent due to climate change, the core frontline role that conservation authorities play in our communities is becoming increasingly important. Since the 1940s when the Act was established, the programs and services delivered by conservation authorities have expanded. Conservation authorities are the second largest landowners in Ontario, next to the Province; collectively they own and manage 146,000 hectares of land in Ontario.
Summary of proposed changes We are proposing to make amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27), an Act introduced in 1946 that would, if passed:
clearly define the core mandatory programs and services provided by conservation authorities to be, natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation authority lands, drinking water source protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c22)), and protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed (as prescribed under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/08l23)) increase transparency in how conservation authorities levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. Update the Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27) an Act introduced in 1946, to conform with
ERCA BoD 51 of 219 1 modern transparency standards by ensuring that municipalities and conservation authorities review levies for non-core programs after a certain period of time (e.g. (for example), 4 to 8 years) establish a transition period (e.g. (for example) 18 to 24 months) and process for conservation authorities and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery of non-mandatory programs and services and meet these transparency standards enable the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority clarify that the duty of conservation authority board members is to act in the best interest of the conservation authority, similar to not-for profit organizations.
We are also proposing to proclaim un-proclaimed provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27) related to:
fees for programs and services transparency and accountability approval of projects with provincial grants recovery of capital costs and operating expenses from municipalities (municipal levies) regulation of areas over which conservation authorities have jurisdiction (e.g. (for example), development permitting) enforcement and offences additional regulations.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is consulting on a proposal to streamline and focus conservation authorities development permitting and role in municipal plan review. For more information, visit Environmental Registry 013-4992 (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice /013-4992).
In the spring 2019, we will also develop and consult on a suite of regulatory and policy proposals to support the proposed amendments to and proclamation of un-proclaimed provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27).
Purpose of Act As extreme weather events increasingly threaten our homes, businesses and infrastructure, conservation authorities play a key frontline role in helping Ontario families and businesses prepare for the cost and impact of climate change in their communities.
Conservation authorities also play an important role in Ontario’s land use planning and environmental protection process. They not only help protect people and property from extreme weather, such as flooding and other natural hazards, but they also are essential to protecting sources of drinking water and conserving our province’s natural resources.
It important that conservation authorities refocus on delivering their core mandate.
To support this, the government is consulting with stakeholders and the public on how conservation authorities can improve delivery of their core programs and services, as outlined in our made-in-Ontario Environment Plan (https://www.ontario.ca/page/made-in-ontario- environment-plan).
Supporting materials
Related links
Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27)
Ontario's Environment Plan (https://www.ontario.ca/page/made-in-ontario-environment-plan)
Related ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) notices
ERCA BoD 52 of 219 2 Focusing conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and property (/notice/013-4992)
Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan (/notice/013-4208)
View materials in person Some supporting materials may not be available online. If this is the case, you can request to view the materials in person.
Get in touch with the office listed below to find out if materials are available.
Great Lakes and Inland Waters Branch 40 St. Clair Avenue West 10th floor Toronto, ON M4V 1M2 Canada 416-314-0617
Comment
Let us know what you think of our proposal. Have questions? Get in touch with the contact person below. Please include the ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) number for this notice in your email or letter to the contact. Read our commenting and privacy policies. (/page/commenting-privacy)
Submit by mail Carolyn O’Neill Great Lakes Office 40 St Clair Avenue West Floor 10 Toronto, ON M4V1M2 Canada
Connect with us
Contact Carolyn O’Neill
416-314-7833
ERCA BoD 53 of 219 3
1ST SESSION, 42ND LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 68 ELIZABETH II, 2019
Bill 108
An Act to amend various statutes with respect to housing, other development and various other matters
The Hon. S. Clark Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Government Bill
1st Reading May 2, 2019
2nd Reading
3rd Reading
Royal Assent
ERCA BoD 54 of 219 4
SCHEDULE 2 CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT 1 Conservation Authorities Act is repealed and the following substituted: f the Executive Council as may be assigned the administration of this Act under the Executive Council Act 2 3 The Act is amended by adding the following section: Duty of members 14.1 Every member of an authority shall act honestly and in good faith with a view to furthering the objects of the authority. 4. Section 21.1 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: Mandatory programs and services 21.1 (1) If a program or service that meets any of the following descriptions has been prescribed by the regulations, an authority shall provide the program or service within its area of jurisdiction: 1. Programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards. 2. Programs and services related to the conservation and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority, including any interests in land registered on title. 3. ponsibilities as a source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. 4. regulations. Same, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (2) In addition to the programs and services required to be provided under subsection (1), the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority shall provide within its area of jurisdiction such programs and services as are prescribed by the regulations and are related to its duties, functions and responsibilities under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008. Standards and requirements (3) Programs and services required to be provided under subsections (1) and (2) shall be provided in accordance with such standards and requirements as may be set out in the regulations. Municipal programs and services 21.1.1 (1) An authority may provide within its area of jurisdiction municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding or such other agreement as may be entered into with the municipality in respect of the programs and services. Memorandum, agreement available to public (2) An authority shall make a memorandum of understanding or other agreement available to the public in such manner as may be determined in the memorandum or agreement. Periodic review of memorandum, agreement (3) An authority and a municipality who have entered into a memorandum of understanding or other agreement shall review the memorandum or agreement at such regular intervals as may be determined in the memorandum or agreement. Terms and conditions (4) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the memorandum of understanding or agreement. Other programs and services 21.1.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), in addition to programs and services described in sections 21.1 and 21.1.1, an authority may provide within its area of jurisdiction such other programs and services as the authority determines are advisable to further its objects. Agreement (2) On and after the day prescribed by the regulations, if financing under section 25 or 27 by a participating municipality is necessary in order for an authority to provide a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection (1), the
ERCA BoD 55 of 219 5 program or service shall not be provided by the authority unless an agreement that meets the following criteria has been entered into between the authority and the participating municipality in respect of the program or service: 1. The agreement must provide for the participating municipality to pay to the authority, i. an apportioned amount under section 25 in connection with a project related to the program or service, or ii. an apportioned amount under section 27 in respect of the program or service. 2. The agreement must include provisions setting out the day on which the agreement terminates and a requirement that it be reviewed by the parties within the period specified in the regulations for the purpose of determining whether or not the agreement is to be renewed by the parties. 3. The agreement must meet such other requirements as may be prescribed by the regulations. Terms and conditions (3) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide under an agreement entered into as described in subsection (2) shall be provided in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be set out in the agreement. Transition plan re subs. 21.1.2 (2) 21.1.3 (1) Every authority shall develop and implement a transition plan for the purpose of ensuring that it will be in compliance with subsection 21.1.2 (2) by the day prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of that subsection. Contents (2) The transition plan shall address the following matters in accordance with the regulations: 1. s programs and services. 2. Consultation by the authority with participating municipalities on the inventory of programs and services mentioned in paragraph 1. 3. If financing under section 25 or 27 by a participating municipality is necessary in order for the authority to provide a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection 21.1.2 (1), steps to be taken by the authority for the purposes of seeking to enter into an agreement with the participating municipality in respect of that program or service. 4. Such other matters as may be prescribed by the regulations. Consultation 21.1.4 An authority shall carry out such consultations with respect to the programs and services it provides as may be required by regulation and shall do so in the manner specified by regulation. 5 Section 23.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections: Investigator (4) including the programs and services it provides. Powers of investigator (5) For the purposes of an investigation under subsection (4), an investigator may, (a) (b) require the productio (c) inspect, examine, audit and copy anything required to be produced under clause (b); (d) (e) require any member of the authority and any other person to appear before the investigator and give evidence on oath
Application of Public Inquiries Act, 2009 (6) Section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 applies to an investigation under subsection (4). Report of investigator (7) On completion of an investigation, an investigator shall report in writing to the Minister, who shall promptly transmit a copy of the report to the authority. Cost of investigation (8) The Minister may require the authority to pay all or part of the cost of an investigation under subsection (4).
ERCA BoD 56 of 219 6
6 Section 25 of the Act, as re-enacted by section 23 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, is amended by adding the following subsections: Limitation (1.1) Subject to subsections (1.2) and (1.3), an authority shall not, on and after the day prescribed by the regulations, include in the apportionment any capital costs in connection with a project related to a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection 21.1.2 (1). Same (1.2) An authority shall include in the apportionment of capital costs to a participating municipality any capital costs in connection with a project related to a program or service that has been identified in an agreement between the municipality and the authority as described in subsection 21.1.2 (2). Extension of time (1.3) If the circumstances prescribed by the regulations apply in respect of an authority, a person designated by the Minister may, by written notice to the authority, specify that a later day than the day prescribed by the regulations under subsection (1.1) applies to the authority and if such a notice is issued, the prohibition set out in subsection (1.1) applies to the authority on and after the day set out in the notice. 7 (1) Section 27 of the Act, as re-enacted by subsection 24 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017, is amended by adding the following subsections: Limitation (1.1) Subject to subsections (1.2) and (1.3), an authority shall not, on and after the day prescribed by the regulations, include in the apportionment any operating expenses related to a program or service authorized to be provided under subsection 21.1.2 (1). Same (1.2) An authority shall include in the apportionment of operating expenses to a participating municipality any operating expenses related to a program or service that has been identified in an agreement between the municipality and the authority as described in subsection 21.1.2 (2). Extension of time (1.3) If the circumstances prescribed by the regulations apply in respect of an authority, a person designated by the Minister may, by written notice to the authority, specify that a later day than the day prescribed by the regulations under subsection (1.1) applies to the authority and if such a notice is issued, the prohibition set out in subsection (1.1) applies to the authority on and after the day set out in the notice. (2) Subsection 27 (2) of the Act, as re-enacted by subsection 24 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017
8 (1) The Act is amended by adding the following section: Other amounts owing to authority Specified municipality 27.2 (1) In this section,
(a) a municipality that is designated under the regulations made under the Clean Water Act, 2006 as a participating
municipalities under this Act, or (b) a municipality that is designated under the regulations made under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 as a participating municipality for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for the purposes of that Act but that is icipating municipalities under this Act. Determination of amounts owing by specified municipality (2) An authority may, from time to time and in accordance with the regulations, determine the amounts owed by any of its specified municipalities in connection with the programs and services the authority provides in respect of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008.
ERCA BoD 57 of 219 7
Notice (3) If the authority determines under subsection (2) that amounts are owing by any of its specified municipalities, the authority shall send a notice in writing to the specified municipality, setting out the amounts that the specified municipality owes to the authority. Payment of amounts (4) Subject to subsections (5) to (10), each specified municipality shall pay to the authority the amounts specified in the notice in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice. Review of notice (5) Any specified municipality that receives a notice under subsection (3) may, within 30 days after receiving the notice, apply to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, for a review of the amounts owing. Same (6) The specified municipality that makes an application under subsection (5) shall send a copy of the notice of application to the authority and to every other participating municipality and specified municipality of the authority. Hearing (7) The Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider the amounts owing, including considering whether the determination of the amounts owing was carried out in accordance with subsection (2). Parties (8) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality or specified municipality of the authority that requests to be a party and such other persons as the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may determine. Powers on hearing (9) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the amounts owing and may order the specified municipality to pay the amounts. Decision final (10) A decision under subsection (9) is final. Debt due (11) The amounts owed to the authority set out in a notice sent to a specified municipality or in an order under subsection (9), as the case may be, are a debt due by the specified municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such. (2)
9 (1) Section 40 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: Regulations, Lieutenant Governor in Council 40 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (a) governing the composition of conservation authorities and prescribing additional requirements regarding the appointment and qualifications of members of conservation authorities; (b) governing advisory boards established under subsection 18 (2), including requiring authorities to establish one or more advisory boards and prescribing requirements with respect to the composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and procedures of any advisory board that is established; (c) prescribing programs and services for the purposes of subsections 21.1 (1) and (2) and prescribing Acts for the purposes of paragraph 4 of subsection 21.1 (1); (d) respecting standards and requirements applicable to programs and services for the purposes of subsection 21.1 (3); (e) project for the purposes of section 25; (f) governing reviews under sections 26 and 27.1, including prescribing a body that may conduct such reviews instead of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or the Mining and Lands Commissioner, as the case may be; (g) as operating expenses for the purposes of section 27, governing the amount that participating municipalities are
ERCA BoD 58 of 219 8
required to pay under section 27, including the fixed amount that a participating municipality may be required to pay under subsection 27 (2), and restricting and prohibiting the apportionment of certain types of operating expenses; (h) defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act; (i) respecting anything that is necessary or advisable for the proper administration of this Act. Same (2) The standards and requirements established for programs and services in a regulation made under clause (1) (d) may include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency. Regulations, Minister (3) The Minister may make regulations, (a) prescribing matters that may be the subject of by-laws made under clause 19.1 (1) (j); (b) respecting the amount of any fee that may be charged by an authority in relation to a program or service, including determining the manner in which the fee is calculated; (c) prescribing the period for the purposes of paragraph 2 of subsection 21.1.2 (2); (d) prescribing requirements for the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 21.1.2 (2); (e) governing the matters to be addressed in a transition plan under section 21.1.3 and prescribing additional matters to be addressed; (f) governing consultations that an authority must carry out for the purposes of section 21.1.4; (g) governing the information that authorities must provide to the Minister under section 23.1, including the publication of that information; (h) prescribing a day for the purposes of subsections 25 (1.1) and 27 (1.1); (i) prescribing circumstances for the purposes of subsections 25 (1.3) and 27 (1.3); (j) governing the determination of amounts owed under subsection 27.2 (2). (2) Section 40 of the Act, as re-enacted by subsection (1), is amended by adding the following subsection:
(4) The Minister may make regulations, (a) governing the prohibitions set out in section 28, including, (i) prescribing the limits on river and stream valleys for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iii of subsection 28 (1), (ii) determining or specifying areas for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iv of subsection 28 (1), (iii) determining areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated for the purposes of subparagraph 2 v of subsection 28 (1), (iv) prescribing activities or types of activities to which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities or types of activities may be carried out and any conditions or restrictions that apply to the activity or type of activity, (v) prescribing areas in which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities may be carried out in such areas and any conditions or restrictions that apply to carrying out activities in such areas, (vi) (b) governing applications for permits under section 28.1, the issuance of the permits and the power of authorities to refuse permits, including prescribing requirements that must be met for the issuance of permits under clause 28.1 (1) (c), conditions that may be attached to a permit or circumstances in which a permit may be cancelled under section 28.3 and respecting the period for which a permit is valid under section 28.2; (c) def (d) governing the delegation of powers by an authority under section 28.4 and prescribing any limitations or requirements related to the delegation. (3) Clause 40 (1) (f) of the Act, as enacted by subse
ERCA BoD 59 of 219 9
Repeals 10 (1) Subsection 20 (2) of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 is repealed. (2) Section 33 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 is repealed. Commencement 11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Schedule comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. (2) Section 10 comes into force on the day the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 receives Royal Assent.
ERCA BoD 60 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Executive Committee EC02/19
From: Richard Wyma, General Manager
Date: April 29, 2019
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Conservation Authorities Regulations for Development Permits (ERO Posting #013-4992)
Strategic Action: The Conservation Authorities Act informs all ERCA Actions, programs and services.
Recommendation: THAT Report Number EC02/19 Proposed Amendment to Conservation Authorities Regulations for Development Permits (ERO Posting #013-4992) be received as information, and further,
THAT ERCA Report EC02/19 be submitted to the Province through the Environmental Registry.
Summary
On April 5, 2019, the Province posted a proposal for “Focusing conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and property”. This proposal would create one new regulation for all conservation authorities and it will replace 36 existing individual Conservation Authority regulations under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.
The province has noted that Conservation Authority regulations are a critical component of Ontario’s approach to reducing risks posed by flooding and other natural hazards and strengthening Ontario’s resiliency to extreme weather events. This renewed focus on natural hazards has been included in the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan. It is proposed that a consistent regulation and approaches for conservation authority permits will support faster approvals while ensuring there are no impacts on natural hazards and public safety.
ERCA supports the proposals, and notes that the proposed changes would benefit all stakeholders if additional technical guidelines or similar materials are available to ensure clarity and consistency.
ERCA also supports the use of its regulations to address adapting to a changing climate, as contemplated in the Made-In-Ontario Environment Plan, and recommends where definitions and technical guidelines may be useful to provide further clarity.
Discussion
On April 5, 2019, the Province posted a Proposed Amendment to Conservation Authorities Regulations for Development Permits to create one regulation for all Conservation Authorities for development and alteration permits for natural hazards and public safety
ERCA BoD 61 of 219 (ERO# 013-4992). The province has stated that the proposed regulation will make rules for development in hazardous areas more consistent to support faster, more predictable and less costly approvals for the business sector. The proposal includes some local flexibility on regulation streamlining based on differences in risks posed by flooding and other natural hazards. The closing date for comments on the proposal is May 21, 2019.
As noted in the province’s proposal, “Prohibited activities set out in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act as amended by Schedule 4 of the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 include:
Development in areas related to natural hazards such as floodplains, shorelines, wetlands and hazardous lands (i.e. lands that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock); and
Interference with or alterations to a watercourse or wetland.”
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is proposing to create a regulation further defining the ability of a conservation authority to regulate prohibited development and other activities for impacts to the control of flooding and other natural hazards.
The Ministry proposals and ERCA Administrative responses are included below:
1. Update definitions for key regulatory terms to better align with other provincial policy, including: “wetland”, “watercourse” and “pollution”;
ERCA response: ERCA supports this proposal. Conservation Authorities through Conservation Ontario have encouraged the province to define these terms in relation to natural hazards to provide clarity and minimize variation across the province. ERCA would propose review of existing definitions, either in existing provincial or Conservation Authority policy to ensure definitions are consistent in policy and practice. ERCA also encourages definitions of ‘development activity’ and ‘hazardous lands’ be included in this review, or that the definitions in the Conservation Authorities Act be incorporated. In order to achieve a consistent interpretation of these terms and to assist in future legal matters that may challenge these definitions, the MNRF should also consider providing supporting documentation or implementation guidelines.
2. Defining undefined terms including: “interference” and “conservation of land” as consistent with the natural hazard management intent of the regulation;
ERCA response: ERCA supports this proposal as consistent with the natural hazard management intent of the regulation, and in support of the important role Conservation Authorities play in strengthening Ontario’s resilience to extreme weather events, and that these definitions additionally consider climate change. Clear definitions will provide clarity for conservation authorities, residents and in legal
ERCA BoD 62 of 219 matters. In order to achieve a consistent interpretation of these terms and to assist in future legal matters that may challenge these definitions, the MNRF should also consider providing supporting documentation or implementation guidelines.
ERCA . These terms are integral to the implementation of a new regulation and the evaluation of an activity that requires a permit. Definitions for these terms and future implementation guidelines or fact sheets would provide clarity for conservation authorities, applicants and legal matters.
The province has also indicated it is proposing to proclaim sections of the Conservation Authorities Act following the approval of the proposed regulation. This includes: “S28.1 (1) An authority may issue a permit to a person to engage in an activity specified in the permit that would otherwise be prohibited by section 28, if, in the opinion of the authority, ... (b) the activity is not likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property.”
ERCA requests that the province also provide guidance on the interpretation and implementation of this clause to assist in the review of permit applications where this test may apply. Factors related to health and safety of persons should include:
safe ingress and egress of people and vehicles during a flood event health and safety of emergency responders entering flood waters floodproofing requirements damage to structures on the site or to other landowners (offsite impacts) future costs to protect property or manage risk to people and property due to climate change
3. Reduce regulatory restrictions between 30m and 120m of a wetland and where a hydrological connection has been severed;
ERCA response: ERCA supports the reduction of regulatory restrictions between 30m and 120m from a wetland for low risk activities that would not impact the hydrologic function or public safety. In order to achieve a consistent interpretation of these terms and to assist in future legal matters that may challenge these definitions, the MNRF should also consider providing supporting documentation or implementation guidelines.
4. Exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit including certain alterations and repairs to existing municipal drains subject to the Drainage Act provided they are undertaken in accordance with the Drainage Act and Conservation Authorities Act Protocol;
ERCA response: The ERCA supports the proposal to exempt some low-risk development activities from requiring a permit, including certain alterations and repairs to municipal drains subject to the Drainage Act provided they are undertaken
ERCA BoD 63 of 219 in accordance with the Drainage Act and Conservation Authorities Act (DART) Protocol. ERCA undertakes 150 drainage act approvals annually, and does note that drainage works do have the potential to impact flood control, so it is essential that conservation authorities be notified of the proposed works in advance of works being undertaken to ensure no impact to flood control.
5. Allow conservation authorities to further exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit provided in accordance with conservation authority policies;
ERCA response: ERCA supports the proposal to allow conservation authorities to further exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit provided in accordance with conservation authority policies. This proposal would allow a conservation authority to develop possible exemption policies based on the hazards and development pressures found within their watershed where there is current technical information and mapping.
The MNRF should consider the requirements that will need to be in place for the implementation of this provision such as regulation maps that are current and regularly maintained. Provincial investment in updating components of the natural hazard maps may be necessary e.g. floodplain and wetland mapping. Current and reliable maps are a key part of the successful implementation of this option so the public can use the conservation authority regulation maps to identify where an exemption may or may not be applicable and avoid enforcement issues. Additionally, ERCA’s Place for Life Policies would need to be updated and approved by the Board in order to be clear on the type of activities and what type of an exemption may apply.
It is recommended that the MNRF should also provide implementation support materials to provide the policy framework for exempting low-risk development activities
Finally, it should be acknowledged that any exemptions put an unfunded compliance burden on conservation authorities. Conservation authorities will have to give consideration to this issue when developing policies for low-risk development activities.
6. Require conservation authorities to develop, consult on, make publicly available and periodically review internal policies that guide permitting decisions;
ERCA response: ERCA supports this proposal. ERCA is currently reviewing all policies and board direction as part of a comprehensive Place for Life Policies. This review includes consultation on policies and technical guidelines with municipalities, residents, development and agricultural sectors, and development agencies (e.g. Windsor Essex Economic Development Corporation). Once complete, the Policies will be publicly available documents and on ERCA’s website.
ERCA BoD 64 of 219 7. Require conservation authorities to notify the public of changes to mapped regulated areas such as floodplains or wetland boundaries; and
ERCA response: ERCA supports this proposal and has supported the Conservation Ontario Council’s ‘Procedure for Updating Section 28 Mapping: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations which may be useful in informing notification requirements.
ERCA also notes that regulations are ‘text based’, and not ‘map based’. ERCA acknowledges that maps are useful in illustrating regulated areas, it should be noted that the text of the regulation prevails. As well, notification of changes may differ based on the process used to create the changes, for example, changes reflected in municipal land use planning documents, changes made by the province to Provincially Significant Wetland boundaries, site specific planning or permit applications that are tied to specific properties may have different expectations and requirements for posting changes as the scale and scope of changes varies in its applications. Guidance on acceptable public notification processes would be helpful to outline options available to conservation authorities. The guidelines should consider factors such as the scale and scope of changes, alternative public notification opportunities to avoid duplication as well as the size of the watershed for comprehensive update.
8. Require conservation authorities to establish, monitor and report on service delivery standards including requirements and timelines for determination of complete applications and timelines for permit decisions.
ERCA response: ERCA supports this proposal. Since 2010 ERCA has been monitoring performance for permit approvals using the MNRF guidelines which include: 21 days to determine if an application is complete application and a decision within 30 days for minor applications or within the 90 days for major applications. ERCA provides this information to its Directors at each Board of Directors meeting, and reports annually on review and response timelines. Despite reviewing over 1,000 applications annually, ERCA’s review timelines fall well within the guidelines.
Technical guidelines and checklists are important for this purpose and are outlined as a best practice in CO’s Client Service and Streamlining Initiative. To further streamline application requirements, ERCA supports the Made-In-Ontario Environment Plan commitment to “update technical guidance to protect people and property from flooding and water-related hazards”. Technical guidelines and checklists are important for this purpose and are outlined as a best practice in Conservation Ontario’s Client Service and Streamlining Initiative, which ERCA participates in. ERCA also recommends that these updates include new provincial direction on how to incorporate climate change.
ERCA recognizes the need to provide residents, municipalities, business and other sectors with a clear and consistent regulatory environment, and the need to continually
ERCA BoD 65 of 219 review and refine processes to make approvals faster, more predictable and less costly. ERCA has undertaken improvements to its internal databases, its internal work flows, and has revised its website to allow for online application submissions to facilitate review. ERCA’s Board of Directors also endorsed the Conservation Ontario “Client Service and Streamlining Initiative” which has the goals of 1) improving client service and accountability; 2) increasing the speed of approvals and 3) reducing red tape and regulatory burden, while not jeopardizing public health and safety or the environment in the process. Many of the activities associated with this initiative are well under-way and ERCA actively participates in this process.
It is recommended that approval processes can be made faster, more predictable and less costly through adequate policy support from the Province and through better quality submissions by the applicants. CAs, and Conservation Ontario are currently working on this on a variety of fronts, including looking at opportunities to improve pre- consultation, establishing template CA-municipal MOUs, and undertaking a multi- stakeholder process flow review workshop. Updated technical guidance from the province is an important first step.
ERCA also supports utilizing S. 28 as one tool to address adapting to a changing climate. As part of the update to the S. 28 regulation, it is recommended that the Province include specific elements to address extreme weather events, including:
Updating the technical guidelines to provide provincial direction on how to include climate change considerations. These guidelines should support CA decision-making for both planning and permitting functions;
Standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency;
Ensuring that the definition of “conservation of land” ties to the CA role in mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA
General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
Focusing conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and property (ERO 013-4992)
ERCA BoD 66 of 219 Focusing conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and property
ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) number 013-4992 Notice type Regulation Act Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990 Posted by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Notice stage Proposal Proposal posted April 5, 2019 Comment period April 5, 2019 - May 21, 2019 (46 days) Open
This consultation closes at 11:59 p.m. on: May 21, 2019
Proposal summary
We are proposing a regulation that outlines how conservation authorities permit development and other activities for impacts to natural hazards and public safety. The proposed regulation will make rules for development in hazardous areas more consistent to support faster, more predictable and less costly approvals.
Proposal details Description of the Regulation
Prohibited activities set out in Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act as amended by Schedule 4 of the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 include:
Development in areas related to natural hazards such as floodplains, shorelines, wetlands and hazardous lands (i.e. lands that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock); and Interference with or alterations to a watercourse or wetland.
The Ministry is proposing to create a regulation further defining the ability of a conservation authority to regulate prohibited development and other activities for impacts to the control of flooding and other natural hazards.
This regulation would replace Ontario Regulation 97/04 which governs the content of conservation authority regulations under the current Section 28(1) of the Act, as well as all existing conservation authority regulations (O.Reg. (Ontario Regulation) 42/06, O.Reg. (Ontario Regulation) 146-148, O.Reg. (Ontario Regulation) 150-153, O.Reg. (Ontario Regulation) 155-172, O.Reg. (Ontario Regulation) 174-182, and O.Reg. 319/09 (Ontario Regulation)).
Consolidating and harmonizing the existing 36 individual conservation authority-approved regulations into 1 Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry approved regulation will help to ensure consistency in requirements across all conservation authorities while still allowing for local flexibility based on differences in risks posed by flooding and other natural hazards.
For the purposes of this regulation the Ministry is also proposing to:
ERCA BoD 67 of 219 1 Update definitions for key regulatory terms to better align with other provincial policy, including: “wetland”, “watercourse” and “pollution”; Defining undefined terms including: “interference” and “conservation of land” as consistent with the natural hazard management intent of the regulation; Reduce regulatory restrictions between 30m (meters) and 120m (meters) of a wetland and where a hydrological connection has been severed; Exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit including certain alterations and repairs to existing municipal drains subject to the Drainage Act provided they are undertaken in accordance with the Drainage Act and Conservation Authorities Act Protocol; Allow conservation authorities to further exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit provided in accordance with conservation authority policies; Require conservation authorities to develop, consult on, make publicly available and periodically review internal policies that guide permitting decisions; Require conservation authorities to notify the public of changes to mapped regulated areas such as floodplains or wetland boundaries; and Require conservation authorities to establish, monitor and report on service delivery standards including requirements and timelines for determination of complete applications and timelines for permit decisions.
These regulations are a critical component of Ontario’s approach to reducing risks posed by flooding and other natural hazards and strengthening Ontario’s resiliency to extreme weather events.
Ensuring conservation authority permitting decisions focus and deliver on their core mandate of protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards is part of the government’s Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan (https://prod-environmental- registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2018-11/EnvironmentPlan.pdf) to help communities and families prepare and respond to climate change. The proposed changes will also provide the business sector with a clear and consistent regulatory environment in which to operate and will help to make approval processes faster, more predictable and less costly.
As more extreme weather events occur that threaten our homes, businesses and infrastructure, it’s important to ensure conservation authorities deliver on their core mandate for protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these regulations is critical component of this government’s strategy for strengthening Ontario’s resiliency to extreme weather events.
Once established, the province is also proposing to bring into force un-proclaimed sections of the Conservation Authorities Act associated with conservation authority permitting decisions and regulatory enforcement.
The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is consulting on a proposal to ensure that conservation authorities focus and deliver on their core mandate, and to improve the governance of conservation authorities. For more information, visit Environmental Registry notice 013-5018 (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5018).
Public consultation opportunity Written comments and other feedback related to this posting can be sent directly to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry via email to [email protected]
Supporting materials
Related links
Conservation Authorities Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27#BK43)
ERCA BoD 68 of 219 2 Related ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) notices
Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act (/notice/013-5018)
Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan (/notice/013-4208)
View materials in person Some supporting materials may not be available online. If this is the case, you can request to view the materials in person.
Get in touch with the office listed below to find out if materials are available.
Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Peterborough , ON K9J 8M5 Canada 705-755-5375
Comment
Let us know what you think of our proposal. Have questions? Get in touch with the contact person below. Please include the ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) number for this notice in your email or letter to the contact. Read our commenting and privacy policies. (/page/commenting-privacy)
Submit by mail Alex McLeod Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Peterborough , ON K9J 8M5 Canada
Connect with us
Contact Alex McLeod
705-755-1374
ERCA BoD 69 of 219 3 [email protected]
P.519.776.5209 April 30, 2019 F.519.776.8688 360 Fairview Avenue West Suite 311, Essex, ON N8M 1Y6 Public Input Coordinator Species Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Floor 5N Peterborough ON K9J 3C7 Canada
RE: ERO Number 013-5033 - 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes
Pursuant to the review of the Environmental Registry proposal to change the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [ERO number 013-5033], the following comments from the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) are provided for your information and consideration. ERCA previously commented on the related Discussion Paper (ERO number 013-4143).
General, Introductory Comments
ERCA generally supports the recommendations to modernize and improve the effectiveness of the act and improve outcomes for species at risk. We also support opportunities to undertake landscape and ecosystem-based approaches to Species at Risk (SAR) recovery where doing so would result in better outcomes for the entire natural heritage system.
Specific comments on the proposed changes within each of the five categories follows.
1. Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk in Ontario List With respect to proposed changes 1A and 1D, we are generally supportive of extending the time period, from when a COSSARO species’ assessment and classification report is received by the Minister to when listing is to occur, from three to twelve months. This extended delay in listing allows for additional time for review of the report and for the Minister to receive any additional relevant scientific information relating to the species, which may affect its ultimate classification. This extended delay in listing however, should not apply in circumstances where, in the opinion of the COSSARO membership and/or the Minister, the species is imminently threatened with extinction. In such cases, there should be a provision for an ‘emergency listing’ to protect the species from extinction, after which a thorough follow-up assessment of the species is made.
What is critical in the listing process is that both COSSARO and the Minister make a determination of a species status based upon a thorough understanding of existing populations and trends. As previously outlined in the discussion paper, one of the desired outcomes of the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act is to “ensure species assessments are based on up-to-date science”. This up- to-date science should include accurate population estimates based on results from rigorous, thorough
Amherstburg / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalleERCA BoD / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor 70 of 219 monitoring programs. We do have a concern that none of the currently proposed changes include increased efforts to survey and monitor populations of species at risk. In the absence of an ongoing monitoring program, COSSARO and the Minister could not have an accurate and complete assessment of population status or trends for all of the species at risk, and therefore are not basing the ranking of a particular species at risk on relevant, up-to-date, scientific information.
With respect to proposed changes under item 1E, we do recognize that some species within North America have their core population within the United States and that occurrences of these species in Ontario may be populations which occur at the northern-most portion of their broad geographic range. While the overall condition of risk to the species in the broader biologically relevant geographic area may be lower, the occurrences within Ontario should not be down listed without appropriate consideration of the value these populations may possess in the context of the overall genetic variability within the species. Frequently, populations which occur on the outermost edge of their natural range may possess slightly different genetics from the main core populations. This genetic variability is extremely important in the species’ ability to adapt to such things as climate change. “Jurisdictional species at risk” should only have their classification adjusted if there is sufficient scientific understanding of the species genetic heterogeneity and its capacity for adaptation or resilience.
Under item 1F, we do concur that it would be extremely beneficial to broaden the membership within COSSARO, to include others with relevant expertise. The committee should not only have experts on particular species within its membership, but also landscape ecologists and managers who have expertise in restoring, enhancing, and managing ecosystems on a landscape scale. This will bring to the table a more holistic, natural heritage systems approach to species conservation, instead of exclusively focussing on species-specific recovery actions.
2. Defining and implementing species and habitat protections With respect to the proposed changes outlined within 2A, it is unclear how the Minister would possess information which would conclusively determine that a temporary suspension of species and habitat regulation will not jeopardize the survival of the species in Ontario. When a species is newly listed by COSSARO there is sufficient evidence that the species’ survival IS in jeopardy, hence the listing of the species as endangered or threatened. It appears that the proposed changes enable the Minister to question the listing recommended by COSSARO, when in fact if the species did meet the specified criteria proposed (in order to temporarily suspend species and habitat protections) COSSARO would not have listed the species in the first place.
In addition, species-specific habitat regulations are warranted when clarity is required to define the boundaries or detailed habitat characteristics of the species, which may not be captured within general habitat descriptions. When a habitat regulation is in place, it is most often very specific to the species in question, focused on the geographic range of the species and its detailed requirements. The habitat regulation process also includes a public consultation component.
Amherstburg / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalleERCA BoD / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor 71 of 219 3. Developing species at risk recovery policies We have no issues with the proposed changes listed under category 3.
4. Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements, and developing regulatory exemptions With respect to the creation of a regulatory charge and agency, we do believe that, if implemented properly, the overall effect of such a program will result in benefit many species including the target species at risk. Proper implementation of such a program will require that it is strategic and coordinated, apply to only an appropriate subset of species, and result in activities that will support the protection and recovery of the species as determined by appropriate informed, unbiased experts. Provisions should be put into place to ensure that the timing, size, function and effectiveness of the activities are completed satisfactorily.
In addition, such a program should be administered in keeping with the precautionary principle of the Act, and the government’s commitment to ensure that the Endangered Species Act provides stringent protections for species at risk (i.e., will not jeopardize the survival of a prescribed species or have any other significant adverse effects).
5. Enforcing the Endangered Species Act We do believe that in all circumstances, consistent, effective enforcement of the regulations should be the ultimate goal to ensure stringent protection for species at risk. We support the government’s proposal to update and enhance the enforcement powers and provisions of officers. It is also recommended that the government ensure there is adequate staffing and capacity in order to effectively achieve the desired enhancement to the enforcement program.
Schedule 5, Bill 108
The Proposed Species at Risk Conservation Fund
The proposed amendments listed in Schedule 5 of Bill 108 introduce the establishment of the Species at Risk Conservation Fund (herein, ‘the Fund’) to provide for funding of activities that are “reasonably likely to protect or recover conservation fund species or support their protection or recovery”. The Fund does not apply to all listed species, rather only those the Minister designates through regulation as ‘conservation fund species’, however, the proposed legislative additions do not specify the criteria the Minister will apply in designating these species. We recommend the Province develop and make available the criteria which will be used to designate species, which should be developed through collaboration with COSSARO, using best available scientific data, to ensure listing of species as ‘conservation fund species’ will not jeopardize the survival of the species in Ontario.
We are also requesting confirmation that the establishment of the Fund will not replace/divert funds from the current Species at Risk Stewardship Program administered by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Currently, CAs are eligible to receive funds from this program to administer projects within their watershed boundaries to protect and help facilitate the recovery of SAR in Ontario. It is recommended that CAs remain eligible to receive funds from the Species at Risk Stewardship
Amherstburg / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalleERCA BoD / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor 72 of 219 Program as well as be eligible for the proposed Species at Risk Conservation Fund to support projects within their jurisdictions which enable positive outcomes from SAR. ERCA, like other Conservation Authorities, are are actively involved in helping proponents address their overall benefit obligations through the delivery of habitat improvements required under S. 17(2)c permits on conservation authority owned lands and through our agreements, we advise municipalities on matters related to potential ecological impacts to SAR.
Schedule 5 further sets out the introduction of a new Crown Agency and board of directors which will administer and manage the affairs of the Fund. The Agency would receive funds primarily as a result of landscape agreements, permits authorizing actions otherwise prohibited by the Act, and agreements with Aboriginal persons. The proposed legislation sets out that the composition of the Agency and its board of directors will be set out in regulation.
ERCA is concerned that this will create an added level of regulation to the process, and that funds from local SAR impacts could be diverted to other areas in Ontario, or support other research. ERCA would support a Fund that helps to create local natural heritage/SAR strategies, which are designed to benefit local SAR to ensure that any potential impact to SAR habitat as a result of local development could then be delivered or implemented strategically. ERCA further recommends that eligibility requirements include local expertise and knowledge, local indigenous knowledge, and that resources be directed to local conservation agencies for implementation. Further, ERCA recommends that prior to creating an additional Agency, that the Province explore the opportunities to deliver the objects of the proposed agency through Conservation Authorities who are already in place, and already have that capacity and expertise. This is also in keeping with the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan which supports the roles of Conservation Authorities as natural resource managers within a watershed context.
We would be pleased to discuss any of the above comments at your convenience. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you should have any questions or require any additional information.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Proposed changes.
Sincerely,
Richard Wyma General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
Amherstburg / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalleERCA BoD / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor 73 of 219
May 30, 2019
Planning Act Review Provincial Planning Policy Branch 777 Bay Street, 13th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Re: Conservation Ontario’s Comments on “Bill 108 – (Schedule 12) – the proposed More Homes, More Choice Act: Amendments to the Planning Act” (ERO# 019-0016)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Schedule 12 of “Bill 108 – the proposed More Homes, More Choice Act”. Conservation Ontario is the network of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CAs). These comments are not intended to limit consideration of comments shared individually by CAs through the Bill 108 consultation process.
Conservation authorities are involved in the land use planning in the following ways: as a regulator under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act; as a public body under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act; as source protection authorities under the Clean Water Act supporting policy implementation; as resource management agencies operating on a local watershed basis; as a body with delegated authority in plan review to represent the provincial interest for natural hazards; and as the province’s second largest landowners who may become involved in the planning and development process, either as an adjacent landowner or a proponent. In these roles, CAs endeavour to provide the best guidance to their municipal partners regarding how to balance multiple provincial and watershed priorities in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Conservation Ontario offers the following comments on some of the main aspects of the proposal below.
Streamlining Development Approvals Processes and Facilitate Faster Decisions
Schedule 12 of Bill 108 proposes to amend the Planning Act to streamline development approvals processes and facilitate faster decisions by reducing decision timelines for municipalities for official plans and amendments, zoning by-laws and amendments and for plans of subdivision. It is noted that there does not appear to be a corresponding amendment to assist municipalities to achieve these faster decision timelines. To achieve shorter decision timelines, a multifaceted approach is needed to address some of the current challenges within the planning and development approval system. While it is recognized within the “More homes, more choice: Ontario’s housing supply action plan” document that additional steps will need to be taken to address housing supply and speed up approvals, a further review of internal process, coupled with targeted Provincial investment and guidance would likely do more to expedite decision-making and to achieve the intended results.
ERCA BoD 74 of 219 Conservation Ontario recently hosted a multi-stakeholder Process Flow Review Workshop, which focused on the plan of subdivision process. During this workshop, many best practices were identified, including:
Greater “investment” in the pre-consultation process In general, more effort expended upfront in the planning process leads to more certainty, opportunities for innovation, and timely planning approvals. Some best practices include: - Integrated pre-consultation with the Planning Approval Authority - Having a complete record of comments and requirements from all approval agencies produced shortly thereafter - Allowing other approval agencies, including CAs, to prescreen technical studies prior to a municipality deeming an application complete - For complex projects, the participants should identify major project milestones with projected timelines, as well as commit to ongoing discussions throughout the process - Consideration for the use of design charrettes
Improving quality of submissions Many planning applications require technical studies to demonstrate how the proposed development can proceed in accordance with the regulations, policies, and regulatory requirements of the review agencies. Multiple or poor quality submissions increase the amount of staff time needed to review, prepare comments and attend meetings to sort out problems associated with applications. Good quality submissions, where agency requirements have been met, result in shorter review times, more timely approvals, and cost reductions in the short and long term for all stakeholders. Some best practices include: - Updating technical checklists within a municipality’s Official Plan - The establishment of clear submission guidelines - Having professional attest than an application is complete as part of the technical submission covering letter - Participation of the applicant and the technical experts in pre-consultation and subsequent meetings
Providing better access to decision support tools Clear Provincial, municipal and conservation authority policies and guidelines helps to avoid ambiguity, conflict and unnecessary delay or duplication in the process. CAs, municipalities, the Province and landowners would all benefit from having access to better data and mapping. The provision of high quality data and mapping is critical for agencies to undertake efficient reviews and support timely municipal decision-making. Some best practices include: - Updating Provincial technical guidelines, which provide guidance for the administration and implementation of Provincial policies, plans or regulations - Provision of online screening maps to identify natural hazards, such as floodplains - Providing public access to agency plan review policies, procedures and guidelines
Conservation Ontario is concerned that unless proposed changes to timelines are made in conjunction with efforts to streamline the planning process, that it is unlikely that the proposed legislated change
ERCA BoD 75 of 219 will achieve its intended effect. Reducing the timeframes without providing adequate support to the Planning Approval Authorities and technical review agencies will more likely result in more applications being appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) for non-decision. There is already a significant backlog of cases at the LPAT; adding additional cases will significantly delay development approvals.
Support a Range and Mix of Housing Options and Boost Housing Supply
Bill 108 includes a proposal to require municipalities to authorize an additional residential unit in both the primary dwelling and an ancillary building or structure. For a single family dwelling, this would result in an additional two residential units on each property. Conservation Ontario recommends an amendment to this portion of the Bill to exclude areas subject to natural hazards (as described in S. 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement) from allowing additional residential units. These areas pose a risk to life and property and allowing additional residential units in these areas would put more people and property at risk. The proposed legislation should be amended to specify that additional residential units are supported only in areas that are not subject to natural hazards and that have safe access. The Province is urged to make this change within the Bill to protect people and property from natural hazards. This is particularly pertinent as some areas within the Province are currently moving towards disaster recovery and post-flooding redevelopment.
Make Charges for Community Benefits More Predictable
The Province is proposing to make charges for community benefits more predictable by establishing a new authority that would enable municipalities to collect funds for community benefit purposes. In developing the regulations that support this change the Province should consider the multiple benefits that parkland provides, including green infrastructure which helps to manage natural hazards on the landscape and contributes to the protection of our water resource systems.
Return to de novo Hearings at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
The Province is proposing to allow the LPAT to make decisions based on a return to de novo hearings in all cases. As noted above, the proposed decrease in decision-making timeframes will likely results in an increase in the number of appeals of planning applications to the LPAT. This can have the effect of producing an adversarial process and may serve as a disincentive to fully participate in the pre- consultation process. Therefore, returning to de novo hearings has the potential to extend approval timeframes.
It is important to ensure that the updated Local Planning Appeal Tribunal process continues to place a high emphasis on: good planning, consistency with provincial direction, and meeting community/municipal planning vision as identified in Upper and Lower tier Official Plans. The LPAT should retain its focus on testing for consistency with provincial policy statements, particularly as it relates to natural hazards.
ERCA BoD 76 of 219
Conservation authorities are solution-oriented agencies, who represent the provincial interest in protecting public health and safety and work closely with their municipal partners to ensure development proposals uphold these interests. CAs continue to be committed to streamlining planning processes and to providing the best guidance to their municipal partners in a timely and cost-effective manner. Conservation authorities are prepared to assist the Province with identifying those streamlining opportunities as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal, should you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me at extension 226.
Sincerely,
Leslie Rich, RPP Policy and Planning Liaison c.c. all CA CAOs/GMs
Conservation Ontario 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket ON L3Y 3W3 Tel: 905.895.0716 Email: [email protected] www.conservationontario.ca
ERCA BoD 77 of 219
May 28, 2019
Sharifa Wyndham-Nguyen Client Services and Permissions Branch 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
Re: Conservation Ontario’s comments on: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program – Environmental Assessment Act (ERO#013-5102), Discussion paper: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program (ERO#013-5101), and Schedule 6 of Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program – Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Discussion Paper: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program. Conservation Ontario is the network of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CAs). These comments are not intended to limit consideration of comments shared individually by CAs through the Environmental Assessment Act review and consultation process.
Conservation authorities bring an important perspective to this review; as proponents of Class Environmental Assessments (Class EAs) and as members of the provincial Government Review Team (GRT) which provides feedback on Terms of References and environmental assessments in Ontario. As a major landowner and resource management agency in the most densely populated areas in Ontario (90% of Ontario’s residents live in a CA watershed), CAs are the proponent or co-proponent of a number of environmental assessments (EA), both Individual EAs and through the provincial Class EA process. Conservation Ontario has managed the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (Class EA) since 1993. The Class EA establishes a planning and approval process for a variety of remedial flood and erosion control projects that may be carried out by CAs. The Class EA sets out procedures and environmental planning principles for CAs to follow to plan, design, evaluate, implement and monitor remedial flood and erosion control projects so that environmental effects are considered as required through the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.
Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program – Environmental Assessment Act (ERO# 013-5102)
This proposal contains three components, including: modernizing the EA program, ensuring timeliness, and clarifying the Minister’s authority. Conservation Ontario is supportive of the third component, namely, clarifying the Minister’s authority to reconsider an approval of a project and ask for additional information on an individual EA, and therefore has not provided further comments on this subject. Comments on the remaining two components can be found below.
I. Modernizing the environmental assessment program to focus on higher-risk projects
1
ERCA BoD 78 of 219 This posting identifies immediate actions the Ministry is proposing to undertake to ensure the EA program focusses on projects with the greatest potential for environmental impacts by exempting very low-risk activities. Conservation Ontario is supportive of the current proposed legislative amendments, particularly with regard to the provisions which would allow other Class EA proponents to identify undertakings within the class to which the Act would not apply, including as a result of screening criteria specified within the Class EA parent document.
The Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (herein, “the Class EA”) outlines a planning and design process for undertakings applicable to the Class EA parent document. The Class EA utilizes screening criteria to assist the proponent CA with selection of the preferred alternative method(s) for an undertaking, as well as the detailed environmental analysis of the preferred alternative which results in the selection of the appropriate documentation for the undertaking. The proposed amendments to the EAA would allow Conservation Ontario to work with the Ministry and Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities to identify activities with a low potential risk for net environmental impacts to be exempt from the requirements of the Act. The current undertakings covered by this Class EA are routine in nature and have generally known and manageable environmental impacts. Conservation Ontario is committed to working with the Province to identify opportunities through future streamlining amendments to our parent Class EA document to better align projects with the appropriate level of assessment.
Lastly, although some activities may become exempt from the requirements of the EAA, it is important that the proponent be aware of their obligations under the Clean Water Act source protection plans for all applicable undertakings. The Clean Water Act allows for the identification of activities that could pose a risk to drinking water sources, which are assigned a risk level based on scientific methodologies under the Act. For example, in areas of a certain percentage of impervious surface, activities such as: the storage of snow, road salt application and road salt storage may be assessed as “significant level risks” to the local drinking water source. In such cases, mandatory policies apply to manage the risks. It is recommended that Class EA proponents utilize and incorporate the risk assessment under the Clean Water Act when identifying activities for non-application of the EAA.
II. Ensure timeliness and certainty for the review of requests to the Minister asking for a higher level of assessment on a project (i.e. “bump-up)
Conservation Ontario is supportive of the proposal to ensure timeliness and certainty for the review of requests to the Minister asking for a higher level of assessment on a project. In the past, Conservation Ontario has submitted comments to the Ministry encouraging that there be more guidance on the process, to prevent Part II Order requests that are submitted solely for the purposes of delaying a project, as well as those submitted without the requester attempting to first resolve its concerns with the project through consulting directly with the proponent.
Conservation Ontario commends the Province for clearly defining which matters bump-ups can be requested on, including matters related to Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada or a prescribed matter of provincial importance (to be defined further in regulation). When developing the regulation which identifies matters of provincial importance, Conservation Ontario recommends the Province clearly delineate and define specific matters of provincial interest in order to provide clarity to the public with regard to filing Part II Order Requests with the Minister. Conservation Ontario recommends that matters related to natural hazards protection and management and drinking water source protection are included in the proposed regulation.
2
ERCA BoD 79 of 219
It is Conservation Ontario’s understanding that the prescribed matters of provincial importance, as well as the proposed limits on when the Minister must make decisions on requests and deadlines for Part II Order Requests, will be outlined in regulation which will be posted to the Environmental Registry for public review and comment. Conservation Ontario welcomes the opportunity to continue to engage with the Province on these matters when the opportunity becomes available.
The posting further proposes amendments to the Act such that Ontarians are given priority over other interests by limited bump-up requests to only those that live in Ontario. Conservation Ontario notes that many projects have the potential for transboundary environmental impacts (e.g. upstream or downstream impacts associated with in-water works). In such cases, the interests of those residing outside of Ontario should be accommodated and considered. An amendment to Schedule 6 of Bill 108 is recommended to address those cases.
With regard to the proposed amendments for timelines associated with Part II Order Requests, Conservation Ontario strongly supports the proposal to prescribe a deadline which would apply to the Minister’s decision whether to issue an order to comply with Part II of the Act after a request has been received. Additional commentary on the proposed amendments found within Bill 108 are included below.
Schedule 6 - Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019
The following comments on Bill 108 are arranged around the two components found within the “Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program – Environmental Assessment Act” posting discussed above.
I. Modernizing the environmental assessment program to focus on higher-risk projects
The proposed legislative amendments as described in section 15.4 of the Act would allow the Minister or Director to “amend an approved class environmental assessment on the Minister’s or Director’s own initiative”. This proposed addition to the Act does not identify a requirement or process for notification/consultation with proponents of class environmental assessments. Conservation Ontario recommends that prior to publication of a notice of the proposed amendment to the Environmental Registry, the Director or Minister notifies and consults with the applicable proponent(s) and identifies the rationale for the proposed amendments.
I. Ensure timeliness and certainty for the review of requests to the Minister asking for a higher level of assessment on a project (i.e. “bump-up)
The proposed amendments identified in Bill 108 state that the Minister would be required to provide written reasoning to the proponent of the undertaking and the person(s) who requested the order should the Minister not make a decision within the prescribed timeline. It is recommended that this be amended such that the Minister would be required to notify both parties prior to the deadline as prescribed. As written, the proposed legislation does not identify when in the review process the Minister would need to provide this notice to both parties, which would potentially create significant delays in notifying parties on the status of Part II Order Requests. Ensuring that both parties are notified prior to the prescribed deadline would increase transparency regarding government decision-making and would allow proponents to adjust project timelines accordingly to accommodate the extended
3
ERCA BoD 80 of 219 review period for the request. Currently, the Class Environmental Assessment for Flood and Erosion Control projects outlines that, upon receipt of all necessary and satisfactory information from the requester, the Ministry will review the information and prepare a recommendation to the Minister on whether to approve or deny the request within a minimum target of 45 days. It is recommended that the Province clearly define, in regulation, a deadline for the review and Minister’s decision on Part II Order Requests and that the regulation identifies a clear process with defined timelines for extensions under exceptional circumstances.
Lastly, in addition to the proposed timelines prescribed in regulation, Conservation Ontario is supportive of the amendments in Bill 108 which would allow the LGIC to introduce a regulation which would prescribe deadlines for Part II Order Requests in order to provide transparency for proponents of class environmental assessments. It is recommended that the Province maintain the current approach outlined in the Class Environmental Assessment for Flood and Erosion Control projects, which states that a Part II Order Request must be received by the Ministry within the 30-day review period following a ‘Notice of Filing’, or 15-day period in the case of a ‘Notice of Addendum’. Aligning the deadline for Part II Order Requests with the review timelines currently prescribed in the class environmental assessment parent documents is appreciated and provides clarity and certainty regarding these requests to proponents.
Discussion paper: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program The following section offers comments on the four areas of focus identified in the Discussion Paper: Modernizing Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Program (ERO#013-5101).
Ensure better alignment between the level of assessment and the level of environmental risk The discussion paper poses the question of what kind of projects should require an environmental assessment in Ontario, citing the different approaches taken across other Canadian jurisdictions, such as inclusion of private-sector undertakings and the use of a project list to clearly delineate which projects should be required to complete an EA based on size, type and location. Conservation Ontario recommends the applicability of the EAA be extended to any activity or undertaking where design alternatives exist and which has the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts. The applicability of the EAA to any activity or undertaking should include, but not be limited to impacts to matters of provincial interest as prescribed in a future regulation under the Act.
Further, the discussion paper outlines the potential move to a project list under the EAA which would be used to identify which projects are subject to an EA. Conservation Ontario has a number of concerns with this proposed approach. While Conservation Ontario agrees that the move to a project list would align Ontario’s approach with other jurisdictions in Canada, including with the Federal approach, we recommend the Province retain the current approach of requiring all project types to be subject to the requirements of the EAA unless otherwise exempt. While the project list does pose some benefits for proponents such as ease of identification of projects and standard terminology/consistency across all project types, this approach may not adequately address case or site-specific environmental impacts associated with a particular undertaking. The project list approach would also need to be highly flexible and iterative, as a standardized list may not be able to adequately address all projects that have the potential for adverse environmental impacts particularly within a sector which is evolving. With the need for an iterative approach, a project list may create more confusion for proponents and members of the public regarding whether or not a project is subject to the EAA.
4
ERCA BoD 81 of 219 Through the approved parent Class EA documents, Ontario’s current approach to EA allows for the level of assessment to be appropriately aligned with the level of risk, allowing for a more streamlined approach for designated projects. Introducing a project list has the potential to be duplicative of the designated undertakings currently covered under Ontario’s approved Class EAs. Should the Province proceed with the project list approach, the EAA should be amended to allow for the Minister to have powers to designate additional projects to be subject to the requirements of the EAA, if it is in the opinion of the Minister that the project may cause adverse environmental impacts.
Eliminate duplication between environmental assessments and other planning and approvals processes The discussion paper identifies that, since the inception of the EAA in Ontario, many other processes have been put in place that may duplicate requirements for projects subject to the Act. Conservation Ontario is supportive in principle of the proposal to look at streamlining opportunities where similar requirements exist in other legislation or perhaps, more importantly, when there are multiple approvals required for the same undertaking (see further comments in section below).
Further, many projects which take place in Ontario initiated under one class environmental assessment process have the potential to trigger multiple environmental assessments due to the nature of the work. These triggers can result in the need for multiple consultation processes to take place for the same project, usually involving the same group of interested individuals (for instance, when conservation authorities wish to convert construction access routes for erosion control projects to publicly accessible trails). It is recommended the Province explore creating clear guidance for project proponents as well as Class EA managers for when multiple EA requirements are triggered for a single undertaking.
Find efficiencies to shorten timelines from start to finish The discussion paper outlines the potential need for the Province to coordinate a “one-window approach” for the EA program, citing the need to provide proponents with a platform which clarifies EA requirements and coordinates EAs with multiple planning and approvals processes. Conservation Ontario offers the following comments and suggestions related to the “one-window” approach for the EA program.
The EA process deals with conceptual design, whereas many of the subsequent permits and approvals which may be required for a project require detailed design. Due to this reason, it is not recommended that the EA process be used as a “one-window” approval. The EA process, however, is a powerful tool to streamline the approvals process. For example, all provincial approval agencies should use the EA process to identify when a provincial approval may be required for a project. This will require that the provincial approval agencies be involved in the upfront planning of the undertaking, rather than at the end, when the preferred alternative has already been selected. Through such an approach, the detailed technical information which is collected within the EA process could be catalogued in a central registry and used to support subsequent technical studies required for permitting and approvals processes, as well as future projects within the same geographic context. It is recommended that this central registry be used for provincial approval agencies to share comments and to review submissions. This will ensure coordination between the approval agencies, help to avoid conflicting requirements, allow similar work completed in one process to be used for other processes and allow applicants to initiate and streamline certain permit and approval applications during the EA process (where appropriate to do so). While more information is required on details of the proposed “one-window approach”, it is recommended that the Province explore opportunities to collect information gathered throughout the EA process which can be accessed for subsequent permits/approvals for a project.
5
ERCA BoD 82 of 219 Additionally, the discussion paper identifies deficiencies in the current EA program with regard to proponent knowledge of Ministry requirements for documentation and consultation. These deficiencies can result in a need to pause the Ministry’s review process to allow proponents time to provide missing information or additional data, as well as potential delays associated with significant concerns being identified at a later stage in the EA process, triggering the need for further information/studies. In order to avoid delays associated with these deficiencies, as a primary step, Conservation Ontario recommends the Province review and update the Codes of Practice for Ontario’s EA program. The Codes of Practice are useful guides for proponents which outline the legislative requirements and Ministry expectations for various aspects of the EA program, including preparation of an EA, preparation of a Terms of Reference, and requirements for Class EA proponents. While the Codes of Practice are useful guides for proponents, the majority have not been updated in several years. It is recommended the Ministry review and update these guides as appropriate to reflect any changes to the EA program and that technical bulletins be released in between substantive updates to keep the documents current. In addition to the Codes of Practice, there are a number of areas of the EA program which could benefit from clearer guidance from the Ministry. For instance, particularly for proponents of an EA who are not agencies of the Crown, there is a strong need for guidance and increased clarity regarding First Nations consultation. While it is understood that the Crown may delegate the procedural aspects of consultation to proponents of non-Crown agencies such as conservation authorities, there is great uncertainty regarding expectations and a lack of guidance on the process which needs to be utilized for consultation. In order to modernize and clarify this process, it is recommended that the Ministry clearly outline expectations regarding procedurally delegated consultation activities to provide proponents and Indigenous communities with increased clarity and certainty regarding the Ministry’s expectations.
Go digital by permitting online submissions The discussion paper proposes the creation of an electronic registry to support the submission and review of EA documentation as a centralized, digital location for proponents and members of the public to access information related to ongoing EAs in Ontario. Conservation Ontario strongly supports the development of such a registry to enable effective data sharing and increase transparency broadly for EA activities. It is recommended that, in addition to relevant EA documents such as notices, reports, drawings and models, the registry include a spatial component whereby projects are geo-referenced so interested parties are able to view on-going projects within a specified geographic region. It is further recommended that the online registry be searchable and AODA compliant to improve access for all Ontarians. Lastly, the discussion paper mentions that the Ministry is currently implementing a “modern approach to other environmental approvals and permits through the creation of online registries and electronic submission processes”. It is recommended that the proposed EA registry be nested within a broader online portal for environmental approvals and permits administered by the Ministry as per our comments above. As EAs may be required as part of other approval processes, such as Planning Act applications, it would be appropriate for the Province to administer a broad online portal which links on- going EA projects with other environmental approvals and permits.
While the use of an electronic registry may be useful for posting project information and notices, the registry should not fully replace the need for notification of EA project stages at the local level. Conservation Ontario appreciates a stronger focus towards digital notification and documentation for EA projects, however, it is recognized that physical distribution of project notices will still be required to ensure equal access for Ontarians without or with limited online access, particularly those in remote and rural areas. It is recommended that, in addition to the proposed registry, the Province identify opportunities for targeted physical distribution of notices and other EA documents as the public shifts from traditional forms of media (e.g. newspaper notices) to more modern platforms.
6
ERCA BoD 83 of 219
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program – Environmental Assessment Act, the Discussion Paper: Modernizing Ontario’s environmental assessment program, as well as the proposed amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act set out in Schedule 6 of Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019. Should you have any questions about this letter please feel free to contact myself at extension 229.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Fischer Policy and Planning Officer c.c. All CA CAOs/GMs
7
ERCA BoD 84 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD13/19
From: Richard Wyma, General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer
Date: June 11, 2019
Subject: Meeting Provincial Priorities for Reducing Regulatory Burden - Update
Strategic Action: 11.2 Complete ERCA’s Planning and Development Guidelines (i.e. Place for Life Policies) and work with partners to ensure implementation success 12.1 Improve efficiency for clients while ensuring that all development is undertaken in a sustainable manner 12.2 Advocate for adaptations to regulatory frameworks 12.3 Enhance communication of ERCA’s Watershed Management Services roles and responsibilities. Improve customer communication to help clarify expectations, timelines and processes 14.1 Expand our Customer Service initiative. Undertake a collaborative approach to develop and publicize new service standards.
Recommendation: THAT ERCA continue to work with Conservation Ontario and the Conservation Ontario Timely Review and Approvals Task Force to develop Templates for CA/Municipal MOUs/Service Agreements and other tools for application by conservation authorities; and further,
THAT ERCA work with municipalities to develop local MOUs/Technical Service Agreements based on templates developed through Conservation Ontario; and further,
THAT ERCA continue consultation and development of the Place for Life Policies within the context of the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019; and further,
THAT Administration report to the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors on its actions related to these commitments.
Summary
In April, ERCA Board of Directors committed to take steps to streamline approval activities and reduce red tape in three key areas: Improving client service and accountability, increasing speed of approvals, and reducing ‘red tape’ and regulatory burden, and help the province address the lack of housing supply. Conservation
ERCA BoD 85 of 219 Ontario has confirmed that all 36 Conservation Authorities have made similar commitments.
ERCA’s Watershed Planner is a member of the Conservation Ontario through the Conservation Ontario Timely Review and Approvals Task Force, which is working with all conservation authorities, and in consultation with Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Ontario Home Builders and the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), and others to develop guidelines for Client Service Standards, policies for CA Plan and Permit Review, and templates for CA/Municipal MOUs/Service Agreements
Essex Region has been identified as a High Growth Area based on growth projections and numbers of planning and permit applications. As a High Growth Area, ERCA has committed to have its development-related and client-centric materials readily available to facilitate growth processes.
Discussion
In April 2019, the ERCA Board of Directors approved Report BD 07/19 which committed ERCA to work with Conservation Ontario and other Conservation Authorities to (1) Improve Client Service and Accountability, (2) Increase Speed of Approvals; and (3) Reduce Red Tape and Regulatory Burden. Sin
1. Improve Client Service and Accountability
All ERCA staff that are involved in the development process will be participating in Conservation Authority based Customer Service Training to ensure a consistent level of customer service across all 36 Conservation Authorities.
ERCA’s Watershed Planner is a member of the Conservation Ontario Timely Review and Approvals Task Force (“Task Force”) that is currently working with all Conservation Authorities to develop a Guideline for Client Service Standards Commitment/Policy for CA Plan and Permit Review.
Additionally, the Task Force is reviewing comments from all 36 Conservation Authorities on Client Service Standards for Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review. The intention is to have templates that can be applied consistently across all 36 Conservation Authorities.
Essex Region has been identified as a High Growth Area, based on its projected population growth, and numbers of reported planning and development transactions in 2017 which indicates that growth is taking place and housing supply is needed immediately.
Specifically, this commits ERCA to have a set of development-related and client- centric materials in place to provide transparency of process and rules. This ‘checklist’ includes:
ERCA BoD 86 of 219 – Having publicly accessible agreements and policies that guide reviews and decision-making, including: – Template for CA/Municipal MOUs/Service Agreements – CA plan review and regulation approvals policies/guidelines – CA Complete application requirements – CA Fee Administration Policies for Plan Review and Permitting – CA Client Service Standards Commitment/Policy [including for example, timelines and identification of a senior CA staff contact serving as a ‘client service facilitator’ for plan review and/or permit applications issue management] – CA Online screening maps – CA Annual report on review timelines
The intent is to have these materials in place by August, 2019. ERCA Administration is currently meeting several components of the checklist (e.g. fee policies and schedules, online screening maps, Annual reports on review timelines, complete application requirements). However, these materials are not necessarily available in one package (e.g. in one section of our website).
2. Increase speed of approvals
The Task Force has met with municipalities, industry and development sector stakeholders to undertake representative process flow reviews of plans of subdivisions (and subsequently, site plan control) to identify bottlenecks in the review and approval process. Based on this review, the Task Force will make recommendations related to review timelines and feedback into improving client services and accountability.
3. Reduce “red tape” and regulatory burden
– ERCA, CAs and Conservation Ontario have reviewed legislative and ERO proposals aimed at reducing red tape and regulatory burden (see Report BD12/19).
– ERCA’s Director of Watershed Management Services is a member of the ‘Section 28 Committee’ that is reviewing permit approval timeframes with the proportional level of risk associated with the hazard with a goal of recommending decision timelines and application requirements.
ERCA will continue to work with Conservation Ontario and the Task Force to finalize templates for CA/Municipal MOUs/Service Agreements; and with municipalities to finalize local MOUs/Technical Service Agreements. Administration will also continue to consult on the development of the Place for Life Policies in the context of the More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019.
ERCA BoD 87 of 219
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
ERCA BoD 88 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD14/19
From: Kevin Money, Director of Conservation Services
Date: June 7, 2019
Subject: Peche Island Aquatic Habitat Project
Strategic Action: 7.1 Expand and connect core habitat parcels to ensure species resiliency
8.3 Enhance education and outreach – connect people across our broad range of program activities to their landscape and habitats
Recommendation: THAT administration enter into an agreement with the City of Windsor to build the Peche Island Aquatic Habitat project as described in BD 14/19.
Summary
Peche Island is a City of Windsor park at the Mouth of the Detroit River. A detailed habitat plan has been developed to improve fish habitat in the Detroit River around the island.
The habitat improvements include stabilizing the shoreline and creating habitat that is ideal for fish on the east side of the Island and the creation of off shore reefs on the north end of the island that will create protected, calm water areas for young fish.
A number of permits and confirmation of funding are required before the work can begin in August or September. The City of Windsor has asked ERCA to be the project manager, as ERCA has done for other City of Windsor projects (e.g. Lennon Drain improvements) .
Discussion
The Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Initiative
The Detroit River was designated as an Area of Concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement due, in part, to a significant loss of wetlands and other habitats because of industrial, urban, and agricultural development. Activities such as construction of the shipping channel, the dumping of dredge spoils, the hardening of shoreline, and the destruction of shallow wetlands have resulted in a loss of over 95% of the Detroit River’s coastal wetlands. This has had significant impacts on fish and wildlife populations.
The Detroit River Canadian Cleanup (DRCC), a program of the Essex Region Conservation Authority, implements the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) on behalf of a community-based
ERCA BoD 89 of 219 partnership working together to protect, restore and enhance the Detroit River ecosystem. The federal, provincial and municipal government, local industries, scientific researchers, local environmental organizations and many dedicated citizens are key partners and play an important role in the cleanup process. The DRCC’s member organizations provide leadership in identifying partnerships and funding opportunities to support and implement clean up goals.
The Habitat Work Group of the DRCC guides restoration efforts and includes aquatic biologists from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Essex Region Conservation Authority, and the University of Windsor.
Project Description
The protection and restoration of existing coastal wetland and aquatic habitat is a priority for the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup partnership. Several studies, habitat assessments and improvement projects, including shoreline softening projects and spawning reefs, have been completed since the development of RAP program. Over the last several years, the DRCC Habitat Work Group has endeavored to prioritize any remaining fish habitat enhancement projects and determine short and long-term restoration objectives for the river. After decades of pollution abatement programs and habitat restoration efforts, in addition to improved fish population management (fishing regulations), recent fish spawning surveys have documented successful spawning of a number of species including the return of Lake Whitefish, Lake Sturgeon, Northern Madtom, and continued reproductive success of walleye.
Research has also indicated the importance of creating wetland habitat and submerged aquatic vegetation beds in the Detroit River as nursery habitat for larval and young-of- the-year fish. Because of the urban centres of Windsor and Detroit, few of these slow water areas exist in the Upper Detroit River. The two islands, Peche Island, a City of Windsor municipal park, and Belle Isle, a Michigan Department of Natural Resources park, provide the only sheltered areas from the fast flows in the uppermost reaches of the river.
The shallow water areas in the water lot to the north of Peche Island need to be protected by creating calm water areas where vegetation could establish. Currently, river currents are strong to the north of the island. Shipping traffic uses the channel to the north so the shore is subject to heavy wave action. As a result, the island is experiencing significant erosion and shoreline stability issues.
This restoration project would create a series of offshore breakwaters in the 2 meter contour in the water lot to the north of the island. The breakwater would protrude above the water and would be constructed as a series of long narrow islands. Sheltering islands provide a low energy area sheltered from waves and boat wakes for fish to rest and feed. Sand and rounded stone (cobble) placed around these islands provide a living space for aquatic invertebrates that in turn provide food for fish. The calm water area would provide additional spawning and nursery areas in the upstream reaches of the river. The
ERCA BoD 90 of 219 newly created calm water area may then be colonized by aquatic macrophytes. Submerged and emergent structures in the form of logs and stumps and brush structures could be placed in the shallow water areas behind the off-shore breakwater.
Initial biological inventories were obtained at this site in 2015 by OMNR with follow up work by DFO 2017. In 2016, ERCA retained Landmark Engineers to undertake a feasibility study to examine and assess the non-biological aspects of developing the candidate habitat site. They also determined the overall feasibility of developing the sites from a physical habitat, hydrographic, cost, and navigational perspective. The engineer provided preliminary site drawings as well as costing estimates for several variations of the project.
This project would provide habitat benefits to a number of species and was identified by the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup’s Habitat Work Group as a priority for the corridor. This is particularly exciting because Peche Island is an ecological gem in the City of Windsor and this will provide the public to additional access to the Detroit River.
The large calm water area created by an offshore breakwater would help to establish submergent and possibly emergent vegetation. This calm water area would be used as a spawning and nursery area for various species of fish. The population of the endangered Northern Madtom in the Detroit River is one of only two, or possibly three, extant, reproducing populations in Canada. This species has been found in the waters around Peche Island and Belle Isle. The rock breakwater features in this design are ideal habitat structures for the cavity-nesting Northern Madtom. This project could also provide benefits to the Channel Darter, a threatened species. The entire area would act as the initial fisheries spawning area for the Detroit River, which may have spin off benefits for the river further downstream.
The area would also be used as a staging, nesting, brood rearing and feeding area for various species of waterfowl. Wading birds such as Great Blue Herons and Black-crowned Night Herons frequent the area and could use the beaches in the calm water area for feeding. Shorebirds would use the beaches in the calm water area during spring and fall migration. The beaches on Peche Island have also been used in the past as nesting areas for Spiny Softshell turtles.
Permit Approvals
Regulatory approvals are required by ERCA, the Province of Ontario and two federal departments. Both federal permits include First Nations consultation.
The Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry requires ERCA to register the project in their database and write a detailed species at risk mitigation plan for known species at risk fish in the area. This plan has been developed and the project has been registered with the province.
ERCA BoD 91 of 219 ERCA Section 28 Regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act apply to the Peche Island project. ERCA Administration has made application to Watershed Management Services for the project.
Transport Canada is required to authorize the project under the Navigation Canada Act. Any structure, device or thing — temporary or permanent — made by humans that is in, on, over, under, though or across any navigable water, including the placement of material in a navigable waterway. Transport Canada is required to evaluate impacts to navigation and minimize risks to navigation through our decisions and compliance activities.
In addition to provincial species at risk legislation, federal aquatic species at risk legislation applies to this project and is administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. A detailed permit request was supplied and ERCA has been unofficially notified that a full Fisheries Act Authorization is required as the project includes covering the floor of the Detroit River to create improved fish habitat.
Subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the carrying on of a work or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery or to fish that support such a fishery. However, under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (the Minister) may issue an authorization with terms and conditions in relation to a proposed work or activity that may result in serious harm to fish.
ERCA and the City of Windsor cannot proceed with the project until all four permits are granted. Permit requests were provided to Federal Government in April 2019, and it is anticipated that permits will be granted by September.
Funding and Budgets
In 2018 ERCA’s Detroit River Remedial Action Plan program secured a $225,000 donation through the Swim Drink Fish foundation. The goal of Swim Drink Fish is to make Ontario waters swimmable, drinkable and fishable as water is necessary for the things people value most in life – family and friendship, culture, freedom, and opportunity. This foundation is working in collaboration with the Weston Foundation to implement the Great Lakes Challenge which collaborates with Great Lakes communities to develop and implement revolutionary restoration projects changing Great Lakes experiences forever.
The majority of this funding is directed towards the cost of creating the habitat described above, while some if the funding will be directed towards generating community awareness through signs, video and events.
The cost of this project however is estimated to be over $2,000,000.00 dollars. The City of Windsor’s Council has shown leadership in this initiative by approving $2,500,000 from anticipated one-time Federal Gas Tax funding for this project. The funding is contingent upon the Federal Budget receiving Royal Assent with the recommended one-time
ERCA BoD 92 of 219 Federal Gas Tax funding for all municipalities being included. Should this funding not be approved in the Federal Budget the City of Windsor does not currently have an alternate funding source identified for the $2,500,000, and the project would proceed in phases as funds become available.
It is expected that the project would be initiated in September after permits are issued and consultation with First Nations occurs. City administration has asked ERCA to be the project manager and execute the project once all permits and federal contribution agreements are in place. ERCA has completed similar projects in collaboration with the City of Windsor in the past, such as the Lennon Drain Project, the coordination of Environmental Assessment projects, and Water and Erosion Control Projects in the City which include budget for reasonable administrative fees and staff time which is also partially covered by an additional grant from Environment and Climate Change Canada for the habitat component. The City of Windsor will be presenting a similar report to City of Windsor Council in July.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
ERCA BoD 93 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD15/19
From: Michael Dick, Agricultural Technician
Kevin Money, Director of Conservation Services
Date: June 7, 2019
Subject: Demonstration Farm Update
Strategic Action: 1.3 Research and promote more sophisticated water conservation initiatives.
6.1 Investigate the ‘best’ Best Management Practices (BMPs). Accelerate the pace of BMP implementation and strengthen relationships with stewardship partner
6.3 Review and refocus the Essex County Demonstration Farm activities with agricultural partners. Consider urban farming practices and micro-farming. Better promote the research and results.
Recommendation: THAT ERCA continue to seek out new partnerships, undertake new applied science initiatives and transfer knowledge about these projects to the farming community.
Summary
The Essex Region Demonstration Farm has been working with the farming community for almost 25 years to showcase agricultural best management practices
The farm has multiple demonstration and research projects occurring on a yearly basis
Staff are continuing to work with partners and expand environmentally focused research on the farm with the goal of sharing this knowledge with the local farming community.
Discussion
Since the establishment of the Demonstration Farm in 1995, it has been in place to demonstrate best management practices and innovative technologies that will conserve soil, maintain productivity, improve water quality and quantity, and illustrate that farming and the environment can coexist. The initial goal of the demonstration farm was to highlight innovative agricultural practices and related BMPs, and conduct applied research to demonstrate the benefits of BMPs on the environment that can be implemented by local farmers for use on their own lands. This site continues to be a focus of research efforts related to BMP efficacy and Phosphorous reduction.
This year we will be undertaking the following new and ongoing projects:
ERCA BoD 94 of 219 ESCIA Sulphur Fertility Trials
Historically, yield responses to Sulphur were rare for field crops in Ontario. While some Sulphur is released naturally through the mineralization of soil organic matter, large amounts were also traditionally supplied through the atmospheric deposition of Sulphur from industrial emissions. As emissions have been actively reduced over the past several decades, there has been a significant decline in atmospheric Sulphur deposition. Some growers report there is a risk of yield losses if they do not apply Sulphur and have moved to include some as part of their standard fertility program. With limited options available for evaluating Sulfur sufficiency in-crop (i.e. soil sampling), on-farm strip-trials may be one method to gain a feel for Sulphur responsiveness on the farm. While holding all other nutrient rates the same, test strips which receive Sulfur fertilizer may be compared to test strips which do not receive Sulphur fertilizer.
Ontario Soybean Variety Trials
The Essex County Demonstration Farm is one of 16 Sites from Windsor to the Ottawa Valley, which conduct the Ontario Soybean Variety Trials. The trials are conducted to compare agronomic performance and plant characteristics of various soybean cultivars applying for certification in Ontario. The ECDF is an excellent site for conducting the trials on a clay soil. The trials are conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on behalf of the Ontario Soybean and Canola Committee. The purpose of these tests is to obtain maturity, agronomic, pest, disease, and quality information for use in supporting the registration of new soybean varieties and in preparing a performance report of varieties. This information is valuable as our climate continues to change and agriculture needs to adapt to new weather patterns.
Sub-Irrigation System and Wetland Habitat
Field E incorporates an integrated wetland-crop management system with sub-irrigation, established in 1999, it is one of the first of its kind in Ontario. Concerns have been raised with respect to the losses and loading of various forms of Phosphorous (P) fertilizers to surfaces waters from tile-drained lands under different tillage systems. In particular, some have suggested that a no-till system may be a management practice that reduces the total amount of P lost in drainage waters, but may actually increase the amount of soluble reactive (i.e. most biologically available) P (SRP). There has been, unfortunately, little data collected to date that considers the entire annual losses of P (both surface & tile drainage water) from agricultural lands as impacted by tillage systems and tile drainage. In particular, there is almost no information available on pathway distribution (i.e. surface vs. sub-surface tile drain) and temporal patterns of various forms of P as related to tillage practices. However, this information is critical to develop BMPs and tools for risk assessment (i.e. P index).
ERCA BoD 95 of 219 Alfalfa Demonstration
Alfalfa is the highest-yielding perennial forage crop grown in Ontario and the most frequently grown forage legume. An alfalfa crop can also protect the soil from erosion, add organic matter and break up subsoil compaction with its aggressive tap root. The alfalfa demonstration currently in Field B.
Soil Compaction
Soil compaction is the physical consolidation of the soil by an applied force that destroys structure, reduces porosity, limits water and air infiltration, increases resistance to root penetration, and often results in reduced crop yield. As water infiltration becomes limited, surface drainage, and the potential for soil erosion, increases. Most farmers are aware of compaction problems, but the significance is often underestimated. Compaction effects on crop yield can be a significant factor in today’s farm economy. Recent changes in agricultural practices (such as increased number of operations and larger equipment) have made soil compaction more common. Most yield-limiting compaction is caused by wheel traffic from heavy equipment, often when operations are conducted on wet soils Deep rooted cover crops such as ‘Tillage Radish’ are being considered as a possible way to elevating compaction in no-till production.
Cover Crops
Besides reducing compaction and improving soil structure, cover crops reduce soil erosion, add organic matter, reduce nutrient losses, improve soil fertility, reduce pest populations and help to reduce moisture loss. Some cover crops fix nitrogen but many more require nitrogen to grow. Grass cover crops like rye and Brassicas, like oilseed radish, are excellent scavengers of nitrogen left behind by the main crop. Cover crops that take up nitrogen can help to reduce nitrogen losses due to leaching. This reduces the potential for the contamination of shallow aquifers and water courses by nitrates. When the cover crop is killed, the nutrients held in the plant tissues are returned to the soil and can be used by the following crop.
Monitoring Crop Pest Populations
Many new crop pests have been reported in Ontario in recent years, but one of particular concern to corn producers is Western Bean Cutworm (WBC). OMAFRA has set up a network of traps across the Province to monitor populations of this pest and help farmers make effective control management decisions. Monitoring for flight peaks determines if scouting for the pest is required. The results of scouting for egg masses determines if a pesticide application is required. This research would lead to targeted and responsible spraying of pesticides.
Beneficial Insect Monitoring
The monitoring of beneficial insects, in particular ground beetles is being conducted for the development of a research program around managing and controlling insect pests
ERCA BoD 96 of 219 through appropriate management of the ecosystem instead of using chemical controls. The edges and buffers between agricultural fields that have the potential to be good refuge and sources for natural enemies is being studied. Much is unknown about the potential these buffers concerning insect fauna and new best management practices may arise that reduce the number of chemicals we input into agroecosystems therefore conserving nature.
Soil Microbe Monitoring
Partners are currently conducting research to measure the contributions of soil microbes to N fluxes in vegetated landscape features. In all components of the project, the biological focus is on soil organisms (Bacteria and Archaea) that mineralize organic N, and nitrify and denitrify mineral-N. Fluxes in soil physical (e.g. texture), chemical (e.g. labile organic carbon, nitrate levels), and biological (e.g. ratio of specific mineralization, nitrification, and denitrification genes) properties is being systematically evaluated in order to measure and model the ecosystem services provided by buffer vegetation and cover crops.
Staff are currently in discussions with Agriculture Canada to undertake additional applied research and demonstration plots to increase farmland productivity while also keeping living cover during the winter to reduce Phosphorous runoff into Lake Erie. Further, Agriculture Canada staff would like to explore opportunities for ERCA to assist in knowledge transfer to local farmers on the various initiatives they are undertaking.
Enbridge Demonstration Wetland
With support from Enbridge, the Holiday Beach Demonstration Wetland is a controlled wetland habitat that will improve water quality by reducing phosphorus runoff. It will also serve as a demonstration project to inspire other landowners to recreate this type of wetland on their private property. The focus of this wetland was to both create habitat and make farming business sense. The wetland was located adjacent to County Rd. 50 in an area that was constantly flooding. As a result of the standing water, the farmer never made a profit off of this area of the farm. The area was made into a wetland and provided with a better outlet into big creek to allow the rest of the farm to function better. This year Enbridge is making an additional donation to have a small parking lot built in front of the wetland to allow for easy public access to the wetland.
Future Opportunities
Staff are currently in discussions with Agriculture Canada to undertake additional applied research and demonstration plots to increase farmland productivity while also keeping living cover during the winter to reduce Phosphorous runoff into Lake Erie. Further, Agriculture Canada staff would like to explore opportunities for ERCA to assist in knowledge transfer to local farmers on the various initiatives they are undertaking.
ERCA BoD 97 of 219 Beyond farming, ERCA is seeking opportunities to better link public access and Holiday Beach users to the site through new trails and potentially, additional wetland projects. The site has a lot of potential from a natural heritage and recreational perspective as well given it’s proximity to the Big Creek wetland.
2021 marks the 25th anniversary for the Demonstration Farm and staff will be working towards a celebration that highlights past successes, participation from partners and highlight new projects.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
ERCA BoD 98 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD16/19
From: Katie Stammler, Water Quality Scientist/Source Water Protection Project Manager
Laura Monforton, Risk Management Official
Date: June 4, 2019
Subject: 2018 Risk Management Services Annual Progress Report
Strategic Action: 5.3 Report on the health and quality of our watersheds on a regular basis
Recommendation: THAT Report BD16/19 be received for information
Summary
The Risk Management Official/Inspector (RMO/I) and Risk Management Assistant (RMA) have conducted all of the threat verification inspections to confirm the presence or absence of Significant Drinking Water Threats (SDWTs) identified in the Assessment Report
The RMO/I has been providing guidance to landowners affected by Part IV policies, setting up site visits and negotiating Risk Management Plans (RMPs). Thirteen RMPs were established for existing significant drinking water threats in 2018.
Risk Management Staff continue to collaborate with municipal partners and are providing refresher training in 2019 on Source Water Protection policies.
Discussion
In 2015, all municipalities in the Essex Region, and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, delegated their obligations under Part IV of the Clean Water Act, 2006, to the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). ERCA’s Risk Management Official/Risk Management Inspector (RMO/I) provides these services on behalf of the municipalities in the Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA), as well as the southernmost portion of the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region (TSRSPR), which includes parts of the Town of Lakeshore, the Municipality of Leamington, and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent which receive drinking water from Lake intakes. The Essex Region Risk Management Office collaborates with the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Authority to ensure consistent implementation of our similar policies.
In Fall 2018, in keeping with Board direction, all municipal agreements were extended to December 31, 2021. All of the municipalities agreed to this amendment with agreement from all municipalities.
ERCA BoD 99 of 219 ERCA’s RMO/I produce an annual progress report for Risk Management Services in line with the release of the annual progress report for the Source Protection Plan. Both reports were released and made available on our website on May 1, 2019. Attached is the Risk Management Services annual report summarizing progress made toward implementing Part IV policies between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, highlighting actions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. This report, along with all previous reports, is posted on our website: https://essexregionconservation.ca/source-water-protection/resource-library/
The RMO/Is had a very successful year in 2018 and were able to make substantial progress toward the implementation of Part IV policies. With the help of a Risk Management Assistant, 384 threat verification site visits were completed (including 128 in 2018). Of these visits:
290 properties do not require a RMP,
five (5) require further investigation, and
89 properties require a RMP. Of the 89 properties requiring RMPs, 14 RMPs have been established (including 13 in 2018) and 66 have a RMP in progress which means the RMP process has begun, or the property was issued a notice but no response was received by Risk Management staff to date. The RMO/I has continued to have success with establishing RMPs and anticipates that all existing significant drinking water threats will be addressed by October 1, 2020 as required by the Essex Region Source Protection Plan.
The annual progress report also outlines background information about Source Water Protection and the implementation process, along with details of how the RMO/I implements the Risk Management program. The report concludes with highlights of some of the challenges faced and next steps towards implementation.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
Essex Region Source Protection Area 2018 Risk Management Services Annual Progress Report
ERCA BoD 100 of 219 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA 2018 RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Prepared by:
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor
ERCA BoD 101 of 219 PART IV IMPLEMENTATION – RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES INTRODUCTION
Source water is the water that we take from lakes or rivers to supply people with drinking water. The Clean Water Act is part of the Ontario government’s commitment to ensure access to safe drinking water. It requires the development and implementation of local watershed-based Source Protection Plans (SPP) to protect the source water that supplies municipal drinking water systems from contamination and overuse, now and into the future. Following an extensive process that included broad public input, the Essex Region SPP came into effect on October 1, 2015 and the Thames-Sydenham and Region SPP came into effect on December 31, 2015. Both SPPs contain policies written under Part IV of the Clean Water Act, which municipalities are required to implement.
In 2015, all municipalities in the Essex Region, and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, delegated their obligations under Part IV of the Clean Water Act, 2006, to the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). The Risk Management Official/Risk Management Inspector (RMO/I) provides these services on behalf of the municipalities in the Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA), as well as the southernmost portion of the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region (TSRSPR), which includes parts of the Town of Lakeshore, the Municipality of Leamington, and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The Essex Region Risk Management Office collaborates with the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Authority to ensure consistent implementation of our similar policies. The terms of the first agreement with the municipalities expired on September 30, 2018. Prior to the termination of the agreement, an amendment was issued to extend the agreement to December 31, 2021. All of the municipalities agreed to this amendment.
In 2018, ERCA employed three individuals certified and appointed as Risk Management Officials/Inspectors (RMO/Is), including the Source Water Project Manager who provides administrative oversight and the Regulations Technician, who is available on an as needed basis only. In February 2018, a new staff member took on the full time role of RMO/I. One Risk Management Assistant continued to assist the Risk Management Services Office in conducting threat verification site visits during 2018, but that position has now expired.
The following is a summary of progress made toward implementing Part IV policies between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, highlighting actions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. Please visit our website to see previous annual reports: https:// essexregionconservation.ca/source-water-protection/resource-library/
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor
ERCA BoD 102 of 219 PART IV POLICIES
Polices written under Part IV of the Clean Water Act can be used to prohibit (Section 57) or manage (Section 58) activities identified as Significant Drinking Water Threats (SDWTs). These policies apply to both existing and future (new) SDWTs. In the Essex Region SPP, activities are only prohibited (Section 57) if they are not known to occur in identified vulnerable areas and are not likely to occur in the future. The majority of identified SDWTs will be managed with a Risk Management Plan (RMP) (Section 58). Policies written using section 59 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, are intended to act as a screening tool by municipal planning and building staff to identify any potential future (new) SDWTs that would be subject to Section 57 or Section 58 policies.
The above grade handling and storage of large volumes of liquid fuel was identified as a Significant Drinking Water Threat (SDWT) in the Essex Region SPP. Using the event based approach to model fuel spills, a large vulnerable area called the Event Based Area (EBA) was established. Fuel threats that fall within these areas that meet the criteria to be considered a SDWT are addressed with Section 58 policies requiring a Risk Management Plan to mitigate the potential threat of a fuel spill.
There are additional SDWTs in Lakeshore IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2 and Amherstburg IPZ-1 for which there are either Section 57 or 58 policies. However, the land portion of these areas are typically small and/or dominated by residential or municipal land uses where the identified activities are not likely to exist.
At the time of implementation, 384 potential fuel SDWTs were identified in the ERSPA EBA and 33 in the TSRSPR EBA, but there were no other existing threats identified in other vulnerable areas.
MUNICIPAL INTEGRATION
The RMO/I meets with municipal planning and building staff annually, or as needed. In these meetings, we discuss Source Water Protection in general, the Section 59 process, the issued written direction, and possible scenarios for when a property might require a Risk Management Plan (RMP). These meetings help us to ensure that municipalities are considering Source Water policies in the planning and building process, and allow us to address any questions or concerns. Due to the increased knowledge of the Source Water Protection Program, RMO/Is are also responding to requests from developers doing pre-planning to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the SPP.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor
ERCA BoD 103 of 219 SECTION 59 POLICIES (FUTURE THREATS)
Section 59 policies came into effect on October 1, 2015 and were a priority for implementation because building permits and approvals under the Planning Act and the Building Code Act cannot be issued in vulnerable areas until it has been determined that a SDWT will not be created and/or has been managed as part of the proposed works.
In the spring of 2016, the RMO/I issued a written direction to assist municipalities in expediting the Section 59 screening process for proposed projects under the Planning Act in the identified Event Based Area (EBA). The written direction was updated in 2018. Through incoming planning and building permit applications, municipal staff screen for new activities that may pose a risk to our sources of drinking water and require a notice from the RMO/I if the property is in a vulnerable area, is non-residential, and the application includes an activity that could be a SDWT (e.g. handling and storage of fuel).
Applications under the Building Code Act use a common provincially mandated building permit application form that cannot be altered. In May 2017, the RMO/I provided all municipalities with a “Building Information Sheet” that can be attached to these permit applications to screen the applications as described above. This sheet is meant to accompany the building permit application and does not alter the common application form.
Using the written direction and the Building Information Sheet, the Section 59 screening process has increased in efficiency, with twenty (20) Section 59 Notices being issued in 2016, two (2) Section 59 Notices being issued in 2017 and two (2) Section 59 Notices being issued in 2018 (Table 1).
To date, Section 59 applications have only been received for new potential fuel threats in the Event Based Area. There have not been any applications reviewed for the other Part IV policies applicable to Lakeshore IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2 and Amherstburg IPZ-1. The RMO/I continues to work with municipalities affected by s. 57 Prohibition policies to determine if zoning by-laws can or are already prohibiting these uses. To date, no new applications have been received for any prohibited activities in the ERSPA.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor
ERCA BoD 104 of 219 Table 1 - Summary of all actions taken by the RMO/I in 2016 - 2018 as a result of the Section 59 (Restricted Land Use) screening process for the Event Based Area (EBA).
Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA)
Future Threat Activities 2016 2017 2018
s. 59 Application Site Visits 4 0 1
s. 59 Applications where s. 57 or s. 58 Did Not Apply 14 2 1
s. 59 Applications where s. 57 Applied (Prohibition) 0 0 0
s. 59 Applications were s. 58 Applied (Risk Management Plan) 4 0 1
Total No. of s. 59 Applications 18 2 2
Thames Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region (TSRSPR)
Future Threat Activities 2016 2017 2018
s. 59 Application Site Visits 1 0 0
s. 59 Applications where s. 57 or s. 58 Did Not Apply 1 0 0
s. 59 Applications where s. 57 Applied (Prohibition) 0 0 0
s. 59 Applications were s. 58 Applied (Risk Management Plan) 1 0 0
Total No. of s. 59 Applications 2 0 0
SECTION 58 POLICIES (EXISTING THREATS)
During the preparation of the Assessment Report, 384 properties were identified in the ERSPA and 33 properties in the TSRSPR Event Based Areas as potentially containing a volume of fuel that meets the criteria to be considered a SDWT. The policies written to address these existing threats use Section 58 (Risk Management Plans) of the Clean Water Act. All identified potential existing threats must be addressed by October 1, 2020 (within five years of the SPPs taking effect). As of December 31, 2018, threat verification inspections have been conducted at 383 of the 384 existing properties identified in the ERSPA and are completed for all 33 of the existing properties identified in the TSRSPR.
Threat verification inspections of the identified potential existing SDWTs have been conducted to collect information about the potential SDWT (e.g. size, location and contents of tanks). The RMO uses this information to determine whether or not these threats meet the criteria to be considered a Significant Drinking Water Threat (i.e. meet the fuel volume thresholds and are located within the Event Based Area). If Risk Management staff determine that the threat does not meet the criteria, no further action is necessary and a letter is issued to that effect. If the threat did meet the criteria, the landowner and/or person engaged in the activity (henceforth
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor
ERCA BoD 105 of 219 referred to as landowner) is notified in writing that they will require a s. 58 Risk Management Plan (RMP).
Among the inspections completed in the ERSPA; 290 properties do not require a RMP, five (5) require further investigation, and 89 properties require a RMP. Of the 89 properties requiring RMPs, 66 have a RMP in progress and 14 RMPs have been established. Among the inspections completed in the TSRSPR; 22 properties do not require a RMP; eight (8) properties require further investigation, and three (3) properties have a RMP in progress. ‘In progress’ means the RMP process has begun, or the property was issued a notice but no response was received by Risk Management staff to date (Table 2a and 2b).
NEGOTIATING RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS (SECTION 58)
The RMO/I continues to work with a number of businesses and landowners on negotiating Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to manage fuel threats identified in vulnerable areas throughout the region. A RMP is a document that allows the activity to continue in a way that protects sources of drinking water. RMPs outline all of existing preventative measures, as well as those that are required to prevent a fuel spill and contain one should it occur on the property. Site visits are scheduled with the RMO/I and landowner to find solutions that accurately reflect fuel storage on the property (i.e. tanks unused, plans for fuel tank decommissioning, etc.) and to discuss the RMP that is required to manage the threat.
The process for establishing a RMP continues until the RMO/I and landowner are satisfied with the completion of the required risk management measures. Following the completion of the requirements, the RMP is agreed to and comes into effect on the date that it is signed by both parties. A typical RMP incorporates the following required risk management measures to protect our sources of drinking water:
• Fuel Tank Inspections: periodic inspections (e.g. daily/weekly/ monthly) that are completed and maintained by on-site staff to ensure equipment is in good condition.
• Spill Prevention, Containment and Emergency Response Plans: preparing plans that are implemented on-site for proper containment, emergency response, and spill prevention.
• Training: staff to receive training on spill prevention, containment and emergency response plans, fuel tank inspections/ record keeping, standard operating procedures, etc.
• Documentation for Proof of Adherence to Applicable Regulations: documentation for fuel tank installation completed by TSSA certified technician, evidence of compliance actions related to fuel regulations to ensure tanks are operating under TSSA requirements and remain safe for operation, etc.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor
ERCA BoD 106 of 219 Table 2a - Detailed results of the actions taken by the RMO/I from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 for each municipality with existing threats identified in the ERSPA and TSRSPR Assesment Reports
2018 Risk Management Services Summary (Existing Threats)
Chatham- Amherstburg Essex Kingsville LaSalle Pelee Tecumseh Windsor Lakeshore Leamington Total Kent Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA) Threat verification site visits 6 3 37 0 0 2 9 1 70 - 128 No RMP required 6 1 18 0 0 2 9 1 41 - 78 RMP established 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 7 - 13 1Further Investigation Required 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 - 4 RMP in progress 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 24 - 43 RMP Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 - 2 Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region (TSRSPR) Threat verification site visits ------3 3 6 11 No RMP required ------3 0 1 4 RMP established ------0 0 0 0 1Further Investigation Required ------0 3 5 8 RMP in progress ------0 0 0 0 RMP Required ------0 0 0 0 1Sites identified as ‘resource extraction stations’ requiring further investigation (e.g. brine or oil pumping stations, volumes associated with storage tanks, etc.).
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor ERCA BoD 107 of 219 Table 2b - Detailed results of all actions taken by the Risk Management Services Office from January 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2018 for each municipality with existing threats identified in the ERSPA Assessment Report and the TSRSPR Assessment Report.
Risk Management Services Summary (Existing Threats)
Chatham- Amherstburg Essex Kingsville LaSalle Pelee Tecumseh Windsor Lakeshore Leamington Total Kent Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA) Total Identified threats in the AR 16 31 93 3 3 12 33 29 164 - 384 Threat verification site visits 16 31 93 3 3 12 33 29 163 - 383 No RMP required 16 28 62 3 1 10 29 26 115 - 290 RMP established 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 7 - 14 1Further investigation required 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 - 4 RMPs in progress 0 2 27 0 0 2 0 0 35 - 66 RMP required 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 - 9 2Total threats addressed 16 28 63 3 3 10 31 28 122 - 304 3Total threats remaining 0 3 30 0 0 2 2 1 42 - 80 Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region (TSRSPR) Total Identified threats in the AR ------6 9 18 33 Threat verification site visits ------6 9 18 33 No RMP required ------5 5 12 22 RMP established ------0 0 0 0 1Further investigation required ------0 3 5 8 RMPs in progress ------1 1 1 3 RMP required ------0 0 0 0 2Total threats addressed ------5 5 12 22 3Total threats remaining ------1 4 6 11 1Sites identified as ‘resource extraction stations’ requiring further investigation (e.g. brine or oil pumping stations, volumes associated with storage tanks, etc.). 2Threats that have been addressed include those where either no RMP is required or a RMP has been established. 3Remaining threats are those that have a RMP in progress, require a RMP, or require further investigation.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / Tecumseh / Windsor ERCA BoD 108 of 219 COMMUNICATION
Risk Management staff are able to provide education and outreach to landowners during site visits. At these site visits, a Source Water Protection package is provided with maps of the property within the Event Based Area, a spill reporting form, and an information sheet for reference that includes local contacts for spill reporting, cleanup, fuel tank inspections, fuel tank maintenance, and fuel tank removal services within the region. The package also contains a sticker that includes the Ministry of Environments Spills Action Center (SAC) number for reporting spills, as well as general information about the Source Water Protection program. Over the past year, these site visits have not only increased landowner awareness, but also improved sources of communication and strengthened relationships with local businesses in an effort to safeguard sources of drinking water. Ongoing follow up and communication between Essex Region’s RMO/I and landowners is imperative to ensure that existing properties are on track with the requirements of their RMPs and remain in compliance with Source Water Protection policies.
In October of 2018, the Essex Region Source Protection Authority hosted a second Risk Management Services Workshop in partnership with Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers at their office in Leamington, Ontario. This workshop was developed for a targeted audience of greenhouse operations that require a RMP or have a RMP that remains ‘in progress’. Greenhouse operations make up the majority of properties affected by Part IV policies, and often contain fuel storage at their facilities in quantities that meet the specific risk circumstances for being considered a Significant Drinking Water Threat. Through this workshop, the RMO/I discussed Source Water Protection in general and was able to provide additional support, feedback, guidance and information on the requirements of a RMP. A total of 15 operators attended, which has resulted in the establishment of six (6) RMPs and the negotiation of 10 RMPs that remain ‘in-progress’, which are anticipated to be completed in the Spring of 2019.
CHALLENGES FACED AND NEXT STEPS FOR PART IV IMPLEMENTATION
The TSSA is responsible for the enforcement of the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and its related fuel regulations for storage tanks: (1) Ontario Regulation 217/01 (Liquid Fuels) and (2) Ontario Regulation 213/01 (Fuel Oil). Landowners are responsible for ensuring that the fuel tanks on their property are maintained and remain in safe operating condition. It is the landowners responsibility to arrange for comprehensive fuel tank inspections completed by TSSA certified fuel contractors and preventive maintenance actions that must be completed if deficiencies are found. One of the requirements of a RMP to manage fuel storage is proof that the fuel tank is certified for its current use (e.g. ‘proof of adherence to applicable regulations’). This documentation is required to ensure that the tank located within the vulnerable area remains certified to obtain fuel and is considered safe for operation.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / TecumsehERCA / Windsor BoD 109 of 219 Obtaining this required documentation is not problematic for new tanks, but has proven to be challenging for existing tanks that no longer have consistent documentation for tank installation, inspections or evidence of compliance actions related to fuel regulations. Large fuel oil tanks exceeding the capacity of 15,000 L for instance are most often associated with greenhouse operations. Many of these fuel oil tanks are more than 8-15 years old, and documentation specific to tank installation or proof of compliance with fuel oil regulations may no longer exist. Often these tanks are only used for emergencies in the event that the connection with the natural gas supply is lost to the greenhouse facility in the cooler seasons (i.e. the tanks are often empty and unused for more than 5 years).
Risk Management staff have put together a solution to this challenge by creating several different options for landowners to fulfill this requirement. These options are listed in the Risk Management Plan and include:
(a) Proof/ certification of installation by TSSA certified technician/ contractor (if this documentation is no longer available, typically for fuel tanks that are > 8 to 10 years old, provide documentation for one or more of the following options below):
(b) Proof of an inspection report completed by TSSA certified technician/ contractor with proof of preventative actions or maintenance completed (if required following inspection);
(c) Fuel suppliers ‘inspection checklist (or fuel ticket)’ completed prior to refueling the tank(s) to check for leaks, deficiencies, etc. with proof of preventative actions or maintenance completed (if required). Example of an ‘fuel supplier inspection checklist’ is provided to landowners as a resource;
(d) Engineer drawings with engineer’s qualified stamp/ letter of compliance for fuel tanks installed;
(e) Attestation statement that tank(s) adheres to applicable regulations;
(f) Proof that decommissioning has occurred to the fuel tank/removed from service by a TSSA certified contractor in a manner which prevents or mitigates risks to sources of drinking water (e.g. ensure all oil is removed, disconnect all exposed piping or tubing, and cap or plug piping or tubing as close to the tank as possible, etc.).
The RMO/I themselves are not TSSA certified technicians that can complete an inspection report or compliance check on fuel tanks, but are assisting landowners throughout this process to find an agreeable solution. It is worth noting this challenge because the handling and storage of fuel is considered a Significant Drinking Water Threats in many other Source Protection Regions, where similar issues may arise.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / TecumsehERCA / Windsor BoD 110 of 219 The RMO/I has received a number of ‘Fuel Oil Distribution Inspections Reports’ for new fuel oil tanks at greenhouse facilities that were flagged through Section 59 screening processes. These inspections are completed by local certified TSSA fuel technicians following the installation of a fuel oil tank or at the request of the fuel supplier. In 2018, landowners started to request these inspections for older existing fuel tanks to satisfy the requirement in the RMP and to ensure that the tank remains safe for operation, or that preventative maintenance is completed for when there are plans to refuel the tank in the future. There has been a marked increase in the number of inspection reports received by the RMO/I for fuel oil tanks and awareness has certainly grown around TSSA requirements and maintaining fuel storage. In addition, some inspections have resulted in the completion of preventative maintenance to repair any corrections recommended following the inspection.
On December 21, 2018, TSSA’s Fuel Safety Program issued a safety advisory (see Appendix A) to all fuel oil distributions (and the affiliate fuel industries) to remind them of their legal obligations as per the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and the Ontario Fuel Oil Regulation (O.Reg. 213/01). This safety advisory stems from the most recent report by the Auditor General, which flagged evidence of fuel oil distributors supplying fuel oil to tanks that are in “unacceptable conditions.” This advisory serves as a reminder that fuel suppliers all have a duty to ensure that fuel oil is only supplied to equipment that have been inspected and is considered safe for operation. Risk Management staff are anticipating that more fuel oil tank inspections are going to be completed at the request of landowners and/or fuel suppliers and this may expedite the progress towards establishing RMPs to manage Significant Drinking Water Threats.
Additionally, there have been several situations were landowners have sold their property since the approval of the Assessment Report or the property has remained for sale for two or more years. It can be challenging to find accurate contact information for the persons engaging in the activity when the property is vacant and it takes a significant amount of time to set up additional site visits (no contact information, company name may not be listed, not yet established on the property, etc.). New landowners are often unfamiliar with the Source Water Protection Program, are wary as to why the RMO/I is contacting them about the fuel storage tank that remains on the property, and do not always return the effort of communication. As a result of this, the RMO/I will be conducting drive by site visits while in the field to ensure that new landowners receive communication about the Source Water Protection policies that apply to them and to address the threat that remains on the property in a timely manner.
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / TecumsehERCA / Windsor BoD 111 of 219 MOVING FORWARD IN 2019
Plans for Risk Management Services in 2019 include:
• Continue working with local businesses and landowners on negotiating and establishing Risk Management Plans • Ongoing review of planning and building permit applications in vulnerable areas • Continue to educate and provide guidance to landowners affected by Part IV Source Water Protection policies • Continue working with municipalities to provide guidance and refresher training to planning and building staff on Section 59 processes and Source Water Protection policies • Finalize compliance inspection protocols for Part IV to ensure compliance with Risk Management Plans and other Part IV policies • Initiate Risk Management Plan compliance inspections for those that are established • Commence communication with the existing properties that remain under further investigation (oil pumping stations or ‘resource extraction stations’) • Continue to collaborate with Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Authority on similar policies
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / TecumsehERCA / Windsor BoD 112 of 219
Appendix A
Amherstburg / Chatham-Kent / Essex / Kingsville / Lakeshore / LaSalle / Leamington / Pelee Island / TecumsehERCA / Windsor BoD 113 of 219
Ref. No.: Fuels Safety Program FS-242-18 Date: ADVISORY December 21, 2018
Subject: Safety Assurance Responsibilities of Fuel Oil Distributors
The Office of the Auditor General of Ontario released its annual report on December 5, 2018 and in the course of doing their research found instances where fuel oil was being supplied to tanks that were found to be unsafe and/or leaking. This advisory is being issued as a reminder to fuel oil distributors of their obligations under Ontario Regulation 213/01 (the “Fuel Oil Regulation”).
Section 3.13 in Chapter 3 of the report addresses the Technical Standards and Safety Authority and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. Recommendation no. 10 quoted below points to risks posed by fuel oil contamination from fuel oil tanks.
RECOMMENDATION 10 To reduce the risk of fuel oil contamination from fuel oil tanks and hazardous carbon monoxide releases from fuel-burning equipment, we recommend that the TSSA as soon as possible: • require fuel oil distributors to submit inspection reports of oil tanks they service to the TSSA as part of their annual licensing conditions; and • together with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (Ministry), develop an action plan outlining the specific steps the Ministry and the TSSA plan to take with oil distributors and tank owners to improve the safety of oil tanks.
In response to the above recommendation, TSSA will review its existing oversight processes for fuel oil tanks, and based on the outcome of this review, will determine appropriate annual licensing condition requirements for fuel oil distributors.
As a part of an initial response and to emphasize existing regulatory requirements TSSA reiterates to fuel oil distributors their responsibilities under the Fuel Oil Regulation and associated code adoption document.
The following requirements apply to all fuel oil distributors:
1. Fuel Oil Distributor Inspections (s. 7)
Fuel oil distributors are required to inspect all installations to which they supply fuel oil or diesel. This applies to both permanent, portable and mobile installations and includes residential, institutional, commercial, industrial buildings and construction sites. This is a safety inspection of all piping, tanks, components, appliances, stationary engines, venting, exhaust and parts of the installation that affect their safe operation.
The inspections are required to be conducted by a person holding the appropriate technician certificate for the equipment being inspected and it is up to the distributor to inspect the installation utilizing their own employee, a contractor or an inspection performed by the previous distributor or their contractor. Regardless of who conducts the inspection, it remains the distributor’s inspection.
ERCA BoD 114 of 219 Technical Standards & Safety Authority Advisory FS-242-18 Fuels Safety Program December 21, 2018
2. Unacceptable Conditions (s. 23-24)
Where a distributor discovers or is notified that an installation is in an unacceptable condition (as that term is defined in the regulation), the distributor shall determine if the condition is an immediate hazard. Fuel distributors that deem an installation to be an immediate hazard shall take the following steps: a. immediately cease supplying fuel oil to the facility, appliance or tank system; b. immediately take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to shut off the supply of fuel oil to the facility, appliance or tank system; c. promptly give written notice of the condition to its operator stating that it is not to be used until the condition is corrected and a distributor; d. affix the notice under clause (c) to the facility, appliance or tank system; and e. forward a copy of the notice to TSSA.
If the installation is not an immediate hazard, the fuel distributor shall take the following steps: a. give to the operator a description of the condition; b. promptly provide a notice to the operator indicating that the distributor will cease supplying fuel oil to the appliance or tank system if the condition is not corrected within the period of time specified in the notice, but not more than 90 days from the date of discovery; c. affix the notice under clause (b) to the appliance or tank system; and d. forward a copy of the notice to TSSA.
3. Fuel Oil Distributor Licenses (s. 6)
Anyone who distributes fuel oil (including diesel) through a central oil distribution system or facility must obtain a fuel oil distributor licence. Distributing is defined as supplying fuel oil to an end user. Tank truck drivers and delivery personnel are not considered distributors if they do not directly contract with the end user to deliver fuel. The company that contracts with the end user for the fuel is considered the distributor regardless of whether they own or don’t own the tank truck or bulk plant. “Brokers” and other agents would be considered distributors if they contract with the end user. Branch offices do not have to hold separate distributor licenses if a corporate office holds the contracts for the fuel delivery to the end user.
Distribution: Posted on TSSA website and sent to Canadian Oil Heat Association, TSSA Liquid Fuels Advisory Council, TSSA Fuel Oil Risk Reduction Group, Fuel Oil Distributor Licence Holders, MGCS, MOECP
Fuels Safety Program, Technical Standards and Safety Authority 345 Carlingview Drive, Toronto, ON M9W 6N9 Tel:(416) 734-3300
- 2 -
ERCA BoD 115 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD17/19
From: Kris Ives, Curator/Education Coordinator
Richard Wyma, General Manager
Date: June 12, 2019
Subject: John R. Park Homestead Strategic Plan
Strategic Action: 8.1 Create Business Plans as required for largest Conservation Areas to identify infrastructure needs and investment in visitor services. Within these plans, incorporate Climate Change resiliency and leadership in green technology into Conservation Areas, facilities and operations.
Recommendation: THAT the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area Strategic Plan: 2019-2021, endorsed by the John R. Park Homestead Advisory Board, be approved; and further
THAT the Strategic Plan be included in ERCA’s Community Museums Operating Grant of Ontario grant application.
Summary
The John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area (JRPH) is a living history museum owned and operated by the Essex Region Conservation Authority.
Annually, JRPH has been successful in securing the $23,688 from the Community Museums Operating Grant of Ontario.
Eligibility to apply for this year’s grant, due July 2, 2019, is contingent upon the completion of a 3 Year Strategic Plan.
Discussion
The John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area is one of ERCA’s most visited Conservation Areas, with annual visitation of nearly 12,000 visitors. The original 1842 house and farm buildings of John and Amelia Park are restored to bring the nineteenth century to life. Guests can see the workings of an 1885 steam engine-powered sawmill and stop by the blacksmith shop to witness the making of small hardware and repairing of farm tools at the coal-fired forge. The site also features a working smoke house, ice house and barn, as well as a gift shop and exhibit gallery.
Each spring staff and volunteers plant the garden with heirloom crops, flowers and vegetables. In the summer, livestock are a popular addition. Thousands of schoolchildren attend field trips each year for hands-on learning opportunities about pioneer life and the importance of preserving our human and natural heritage.
ERCA BoD 116 of 219 Located on the shore of Lake Erie, the JRPH is also adjacent to the Fox Creek Provincially Significant Wetland. An active and engaged volunteer base provide volunteer hours totaling 2.5 FTE positions annually.
One of the funding sources for the Homestead’s operations is the Community Museum Operating Grants of Ontario (CMOG). For many years, this funding has been capped at $23,688, and the Homestead has been annually successful in achieving this maximum grant.
This year’s requirements for grant eligibility include the submission of a three-year Strategic Plan. This plan has been drafted with input from and recommended for approval by the John R. Park Homestead Advisory Board, and is aligned with ERCA’s Strategic Plan 2016 – 2025 – Sustaining the Place for Life.
Vision
The John R. Park Conservation Area will be a premier living legacy of historical and natural treasures, for now and forever, to understand, appreciate and enjoy.
Mission
To promote an understanding of the natural and cultural history of the region by:
Conserving and exhibiting the buildings and collections for the public as a living history museum
Conserving and interpreting the natural heritage features of the site
Delivering innovative education programs
Engaging and inspiring the community in a celebration of the past This Strategic Plan also provides valuable information to the JRPH’s Management Plan, which is currently in progress. It is considered a living document, guiding our strategic actions and annually reviewed and updated as required.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
JRPH Strategic Plan 2019-2021
ERCA BoD 117 of 219
JOHN R. PARK HOMESTEAD CONSERVATION AREA STRATEGIC PLAN 2019-2021
Page 1 of 31
ERCA BoD 118 of 219 DRAFT JOHN R. PARK HOMESTEAD CONSERVATION AREA STRATEGIC PLAN 2019-2021
The 2019 to 2021 JRPHCA Strategic Plan establishes a path forward with clear strategic goals and defined tasks/actions. This Strategic Plan is based upon a solid understanding and analysis of our current operational environment that will guide the ERCA Board, the Museum’s Advisory Board, and staff in preserving our region’s rich human and natural heritage and in engaging our community through our exhibits, programs, events, and volunteer opportunities. All elements of the Strategic Plan will support the Essex Region Conservation Authority’s Mission: To enrich and sustain our region as the Place for Life.
Page 2 of 31
ERCA BoD 119 of 219 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Property Context ...... 5 1.2 Property History ...... 6 1.3 Plan Purpose ...... 8 1.4 Museum Vision and Mission …………………………………………………... 9 2.0 Physical Conditions and Biophysical Resources ……………………… 9 2.1 Climate ...... 9 2.2 Geology ...... 9 2.3 Soils ...... 10 2.4 Topography ...... 10 2.5 Hydrology ...... 11 2.1 Biophysical Resources ...... 11 2.2 Flora ...... 11 2.3 Fauna ...... 11 2.3 Cultural Resources ...... 12 3.0 Existing Uses ...... 14 3.1 Public Use ...... 14 3.2 ERCA Use ...... 14 3.3 Limitations to Use ...... 15 4.0 Financial Planning and Resources ……………………………………...…… 16 4.1 ERCA Finance ...... 16 4.2 JRPH Finance ...... 16 5.0 Strategic Goals ...... 20 6.0 Tasks ...... 20 6.1 Corresponding Actions ...... 22 7.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ………………………………………… 27 8.0 Monitoring Progress ………………………………………………………………. 27 Contact Information …………………….……………………………………………….. 28 Appendix A – Shoreline Structure c.1900 Image ………………………….. 29 Appendix B – Ecological Land Classification Mapping …………………. 30 Appendix C – Floral Inventory, John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area ...... 31
Page 3 of 31
ERCA BoD 120 of 219 1.0 INTRODUCTION
A visit to the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area takes visitors back in time to the 1850s. The original house and farm buildings of John and Amelia Park are restored to bring the nineteenth century to life. Explore the Parks’ magnificent American Greek Revival home, built in 1842, taste baking from the kitchen fireplace, or play with a wooden toy in the children’s bedrooms. See the workings of an 1885 steam engine-powered sawmill and stop by the blacksmith shop to witness the making of small hardware and repairing of farm tools at the coal-fired forge. The site also features a working smoke house, ice house and barn.
For a breath of fresh air, take a scenic walk on the shore of Lake Erie, and down the nature trail through the Fox Creek wetland. The site also features a gift shop and exhibit gallery.
Each spring staff and volunteers plant the garden with heirloom crops, flowers and vegetables. In the summer, livestock are a popular addition. Thousands of schoolchildren attend field trips each year for hands-on learning opportunities about pioneer life and the importance of preserving our human and natural heritage.
Page 4 of 31
ERCA BoD 121 of 219 1.1 Property Context The John R. Park Homestead Conservation property is owned, managed, and operated by the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). 1.2 About ERCA Like all Conservation Authorities in Ontario, the Essex Region Conservation Authority is empowered through provincial legislation to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. This mandate remains as valid today as it was in 1946, when the first Conservation Authority was established. ERCA was created in 1973 as one of the last Conservation Authorities in Ontario to work toward managing natural hazards and conservation issues.
Located at the tip of Southern Ontario, ERCA has jurisdiction in nine municipalities. These include the City of Windsor, Township of Pelee Island and the seven municipalities in Essex County (Amherstburg, Essex, Kingsville, Lakeshore, LaSalle, Leamington, and Tecumseh). Nineteen representatives from these communities make up the ERCA Board of Directors. The area of jurisdiction measures 1,681 square kilometres, and ERCA manages more than 4,200 acres of natural lands. To provide effective services and programs, ERCA works in partnership with our member municipalities, federal and provincial ministries and other organizations.
Like all Conservation Authorities, ERCA is organized on a watershed basis. A watershed is the area of land that drains to a river, creek or lake. We all live in and are connected by watersheds, and to protect water quality and use water wisely, we must understand this ecological neighbourhood. Because we cross municipal boundaries, all environmental decisions can be assessed on the basis of their impact on the entire watershed. ERCA’s projects and programs are guided by the 2016-2025 Strategic Plan.
The Place for Life
The Place for Life is a region with connected natural areas. A place with healthy rivers and streams, beaches you can swim in and lakes you can fish. It has greenways and trails that connect you to your landscape and to each other. A place with productive agricultural lands. A sustainable place that is resilient and can adapt to change. We embrace this place, and make it our home. For life.
ERCA’s Mission
To enrich and sustain our region as the Place for Life. 1.2 John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area: Regional Context The JRPHCA is located approximately 60 kilometres southeast of downtown Windsor, 7.3 kilometres northeast of Colchester, 9.7 kilometres southwest of Kingsville, and 11.3 kilometres southeast of Harrow.
Page 5 of 31
ERCA BoD 122 of 219 Local Context
The JRPHCA is situated in the County of Essex, in the Municipality of Essex, Ontario, at the junction of Iler Road and County Road 50, on the shore of Lake Erie. 1.2 Property History The lands comprising the Conservation Area were acquired by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1971. In 1975, the property was leased to the Essex Region Conservation Authority (initial lease of 30 years). Under the terms of that lease, the Authority was responsible for the development, operation and maintenance of the property. At that time, a comprehensive restoration was undertaken by the Authority, with financial and technical aid from various sources, including, but not limited to, the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, private donations, etc. In 2008, ownership of the property was transferred to the Conservation Authority, with the conditions that: the site continue to operate as a conservation area and museum, with the museum meeting the Provincial Standards for Community Museums in Ontario; and that the site employ a full time Curator, to this purpose.
Composition:
The 19 acre (7.6 hectare) John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area is comprised of:
The Park Family home – a restored 1842 American Greek Revival house depicting early Canadian lifestyles and material culture.
The Park/Fox Families farmstead – a collection of barns, outbuildings and gardens that date back, or have been reproduced/restored, to the late 19th century. (cattle barn, horse barn, hog barn, tobacco barn, barn (corn crib), blacksmith shop, loom shed, ice house, outhouse, smokehouse and sawmill).
Fox Creek – a wide, shallow, slow moving waterway, with associated Provincially Significant Wetlands.
345 m, or 1,130’ of Lake Erie shoreline The site offers a unique mix of human and natural history components. Image from Visitor Site Map showing property layout, and access from County Road 50. Access:
Access to the site is provided by County Road 50, or Iler Road. Potential access may be available via Lake Erie and/or Fox Creek, particularly for visitors using small, personal watercraft.
Page 6 of 31
ERCA BoD 123 of 219 Adjacent Land Use
The eastern boundary of the site is defined by Fox Creek, a shallow, slow moving waterway. Beyond the creek is a medium density residential strip development that follows the coast. Most structures in the strip were at one time cottages that have been converted to permanent residences.
The northern boundary of the site is partially defined by Fox Creek, County Road 50, and agricultural land.
The western boundary of the site is defined by a single family house. Beyond this home exists a continuous strip development of homes along the coast.
The southern boundary is defined by Lake Erie. Existing Land Use
The John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area is a 7.6 hectare site with 345 metres of frontage on Lake Erie. The property is comprised of 5 hectares of sparsely wooded dryland and 2.6 hectares of marshland and open water (Fox Creek). The site’s most prominent feature is the historic John R. Park Homestead. The original Park Family home was completed in 1842. It is one of the few examples of the neo-classical architecture style knows as Early American Greek
Page 7 of 31
ERCA BoD 124 of 219 Revivalism found in Ontario. In addition to the homestead, the farm consists of eight original farm and outbuildings clustered closely together near the house. These buildings include cattle barn, horse barn, hog barn, barn (corn crib), tobacco barn, blacksmith shop, loom shed, ice house, and smokehouse. Additionally, there is one building that was constructed as a part of the site restoration to facilitate interpretation of the site: the sawmill. The 1842 home and buildings on the site have been fully restored into an award-winning living history agricultural museum. Currently, the site also features a 40 car parking lot on the main property, and a 20 car overflow parking lot on the north side of Fox Creek.
Shoreline
Because of extensive shoreline erosion along the lake, the Ministry of Natural Resources (1973) constructed an extensive shoreline protection project. Since that time, the Conservation Authority has maintained this structure. This protective measure extends along approximately one half of the site’s shoreline. Current high water levels and storm events have significantly affected the structure, and significant maintenance, or a complete reconstruction/extension of the structure is due. The unprotected portion (east/beach area) is currently undergoing serious erosion. For accessibility, a stone walking path was installed along the shoreline, but was
destroyed in a spring 2018 storm event. An engineering firm has been hired to develop a full engineering assessment and plan forward which is anticipated to be complete by summer 2019. ERCA’s engineering staff have begun researching potential project funding/support through various sources, including provincial and federal grant programs. 1.3 Plan Purpose The purpose of this Strategic Plan is to establish a policy framework and detailed guidelines for planning, development, and management decisions for the John R. Park Homestead (JRPH) over a three year timeline (2019 – 2021). The plan will:
Page 8 of 31
ERCA BoD 125 of 219 Analyze the ecological, cultural, and physical features within the conservation area, identify their value and determine their use, limitations and capabilities;
Demonstrate responsible financial management and resource planning;
Formulate goals and tasks/actions for the conservation area with timelines and resources for implementation;
Following review, input, and approval by the Museum Advisory Board and the Conservation Authority Board, this plan will direct the short-term development and management of JRPH. 1.4 Museum Vision and Mission Vision
The John R. Park Conservation Area will be a premier living legacy of historical and natural treasures, for now and forever, to understand, appreciate and enjoy.
Mission
To promote an understanding of the natural and cultural history of the region by:
Conserving and exhibiting the buildings and collections for the public as a living history museum
Conserving and interpreting the natural heritage features of the site
Delivering innovative education programs
Engaging and inspiring the community in a celebration of the past
2.0 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND BIOPHYSICAL RESOURCES 2.1 Climate On a macro level, the climate of this area, as part of the Essex Region, is classified as humid continental, with hot summers, cold winters, and adequate precipitation for regional needs. With its southerly latitude and the modifying effect of the Great Lakes, this region has, on average, the most mild climate in Ontario. The average temperate reaches above 10 degrees Celsius 223 days of the year. The area features an average monthly precipitation of 68.5mm.
Prevailing winds in the winter are from the NW and in the summer they are from the SW. On a micro-climate level, the JRPHCA is heavily influenced by the close proximity of Lake Erie. The site receives much relief from summer heat due to significant tree cover and the off-shore breezes from Lake Erie. 2.2 Geology (Bedrock and Surficial) The geology of the area consists of fine-grained till and flow tills related to the ice advance which deposited Tavistock Tills. Sand overlies fine-grained glaciolacustrine sediments and till. It
Page 9 of 31
ERCA BoD 126 of 219 is thought that this complex assemblage of sand and associated clay was deposited near a northward retreating ice margin. The upper sand unit was probably deposited in a proglacial subaquatic fan and later modified by glaciolacustrine processes1. 2.3 Soils The site is located in the Essex Clay Plain which consists of till plains leveled by shallow deposits of lacustrine clay. The soil in the vicinity of the JRPHCA is a fine (Berrien) sandy loam which, under good management, is high in productivity for a wide range of field crops without any significant limitations. However, this soil type is highly susceptible to the wave action of Lake Erie and the site has a long history of shoreline erosion. The stone break wall (originally installed by the MNR in 1973, and enhanced/reinforced twice since that time) along the southern boundary, in the western portion of the site, has halted erosion in that area. The beach areas to the east are still subject to erosion at a rapid rate. 2.4 Topography The Conservation Area site is dominated by a low lying costal wetland through which flows Fox Creek to its outlet on Lake Erie, and an upland portion on which sits the original Homestead site.
1 Morris, T.F. 1994. Quaternary Geology of Essex County, Southwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5886, 130p.
Page 10 of 31
ERCA BoD 127 of 219 2.5 Hydrology The water table is high due to the close proximity of Lake Erie, which borders the property along the entire southern boundary, and Fox Creek, which runs through the property from the northwest to the southeast. The Creek has an average width of 90m and an average depth of 1.5m. The mouth of the creek can be closed periodically by a sand bar – resulting in higher water levels in the creek, flooding into the surrounding wetland areas, and a higher degree of turbidity in the water. Since the house and associated outbuildings occupy the highest elevation on the site, surface drainage takes place from there in a gradual drop to the creek and lake. 2.6 Biophysical Resources See 2011 Ecological Land Classification Mapping, prepared by ERCA Biologist/Ecologist, D. Lebedyk, in Appendix B. (Note: Full Ecological Inventory prepared by D. Lebedyk available by request) 2.7 Flora On site, there is a small amount of mature forest cover. However, the herbaceous plant community, both in the marshy and dry areas, is well represented with a diversity of species (for an extensive list of plant species found on-site, see Appendix C). The site has been divided into the following vegetative communities:
Marsh: o The major species is phragmites (non-native reed). o A secondary species is cattail. o Minor species include rushes, sedges, and mints. Open-Meadow Common-Cottonwood Willow-Common Cottonwood Beach Willow-Birch-Dogwood Poplar-Red Ash Residential o This community consists of the domesticated portions of the site. o Ornamental plantings (native and non-native), an orchard, maintained lawns, and gardens make up this community.
2.8 Fauna Although this conservation area is relatively small, the marsh does provide a good, if somewhat limited, environment for a variety of wildlife. The following is a brief description of various fauna groups.
Page 11 of 31
ERCA BoD 128 of 219 Fish – most of the fish inventoried inhabit rather shallow waters which are influenced by seasonal temperatures.
Amphibians and Reptiles – this area has a climate and soils favourable to fauna in this group. However, because of the size of the area, this group is poorly represented.
Birds – this area is within two migratory flightpaths but, because of its size, is not well represented by this group.
Mammals – the most common species in this group are classified as small game. The mammals have carved out their ecological niche in spite of high levels of site use and human influence. 2.9 Cultural Resources We will begin by acknowledging that the land, on which the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area now exists, is the traditional territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations, comprised of the Ojibway, the Odawa, and the Potawatomie Peoples.
To recognize the land is an expression of gratitude and appreciation to those whose territory you reside on, and a way of honouring the Indigenous people who have been living and working on the land from time immemorial. We value the significant historical and contemporary contributions of local and regional First Nations and all of the Original Peoples of Turtle Island (North America).
The property around the house itself, at lot 40, Concession 1, falls within the Caldwell Grant. In 1798, the land at this site was ceded from the Crown to Thomas Hall, a member of Butler’s Rangers. It passed hands a number of times until John R. Park acquired it in 1833.
The construction of the John Richardson Park Home, which is located in the southwest corner of the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area, was completed in 1842. It was owned by John R. Park (an American who emigrated to Upper Canada from Framingham, Massachusetts in 1822) and his wife Amelia (Gamble) Park (also an American who emigrated to Upper Canada from Michigan around 1835). The eight original barns, sheds, and outbuildings which are located around the house were built in a period from circa 1850 to 1882.
Much of the importance of the property rests in the American Greek Revival style of architecture of the house. There are approximately half a dozen houses of this style in Ontario, and the Barnum House in Grafton is the only other one which has been restored as a living history museum open to the public.
The Park family is of English descent, the first member in Massachusetts being Richard, who arrived there in 1635. The brothers who came to Upper Canada were descendants of Richard. Thomas arrived in Amherstburg in 1820, John in 1822, and Theodore in 1834.
The brothers established a shipping and trading business, Park & Co., in which John remained a partner until 1850. Wheat, tobacco, timber, and pork were the main products collected from farmers. These were shipped to their destination via vessels owned by the Parks; over twenty propellers, schooners, and steamers have been identified as being owned or operated by the Page 12 of 31
ERCA BoD 129 of 219 brothers. The ships would then return with supplies and luxury items, which were sold or exchanged in Park stores. Some of the shops were located in Howard, Mersea, Gosfield, Colchester, and Malden Townships. Shipping agents were also found in St. Thomas and the Port Dover area. The company dealt with most British ports between Detroit and Montreal, and with merchants in Chatham, Quebec, Boston, New York, Liverpool, and likely with many ports along the Erie Canal.
Diversification of the company’s interests involved the operation of wharf facilities, a tannery and sawmill. The company also held mortgages on farms, owned mining stock in Quebec, and engaged in government contracts like the transportation of troops and the repairing of lighthouses.
Politically, it appears that John R. Park was active in the local area. For the Township of Colchester he acted, at various times, as treasurer, surety for treasurer, advisor, and a source of loans for the municipal corporation.
The family is as little representative of the area as is the house. The Parks were wealthy and their sustenance was not derived directly from the land. Nor were they typical of merchants of the day, for their diversification added to their security and success. However the brothers were typical ‘Yankees’, enterprising and possessing an emphasis on education. A number of John and Amelia’s children were educated in grammar schools in Toronto (York, at the time), boarding schools in Detroit, and at the famous Caradoc Academy near Melbourne, Ontario. As early as 1837 Thomas donated land for a high school in Amherstburg. The locals required another fifty years to put the donation to use.
Francis Fox purchased the land from John and Amelia Park in 1871, and it remained with the Fox family until the death of Gordie Fox in 1967. As noted earlier, it was acquired by the Province in 1971 and leased to ERCA in 1975 and transferred to ERCA in 2008 on the expiration of the lease.
Restoration
The Conservation Authority restored the house to its 1850 condition. While the style of architecture is international, having originated in France or Great Britain, it was passed on to Upper Canada through the United States. This specific style of domestic architecture is not commonly found in Ontario.
The size of the house underlines a severe reaction to earlier material conditions in Upper Canada, times when existence was less predictable and more precarious. Temporary quarters, possibly a shanty or log house, came in this instance to be replaced by a building expressive of gracious space.
Its style of architecture is American Greek Revival. It is a timber framed house having a two- storey centre block with one-storey lateral wings. The roofs of block and wings are all of the gabled type. The two-storey portion in the centre of this house is fashioned in the manner of a classic Greek temple, its south gable forming a pediment.
In addition to its architectural merit, the house provides a stimulus to an involvement and understanding of a lifestyle 175 years ago. Page 13 of 31
ERCA BoD 130 of 219 It is probable that the land in the vicinity of the house was used for vegetable, herb, and flower gardens. There was also an orchard located on the property, and the lakeshore was bordered with large hickory, oak, linden, chestnut, and poplar trees2.
The earliest image of the front of the house (circa 1890s) shows the Fox family seated on the south side of the house, showing a lawn similar to what exists today, and a cinderblock break wall, with steps down to a sandy beach. (See Appendix A)
The barnyard was likely used for containment of farm animals and the area to the north and northeast of this was part of the 15 hectare agricultural portion of the total original 31 hectare site. In this agricultural portion, roughly one-fifth was used for pasture and four-fifths were cultivated with crops including: wheat, peas, potatoes, and tobacco3.
The beach section to the east of the Park Homestead has long seen casual, local, recreational use during the summer months.
3.0 EXISTING USES 3.1 Public Use Public use of the conservation area grounds is permitted dawn to dusk daily, except when special events and/or private events are taking place.
Recreation – rest stop for cyclists using CWATS; popular stop for seasonal birdwatchers spring and fall; plein air painting; photography; use of trail, grounds, and beaches.
Casual / day use – many drop-in visitors who are day tripping in the region and/or visiting the local wine route, looking for a tour, picnic area, restrooms, access to Lake Erie shoreline, etc.
Private Rentals – Weddings, Events, and Photography Sessions – the site has seen a marked increase in rentals for professional photography sessions and wedding ceremonies, as barns and ‘rustic’ events are trending. 3.2 ERCA Use The John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area is the only living history agricultural museum west of London, Ontario. Its unique position on the shore of Lake Erie in the heart of Essex County’s developed wine route provides an ideal location for tourism opportunities and ‘edutainment’ experiences.
The Conservation Authority uses the site as a space to interpret the human and natural history of the Essex Region through the museum and conservation area. The site hosts the office of three full time, professional staff members – the Curator/Education Coordinator, the Environmental Educator, and the Interpreter in addition to term and seasonal contract staffing
2 Tiessen, Ronald, The Story of John Richardson Park and Family (October 1977). 3 Tiessen, Ronald, The Story of John Richardson Park and Family (October 1977).
Page 14 of 31
ERCA BoD 131 of 219 and a strong Volunteer base. Staff and volunteers are engaged in delivering public programs that meet the Conservation Authority’s education and engagement goals while also generating revenue to help offset delivery costs.
The museum holds a permanent collection consisting of 2399 significant, historic artifacts, and an education collection comprised of 794 artifacts used in interpretation and education offerings.
Staff conduct curriculum-linked outdoor education programs for approximately 4,000 students each year (Grades K- 12) from the three Boards of Education in the region, as well as private schools, and homeschool groups. Education programs are conducted on-site between mid- February and December each year.
With a balanced focus on education and entertainment, major public special events offered at the Conservation Area include: Maple Syrup Festival, Lost Arts Festival, Harvest and Horses Festival, and Christmas in the Country. Various other smaller special events are offered each year. In addition to these public events, the site works with the Friends of the Homestead group and skilled artisans and teachers to offer knowledge-sharing and skills-building workshops; examples of workshops offered include: blacksmithing, woodcarving, basket weaving, printmaking, etc. Events and activities, along with meeting education and engagement goals, generate revenue -important to assist in offsetting operational costs.
Though the site is small, it consists of a variety of interesting environmental niches and landscape components that provide the visitor with a variety of sensory experiences. 3.3 Limitations to Use: Despite being a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), Fox Creek, in the central portion of the site, is degraded by rampant phragmites. As a result, biodiversity and access are impacted negatively. In addition, fluctuating water levels and high turbidity has an adverse effect on the quality of the wildlife habitat, and on ERCA’s ability to connect visitors to the wetland and its features.
The potential aesthetic and interpretive values of the sand beaches at the east end of the property are limited by rapid, ongoing erosion, and limited physical access to those spaces via land or water.
Visiting public are often seeking access to the water for recreational purposes (swimming, fishing, launching personal water craft, etc.); however, at present, the site does not offer easy public access to Lake Erie.
The site is limited in its ability to host large groups and/or events. It features one indoor space with accessible moderate amenities (climate control, kitchenette, washrooms, etc.). This space seats a maximum of 30 visitors (auditorium style) and 20 people (at tables). The facility is aging and washroom facilities are far too limited to meet the need at major special events when additional portable facilities are made available on site. Similarly, parking for large events continues to be a challenge, with the requirement to arrange off-site parking with partners, and
Page 15 of 31
ERCA BoD 132 of 219 to shuttle guests to and from events from those off-site parking areas, as they are beyond walking distance.
Use of the original 1842 home and outbuildings is controlled to protect historical integrity and to preserve the buildings, as artifacts, into the future to ensure the continued provision of quality, authentic visitor experiences. 4.0 FINANCIAL PLANNING AND RESOURCES 4.1 ERCA Finance As identified in the 2019 ERCA Budget: “Sustainability Plan [13.1]. The Essex Region Conservation Authority is currently developing a new 5-Year Sustainability Plan to support initiatives identified in the Strategic Plan and to ensure that ERCA has the appropriate resources, managed in the most effective and efficient way, to support the watershed and its municipal members’ requirements.”
The ERCA Strategic Plan, Section 8.1 identifies “creating business plans for largest Conservation Areas to identify infrastructure needs and investment in visitor services” and Section 9.2 requires “developing and implementing management plans for CAs and invest necessary resources to ensure they are maintained properly (for biodiversity)”. The JRPHCA is one of the Authority’s key Conservation Areas and, as such, the Curator and the Director of Conservation Areas are currently working on an updated Capital Maintenance Plan and an updated, comprehensive Site Management Plan for the Museum and Conservation Area.
Organizationally, ERCA’s Corporate Services Department provides financial leadership and support to the organization, including the JRPH, on various policies and decisions, strategic direction and budgetary management. Corporate Services/Finance staff are solely responsible for producing accurate and timely interim and audited Financial Statements of the Authority, that are relied upon by various stakeholders, including the Board of Directors, management, external stakeholders and funding agencies. Corporate Services undertakes various ad hoc financial and operational analyses, prepares risk management assessments, and monitors and analyzes general financial condition including capital and operational reserves. In conjunction with Conservation Services, Finance also develops the Asset Management Plan, which tracks and identifies replacements to ERCA’s facilities and related infrastructure. 4.2 John R. Park Homestead CA Finance Financial Procedures
The Homestead follows the Essex Region Conservation Authority’s procedures for cash management, purchasing, payroll, travel and expenses, planning and budgeting, and public accountability. As required under Provincial Regulation (O. Reg.164/93), Homestead revenues and expenditures will be set out separately from all other ERCA income and expenses.
Page 16 of 31
ERCA BoD 133 of 219 Budget Process/Notes:
The Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) provides annual budget allocations to the Homestead for both operations and capital. The Homestead shall use the ERCA budget process to manage its resources in a sustainable manner.
A draft operational budget, is prepared by financial staff of the Authority and reviewed/revised by the Curator/Advisory Board, and approved by the Full Authority Board.
A capital maintenance budget, (utilizing a combination of the annual $12,000 capital maintenance allocation, available Foundation donations, and the Authority’s infrastructure reserve), and prepared by Curator/Director of Conservation Services.
As required to meet Provincial Museum Standards, the Advisory Board will review the Homestead accounts semi annually.
Full Authority Financial Statements, including the JRPHCA financials, are audited annually, and submitted as an attachment to the Community Museum Operating Grant application, as required.
Further, the work of the ERCA is supported by the Essex Region Conservation Foundation. The Foundation’s Strategic Plan speaks directly to supporting cultural heritage, and restricted-purpose donations are segregated appropriately, as directed through the Foundation (see ‘Donations’ below).
Diverse Sources of Funding
To increase financial stability, the John R. Park Homestead will explore all available options for building its base of financial support in the community, including:
Earned revenues
Grants and Partnerships
Donations and Legacy Gifts Earned Revenues
The Homestead will earn a moderate percentage, approximately one-third, of its operating funds from program fees, gift shop and food sales, and rentals.
Program Fees
The Curator will annually develop a calendar of public programs, education programs and special events. For these programs to be sustainable, user fees will be collected. Whenever possible, a range of programs will be offered at different price points. ERCA annual passes will be available for purchase. As a Conservation Area, the Homestead grounds shall be open to the public daily, dawn to dusk, on a donation basis.
Page 17 of 31
ERCA BoD 134 of 219 Sales
The Homestead gift shop will feature unique, locally made, environmentally sustainable products; related to the interpretive themes of the Homestead. Items may be sold on consignment, benefitting local artists. Items will be priced to ensure sales revenue exceeds costs by a reasonable margin and that the Homestead is not competing unfairly with local business. Because the Homestead is located in a remote location, the Homestead may sell packaged food and hot and cold beverages, as a service to guests. Food service may be offered at special events in partnership with local service clubs or private vendors. The Windsor Essex County District Health Unit food safety policies shall apply, and the Homestead site posted accordingly.
Rentals
The Homestead Rental Policy states:
Rental of the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area grounds and visitor centre to outside groups or individuals shall be offered for the following purposes:
to provide extended access to the site outside regular visitor hours
to encourage interest in and support for the Homestead
to provide an additional source of revenue to offset some of the site operating costs without competing unfairly with local business
However, rental is not a primary function of the Homestead and will occur only when:
there is no scheduling conflict with Homestead programs or other ERCA activities at the site
in the opinion of the Curator, the proposed activity respects the mission and historic & natural environment of the Homestead
the financial benefits are deemed likely to exceed the related costs by a sufficient margin
the renters sign an ERCA contract, pay the rental fee and damage deposit; and where alcohol is to be served obtain a special occasion permit (municipal, police and fire approval required) and provide proof of liquor liability insurance and/or additional insurance, as required.
Grants and partnerships
Grants and partnerships are sought from all levels of government, community foundations and corporations when the proposed projects fall within the Homestead’s mission. The Curator monitors funding programs available and evaluates the opportunities within the museum’s operating capacity.
Page 18 of 31
ERCA BoD 135 of 219 Donations
The Essex Region Conservation Foundation (ERCF) is a designated public foundation with one of its stated objects being the raising of funds for heritage purposes and accordingly, can issue tax receipts to donors. The ERCF is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), adheres to the AFP Code of Conduct, and is one of a very small percentage of charities receiving accreditation from Imagine Canada.
ERCF is one of 200 Imagine Canada accredited charities/NFPs, demonstrating leadership in five fundamental areas:
board governance, financial accountability and transparency; fundraising; staff management; and volunteer involvement.
Imagine Canada’s governance and accountability efforts have played and will continue to play a role in ensuring that charities and nonprofits have the necessary tools to deliver on their mission and serve their communities.
Page 19 of 31
ERCA BoD 136 of 219 The Standards Program is a capacity-building initiative; it helps organizations mitigate risk by ensuring that staff and volunteers understand and meet their legal, financial and fiduciary responsibilities.
From time to time, the ERCF may undertake fundraising for the Homestead. The Friends of the John R. Park Homestead Inc. may also fund raise independently to support the operation of the Homestead as a living historical farm museum, however, the Friends group is not a registered charity and cannot issue receipts for income tax purposes. 5.0 STRATEGIC GOALS
1. Exceed the Standards for Community Museums in Ontario
2. Value and support our partners, volunteers and staff
3. Protect the Homestead’s heritage structures
4. Improve access to and interpretation of the Lake Erie shoreline.
5. Increase interpretation of natural and cultural heritage at the site with an emphasis on the western basin of Lake Erie
6. Plan Strategically
6.0 TASKS AND ACTIONS 6.1 Tasks
Tasks Responsible Timeline Resources Required
Exceed Standards for Community Museums in Ontario Homestead Reviewed Trained minimum hours and days advertised and Advisory Board annually as museum staff, open to the public and General part of accounting full time, trained Curator Manager budget services, separate financial records through ERCA preparation supplies catalogued artifact collection Board of
evaluated program of research, exhibition Directors and interpretation
complete and up to date museum policies Value and support our partners, volunteers Director of Chair Heritage Communication and staff Community Council in with multiple work in cooperation with other local Outreach 2019-2020 partners heritage organizations and provide Services, Friends JRPH, Curator &
Page 20 of 31
ERCA BoD 137 of 219 leadership through the Southwestern museum Chair OHS Heritage Council staff/volunteers Museums continued integration of Homestead Committee programs with Essex Region Conservation 2019-2020 Authority initiatives, share human resources across the organization, and Represent SWOHC on used skilled individuals most effectively OMA’s skills building for staff and volunteers Regional through professional development Museum opportunities Network plan for volunteer and staff succession 2019-2021
Reviewed with annual work plans Offer professional development for staff and volunteers annually
Protect the Homestead’s heritage structures Director of Capital Research, skilled Capital planning with Essex Region Conservation projects trades, fund Conservation Authority to ensure building Areas & staff & identified in raising, financial conservation continues Curator capital plan and with annual budget
Improve access to the Lake Erie shoreline Director of Conservation “Lake looking” is the top reason visitors Ongoing Engineering, Areas & ERCA are attracted to the Conservation Area financial grounds Engineering Examine opportunities for increased Staff & Curator access to Lake Erie Monitor and prevent erosion threats
Increase interpretation of Great Lakes’ natural Director of Ongoing as Research, and cultural heritage with an emphasis on the Community opportunities financial, western basin of Lake Erie Outreach arise opportunities Enhance Great Lakes and watershed Services & for partnerships management content in education and Curator outreach initiatives.
Page 21 of 31
ERCA BoD 138 of 219 Park family shipping business Nutrient loadings, Invasive species, fluctuating water levels, shoreline protection and climate change impacts
Plan Strategically General ERCA Manager Strategic Plan Operate under Essex Region Conservation 2016-2025 Authority’s 2016-2025 Strategic Plan Director of Contemplation, “Sustaining the Place for Life’ Conservation communication Complete the comprehensive John R. Park Areas, Director JRPH Homestead Conservation Area of Community Management Management Plan Outreach Plan Services, preparation Curator and 2018-2020 ERCA Staff
Ongoing Homestead Committee, Friends of the John R. Park Homestead Inc., and individuals
6.2 Corresponding Actions 2019 – 2021
Strategic Goal Specific Action Time Frame Persons Responsible Supported
Exceed Remain current with relevant Ministry June 2019 Standards for communications, publications, Community June 2020 Curator standards requirements, and complete Museums in June 2021 Ontario annual CMOG application.
November 2019 Evaluate annual plans, and status for programs of research, exhibition and November Curator, Environmental interpretation 2020 Educator, Interpreter November 2021
Page 22 of 31
ERCA BoD 139 of 219 November 2019 Update plans for programs of research, November Curator, Environmental
exhibition, and interpretation annually 2020 Educator, Interpreter November 2021
Review museum policies annually; January 2019 update and/or develop as needed, and January 2020 Curator provide to JRPHAB and ERCA Board for review/approval January 2021
Provide training and knowledge transfer Value and to replacement Environmental Educator, Curator, Executive January 2019 support our new Interpreter position, contract staff, Assistant (HR), Director – December partners, and seasonal hires to ensure continued of Community 2019 volunteers and compliance with ERCA’s service Outreach Services staff standards.
Aid in transition of JRPH event planning duties from Event Planner to Interpreter April 2019 – position. Interpreter to continue December Curator working with Event Planner for cohesive 2019 promotional plans.
Curator Environmental Educator Participate in annual performance evaluations; annual work planning; team Interpreter Ongoing meetings, departmental meetings, and Director of Community organizational meetings. Outreach Services General Manager
Maintain a diverse, dynamic, and engaging volunteer program to support the needs of the museum and conservation area, as well as meeting Ongoing Curator the volunteers’ needs and expectations. Includes recruitment, orientation, professional development opportunities, evaluation, and recognition.
Page 23 of 31
ERCA BoD 140 of 219 Director of Community Develop new community partnerships Outreach Service, Ongoing (target of 2 per year) Curator, Environmental Educator
Protect the Perform monthly physical inspections of Homestead’s the heritage structures; document Monthly 2019, Curator, Director of heritage conditions with photographs. Update 2020, 2021 Conservation Areas structures capital maintenance plan as needed.
Download temperature, relative humidity, and lux readings from wireless monitors in the exhibit areas and the Monthly 2019, Curator curatorial storage area. Track changes 2020, 2021 and adjust environmental controls accordingly.
D. Krutsch, P. Eng, Landmark Engineers ERCA Water Resources Shoreline Assessment Report (P. Eng) Spring 2019 Engineer Director of Conservation Areas
D. Krutsch, P. Eng, Landmark Engineers ERCA Water Resources Resulting shoreline protection plan Fall 2019 Engineer Director of Conservation Areas Curator
ERCA Water Resources Engineer Sourcing and securing funds to support the stages of shoreline protection Ongoing Director of structure work Conservation Areas Curator
D. Krutsch, P. Eng, Landmark Engineers Implementation of shoreline protection May – ERCA Water Resources
structure October 2020 Engineer Director of Conservation Areas Curator
Page 24 of 31
ERCA BoD 141 of 219 Undertake visitor surveys to determine Improve desired uses, and potential access Curator, Environmental access to the January – July issues/barriers. Educator, Interpreter, Lake Erie 2019 Compile results for consideration in Contract Staff shoreline shoreline structure planning.
D. Krutsch, P. Eng, Landmark Engineers July – Incorporate access ideas/information ERCA Water Resources September into the shoreline protection plan Engineer 2019 Director of Conservation Areas Curator
November Receive visitor feedback, staff and Curator, Environmental 2020 – volunteer evaluations regarding the Educator, Interpreter, November access to the Lake Erie shoreline; Contract Staff 2021
Director of Conservation Areas Director of Community Plan, secure funding for, implement, January 2020 Outreach Services and evaluate a pilot phragmites control – November Biologist/Ecologist strategy for Fox Creek (where it moves 2021 Curator through the JRPHCA property) Environmental Educator Interpreter ERCA Field Crew Volunteers
Increase Apply to various grant agencies for interpretation General Manager/ERCF funds to support the development of a of Great Lakes’ Executive Director natural and new Interpretive and Visitor Services cultural structure to improve accessibility, to Director of Community June 2019 – heritage with increase capacity for interpretive Outreach Services June 2020 an emphasis programs and events, and to host Director of on the western temporary exhibits relevant to annual Conservation Areas basin of Lake exhibition and interpretation targets. Curator Erie
Work with the Indigenous Education Indigenous Education Lead for the Windsor-Essex Catholic Lead, WECDSB January 2019 District School Board to research, Curator/Education – July 2019 develop, deliver and evaluate a new Coordinator pilot outdoor education program for Environmental Educator
Page 25 of 31
ERCA BoD 142 of 219 grade 4/5 students, Pre-Contact Interpreter Indigenous Traditional Knowledge and Innovation, with a local Three Fires Confederacy focus in the geographic area now known as Windsor-Essex.
Review all existing outdoor education programs and determine opportunities Curator/Education to enhance and/or to incorporate the September Coordinator following themes: The Great Lakes, 2019 – Environmental Educator nutrient loadings, invasive species, water September Interpreter levels, shoreline protection, and climate 2020 Director, Community change impacts with an emphasis on Outreach Services individual and collective stewardship of natural resources.
Develop one new outdoor education program that utilizes the Park Family’s international shipping enterprise (Park September Curator/Education and Co. Shipping) as the case 2020 – Coordinator
study/connective theme to illustrate the September Environmental Educator natural and cultural heritage of the 2021 Interpreter western basin of Lake Erie over the last 200 years.
Director of January 2019 Conservation Areas – December Director of Community 2020 Outreach Services
Complete the comprehensive John R. Curator/Education Plan Park Homestead Conservation Area Coordinator Strategically Management Plan (see specific Staff remaining Volunteers timeline targets below) Stakeholders General Public
Consolidate information collected from Curator initial research, staff, stakeholder and January 2019 Director of volunteer surveys and brainstorming – July 2019 Conservation Services sessions into a Preliminary Management Plan
Page 26 of 31
ERCA BoD 143 of 219 Curator Re-engage the public and stakeholders October – Director of in a dynamic review of the Preliminary December Conservation Services Plan 2019 Director of Community Outreach Services
Curator Develop a Final Management Plan Director of (draft) for review by the JRPH Advisory January 2020 Conservation Services Board, and recommendation for – March 2020 approval to the ERCA Board of Directors. Director of Community Outreach Services
Curator Beginning Director of Implement the Approved Management April 2020 – Conservation Services Plan ongoing Director of Community Outreach Services
Curator Director of Conduct Management Plan review, Ongoing Conservation Services evaluation, and updates. Director of Community Outreach Services
Note: As outlined above, the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area, under the Essex Region Conservation Authority, is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive Management Plan in keeping with a Board approved Land Management Framework. For more information on the Management Plan project, please contact the Curator, Kristin Ives at: [email protected] 519-738-2029. 7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This three year Strategic Plan for the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area is developed to ensure an understanding for and appreciation of the site, to optimize opportunities, to enhance the Museum's services, and ensure its long-term viability. It is also intended to support the priorities and strategic direction of the Essex Region Conservation Authority, and to promote and preserve the community’s human and natural heritage. The John R Park Homestead Conservation Area will strive to achieve the above noted Strategic Goals, Tasks and Actions, and will consider them in the development of the new long-term Site Management Plan. The Goals, Tasks and Actions of this Strategic Plan will serve as the guiding work plan for staff, volunteers, and the Museum Advisory Board.
Page 27 of 31
ERCA BoD 144 of 219 8. MONITORING PROGRESS
Moving forward, the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area Strategic Plan is to be included as an ongoing unfinished business item on the Museum Advisory Board regular meeting agenda for 2019 through to the end of 2021. Further, the Strategic Plan accomplishments will be evaluated at the end of each year, and detailed priorities for the following year will be determined as part of the annual planning process. Decisions regarding the implementation of tasks will be determined based on the availability of resources and grant opportunities.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Kristin Ives, Curator / Education Coordinator John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area 915 County Road 50 East, RR#1 Harrow, ON N0R 1G0 519-738-2029 / [email protected]
Essex Region Conservation Authority 311-360 Fairview Avenue West Essex, ON N8M 1Y6 519-776-5209 / [email protected] essexregionconservation.ca
Page 28 of 31
ERCA BoD 145 of 219 APPENDIX A – SHORELINE STRUCTURE (C.1900)
The earliest known image of the front of the house (circa 1900s) shows the Fox family seated on the south side of the house, showing a lawn similar to what exists today, and a cinderblock break wall, with steps down to a sandy beach. –JRPH Collection
Page 29 of 31
ERCA BoD 146 of 219 APPENDIX B – 2011 JOHN R. PARK HOMESTEAD CA ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION MAPPING
Page 30 of 31
ERCA BoD 147 of 219 APPENDIX C – FLORAL INVENTORY, JOHN R. PARK HOMESTEAD CA, PREPARED BY D. LEBEDYK, BIOLOGIST/ECOLOGIST
31
ERCA BoD 148 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD18/19
From: James Bryant, P.Eng., Water Resources Engineer
Date: June 20, 2019
Subject: Lake Levels, Flooding, and Flood Risk Assessments
Strategic Action: 2.1 Undertake modelling assessments to update ERCA’s Flood line Mapping
11.3 Continue to coordinate projects of regional interest with all municipal partners
Recommendation: THAT Report BD18/19 be received for Members’ information; and further,
THAT Administration explore opportunities to complete Watershed-Based Flood Risk Assessments, as a first step towards updating Flood/Hazard Land Mapping, in collaboration with municipal partners.
Summary
Current Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Lake levels are exceeding record highs recorded in 1986. Monthly Mean Lake Level for Lake Erie for the month of May surpassed the all- time record high set in June 1986 (period of record 1918 – present). It is expected that lake levels will meet or exceed record highs for June and July set in 1986.
Current lake levels are approximately at the same starting elevation (before wind setup and waves) as the original shoreline hazard mapping completed in 1976.
As a result of high water levels, the region has experienced 8 flood events with the most impacted area being east Leamington and more specifically, the shoreline between Point Pelee National Park and the Town of Wheatley. Additionally, because of high water levels, flood events are occurring and have the potential to occur from much lower wind speeds from any direction. This, combined with shoreline infrastructure that has been weakened from multiple years of wave action and high waters, results in greater risks to shoreline communities.
ERCA continues to monitors conditions and issue Flood Advisories (including a long- term Flood Watch), and advises on repairs and improvements to areas of concern and damaged infrastructure. However, based on observations and current trends, there is a need to further investigate and complete Watershed-Based Flood Risk Assessments in collaboration with municipal partners.
ERCA BoD 149 of 219 Discussion
Current Lake Levels
The Essex Region is currently experiencing its fourth year of rising / high lake levels, with levels that are surpassing record monthly mean highs recorded in the year 1986 for both Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair. Monthly Mean Lake Levels (MMLLs) are shown below in Figure 1, which describes our current in-year monthly means as compared to 2018 and the highest year on record in 1986. In general, what can be seen from the information in Figure 1 is:
Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie have risen 19 cm and 22 cm, respectively, from April to May 2019.
Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie both set new monthly mean records for the month of May, surpassing the previous records from 1986 by 12 cm and 13 cm, respectively.
Lake Erie set a new all-time high record for the period of record from 1918 to Present. The previous all-time high monthly mean was 175.04 metres, set in June 1986. The monthly mean for May 2019 surpassed that by 1 cm.
Lake St. Clair is currently 1 cm below the all-time high MMLL set in October 1986, while Lake Erie is currently 6 cm above the previous all-time high MMLL from June 1986.
Since the end of May, both Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie have risen 5 cm and are now at static elevations of 175.95 m and 175.10 m, respectively, as of June 10th, 2019.
Figure 1: Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie water levels for the years 1986, 2018, and 2019
ERCA BoD 150 of 219 Flood Events & Shoreline Erosion
Due to the elevated lake levels in both Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, the Essex Region has been experiencing significant flooding and erosion across the watershed. This has resulted in more flood statements/watches and warnings, which has noticeably increased over the last 5 years primarily as a result of elevated lake levels. In fact, all of the flood events in 2019 were caused by an initial elevated lake level, followed by wind-generated lake setup and wave action overtopping breakwalls.
The number of flood advisories issued during the spring for the past 5 years as well as the total number of flood advisories for the duration of the year is shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The tables show, not surprisingly, that the number of flood advisories have dramatically increased as water levels have increased. It can be seen from the tables that throughout spring 2019, the region has endured 8 flood events, with the majority occurring in the Municipality of Leamington along the shorelines from Point Pelee National Park to Wheatley (see Appendix A for a Flood Event Summary).
Table 1: Number of Flood Advisories issued during spring
January 1 to May 31 (5 months)
Flood Advisory 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
Watershed Conditions Statements 11 9 4 1 2
Flood Watches 10* 14 11 5 1
Flood Warnings 8* 7 3 0 0
Total Advisories 29 30 18 6 3
*Long-term Flood Watch issued on May 30, 2019 as a result of high lake levels, otherwise it is likely that the number of flood watches would be significantly higher.
Table 2: Number of Flood Advisories issued during calendar year
Full year
Flood Advisory 2018 2017 2016
Watershed Conditions Statements 17 13 2
Flood Watches 20 11 7
Flood Warnings 8 4 3
Total Advisories 45 28 12
ERCA BoD 151 of 219 According to the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) Gauge #12065 (Kingsville), wind setup has varied from approximately 0.3 metres up to 0.5 metres during major events with some of these peak levels remaining for several hours. Additionally, as result of the elevated lake levels, wind-induced flood events are able to occur more frequently with slower wind speeds. Observed lake level data from CHS Gauge #12065 and wind speed/direction data from ERCA’s Hillman Marsh climate station has shown that flood events have been able to occur at speeds between 30 and 35 km/hr if sustained out of the northeast direction. This is in comparison to events that would normally be caused by sustained winds exceeding 40 km/hr. Figure 2 shows data from two separate wind- induced flood events in Leamington on April 11 and 14, 2019 where wind speeds remained below 40 km/hr and in the case of April 14th, remained below 35 km/hr. Also shown on Figure 2 is the current water level of Lake Erie in relation to these events. It is evident that as both Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair reach their annual peaks that our region is in a period of increased risk of flooding.
Figure 2: Flood Events - April 11, 2019 and April 14, 2019
These flood events, along with elevated lake levels, have caused significant erosion, damaging municipal infrastructure in the Municipality of Leamington and the Township of Pelee. Cotterie Park Road in Leamington experienced a complete washout during in April 2018. After completing the repairs, the same area has again experienced significant erosion on the west shoulder and southbound lane due to the shoreline flooding that occurred in early May 2019.
Pelee Island has been experiencing significant erosion due to elevated lake level and direct wave attack on all sides of the island. The most severely impacted area is the western shoreline as West Shore Road and McCormick Road are at risk of being washed- out with substantial and sustained winds out of the west/southwest. In past years, the Township of Pelee was able to make emergency repairs along these same areas;
ERCA BoD 152 of 219 however, the severity of erosion is now surpassing equipment capabilities. These areas are of particular concern as West Shore Road is paramount for ingress/egress.
Short Term Lake Level Outlook
According to available information from both the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), lake levels are expected to meet or exceed record highs for the months of June and July set in 1986. This is driven by continued above average outflows from Lake Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron and above average net basin supply for Lake Erie and upstream basins. The entire Great Lakes Basin received 122% of the normal amount of precipitation, with the Lake Erie basin receiving 113% of its normal amount. With previous months’ precipitation also well above average, this has caused higher than normal runoff due to saturated ground conditions, further exacerbating the water levels in receiving water bodies.
Lake Erie is expected to continue to rise slightly over the month of June, resulting in a new MMLL for June and at the same time, potentially setting a new all-time high MMLL for the second month in a row. Lake Erie is predicted to be below record highs for July to September 2019; albeit only by approximately 2 to 5 cm. Lake St. Clair is expected to meet its June record set in 1986 (175.92 m) even though levels are currently approximately 3 cm above that value. The Region should anticipate and prepare for equal to or greater than 1986 water levels throughout the remainder of 2019.
Actions in Response to High Lake Levels
In response to the current record breaking lake levels and lake level projections, ERCA staff have undertaken the following to ensure the protection of property and life:
Continued to issue Flood Advisories.
Issuance of a long-term Flood Watch that provided current conditions as of May 30, 2019. This Flood Watch was in effect until June 15th, 2019 and identified areas of concern based on wind speed and direction. This Flood Watch is included as Appendix B of this report, and will likely be renewed for another extended period of time.
Analyzed available data related to flood events to identify updated Flood Watch thresholds based on Lake Level and wind speed/direction.
Participation in an emergency preparedness meeting with Municipality of Leamington staff and senior administration.
Participated in a regional emergency preparedness meeting that included technical and emergency response staff from various municipalities and utility companies.
Presentation to Town Councils (Tecumseh and Amherstburg) related to lake levels. Presentations to other councils is being arranged.
ERCA BoD 153 of 219 Responded to the Province of Ontario’s “Improving Flood Resiliency” survey in coordination with Conservation Ontario (to follow).
Continued to work with municipal partners and flood duty officers to provide information related to current and forecasted conditions, and to advise on potential repairs and improvements to areas of concern and damaged infrastructure.
Flood Line Mapping and Flood-Risk Assessment
Due to the lake levels continuing to rise as well as the existing and future threats of flooding and erosion, ERCA has been engaged in various undertakings to improve and update existing flood line/hazard mapping which, as previously discussed in Report BD36/18, needs to be updated to address current threats and future impacts associated with climate change. The original flood line mapping for the Essex Region shoreline prepared by M. M. Dillon Limited was completed in 1976. In preparing 1:100 year flood levels for Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, consideration was given to monthly mean lake levels along with wind setup, waves, and wave run-up. It should be noted that with this mapping being completed in 1976, this excludes the high lake level periods through the 1980s, 1990s, and our present levels. This information greatly influences the starting lake elevation prior to applying setup and waves and would potentially generate greater 1:100 year flood elevations and greater extents of flooding and erosion.
To date, ERCA administration has been involved in several flood / hazard mapping initiatives:
City of Windsor – ERCA has assisted the City of Windsor in preparing the Terms of Reference for the Sandwich South Master Servicing and Little River Watershed Flood Plain Mapping project. ERCA staff was also part of the Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection process and has been asked by the City of Windsor to act as Project Manager and Peer Review Lead related to the Flood Plain Mapping component of the study. This will be a multi-year undertaking, and will require investigation and analysis of the Little River and Lake St. Clair confluence.
Lakeshore - ERCA administration prepared a comprehensive Terms of Reference for a Shoreline Management Plan on behalf of the Town of Lakeshore. As outlined, the study would be expected to update hazard mapping for the length of shoreline stretching from Lighthouse Cove to the Town of Tecumseh, and provide updates to the Town of Lakeshore’s Official Plan.
Leamington - Leamington is also in the process of preparing a Terms of Reference to address flood risks in the southeast Leamington area. This may include some re- evaluations of flood levels as well as nearshore and lakebed erosion. Town Administration has expressed intent to engage ERCA in assisting in the development of the study.
ERCA BoD 154 of 219 In addition to flood line / hazard mapping, it is crucial to understand the relative impacts of various flood levels in order to identify areas of potentially high or low risk. Fundamentally, Risk can be defined as the product of Probability and Severity or Consequence (Risk = Probability x Consequence). Therefore it can be stated that while all areas impacted by the 1%-chance flood event have an equal probability of the event occurring, the risk to impacted areas can be dramatically different based on various consequences. These consequences can be represented in various forms such as short and long-term economic, social, and health related impacts. This has been evident through repeated major flood events in east Leamington area between Point Pelee National Park and the Town of Wheatley. This particular area has endured significant flooding and damage, with potential economic, social, health impacts all as a result events that would be considered far more frequent events than the 1% chance flood. As a result, risk needs to be investigated further by ERCA Administration and municipalities as a next step in the development of flood line/hazard mapping, to identify priority needs and to provide improved watershed management services.
Such an investigation would be in the form of a Watershed-Based Flood Risk Assessment, which could inform where efforts should be focused in terms of updated flood plain mapping. The investigation would consider risk as it relates to probability of occurrence and consequences based factors such as flood depth and velocity, population density, disaster management / mitigation, damage to property and infrastructure, health related impacts, and potentially various other factors. The outcome of a Watershed-Based Flood Risk Assessment study would ensure long-term sustainable and vibrant communities through effective flood plain management and planning decisions.
Using a watershed-based and collaborative approach similar to recent undertakings, the burden of cost may be greatly reduced with benefits achieved by all stakeholders. It is recommended that ERCA Administration investigate opportunities to complete a Watershed-Based Flood Risk Assessment in collaboration with municipal partners.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
Appendix A: Flood Event Summary: Spring 2019
Appendix B: Long-Term Flood Watch issued May 30, 2019
Appendix C: ERCA Responses to Provincial Survey – Improving Flood Resiliency (to be included under separate Addendum)
ERCA BoD 155 of 219 Appendix A: Flood Event Summary – Spring 2019
Approx. Pre- Date Impacted Event Lake Peak Lake Difference (2019) Cause Areas Level (KV)* Level (KV)* (m) Event Severity Notes
April 11 Wind East 1.3 m 1.79 m 0.49 m Major Significant flooding between Wheatley Leamington (174.8 m) (175.29) Harbour Point Pelee. Cotterie Park Rd, East Beach Rd, and Marentette Beach Rd. impassable.
April 14 Wind East 1.3 m 1.75 m 0.45 m Major Significant flooding between Wheatley Leamington (174.8 m) (175.25 m) Harbour Point Pelee. Cotterie Park Rd, East Beach Rd, and Marentette Beach Rd. impassable.
May 1 Wind Southeast 1.4 m 1.81 m 0.41 m Major Significant flooding between Wheatley Leamington (174.90 m) (175.31 m) Harbour Point Pelee. Cotterie Park Rd, East Beach Rd, and Marentette Beach Rd. impassable. Cotterie Park Rd. west shoulder and parts of south-bound lane washed out.
May 3 Wind Marentette 1.5 m 1.58 m 0.08 m Minor Event was less than anticipated but still Beach (175.00 m) (175.08 m) flooding for resulted in submerged roadway as the road is community isolated area flanked by Lake Erie. Damage sustained to due to southern portion of dike caused heightened roadway awareness. elevation.
May 8 Wind East 1.5 m 1.80 m 0.3 m Major Significant event. Levels exceeded 1.7m in two Leamington (175.00 m) (175.30) separate peaks separated by 5 hours. Each peak level lasted for as long as 4 to 5 hours.
Report BD18/19 Appendix A ERCA BoD 156 of 219 Approx. Pre- Date Impacted Event Lake Peak Lake Difference (2019) Cause Areas Level (KV)* Level (KV)* (m) Event Severity Notes
May 12 Wind East 1.5 m 1.77 m 0.27 m* Major Lake set-up lasted for several hours (5-6 hours Leamington + (175.00 m) (175.27 m) above 1.70m. Cedar Creek in Kingsville
May 22 Wind Southeast 1.55 m 1.70 m 0.15 m Minor Wind speed remained below 25 km/hr and did Leamington (175.05 m) (175.20 m) not generate significant wave action. Minor flooding occurred along Cotterie Park Road at localized areas.
June 8 Wind East 1.6 m 1.76 m 0.16 m Moderate Lake level reached at least 1.75 m above Leamington + (175.1 m) (175.26 m) IGLD1985 and lasted for approximately 3 Cedar Creek in hours. Kingsville. Wind remained between 20 and 25 km/hr Tributaries at which resulted in much smaller waves bank-full. *metres above low water datum (metres above IGLD 1985)
Report BD18/19 Appendix A ERCA BoD 157 of 219 Flood Watch
The Essex Region Conservation Authority advises that, due to the record high lake levels, a Flood Watch is in effect for all shoreline areas within the Essex Region, including Pelee Island. Areas of concern are the low lying beach communities and shoreline areas along Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and Lake Erie, as well as low lying areas along the downstream reaches of major tributaries. Unless superseded by a Flood Warning, this watch will remain in effect until June 15, 2019 at which time conditions will be reevaluated.
Areas of Potential Concern: With elevated lake levels, areas that may be potentially impacted can vary from day-to-day based on wind speed and direction. Areas at risk of flooding and erosion as it relates to wind are described below:
Northeast Winds: – Lake St. Clair shoreline from Windsor to Belle River; – Lake Erie shoreline including Pelee Island; – Detroit River shoreline; and – Low-lying areas at the downstream reaches of major tributaries.
North Winds: – Lake St. Clair Shoreline.
Northwest Winds: – Lake St. Clair shoreline from Belle River to Tilbury North.
South/southwest and South/southeast Winds: – Lake Erie shoreline including south Pelee Island.
West Winds: – West shoreline of Pelee Island.
Current Conditions: The Essex Region started the month of May 2019 with Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie above the record high lake levels for May recorded in 1986. According to available data, the current average lake level through May 2019 for Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie is 175.89 m and 175.04 m, respectively. Over the past month, both lakes have risen approximately 20 cm. Based on the current level Lake St. Clair is approximately 21 cm above the mean level for May 2018 and 6 cm above the 1986 record high. Lake Erie is approximately 16 cm above the mean level for May 2018 and 7 cm above the 1986 record high. These levels are static water levels, meaning they do not account for any wind-driven lake setup and waves.
These levels bring an elevated risk of flooding and erosion across the watershed. Typically, sustained wind
ERCA BoD 158 of 219 speeds in the range of 40 to 50 km/hr or higher are associated with an increased risk of flooding, shoreline erosion, and damage to shoreline structures. Elevated lake levels have significantly reduced the required wind speed to cause these issues, as we have experienced multiple occurrences of flooding with wind speeds between 30 and 35 km/hr from the northeast and east/northeast directions.
Additionally, elevated lake levels are causing downstream reaches of major tributaries to remain elevated, and under conditions with lake-setup, this has resulted in some rivers and creeks to spill into low-lying areas impacting private property and some roadways. These elevated lake levels can decrease the outflows from tributaries, reducing their available capacity to handle rainfall events.
Short-Term Outlook: According to available data from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environment and Climate Change Canada, the entire Great Lakes Basin exceeded the normal amount of precipitation for the month of April. Lake Erie, specifically, received approximately 37% more precipitation than the normal for the month of April resulting in above average net basin supply. The USACE is forecasting that the most probably levels for Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair fall short of record highs for the month of June and July 2019; however, Lake Erie is currently matching the record high for June set in 1986. Both Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie typically peak during the months of June or July. Based on the current level and the potential to peak within the next two months, there is the potential for lake levels to rise further, increasing risks of flooding and erosion.
Monitoring: The Municipality of Leamington should continue to monitor the flood control dykes in the Southeast Leamington Area, including the Mersea Road 1 Dyke and the Marentette Dyke. The southern section of the Marentette Beach Road dyke that provides protection for the inland Marentette Dyke has sustained damage from recent storm events through spring 2019. Due to the damage sustained to the outer layer of protection, the interior corner of the Marentette Dyke is more exposed to direct wave impact from Lake Erie, increasing its susceptibility to erosion and risk to flooding. The Municipality of Leamington is actively working to assess the damage and coordinate corrective actions to restore an appropriate level of protection.
The Township of Pelee should continue to monitor areas that have experienced significant erosion, such as portions of West Shore Road and McCormick Road. These areas are at a high risk of being washed-out if substantial winds persist out of the west/southwest.
The City of Windsor should continue to monitor water levels along the flood control dykes within the Little River Drain corridor.
Essex Region Conservation Authority officials will continue to monitor conditions and advise accordingly.
Caution: People should take extra caution to avoid areas where flooding is occurring as well as rivers, streams, and shoreline areas during significant rainfall and wind/lake events. The combination of slippery banks, waves, waves overtopping shoreline structures, and fast moving water can be dangerous. Standing water can also present its own unseen hazards. Children, pets, and livestock should be kept away from flowing or standing water as well as shoreline areas.
Issued By:
James Bryant, P.Eng.
ERCA BoD 159 of 219 Water Resources Engineer, Watershed Management Services 519-819-7912
Issued By:
Tim Byrne, C.E.T. Director, Watershed Management Services 519-796-2300
Date: May 30, 2019 Time: 3:30 pm
This advisory is in effect until: 10:00 AM, Jun 15, 2019
Municipalities and Other Agencies:
Upon receipt, hand directly to the Flood Coordinator or Emergency Planner for your Municipality or Agency.
Media:
Upon receipt, hand directly to your newsroom.
Types of Flood Bulletins
Watershed Conditions - High flows, unsafe banks, melting ice or other factors that could be dangerous for Safety Bulletins recreational users such as anglers, canoeists, hikers, children, pets, etc. Flooding is not expected.
Watershed Conditions – Early notice of the potential for flooding based on weather forecasts calling for heavy Flood Outlook rain, snow melt, high wind or other conditions that could lead to high runoff, cause ice jams, lakeshore flooding or erosion.
Flood Watch Bulletins Flooding is possible in specific watercourses or municipalities. Municipalities, emergency services and individual landowners in flood-prone areas should prepare.
Flood Warning Bulletins Flooding is imminent or already occurring in specific watercourses or municipalities.
ERCA BoD 160 of 219
Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD19/19
From: Tim Byrne Director Water Management Services
Date: June 12, 2019
Subject: Modification of Fee Schedule
Strategic Action: 12.1 Improve efficiency for clients while ensuring that all development is undertaken in a sustainable manner
12.3 Enhance communication of ERCA’s Watershed Management Services roles and responsibilities
Recommendation: THAT the current permit fee schedule be modified to clarify charges for breakwall maintenance, repair and new construction as described in Report BD19/19, and further
THAT the modified fee schedule be posted and distributed to consultants and contractors.
Summary
High lake levels have increased the numbers of armourstone breakwall applications. ERCA’s current fee schedule does not sufficiently address current shoreline permitting activities and sets up situations where applicants may be paying different rates based on scale and scope of activities.
In light of current water levels, ERCA is proposing modifications to current fee schedule to ensure that fees are applied consistently and fairly across different types of projects, and to ensure landowners are not impacted by significant fees to undertake works on their breakwalls.
Discussion
Significant reaches of the Essex regions coastal protection systems on Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and Lake Erie tends to be large quarried armourstone. These systems are comprised of placed rock that in many cases has individual rocks exceeding 2 tonnes in weight. Applied across a property, armourstone construction projects can result in several hundred tonnes of rock being installed, depending on the coastal environment.
This type of protection system is sustainable and serves to break up wave energy while attempting to minimise the negative impact to the environment created by vertical faced straight alignment walls. The armourstone allows for void areas that hold sand and can be refuggia for fish and aquatic wildlife. The irregular shape, size and presence of voids facilitates the breaking of wave energy. Repairs to these systems are costly and the scope and scale of work quickly surpasses standard construction methodologies and practice. Armour stone walls are typically constructed and repaired by marine contactors who
ERCA BoD 161 of 219 specialize in this type of breakwall work. For other marine repair applications on concrete structures and sheet steel walls, the understanding of what constitutes a repair and replacement are obvious in the form and function of the system present and the work proposed. For armourstone permit applications there has not been adequate definition provided to define limits of tonnage anticipated, to allow for a fair application of the current fee structure and the interpretation of what is new or what is a repair. Historically the determination of what scope was a repair or what triggered more of a review became somewhat arbitrary and subject to interpretation. In other situations, the proposed works identified represented a significantly smaller scope than what actually was proposed, leading to inconsistent interpretation of project scope of repair, and associated fees.
This matter has been reviewed with contractors and property owners and the following is recommended to be applied to allow for a fair application of the difference between a new wall and or a repair.
Applications for two tonnes or less per foot of wall frontage will be considered a minor maintenance which will fall under the current board approved fee of $150.00
Applications for 2 to 4 tonnes per foot of wall frontage requires administrative review and field verification similar to the time and capacity required to review permits for small out buildings in regulated areas. It is proposed that fees for this level of work be set at $250.00.
Applications for over 4 tonnes a foot of wall frontage will be treated as a new wall and will be covered off under the currently board approved fee of $500.00. Should engineering assessments be required then the current approved board fee will be assessed.
Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
:
ERCA BoD 162 of 219 Essex Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors BD20/19
From: Tim Byrne, Director, Watershed Management Services
Date: June 3, 2019
Subject: Watershed Management Services Activities Report for April and May 2019
Strategic Action: 12.3. Enhance communication of ERCA’s Watershed Management Services.
Recommendation: THAT the review of Regulations and Planning Applications, as presented in Report BD20/19 be received for Members’ information.
Discussion
This report is provided to the Board as a summary of staff activity related to the Conservation Authority’s Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (ONT 158/06, made pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act). It is a summary of staff activity related to the review of municipal planning applications in accordance with the Planning Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This report summarizes the months of April and May 2019.
Total Regulations and Planning Activity – April and May 2019 Application Count Type Clearance 39 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 27 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 23 Minor Variance Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Official Plan Amendment Removal of holding zone Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 symbol Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 18 Site Plan Control Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 13 Zoning By-Law Amendment Windsor Standing COW Standing Committee Review 1 Committee COW Standing Committee Review 4 Zoning By-Law Amendment Custom Correspondence 3 Environmental Assessment 15 Lawyers Request 27 Miscellaneous Developments 297 Municipal Drainage Engineer 9 Municipal Drainage SCR 7
ERCA BoD 163 of 219 Total Regulations and Planning Activity – April and May 2019 Application Count Type Notice of Violation 13 Permit 214 Pre-submission Liaison 7 Pre-submission Liaison Site Evaluation 1
Total Activity Summary by Municipality – April and May 2019 Municipality Application Count Type Clearance 3 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Minor Variance Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 2 Official Plan Amendment Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Site Plan Control Zoning By-Law Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Amendment Amherstburg Custom Correspondence 1 Environmental Assessment 1 Lawyers Request 3 Miscellaneous Developments 45 Municipal Drainage Engineer 3 Municipal Drainage SCR 2 Notice of Violation 2 Permit 19 Clearance 4 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 4 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Minor Variance Zoning By-Law Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 2 Amendment Environmental Assessment 2 Essex Lawyers Request 3 Miscellaneous Developments 35 Municipal Drainage Engineer 1 Municipal Drainage SCR 1 Notice of Violation 1 Permit 15 Clearance 9 Kingsville Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 5 Consent
ERCA BoD 164 of 219 Total Activity Summary by Municipality – April and May 2019 Municipality Application Count Type Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Official Plan Amendment Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 4 Site Plan Control Zoning By-Law Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Amendment Environmental Assessment 3 Lawyers Request 8 Miscellaneous Developments 32 Notice of Violation 2 Permit 28 Site Evaluation 1 Clearance 12 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 7 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 4 Minor Variance Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 5 Site Plan Control Environmental Assessment 2 Lakeshore Lawyers Request 3 Miscellaneous Developments 74 Municipal Drainage Engineer 3 Municipal Drainage SCR 1 Notice of Violation 1 Permit 59 Clearance 2 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Minor Variance Removal of holding zone Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 symbol LaSalle Environmental Assessment 1 Lawyers Request 6 Miscellaneous Developments 16 Notice of Violation 1 Permit 9 Clearance 4 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 4 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 2 Minor Variance Leamington Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 2 Site Plan Control Zoning By-Law Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 2 Amendment Custom Correspondence 1
ERCA BoD 165 of 219 Total Activity Summary by Municipality – April and May 2019 Municipality Application Count Type Lawyers Request 2 Miscellaneous Developments 36 Municipal Drainage Engineer 1 Municipal Drainage SCR 1 Notice of Violation 2 Permit 14 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Consent Lawyers Request 1 Pelee Miscellaneous Developments 15 Notice of Violation 4 Permit 2 Clearance 2 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 10 Minor Variance Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Site Plan Control Custom Correspondence 1 Tecumseh Environmental Assessment 4 Miscellaneous Developments 20 Municipal Drainage Engineer 1 Municipal Drainage SCR 2 Permit 25 Clearance 3 Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 1 Consent Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 2 Minor Variance Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Site Plan Control Zoning By-Law Consent/Variance/Zoning/OPA/SPC/OP 3 Amendment Windsor Standing COW Standing Committee Review 1 Windsor Committee Zoning By-Law COW Standing Committee Review 4 Amendment Environmental Assessment 2 Lawyers Request 1 Miscellaneous Developments 20 Permit 43 Pre-submission Liaison 7 Pre-submission Liaison
ERCA BoD 166 of 219 Approved By:
Richard J.H. Wyma, CSLA General Manager/Secretary Treasurer
Attachments:
Detailed Watershed Management Services Activities Report for the months of April and May 2019, available under separate cover.
ERCA BoD 167 of 219
Financial Activities For The 4 Periods Ending April 30, 2019
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SERVICES
REGULATIONS ,DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS & RELATED INQUIRIES GENERAL LEVY 78,206 229,915 56,529 185,995 PROVINCIAL GRANTS - - - 2,000 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES/RECOVERIES 164,333 450,000 154,852 459,321 242,539 679,915 211,381 647,317
WAGES 197,465 555,000 160,348 514,394 CONSULTING - 2,000 - 3,237 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 6,044 10,100 10,627 21,789 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 6,080 14,000 5,751 16,691 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 23,700 86,000 26,000 78,200 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 12,000 - 12,500 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 671 200 220 220 AUDIT AND LEGAL - 5,000 - - CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS 2,815 - - - SMALL MISC - - - - 236,774 684,300 202,946 647,031
PLAN INPUT & REVIEW/MUNICIPAL PLANNING SUPPORT/PLANNING RELATED STUDIES GENERAL LEVY 24,060 66,180 20,060 78,480 CW~GS LEVY 18,133 54,400 17,000 48,500 MUNICIPAL 3,720 - - 2,180 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 16,659 61,763 20,737 65,221 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES/RECOVERIES 15,845 90,000 16,135 92,525 78,417 272,343 73,932 286,906
WAGES 77,597 241,500 80,568 251,667 CONSULTING - 500 - 982 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 1,094 - 218 1,561 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE - 350 106 521 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 9,400 33,000 12,000 35,568 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 4,000 - 3,500 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 877 900 108 876 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS 914 - - - SMALL MISC - - - - 89,882 280,250 93,000 294,675
FLOOD FORECASTING/ FLOOD & EROSION ASSESSMENTS GENERAL LEVY 39,265 128,500 43,134 164,257 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 39,258 128,500 43,134 120,814 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES/RECOVERIES - - - (31,765) 78,524 257,000 86,268 253,306
WAGES 51,941 173,500 57,921 167,908 CONSULTING/INFO'N/DATA SVCS 15,936 31,300 15,511 32,521 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 3,611 7,550 6,667 10,856 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 1,652 6,650 1,232 4,036 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 10,200 30,000 11,873 31,000 TOTALRENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES EXPENSES 83,340 - 257,000 8,000 93,204 - 253,321 7,000 SMALL MISC - - - - 83,340 257,000 93,204 253,321
TECHNICAL STUDIES COORDINATION & ASSESSMENTS(STORMWATER,DRAINAGE,IDF)/ FLOOD HAZARDS MODELLING GENERAL LEVY - - 9,770 7,547
Page 1 ERCA BoD 168 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED CW~GS LEVY 20,000 60,000 21,133 53,800 MUNICIPAL - - - 32,944 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 2,600 12,000 3,550 16,229 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES - - (11,366) (666) 22,600 72,000 23,088 109,854
WAGES 14,511 85,000 19,122 62,183 CONSULTING - - 712 33,677 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 2,747 1,650 270 1,830 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 655 1,000 468 2,104 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 2,000 8,790 3,000 9,502 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 560 560 560 560 SMALL MISC - - - - 20,473 97,000 24,132 109,856
WECI (MUNICIPAL WATER AND EROSION CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS) MUNICIPAL - 300,000 325,890 2,613,160 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 1,250 - 14,000 21,500 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES 6,300 - 75,888 78,188 7,550 300,000 415,778 2,712,847
DIRECT WAGES 713 5,000 9,434 13,731 CONSULTING/OUTSIDE ENGINEERING 6,614 - 18,247 41,232 CONSTRUCTION - 293,000 400,274 2,650,202 TRAVEL/VEHICLE/ADMINISTRATION/OVERHEAD 631 2,000 4,375 9,081 7,958 300,000 432,329 2,714,246
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SERVICES REVENUES GENERAL LEVY 141,532 424,595 129,493 436,280 CW~GS LEVY 38,133 114,400 38,133 102,300 MUNICIPAL 3,720 300,000 325,890 2,648,283 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 59,767 202,263 81,421 225,763 FEDERAL GRANTS - - - - OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 180,178 540,000 170,987 520,081 IN-KIND - - - - TRANSFER TO/FROM DEF REVENUES 6,300 - 64,522 77,522
429,630 1,581,258 810,447 4,010,230 EXPENSES 438,427 1,618,550 845,610 4,019,130
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (8,796) (37,292) (35,163) (8,900) NOTE 1
CONSERVATION SERVICES
GENERAL PROGRAM/LAND MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT GENERAL LEVY 47,000 141,000 47,000 141,000 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES - - 1,563 36 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES - - 15,000 - 47,000 141,000 63,563 141,036
WAGES 44,782 127,600 49,272 125,032 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 1,293 2,700 2,012 4,103 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 232 1,500 519 1,150 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 5,000 20,000 5,500 18,500 51,308 151,800 57,304 148,786
LAND ACQUISITION AND ACQUISITION/LAND USE PLANNING CW~GS LEVY 196,533 589,600 152,867 463,600 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES (189,000) (567,600) (143,840) (421,378)
Page 2 ERCA BoD 169 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED 7,533 22,000 9,027 42,222
WAGES 4,454 7,500 4,637 19,023 LEGAL, SURVEYING,CONSULTNG 2,035 12,500 5,626 19,245 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL - - 313 322 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 910 2,000 1,200 3,600 7,399 22,000 11,776 42,190
CONSERVATION SERVICES
TREE PLANTING AND RESTORATION PROJECTS
CW~GS LEVY 53,333 160,000 36,667 110,000 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 15,000 35,000 36,945 125,476 FEDERAL GRANTS 40,000 560,000 443,070 1,003,278 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 306,743 611,163 337,686 752,018 IN-KIND 12,985 3,500 4,151 3,444 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES 14,000 120,000 850 (253,150) 442,061 1,489,663 859,368 1,741,065 NOTE 2
WAGES 139,502 428,000 197,840 494,887 CONSTRUCTION 22,625 470,000 517,157 573,124 ENGINEERING/CONSULTING 18,317 111,500 29,596 62,311 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 16,278 39,000 38,190 63,449 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 12,271 73,700 23,712 94,223 PLANT MAT/LANDOWNER GRANTS 141,779 275,750 170,068 291,638 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 23,600 80,000 37,000 107,000 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 6,000 - 8,000 IN KIND SVCS SUPPLIES 12,985 3,500 4,151 3,444 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS 2,063 2,000 142 3,888 SMALL MISC 4,881 - - 6,935 394,301 1,489,450 1,017,855 1,708,899
CONSERVATION AREAS - OPERATIONS,MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS
GENERAL CONSERVATION AREAS (16 active maintenance sites /2 greenways) GENERAL LEVY 157,247 471,742 138,673 442,019 FEDERAL GRANTS 1,001 36,600 1 39,267 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 23,538 125,100 7,371 117,439 TRANSFERS TO/FROM RESERVES - (7,000) - (18,000) 181,786 626,442 146,045 580,724
WAGES 41,545 272,150 59,739 218,845 CONSTRUCTION 3,363 - - 557 ENGINEERING/CONSULTING - 1,000 611 1,175 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 15,405 50,850 26,079 64,712 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 7,181 95,000 11,277 97,390 PLANT MAT/LANDOWNER GRANTS - 35,000 - 12,258 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 11,730 70,050 15,170 70,571 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES 42,152 88,350 26,800 92,415 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS 11,844 25,500 2,822 33,406 SMALL MISC 1,112 - - 5,286 134,332 637,900 142,497 596,615 NOTE 3
HOLIDAY BEACH GENERAL LEVY 32,227 96,680 32,227 96,680 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 151,207 228,850 131,548 243,009 FUND TRANSFERS - 2,450 - 2,100 TRANSFERS TO/FROM RESERVES - (12,000) - (31,000) 183,434 315,980 163,774 310,789 NOTE 4
WAGES 17,633 144,200 17,844 142,987 ENGINEERING/CONSULTING - 2,800 640 3,383 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 11,861 39,200 18,929 52,059 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 900 22,500 3,328 16,472 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 7,500 30,000 7,000 22,000 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES 3,535 31,500 6,762 35,065 MAJOR MAINT/ROADS/VEGETATION 568 26,500 - 34,298
Page 3 ERCA BoD 170 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED 43,062 296,900 54,504 307,432
JOHN R PARK HOMESTEAD GENERAL LEVY 53,333 160,000 53,333 160,000 PROVINCIAL GRANTS - 23,688 - 23,688 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 48,655 91,400 34,976 103,319 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM RESERVES (4,000) - (4,000) (10,000) 97,989 275,088 84,310 277,007 NOTE 5
WAGES 53,575 194,600 53,600 177,540 CONSTRUCTION - 17,500 - 12,564 CONSULTING/SUB K 911 - 3,012 4,823 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 15,994 24,650 14,663 26,771 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 1,324 1,550 599 4,140 PLANT MAT/LANDOWNER GRANTS - - - 1,908 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 6,500 25,000 6,500 20,000 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES 2,325 19,300 2,469 19,340 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS 413 500 814 4,452 SMALL MISC 222 500 162 1,150 81,264 283,600 81,819 272,688
CONSERVATION AREAS CAPITAL OR MAJOR MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENTS CW~GS LEVY - - 20,000 60,000 FEDERAL GRANTS - - 8,561 63,000 OTHER GRANTS 119,870 140,885 - 51,825 NOTE 6 TRANSFERS TO/FROM RESERVES (22,000) 434,115 180,650 334,669 97,870 575,000 209,211 509,494
WAGES 30,398 35,000 11,729 2,135 LANDS AND CONSTRUCTION 6,650 495,000 167,394 35,165 ENGINEERING/CONSULTING - 25,000 14,172 2,400 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 6,695 - 15,231 - VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 5,874 - 4,769 12,817 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 5,417 4,000 3,700 17,425 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS - 16,000 61 5,854 65,617 575,000 217,057 75,797
FLEET & FIELD EQUIPMENT OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES/RECOVERIES 26,195 199,000 44,292 227,916 TRANSFERS TO/FROM RESERVES 10,000 - - 15,000 36,195 199,000 44,292 242,916 NOTE 7
MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS 37,123 65,700 29,639 77,842 FUEL 5,719 36,500 9,392 39,462 LICENCES/MISC/SMALL TOOLS 2,808 19,150 3,574 21,535 AMORTIZATION - 83,000 - 86,281 45,650 204,350 42,605 225,120
WATER QUALITY & REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES
DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM PROVINCIAL GRANTS 41,942 103,350 8,868 92,752 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES (14,695) 18,000 22,570 25,346 27,247 121,350 31,438 118,098 NOTE 8
WAGES 32,134 103,000 28,962 89,585 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 462 3,950 5,332 6,272 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE (223) 1,800 1,010 1,816 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 2,045 9,000 4,200 13,750 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 1,100 - 1,100 PER DIEMS/MISC 750 2,500 2,700 5,575 35,168 121,350 42,204 118,098
WQ RESEARCH STUDIES AND TARGETED MITIGATION PROGRAMS GENERAL LEVY 15,667 47,000 15,667 47,000
Page 4 ERCA BoD 171 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED CW~GS LEVY 42,000 126,000 33,333 100,000 MUNICIPAL - 65,750 - 38,398 PROVINCIAL GRANTS - - 101,550 111,550 FEDERAL GRANTS - 105,181 156,167 328,394 OTHER - 15,700 600 33,090 IN-KIND 11,408 16,000 - 454 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES 71,867 164,150 133,806 (31,444) 140,942 539,781 441,123 627,443 NOTE 9
WQM WAGES 80,505 293,295 99,971 291,871 CONSULTING 5,718 17,000 25,264 61,500 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 1,956 15,850 17,277 34,036 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 3,281 12,200 8,297 23,655 PLANT MAT/LANDOWNER GRANTS 20,318 129,886 57,650 73,576 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 6,300 52,400 22,169 55,030 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 2,800 - 1,200 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 3,948 400 410 639 IN KIND SVCS SUPPLIES 11,408 16,000 - 454 AUDIT AND LEGAL - - - 1,139 TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT 94 - 82,228 86,090 SMALL MISC - - - 493 133,528 539,831 313,266 629,682
CLIMATE CHANGE REGIONAL STRATEGY AND DRCC GENERAL LEVY 16,667 50,000 - - CW~GS LEVY - - - 7,100 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 10,000 72,500 47,500 72,500 FEDERAL GRANTS 48,750 72,500 46,250 95,000 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 500 - - 5,000 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES (5,530) 73,500 (3,614) 29,541 70,387 268,500 90,136 209,141 NOTE 9
WAGES 49,602 208,000 47,611 134,451 ENGINEERING/CONSULTING 5,423 - - 16,522 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 2,645 14,500 8,295 14,232 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 528 2,500 1,401 3,036 PLANT MAT/LANDOWNER GRANTS - 10,000 1,924 15,532 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 5,000 33,000 5,000 21,996 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 500 - 750 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS - - 2,623 2,623 SMALL MISC 337 - - - 63,536 268,500 66,854 209,142
LAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
REVENUES GENERAL LEVY 322,141 966,422 286,900 886,699 CW~GS LEVY 291,867 875,600 255,200 777,700 MUNICIPAL - 65,750 - 38,398 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 66,942 234,538 194,863 425,966 FEDERAL GRANTS 89,751 774,281 654,049 1,528,939 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 676,709 1,412,098 558,035 1,533,651 IN-KIND 24,393 19,500 4,151 28,259 TRANSFER TO/FROM DEF REVENUES (123,358) (191,950) 24,772 (611,751)
1,348,444 4,156,239 1,977,970 4,607,861
EXPENSES(INCLUDES FLEET/EQUIP'T AMORTIZATION) 1,055,164 4,590,681 2,062,653 4,435,610
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 293,280 (434,442) (84,683) 172,251
TRANSFER (TO)/FROM RESERVES (16,000) 415,115 176,650 290,669 COMMUNITY SERVICES
AWARENESS, PUBLIC EDUCATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND SPECIAL EVENTS
Page 5 ERCA BoD 172 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH GENERAL LEVY 91,967 275,900 88,633 255,900 CW~GS LEVY 11,667 35,000 8,333 25,000 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES - 3,000 - 24,387 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES - - 17,700 2,700 103,633 313,900 114,667 307,987
WAGES 88,294 284,000 91,779 263,279 CONSULTING - - - 60 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 5,138 14,200 10,649 12,118 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 843 4,900 620 5,979 PARTNER GRANTS/VOLUNTEERS - - - 9,769 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 3,500 17,000 4,000 12,500 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - 750 - 950 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE ASSETS - 3,000 - 845 97,973 323,850 107,049 305,802
SCHOOL/EDUCATION PROGRAM GENERAL LEVY 6,000 18,000 6,000 28,000 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 19,168 52,000 2,087 55,802 25,168 70,000 8,087 83,802
WAGES 25,273 63,000 13,420 63,847 CONSULTING - 750 - 1,077 SUPPLIES/OFFICE/JANITORIAL 431 3,540 2,582 6,635 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIP'T USAGE 85 2,450 277 1,560 PLANT MAT/LANDOWNER GRANTS - 1,000 - 500 CORP SUPPORT/SHARED SVCS 2,800 9,500 1,900 9,400 RENT/INS/TAXES/UTILITIES - - - 750 SMALL MISC - - - 123 28,589 80,240 18,179 83,892
OUTREACH EVENTS AND SHORT-TERM GRANT FUNDED INITIATIVES PROVINCIAL GRANTS - - 1,500 1,500 FEDERAL GRANTS 800 - 7,200 7,200 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 21,549 76,500 20,052 82,025 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES 24,946 (1,000) - (11,272) 47,295 75,500 28,752 79,453 NOTE 9
WAGES 3,418 10,850 431 18,675 TREES/SUPPLIES 4,831 64,650 927 60,814 8,249 75,500 1,358 79,489
COMMUNITY SERVICES REVENUES GENERAL LEVY 97,967 293,900 94,633 283,900 CW~GS LEVY 11,667 35,000 8,333 25,000 MUNICIPAL - - - - PROVINCIAL GRANTS - - 1,500 1,500 FEDERAL GRANTS 800 - 7,200 7,200 OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 40,717 131,500 22,139 162,214 IN-KIND - - - - TRANSFER TO/FROM DEF REVENUES 24,946 (1,000) 17,700 (8,572)
176,096 459,400 151,505 471,242
EXPENSES 134,812 479,590 126,586 469,182
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 41,284 (20,190) 24,920 2,060
CORPORATE SERVICES
ADMIN/FINANCE/IT/HR
GENERAL LEVY 101,250 303,750 121,891 291,873 CW~GS LEVY 8,333 25,000 8,333 25,000 PROVINCIAL GRANTS 750 - - - OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES/RECOVERIES 162,481 610,000 200,601 630,816 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES (500) 10,000 39,876 - TRANSFERS TO/FROM RESERVES - (1,000) (3,100) (12,700)
Page 6 ERCA BoD 173 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED 272,315 947,750 367,601 934,988
WAGES 168,082 587,000 209,918 585,574 ERCF SUPPORT 14,065 50,000 16,954 50,260 MEMBER EXPENSES/CO DUES 11,559 54,000 13,151 53,137 AUDIT/LEGAL/CONSULTING 5,000 30,000 7,954 44,865 SUPPLIES/EQUIPT/NETWORK 13,891 73,250 19,037 48,825 OCCUPANCY/PHONE 44,094 132,000 44,449 132,484 TRAVEL & BD/STAFF MEETINGS 3,004 7,500 1,350 6,988 RETIREE BENEFITS 4,182 13,000 5,039 12,320 263,877 946,750 317,852 934,454
REVENUES
GENERAL LEVY 101,250 303,750 121,891 291,873 CW~GS LEVY 8,333 25,000 8,333 25,000 MUNICIPAL - - - - PROVINCIAL GRANTS 750 - - - FEDERAL GRANTS - - - - OTHER GRANTS/USER FEES 162,481 656,000 200,601 630,816 IN-KIND - - - - TRANSFER TO/FROM DEF REVENUES (500) 10,000 39,876 - 272,315 994,750 370,701 947,688
EXPENSES 263,877 992,750 317,852 934,454
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 8,438 2,000 52,849 13,235
TRANSFER (TO)/FROM RESERVES - (1,000) (3,100) (12,700)
OTHER
TANGIBLE ASSET REPLACEMENT FUNDING. RESERVE TRANSFERS AND DEFICIT MITIGATION
GENERAL LEVY 66,667 200,000 66,667 200,000 CWGS - - 40,000 120,000 TRANSFER TO/FROM RESERVES (66,667) (200,000) (106,667) (320,000) DECREASE IN ACCUMULATED DEFICIT - - (0) (0)
CORPORATE TOTAL TOTAL REVENUES 2,293,152 7,387,597 3,417,290 10,359,121 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,893,500 7,893,071 3,352,701 10,078,575 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 399,651 (505,474) 64,589 280,546
TOTAL GENERAL LEVY 729,556 2,188,667 699,584 2,098,752 TOTAL CWGS LEVY 350,000 1,050,000 350,000 1,050,000 TOTAL LEVY 1,079,556 3,238,667 1,049,584 3,148,752 TOTAL MUNICIPAL SPECIAL 3,720 365,750 325,890 2,686,682 PROVINCIALGRANTS 127,459 436,801 277,784 653,229 FEDERAL GRANTS 90,551 774,281 661,249 1,536,139 DONATIONS (ERCF AND OTHER) 242,808 689,785 76,512 572,224 OTHER INCL FEE FOR SVC 652,504 1,321,763 641,906 1,570,871 IN KIND DONATIONS 24,393 19,500 4,151 28,259 INTERNAL RECOVERIES 152,403 704,000 215,844 764,401 TRANSFERS (TO)/FROM DEFERRED REVENUES (80,242) (162,950) 164,370 (601,436) 2,293,152 7,387,597 3,417,290 10,359,121
FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES WAGES/BENEFITS 1,142,133 3,902,095 1,249,894 3,726,051 CONSTRUCTION 32,638 1,275,500 1,084,825 3,271,612 ENGINEERING/CONSULTING/OUTSIDE TECHNICAL 40,345 193,050 97,444 274,633 SUPPLIES/OFFICE 89,041 274,940 140,534 327,830 SOFTWARE/DATA SERVICES/IT 30,758 104,700 63,437 90,939 VEHICLE/TRAVEL/EQUIPMENT 58,252 157,550 61,407 199,402 PLANT MATERIALS/LANDOWNER GRANTS 162,589 462,086 229,642 468,760 RENT/P TAXES/UTIL/SECURITY 91,242 245,800 81,581 258,332
Page 7 ERCA BoD 174 of 219
2019 2019 2018 2018 YTD BUDGET YTD AUDITED DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 19,370 43,810 16,307 45,267 BOARD/MEMBER EXPENSES 750 16,500 4,080 19,743 AUDIT/LEGAL/INSURANCE 5,000 103,250 9,529 112,689 CAP MAINT/LOW VALUE TCA 20,249 74,500 90,428 160,360 IN KIND SVCS SUPPLIES 24,393 19,500 4,151 28,259 BANK/CREDIT CARD CHGS/INTEREST 3,276 9,100 4,670 10,389 ALLOCATED EXPENSES (INCLUDED ABOVE) 152,655 708,190 214,136 754,979 TCA AMORTIZATION - 294,500 - 306,480 OTHER SMALL MISC 20,809 8,000 637 22,849 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,893,500 7,893,071 3,352,701 10,078,575
TOTAL REVENUES (ACCRUAL BASIS) 2,293,152 7,387,597 3,417,290 10,359,121 TOTAL EXPENSES (ACCRUAL BASIS) 1,893,500 7,893,071 3,352,701 10,078,575 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (ACCRUAL BASIS) 399,651 (505,474) 64,589 280,546
ADD/SUBTRACT: NON CASH ITEMS DONATION OF LANDTO ERCA - - - - GAIN/LOSS ON SALE/TRADE-IN VEH/EQUIPMENT - - - (3,166) AMORTIZATION - 294,500 - 306,480
DEDUCT: CAPITAL ITEMS LAND ACQUISITION(NET OF SALES/EXPROPRIATIONS) - - - (92,006) CAPITALIZED FLEET & EQUIPMENT - (110,000) - (111,405) PER CAPITAL BUDGET-INFRASTRUCTURE/OTHER TCA - - - (356,101)
(DECREASE)/INCREASE IN NET SURPLUS 399,651 (320,974) 64,589 24,348
TOTAL REVENUES (CASH BASIS) 2,293,152 7,387,597 3,417,290 10,355,955 TOTAL EXPENSES (CASH BASIS) 1,893,500 7,708,571 3,352,701 10,331,607 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (CASH BASIS) 399,651 (320,974) 64,589 24,348
TRANSFER (TO)/FROM RESERVES (82,667) 220,615 66,883 (42,031)
UNRESTRICTED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (DECREASES/(INCREASES) OPERATING FUND DEFICIT) 316,985 (100,359) 131,472 (17,683) NOTE 10
NOTE 1 Overall, Watershed Management Services is on target as of April, however as the year progresses the reduced funding from the Province, for flood and erosion control, will begin to impact the financial results. Permit fees are exceeding the prior year and if the trend continues, could help to mitigate the shortfall.
NOTE 2 The surplus is temporary due to the advance of project grants from funders.
NOTE 3 Small wage savings due to reassignment of staff to fee-for-service and capital projects. Some of this was offset by an increase in property taxes, related to donations of property to the Authority in 2018.
NOTE 4 Seasonal campsite bookings and rentals have exceeded the prior year and the positive results may be permanent however day use revenues may be negatively impacted by shoreline/beach erosion.
NOTE 5 The maple event revenues significantly exceeded the prior year and net gift shop revenues are higher as compared to the prior year.
NOTE 6 Other grants are payments from ERCF(Foundation), for multi-year donation pledges.
NOTE 7 Vehicle and equipment usage sheets for April are not posted at the time of report cut-off and the variance is temporary.
NOTE 8 The deficit is temporary and relates to delays in transfer payments for Drinking Source Water Protection Program, from the Province.
NOTE 9 The surplus is temporary due to the advance of project grants from funders.
NOTE 10 The significant surplus, at the end of April, is primarily temporary, due to grant advances. While some of the fee-for-service revenues are higher as compared to last year, the additional unrestricted revenues might be utilized to offset funding shortfalls from the Province. As information becomes available, impacts will be made known to the Board of Directors.
Page 8 ERCA BoD 175 of 219 Ministry of Natural Ministere des Richesses Resources and Forestry naturelles et des Forets .{v>. Regional Operations Division des operations Division regionales ^' Ontario
Room 6610, Whitney Block Edifice Whitney, bureau 6610 99 Wellesley Street West 99, rue Wellesley Quest Toronto ON M7A 1W3 Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1W3 Tel: 416-314-9075 Tel.: 416-314-9075 ,c^ rf?~r~!'.^ ';..', Fax: 416-314-2629 Telec.: 416-314-2629 t:'^t^v kC'
April12,2019
Mr. Richard Wyma J. General Manager Essex Region Conservation Authority Suite 311 360 Fairview Ave West Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6
Subject: Notification of 2019-20 Transfer Payment Funding
Dear Richard Wyma:
As you are aware, the government tabled its 2019 Budget that puts people first and ensures that vital public services have the sustainable funding they need now and for generations to come. The government set out the actions needed to return the Province to balance in a responsible and reasonable manner.
This year's budget reflects the outcomes of a comprehensive multi-year planning process that built on the findings of EY Canada's iine-by-line review, and the ideas identified in the Planning for Prosperity Survey and the Big Bold Ideas Challenge. The government conducted a thorough review of all government programs in order to ensure investments are sustainable and modernized. The review is also meant to ensure that duplication is eliminated, and valuable programs and services are sustainable and delivering outcomes for the people of Ontario.
In addition to this review, all ministries were required to identify administrative savings. This was to be done by identifying opportunities to modernize services in order to reduce administrative costs and burden, while improving services across ministries, agencies and transfer-payment partners.
I am writing to let you know that Essex Region Conservation Authority will receive $104,417.46 in funding for the 2019-20 fiscal year, for Section 39 Eligible Natural Hazard Management Grant, subject to the terms of a transfer payment agreement that will be provided to you.
If you have any questions about your funding for 2019-20, please contact Kathy Woeller, A/Director Integration Branch at 705-755-1620.
Sincerely,
Monique Rolf von den Baumen Assistant Deputy Minister
ERCA BoD 176 of 219 ERCA BoD 177 of 219 Drinking water (https://www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater) → Taking Care of Your Drinking Water: A Guide for Members of Municipal Councils
A guide for municipal councillors to help them understand their responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and provide them with information on how Ontario’s drinking water is safeguarded.
Introduction
A message from the Chief Drinking Water Inspector of Ontario
Safeguarding drinking water, now and for our future generations, is a vitally important role.
It requires leadership, vigilance and ongoing collaboration between the province and Ontario municipalities.
More than 80% of Ontario’s population receives their drinking water from a municipal drinking water system. Drinking water quality and inspection results show Ontario’s municipalities are achieving strong and consistent performance levels. It is because of this dedication to excellence at the municipal level that Ontario’s drinking water continues to be of the highest quality.
As good as current results are, constant attention is needed to keep our drinking water safe.
If you are a municipal councillor who has decision-making responsibilities for a municipal drinking water system or who oversees an accredited operating authority, you have a serious and unique role in protecting the people of your community.
This guide will help you understand your responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and provide you with information on how Ontario’s drinking water is protected.
I encourage you to use this resource to answer questions about the statutory standard of care with respect to drinking water systems and operations and as basic reference material on drinking water. I look forward to continuing our work with municipalities to further improve how water resources are protected and managed for the benefit of the people of Ontario.
Melissa Thomson Chief Drinking Water Inspector of Ontario
A message from Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health
Safe drinking water is one of the key pillars of public health in Ontario. Ensuring that Ontarians, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location, have access to safe drinking water is essential to the health of our population. Protection of our drinking water is a vital responsibility shared by many partners.
The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care shares a strong commitment to excellence with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks by supporting Boards of Health and communities to provide safe drinking water in the province. Ontario’s Boards of Health work together with municipalities in many ways to protect the public, including when your community’s drinking water may not be safe for consumption.
As municipal councillors with oversight responsibilities for municipal drinking water systems, you are a critical partner in providing safe drinking water to the people of Ontario. I encourage you to use this resource guide, in your paramount role, to help protect Ontario’s drinking water and keep your community healthy.
Dr. David Williams Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario
Since Dr. John Snow’s 1854 discovery in London, England, that drinking water could kill people by transmitting disease, the developed world has come a long way towards eliminating the transmission of water-borne disease. The ERCA BoD 178 of 219 Walkerton experience warns that we may have become victims of our own success, taking for granted our drinking water’s safety. The keynote in the future should be vigilance. We should never be complacent about drinking water safety.
Justice Dennis O’Connor, 2002, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry
What you need to know about your drinking water responsibilities
The people of Ontario are entitled to expect safe, high quality drinking water. It is a matter vital to public health. As a member of a municipal council, you have an important role to play to ensure your community has access to safe, high quality drinking water — and you may be legally obliged to do so.
Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK22) sets out the legal responsibilities and duties of persons who oversee municipal drinking water systems. These responsibilities and duties are commonly described as either a duty of care or standard of care. They apply to any person who exercises decision-making authority over a municipal drinking water system or who oversees the accredited operating authority of such a system. This guide is intended for municipal councillors to whom the duty or standard of care applies. To determine whether it applies to you in particular circumstances, you should consult with your legal advisor. When this guide uses the words “you” or “your,” it is referring to municipal councillors to whom the duty applies.
Three things to remember as a municipal councillor:
One: It’s Your Duty. The Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK22) includes a statutory standard of care for individuals who have decision-making authority over municipal drinking water systems or who oversee the operating authority of the system. This can extend to municipal councillors. There are legal consequences for not acting as required by the standard of care, including possible fines or imprisonment.
Two: Be Informed. Ask questions and get answers. You don’t have to be an expert in drinking water operations, but you do need to be informed about them. Your decisions can have an impact on public health. Seek advice from those with expertise and act prudently on that advice.
Three: Be Vigilant. Complacency can pose one of the greatest risks to drinking water systems. It is critical you never take drinking water safety for granted or assume all is well with drinking water systems under your care and direction. The health of your community depends on your diligent and prudent oversight of its drinking water.
Water is unique as a local service. It is, of course, essential to human life and to the functioning of communities, (and) the consequences of a failure in the water system (are) most seriously felt by those who depend on it locally. Municipal ownership, and the ensuing responsibilities, should provide a high degree of public accountability in relation to the local water system.
Justice Dennis O’Connor, 2002, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry Understanding your responsibilities for overseeing drinking water
Protecting Ontario’s drinking water
Ontario has a comprehensive multi-barrier framework to safeguard its drinking water from source to tap. It is a multi-faceted approach that:
Helps prevent contamination Detects and solves water quality problems Enforces laws and regulations and Increases people’s awareness of the importance of safe, high quality drinking water.
Ontario’s drinking water protection framework
ERCA BoD 179 of 219 Ontario’s multi-faceted approach
Ontario has an integrated system of procedures, processes and tools that collectively prevent or reduce the risk of contamination in drinking water, to protect public health.
The multiple barriers include:
Source water protection to keep the raw water clean and sustainable, reducing the potential for contamination and depletion Treatment to remove and/or neutralize hazards Maintenance of the integrity of the distribution system to prevent recontamination after treatment Monitoring programs to detect and act on system problems that could impair drinking water safety and to verify the performance of system components and finished drinking water quality Effective management systems including automatic control systems, well-developed responses and operating practices that are the ultimate means for protecting the safety of drinking water systems Education and outreach to foster partnerships and raise awareness of drinking water issues. ERCA BoD 180 of 219 (Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2007, Implementing Quality Management: A Guide for Ontario’s Drinking Water Systems)
A legislative and regulatory framework for protecting water
The Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 – an overview
The Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32) provides a legislative framework for all municipal drinking water systems, as well as some non-municipal systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 provides a consistent set of provincewide standards and rules to help ensure access to safe, high quality, reliable drinking water.
The act recognizes the people of Ontario are entitled to expect their drinking water is safe. It provides for the protection of human health and prevents drinking water health hazards through the control and regulation of drinking water systems and drinking water testing. In a municipal context, a drinking water system includes all collection, treatment and storage facilities and distribution pipes usually up to customer property lines.
The Safe Drinking Water Act and its regulations specify requirements for:
Drinking water systems System operations Water quality monitoring and reporting Testing services Certification of system operators and drinking water quality analysts and Quality standards and mechanisms for compliance and enforcement.
The Clean Water Act, 2006 - an overview
The Clean Water Act, 2006 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c22) provides a framework for protecting the raw water source for drinking water systems within source protection areas.
The act helps protect existing and future sources of drinking water through the implementation of locally developed source protection plans. These plans apply to all municipal residential drinking water systems in Ontario’s 38 source protection areas. Many municipalities are responsible for implementing mandatory policies in these plans. Failure to implement these policies could put your drinking water systems at risk.
Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, Ontario Regulation 588/17
The information found in this guide should be considered in tandem with the Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, Ontario Regulation 588/17 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r17588) , under the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015. Further information can be found throughout this guide and at the municipal asset management planning (https://www.ontario.ca/page/municipal-asset-management-planning) page.
The big picture
There are approximately 660 municipal residential drinking water systems registered with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks that supply drinking water to more than 80% of the homes in Ontario. In recent testing, more than 518,000 drinking water test results were submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks by laboratories licensed to perform these tests for municipal drinking water systems. Over 99% of these drinking water tests met the province’s health-based drinking water quality standards.
(Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2018, 2017-18 Chief Drinking Water Inspector Annual Report)
Key sections of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 for municipal councillors
Section 11: Duties of owners and operating authorities
Section 11 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK13) describes the legal responsibilities of owners and operating authorities of regulated drinking water systems. It is important for you to understand the scope of your municipality or operating authority’s day-to-day responsibilities.
Owners and operating authorities are responsible for ensuring their drinking water systems: ERCA BoD 181 of 219 Provide water that meets all prescribed drinking water quality standards Operate in accordance with the act and its regulations, and are kept in a fit state of repair Are appropriately staffed and supervised by qualified persons Comply with all sampling, testing and monitoring requirements Meet all reporting requirements.
The "owner" of a municipal drinking water system under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and the "operating authority"
The “owner” of a municipal drinking water system is often the municipality as a corporate entity. Members of municipal councils and municipal officials who provide oversight to this corporate entity also provide oversight or exercise decision- making authority in respect of the drinking water systems the corporate entity owns. They are responsible for having policies, management tools and processes in place so that the municipality meets all its legislative and regulatory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. The “operating authority” of a municipal drinking water system is the person or entity that is given responsibility by the owner for the day-to-day operations of the drinking water system, its management, maintenance or alteration. A municipality may take on this operational role through its own staff or it may choose to contract it out to a third party (e.g. by hiring an accredited operating authority). The statutory standard of care continues to apply to municipalities that contract out this role to a third party.
Examples of actions required of owners and operating authorities under Section 11:
Sampling and testing of drinking water with a frequency appropriate to the type, size and users of the system in accordance with the act and corresponding regulations Using an accredited and licensed laboratory for drinking water testing services Reporting of adverse test results that exceed any of the standards in the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards regulation, both verbally and in writing, to the local medical officer of health and Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Obtaining a drinking water licence for a municipal residential drinking water system from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ensuring the drinking water system is operated by an accredited operating authority at all times Ensuring you are not using water from a well or intake that’s not included in a source protection plan if your licence requires an approved source protection plan be in place before water is provided to the public Hiring certified operators or trained persons appropriate to the class of the system Preparing an annual report to inform the public on the state of the municipality’s drinking water and the system providing it, and an annual summary report for the owners of the drinking water system
Section 19: Your duty and liability – statutory standard of care
Given that the safety of drinking water is essential for public health, those who discharge the oversight responsibilities of the municipality should be held to a statutory standard of care.
Justice Dennis O’Connor, 2002, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry
This is one of the many important recommendations that came out of the Walkerton Inquiry reports (http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/walkerton/report2/index.html) in 2002. Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 responds directly to this recommendation.
Section 19 of the act expressly extends legal responsibility to people with decision-making authority over municipal drinking water systems and those who oversee the accredited operating authority for the system. It requires that they exercise the level of care, diligence and skill with regard to a municipal drinking water system that a reasonably prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation and that they exercise this due diligence honestly, competently and with integrity.
Meeting your statutory standard of care responsibilities
Meeting the statutory standard of care is the responsibility of:
The owner of the municipal drinking water system If the system is owned by a municipality, every person who oversees the accredited operating authority or exercises decision- making authority over the system – potentially including but not limited to members of municipal councils and other senior municipal officials. If the municipal drinking water system is owned by a corporation other than a municipality, every officer and director of the corporation.
ERCA BoD 182 of 219 Members of municipal council and municipal officials with decision-making authority over the drinking water system and oversight responsibilities over the accredited operating authority need to understand that they are potentially personally liable, even if the drinking water system is operated by a corporate entity other than the municipality.
Section 14 (3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK16) specifically notes that an owner is not relieved of their duty to comply with Section 19, even if there is an agreement to delegate the operations of the drinking water system to someone else.
The owner is still obligated to ensure the operating authority is carrying out its responsibilities according to the act and in cases where it is not, to take reasonable steps to ensure it does.
Examples of actions required of owners under Section 14 (3):
Be aware of the established procedure for communication with the operating authority, including how information is expected to be shared with municipal councillors, and assessing the effectiveness of this procedure Hold regular meetings with the operating authority, especially in cases where there may be reason to believe the operating authority is not carrying out its responsibilities.
Since Ontario municipalities manage and govern municipal drinking water systems in a variety of ways, the people who are subject to the statutory standard of care within their corporation will also vary across the province, and would depend on specific facts related to individual situations.
Below is the full text of Section 19, Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK22A)
19. (1) Each of the persons listed in subsection (2) shall,
a. exercise the level of care, diligence and skill in respect of a municipal drinking-water system that a reasonably prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation; and b. act honestly, competently and with integrity, with a view to ensuring the protection and safety of the users of the municipal drinking water system. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (1).
Same
(2) The following are the persons listed for the purposes of subsection (1):
1. The owner of the municipal drinking water system. 2. If the municipal drinking-water system is owned by a corporation other than a municipality, every officer and director of the corporation. 3. If the system is owned by a municipality, every person who, on behalf of the municipality, oversees the accredited operating authority of the system or exercises decision-making authority over the system. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (2).
Offence
(3) Every person under a duty described in subsection (1) who fails to carry out that duty is guilty of an offence. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (3).
Same
(4) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of a municipal drinking-water system whether or not the owner of the system is prosecuted or convicted. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (4)
Reliance on experts
(5) A person shall not be considered to have failed to carry out a duty described in subsection (1) in any circumstance in which the person relies in good faith on a report of an engineer, lawyer, accountant or other person whose professional qualifications lend credibility to the report. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (5).
Maintaining an appropriate level of care
Standard of care is a well-known concept within Ontario legislation.
ERCA BoD 183 of 219 For example, the Business Corporations Act requires that every director and officer of a corporation act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation and exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would in comparable circumstances.
Statutory standards of care address the need to provide diligent oversight. What is considered to be an appropriate level of care will vary from one situation to another. As a municipal councillor, it is important to educate yourself about the requirements of Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02s32#BK22) and to gain an understanding of the operation of drinking water systems in your community for the purposes of meeting the standard of care requirements.
Every person to whom the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 standard of care applies is expected to exercise the same level of care, diligence and skill in respect of a municipal drinking water system that a reasonably prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation. They must also act honestly, competently, and with integrity, with a view to ensuring the protection and safety of users of the municipal drinking water system.
You are not expected to be an expert in the areas of drinking water treatment and distribution. Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 allows for a person to rely in good faith on a report of an engineer, lawyer, accountant or other person whose professional qualifications lend credibility to the report.
Enforcing the statutory standard of care
If you are a municipal councillor or official who oversees or makes decisions about drinking water systems, it is important to be aware that not meeting your statutory standard of care responsibilities under Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 comes with serious potential consequences. The duty applies generally to any person who exercises decision-making authority over a municipal drinking water system or who oversees the accredited operating authority of such a system.
Provincial officers may lay a provincial offence charge against a person to whom the standard applies. If a prosecution is commenced and a court determines a person has failed to carry out the duty imposed by Section 19, the person could be penalized. The potential penalties include maximum fines of up to $4 million for a first conviction and imprisonment for up to five years less a day. Actual penalties would be decided by the courts depending on the severity and consequences of the offence.
Some questions and answers on the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 statutory standard of care
If drinking water operations are contracted out, am I still responsible for the statutory standard of care?
This question must be answered on a case-by-case basis. If you oversee the accredited operating authority or exercise decision- making authority with respect to the drinking water system, you remain responsible for meeting the standard of care even though your municipality has contracted out operations to an operating authority. Depending on the specifics of how your municipal drinking water system is owned and managed, others may be held to the standard of care.
If something goes wrong, will I be held responsible?
The standard of care related to drinking water is intended to ensure that relevant decision makers are doing their due diligence to protect public health when making decisions about drinking water systems and providing oversight of the accredited operating authority. If something goes wrong, the specific circumstances and your actions - what you did or did not do, what questions you asked, what steps were taken to address identified risks or problems with your drinking water system - will all be important in determining whether you met your standard of care and whether you should be held responsible.
What can happen to someone who breaches the standard of care?
Safe drinking water is essential for public health. The standard of care is aimed at ensuring that people with oversight and decision- making roles regarding municipal drinking water systems take responsible action to protect drinking water and human health.
If the standard of care applies to you, and your actions fall below it, you could face significant penalties including fines and imprisonment.
Who determines if the standard of care has been breached?
When an incident occurs that may constitute a breach of the standard of care, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks will initiate a response that may include an investigation and gathering of evidence to determine if charges should be laid. In a case where charges are laid, it is up to the courts to determine if an offence has been committed and if penalties or fines will be imposed. This procedure is followed for any potentially serious breach of Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ statutes. ERCA BoD 184 of 219 Actions you can take
The following are some actions you can take to be better informed about your drinking water oversight responsibilities. Look for more of these suggested “actions you can take” sections throughout this guide.
Consider taking the standard of care training offered by the Walkerton Clean Water Centre. Get course details and session offerings at the Walkerton Clean Water Centre website (http://www.wcwc.ca/) or by phoning toll free 1-866-515-0550. Discuss the safety of your community’s drinking water with local resources (e.g., your public health unit, conservation authorities, source protection committees). Get involved in associations (e.g., Ontario Municipal Water Association and Ontario Water Works Association) to build your knowledge and further demonstrate your commitment to water. Review the reports of the Walkerton Inquiry, specifically sections related to municipal government (Chapter 7 in Part One (http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/walkerton/report1/pdf/WI_Chapter_07.pdf) , Chapter 10 (http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/walkerton/report2/pdf/Chapter_10.pdf) and Chapter 11 (http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/walkerton/report2/pdf/Chapter_11.pdf) in Part Two). Find out if your municipality has legal requirements under the local source protection plan and if so, how they are being met. Become further acquainted with provincial drinking water legislation and regulations, available on the Ontario e-Laws website (https://www.ontario.ca/laws) .
What you should ask
When decisions relating to drinking water come before your council, you want to understand impacts on your community and public health. While every situation will be different, the following are some preliminary questions you might want to ask:
Are there any areas of risk, e.g., public health, that council needs to address? What checks and balances are in place to ensure the continued safety of our drinking water? Are we meeting our legislative and regulatory requirements? What is the public health impact or long-term cost of deferring this decision? Will this decision affect our drinking water sources or create new risks to drinking water sources? How will this decision impact our community’s demand for water? How are we managing our drinking water system? Do we have an asset management plan for our water infrastructure? Are we planning to expand or create new drinking water systems? If so, are we conducting source protection planning for these systems? Are there any emerging issues related to our drinking water that council should be aware of? Are we prepared for severe weather events which can impact the quality of our drinking water? If there is a drinking water emergency, what is our emergency management plan? What is the role of council in a drinking water emergency? Have staff taken required training and upgrading?
Check your knowledge
Ask yourself these questions to check your current level of knowledge about your drinking water system and oversight responsibilities:
Have I had a tour of our drinking water facility? Am I familiar with our municipal drinking water systems including the: a. water source? b. physical condition of major infrastructure? c. background and experience of senior staff? and d. permits, licences and approvals granted for ownership and operation of the facilities? Am I acquainted with the drinking water legislation and regulations? Do I know basic information about drinking water safety and the operation of water works facilities? Do I know how to set the overall policy direction for the municipal drinking water system? Do I understand the different roles and responsibilities of those who have decision-making authority – municipal councillors, senior management, other municipal officials? Am I aware of the risks currently facing our water sources, drinking water facilities and infrastructure? What are the plans to address these risks? If there is an emergency with the drinking water system, what procedures are followed? How will I be notified? How will the public be notified? How do we manage potential impacts to water quality following storms? Am I aware of my municipality’s responsibilities in implementing our source protection plan? How and when do I ask for annual reports on the drinking water system from senior management? What should I look for in the annual report? What questions must it answer? ERCA BoD 185 of 219 Do I know that appropriate steps are being taken to resolve any issues? Do I know when outside expertise is needed? Are our drinking water systems periodically audited? How often? What should I do when I receive audit results for consideration? Do I know if our drinking water systems are financially sustainable for the future? Are there financial plans in place? Are the products and equipment used in our water treatment plants energy efficient? Am I familiar with the process and requirements for keeping our municipal drinking water licence valid?
If there are any questions you can’t answer, review them with municipal staff who are familiar with drinking water requirements. Overview of drinking water management topics
Organizational and governance models
Many different management and operating models are available for municipal consideration. Currently, most water services in Ontario are provided through municipal departments, with oversight provided directly by municipal councils.
Some municipalities hire external contractors to operate their drinking water system, whereas others own and operate their systems.
Regional municipalities have upper-tier and lower-tier governance structures, with the lower-tier municipalities often owning and operating their own drinking water systems. There are also models for area water systems in Ontario in which systems cross municipal boundaries. These systems are governed by boards representing their municipal owners.
Municipalities may also create:
Municipal Service Boards whose members are appointed by council and could include council members, private citizens or both Corporations for water utilities, similar to those for natural gas or electricity distribution
The purpose of the quality management approach in the context of drinking water is to protect public health by achieving consistent good practice in managing and operating a water system.
It is fundamental for municipalities to have a management and operating structure for their water system that enables them to provide safe water. I am making two important recommendations to assist in this regard. First, I recommend that municipalities be required to have an agency…to operate their systems. The agency should be accredited…The municipality must also submit an operational plan to the Ministry of the Environment for their water system(s). Second, I recommend that those responsible for exercising the municipality’s oversight responsibilities be held to a statutory standard duty of care. I note that, for municipalities, the first recommendation will be a significant step in satisfying the second.
Justice Dennis O’Connor, 2002, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry
My municipality is considering either a Municipal Service Board or a Municipal Services Corporation model to govern our drinking water functions. Would Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, still apply to these alternative ownership models?
Yes. The standard of care provision in the act would continue to apply in either the Municipal Service Board or the Municipal Services Corporation model since the standard applies to municipal drinking water systems owned by either a municipality or other corporation.
Municipal licensing: helping you protect your drinking water
In Ontario, all municipal drinking water systems that provide water to residences in a community must have a licence from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The ministry’s Municipal Drinking Water Licensing Program requires owners and operating authorities of drinking water systems to incorporate the concepts of quality management into system operation and management.
Licences are valid for a five year period and must be renewed.
For a drinking water system to receive or renew its licence, the owner and operating authority must have in place:
Drinking water works permit Accepted operational plan (see next section for more details) Accredited operating authority Financial plan ERCA BoD 186 of 219 Permit to take water.
If your system is located in a source protection area, you should be aware of the requirements of your local plan and its implications for your drinking water system. For example, ensure the applicable source protection plan is updated and approved where:
A new well or intake is established for a municipal residential drinking water system within a source protection area (e.g., a well or intake is being established and is not part of an existing system), or Certain changes are made to an existing municipal residential drinking water system (e.g., a new well or intake is being added to an existing system or your municipality is planning to take more water from an existing well or intake).
Any licence issued for these wells or intakes will prohibit your system from supplying users with water from certain new or altered systems before they are protected by an approved source protection plan.
The operational plan and you – setting an overall policy
The operational plan sets out a framework to develop a Quality Management System that is specific and relevant to your drinking water system.
Part of your drinking water system’s operational plan will document a Quality Management System policy. This policy is the backbone of the Quality Management System. The policy must include commitments to:
Maintain and continually improve the Quality Management System Provide safe drinking water to the consumer Comply with applicable legislation and regulations.
Your operating authority must get the owner’s written endorsement of the drinking water system’s operational plan, including a Quality Management System policy. As a municipal councillor, your council may be asked to endorse the policy and its commitments. If your municipality has already completed this policy endorsement step, obtain a copy from your municipal staff.
In addition to the Quality Management System policy, the operational plan will also include:
Basic key information about every drinking water system your municipality owns A process for ongoing risk assessment A description of organizational structures (roles, responsibilities, authority) A procedure for an annual review of the adequacy of the infrastructure needed to operate and maintain the drinking water system, plus a commitment for the operating authority to communicate review findings to you A procedure for sharing sampling, testing and monitoring reports about the safety of your drinking water An outline of the system owner’s responsibilities during emergency situations A commitment to continual improvement through corrective action A procedure for conducting a management review every 12 months which evaluates the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the Quality Management System against the requirements of the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2017/012-5530_FinalStandard.pdf) and how to report the results of this review, including identified deficiencies, and decision and action items.
The Drinking Water Quality Management Standard is the standard upon which drinking water system operational plans are developed and operating authorities are accredited. The requirements of the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard, when implemented, will assist owners and operating authorities of municipal drinking water systems to develop sound operational procedures and controls.
Drinking Water Quality Management Standard
ERCA BoD 187 of 219 The Drinking Water Quality Management Standard is based on a “plan, do, check and improve” methodology which is similar to that found in some international standards. “Plan” requirements of the standard typically specify policies and procedures that must be documented in the operational plans for the drinking water system. ‘“Do” requirements specify the policies and procedures that must be implemented. “Check” and “Improve” requirements of the standard are reflected in requirements to conduct internal audits and management reviews.
Example of a Quality Management System policy
The following is an example of a Quality Management System policy for the Westhill Water Supply and Distribution System. The sample Quality Management System policy below is about a fictional town (i.e. Westhill) and is presented for illustration purposes:
The Municipality of the Town of Westhill owns, maintains and operates the Westhill Water Supply and Distribution System.
The Town of Westhill is committed to:
1. Ensuring a consistent supply of safe, high quality drinking water 2. Maintaining and continuously improving its quality management system, and 3. Meeting or surpassing applicable regulations and legislation ERCA BoD 188 of 219 (Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2007, Implementing Quality Management: A Guide for Ontario’s Drinking Water Systems)
Actions you can take
Ask your operating authority to speak to your municipal council about your operational plan. Consider and act on any advice (including compliance issues and action items) identified during the annual management review process. Review the Quality Management System policy in your operational plan and its commitments. Ask your operating authority to show how it is meeting these commitments.
Drinking water system reports and inspections: What they tell you about your drinking water system
Municipal reports
An owner of a drinking water system is required to ensure that an annual summary report is presented to the members of council or local services board. Summary reports must be produced by March 31 of each year to cover the preceding calendar year.
The summary report must include:
A list of any requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, the regulations, the system’s approval, drinking water works permit, municipal drinking water licence and any order that the system failed to meet during the time period, plus the duration of the failure A description of measures taken to correct each failure A comparison of the system’s capability with the quantities and flow rates of water supplied the preceding year to help assess existing and planned uses.
Municipalities are also required to provide details about each residential drinking water system in an annual report to consumers. This annual report must be completed by February 28 each year and include a:
Brief description of the drinking water system including chemicals used Summary of the results of any required testing Summary of any adverse test results required to be reported to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Description of any corrective actions taken Description of any major expenses incurred to install, repair or replace required equipment.
Actions you can take
Obtain and thoroughly review copies of the most recent annual and summary reports. Ask for explanations of any information you don’t understand. Consider, act on and correct any deficiencies noted in the reports.
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks inspections
Every municipal residential drinking water system is inspected at least once a year by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. An inspection includes the review of a system’s source, treatment and distribution components, as well as water quality monitoring results and procedures to evaluate system management and operations.
The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks prepares an inspection report that highlights any areas of non-compliance and what actions are required to correct them. The report also includes an inspection rating out of 100% to help you compare your system’s current and past performance, and identify areas for improvement. An inspection rating that is less than 100% does not necessarily mean your municipality’s drinking water is unsafe. It does mean there may be opportunity for improvement in operational or administrative areas.
What happens if the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks identifies non-compliance issues as part of its annual inspection
Inspection ratings for municipalities in Ontario have been excellent and have remained relatively consistent for many years. The ministry continues to work with owners and operators of systems with inspection ratings below 100% to help them gain a better understanding of their obligations and responsibilities so they can improve the performance of their systems. In appropriate circumstances, an inspector may issue a Provincial Officer’s Order that requires a person who owns, manages or has control of the
ERCA BoD 189 of 219 system to take certain actions by a specific deadline, or the inspector may refer an incident to the ministry’s Investigation and Enforcement Branch.
Actions you can take
Review your annual inspection results and ask questions if there is any indication of declining quality. Clarify any technical terms. Review your system’s standing in the ratings reported in the Chief Drinking Water Inspector’s Annual Report (https://www.ontario.ca/page/2017-2018-chief-drinking-water-inspector-annual-report) . If your rating is less than 100%, ask why. Consider, act on and correct any compliance issues highlighted in the inspection.
Managing risks to drinking water
Conducting a risk assessment is a key component of your drinking water system’s operational plan. By performing a risk assessment, your operating authority will assess:
Existing or potential hazardous events facing your drinking water system, e.g., rail car derailment, algal blooms, water main breaks Consequences for drinking water if a hazardous event occurs, e.g., biological/chemical contamination of source water, possible biological/chemical contamination due to loss of supply/low pressure Necessary measures or response measures for each hazardous event (these measures may already be in place through such barriers as source protection or treatment processes) Ranking of each event according to its likelihood of occurring and the consequences or severity of the results.
In some cases, the operating authority may identify measures to address hazardous events which will call for improvements that require long-term planning. These types of decisions will often involve council approval. As a councillor, you should take time to understand the underlying risks associated with these decisions, their potential likelihood and impacts to public health.
In other cases, the operating authority may identify risks that are outside of their control. For these, it may be appropriate to develop contingency or emergency response procedures.
In addition to risks assessed by your operating authority, if your municipality is located in a source protection area, your local source protection authorities perform detailed, science-based risk assessments of municipal drinking water sources within source protection areas. These form part of the local source protection plan(s) that affect your municipality.
By ensuring your municipality is fulfilling policies in your source protection plan(s), you can demonstrate how your community is mitigating risks to your drinking water.
Visit the Source Protection Information Atlas (https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/SourceWaterProtection/Index.html? viewer=SourceWaterProtection.SWPViewer&locale=en-US) on Ontario.ca to learn more.
Human activities affecting source water
ERCA BoD 190 of 219 (Source: Pollution Probe, 2006, The Source Water Protection Primer)
More on hazardous events and hazards to drinking water
Hazardous events can be natural or technological in origin, or result from human activities. Natural events include floods, ice storms, drought and spring run-off. Technological events could include equipment failure or a power outage. Human activities that could lead to a drinking water risk include vandalism, terrorism, chemical spills and construction accidents.
The four different types of hazards that may affect drinking water are biological, chemical, physical and radiological:
Biological hazards:
Include bacterial, viral and parasitic organisms, such as E.coli, Giardia and Cryptosporidium Are considered the most significant drinking water health risk because effects are acute; can cause illness within hours Are commonly associated with fecal wastes from humans or animals, or occur naturally in the environment
Chemical hazards:
Include toxic spills, heavy metals, dissolved gases like radon, pesticides, nitrates, sodium, and lead Can come from source water or occur in the treatment and distribution system
Physical hazards:
Include suspended particles and sediments that can carry microbiological hazards and interfere with disinfection process Can result from contamination and/or poor procedures at different points in the delivery of water to the consumer.
Radiological hazards:
Can be naturally occurring chemicals such as radon or uranium; most frequently occur in groundwater in low quantities May arise from man-made or natural sources.
Planning for your drinking water system
It is important to understand that drinking water assets are part of the broader network of municipal infrastructure assets. Municipalities must conduct integrated financial planning that considers the drinking water system as well as other municipal assets.
ERCA BoD 191 of 219 Undertaking financial planning in this way can help municipalities prioritize investments across their asset portfolio and achieve efficiencies, for example, by aligning drinking water and road construction, where possible, to save on disruption costs.
The province requires municipalities to prepare asset management plans for all infrastructure assets as defined in the Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure regulation (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r17588) , Ontario Regulation 588/17 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r17588) , under the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/15i15) . This regulation, which is being phased in over a six year period (2019-2024), requires municipalities to discuss a process for aligning their asset management planning with their water financial plans prepared under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.
Ontario Regulation 588/17 can also provide a useful methodology for understanding the services your drinking water system provides. It includes prescribed metrics for determining current and proposed levels of service as well as the costs associated with those levels of service.
Having a sustainable drinking water system is necessary to meet the demand for safe drinking water. Machinery, equipment and structures used to produce and provide safe drinking water must be in place, maintained and improved when necessary.
Your operating authority is required to:
Document a procedure for conducting an annual review of your drinking water system in accordance with the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2017/012- 5530_FinalStandard.pdf) Provide a summary of the programs in place and related lifecycle activities that will be undertaken to maintain, rehabilitate and review the drinking water system in accordance with the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2017/012-5530_FinalStandard.pdf) Consider the risks and related impacts climate change and other factors have on the drinking water system Monitor the effectiveness of its maintenance program Report findings to the drinking water system owner after the annual review.
Depending on the structure of — and relationship between — the owner of the drinking water system and its operating authority, this information can be communicated through such means as a report to council, the municipal budget, or at planning or other management meetings. The municipality could also use this information as part of its asset management planning program under Ontario Regulation 588/17.
Maintenance activities can be either planned or unplanned:
Planned maintenance includes scheduled or proactive activities needed to maintain or improve infrastructure elements, e.g., equipment maintenance, main replacements. They are done to reduce the risk of an unplanned failure. Unplanned maintenance includes reactive activities, e.g., to deal with main breaks, pump failures. They can draw heavily on resources and adversely affect drinking water quality.
By establishing planned programs for maintenance, rehabilitation and renewal, the operating authority can save time and costs and increase public confidence in drinking water.
Most drinking water systems will have plans in place to address considerations such as main rehabilitation, upgrades and replacement, water treatment and storage due to increased projected demands and risks including climate change and its associated impacts. Such matters should be considered in light of asset management planning requirements under Ontario Regulation 588/17. These types of system maintenance requirements are usually tied to the capital budgets of the operating authority and/or the owner of the drinking water system.
Actions you can take
Find out what maintenance, rehabilitation and renewal plans are in place for your drinking water system. Ask your operating authority to present the findings of its annual infrastructure review to you and council.
Sustainable financial planning for drinking water systems
Achieving financial sustainability of Ontario’s municipal drinking water systems is a long-term goal. Financial sustainability is needed to ensure the people of Ontario continue to enjoy clean and safe drinking water and environmental protection is maintained.
To receive or renew a municipal drinking water licence for your drinking water system, your municipality needs to prepare a financial plan as per the Financial Plans regulation, Ontario Regulation 453/07 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070453) , under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Municipal councils have ultimate responsibility for approving any financial plans prepared for the ongoing management of their drinking water systems. Financial plans are living documents and should be updated and ERCA BoD 192 of 219 reviewed as new information becomes available. You have an important role to play in ensuring that appropriate resources are allocated for the preparation and maintenance of these plans.
The following are some key principles for developing a financial plan:
Ongoing public engagement and transparency can build support for – and confidence in – the financial plan and the drinking water system. An integrated approach to planning among water, wastewater and storm water systems is desirable given the inherent relationship among these services. Revenues collected to provide water and wastewater services should ultimately be used to meet the needs of those services. Lifecycle planning with mid-course corrections should be the standard approach as opposed to planning over the short-term or not planning at all. Financial plans benefit from the close collaboration of various groups including engineers, accountants, auditors, utility staff and municipal council.
Financial plans for drinking water systems are required to forecast costs over a minimum period of six years as per Ontario Regulation 453/07 under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. In accordance with the asset management regulation, Ontario Regulation 588/17, municipalities are also required to identify lifecycle activities that would need to be undertaken to achieve proposed levels of service for drinking water systems and other assets they own or are included on their consolidated financial statements over a 10 year period.
Given these considerations, as a councillor, it is important for you to consider your municipality’s drinking water financial plan and asset management plan simultaneously.
There are many different costs, both capital and operating, associated with planning, building, operating and maintaining drinking water systems. This includes costs that reflect outputs not attributable to the provision of water such as fire protection services, or the management of waste by-products from drinking water operations.
A sustainable system is one where there are sufficient funds available to adequately cover the full range of current operating costs, maintain and repair the system’s existing asset base, replace assets when appropriate, fund future growth and enhancements to services, and account for inflation and changes in technology.
Timely renewal investments save money
(Source: Adapted from Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012, Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Planning)
Municipalities need to ensure that their water systems are adequately financed. Over the long term, safety depends on stable and adequate financing to maintain the water system infrastructure and its operational capacity to supply high- ERCA BoD 193 of 219 quality water consistently.
Justice Dennis O’Connor, 2002, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry
Water audits and accounting for water losses
An important tool in understanding the condition of your drinking water system assets is a water audit. This is the process of estimating where all of the water entering the distribution system ends up. One of the things a water audit will reveal is how much water is being lost to leaks from water mains and service connections. Leaks are a concern as they can:
Signal deteriorating water main conditions and be a precursor to more breakages Be a source of bacterial contamination Result in additional costs for pumping and treating water that is not ultimately delivered to consumers Damage other infrastructure such as roads and sewers.
(Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2007, Towards Financially Sustainable Drinking-Water and Wastewater Systems)
The big picture
According to Statistics Canada, 13.5% of water produced at municipal water treatment facilities in Ontario is lost, mainly due to leaks in the distribution system. Other sources estimate this figure is as high as 30 to 40%.
(Source: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks calculations based on Statistics Canada, Table 153-0127 from Survey of Drinking Water Plants, 2015)
Communicating with your operating authority
Within the operational plan, your operating authority is required to have a procedure for communicating with the owner of the drinking water system, its personnel, suppliers and the public. You should be familiar with how communication about drinking water takes place. The procedure for communicating with the owner may be as simple as indicating the status of the implementation of the Quality Management System and its effectiveness during scheduled meetings, such as council meetings. Communication with the public may include posting information on a publicly accessible website or through billing inserts.
As noted previously, your council may be asked to provide a written endorsement of the system’s operational plan. Depending on the nature of your system’s management structure, the operating authority may also involve the owner in other areas of the Quality Management System such as risk assessment, management review or infrastructure.
Actions you can take
Determine when and how your operating authority will communicate with you as an owner. Find out what information is made available to the public and how.
Emergency planning for drinking water
Ontario requires municipalities to develop, implement, and maintain emergency management programs based on a risk management approach and include activities in the five core components of emergency management: prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, your municipality will already have an Emergency Response Plan for a wide range of potential scenarios. Some of these scenarios may involve drinking water and may link to planning done as part of the Quality Management System to document procedures to maintain a state of emergency preparedness.
Emergency preparedness means identifying what could happen in your system to cause an emergency and having processes and procedures in place to prepare for and respond to those emergencies. Some elements of an emergency response plan include communications, training, testing, responsibilities and contact information.
In a drinking water context, emergencies can happen as the result of a variety of natural and human-caused events such as severe weather, major power outages, spills, infrastructure failure, pandemics and deliberate acts of vandalism or terrorism. Potential emergencies can be identified through hazards identified in the risk assessment, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks inspections, source protection plans, corporate audits, insurance company reviews, and records of past emergencies.
An element of the Quality Management System emergency procedures is to clearly document the roles and responsibilities of the owner and operating authority during each emergency. For example, in an emergency, your clerk-treasurer may be assigned the responsibility of seeking resource authorization from council and act as chief liaison with council and the mayor.
ERCA BoD 194 of 219 The Quality Management System also requires that clear direction be established for communicating with the system owner and others during an emergency. Planning beforehand how those in charge will talk to each other and the media can avoid complications during an emergency.
Preparing also means training and testing. The best emergency response procedures are ineffective if personnel are not properly trained on what to do and the procedures are not tested. All personnel working within the drinking water system need to know what to do in an emergency, especially those with special response roles. Common forms of testing and training include orientation and education sessions, table-top exercises, walk-through drills, functional drills or full-scale exercises.
Utilities helping utilities
A number of Ontario municipalities and utility sector associations joined together to establish the Ontario Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network.
A provincewide network of “utilities helping utilities,” the Ontario Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network supports and promotes provincewide emergency preparedness, disaster response, and mutual aid and assistance for public and private water and wastewater utilities.
Learn how your municipality can become part of this growing network at the Ontario Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network website (http://www.onwarn.org/default.aspx) .
Actions you can take
Ask your operating authority to review the drinking water emergency plan with council and to explain what responsibilities have been assigned to the owner. Know who will be the spokesperson during a drinking water emergency. Ensure critical staff have taken necessary training on emergency procedures and have participated in testing.
How adverse drinking water incidents, boil water advisories and drinking water advisories are different
An adverse water quality incident indicates that a drinking water standard has been exceeded or a problem has arisen within a drinking water system. Adverse water quality incidents are an important component of the drinking water protection framework. The report of an adverse water quality incident does not in itself indicate that drinking water is unsafe or that the statutory standard of care has not been met, but rather that an incident has occurred and corrective actions must be taken to protect the public. In some cases, these corrective actions may include a boil water advisory or a drinking water advisory.
The local medical officer of health in Ontario’s public health units is responsible for issuing boil water advisories and drinking water advisories when necessary.
A boil water advisory is issued when a condition exists with a drinking water supply that may result in a health risk and the condition can be corrected by boiling the water or by disinfection. An example is the presence of bacteria in the water supply such as E. coli.
A drinking water advisory is issued when a drinking water supply is affected by a condition that cannot be corrected by boiling the water or by disinfection. An example is the presence of chemical contaminants.
In both cases, the local medical officer of health will direct the system owner to inform users of the advisory, through means such as door-to-door notification, public posting of notices and local media outlets, to boil water and/or use an alternate water supply until further notice. An advisory will be lifted only after the local medical officer of health is satisfied that corrective actions were taken and the situation is remedied.
What drinking water system operators do, what certification requirements they must meet and why you need to plan
Ontario has established requirements for the training and certification of drinking water system operators, as set out in the Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts (Ontario Regulation 128/04) (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/040128) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.
Municipal residential drinking water systems are required to use certified operators to perform all operational work.
Drinking water system operators play a vital operational role in providing safe drinking water to your community. The responsibilities of an operator may include:
ERCA BoD 195 of 219 Checking, adjusting and operating equipment such as pumps, meters, filters, analyzers, and electrical systems, and having replacement parts on-site for critical repairs Determining chemical dosages and keeping chemical feed equipment appropriately filled with chemicals, adjusted and operating properly Maintaining operating records and submitting operating reports to the system’s operating authority/owner and the province Ordering and maintaining a stock of parts, chemicals and supplies Collecting and submitting water samples as required by regulation (This usually involves taking samples from a number of key locations and transporting them to a licensed and accredited laboratory.) Explaining and recommending to the operating authority/owner any major repairs, replacements or improvements that should be made to the plant and/or distribution system Being the on-site contact to respond to emergency events and adjust plant operation to ensure public health and safety.
Drinking water operators in Ontario must be certified and trained according to the type and complexity (class) of the drinking water system they operate. Operators are required to go through rigorous training, write examinations, and meet mandatory continuing education requirements to renew and maintain their certification. A certificate is valid for three years. To renew their certificate, operators must complete 20 to 50 hours of mandatory training per year on subjects related to the duties of a water system operator. Continuing education helps operators steadily improve their knowledge and skills throughout their careers. Owners and operating authorities are responsible for ensuring drinking water systems are appropriately staffed and supervised by qualified persons.
Actions you can take
Confirm that an overall responsible operator has been designated and that procedures are in place to ensure all required staff and contractors are certified and have received the required training. Check to see if drinking water operator succession planning is being done and that measures are taken to address any current or anticipated challenges to recruiting skilled employees. Ensure your municipality or operating authority has contingency plans in place for situations where your certified operators may not be available to work (e.g., labour disputes, illnesses, vacancies) and, if activated, confirm these contingency plans have been, where required, approved by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and are functioning effectively.
Water conservation
Creating and implementing water conservation measures helps to reduce water and energy consumption, lower long-term infrastructure costs, increase water sustainability and protect the environment.
It is estimated that every additional litre of water capacity costs roughly four dollars for expanded water and wastewater infrastructure. Many municipalities in Ontario are realizing significant savings from water conservation measures.
The cost of energy to pump, distribute and treat water and wastewater is a significant expense for most Ontario municipalities. Saving water saves money, energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Better water management has the potential to be one of the most cost-effective energy reduction strategies for Ontario’s municipalities.
(Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2009, Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario’s Water Resources for Future Generations)
Water conservation facts
In Ontario, the average residential water use is about 201 litres of water per person per day, which is significantly more than countries with similar standards of living such as Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In 2011, Ontario municipal water and wastewater systems accounted for 38% of reported municipal energy consumption and 32% of reported municipal greenhouse gas emissions. Surveys have consistently shown that as the percentage of metered homes in a community increases, water use per capita decreases. In Ontario, the average daily residential consumption per capita in municipalities that charge a flat rate or assessed rate for water is 37% higher than in municipalities that have volume-based charges (i.e., meters).
(Sources:
Statistics Canada, Table 153-0127 from Survey of Drinking Water Plants, 2015 Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Every Drop Counts: Reducing the Energy and Climate Footprint of Ontario’s Water Use, 2017 Ontario Sewer & Watermain Construction Association, Bringing Sustainability to Ontario’s Water Systems, 2016) Learn more about drinking water ERCA BoD 196 of 219 Source of water
Ontario’s drinking water comes from surface water or groundwater. It is important to know the source of your community’s water as it will determine the:
Kind of treatment and disinfection your drinking water system must have Equipment needed to access and distribute your water Types of risks your drinking water may face, and Planning for your water supplies for the future.
Surface water
Surface water for public use is taken from rivers, lakes or reservoirs which are replenished by rain and snow. Surface water is more susceptible to contamination for the following reasons:
Rivers may flow through farmland, industrial areas, sewage discharge zones and other areas which may cause harmful contamination and/or affect taste, odour, clarity and colour. River water quality will vary throughout the year. Lakes and reservoirs usually have better water quality than rivers. Suspended contaminants will ‘settle out’ in lakes. However, lakes and reservoirs are subject to plant and algae growth, which can give lake water unpleasant taste or odour. Human activities (power boats, feed-lots, etc.) are also a threat. In addition, lakes are often fed by rivers which carry contaminants.
Groundwater
Groundwater (defined as 'water that occurs beneath the surface of the Earth') can be found in most parts of Ontario. It gathers in aquifers, the layers of sand, gravel and rock through which water seeps from the surface.
Sand and gravel aquifers are usually the most suitable for public water systems because water is more plentiful. Among rock aquifers, sandstone is often porous and can be a good source of groundwater. Limestone is not porous but may have cracks and cavities through which water can move and also provide a water supply.
Groundwater under direct influence
In addition to groundwater and surface water, there is a third source of water known as ‘groundwater under the direct influence of surface water’.
An aquifer supplied by groundwater under the direct influence of surface water is viewed in the same category as surface water and has the same treatment and disinfection requirements.
(Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2007, “Drinking Water 101” course materials)
Source protection in Ontario
Protecting our sources of drinking water is the purpose of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and the first component of Ontario’s multi- faceted approach to providing safe, clean, available drinking water. Water is also protected in Ontario through the Ontario Water Resources Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o40) and the Environmental Protection Act (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e19) .
The source protection program in Ontario has identified vulnerable areas around municipal drinking water systems, through a science-based process. Under the program, local source protection committees, which include municipalities and others, have identified risks to sources of municipal drinking water and developed plans to address those risks. Implementation of the plans is an ongoing responsibility to ensure sources of municipal drinking water are protected.
Municipalities have a significant role in implementing source protection plans. For example, municipalities have appointed risk management officials and inspectors to negotiate risk management plans with landowners or businesses to ensure actions are taken to protect municipal drinking water.
Source protection plans may also require that municipalities prohibit certain land uses through their land use planning decisions. Municipalities will need to include policies in their official plan, and will have implemented appropriate zoning by-laws to comply with these policies. Plans may also require municipalities to take other specific actions to protect sources of drinking water, for example, implement education and outreach programs, spills response actions, and develop and implement road salt management plans. ERCA BoD 197 of 219 In addition, municipal drinking water systems in source protection areas may be subject to the Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in Source Protection Areas regulation (Ontario Regulation 205/18) (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r18205) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. The regulation applies where the owner plans to establish a new drinking water system (e.g., establish new wells or a surface water intake in a new source of drinking water) or to make certain alterations to an existing drinking water system (e.g., add wells to an existing wellfield or alter an existing intake and draw water from a larger area).
Under this regulation, municipalities are now responsible for ensuring certain work under the Clean Water Act, 2006 is completed before they can apply for the requisite drinking water works permit and licence to authorize certain new or altered drinking water systems. In addition, conditions will be added to the licence or drinking water works permit that prohibit the municipality from providing water to the public from a new or altered drinking water source until the local source protection plan has been approved by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Learn more about source protection by visiting the ministry’s Source Protection Information Atlas (https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/SourceWaterProtection/Index.html? viewer=SourceWaterProtection.SWPViewer&locale=en-US) .
Actions you can take
Review the source protection plan for your area and find out what actions are being taken to protect your drinking water sources. If you require and must appoint a risk management official and risk management inspectors to implement Part IV policies (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c22#BK49) (tools under the Clean Water Act, 2006), ensure they meet the prescribed qualifications set out in the General regulation Ontario Regulation 287/07 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070287) under the Clean Water Act, 2006. This requires that the individual take and pass two courses offered by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Municipalities in some source protection areas have agreements with their local conservation authority or another municipality to enforce Part IV of the Clean Water Act, 2006 (they have delegated this responsibility). In such a case, the responsibility for appointing risk management officials and inspectors would be done by the source protection authority, which in most cases is a conservation authority. Municipalities that have delegated this responsibility to a conservation authority or another municipality should ensure these responsibilities are being carried out. Discuss plans to establish or expand drinking water systems early in the planning process. If your system is not in a source protection area: Learn about your municipality’s authority to protect your drinking water sources e.g., through land use planning, the provincial policy statement, the Planning Act, 1990, Municipal Act, 2001 and septic inspection programs under the Building Code. Find out if your municipality has information on the vulnerability of your drinking water systems. This information can help you protect drinking water sources.
Drinking water treatment processes
Treatment processes reduce or eliminate the potential for the presence of pathogens (organisms that can cause illness) in drinking water and are used to ensure your drinking water meets provincial standards. Different water sources necessitate different levels and methods of treatment to ensure safe, clean water is provided to consumers.
In Ontario, all municipal drinking water systems must have a disinfection process in place and all water must be disinfected before it is supplied to the public. The most widely used disinfectant is chlorine, which is a low-cost powerful disinfectant which continues disinfecting as water passes through the distribution system.
Drinking water systems using surface water or groundwater that is under the direct influence of surface water must also provide a filtration process ahead of the disinfection.
Some municipalities use certain treatment processes to address aesthetic problems with drinking water, such as taste and odour issues, that do not pose a risk to public health but which consumers find objectionable, or to address specific issues that are more local in nature, like zebra mussel control.
With climate change, communities across the province are experiencing more frequent and severe weather events. When these events happen, rain water can enter the sewage collection system, causing bypasses and overflows of raw or partially treated sewage into lakes and rivers. There can be potential impacts to water quality following storms, bypasses, and overflows.
When a bypass or overflow happens, municipalities are required to notify both the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and the local medical officer of health. Municipalities should have a treatment process in place that takes into account these severe weather events.
ERCA BoD 198 of 219 Water distribution
The water distribution system is the network of pipes, valves, fire hydrants, storage tanks, reservoirs and pumping stations that carry water to customers. Municipalities that get their treated water from a treatment facility in another municipality and only have a distribution system are still required to exercise due diligence and oversight. Clean, treated drinking water can become contaminated through a poorly maintained distribution system. System owners are required to maintain a consistent level of disinfectant throughout the distribution system to act as a barrier against contamination.
Legal disclaimer
This guide is for information only and is not a substitute for legal or other professional advice in connection with any particular matter. It deals with complicated matters in a summarized fashion and some details may not be included. Municipalities and councillors are responsible for making local decisions in compliance with applicable laws. The content of the guide is based on existing legislation which is subject to change. Users should verify all legal and other information referred to in the guide and are solely responsible for any use or application of the guide. For further information
To learn more about drinking water, visit these websites:
Conservation Ontario (https://conservationontario.ca/) — The website of Conservation Ontario, a non-profit association representing Ontario’s conservation authorities, which contains information on managing Ontario’s water resources. e-Laws website (https://www.ontario.ca/laws) — The Ontario Government website providing access to provincial laws and regulations.
Ontario Clean Water Agency website (http://www.ocwa.ca/) — The website of the Ontario Clean Water Agency, an agency of the Ontario Government, which includes information on water and sewage works and related services provided by the Agency.
Ontario.ca/drinkingwater (https://www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater) — The Government of Ontario’s webpage offering a single point of access to information on drinking water and drinking water services in Ontario.
Ontario Municipal Water Association website (http://www.omwa.org/) — The website of the Ontario Municipal Water Association.
Ontario Water Works Association website (http://www.owwa.com/) — The website of the Ontario Water Works Association, a section of the American Water Works Association (American Water Works Association website (http://www.awwa.org) ).
Source Protection Information Atlas (https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/SourceWaterProtection/Index.html? viewer=SourceWaterProtection.SWPViewer&locale=en-US) — This site will show where vulnerable areas are in a municipality related to their sources of drinking water. Follow the link to the source protection plans to learn more about what activities are prohibited or need to be managed in your municipality.
Walkerton Clean Water Centre website (http://www.wcwc.ca/) — The website of the Walkerton Clean Water Centre, an agency of the Ontario Government, which provides information on available training and education offered by the Centre, especially to those serving small and remote communities.
ERCA BoD 199 of 219 For more information or answers to general questions, call the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks at 1-800-565- 4923 Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater (https://www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater) Glossary
The following is a list of drinking water related terms and phrases you may come across when carrying out your oversight responsibilities. Where this glossary indicates that a term is defined in legislation (e.g. the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 or regulations under the act), always consult the relevant legislation to ensure accuracy. Also, note the disclaimer in this guide.
A
Accreditation body a person designated or established as an accreditation body under Part IV or Part VII of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Accredited operating authority a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 meaning an operating authority accredited under Part IV of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Adverse water quality incident an event in which an adverse drinking water test result triggers a process of notification and corrective measures Aquifer a layer of soil, sand, gravel or rock that contains groundwater. Asset management planning is the process of making the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing and disposing of infrastructure assets. The objective is to maximize benefits, manage risks, and provide satisfactory levels of service to the public in a sustainable manner. Audit a systematic and documented verification process that involves objectively obtaining and evaluating documents and processes to determine whether a quality management system conforms to the requirements of the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard.
B
Backflow preventer a mechanical device for a water supply pipe to prevent the backflow of water into the water supply system from the service connections. Boil water advisory notice issued by local medical officer of health to advise the community to boil or disinfect water before consumption. It is designed to make water safe to drink when there is a health risk through contamination that can be corrected by boiling or disinfecting the water.
C
Chemically assisted filtration a water treatment process that uses chemicals, such as alum, as a coagulant to bind small particles together into larger particles that are then easily filtered out when the water passes through sand beds or other filters. Chlorine residual the concentration of chlorine remaining in the chlorinated water at the end of a given contact time that is available to continue to disinfect. Measured as free chlorine, combined chlorine and total chlorine. Clarification/sedimentation removal of suspended solids prior to filtration. In Ontario, the most common method of clarification used is sedimentation - or allowing suspended material to settle using gravity. Coagulation a chemical process that causes smaller particles to bind together and form larger particles. The process is used to improve the removal of particles through sedimentation and filtration in the drinking-water treatment process. Colony counts a scientific measure that identifies the number of bacteria, yeast or moulds that are capable of forming colonies. Conservation authorities local watershed management agencies that deliver services and programs that protect and manage water and other natural resources in partnership with government, landowners and other organizations. Consult the Conservation Ontario website (http://conservationontario.ca/) for additional information. Contaminant ERCA BoD 200 of 219 a defined term under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, meaning any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of any of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect. Cross-connection the physical connection of a safe or potable water supply with another water supply of unknown or contaminated quality such that the potable water could be contaminated or polluted. Cryptosporidium a single-celled protozoan parasite found in the intestinal tract of many animals. If the animal waste containing Cryptosporidium contaminates drinking water, it may cause gastrointestinal disease in humans.
D
Designated facility a defined term in the Drinking Water Systems regulation (Ontario Regulation 170/03) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Generally speaking, designated facilities are facilities that serve people who are potentially more susceptible to illness if they drink water that is of poor quality. These facilities include schools, universities and colleges, children and youth care facilities. Disinfection usually the addition of chlorine to raw or filtered water to remove or inactivate human pathogens such as viruses, bacteria or protozoa in water, or for the purpose of maintaining a consistent level of chlorine in a drinking-water distribution system. Drinking water a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, meaning (a) water intended for human consumption, or (b) water that is required by an Act, regulation, order, municipal by-law or other document issued under the authority of an Act to be “potable” or to “meet or exceed the requirements of the prescribed drinking water quality standards.” Drinking water advisory notice issued by a local medical officer of health when a drinking water problem cannot be corrected simply by boiling the water or through disinfection. Under a drinking water advisory, consumers are advised to use another source of drinking water until further notice. Drinking water system a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, meaning a system of works, excluding plumbing, that is established for the purpose of providing users of the system with drinking water and includes,
a. any thing used for the collection, production, treatment, storage, supply or distribution of water b. any thing related to the management of residue from the treatment process or the management of the discharge of a substance into the natural environment from the treatment system, and c. a well or intake that serves as the source or entry point of raw water supply for the system.
Drinking Water Quality Management Standard The Drinking Water Quality Management Standard is a made-in-Ontario standard that sets out a framework for the operating authority and the owner of a drinking water system to develop a quality management system that is relevant and appropriate for their specific system. Operating authorities are accredited if they can demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard through third-party verification. Drinking water quality standards standards prescribed by -the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards regulation (Ontario Regulation 169/03) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, for microbiological, chemical and radiological parameters which, when above certain concentrations, have known or suspected adverse health effects and require corrective action. Drinking water works permit a permit issued under Part V of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 to authorize the establishment or alteration of a municipal drinking water system.
E
E. coli (Escherichia coli) a species of bacteria naturally present in the intestines of humans and animals. If animal or human waste containing E. coli contaminates drinking water, it may cause gastrointestinal disease in humans. Most types of E. coli are harmless, but some active strains, especially O157:H7, produce harmful toxins and can cause severe illness. Exceedance violation of a limit for a contaminant as prescribed in the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards Regulation (Ontario Regulation 169/03) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.
F
Filtration ERCA BoD 201 of 219 removes particles from the water that were not removed during clarification by passing the water through a granular or media filter that retains all or most of the solids on or within itself, and removes pathogens prior to disinfection.
G
Giardia protozoa, usually non-pathogenic, that may be parasitic in the intestines of vertebrates including humans and most domestic animals. If animal waste containing Giardia contaminates drinking water, it may cause gastrointestinal disease in humans.
H
Hazard a source of danger; a characteristic that may cause drinking water to be unsafe for human consumption. Heterotrophic plate count (HPC) Heterotrophic plate count is a microbiological test that gives an indication of general bacterial population. Heterotrophic plate count results are not an indicator of water safety and should not be used as an indicator of potential adverse human health effects. This is a routine test to monitor water plant operations and assure treatment is working properly.
L
Laboratory a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. It means a place where drinking water tests are or will be conducted. In Ontario, laboratories must be accredited and licensed for each type of drinking water test they perform. Laboratories may conduct other types of tests as well.
M
Medical officer of health a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, meaning with reference to a drinking water system, the medical officer of health for the health unit in which the system is located; if none exists, authority resides with the chief medical officer of health. Microbiological organism an organism so small that it cannot be seen without a microscope, including bacteria, protozoa, fungi, viruses and algae. Municipal Drinking Water Licence a licence issued under Part V of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 permitting the operation of a municipal drinking water system. The licence outlines specific operational parameters for the system including rated capacity, maximum flow rates and sampling, testing and monitoring requirements. Municipal drinking water system a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. It means a drinking water system or part of a drinking water system:
that is owned by a municipality or by a municipal service board established under the Municipal Act, 2001 or by a city board established under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 that is owned by a corporation established under sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 in accordance with section 203 of that act or under sections 7 and 8 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 in accordance with sections 148 and 154 of that act from which a municipality obtains or will obtain water under the terms of a contract between the municipality and the owner of the system, or that is in a prescribed class
O
Operating authority a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. It means in respect of a drinking water system, the person or entity that is given responsibility by the owner for the operation, management, maintenance or alteration of the system. Operational plan a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. It means, in respect of a drinking water system, the operational plans required under the SDWA. These include the Quality Management System for a drinking water system. Operator a term defined in Ontario Regulation 128/04 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/040128) , the Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. This is a person who conducts operational checks; who adjusts, tests, evaluates a process that controls the effectiveness or efficiency of a
ERCA BoD 202 of 219 subsystem, or directs the flow, pressure or quality of the water within the subsystem. Certified operators must hold a valid operator’s certificate. Operator-in-charge a term defined in Ontario Regulation 128/04, the Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Designated by the owner or operating authority, the operator-in- charge can direct other operators, set operational parameters in the subsystem, and has the authority to make operational decisions. Operator-in-training a term defined in Ontario Regulation 128/04, the Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. These are new operators who can operate a drinking water system if they hold an appropriate certificate and if the subsystem has an appropriately certified overall responsible operator. An operator-in-training cannot be designated as an overall responsible operator or an operator-in-charge. Overall responsible operator a term defined in Ontario Regulation 128/04, the Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Designated by the owner or operating authority, the overall responsible operator has overall operational responsibility for the municipal residential subsystem and must have an operator’s certificate that is the same type and same classification as (or higher than) the subsystem. Owner a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. It includes, in respect of a drinking water system, every person who is a legal or beneficial owner of all or part of the system, but does not include the Ontario Clean Water Agency or any of its predecessors where the Ontario Clean Water Agency or predecessor is registered on title as the owner of the system.
P
Pathogen an organism that causes disease in another organism. Permit to Take Water a permit issued under the Ontario Water Resources Act, required of any person who takes over 50,000 litres of water on any day from any source. Potable water Water that, at a minimum, meets the requirements prescribed by the Drinking Water Quality Standards regulation (Ontario Regulation 169/03), as provided by Section 11 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Other common understandings include: water of sufficiently high quality that it can be consumed or used without risk of immediate or long-term harm; water that is safe to drink. Protozoa a very diverse group comprising some 50,000 organisms that consist of one cell. Most are able to move on their own. Some are a health concern in drinking water. (See Giardia and Cryptosporidium) Provincial Officer Order an order issued by a Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks provincial officer to any person who contravenes an act administered by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
R
Raw water a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Generally, it means surface or groundwater that is available as a source of drinking water but has not received any treatment. As defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, it also means untreated water in a drinking water system or in plumbing. Renewal/rehabilitation Significant repairs designed to extend the life of drinking water infrastructure. Risk is the probability of identified hazards causing harm, including the magnitude of that harm or the consequences. Risk assessment is an orderly methodology of identifying hazards or hazardous events that may affect the safety of drinking water and evaluating their significance. Risk management official or inspector Municipally-appointed officials responsible for administering and enforcing certain policies set out in a source protection plan under Ontario’s Clean Water Act, 2006. Duties include reviewing development applications within vulnerable areas to ensure compliance with plan policies and the protection of municipal drinking water sources; negotiating and enforcing risk management plans to manage significant drinking water threats; and enforcing prohibition policies within vulnerable areas. Municipalities that have enforcement authority under Part IV of the Clean Water Act, 2006 may enter into agreements to delegate this responsibility to another municipality or to a conservation authority. In many source protection areas, delegation agreements are in effect and the conservation authority or another municipality is the enforcement body under Part IV or Part VII and is responsible for appointing risk management officials and risk management inspectors. ERCA BoD 203 of 219 S
Source protection plan a defined term under the Clean Water Act, 2006, meaning a plan prepared for the purposes of that act. The plan includes a list of policies to address existing and future sources of municipal drinking water by protecting them from contamination and overuse. Source water untreated water in streams, rivers, lakes or underground aquifers which is used for the supply of raw water for drinking water systems. Source water protection action taken to address risks to the quality and quantity of source water. Source water protection under Ontario’s Clean Water Act, 2006 helps ensure public health through developing and implementing local plans to address land use activities that can pollute or deplete municipal drinking water sources.
T
Total coliform bacteria a group of waterborne bacteria consisting of three main sub-groups with common characteristics that is used as an indicator of water quality. The presence of total coliform bacteria in water leaving a treatment plant, or in any treated water immediately after treatment, could indicate inadequate treatment and possible water contamination. Treatment system a defined term under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, and means any part of a drinking water system that is used in relation to the treatment of water, and includes:
any thing that conveys or stores water and is part of a treatment process, including any treatment equipment installed in plumbing any thing related to the management of residue from the treatment process or the management of the discharge of a substance into the natural environment from the system a well or intake that serves as the source or entry point of raw water supply for the system.
Turbidity a visible haze or cloudiness in water caused by the presence of suspended matter, resulting in the scattering or absorption of light. The cloudier the water, the greater the turbidity.
W
Walkerton Inquiry the public commission of inquiry, led by the Honourable Justice Dennis O’Connor, into the events that occurred in May 2000 when the water supply in the Ontario town of Walkerton became contaminated with a strain of E.coli bacteria. Waterborne illness a disease transmitted through the ingestion of contaminated water. Water acts as a passive carrier of the infectious agent, chemical or waterborne pathogen. Water quality analyst a term defined or referred to in Ontario Regulation 128/04, the Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. This is a person who is trained and certified to conduct operational tests, such as chlorine residual or turbidity tests, within a drinking water system. Watershed a region or area bounded peripherally by a divide and draining into a particular watercourse or body of water. Acknowledgements
In addition to the many people whose contributions we have acknowledged in prior editions of the guide, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks would like to thank all those who contributed to the 2019 edition. Sources
Much of the material in this guide has been adapted from the Ontario Municipal Water Association’s 2004 handbook “Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Responsibilities” with their permission. Information was also obtained from the following sources:
American Water Works Association, 2009, Water Basics for Decision Makers Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2017, Every Drop Counts: Reducing the Energy and Climate Footprint of Ontario’s Water Use ERCA BoD 204 of 219 Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2002, Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006, The Clean Water Act: Promoting Municipal Awareness and Understanding Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2007, “Drinking Water 101” course materials Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2007, Implementing Quality Management: A Guide for Ontario’s Drinking Water Systems Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2018, 2017-18 Chief Drinking Water Inspector Annual Report Ontario Sewer & Watermain Construction Association, 2016, Bringing Sustainability to Ontario’s Water Systems Pollution Probe, 2006, The Source Water Protection Primer Statistics Canada, 2015, Survey of Drinking Water Plants
Updated: May 23, 2019 Published: May 30, 2016
ERCA BoD 205 of 219 Western Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom Early Season Projection 11 June 2019, Projection 06 The severity of the western Lake Erie cyanobacterial harmful algal bloom (HAB) is dependent on input of bioavailable phosphorus from the Maumee River during the loading season (March 1-July 31). This product gives an estimate of potential bloom severity based on a combination of measurements to date and forecasts of phosphorus loads into July. The projection will be updated weekly with new data and weather models through the end of June. The final seasonal forecast will be made on July 11 using the measured phosphorus loads for the spring.
We project that the bloom will have a severity greater than 7 (much greater than 2018). This forecast has not changed since last week. Rainfall is expected to decrease, but there is still uncertainty in the forecasts of the locally-heavy rainfall events in June. The maximum severity includes the possibility of additionally heavy rain over the next several weeks. Any bloom that develops will change with time and move with the wind. Severity forecasts do not indicate toxicity.
Total bioavailable phosphorus (TBP) is the sum of dissolved phosphorus and the portion of particulate phosphorus available for HAB development. The TBP loads are projected based on Heidelberg University data, river forecasts from the National Weather Service Ohio River Forecast Center (through early July), and previous years to the end of July.
Stumpf, Noel (NOAA), Johnson (Heidelberg University) with assistance from Davenport and Tomlinson (NOAA)
Figure 1. Projected bloom compared to previous years. Figure 2. Cumulative total bioavailable phosphorus (TBP) The wide bar is the likely range of severity based on limits loads for the Maumee River (based on Waterville). Each line of model uncertainty. The narrow bar is the potential range denotes a different year. 2019 is in red, the solid line is the of severity. Because the forecast uses modeled discharge for a month, there is uncertainty in maximum bloom measured load to June 10th, the red area shows the likely severity. range for the remainder of the loading season, and the light red shows the possible range.
Figure 3. Total bioavailable phosphorus (TBP) load Figure 4. True color image on 08 June 2019 derived from OLCI accumulated from the Maumee River near Waterville to on Copernicus Sentinel-3b satellite. There have been many date. The right axis denotes the TBP load from selected cloudy days. A plume of sediment from the Maumee River previous years. Loads through June 10 exceeds 2014. causes the tan color in the western basin. Most of the central basin has relatively low amounts of sediment in the water. ERCA BoD 206 of 219 For more information visit: http://www.ncwqr.org/ or http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/research/habs/forecasting/ Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management
ISSN: 1463-4988 (Print) 1539-4077 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaem20
Habitat rehabilitation in the Detroit River Area of Concern
J. H. Hartig, C. Sanders, R. J. H. Wyma, J. C. Boase & E. F. Roseman
To cite this article: J. H. Hartig, C. Sanders, R. J. H. Wyma, J. C. Boase & E. F. Roseman (2018) Habitat rehabilitation in the Detroit River Area of Concern, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 21:4, 458-469, DOI: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437
Accepted author version posted online: 16 Oct 2018. Published online: 18 Mar 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 25
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaem20
ERCA BoD 207 of 219 Habitat rehabilitation in the Detroit River Area of Concern J. H. Hartig,1, C. Sanders,2 R. J. H. Wyma,3 J. C. Boase,4 and E. F. Roseman5 1Balsillie School of International Affairs, 67 Erb Street West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2, Canada 2Detroit River Canadian Cleanup, 311-360 Fairview Ave. West, Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6, Canada 3Essex Region Conservation Authority, 311-360 Fairview Ave. West, Essex, Ontario N8M 1Y6, Canada 4U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Waterford Substation, 7806 Gale Road, Waterford, Michigan 48327, USA 5U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, USA Corresponding author: [email protected]
Loss and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat is a long-standing issue in the Detroit River. The Detroit River Remedial Action Plan helped agencies and stakeholder groups reach agreement on impaired beneficial uses, including loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and helped mobilize all stake- holders to rehabilitate habitat. Many organizations played key roles, including the Detroit River Public Advisory Council, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup, State of the Strait Conferences, American and Canadian Heritage River Initiatives, Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, and Western Lake Erie Watersheds Priority Natural Area. Accomplishments include: 14 habitat restoration proj- ects on both the Canadian and U.S. side of the Detroit River; 53 soft shoreline engineering projects in the watershed; nine fish spawning reefs in the river, Common Tern habitat in four locations; and many wetland and green infrastructure projects. Based on Detroit River habitat restoration efforts over the last 32 years, the following advice is offered: reach agreement on severity and geographic extent of the problem; practice adaptive management; involve habitat experts up front in project design; establish quantitative targets for project success; ensure sound multidisciplinary technical support; start with demonstration projects; treat habitat projects as experiments; involve citizen sci- entists in monitoring; measure benefits; communicate and celebrate successes; promote education and outreach.
Keywords: Great Lakes Area of Concern, restoration, targets, adaptive management, lessons learned
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uaem.
458
Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management,21(4):458–469, 2018. Copyright # 2018 AEHMS. ISSN: 1463-4988 print / 1539-4077 online DOI: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1536437
ERCA BoD 208 of 219 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 459
Introduction interests with no single oversight. This frag- mented responsibility has been an obstacle to In 1985, 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern realizing ecological improvements and restor- (AOCs) were identified by the International Joint ation. Through the Detroit River RAP, loss of Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board fish and wildlife habitat was explicitly identified where Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality as an impaired beneficial use. This gave focus, Agreement objectives or jurisdictional standards, cri- clarity, and legitimacy to this issue, and opened teria, or guidelines, established to protect beneficial up funding from federal, state, provincial, and uses, were exceeded and remedial actions were private sources. There were eight key initiatives necessary to restore beneficial uses (International over the last 30 years that have championed res- Joint Commission, 1985). A 43rd AOC was identi- toration of fish and wildlife habitat in the Detroit fied in 1991 (i.e. Presque Isle Bay, Erie, River (Table 1). Early on, efforts focused on Pennsylvania, USA). To address these long-standing quantifying the severity and geographic extent of beneficial use impairments, the eight Great Lakes habitat loss and degradation. Later, scientific states and the Province of Ontario, in cooperation assessments were used to review and prioritize with the federal governments of Canada and the potential options and projects. It should be noted United States, committed in 1985 to developing and that resource management agencies, like Ontario implementing a remedial action plan (RAP) to Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, restore beneficial uses in each AOC within their pol- Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. itical boundaries. Each RAP had to identify the spe- Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Oceans cific measures necessary to control existing sources Canada, and Essex Region Conservation of pollution, abate existing contamination (e.g. con- Authority (ERCA), and universities, have been taminated sediments), and restore all impaired uses. actively involved in these initiatives and provided The Detroit River, a 45.3-km connecting channel considerable expertise. through which the entire upper Great Lakes (i.e. Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron) flow to the lower Great Lakes (i.e. Lakes Erie and Ontario), Habitat accomplishments was one of these AOCs (Figure 1). Following the and results political commitment, the RAP for the Detroit River was initiated in 1986 with the establishment of a Early efforts focused on quantifying the sever- team of representatives from the federal, state, and ity and geographic extent of habitat loss and deg- provincial governments (Michigan Department of radation, followed by efforts to set habitat Natural Resources and Ontario Ministry of the restoration goals and objectives (Michigan Environment, 1991). Loss of fish and wildlife habi- Department of Natural Resources and Ontario tat was one of 11 use impairments identified. The Ministry of the Environment, 1991). This process Detroit River RAP noted that a significant loss of took at least 12 years before the first habitat res- fish and wildlife habitat, including a 97% loss in toration projects were implemented in 1996. coastal wetlands, occurred as a result of human Initially, lack of a clear habitat problem definition activities like diking, dredging, construction of bulk- and scientifically-sound restoration options, and heads, and filling (Michigan Department of Natural lack of funding, were obstacles to realizing habi- Resources and Ontario Ministry of the Environment, tat restoration. Then in the late-1990s habitat 1991). This paper will review, from a management rehabilitation projects started receiving funding. perspective, what has been achieved and learned On the Canadian side, 14 projects were imple- from this 32-year effort to restore fish and wildlife mented by many DRCC partners, including habitat in the Detroit River AOC. Environment and Climate Change Canada through the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Major initiatives Forestry through the Canada-Ontario Agreement, addressing habitat ERCA, and others (Table 2). The DRCC is now finalizing a new habitat plan in the spirit of adap- Historically, habitat management has been a tive management, which will identify and priori- responsibility shared among many agencies and tize target habitat sites for protection, restoration,
ERCA BoD 209 of 219 460 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469
Figure 1. Map of Detroit River AOC and its watershed (credit: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). and enhancement (Essex Region Conservation beneficial use (Table 3). These diverse projects Authority, 2012, 2017). Delisting criteria have involve restoration of shoals, nearshore, and wet- been identified under the following four catego- land habitats, as well as reproductive habitats for ries for this use impairment: aquatic and riparian birds and fishes. It is important to note that the habitat; shoreline softening; terrestrial habitat; Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, launched in and coastal wetlands. A priority has been placed the U.S. in 2010, has provided over $2 billion on creation of habitat historically lost in shallow basin-wide to accelerate restoration efforts, par- coastal areas. A decision matrix is being used to ticularly in AOCs. This clearly helped move from rank proposed restoration sites using ecological, planning to action. practical, and economic factors. Completing these Detroit River AOC projects On the U.S. side, Michigan Department of and achieving these administrative/management Environmental Quality and its Detroit River targets will clearly have a positive impact on Public Advisory Committee were going through habitat of the Detroit River. However, more habi- a similar process of first reaching agreement on a tat work after delisting will have to be undertaken habitat problem definition (Michigan Department to reach long-term, ecological goals. One good of Natural Resources and Ontario Ministry of the example of this need is highlighted in a compari- Environment, 1991), including identifying geo- son of the 1985 and 2015 georeferenced aerial graphic extent, evaluating habitat restoration imagery from the Detroit River that showed that options, and prioritizing projects (Manny, 2002, even with the addition of 1.58 km of new soft 2003; Esman, 2008). Initially, habitat work under shoreline and incidental habitat on the U.S. main- the RAP was aspirational. To move beyond aspir- land of the Detroit River, there was an overall net ation and become pragmatic within fiscal real- loss of 0.74 km of soft shoreline over the 30-year ities, the Detroit River Public Advisory timeframe (Hartig and Bennion, 2016). To reach Committee (2014) identified 14 projects that, the “good” state of at least 70% soft shoreline as when completed, would constitute removal of defined by Pearsall et al. (2012), an additional “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” as an impaired 12.1 kilometers of soft shoreline will be required
ERCA BoD 210 of 219 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 461
Table 1. Key initiatives involved in efforts to restore fish and wildlife habitats in the Detroit River AOC.
Organization Purpose and Role in Habitat Restoration Timeframe Detroit River Public Facilitate public involvement in cleanup and res- 1986–present Advisory Council toration of the Detroit River Area of Concern on the U.S. side; a high priority has been placed on habitat restoration with funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative State of the Strait Bring together government managers, researchers, 1997–present Conference students, environmental and conservation organ- izations, and concerned citizens from Canada and the U.S. every two years to assess ecosys- tem status and provide advice to improve research, monitoring, and management programs for the Detroit River and western Lake Erie; habitat has been the focus of several conferences Detroit River Protect, restore, and enhance the Detroit River 1998–present Canadian Cleanup ecosystem on the Canadian side; one priority is (DRCC) and the the protection and restoration of coastal wetland, Detroit River terrestrial, and aquatic habitat; DRCC is a com- Canadian Public munity-based partnership to implement the RAP Advisory Council on the Canadian side with representation from (PAC) federal, provincial, and municipal governments, local industries, researchers, environmental organizations and citizens (through the PAC) Greater Detroit Bring together a broad range of stakeholders to 1999–present American Heritage protect the environment, celebrate history and River Initiative culture, and promote economic development; one of the five priorities was promoting soft shoreline engineering Canadian Heritage Conserve, celebrate, and showcase Canada’s rich 2001–present River Initiative river heritage; one priority has been demonstrat- ing soft shoreline engineering Detroit River International Conserve critical habitats for fish and wildlife in 2001–present Wildlife Refuge the Detroit River and western Lake Erie; top priorities have been restoring coastal wetlands and demonstrating soft shoreline engineering St. Clair Detroit River Restore a thriving ecosystem with science-based 2004–present System Initiative management and broad social support that pro- vides environmental services for the region; one priority has been spawning reef construction and increasing riparian complexity/connectivity through soft shorelines and native vegetation Western Lake Erie Coordinate among all levels to conserve natural 2012–present Watersheds Priority resources, protect the environment, and realize Natural Area the numerous benefits; priority has been placed on working with U.S. partners in the spirit of the international wildlife refuge
ERCA BoD 211 of 219 462 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 on the U.S. mainland of the river in the future. habitat/ecological targets and objectives that can Such ecosystem-based targets will help measure be used to both evaluate and select appropriate ecological progress and are consistent with the habitat restoration and rehabilitation techniques, U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality and to measure project success (Hartig Agreement. Indeed, researchers have argued for et al., 2011). inserting evidence-based management into con- The cost of 53 soft shoreline engineering proj- servation practice, including quantitative out- ects on the U.S. and Canadian sides of the river – come-based monitoring toward clear measurable more than $24 million USD – underscores the objectives (Legge, 2015). need for adequate assessment of effectiveness. Presented below are three examples habitat One way of accomplishing this is to incorporate restoration projects in the Detroit River AOC. pre- and post-project monitoring of effectiveness These projects illustrate varying degrees of evi- into all federal, state, and provincial permits for dence-based, management practice. habitat modification (Hartig et al., 2014). One additional suggestion is to work through partner- ships to establish pre- and post-project monitor- Soft shoreline engineering ing to measure project effectiveness (Hartig et al., 2011). This could be laid out in a The Greater Detroit American Heritage River Memorandum of Understanding or a partnership Initiative and others have championed use of soft agreement. Greater effort should be made to – shoreline engineering using vegetation and involve university students in monitoring through other materials to improve the land-water inter- independent studies, theses, and class projects, face by improving ecological features without and to involve environmental and conservation compromising the engineered integrity of the organizations in citizen science to monitor effect- shoreline (Caulk et al., 2000; Hartig et al., 2011). iveness. Project leaders should reach out to uni- Since 1998, a total of 53 soft shoreline engineer- versities and nongovernmental organizations and ing projects have been implemented in the inform them of opportunities to participate Detroit River and western Lake Erie watershed via monitoring. (Hartig, 2014). Of these 53 projects, 49 were Only six of the 53 soft shoreline engineering undertaken with multiple partners. All were projects surveyed had quantitative assessment of undertaken as demonstration projects that helped ecological effectiveness (Hartig et al., 2011). attract partners that wanted to learn new techni- Furthermore, monitoring was only performed for ques and helped demonstrate community benefits. one or two years. Experience has shown that Attracting new partners helped leverage funding. there is a need to perform long-term monitoring Most of the soft shoreline engineering projects to fully document ecological results and allow were undertaken opportunistically through a var- adjustments to management actions (Hartig et al., iety of management tools to enhance/improve 2011). Finally, there is a need for stronger cou- riparian or aquatic habitat, including: erosion pro- pling of habitat modification, research, and moni- tection; protection of roads; nonpoint source con- toring. It would be wise to treat such projects as trol; Supplemental Environmental Projects (i.e. a experiments that promote learning, where hypoth- U.S. regulatory tool that implements an environ- eses are developed and tested. mental improvement project instead of paying fines and penalties to a general fund); contami- nated sediment remediation; improvement of Fish spawning reefs waterfront parks; enhancement of private devel- opments; dam removal; “green infrastructure” From 1970s through the 1990s no lake stur- projects; and greenway trail projects. geon spawning was reported in the Detroit River Based on the survey of 53 soft shoreline (Roseman et al., 2011). Then in 2001, lake stur- engineering projects, habitat restoration targets geon spawning was documented on a coal cinder and measurable endpoints were lacking. pile near Zug Island in the Detroit River for the Therefore, greater emphasis should be placed on first time in over 20 years (Caswell et al., 2004). ensuring a clear, measurable, ecological defin- Based on research and monitoring, fishery biolo- ition of project success that includes quantifying gists and managers concluded that lake sturgeon
ERCA BoD 212 of 219 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 463
Table 2. Habitat projects implemented on the Canadian side of the Detroit River, 1996–2012 (partners included: ERCA, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Environment and Climate Change Canada, City of Windsor, Town of LaSalle, Town of Amherstburg, Parks Canada, Windsor Port Authority, University of Windsor, Lafarge Canada, Dean Construction, and BASF Corporation).
Shoreline Location Project Description Date NE Shore of Fighting Increased shoreline sinuosity by constructing 1996 Island, LaSalle groins that increased stability and enhanced habitat. Dean Construction, Naturalized 550 m of shoreline; established 1999 LaSalle 0.45 ha stormwater pond to treat runoff. Goose Bay, Windsor Stabilized 200 m of shoreline with riprap and 1999–2000 native plants, and enhanced fish habitat. St. Rose Beach Park, Stabilized 200 m of shoreline and reconstructed 2000–2001 Windsor shallow beach area; replaced concrete retain- ing wall with riprap and added fish habitat. Windsor Riverfront Created a sloping rock revetment along 472 m 2001 (Langlois to Moy of shoreline and rock beach with a shoal with Aves.) and the Hatch native vegetation. Wildflower Garden McKee Park, Windsor Protected and enhanced 135 m of shoreline; 2003 constructed 0.41 acres of offshore barrier islands and submerged shoals to reduce high energy currents and to improve fish habitat. Fort Malden, Stabilized 300 m of shoreline and constructed a 2004 Amherstburg rock revetment and offshore deepwater rock/ cobble shoals to enhance fish habitat and cre- ate lake sturgeon spawning habitat. NW Shore of Fighting Stabilized shoreline to a depth of 37 cm with 2007 Island, LaSalle five-cm crushed limestone bound together with the Elastocoast product. Windsor Riverfront Created rock revetment, cobble and sand beach, 2007 (Elm to Caron sheltering structures, and submerged shoal. Aves.) Riverdance Park, Removed old marina; stabilized shoreline and 2009–2010 LaSalle enhanced wetland and fish habitat. Windsor Central Restored 550 m of shoreline and enhance habi- 2011 Riverfront (Glengarry tat using a diversity of substrate types to Langlois) and sizes. River Canard Park, Removed concrete shore protection structure 2012 Amherstburg and restored 200 m of shoreline and habitat. Lafarge Inc., Windsor Stabilized and increased sinuosity of 360 m of 2013 shoreline using a diversity of rock types to increase overall shoreline length at the site and offer a diversity of interstitial spaces. HMCS Hunter at Mill Placed sloped armor stone along the shoreline 2015 Street, Windsor to improve fish and aquatic habitat. Root wads were submerged in the calm water of the harbor to provide habitat for fish and turtles.
ERCA BoD 213 of 219 464 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469
Table 3. Fourteen projects identified by the U.S. Detroit River Public Advisory Committee that, when completed, would con- stitute removal of “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” as an impaired beneficial use (Detroit River Public Advisory Committee, 2014).
Delisting Project Brief Description Status Wayne County’s Stabilized 365 m of shoreline using soft Completed in 2010 Refuge Gateway engineering and restored 4.2 ha of emergent marsh, 1.7 ha of submergent marsh, and 4.8 ha of upland buffer habitats Blue Heron Lagoon Reconnect Blue Heron Lagoon to the Detroit Completed in 2013 River, restoring fish access to 15.6 ha of existing wetlands and other habitats, and 3.5 km of canal habitat, including coastal wetlands designed as nursery habitat Belle Isle South Provide connectivity between fish spawning Completed in 2013 Fishing Pier and nursery areas by creating 1 ha of wet- lands downstream of an existing spawning reef and creating deep and shallow water habitats in the flat bottomland of the pier U.S. Steel Restored 335 m of riparian shoreline habitat Completed in 2013 Shoreline and 1.9 ha of upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline Detroit River Construct six fish spawning reefs (Belle Isle Completed in 2017 Reefs – 2, Fighting Island – 2, Grassy Island – 1, Fort Wayne - 1) Stony Island Restore 610 m of shoals to protect the island Completed in 2017 Shoal from further loss of wetlands, and provide the conditions for creation of new wetland habitat over time Belle Isle Investigate the waterways of Belle Isle in Underway order to effectively design the habitat res- toration projects in the Belle Isle forested wetland and Lake Okonoka Belle Isle Forest Restore approximately 80.9 ha of wet-mesic Underway flatwoods complex and adjacent habitat Lake Okonoka Enhance habitat for birds, fish, amphibians, Underway and reptiles Detroit Upper Restore shoreline habitat at Mariner Park, In design phase Riverfront Parks Lakewood East Park, and A.B. Ford Park Celeron Island Stabilize south end of island by constructing In design phase shoal system and enhancing fish and wild- life habitat Milliken State Park Create a naturalized area of nearshore, pro- In design phase tected, shallow water habitat, and shoreline with direct connection to the Detroit River Hennepin Marsh Protect and enhance the existing submergent Not started wetlands and create additional emer- gent wetland Sugar Island Stabilize island and restore fish and wild- Not started life habitat
ERCA BoD 214 of 219 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 465
Table 4. Fish spawning reefs constructed in the Detroit River and post-project assessments of effectiveness.
Spawning Reef and Year Size/Description Post-Project Assessment McKee Park – 2003 135 m of enhanced One gillnet set was conducted in April shoreline with 1,660 m2 2007 with Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma of barrier islands/ cepedianum) and Northern Hogsucker submerged (Hypentelium nigricans) captured shoals (30–90 cm (USFWS unpublished data). limestone) Fort Malden, 280 m of enhanced Limited setline assessments (n ¼ 5) were Amherstburg, shoreline with barrier conducted in the spring of 2007 with Ontario – 2004 islands and submerged two adult Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser ful- shoals (30–60 cm vescens) being captured (USFWS unpub- limestone) lished data). Egg mat sampling showed egg deposition of Walleye (Sander vitreus) during spring 2007 and 2008, and Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupea- formis) eggs during fall 2006 and 2007 (Prichard et al., 2017). Belle Isle, Detroit, Total area 1,130 m2; Three Pre-construction assessment indicated three Michigan (Just S.E. distinct reefs (2.5-7.5 cm fish species using the site. Post-construc- of the head of the coal cinders, 40–60 cm tion assessment in 2005 and 2006 identi- Island) – 2004 broken limestone, fied 16 species of native fish spawning 15–25 cm cobble stone) at the site, including Lake Whitefish, a first in over 90 years, walleye, and Catostomidae species. Three other spe- cies were documented using the site, including two state-listed species, Lake Sturgeon and the Northern Madtom (Noturus stigmosus; Manny, 2006). This site and adjacent area continue to sup- port the largest density of Northern Madtom in the Detroit River (Manny et al., 2014). Fighting Island, Total area 3,240 m2;12 Pre-construction assessment failed to docu- LaSalle, Ontario – individual reefs, 4 rock ment spawning by Lake Sturgeon at the 2008 types (10–50 cm site. Post-construction assessment limestone, 5–10 cm showed an immediate response with limestone, 5–10 cm Lake Sturgeon spawning in the first and rounded igneous second springs (2009–2010; Roseman stone, and the three et al., 2011; Bouckaert et al., 2014) and rock types combined), multiple years thereafter (Prichard et al., plus boulder field. 2017). Monitoring found adult Lake Sturgeon in spawning condition (ripe), fertilized eggs, and emerging larvae on and downstream of the reef in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, age-0 juvenile Lake Sturgeon were collected in bottom trawls (Continued on next page)
ERCA BoD 215 of 219 466 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469
Table 4. Fish spawning reefs constructed in the Detroit River and post-project assessments of effectiveness. (Continued)
Spawning Reef and Year Size/Description Post-Project Assessment in the river channel 2–5 km downstream of the reef. Egg assessment surveys also collected eggs of other fishes, including Walleye, Lake Whitefish, White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni), Shorthead Redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum), and Troutperch (Percopsis omyscomay- cus; Roseman et al., 2011; Prichard et al., 2017). Fighting Island Reefs con- tinue to support a population of Northern Madtoms (Manny et al., 2014). D-frame net collections of larval Lake Sturgeon did not detect significant dif- ference in the number of larvae captured below each rock type used to construct reefs, indicating all reef materials per- formed equally well (Bouckaert et al., 2014). BASF, Riverview, 4,050 m2 (30–90 cm Assessment limited to setlines and minnow Michigan – 2008 limestone) traps. Each spring since 2008 spawning ready Lake Sturgeon continue to be cap- tured at the Riverview site (Briggs et al., 2014, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2016). Fighting Island, 4,860 m2 expansion of Assessment included spring egg mats, set- LaSalle, the 2008 reefs), one lines, minnow traps, and gillnets, and Ontario – 2013 reef bed, one rock type fall gillnets and egg mats. Lake (15–30 cm limestone) Sturgeon, Walleye, Lake Whitefish, Catostomidae species, and Troutperch eggs were collected over the first spawn- ing season available and continue to be collected (Prichard et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2018). Adult Lake Sturgeon catch- per-effort continues to be highest in the Detroit River at these reefs and associ- ated channel. Gillnet and minnow trap assessments captured 20 native fishes, including commercially and recreation- ally important species. For the first time in the Detroit River Burbot (Lota lota) were captured each year since 2015 at this site (Briggs et al., 2014, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2016). Grassy Island, 1.62 ha one continuous Pre- and post-construction assessment Wyandotte, reef (upstream of Grassy included spring and fall egg mats, min- Michigan – 2015 now traps, and gillnets. Lake Sturgeon, (Continued on next page)
ERCA BoD 216 of 219 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 467
Table 4. Fish spawning reefs constructed in the Detroit River and post-project assessments of effectiveness. (Continued)
Spawning Reef and Year Size/Description Post-Project Assessment Island, one rock type Walleye, and Lake Whitefish (Fischer (10–20 cm limestone) et al., 2018), and Catostomidae eggs, were collected over the constructed reef. Monitoring of adults for three indicator species (Walleye, White Sucker, and Redhorse) showed no statistical differen- ces detected between pre- and post-con- struction assessments. However, post- construction gillnetting showed general trends of increasing numbers of most species. A total of 10 species were cap- tured (Briggs et al., 2014, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2016). Belle Isle, Detroit, Total area 1.62 ha; Pre-construction assessments included Michigan (Three Three individual spring and fall egg mats, minnow traps, reefs located N reefs, one rock type and gillnets. A total of 12 species were and NE of head (10–20 cm limestone) captured with minnow traps and gillnets of Island) – 2016 (Briggs et al., 2014, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2016). Lake Sturgeon eggs were not collected prior to reef construction, but were observed in 2017, following reef construction. Walleye and Catostomidae eggs were also collected over the reefs. Fort Wayne, Detroit, 9,310 m2 one continuous Reef constructed in fall of 2017; post-pro- Michigan – 2017 reef, one rock type ject monitoring will begin in 2018 (10–20 cm limestone) River wide 2005–2016 data indicated Lake Sturgeon assessments – eggs were almost exclusively collected 2005–2017 at artificial reef sites and that there was a statistically higher number of eggs col- lected at artificial reef sites than else- where in the St. Clair-Detroit River System (Fischer et al., 2018). Conversely, fewer Walleye and Lake Whitefish eggs were collected at artifi- cial reef sites compared to natural spawning areas sampled concurrently. Genetic analysis of larval Lake Sturgeon hatched from eggs collected over the Middle Channel (St. Clair River) and Fighting Island Reefs from 2009–2012 indicated the number of spawning adults using the reefs is large enough to main- tain genetic diversity and population per- sistence (Marranca et al., 2015).
ERCA BoD 217 of 219 468 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 reproduction in the 2000s was now more limited number of breeding pairs was 361 across the by habitat than environmental quality. region, with a 780 goal by 2020 (Norwood et al., In response, nine fish spawning reefs were 2011). The interim goal for productivity is to constructed in the Detroit River in suitable areas reach at least 1.0 chick per nest across all colo- that provided proper conditions and were in close nies four out of every five years or a five-year proximity to critical nursery habitats (Table 4). mean of at least 1.0 chick per nest across all col- All were successful (Fischer et al., 2018). Two onies. Close coupling of monitoring and manage- things that stand out in these reef projects are ment will be required to achieve the Common that fishery biologists were the primary cham- Tern restoration target. pions for the reefs and that these reef projects were treated as experiments and included signifi- cant post-project assessment of effectiveness. Conclusions and lessons learned Over the past 32 years considerable soft shore- line, fish spawning reef, and Common Tern habi- Common Tern habitat restoration tat restoration has occurred in and along the One good example of a species that benefits Detroit River. Despite this progress, more habitat from wildlife habitat restoration is the Common restoration will be needed to meet long-term eco- Tern (Sterna hirundo) – a colonial waterbird that logical goals. To sustain restoration efforts, con- has been designated as threatened and a “Species tinuous and vigorous public oversight of of Greatest Conservation Concern” in Michigan shoreline and riparian habitat, and development, (Eagle et al., 2005). Common Terns have will be needed. Key lessons learned include: declined in the last three decades across the Great ensure early involvement of habitat experts in Lakes (Norwood et al., 2011). In the Detroit project design; establish quantitative targets for River there has been a 96% decline over the last project success; ensure sound multidisciplinary 50 years. In the last few decades, Common Tern technical support; start with demonstration proj- management has focused on artificial sites, ects; treat habitat projects as experiments; involve including dredge spoil islands, navigational piers, citizen scientists in monitoring; conduct pre- and and breakwaters (Cuthbert et al., 2003). post-monitoring to measure benefits; communi- Most recently, Common Tern nesting habitat cate and celebrate successes; and promote educa- was created on Stony Island (2017) and Belle Isle tion and outreach. (2008 and 2010). Over 30 Common Terns showed an affinity for the Stoney Island habitat References before construction was complete. In 2016, the Detroit Zoo and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bouckaert, E.K., Auer, N.A., Roseman, E.F., Boase, J., 2014. observed 24 active nests at the Belle Isle habitat. Verifying success of artificial spawning reefs in the St. In the late 2000s, Common Tern habitat was Clair-Detroit River System for lake sturgeon (Acipenser enhanced at the two bridges to Grosse Ile and the fulvescens Rafinesque, 1817). Journal of Applied River Rouge Power Plant. Monitoring docu- Ichthyology 30, 1393–1401. mented approximately 200 nesting pairs using the Briggs, A. S., Chiotti, J. A., Boase, J.C., 2015. 2014 native species report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena habitat at the Grosse Ile bridges, but none at the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office – Waterford Rouge River Power Plant. Substation, Report No. 01. Waterford, Michigan, USA. A U.S.-Canada roundtable was convened with Briggs, A. S., Kaulfersch, L.A., Chiotti, J.A., Johnson, J.L., Common Tern managers and experts to establish Boase, J.C., 2016. 2015 native species report. U.S. Fish an appropriate interim, quantitative target for the and Wildlife Service, Alpena Fish and Wildlife number of breeding pairs and their productivity Conservation Office – Waterford Substation. Waterford, that considers the population ecology of the spe- Michigan, USA. cies (Norwood et al., 2011). Resource managers Caswell, N.M., Peterson, D.L., Manny, B.A., Kennedy, G.W., 2004. Spawning by lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and researchers agreed that there should be in the Detroit River. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 20, expansion into new colony sites, including pos- 1–6. sibly Fighting Island, Boblo Island, and Sugar Caulk, A.D., Gannon, J.E., Shaw, J.R., Hartig, J.H., 2000. Island piers. The previous five-year mean for the Best management practices for soft engineering of
ERCA BoD 218 of 219 Hartig et al./Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 21 (2018) 458–469 469
shorelines. Greater Detroit American Heritage River Legge, S., 2015. A plea for inserting evidence-based manage- Initiative, Detroit, Michigan, USA. ment into conservation practice. Animal Conservation. Cuthbert, F. J., Wires, L.R., Timmerman, K., 2003. Status 8(2), 113–116. assessment and conservation recommendations for the Manny, B.A., 2002. Habitat protection and remediation, common tern (Sterna hirundo) in the Great Lakes region. Detroit River. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Service, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. Manny, B.A., 2003. Setting priorities for conserving and reha- Detroit River Public Advisory Committee, 2014. Targets for bilitating Detroit River habitats. In: J.H. Hartig (Ed.), removal of “loss of fish and wildlife habitat” and Honoring Our Detroit River: Caring for Our Home, pp. “degradation of fish and wildlife populations” beneficial 79–90. Cranbrook Institute of Science: Bloomfield Hills, use impairments of the Detroit River Area of Concern. MI, USA. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: Taylor, Manny, B.A., 2006. Monitoring element of the Belle Isle/ Michigan, USA. Detroit River Sturgeon Habitat Restoration, Monitoring, Eagle, A.C., Hay-Chmielewski, E.M., Cleveland, K.T., and Education Project. Report to Michigan Sea Grant, Derosier, A.L., Herbert, M.E., Rustem, R.A., 2005. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Manny, B. A., Daley, B.A., Boase, J.C., Horne, A.N., Chiotti, Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. USA. J.A., 2014. Occurrence, habitat, and movements of the Esman, L.A., 2008. The Michigan Department of endangered northern madtom (Noturus stigmosus) in the Environmental Quality Biennial Remedial Action Plan Detroit River, 2003-2011. Journal of Great Lakes Update for the Detroit River Area of Concern. Michigan Research 40, 118–124. Department of Environmental Quality, Lansing, Michigan. Marranca, J.M., Welsh, A.B., Roseman, E.F., 2015. Genetic Essex Region Conservation Authority, 2012. Detroit River effects of habitat restoration in the Laurentian Great Shoreline Assessment Report. Essex Region Conservation Lakes: an assessment of lake sturgeon origin and genetic Authority, Essex, Ontario, Canada. diversity. Restoration Ecology 23, 455–464. Essex Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Detroit River Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Ontario Canadian Shore Restoration Alternatives Selection Ministry of the Environment, 1991. Stage 1 Remedial Manual: Selection Matrix User’s Guide. Essex, Ontario. Action Plan for the Detroit River Area of Concern. Fischer, J.L., Pritt, J.J., Roseman, E.F., Prichard, C.G., Craig, Lansing, Michigan, USA and Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. J.M., Kennedy, G.W., Manny, B.A., 2018. Lake Sturgeon, Norwood, G., Schneider, T., Jozwiak, J., Cook, A., Hartig, Lake Whitefish, and Walleye Egg Deposition Patterns J.H., 2011. Establishing targets and endpoints for common with Response to Fish Spawning Substrate Restoration in tern recovery at Detroit River and western Lake Erie. the St. Clair-Detroit River System. Transactions of the Final report to Environmental Protection Agency. Detroit American Fisheries Society 147, 79–93. River International Wildlife Refuge, Grosse Ile, Michigan, Hartig, J.H., 2014. Bringing Conservation to Cities: Lessons USA. from Building the Detroit River International Wildlife Pearsall, D., de Grammont, P.C., Cavalieri, C., Chu, C., Refuge. Ecovision World Monograph Series, Aquatic Doran, P., Elbing, L., Ewert, D., Hall, K., Herbert, M., Ecosystem Health and Management Society, Burlington, Khoury, M., 2012. Returning to a Healthy Lake: Lake Ontario. Erie Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. The Nature Hartig, J.H., Bennion, D., 2017. Historical loss and current Conservancy. Lansing, Michigan, USA. rehabilitation of shoreline habitat along an urban-industrial Prichard, C.G., Craig, J., Roseman, E.F., Fischer, J.L., river – Detroit River, Michigan, USA. Sustainability 9(5), Manny, B.A., Kennedy, G., 2017. Egg deposition by litho- 828–848. philic spawning fishes in the St. Clair-Detroit River Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Cook, A., 2011. Soft shoreline System, USA, 2005-2014. U.S. Geological Survey engineering survey of ecological effectiveness. Ecological Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5003, Ann Arbor, Engineering. 37, 1231–1238. Michigan, USA. Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Corkum, L.D., Green, N., Ellison, Roseman, E. Manny, B., Boase, J., Child, M., Kennedy, G., R., Cook, A., Green, E., and Norwood, G., 2014. Habitat Craig, J., Soper, K., Drouin, R., 2011. Lake sturgeon management lessons learned from the environs of the response to a spawning reef constructed in the Detroit Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Journal of River. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27(2), 66–76. Great Lakes Research. 40, Supplement 2, 31–36. Schmidt, B.A., Wigren, P.L, Johnson, J.L., Fischer, L.A., International Joint Commission, 1985. Report on Great Lakes Chiotti, J.A., Boase, J.C., 2017. 2016 Native Species water quality. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office- Ontario, Canada. Waterford Substation, Waterford, Michigan, USA.
ERCA BoD 219 of 219