board of directors meeting no. bod-05-19 friday, may 24 ... documents/board/bod... · the lsrca...

Upcoming Events

2019

Wednesday, June 12th Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation 6:00 p.m. 31st Annual Conservation Dinner Manor at Carrying Place Golf and Country Club 16750 Weston Road, Kettleby Friday, June 28th Board of Directors’ Meeting 9:00 a.m. 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket Thursday, November 7th LSRCA 38th Annual Conservation Awards Ceremony 6:00 p.m. Madsen’s Banquet Hall 160 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket Events are also listed on our Events Page on our website: http://lsrca.on.ca/events/

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting No. BOD-05-19

Friday, May 24, 2019

9:00 A.M.

AGENDA

Meeting Location: 120 Bayview Parkway

Newmarket, ON

Minutes and agendas are available on our website: http://lsrca.on.ca/

http://lsrca.on.ca/events/

http://lsrca.on.ca/

LSRCA – Board of Directors Meeting Agenda BOD-05-19 May 24, 2019 - of 5

I. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Pages 1-5

RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda for the May 24, 2019 meeting of the LSRCA Board of Directors be approved as presented.

III. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

a) Board of Directors Pages 6-11 Included in the agenda is a copy of the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-04-19 held on Friday, April 26, 2019. RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-04-19

held on Friday, April 26, 2019 be approved as circulated. b) Conservation Ontario Council Pages 12-21 Included in the agenda is a copy of the minutes of Conservation Ontario Council Meeting #1/19 held on Monday, April 1, 2019. RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes of Conservation Ontario Council Meeting #1/19

held on Monday, April 1, 2019 be received for information.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

V. PRESENTATIONS

a) Freshwater Roundtable - Engaging New Partners in Salt Reduction Pages 22-26 Manager of Watershed Plans and Strategies, Bill Thompson, will provide the Board with an overview of the Freshwater Roundtable - Engaging New Partners in Salt Reduction. This presentation will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by Manager of Watershed Plans and

Strategies, Bill Thompson, regarding the Freshwater Roundtable be received for information.

Page 2 of 107


Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD prepared by Manager of Watershed Plans and Strategies, Bill Thompson, regarding the Freshwater Roundtable - Engaging New Partners in Salt Reduction is included in the agenda. RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD regarding LSRCA’s approach to

engaging the commercial sector in salt reduction through the Freshwater Roundtable be received for information.

b) Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) Posting No. 013-5018:

Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act Pages 27-32

Chief Administrative Officer, Mike Walters, will provide the Board with an overview of LSRCA’s comments regarding the ERO Posting No. 013-5018: Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act. This presentation will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by Chief Administrative Officer, Mike

Walters, regarding an overview of LSRCA’s comments regarding the ERO Posting No. 013-5018: Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act be received for information.

Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD prepared by Chief Administrative Officer, Mike Walters regarding LSRCA’s comments on the ERO Posting No. 013-5018: Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act is included in the agenda.

RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD and attached comments in

response to Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting No 013-5018, Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation Authorities Act be received; and

FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate final comments to

LSRCA’s member municipalities, Conservation Ontario and Lake Simcoe watershed MPPs.

VI. HEARINGS

There are no Hearings scheduled for this meeting.

VII. DEPUTATIONS There are no Deputations scheduled for this meeting.

Page 3 of 107


VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION (Reference Pages 4 and 5 of the agenda)

IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

XI. CLOSED SESSION

There are no Closed Session items for this meeting.

XII. OTHER BUSINESS

Next Meeting The next meeting of the LSRCA Board of Directors will be held at @ 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 28, 2019. This meeting will be held at LSRCA’s offices located at 120 Bayview Parkway in Newmarket.

XIII. ADJOURNMENT

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Correspondence

Pages 33-45 Correspondence items included in this agenda are as follows: a) Town of Wasaga Beach Staff Report dated May 9, 2019 regarding Regional Review

comments.

RECOMMENDED: THAT correspondence listed in the agenda as Item 1a be received for information.

2. LSRCA’s Offsetting Policies Housekeeping Policies Amendments Pages 46-100 RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD regarding proposed amendments

to LSRCA’s Ecological Offsetting Plan, the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Water Budget Policy for 48.-DP and 6.40-DP be approved.

Page 4 of 107


3. Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) Posting No. 013-4992:

Focusing conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and property Pages 101-107

RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 31-19-BOD regarding Comments – Focusing

Conservation Authority Permits on the Protection of People and Property – Proposed Changes to Conservation Authority Regulations and Permitting be received; and

FURTHER THAT Staff continue to track and participate with

Conservation Ontario and the Province as potential changes or amendments are clarified; and

FURTHER THAT Staff provide updates to the Board of Directors as

required.

Page 5 of 107

LSRCA Board Members Present: LSRCA Staff Present:

Regional Chairman W. Emmerson, Chair M. Walters, Chief Administrative Officer

Mayor D. Barton C. Ali, GM, Watershed Restoration Services

Mayor D. Bath-Hadden R. Baldwin, GM Planning & Development

Mayor B. Drew M. Critch, GM, Corporate and Financial Services & CFO

Councillor A. Eek B. Kemp, GM, Conservation Lands

Councillor P. Ferragine B. Longstaff, GM, Integrated Watershed Management

Councillor W. Gaertner K. Christensen, Director, Human Resources

Mayor V. Hackson K. Yemm, Director, Corporate Communications & Engagement

Councillor N. Harris T. Barnett, Coordinator, BOD/CAO

Councillor S. Harrison-McIntyre S. Auger, Stormwater Management Coordinator

Mayor M. Quirk A. Brown, Senior Environmental Regulations Analyst

Councillor C. Riepma S. Jagminas, Senior Communications Advisor

Regional Councillor T. Vegh D. Lembcke, Manager, Environmental Science and Monitoring

Councillor A. Waters A. Mason, Environmental Compliance Officer

Councillor E. Yeo S. McKinnon, Manager, Budget and Business Analysis

C. Sharp, Restoration Program Coordinator

Regrets: C. Taylor, Executive Director, LSCF

Councillor S. Macpherson, Vice Chair K. Toffan, Manager, Finance

Councillor K. Ferdinands A. Vandersluis, Urban Restoration Assistant

Township of Ramara

Guests:

Councillor R. Gilliland, Town of Aurora

Councillor T. Lauer, City of Orillia

T. Patterson, Freeman Associates

T. White, BDO Canada LLP

I. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

None noted for this meeting.

II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Moved by: D. Barton Seconded by: A. Eek

BOD-060-19 RESOLVED THAT the content of the Agenda for the April 26, 2019 meeting of the LSRCA

Board of Directors be approved as presented. CARRIED

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING

No. BOD-04-19 – Friday, April 26, 2019

120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, ON

MINUTES

of 107

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-04-19 April 26, 2019 – Minutes Page 2 of 6

III. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

a) Board of Directors’ Meeting – March 22, 2019

Moved by: S. Harrison-McIntyre Seconded by: P. Ferragine BOD-061-19 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-03-19 held on

Friday, March 22, 2019 be approved as circulated. CARRIED

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

a) CAO Mike Walters advised that LSRCA’s Annual Conservation Awards evening will be held on Thursday, November 7th at Madsen’s Gardens, located at 160 Bayview Parkway in Newmarket. Nominations are now open until June 14th and can be made through the following link: 2019 Conservation Award Nomination Form. For assistance, please contact Katarina Zeppieri @ 905-895-1281 ext 116 or [email protected].

b) CAO Walters advised that LSRCA’s Communications team worked with LSRCA’s Limnologist, Dr. Brian

Ginn to hold a Facebook live segment of the Lake Doctor, where followers had their questions answered live, as well as after the fact. Check out LSRCA’s Facebook page for details.

c) CAO Walters was very pleased to advise that on April 1st, LSRCA’s Chair Wayne Emmerson became

the Chair of Conservation Ontario, a non-profit association that represents Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities. For more information, please click this link for Conservation Ontario.

d) Chair Emmerson advised that on April 10th, LSRCA was well represented on Georgina Roger’s TV show Politically Speaking – Issues and Insights, when Mike Walters was interviewed on the health of Lake Simcoe.

V. PRESENTATIONS

a) LSRCA’s 2018 Audit Findings by BDO Canada LLP General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services, Mark Critch introduced Trudy White of BDO Canada LLP, who provided the Board with an overview of the 2018 audit findings. BDO’s final report to the Board of Directors was included in the agenda. Ms. White advised Board members that BDO conducted its audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards with the objective of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The audit focused on risks specific to the business and key accounts. Internal controls were reviewed, and no controls were found that needed adjustment. LSRCA’s 2018 system conversion was tested and found to be done properly, and additional testing on journal entries was performed for reasonableness. She reported that no adjustments were required on the financial statements, which is very good and very rare.

Moved by: V. Hackson Seconded by: T. Vegh

BOD-062-19 RESOLVED THAT the presentation by BDO Canada LLP regarding 2018 LSRCA’s Audit Report be received for information. CARRIED

of 107

https://lsrca.formstack.com/forms/award_nomination_2019

https://lsrca.formstack.com/forms/award_nomination_2019

mailto:[email protected]

https://conservationontario.ca/


The Board approved Staff Report No. 21-19-BOD prepared by Manager, Finance, Katherine Toffan, regarding the 2018 Draft Audited Financial Statements.

Moved by: V. Hackson Seconded by: B. Drew

BOD-063-19 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 21-19-BOD regarding LSRCA’s 2018 Draft Audited Financial Statements be received; and

FURTHER THAT the 2018 Draft Audited Financial Statements be approved; and

FURTHER THAT the Appropriations to and from Reserves as outlined in Schedule 8 of the

2018 Draft Audited Financial Statements be approved; and

FURTHER THAT the pending 2018 Audited Financial Statements be distributed to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and LSRCA’s banker. CARRIED

b) LSRCA’s Stormwater Management Optimization Study General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, Ben Longstaff, along with Tracy Patterson of Freeman Associates Ltd., provided an overview and update on LSRCA’s Stormwater Management (SWM) Optimization Study. Ms. Patterson noted there are significant issues within municipalities around aging infrastructure and extreme weather events, and lots of research has been done for best practices, and what is not working is managing stormwater within the municipal boundaries. A paradigm shift in SWM is needed from an individual municipality approach to a shared municipal approach. The East Holland River was chosen as the study area as it boarders five municipalities, has lots of growth and development and is a nice size from a hydrologic and cost analysis perspective. The study objectives included: using processed-based decision modelling to evaluate the potential of an integrated, systems-based approach to SWM infrastructure; determining the operational implications (policy, programming, finance, etc.) of an integrated or systems-based approach to municipal SWM, and developing the tools and guidance for future SWM applications. She went on to note that the watershed needs to be considered as a whole, so that issues and infrastructure can be addressed upstream where needed.

GM Longstaff outlined the various funders of this project, as well as the three project stages: Stage 1 (2018): Secure funds, project team and advisory committee, model data compilation, and initiate build; Stage 2 (2019): Complete model build and life cycle costing, optimization modeling and scenarios - preferred management strategies, and initiate life cycle costing, and Stage 3 (2020): Reporting, outreach and engagement, policy implications and implementation plan. GM Longstaff went on to note the progress made, including; establishing and engaging a multi-stakeholder technical advisory committee, selecting a consultant to complete optimization modeling through a competitive bid process, near completion of all data compilation and current state model configuration, as well as the development of an economic analysis framework and the collection and processing of financial data for the cost-benefit analysis.

of 107


CAO Walters thanked Ms. Patterson and GM Longstaff and noted that this concept is leading edge and is being shared and presented across Canada. It is the best way to optimize offsetting money and will inform SWM decision making. To view this presentation, please click this link: Stormwater Management Optimization Study Update

Moved by: T. Vegh Seconded by: D. Barton

BOD-064-19 RESOLVED THAT the presentation by Ben Longstaff, General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, and Tracy Patterson of Freeman Associates Ltd. regarding LSRCA’s Stormwater Management Optimization Study be received for information. CARRIED

Staff Report No. 22-19-BOD prepared by General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, Ben Longstaff, regarding LSRCA’s stormwater management optimization study was included in the agenda.

Moved by: T. Vegh Seconded by: D. Barton

BOD-065-19 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 22-19-BOD regarding the amendment of an agreement with Freeman Associates Ltd. for completion of stormwater optimization study funded by the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) be approved. CARRIED

VI. HEARINGS

There were no hearings at this meeting.

VII. DEPUTATIONS There were no deputations at this meeting.

VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Items No. 4 and 5 were identified as items requiring separate discussion.

IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

Items No. 1, 2, and 3 were identified as items not requiring separate discussion. Moved by: C. Riepma Seconded by: A. Eek BOD-066-19 RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as “Items

Not Requiring Separate Discussion” be adopted as submitted to the Board, and staff be authorized to take all necessary action required to give effect to same. CARRIED

1. Correspondence

BOD-067-19 RESOLVED THAT correspondence listed in the agenda as Item 1a) to 1c) be received for information. CARRIED

of 107

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/Stormwater%20optimization%20project%20update_BOD.pdf

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/Stormwater%20optimization%20project%20update_BOD.pdf


2. Adequacy of LSRCA’s Financial Reserves and 2019 Targets BOD-068-19 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 23-19-BOD providing an update on the 2018 year-end

reserve status be received; and

FURTHER THAT the recommended targets for reserve balances in 2019 be approved; and

FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report to the Board of Directors semi-annually on the progress made in achieving the reserve targets, along with an action plan for long-term sustainability. CARRIED

3. Proposed Fee Policy for Non-Profit Organizations BOD-069-19 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 24-19-BOD regarding a proposed addendum to LSRCA’s

Fees Policy to include a Non-Profit Fee Policy that allows fee discretion for registered non-profit organizations that operate to improve social welfare be approved; and

FURTHER THAT the Non-Profit Fee Policy is effective June 1, 2019. CARRIED

X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION 4. Appointment of LSRCA Enforcement Officer General Manager, Planning & Development, Rob Baldwin, was pleased to introduce LSRCA’s newest Enforcement Officer, Amanda Mason, who recently joined Kristin Nyborg on LSRCA’s Enforcement team. Moved by: D. Bath-Hadden Seconded by: E. Yeo

BOD-070-19 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 25-19-BOD regarding the appointment of Ms. Amanda Mason as an Enforcement Officer for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act be approved. CARRIED

5. Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations;

Conservation Authorities Act posting ERO#013-5018 Chair Emmerson asked for a small amendment that the letter being submitted includes a comment that LSRCA’s Board meeting is after the submission date, and accordingly additional comments could be forthcoming once the Board has done its review.

Moved by: N. Harris Seconded by: P. Ferragine BOD-071-19 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 26-19-BOD providing an update on the proposed

Environmental Registry of Ontario posting entitled Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations; Conservation Authorities Act, posting ERO#013-5018 be received; and

FURTHER THAT staff be directed to provide draft comments to the Board of Directors for

review on May 13, 2019 and that proposed changes be considered for the final submission to the Province on May 21, 2019; and

of 107


FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board of Directors at the May 24, 2019 Board of

Directors’ meeting to present the final comments as submitted; and FURTHER THAT the final comments be circulated to LSRCA’s member municipalities.

CARRIED

XI. CLOSED SESSION

The Board moved to Closed Session to deal with a confidential human resources matter. Moved by: A. Waters Seconded by: B. Drew BOD-072-19 RESOLVED THAT the Board move to Closed Session to deal with a confidential human

resources matter; and FURTHER THAT the Chief Administrative Officer, members of the Executive Management

Team, and the Coordinator BOD/CAO remain in the meeting for the discussion. CARRIED Moved by: D. Barton Seconded by: N. Harris BOD-073-19 RESOLVED THAT the Board rise from Closed Session and report findings. CARRIED

a) Human Resources Matter Moved by: D. Barton Seconded by: C. Riepma BOD-074-19 RESOLVED THAT Confidential Staff Report No. 27-19-BOD regarding a confidential human

resources matter be endorsed. CARRIED

XII. OTHER BUSINESS a) Mayor Hackson asked for an update on flooding around the watershed. General Manager, Planning

& Development, Rob Baldwin noted there is no large scale flooding at this time, but rather some reports of localized flooding. He asked that municipalities please let us know of any conditions that are reported. He also noted that LSRCA’s flood team is compiling a database of flood events and are interested in receiving any photos for their database. Photos can be sent directly to Director, Engineering, Tom Hogenbirk, at [email protected].

XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: E. Yeo Seconded by: D. Bath-Hadden BOD-075-19 RESOLVED THAT the meeting be adjourned @ 11:40 a.m. CARRIED Original to be signed by: Original to be signed by: Regional Chairman W. Emmerson Michael Walters Chair Chief Administrative Officer

of 107


1

COUNCIL MEETING Minutes from Meeting #1/19 April 1, 2019 Black Creek Pioneer Village

Voting Delegates Present: Chair: Don MacIver, Credit Valley Brian Horner, Ausable Bayfield Alan Revill, Cataraqui Region Geoff Rae, Cataraqui Region Rick Cerna, Catfish Creek Chris Wilkinson, Catfish Creek Chris Darling, Central Lake Ontario Karen Ras, Credit Valley Deb Martin-Downs, Credit Valley Richard Wyma, Essex Region Linda Laliberte, Ganaraska Region Joe Farwell, Grand River Cathy Little, Grey Sauble Sonya Skinner, Grey Sauble Susan Fielding, Hamilton Lisa Burnside, Hamilton Ted Smith, Kawartha Mark Majchrowski, Kawartha Elizabeth VanHooren, Kettle Creek Wayne Emmerson, Lake Simcoe Region Scott MacPherson, Lake Simcoe Region Mike Walters, Lake Simcoe Region Michael Columbus, Long Point Region Judy Maxwell, Long Point Region Mark Peacock, Lower Thames Valley Jim Alyea, Lower Trent Glenda Rodgers, Lower Trent

Dave Turton, Maitland Valley Jeff Atkinson, Mississippi Sally McIntryre, Mississippi Dave Bylsma, Niagara Peninsula Diana Huson, Niagara Peninsula Gayle Wood, Niagara Peninsula Lin Gibson, Nickel District (Con.Sudbury) Carl Jorgensen, Nickel District (Con.Sudbury) George Watson, Nottawasaga Valley Doug Hevenor, Nottawasaga Valley Andy Mitchell, Otonabee Dan Marinigh, Otonabee James Flieler, Quinte Frank Prevost, Raisin Region Richard Pilon, Raisin Region Pieter Leenhouts, Rideau Valley Sommer Casgrain-Robertson, Rideau Valley Dan Gieruszak, Saugeen Maureen Couture, Saugeen Wayne Brohman, Saugeen Bill Smirle, South Nation George Darouze, South Nation Angela Coleman, South Nation Joe Faas, St. Clair Region Brian McDougall, St. Clair Region Sandy Levin, Upper Thames River Ian Wilcox, Upper Thames River

Members Absent: Lakehead Region Mattagami Region

Guests: Geoff Dawe, Lake Simcoe Region Phil Beard, Maitland Mark Burnham, Mississippi Valley Brad McNevin, Quinte

CO Staff: Kristin Bristow Kim Gavine Nicholas Fischer Bonnie Fox Chitra Gowda

Jane Lewington Nekeisha Mohammed Leslie Rich Jo-Anne Rzadki Rick Wilson

of 107

2

1. Welcome from the Chair • Introductions • Glenda Rodgers Retirement Acknowledgement • Matthew Millar – CO staff - Acknowledgement • Gayle Wood – NPCA Biennial Tour – noted that the tour is delayed to September 2020 • Council Survey – additional question regarding location • Don MacIver thanked the outgoing CO Board members for their contributions and asked them

for a brief address on their experiences

2. Adoption of the Agenda

#01/19 Moved by: Lin Gibson Seconded by: Bill Smirle

THAT the Agenda be adopted as amended. CARRIED

3. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 4. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting

#02/19 Moved by: Cathy Little Seconded by: Dan Gieruszak

THAT the minutes from the meeting December 10, 2018 be approved.

CARRIED

5. Business Arising from the Minutes

6. Adoption of the 2018 Audited Financial Statements, Final Report to the Budget and Audit Committee & Appointment of Auditors for 2019

#03/19 Moved by: Richard Pilon Seconded by: Alan Revill THAT the Final Report to the Conservation Ontario Budget & Audit Committee be received; THAT Conservation Ontario accept the Budget and Audit Committee’s recommendation that the Financial Statements of Conservation Ontario for the year ended December 31, 2018 be approved; AND THAT Conservation Ontario appoint BDO as its auditor for the 2019 audit.

CARRIED

7. Conservation Ontario’s 2018 Annual Report & Presentation Don MacIver provided an overview of the Annual Report presentation with some detail about the process and related to that report.

#04/19 Moved by: Joe Farwell Seconded by: George Watson THAT Conservation Ontario Council adopt the 2018 Annual Report.

CARRIED

8. Council Voting Delegates & Alternates of 107

3

The following corrections were made to the Voting Delegate List:

Ausable Bayfield Conservation: Alternate: Doug Cook 2nd Alternate: Brian Horner Grand River Conservation Authority: Voting Delegate: Helen Jowett Alternate: Joe Farwell Saugeen Valley Conservation: Alternate: Maureen Couture

Lake Simcoe Region Conservaton Authority: Alternate: Scott MacPherson 2nd Alternate: Mike Walters Quinte Conservation: Alternate: James Fleiler 2nd Alternate: Janice Maynard

#05/19 Moved by: Pieter Leenhouts Seconded by: Cathy Little

THAT the Voting Delegates and Alternates List be accepted as amended. CARRIED

9. Orientation for New Council Members

Jane Lewington provided Council members with an orientation which is attached to the minutes.

10. Election of Conservation Ontario Chair, 2 Vice Chairs and 3 Directors

The proceedings were handed over to Kim Gavine (CO). All the positions were declared vacant for 2019 and the election procedures were reviewed.

#06/19 Moved by: Lin Gibson Seconded by: Joe Farwell THAT Jane Lewington and Rick Wilson be appointed as scrutineers in the event of a vote.

CARRIED

Kim Gavine called for nominations for Chair of Conservation Ontario for 2019. Karen Ras nominated Wayne Emmerson Kim Gavine called a second and third time for nominations and hearing none called for a motion to close the nominations. #07/19 Moved by: Bill Smirle Seconded by: Pieter Leenhouts THAT the nominations for Chair of Conservation Ontario for 2019 be closed.

CARRIED Wayne Emmerson accepted his nomination and was declared Chair of Conservation Ontario for 2019. Kim called for nominations for Vice Chairs of Conservation Ontario for 2019. Cathy Little nominated Lin Gibson Pieter Leinhouts nominated Alan Revill Kim called a second and third time for nominations and hearing none called for a motion to close the nominations.

of 107

4

#08/19 Moved by: Joe Farwell Seconded by: Mark Peacock THAT the nominations for Vice Chairs of Conservation Ontario for 2019 be closed.

CARRIED

Lin Gibson and Alan Revill accepted their nominations and were declared Vice Chairs for Conservation Ontario for 2019. Kim Gavine called for nominations for the Directors (staff positions) for 2019. Joe Farwell nominated Richard Wyma Jim Alya nominated Linda Laliberte Wayne Emerson nominated Deb Martin–Downs – Deb Martin-Downs stood aside for this position Kim Gavine called a second and third time for nominations and hearing none called for a motion to close the nominations. #09/19 Moved by: Jim Alyea Seconded by: Ted Smith THAT the nominations for staff Directors of Conservation Ontario for 2019 be closed.

CARRIED Linda Laliberte and Richard Wyma accepted their nominations and were declared Directors of Conservation Ontario. Kim called for nominations for Director for Conservation Ontario for 2019. Wayne Emmerson nominated Deb-Martin Downs Kim Gavine called a second and third time for nominations and hearing none called for a motion to close the nominations. #10/19 Moved by: Joe Farwell Seconded by: Linda Laliberte THAT the nominations for the Director of Conservation Ontario for 2019 be closed.

CARRIED Deb Martin-Downs accepted her nomination and was declared Director of Conservation Ontario.

Wayne Emmerson presided as Chair for the remainder of the meeting. 11. Standing Committee Representatives

#11/19 Moved by: Deb Martin-Downs Seconded by: Alan Revill

THAT the appointment of the Budget and Audit Standing Committee membership (as identified below) be ratified. THAT the appointment of the Group Insurance and Benefits Committee membership (as identified below) be ratified. THAT the appointment of the Occupational Health and Safety/Risk Management Committee membership (as identified below) be ratified.

CARRIED

12. Motion to move from Full Council to Committee of the Whole

of 107

5

#12/19 Moved by: Joe Farwell Seconded by: Lin Gibson THAT the meeting now move from Full Council to Committee of the Whole.

CARRIED 13. Discussion Items

(Item 14b) from Consent Agenda

Conservation Ontario’s Comments on the “Consultation: Increasing Housing Supply in Ontario” (ERO #013-4190) and Conservation Ontario’s Blog Post “Putting Growth in the Right Spot Ensures Public Health and Safety: A Response to the Housing Supply Consultation”

C.W. #01/19 Moved by: Deb Martin-Downs Seconded by: Joe Farwell

THAT Conservation Ontario’s comments on the “Consultation: Increasing Housing Supply in Ontario” (ERO #013-4190) dated January 29, 2019 be endorsed.

CARRIED

a) General Manager’s Report

Deb Martin-Downs noted that retaining Strategy Corp was a positive decision for our strategic government relations work. Wayne Emmerson noted that the BILD connection with CO is a positive one and that the meeting with Minister Phillips is an important one to have.

C.W. #02/19 Moved by: Lin Gibson Seconded by: Dan Gieruszak THAT Council Ontario Council receives this report as information.

CARRIED

b) Proposed Collective Conservation Authority Core Mandate and Objectives; and Conservation Ontario Client Service and Streamlining Initiative; and Representatives for leadership and support Committees

i) C.W. #03/19 Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Alan Revill

THAT Conservation Ontario Council endorse the “Collective Conservation Authority Mandate and Objectives” for consistent use by CAs;

CARRIED

John Mackenzie commented on the lack of reference to CA education programs in the core mandate. It was explained that the core mandate and objectives are communicated at a high level and education was intended to be covered by the “connect people to the natural environment” but that it could be made more explicit. ii) C.W. #04/19 Moved by: Andy Mitchell Seconded by: Scott MacPherson

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;

of 107

6

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 BE IT RESOLVED THAT Conservation Ontario Council endorse the Client Service and Streamlining Initiative (as amended) and that the resolution be sent to our clients, represented by Ontario Homebuilders Association (OHBA), Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Environment, Conservation and Parks; and, Natural Resources and Forestry; AND THAT Conservation Ontario Council request that all Conservation Authority Boards endorse a commitment to pursue streamlining and client service measures in order to contribute to achieving provincial priorities and to send such a resolution to local Municipal Councils and MPPs;

CARRIED Bonnie directed the Council to the detailed report in the agenda and provided an overview of the three action areas (1.Improve client service and accountability; 2. Increase speed of approvals; and, 3. Reduce red tape and regulatory burden) identified in the CO Client Service and Streamlining Initiative (Attachment 2, pp66-67). Further to discussion, Bonnie noted that the committee recommendations will be guidelines and best practices for all CAs to consider in their local context and not requirements for all CAs. For clarity, Council requested that each of the three client service and streamlining action areas, identified to help the Province address the demand for housing supply, include a reference to ‘protecting public health and safety, and, the environment’. The resolution includes “…endorse the Client Service and Streamlining Initiative (as amended)…” to enable incorporation of this amendment. iii) C.W. #05/19 Moved by: Bill Smirle Seconded by: Susan Fielding

THAT Joe Farwell (Grand River Conservation Authority); Mike Walters (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority); Chris Darling (Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority); Brian Tayler (North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority); Deborah Martin-Downs (Credit Valley Conservation); Sommer Casgrain-Robertson (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority); and, Angela Coleman (South Nation Conservation) be endorsed as members of the Conservation Ontario Client Service and Streamlining Initiative Steering Committee

CARRIED iv) C.W. #06/19 C.W. #07/19 Moved by: Lin Gibson Seconded by: Joe Farwell

THAT Alison McDonald (South Nation Conservation); Barbara Veale (Conservation Halton); Chris Jones (Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority); Glen McDonald (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority); Michael Nelson (Essex Region Conservation Authority); Nancy Davy (Grand River Conservation Authority); Paula Scott (North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority); Rob Baldwin (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority); Sameer Dhalla (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority); and, Tracy Annett (Upper Thames River Conservation Authority) be endorsed as the Conservation Ontario Timely Review and Approvals Task Force

CARRIED

of 107

7

c) Special Projects Budget 2019

C.W. #08/19 Moved by: Linda Laliberte Seconded by: Dave Turton

THAT the 2019 Special Projects Budget in the amount of $1,186,977 be approved as presented and as recommended by the Budget and Audit Committee.

CARRIED

d) Annual Report: April 2018-March 2019 Conservation Ontario (CO) Representatives and Conservation Authorities Program Discussion Group List

C.W. #08/19 Moved by: Scott MacPherson Seconded by: Alan Revill THAT Conservation Ontario Council receives this report.

CARRIED

e) Program Updates

i. Drinking Water Source Protection

Chitra Gowda provided an overview of the program update for the DWSP program. C.W. #09/19 Moved by: Karen Ras Seconded by: Dave Bylsman

THAT Conservation Ontario Council receives this report as information. CARRIED

ii. Marketing & Communications

Jane Lewington provided an overview of the program update for the Marketing and Communications program. Nekeisha Mohammed provided an overview or the Conservation Ontario Guide to Ontario’s Conservation Areas.

C.W. #10/19 Moved by: Susan Fielding Seconded by: Dan Gierusak THAT Conservation Ontario Council receives this report as information.

CARRIED

iii. Business Development & Partnerships

Jo-Anne Rzadki provided a slide presentation and overview of the Business Development and Partnership program.

C.W. #11/19 Moved by: Rick Cerna Seconded by: Scott MacPherson THAT Angela Coleman (General Manager, Secretary Treasurer-SNC); Tim Mereu (Director, Watershed Management-CVC); Melinda Bessey (Acting Manager, Planning-LSRCA); Ashlea Brown (Senior Environmental Regulations Analyst/Capital Projects Analyst – LSRCA) and Jo-Anne Rzadki (Business Development and Partnerships Coordinator –CO) be endorsed to represent Conservation Ontario on the Federal Flood Risk Land Use Advisory Committee

of 107

8

AND THAT Mark Peacock (CAO/Secretary Treasurer -LTVCA) be endorsed to represent Conservation Ontario on the Natural Research Council Federal Building Code Committee to review changes to address climate change and flood resilience.

CARRIED

iv. Information Management

Rick Wilson provided an overview of the program update for the Information Management program.

C.W. #12/19 Moved by: Bill Smirle Seconded by: Cathy Little

THAT Conservation Ontario Council receives this report as information.

CARRIED 14. Consent Items

C.W. #13/19 Moved by: Ted Smith Seconded by: Lin Gibson THAT Council approve a consent agenda and endorse the recommendations accompanying Items 14a, 14c – 14m.

CARRIED

a) Conservation Ontario’s comments on Schedule 10 of Bill 66: Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018 (ERO#013-4293); the Proposed open-for-business planning tool (ERO#013-4125) and the New Regulation under the Planning Act for open-for-business planning tool (ERO#013-4239)

THAT the comments on Schedule 10 of Bill 66: Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018 (ERO#013-4293); the Proposed open-for-business planning tool (ERO#013-4125) and the New Regulation under the Planning Act for open-for-business planning tool (ERO#013-4239) submitted to the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade on January 18, 2019, be endorsed.

b) Conservation Ontario’s Comments on the “Consultation: Increasing Housing Supply in Ontario”

(ERO #013-4190) and Conservation Ontario’s Blog Post “Putting Growth in the Right Spot Ensures Public Health and Safety: A Response to the Housing Supply Consultation”

c) Conservation Ontario’s comments on “Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan” (ERO#013-4208)

THAT the comments on “Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan” (ERO#013-4208) submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on January 28, 2019, be endorsed.

d) Conservation Ontario’s Comments on the “Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the

Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017” (ERO #013-4504) THAT Conservation Ontario’s comments on the “Proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017” (ERO #013-4504) dated February 28, 2019 be endorsed.

e) Conservation Ontario’s comments on the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species

Act: Discussion Paper” (ERO#013-4143)

of 107

9

THAT the comments on the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper (ERO#013-4143) submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on March 4, 2019, be endorsed.

f) Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee (PFFWC) and Ontario Hydrometric

Program Coordinating Committee (OHPCC) Representatives

THAT Steve Jackson (MVCA) be endorsed as the South West representative on the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee and Dwight Boyd (GRCA) be endorsed as an alternate representative. AND THAT Kurtis Romanchuk (NBMCA) be endorsed as the Northern CA representative on the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee. AND THAT Iryna Shulyarenko (KC) be endorsed as the Central CA representative on the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee and Sameer Dhalla (TRCA) be endorsed as an alternate representative. AND THAT Steve Jackson (MVCA) be endorsed as the CO representative on the Ontario Hydrometric Coordinating Committee and Dwight Boyd (GRCA) be endorsed as an alternate representative.

g) Certified Crop Advisors Representation

THAT Conservation Ontario (CO) Council thank Mark Eastman (CVC) for his contributions as Conservation Ontario representative on the Certified Crop Advisor Association Board of Directors since 2013; AND THAT CO Council endorse Michael Dick (ERCA) as CO representative on the Certified Crop Advisor Association Board of Directors.

h) Conservation Ontario’s comments on the “Proposed regulatory amendments to Ontario

Regulation 267/03 under the Nutrient Management Act (ERO#013-4388)

THAT the comments on the “Proposed regulatory amendments to Ontario Regulation 267/03 under the Nutrient Management Act” (ERO#013-4388) submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on February 22, 2019, be endorsed.

i) Submission of Conservation Ontario’s 2018 Annual Effectiveness Monitoring Report on the Class

Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects

THAT Conservation Ontario’s “2018 Annual Effectiveness Monitoring Report on the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects” be received as information.

j) Update on the Memorandum of Understanding between Conservation Ontario and Hydro One

THAT Conservation Ontario Council receives this report as information.

k) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Executive Committee and Annex Sub-Committees Updates and Decision Items (i) Conservation Ontario’s Comments on “2019 Progress Report of

of 107

10

the Parties” and (ii) Conservation Ontario Representatives for Lake Erie Action Plan (LEAP) Implementation Team

i. THAT Conservation Ontario Council receives this report and, THAT Conservation Ontario’s

comments dated January 31, 2019 on “2019 Progress Report of the Parties” be endorsed

ii. THAT Richard Wyma (ERCA); Brian McDougall (SCRCA) (Nicole Drumm (SCRCA-Alternate)); Joe Farwell (Grand River) (Sandra Cooke (Grand River-Alternate); Ian Wilcox (UTRCA) (Chris Harrington, Karen Maaskant (UTRCA –Alternates)); Mark Peacock (LTVCA) (Jason Wintermute (LTVCA –Alternate)) and Jo-Anne Rzadki (CO) be endorsed as Conservation Ontario’s representatives on the Lake Erie Action Plan Implementation Team

l) Dam Owners Advisory Committee letter to Minister re: Red Tape Reduction – Lakes and Rivers

Improvement Act THAT this report and attached letter to Minister Yakabuski dated January 9, 2019 be received by Conservation Ontario Council for information.

m) Correspondence

• Ottawa River Watershed CAs to Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada • Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks to Conservation Ontario

15. Motion to Move from Committee of the Whole to Full Council

#13/19 Moved by: Joe Farwell Seconded by: Linda Laliberte

CARRIED

16. Council Business – Council Adoption of Recommendations

#14/19 Moved by: Dave Turton Seconded by: James Fleiler THAT Conservation Ontario Council adopt Committee of the Whole (C.W.) Recommendations: C.W. #01/19 to C.W. #13/19.

CARRIED

17. New Business Deb Martin-Downs provided an overview for Latornell November 19-21, 2019, and asked for auction items from CAs for the Dream Auction. It was noted that Leadership nominations are pending, and the call for those nominations will go out the second week of April.

18. Adjourn

# 15/19 Moved by: Bill Smirle Seconded: Pieter Leenhouts THAT the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

of 107

Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD Page No: 1 of 5 Agenda Item No: Va) BOD-05-19 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Thompson, Manager of Watershed Plans and Strategies DATE: May 10, 2019 SUBJECT: Freshwater Roundtable - Engaging New Partners in Salt Reduction RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD regarding LSRCA’s approach to

engaging the commercial sector in salt reduction through the Freshwater Roundtable be received for information.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD is to provide an overview of LSRCA’s approach to engaging the commercial sector in salt reduction, through the Freshwater Roundtable. Background: LSRCA’s Strategic Plan Vision to Action, Action to Results, 2016 – 2020 identified salt reduction as a priority action with the intent of reducing chloride concentrations in Lake Simcoe’s tributaries. A salt reduction strategy was subsequently completed in 2017. The strategy included eight objectives such as considering winter maintenance in site design, increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of salt, and supporting road management agencies. An important objective was improving salt application practices within the private sector, as that sector does not have the same checks and balances on salt use that exists in the public sector. An estimated 18% of salt used in the watershed is applied to commercial sector parking lots; as such, success in chloride reduction will not be possible without the participation of owners and managers of these lots. Training for these parking lot owners and managers is available through the non-profit Smart About Salt Council and has been provided to approximately 280 people in the Lake Simcoe watershed since 2013. Despite this interest in training, very few contractors active in the watershed have become certified under the program (at last count only four firms in the watershed have certification). Without certification there is no mechanism to ensure best practices are followed and that operational practices improve from year to year.

of 107

Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD Page No: 2 of 5 Agenda Item No: Va) BOD-05-19 In order to better understand the motivations and barriers to adoption of best practices in the retail sector, LSRCA commissioned a consultant to interview senior managers at REITs (e.g. Oxford Properties Group, First Capital, Choice Properties) and retail companies (e.g. Walmart, Home Depot, Canadian Tire, Loblaws) who own large parking lots in this watershed, their contractors (e.g. Clintar, Scarlet Oak), and school boards. Universally, the response from the property owners was that environmental reputation is an important part of their corporate brand, they recognize the paramount importance of protecting fresh water, and they are willing to consider alternative winter maintenance practices, if it doesn’t increase their liability. As a follow-up to that study, participants were invited to join a Freshwater Roundtable to collectively understand and promote the adoption of winter maintenance best practices in the commercial parking lot sector. The response was extremely positive, and the Roundtable now includes staff from Federal, Provincial, municipal, and First Nations governments, commercial property owners, winter maintenance contractors, and the environmental community (Table 1). The Roundtable is chaired by the LSRCA and supported by staff. The round table is scheduled to meet approximately 3 times a year. Table 1. Current members of the Freshwater Roundtable

Name Affiliation Michelle Brown Bentall Kennedy John Castelhano Brookfield GIS Tony DiGiovanni Landscape Ontario Sante Esposito Colliers International Ariel Feldman Choice Properties REIT Jeff Fitzpatrick-Stillwell McDonald's Terry Nicholson Clintar Brandon Goddard Scarlet Oak Landscape Management Lee Gould Smart About Salt Elizabeth Hendricks WWF Canada Melissa Jacobs First Capital Realty John Mackenzie Toronto and Region Conservation Authority James Marsden Deputy Grand Chief, Anishinabek Nation Don Goodyear York Region Ling Mark Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Eric Meliton Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Luke Pallister Marsh Mary Ellen Perkin Environment and Climate Change Canada Lisa Trevisan Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Mike Walters Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (Chair) Tejal Shah US Consulate General Toronto Harry Dahme Gowling WLG

of 107

Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD Page No: 3 of 5 Agenda Item No: Va) BOD-05-19 The Freshwater Roundtable identified a white paper discussing the opportunities and challenges facing winter maintenance in the commercial sector as a first priority. LSRCA drafted this white paper with support from members of the roundtable. The white paper is currently awaiting endorsement from Roundtable members, at which time it can be made available. Primary challenges to salt reduction in this sector include fear of lawsuits, skyrocketing insurance costs, and societal expectations of clear surfaces. Existing best practices can ensure that public safety is maintained with a more judicious use of salt; however, in order to address concerns related to liability, the white paper makes four recommendations: 1. That the snow and ice management industry, with the support of their client base and

regulators, undertake a consultative process to develop a single set of Best Management Practice (BMP) guidelines for salt use on parking lots and walkways;

2. That the snow and ice management industry and government recognize a training, certification, and audit program for salt application contractors;

3. That the Ontario government develop regulations to limit liability for certified salt use contractors;

4. That the Freshwater Roundtable creates and implements a media and public education strategy to inform the public regarding the threats posed by salt to our infrastructure and freshwater resources, including sources of drinking water, and the inherent importance and recognition of the use of best practices to optimize salt use while maintaining safe conditions for commercial parking lots and sidewalks; and

Issues: LSRCA will not be able to achieve the recommendations of the Freshwater Roundtable alone. It will require ongoing participation of industry partners and, importantly, will require change to Provincial regulation. While difficult, the opportunity to effect such change seems to have presented itself. In its proposed Environment Plan, the Province committed itself to “work with municipalities, conservation authorities, the private sector and other partners to promote best management practices, certification and road salt alternatives.” This commitment was inspired, in part, by LSRCA’s ongoing efforts in salt reduction. An approach similar to the one recommended by the Roundtable was adopted in New Hampshire five years ago. The contracting industry and environmental community in Ontario are both watching this development with interest and are seeing improved winter maintenance practices and better defense against slip and fall lawsuits as a result of New Hampshire’s regulation.

of 107

Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD Page No: 4 of 5 Agenda Item No: Va) BOD-05-19 The review of the white paper has been completed with broad support by Roundtable members. Core members, including LSRCA, WWF, and Landscape Ontario will now be asked to take a lead on sharing the white paper with senior provincial staff and MPPs. Relevance to Authority Policy: LSRCA’s strategic plan, Vision to Action, Action to Results, identified the development and implementation of a salt reduction strategy as a Priority Action, in order to reduce chloride contamination in Lake Simcoe’s tributaries. The Salt Reduction Strategy was completed in 2017 and included the promotion of improved winter maintenance practices in the private sector as one of its key objectives. In order to achieve that objective, three recommendations were developed: support delivery of Smart About Salt training (recommendation 12), establish a coalition of public and private sector stakeholders to raise the profile of the issue of winter salt (recommendation 14), and pursue regulatory change (recommendation 15). The establishment of the Roundtable and completion of the white paper represents significant steps forward on each of these recommendations. Impact on Authority Finances: An Outreach and Engagement Consultant was hired to engage participants in the Roundtable and to provide advice and direction to LSRCA staff in working with this new sector. The cost associated with this consultant was initially covered by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks through a Grant Funding Agreement. The post-election spending freeze limited our ability to extend that funding agreement to the current year; however, the Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation has generously stepped forward to cover costs associated with the Roundtable in 2019. It is not expected that this Roundtable will represent long-term cost to LSRCA, as support for its continued operation after 2019 will revert to existing staff. Action on the recommendations in the white paper will be contingent upon securing additional funding or partner support. Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD regarding LSRCA’s approach to engaging the commercial sector in salt reduction through the Freshwater Roundtable be received for information.

of 107

Staff Report No. 28-19-BOD Page No: 5 of 5 Agenda Item No: Va) BOD-05-19 Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management and the Chief Administrative Officer. Prepared by: Bill Thompson Manager, Watershed Plans and Strategies Signed by: Signed by: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Ben Longstaff Michael Walters General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Integrated Watershed Management

of 107

Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD Page No: 1 of 2 Agenda Item No: Vb) BOD-05-19 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mike Walters, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 17, 2019 SUBJECT: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation

Authorities Act, ERO No. 013-5018 RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD and attached comments in

response to Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting No 013-5018, Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation Authorities Act be received; and

FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate final comments to

LSRCA’s member municipalities, Conservation Ontario and Lake Simcoe watershed MPPs.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with comments being submitted in response to the Environmental Registry of Ontario No. 013-5018, entitled Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation Authorities Act. Background: On April 12, 2019, the Province of Ontario posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) No. 013-5018: Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation Authorities Act, proposing further changes to the Conservation Authority Act. The posting may be accessed via this link: www.ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5018. The Province has moved very quickly on the proposed changes, and requests to extend the deadline to 60 days from 45 were denied. The Province’s rationale for the proposed changes was described in some detail in the previous staff report No. 26-19-BOD. The proposed legislative amendments are summarized below: 1. Defining the core mandatory programs and services offered by Conservation Authorities

(CAs). 2. Increasing transparency in how CAs levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory

programs and services.

of 107

http://www.ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5018

Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD Page No: 2 of 2 Agenda Item No: Vb) BOD-05-19 3. Updating the Conservation Authorities Act to conform to modern transparency standards by

ensuring that municipalities and CAs review levies for non-core programs after a certain period of time (e.g. 4 to 8 years).

4. Establishing a transition period (e.g. 18-24 months) and process for CAs and municipalities to enter into agreements for delivering non-mandatory programs and services and meet these transparencies.

5. Enabling the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a CA.

6. Clarifying the duties of CA Board members to act in the best interest of the CA, similar to not-for-profit organizations.

Given the current understanding, the attached comments reflect LSRCA’s response to the ERO posting. Relevance to Authority Policy: The proposed changes to conservation authority legislative framework (Conservation Authorities Act) will directly impact LSRCA’s operations. Potential changes to the Section 28 regulations will have more of an impact on policy and are addressed in Staff Report No. 31-19-BOD of this agenda. Impact on Authority Finances: There could be significant impacts to LSRCA’s programs and services, budget and future finances associated with the proposed changes in legislation. Unfortunately the significance of the change is dependent on the continued commitment of the Province to fund conservation authorities, potential impacts of budget cuts to member municipalities, and the ability of LSRCA to charge fees for services. Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 29-19-BOD and attached comments responding to Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting No 013-5018, Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation Authorities Act be received; and FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate final comments to LSRCA’s member municipalities, Conservation Ontario and Lake Simcoe watershed MPPs. Signed by: ___________________________________ Michael Walters Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: LSRCA’s comments regarding ERO #013-5018

of 107

LSRCA comments May 21, 2019 ERO #013-5018: Modernizing conservation authority operations – Conservation Authorities Act

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is pleased to provide the following comments in response to Modernizing Conservation Authority Operations - Conservation Authorities Act, ERO No. 013-5018. 1. Defining Core Mandatory programs and services offered by Conservation Authorities

The Conservation Authorities Act was created by the Ontario Provincial Legislature in 1946, not to control flooding as is commonly believed, but to mitigate the impacts of human land use activities (deforestation and cropland soil erosion) that were destroying the health of our lakes, rivers and streams. The Act empowered municipalities to create authorities to ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of hydrological features through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs. It wasn’t until eight years later in 1954 that Hurricane Hazel made landfall in Ontario causing extensive flooding resulting in 81 deaths and more than $135 million in damages (approximately $1.3 billion in today’s economy). In response to the catastrophic damage and severe death tolls the province looked to conservation authorities for a solution and amended the Conservation Authorities Act to delegate flood forecasting, warning, and management responsibilities to authorities to be delivered on a watershed basis. The creation of Conservation Authorities, which recognizes that water does not stop flowing at political boundaries, has gained international recognition and is used as a model that has been adopted by other countries. In 2009, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority was honoured to win the International Thiess Riverprize in Brisbane Australia for excellence in watershed management. The recognition was a validation of the work that has and continues to be completed in partnership with the province, our member municipalities and watershed community. During this same period that LSRCA began the process of reinventing service delivery within the organization to become more “client centric” and create more value for our customers and partners. Specifically the LSRCA began to improve the interaction and relationship with our clients and partners especially within the Planning and Permitting departments. This has resulted in routine consultations with the BILD industry and creating collaborative working groups to define service delivery boundaries. Additionally programs and services were evaluated to find efficiencies, reduce time lines for approvals all while balancing the social and environmental needs within the watershed. The LSRCA has evolved into a highly collaborative transparent and consultative organization which utilizes best management practices such as strategic planning and key performance indicators to ensure that our programs and services are meeting the desired outcomes of our partners and clients.

of 107


Today the Province has proposed to change Conservation Authorities core mandatory programs and services to:

Natural Hazard Protection and Management

Conservation and Management of conservation authority lands

Drinking water source protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act)

Protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed (as prescribed under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan)

LSRCA understands that these and only these four core mandatory programs and services are to be placed in the legislation and then standards and requirements would be described in regulation, making them a legal requirement. It is extremely important that the Province understand that the consequence of this proposed legislative change will be to significantly diminish the role of Conservation Authorities and to reduce our value proposition and eliminate associated social, economic and environmental benefits. These benefits provide much needed added value to the province, our member municipal partners and most of all the watershed community. Therefore it is recommended that:

That conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources, the foundation of the Conservation Authorities Act commonly referred to as watershed planning and management is added to the list of core mandatory programs. Watershed planning provides the basis to inform natural resource management decisions to create policy, and to direct restoration activities and educational programs to change behaviour.

That Conservation Authorities be consulted during the drafting of the regulation as a stakeholder and given due consideration in defining what constitutes eligible activities within each of the core mandated programs. The timelines associated with commenting on the proposed changes have not allowed conservation authorities to properly consult with their municipal partners, clients or community stakeholders. In addition, the ability to achieve the desired outcomes of the core mandatory programs is reliant on specific activities which, if not included per the regulation, could impair the ability of conservation authorities to successfully deliver core mandated programs setting that authority on a path to fail.

2. Increasing transparency in how Conservation Authorities levy municipalities for

mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services – New Funding Model

LSRCA fully supports increasing transparency especially in relation to funding. Currently, LSRCA collaborates with member municipalities through the strategic planning process to identify what programs and services are wanted and valued. LSRCA’s provides annual presentations to funding partners regarding priority activities, as well as a companion

of 107


document to the budget describing the specific outcomes to be achieved during the year. LSRCA also publishes audited financial statements and an annual report. It is therefore recommended that:

That the Province of Ontario continues to provide a financial contribution to assist in the delivery of conservation authority mandated or core programs. There is concern that provincial responsibilities are being wholly downloaded to the municipal tax base. Given that programs such as Natural Hazards, Source Water and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan are provincially mandated programs, it is reasonable that the province continues to provide financial support.

That one collective agreement including all watershed member municipalities is developed for non-mandatory programs and services. The current proposal involves individual agreements for each program and service with each participating municipality. One agreement which outlines the municipal commitment towards the defined non-mandatory programs and services is more efficient and would require much less administration, saving time and money and improving transparency.

That the Province consider the unintended consequence of the proposed non-mandatory programs and services approach which enables individual municipalities to ‘opt in/opt out’ of programs and services. Such an approach undermines the entire governance concept of watershed management and lead to further divisiveness and inconsistency in the delivery of programs and services. This could not only occur within a watershed but will further impact consistency of service delivery across conservation authorities. Furthermore, if programs and services are only ‘partially’ supported, there is the potential for increased costs for those municipal partners that ‘opt in’ and want to deliver those programs. In conclusion the benefit of the collect is lost as is the economy of scale and program efficiencies.

That Conservation Authorities retain the ability to apply user fees or donations to support mandatory conservation programs in addition to, or rather than, municipal levy. LSRCA does recognize there is only one taxpayer and limited tax dollars available to its municipal partners. Therefore, not everyone should be burdened with a cost if a service is provided to an individual and only that individual benefits. An example would be user fees for Section 28 permits to cover the cost of a review specific to a property and landowner. In this instance, user fees represent a significant source of revenue which reduces the cost of the Natural Hazard program to member municipalities. Currently the LSRCA consults the BILD industry and municipalities in the setting of fees and does not proceed without a signed acknowledgement from the BILD industry that they are satisfied. Revenue collected is only used for the purpose it is collected, for example planning fee revenue is only applied to planning operations and not to support any other LSRCA program.

of 107


3. Updating the Conservation Authorities Act to conform to 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)

LSRCA fully supports the recommendation for increased transparency by ensuring review of levies for non-core programs and has the following recommendation:

That the review period for non-core programs occurs every four years. A four-year cycle is acceptable as long as it is staggered one or two years from the municipal election cycle. A four-year cycle aligning with the municipal election would not be ideal as it would result in new Board members being asked to make decisions without being particularly familiar with Conservation Authority programs and services. Currently under the strategic planning process, the CAO is responsible for a review of programs and services every five years so that results can be presented to the Board of Directors and used to inform the development of a new strategic plan.

4. Establishing a transition period (e.g. 18-24 months) and process for Conservation

Authorities and municipalities to enter into an agreement for delivering non-mandatory programs and services and meet these transparencies

The transition period proposed by the Province is reasonable (e.g. 18-24 months), and it is recommended that a 24 month transition period be adopted. Given some uncertainty with the results of the regional/county/municipal review, it would be best to extend the transition period to 24 months should there be change in the composition of municipal partners.

5. Enabling the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and

report on a conservation authority

LSRCA has no concerns with the appointment of an investigator to hold conservation authorities accountable and supports the recommendation.

6. Clarifying the duties of Conservation Authority Board members to act in the best interest

of the Conservation Authority, similar to not-for-profit organizations

LSRCA has no concerns with this recommendation, as the Board orientation program and governance model inform the decisions of the Board of Directors, and therefore LSRCA supports the recommendation.

of 107

Form: WB-SR2010

STAFF REPORTTO: Coordinated Committee

FROM: George Vadeboncoeur, CAO

SUBJECT: Regional (County) Government Review

DATE: May 9, 2019

RECOMMENDATION

That Coordinated Committee receive the report on the staff comments on Regional (County) Government Review;

That Committee authorize the Mayor and CAO to submit to the comments to the RegionalReview Special Advisors as the Town’s submission;

That Committee indicate to the Special Advisors that the Town of Wasaga Beach does notsupport amalgamation as a solution to the objectives of the Regional Review as there areother methods that can be used to drive efficiencies in Simcoe County local governments;

That the Mayor be authorized on behalf of Council to share Council comments on the Regional Review with the County, Member Municipalities, Minister of Municipal Affairs andHousing, local MPP’s and posted on the Town’s web site for public review;

Finally, that the public be encouraged to access the Regional Review Portal and submit their comments to the appointed Advisors prior to the deadline.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2019, the Ontario Government announced the appointment of two specialadvisors to assist it with its review of regional government in the province. Included in the review was the County of Simcoe and its member municipalities. The mandate of the two advisors is to provide expert advice to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and tomake recommendations to the government on opportunities to improve regionalgovernance and service delivery. Attached are copies of the letter from the Ministerannouncing the two advisors and the news release.

The advisors and government are working on a very tight timeline to deal with very complexissues that impact over 80 municipalities. The questions that they are to respond andadvise the Minister are as follows:

Questions on municipal governance and decision-making;

a. Is the decision-making (mechanisms and priorities) of upper- and lower-tier municipalitiesefficiently aligned?

of 107

2

b. Does the existing model support the capacity of the municipalities to make decisionsefficiently?c. Are two-tier structures appropriate for all of these municipalities?d. Does the distribution of councillors represent the residents well?e. Do the ways that regional councillors/heads of council are elected/appointed to serve onregional council help to align lower- and upper-tier priorities?

Questions on municipal service delivery;

f. Is there opportunity for more efficient allocation of various service responsibilities?g. Is there duplication of activities?h. Are there opportunities for cost savings?i. Are there barriers to making effective and responsive infrastructure and service deliverydecisions?

The last time municipal governance was reviewed in Simcoe County was in the early1990’s leading to a restructuring of municipalities to the current 16 in 1994 and change inthe composition of County Council. At that time, the Cities of Barrie and Orillia remained and are still today, separated cities from the County governance structure.

DISCUSSION

The senior leadership team met on two occasions to discuss the service delivery questions.The Mayor attended to provide a perspective from her work at the County in answeringquestions about County services. Department Heads were asked to review the servicesprovided by their departments in light of the questions being asked to determine if efficiencies could be found and services delivered better. From this review and discussion,staff are proposing the following answers to the questions:

Regional Review Questions

a. Is the decision-making (mechanisms and priorities) of upper and lower-tiermunicipalities efficiently aligned?

Yes. Decisions at the County level are made by a duly elected County Councilcomposed of Mayors and Deputy Mayors of the member local municipalities. CountyCouncil has a standing committee structure that is aligned with County functions.Most local municipalities, including the Town of Wasaga Beach have the samedecision making structure. Operating under a similar decision making structureallows for natural synergies to flow from decisions made at both levels ofgovernment and works well.

Within the County structure decision making is aligned in a way that there is veryminimal duplication. Each level of government is responsible for delivering servicesthat fall under its mandate.

As with all levels of government, education and communication are key to the publicunderstanding which level of government provides which services. Once this isunderstood, it is an easy system to navigate. Matters first proceed to committee for

of 107

3

detailed discussion and then are referred to Council for decisions. Each municipalityworks with meeting cycles leading to decisions. The County operates the same way.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) and the Lake SimcoeConservation Authority add a degree of complexity to the decision make process asit pertains to development review that is unnecessary. These authorities should bedissolved and their responsibilities under the Conservation Authorities Act pertainingto flood control, watershed interests, protection of drinking water sources, and landuse planning applications should be assumed by the County of Simcoe. This wouldreduce duplication between local governments and the authorities and allow for acoordinated approach to be applied across both watersheds, leading to moreeffective and efficient decision making.

b. Does the existing model support the capacity of the municipalities to make decisionsefficiently?

Yes, for the most part. The division of responsibilities between the two levels ofgovernment in the County of Simcoe makes sense, with very little duplication.

The Town of Wasaga Beach has operated with a regional mind set for years,cooperating with its neighbouring municipalities on a variety of fronts to the benefit ofresidents and businesses.

c. Are two-tier structures appropriate for all of these municipalities?

Yes, the two-tier structure works well to delineate the delivery of services. The inclusion or the continued exclusion of the Cities of Barrie and Orillia as part of

the two-tier local government model should be looked at to determine if either optionmakes the delivery of services more efficient

d. Does the distribution of councillors represent the residents well?

Yes, however there are opportunities to reduce the number of Councillors:o The number of County Councillors should be cut in half to 16 members..o There are options to consider in the make-up of County Council with a

reduced size: Have the Mayor designated as the County representative Change the Deputy Mayor role to a County Representative Role and

rename appropriately. This person would sit on both Councils Allow each local municipality to designate either the Mayor or Deputy

Mayor as being the County representative prior to the election periodcommencing so that the electorate know the position they are voting for

o All member municipalities should consider capping the size of Council toseven members, inclusive of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor roles. For the sizeof communities in Simcoe County, seven member Councils provide efficientand effective representation. Small communities should consider going to fivemembers.

o County Warden should continue to be elected from those elected to CountyCouncil.

of 107

4

e. Do the ways that regional councillors/heads of council get elected/appointed to serveon regional council help to align lower- and upper-tier priorities?

For the County of Simcoe, the answer is yes. Over the years, the Countyrepresentatives have developed a good understanding of the distinction betweenCounty services and locally delivered services. For the most part, this alignment hasworked well. This is a credit to former and current members of County Council andthe County administration. Well thought out new Councillor orientation as well asmeaningful interactions between new and more experienced Councillors at theCounty tale, make clear the governance structure and benefit the entire region.

Questions on municipal service delivery;

f. Is there opportunity for more efficient allocation of various service responsibilities?

For the most part, the services divided between the County and the local municipalityare efficiently aligned. The County delivers a number of services County-wide veryefficiently and effectively. The local municipalities deliver services in theirjurisdictions very efficiently and effectively. In reviewing the multitude of servicesthat both tiers deliver, staff are of the view that the alignment of the followingservices could be reviewed:

County Roads – consideration should be given to transferring some or all of Countyroads to local municipalities. Could be more efficient maintenance of roads if roadswere owned and maintained at the local level.

Transit – consideration should be given to the administration of local transit servicesbeing transferred to the County level. Some of this is occurring now with the Countystarting to deliver a regional transit service, but it may be appropriate to review agreater regional network due to the nature of the service crossing municipalboundaries and multiple overlapping boundaries by local transit authorities.

Water/Waste Water Treatment – the Town has sufficient water and waste watertreatment capacity and has welcomed opportunities to work with its neighbours onthe provision of water and sewage treatment.

In Wasaga Beach water and waste water treatment is contracted to OCWA, whoprovide services to a number of local municipalities in an efficient and cost effectivemanner. Distribution and collection systems are the direct responsibility of the Town.The Town of Wasaga Bach is of the view that this model is very efficient andeffective and takes advantage of economies of scale and expertise, whereappropriate and direct customer service where required.

The Town does not support the transfer of water and waste water responsibility tothe County. An option the Town would support is the County formally being providedthe opportunity to coordinate and finance major infrastructure needs of the localmunicipalities based on formal agreements outlining matters such as payment terms.

of 107

5

Local municipalities would continue to be responsible for treatment, distribution andcollection, as this makes the most sense from an efficiency and customer supportbasis.

Storm Water Management – has traditionally been a local tier function. There maybe a role for the County to play as it pertains to implementing standards inwatershed/catchment areas that cross municipal boundaries. As well, the tax levy isbecoming increasingly pressured to support storm water management projectstriggered by development. User fees or development charges could be implementedto help alleviate the pressure on the tax rate to support storm water managementprojects, such as through the “Community Benefit Charge” per the proposedchanges to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act, proposed under the“More Homes, More Choices Act” .

g. Is there duplication of activities?

For the most part, the answer is no. However, there are some areas that could bereviewed to determine if there are opportunities to consolidate roles:

o Planning Approvals - the County is responsible for local official planapprovals. This could be delegated to the local municipality. This wouldimprove service and lower costs to residents and developers by permittingone stop service for Official Plan amendments. It would also reduce theapproval period by four to five months.

o Conservation Authority Functions - flood control, watershed interests,protection of drinking water sources, and commenting on land use planningapplications are all functions carried out by Conservation Authorities.Municipalities have professional staff that can be assigned these functions.Where issues overlap municipal boundaries, the County could be delegatedthe responsibility

o Transit - both tiers are responsible for the delivery of transit services. Servicedelivery could be reviewed as there may be potential to consolidate theservice at the County level. This would improve administrativeresponsibilities and coordination of services between the differentmunicipalities.

o County Roads - the maintenance of County Roads could be delegated to thelocal municipality to eliminate duplication, including duplicate permittingprocesses

o Forestry - the County owns hectares of professionally managed forests. Somelocal municipalities own forests as well. This service could be consolidated atthe County level.

o In other areas, such as: Economic development, including Tourism Emergency Management Library Co-operative Communication and marketing

there is an effective and efficient division of responsibilities, with minimalduplication. Local municipal staff work with their County counterparts toensure that the respective mandates are delivered in a cooperative manner.

of 107

6

h. Are there opportunities for cost savings?

Yes, there are. If the areas identified above as opportunities for consolidation are implemented,

there would be cost savings If the number of County and local councillors were reduced there would be cost

savings. However, these savings would be minimal given the rates of pay for CountyCouncillors. In comparison to other political representatives, County Councillorspresent good value for representation.

i. Are there barriers to making effective and responsive infrastructure and servicedelivery decisions?

Yes, there are: The current alignment of responsibilities pertaining to water and wastewater

infrastructure is a barrier for some municipalities. Some local municipalities do nothave the financial capacity, including the borrowing capacity to undertake majorupgrades to treatment facilities. This is not the case for the Town of Wasaga Beach.

County Council does not have the political authority to invest County tax dollars inmajor infrastructure that will benefit the County and local municipalities in the end.

For some municipalities municipal boundaries are a barrier. This has not been thecase in Wasaga Beach, where successive Councils have indicated a willingness towork with its municipal neighbours on the provision of needed infrastructure andservices. Agreements are in place with Township of Clearview for the treatment ofsewage.

Town of Wasaga Beach

The Town of Wasaga Beach is geographically a long stretched out community rounding thebottom of Nottawasaga Bay on Georgian Bay. The Town’s 14km beach, the longestfreshwater beach in the world, is an attractive tourism feature generating high volume ofvisitors in the summer season. The Town’s permanent population from the 2016 Censusstands at 20,675, along with an additional estimated 9,000 seasonal residents. The beachattracts nearly 2 million additional visitors to the community during the summer months,resulting in a very busy Town during these periods. With the Nottawasaga River runningthrough the middle of Town and dividing the main land from the beach area lands, there aredevelopment challenges that the Town works hard to overcome.

Adding to some of the tourist attraction and challenges for Town logistics, is the large area of public park lands held by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Theselands exist throughout the Town, specifically along the end of the beach peninsula dividingthe river and Georgian Bay. The Wasaga Beach Ontario Provincial Park area totals 168 hectares (415 acres). There is also a large inland natural area that forms part of theProvincial Park, bisected with trails. The MNRF lands add to the peaceful aesthetics of thecommunity and attract people interested in outdoor activities.

of 107

7

Recently the Town was selected for the building of a new casino. This will add to thetourism experience and help to sustain the draw of visitors to the Town. In support of thetourism industry, there are many community events scheduled throughout the season, withseveral taking place on the beach at Beach Area 1, the main beach area.

In response to growth and to prepare for the future growth of the Town, staff are in the process of updating the Town’s official plan. Staff are also updating its asset managementplan and confirming its debt-financing plan to ensure that funds are available for the majorcapital requirements of a growing community. The Town is planning for continued growthconsistent with historic population increases averaging 3,000 per five year census.

The majority of property at the main beachfront area is owned by the Town and consists ofseveral commercial retail stores and a few bars. The Town’s plan includes divesting itsholdings to private developers and working with them to build new mixed-use developmentsat the beach in keeping with the recommendations from the recently completed downtownmaster plan. Over the next few years, the beachfront will change dramatically.

Council and staff are very familiar with the unique geography and peak season tourismimpacts and have responded over the years with appropriate service levels to meet theneeds of the Town. However, tourism is only one aspect of the community’s needs, and anequivalent amount of time is directed towards the services provided to the 20,675 residentsliving in the Town year-round. Highlights of these efforts are as follows:

• Council is a leader in keeping the tax burden low, a major concern of most tax-payers.• Council has built strong reserves and maintained low debt, another important concernof taxpayers, high on the list of expectations.

• Council has achieved low costs to deliver high standards of service, achieving efficientand effective delivery of services

• Council has built strong networking partnerships with other governments and the private sector, which has helped to achieve efficient and effective service delivery.• The Town is a model municipality that demonstrates effectiveness in growth management,fiscal responsibility, accountability to tax-payers, and impactful, efficient and effectiveservice delivery.

The chart below demonstrates the steady growth the Town has experienced over the past45 years. In the 2006 census, it was recognized that, “When compared to its 2001population of 12,419, Wasaga Beach is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada based on population growth percentage (21.0% over 5 years)”. The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse Shoe (2006) projections for 2031 for the Town are 27,500.The Town is very experienced in dealing with population growth, particularly with large,steady, fast growth. There are several examples that show how the Town has handled thegrowth both efficiently and effectively.

Some of the growth has spilled over to adjacent municipalities. The residents in theseneighbourhoods use Wasaga Beach services, such as Arena, Library, Rec. Centres and roads, yet do not contribute to the tax base. Most of these areas are unserviced and theremay be a need to service these areas in the future. Consideration should be given toboundary adjustments to bring these areas within the Town so that the properties contributeto the tax base.

of 107

8

A review of the tax rate increases over the last six years shows that rates have been maintained with very low increases, and when considered against our municipalcomparators, the Town is one of the lowest taxation municipalities.

The 2019 Budgeted cost per capita for the Town of Wasaga Beach is $1,939. The 2017operating cost per capita for the Town and comparator urban municipalities is shown in thechart below (source information from 2017 Financial Information Return).

Municipality Operating Cost Population Cost per Capita (2017 data)

Collingwood 50,995,744 23,209 2,197Bradford W.G. 78,296,423 35,688 2,194Midland 30,768,248 16,894 1,821Penetanguishene 15,883,639 8,962 1,772Wasaga Beach 35,900,637 20,675 1,736Innisfil 56,824,164 36,566 1,554

While maintaining low tax rates year over year, the Town is a leader in fiscal responsibilitywith respect to reserves to fund future capital projects. While infrastructure is relativelyyoung, that has not deterred the need to be effective in long-term planning and building

of 107

9

reserves for future requirements. The Town is a leader in asset management planning,with a solid foundation for on-going fiscal accountability and responsibility. The chart belowprovides the Town’s reserve balances over the past eight years.

Year Reserves Reserve Funds Total

2018 40,235,038 20,362,319 60,597,3572017 39,022,012 18,679,072 57,701,0842016 34,013,564 13,784,965 47,798,5292015 31,902,600 9,139,306 41,041,9062014 29,174,902 10,593,890 39,768,7922013 24,447,101 12,491,249 36,938,3502012 21,909,717 11,239,562 33,149,2792011 23,272,476 8,928,161 32,200,637

As noted below, long-term debt has been well within Annual Repayment Limit levels.Utilizing debt when most appropriate to match long-term asset purchases with financing and tax impact.

Year Long-term Debt

2018 -14,470,2032017 -15,488,1052016 -16,844,3522015 -15,446,845 ($13.8M Purchase of Beachfront Property)2014 -2,696,8412013 -3,625,5842012 -5,544,7192011 -7,738,536

At a population of slightly higher than 20,675 and a household count of 13,212, financialresults demonstrate efficient use of resources through low tax rates, low debt, and highreserves. Council has maintained a strong fiscal position throughout the years of steady,fast growth through effective leadership. This was confirmed in a 2016 efficiency auditconducted by KPMG of the Town’s services.

The growth has influenced how the Town has evolved and has led to its maturity as a localgovernment. Supported by a professional and knowledgeable staff, successive Councilshave established a proven track record of good decision-making. This, combined withforward thinking, and effective planning, have positioned the Town well to address futureneeds. This Council continues to move forward to address the Town’s needs as part of anoverall strategy to become a complete community.

Two-Tier Government System

The two-tier local government system is efficient and effective in delivering services, andmore so than a single tier government system would be. This is supported by the following points that are elaborated in further detail below.

of 107

10

1. Multiple evidence based studies conclude that efficiency gains promised throughamalgamation scenarios repeatedly do not deliver cost savings, and often costs tothe taxpayers increase.

2. Local service levels are most efficiently delivered when residents have reasonableaccess to local Town staff and Council members, and their concerns can beaddressed by representatives that understand their local problems..

3.Using the analogy of “Dividing the Labour” there are advantages to a two tiersystem of local government. The importance of breaking down a large process,such as that of government services, into smaller, more manageable sizes is acornerstone for efficiency, especially in a large geographic area with many localidiosyncrasies. The keys to success are;

• to build a strong network for exchanging processes and ideas (continuousimprovement, efficient use of resources, and sharing of knowledge);• to have clear roles with regards to upper and lower tier deliverables;• and very important to success, is strong leadership.

1. Multiple Studies – evidence based

The evidence-based studies such as the Fraser Institute (Municipal Amalgamation inOntario); Western University (Local Solutions for County-Wide Amalgamation: Factors forSuccess and Failure); and University of Groningen (The effects of local government amalgamation on public spending and service levels. Evidence from 15 years of municipalboundary reform), provide similar findings. While different countries are involved,statistically there are similarities in results, that show efficiency gains promised through amalgamation do not materialize when the process is completed. There are some commonsense reasons that help to explain why this occurs.

The first is related to the type of service and the optimal size of government required toachieve economies of scale. They are different for different services. Local service levelsare effectively delivered when residents have reasonable access to local Town staff andCouncil members. This is because the Town’s staff and Council have the ability to comprehend local issues, quickly and with more ease than someone distant from the Town.They can respond appropriately, and without too much complexity (which adds time andcost). Efficiency is achieved through ease of response by staff that have the knowledge,skills and tools necessary for the local geography and or issues management. Time isused efficiently, which in turn keeps the cost down.

A second reason is provided through an excerpt from one of the above referenced articleswhich explains the economies of scale as follows;

“Kitchen warns that amalgamation should not be defended on the grounds that it isnecessary in order to benefit from economies of scale because these economiesmay be secured through the purchase of services from the private sector or from other units of government.”

of 107

11

The Fraser Institute states: (Fraser-institute article “Municipal Amalgamation in Ontario” –published on May 26, 2015.)

“We focus our attention on three smaller municipalities—Haldimand-Norfolk, Essex, andKawartha Lakes—and examine whether the scale of municipal operations and politics inthese areas affected the outcome of restructuring.

Using data for years 2000 to 2012 from the Financial Information Return published by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we compare various financial indicatortrends for our three subject municipalities and a number of comparable municipalities thatwere not amalgamated. While for various reasons the data are not amenable to a rigorouseconometric before-and-after analysis, our simple analysis suggests amalgamation did notresult in cost savings or lower property taxes in the cases we examine. We find significantincreases in property taxes, compensation for municipal employees, and long-term debt inboth amalgamated and unamalgamated communities, suggesting there was no tangible,financial benefit from amalgamation. In fact, many of the claims put forward by thosefavouring consolidation failed to materialize. In most of our cases, the per-householdmunicipal tax burden increased. We also find that spending on certain services andremuneration also increased significantly. The data largely indicate that post-2000 intra-municipal trends in cost indicators, such as protection costs per household, have remainedstable within the group analyzed, or even increased after amalgamation, a findinginconsistent with the cost savings promised as a benefit of amalgamation.”

However, the discussion regarding amalgamation, may in of itself help promote efficiencyby being the catalyst to recognize the importance of economies of scale and finding thoseopportunities in the private sector and through municipal service agreements with otherunits of government, if that step has not already been taken. For the Town of WasagaBeach, many such strategic alliances have already been built with other governments or theprivate sector.

A third reason why efficiencies do not materialize through amalgamation is the requirementto deliver at the same service level across the entire geographic county. Many of thesmaller municipalities do not have unions for the administrative staff, or their unionizedpositions in the public works or other departments are not at the same scale as thoseemployed by the County. The outcome frequently is that the smaller amalgamatedcommunities are forced to pay increased labour cost for many of the same levels of service.As labour is one of the major cost factors for most municipal services, the increased costsoutweigh the overall benefits that might have been achieved through amalgamation.

2. Local Service

By breaking down the service delivery into smaller municipalities that can respond promptlyand effectively to local matters, opportunities exist for efficient and effective servicedelivery. So, the question is how many municipalities are needed?

Geography will be one of the factors that will impact the number of smallermunicipalities needed. To be effective and deliver efficient services, requiresreasonable response times to issues (efficiency and effectiveness) and a localconnection with the residents to hear their concerns (effectiveness).

of 107

12

Local knowledge is another factor. Understanding what is needed, how and when itshould be prioritized relative to other matters competing for resources, knowing whatthe community vision is, are all examples of important information that impacts service delivery and ultimately effectiveness, or satisfaction.

Business connections is another factor. Local economies, particularly in more rural,or growing urban centres, need connectivity in the business community to achieve economic growth. Business’ are the employers for the local residents and stimulate spending through their own success. A supportive local government that ensuresthe Town is ready and open for business is essential to the economic welfare of thecommunity.

The highest measure of effectiveness will come from the residents and local businessowners satisfaction levels. Their voices need to be heard and their elected representativesmust understand what is expected and what they are willing to have their taxpayer dollarsspent on. The Town’s assets and reserves represent their hard-earned dollars, and theyneed to be able to engage easily and openly with their government to ensure fair andreasonable use of their tax dollars occurs.

Time is money. This is why one of the important factors of efficient service delivery comesfrom not only being local enough to respond promptly, but also local enough to know aboutresidents needs, geographic needs, and local cost effective solutions to provide the appropriate response. An appropriate response is going to be delivered within the least ofamount of time and likely for the least amount of cost, because of familiarity. Complexbureaucratic processes are avoided.

Finally, one of the most important points is the direct impact on the local taxpayer whenchange is made to their existing governance. The taxpayer has the right to expect the same level of service and standard of care, at the same level of cost that has been inexistence. Higher cost or loss of benefits from the assets and reserves they havecontributed to over the years is not acceptable.

All of these attributes of local service, either at the County or local level lead to fluidity ofdecision-making which generates efficiencies and effective service delivery.

CONCLUSION

The Town of Wasaga Beach is an effective and efficient provider of local services, alignedwith County services to meet resident’s needs. Its tax rates are among the lowest of urbanmunicipalities in Simcoe County yet it delivers all the same services. The Town has ahistory of improving services and managing spending, leading it to be recognized as a veryefficient municipality.

In response to Minister Clark’s challenge of finding “improvements to make better use oftaxpayers’ dollars”, staff have identified services currently delivered by the Town and the County that could be re-aligned to eliminate duplication and save money.

of 107

13

Staff are of the view that Council’s governance structure is appropriate for a Town the size of Wasaga Beach. Members of Council and Employees are engaged and the culture is onethat promotes innovation, efficiency in process, sharing of ideas, and participation in Townactivities. Tax dollars are spent wisely and every dollar is spent for the benefit of allresidents and businesses, both present and in the future.

The Town of Wasaga Beach has many unique pressures, from its incredible influx oftourism visitors every summer season, a Provincial Park within its boundary with significantenvironmental features, long geography, entertainment events, and beachfront attractions.These pressures are balanced and managed alongside the needs of the community andthe provision of regular core municipal service requirements.

The Town of Wasaga Beach has demonstrated sound fiscal management with continuedlow tax rates, low debt, and high reserves for future needs, all the while meeting the needsof its residents.

The County of Simcoe has also demonstrated effective management of the services underits jurisdiction with minimal duplication of services offered at the local level. Amalgamationwould not lead to more efficient delivery of services or cost savings.

Staff are of the view that the two tier structure in Simcoe County works well, but could beimproved in the areas identified in this report.

Respectively Submitted,

George VadeboncoeurChief Administrative Officer

Enclosure

of 107

Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD Page No: 1 of 3 Agenda Item No: 2 BOD-05-19 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Melinda Bessey, MSc, MCIP, RPP – Acting Director, Planning DATE: May 13, 2019 SUBJECT: LSRCA Offsetting Policies Housekeeping Amendments RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD regarding proposed amendments

to LSRCA’s Ecological Offsetting Plan, the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Water Budget Policy for 48.-DP and 6.40-DP be approved.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD is to provide an overview of the minor housekeeping amendments inclusive of the addition of implementation guidance appendices to the LSRCA offsetting policies and to obtain Board approval. Background: Since 2017, LSRCA has implemented offsetting policies relating to ecology, phosphorus and groundwater recharge. These policies and dates they came into effect are provided below: Table 1: LSRCA Offsetting Policies & Dates of Effect

NAME OF POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE Ecological Offsetting Plan May 18, 2017 Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Policy January 1, 2018 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Water Budget Policy for 4.8-DP and 6.40-DP January 1, 2019 These policies are applied through the planning development review process and are in place to address the negative impacts that are sometimes associated with development in the watershed. With the experience of applying these policies through the development review process, it has come to light that minor housekeeping amendments will provide clarity to the policies to ensure the continued success of these programs, as well as to provide direction and transparency on how LSRCA allocates and manages any funds collected through cash-in-lieu.

of 107

Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD Page No: 2 of 3 Agenda Item No: 2 BOD-05-19 The following is a summary of the proposed housekeeping amendments to the offsetting policy documents: Ecological Offsetting Policy (EOP) Change of title from “Ecological Offsetting Plan” to “Ecological Offsetting Policy” Updated references to current Natural Capital study and to Ecosystem Service Values as

provided by the updated study Updated Ecological Offsetting Analysis and Costing related to feature creation costing used

to determine cash-in-lieu payment requirements (Appendix IV of EOP) Updated administration fee for consistency with other Offsetting Policies Minor wording amendment for policy application clarification (s.3.2.1, s3.3.2.1 of EOP) Addition of Implementation Guidelines (Appendix V of EOP) for LSRCA’s Cash-in-Lieu

Ecological Offsetting: Implementation Committee, Project Selection Criteria, Project Funding, Project Execution, Interest on Cash-in-lieu Funds and Project Reporting.

Phosphorus Offsetting Policy (POP) Identification of exemptions to the policy Clarification regarding applicability of policy to Environmental Compliance Approvals Clarification regarding project funding allocation Addition of guidance regarding the Implementation Committee Water Budget Offsetting Policy (WBOP) Addition of wording to clarify applicability of policy to Planning Act applications (s8.0, s8.1

of WBOP) Updated fee tables to clarify offsetting fee vs. administration fee Addition of Implementation Guidelines (Appendix A of WBOP) for LSRCA’s Cash-in-Lieu

Water Budget Offsetting: Implementation Committee, Project Selection Criteria, Project Funding, Project Execution, Interest on Cash-in-lieu Funds and Project Reporting.

Relevance to Authority Policy: One of the goals of LSRCA’s strategic plan, Vision to Action, Action to Results, is to support a safer, healthier and livable watershed through exceptional integrated watershed management. The development and implementation of the offsetting policies assist in achieving this goal by providing a consistent approach to enhancement and restoration throughout the watershed. Impact on Authority Finances: Approval of these housekeeping amendments will not impact Authority finances. As provided in previous reports to the Board of Directors, a record of the collection and allocation of funds will be made available to watershed municipalities, BILD and other interested stakeholders, on an annual basis, through a report to LSRCA’s Board of Directors.

of 107

Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD Page No: 3 of 3 Agenda Item No: 2 BOD-05-19 Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 30-19-BOD regarding proposed amendments to LSRCA’s Ecological Offsetting Plan, the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Water Budget Policy for 48.-DP and 6.40-DP be approved. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by General Manager, Planning & Development and the Chief Administrative Officer. Prepared by: Melinda Bessey, MSc, MCIP, RPP Acting Director, Planning Signed by: Signed by: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Rob Baldwin Michael Walters General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Planning and Development Attachments 1. Ecological Offsetting Policy (proposed May 2019) 2. Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Policy (proposed May 2019) 3. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Water Budget Policy for LSPP 4.8-DP and 6.40-DP (proposed May 2019)

of 107

Ecological Offsetting Policy

May 2017 (Revised May 2019)

of 107

Ecological Offsetting Policy, May 2017 (revised May 2019) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i

Conservation Authority Resolution ........................................................................................ ii

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 Context ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Guidelines ................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 General .................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Prerequisites for Ecological Offsetting ...................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Exceptions .................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Ecological Offsetting Strategy ................................................................................... 6

3.3.1 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.3.2 Woodlands ............................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.3 Cash-in-Lieu Compensation ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Implementation ........................................................................................................ 10

5.0 Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................................................... 11

5.1 Compensation Project Monitoring ......................................................................... 11

5.2 Cash-in-Lieu Monitoring ......................................................................................... 11

Appendix I. Offset Programs ................................................................................................ 11

Appendix II. Components of an Ecological Offsetting Strategy .............................................. 13

Appendix III. Ecosystem Service Values ................................................................................ 14

Appendix IV. Ecological Offsetting Analysis and Costing ....................................................... 15

Appendix V. Implementation Guidelines for Cash-in-Lieu Offsetting ..................................... 18

of 107

Ecological Offsetting Policy, May 2017 (revised May 2019) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ii

Conservation Authority Resolution

At the LSRCA Board of Directors’ meeting on May 26, 2017, the Ecological Offsetting Plan was

approved by the Board of Directors through the following resolution:

BOD-078-17 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 22-17-BOD regarding the Ecological Offsetting Plan process be received; and

FURTHER THAT the Ecological Offsetting Plan be approved. CARRIED

of 107

Ecological Offsetting Policy, May 2017 (revised May 2019) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 3

1.0 Introduction

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Strategic Plan (2016 – 2020) sets the

groundwork for achieving a healthier watershed by 2041 than we have today. Through

identified action items and goals, the LSRCA envisions a thriving environment that inspires and

sustains the needs of generations to come. Goal one of the Strategic Plan is to support a safer,

healthier and more livable watershed through exceptional integrated watershed management.

The development and implementation of an Ecological Offsetting Policy supports this goal by

providing a consistent approach to natural heritage protection, enhancement and restoration

throughout the watershed.

A review of international ecological offsetting programs (Appendix I) reinforces LSRCA’s current

approach as it relates to the conservation of natural heritage features susceptible to impacts

from development. A hierarchical approach is a common theme across ecological offsetting

programs, which follows a series of steps that support the principle of “no net loss”. This

mitigation hierarchy calls for the avoidance of impacts first, then minimization followed by

mitigation, with compensation as a final option (refer to Figure 1).

1. Avoid

Prevent impacts from occurring by changing project location, scope, nature of timing of activities

2. Minimize

Reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts that cannot be avoided

3. Mitigate

Rehabilitate or restore features or functions that have been exposed to impacts that could not be avoided or minimized

4. Compensate

Create or restore new habitat to compensate for loss that could not be avoided, minimized or mitigated

Figure 1 Mitigation Hierarchy1

1 Mitigation Hierarchy adapted from Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper, MNRF, 2015

of 107


Some development proposals, however, despite having followed the first three steps of the

mitigation hierarchy approach, result in a loss of natural heritage feature. Infrastructure

proposals, such as new roads, are examples where the loss of features is sometimes

unavoidable. Infill development within settlement areas in isolated natural heritage features is

another example. In these situations, where compensation is the only option, a “net gain” in

natural heritage features must be pursued. The LSRCA will work with the proponent or

developer to ensure that any unavoidable loss of feature is appropriately compensated for.

2.0 Context

Ecological offsetting for the loss of natural heritage features and upholding the principle of “no

net loss” is an important step towards achieving environmental sustainability in Ontario. The

policies within the following provincial, municipal, and watershed documents provide the basis

and justification for LSRCA’s Ecological Offsetting Policy for the Lake Simcoe watershed:

Provincial Policy Statement (e.g. Sections 1.8 and 2.1.2)

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (e.g. 40% natural vegetative cover target)

Regional and Local Official Plans

Natural Heritage System and Restoration Strategy for the Lake Simcoe

Watershed (2018)

Subwatershed Plans

To further support the implementation of LSRCA’s Ecological Offsetting Policy, publications such

as Key Issues in Biodiversity Offset Law and Policy, June 2015 by Ontario Nature, provide

valuable context and background on the implementation of ecological offsetting, both locally

and within an international setting. In addition, the Valuing Natural Capital in the Lake Simcoe

Watershed (2017) report from Green Analytics provides an assessment of the value of

ecological goods and services provided by ecosystems within the watershed. These values are

essential for recognizing the comprehensive cost of impacts to natural heritage features.

of 107


3.0 Guidelines

3.1 General

Development proposals and infrastructure projects subject to Planning Act or Environmental

Assessment Act approvals that will result in the loss of wetland and/or woodland natural

heritage features, despite having followed the mitigation hierarchy, as outlined in Figure 1, will

be required to compensate for the loss of these features. Certain exceptions may apply and are

further described in sections 3.2.1, 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.2.1.

Recognizing that there are limits, and certain natural heritage features may be irreplaceable,

offsetting will not be considered for features that contain rare vegetation communities as

defined by the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF, 2010) as well as bogs or fens.

Generally, offsetting will also not be considered for watercourses, as defined by the

Conservation Authorities Act or for the minimum vegetation protection zone abutting the Lake

Simcoe shoreline.

3.2 Prerequisites for Ecological Offsetting

Prior to the approval of any development application proposing compensation for the loss of

wetland or woodland feature, the following conditions must first be satisfied through an

approved Environmental Impact Study (EIS), Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE) or equivalent:

Demonstrate conformity with applicable provincial, regional and local plans, including

the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan for the Greater

Golden Horseshoe, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and Official Plans

Satisfy the “no negative impact test” for the loss of natural heritage feature to ensure

consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

Assess the impacts to natural heritage features such as wetlands, woodlands, and

watercourses, as well as their associated vegetation protection zones

of 107


Demonstrate that the mitigation hierarchy steps of avoiding, minimizing and mitigating

have been followed and that compensation is the only viable option to address impacts

to natural heritage features

Include a preliminary Ecological Offsetting Strategy (EOS) that describes, in concept,

how the loss of natural heritage feature will be compensated for. This would include

identifying the feature to be removed, location where it will be replaced and general

principles for feature creation

3.2.1 Exceptions

Applications under the Planning Act that facilitate permitted agricultural uses or the

construction of an accessory structure (e.g. garage) or a single family dwelling on an existing lot

of record will not be subject to ecological offsetting requirements. In addition, proposals

requiring approval under Ontario Regulation 179/06 via the Conservation Authorities Act that

do not also require an application under the Planning Act will not be subject to the

requirements of this Ecological Offsetting Policy.

3.3 Ecological Offsetting Strategy

An Ecological Offsetting Strategy (EOS) will be required where compensation is the only viable

option to address impacts to natural heritage features. It will be the responsibility of the

developer or proponent to develop and implement this EOS. The EOS must demonstrate how

the loss of natural heritage feature will be compensated for and that this offset will result in a

“net gain” of natural heritage features. Ecological offsetting compensation projects must be

both feasible and completed within a reasonable timeframe, preferably prior to the removal of

the original feature. The EOS must also include a monitoring component to ensure the

successful installation of compensation projects. The components of an EOS are further

described in Appendix II.

To assist in determining an appropriate opportunity and location for ecological offsetting

compensation projects, LSRCA will provide, upon request, a list of ecological restoration and

natural heritage feature creation opportunities. In general, compensation projects should:

of 107


be located within the same subwatershed as where the natural heritage feature is lost

preferably be located on sites that are currently owned by or that may be transferred

to a public agency, such as a municipality or LSRCA

contribute to or expand the natural heritage system as defined by the municipalities in

their Official Plans or as identified in LSRCA’s Natural Heritage System and Restoration

Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed (2018)

In most instances, compensation projects will be required to recreate similar features to those

that are lost. Offsetting requirements for both wetlands and woodlands are described in section

3.3.1 and 3.3.2, respectively. However, in some situations, it may be more appropriate for

ecological offsetting to include alternative compensation projects that result in an equivalent

ecological gain. If alternative compensation projects are being considered, the developer or

proponent is encouraged to first consult with LSRCA to determine the appropriateness of the

project.

3.3.1 Wetlands

All wetlands eligible for offsetting must be identified according to provincial standards such as

the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) or Ecological Land Classification (ELC).

Ecological offsetting may be considered for the loss of wetland provided that the wetland is not

a bog, fen or rare vegetation community as defined by the Natural Heritage Reference Manual

(MNRF, 2010).

The loss of wetland and associated vegetation protection zone will be offset at a replacement

ratio based on areal extent combined with the Ecosystem Services Values identified in Appendix

III. The replacement ratio for the areal extent of the feature will be 3:1; the replacement ratio

for the areal extent of the associated vegetation protection zone will be 1:1. This considers the

replacement values from the perspective of form and function across spatial and time scales to

ensure that the value of loss is supported with an appropriate net gain. The restoration of

historically functioning wetlands and/or severely degraded wetlands may be considered as

potential opportunities for offsetting. Consideration will be given for a lower replacement ratio,

of 107


provided that it is demonstrated that the functional improvement represents a net gain.

Payment of Ecosystem Service Values will not be required when the replacement feature is in

place prior to removal of the feature being replaced.

3.3.1.1 Exceptions

Ecological offsetting will not be required for wetlands that are smaller than 0.5 ha or manmade

features where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the LSRCA, that the wetland or

feature does not provide any of the following features or functions:

a significant groundwater hydrologic linkage to an adjacent key hydrologic or protected

feature

a significant component of or ecological linkage to an adjacent key natural heritage or

protected feature

a significant surface water hydrologic linkage (permanent or intermittent surface water

connection) between the wetland and an adjacent key hydrologic or protected feature

Ecological offsetting will not be required for restoration projects such as dam removals to

enhance fish habitat.

3.3.2 Woodlands

All woodlands eligible for offsetting must be identified according to provincial standards such as

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and the provincial criteria for defining woodlands. Ecological

offsetting may be considered for the loss of woodland provided that the woodland is not a rare

vegetation community as defined by the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF, 2010).

The loss of woodland and associated vegetation protection zone will be offset at a replacement

ratio based on areal extent combined with the Ecosystem Services Values presented in

Appendix III. The replacement ratio for the areal extent of the feature will be 2:1; the

replacement ratio for the areal extent of the associated vegetation protection zone will be 1:1.

This considers the replacement values from the perspective of form and function across spatial

and time scales to ensure that the value of loss is supported with an appropriate net gain.

of 107


Consideration will be given for a lower replacement ratio, provided that it is demonstrated that

the functional improvement represents a net gain. Payment of Ecosystem Service Values will

not be required when the replacement feature is in place prior to removal of the feature being

replaced.

3.3.2.1 Exceptions

Ecological offsetting will not be required for woodlands that are within municipalities that have

tree by-laws with comparable compensation requirements and duplication of tree replacement

will also be avoided. Ecological offsetting will also not be required for woodlands that are

plantations managed for the production of fruits, nuts, Christmas trees, nursery stock or tree

products or for woodlands identified smaller than 0.5 ha where it can be demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the LSRCA that it does not provide any of the following features or functions:

any woodlands wholly or partially within 30 m of a key natural heritage/key hydrological

or protected feature

any woodland containing a provincially rare treed vegetation community with an S1, S2

or S3 in its ranking by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Natural Heritage

Information Centre (NHIC)

Additional exclusions may be considered for communities that are dominated by the invasive

non-native tree species buckthorn (Rhamnus species) or Norway maple (Acer platanoides),

which threaten good forestry practices and environmental management. Such exceptions may

be considered where native species cover less than 10% of the ground and are represented by

less than 100 stems of any size per hectare.

3.3.3 Cash-in-Lieu Compensation

In certain instances, where it may not be feasible for the developer or proponent to

independently compensate for the loss of natural heritage feature, cash-in-lieu or land

purchase/securement may be considered as part of the Ecological Offsetting Strategy.

Offsetting for feature loss may also be accomplished through a combination of independent

feature replacement as well as cash-in-lieu.

of 107


A properly administered cash-in-lieu system that is fair, consistent and transparent will ensure

that a “net gain” is achieved. To support the success of compensation projects, partnerships

between the proponent, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), and the LSRCA should be

pursued where appropriate. NGO’s may include, but are not limited to:

Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC)

Ontario Nature (ON)

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

Couchiching Conservancy (CC)

Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC)

Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust (ORMLT)

Local streams committees

Local groups or clubs

The LSRCA, in consultation with its member municipalities, will administer the cash-in-lieu

option for the loss of natural heritage features. Any funds collected through the cash-in-lieu

compensation option will be directed towards the creation, protection and/or restoration of

natural heritage features in the watershed to ensure that a net ecological gain is achieved.

3.3.3.1 Calculation

The cash-in-lieu amount will be determined based on the required area of feature replacement

and cost to recreate that feature and its function, as well as the ecosystem service value for the

area of feature lost. An example of how to calculate the appropriate amount of offsetting

compensation is found in Appendix IV.

4.0 Implementation

This Ecological Offsetting Policy will be primarily implemented through Ontario’s land use

planning process under the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. For example, a

preliminary Ecological Offsetting Strategy (EOS) will be required for the loss of a natural feature

as part of any EIS or NHE while a detailed EOS will be required as a condition of draft approval

of 107


for the related plan of subdivision or plan of condominium. A detailed EOS will also be required

as a condition of site plan approval or the granting of provisional consent to create a new lot.

Other planning instruments that may be used to ensure implementation of an approved EOS

include subdivision agreements, condominium agreements, development agreements, and site

plan agreements under the Planning Act or Condominium Act, and conservation easements

under the Conservation Land Act.

5.0 Effectiveness Monitoring

5.1 Compensation Project Monitoring

The developer or proponent responsible for implementing approved ecological offsetting

compensation projects will also be responsible for demonstrating that the projects have been

completed and the associated natural heritage features are functioning as anticipated. Any

monitoring or reporting requirements should be determined through the Ecological Offsetting

Strategy (EOS), in consultation with LSRCA, prior to the implementation of any ecological

offsetting compensation projects.

5.2 Cash-in-Lieu Monitoring

To ensure effectiveness and transparency, a record of the collection and allocation of funds

received through cash-in-lieu compensation will be made available to the Building Industry and

Land Development Association (BILD), watershed municipalities and other interested

stakeholders, on an annual basis, in a report to the LSRCA Board of Directors. The

implementation guidelines for cash-in-lieu offsetting are detailed in Appendix V.

Appendix I. Offset Programs

Canada (Fisheries Act, 1985)

The federal Fisheries Act, 1985 is a Canadian example of an ecological offsetting program that has upheld the philosophy of no net loss of fish habitat since 1985. With the changes to the legislation in 2013, the prominence of ecological offsetting has been elevated through its inclusion in the text of the legislation itself rather than strictly within policy. The Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013)

of 107


supports the application of the mitigation hierarchy of the Business and Biodiversity Offset Programme (2013) by stating that “It is much more difficult and expensive to repair or restore damaged ecosystems to maintain fisheries productivity than it is to avoid adverse impacts. For this reason the Department emphasizes avoidance and mitigation as the main steps in the hierarchy, followed by offsetting as a means of last resort”. This program is administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Ontario (Endangered Species Act, 2007)

The Endangered Species Act (2007) in Ontario protects specific species, as well as their habitat. In situations where avoidance and mitigation cannot be achieved, the Act provides the ability to obtain an overall benefit permit to conduct work as long as an overall benefit to the species in Ontario is demonstrated. This program is an example of an ecological offsetting program on a species specific basis. As such, achieving overall benefit is similar to the no net loss principle. In this case the objective is to increase the number of individual species living in the wild, increase the distribution of the species, remove threats to the species and increase the quality or amount of habitat for specific species in Ontario (www.ontario.ca). This program is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Australia (Native Vegetation)

In 2000, the State of Victoria, Australia estimated that 66% of its native vegetation has been lost through development and population growth. The State’s intent was to reverse this trend and try to achieve a ‘net gain’ in the extent and quality of vegetation. As outlined in ‘Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action’ document (2002), the State moved forward to address these losses using the practice of biodiversity offsets. The implementation of ‘habitat hectares’ as currency metric was seen as an innovative approach to evaluating losses. It considered both the area lost and its quality rating and determined what the required offset would be. In 2007, the government established a credit trading system to help implement the biodiversity offsetting program.

United States (Wetlands)

The United States has had a history of using biodiversity offsets as the means for compensating for unavoidable loss of wetlands. Under the Clean Water Act (1972) provisions were made through a permitting process where proponents were expected to avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetland features or provide compensation for any losses. By 1988, a policy of no net loss of wetland values or functions was adopted where ‘like-kind’ replacement and ‘functional’ replacement of those values were emphasized as opposed to size.

of 107


Appendix II. Components of an Ecological Offsetting Strategy1

Through an agreed upon Terms of Reference with the LSRCA, an Ecological Offsetting Strategy (EOS)

may contain components that address the following:

i) Location - comparable ecosystem values

ii) Equivalency – quality and quantity of ecological functions

iii) Additional benefits– opportunity for further enhancements

iv) Timing – restoration/replacement to start in sequence with approvals process

v) Duration – provide for longer term monitoring maintenance and contingency

vi) Accountability – a formal written agreement between the relevant parties

An Ecological Offsetting Strategy (EOS) may form the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

or Letter of Agreement that contains:

i) Outline of the nature and extent of the work

ii) Timing and duration of the work

iii) Monitoring procedures to be undertaken

iv) Performance measures and work milestones

v) Securities for the MOU e.g. letter of credit

The EOS may also include a long-term management plan and a commitment to an endowment fund.

1 Adapted from Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances, Environment Canada, 2012

of 107


Appendix III. Ecosystem Service Values

Ecosystem services are the beneficial goods and services provided by the natural environment on an

annual basis. These goods and services include things like carbon storage and sequestration, flood

attenuation, water purification, climate regulation, biodiversity, nutrient cycling and soil stabilization.

The Ecosystem Service Values provided by woodlands and wetlands in the Lake Simcoe watershed are

displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Approximate Annual Ecosystem Service Values1 by Land Cover Type

Total per ha ($/ha)2

Land Cover Type 2017 2018 (2.3%) 2019 (1.9%)

Woodland $5,800 $5,933 $6046

Wetland $7,474 $7,646 $7791

1 Ecosystem service values are extrapolated from Valuing Natural Capital in the lake Simcoe Watershed, Green

Analytics, 2017: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/Ecosystem-Service-Values.pdf 2 Inflation is reflected in the ecosystem service values and is updated in March based on the annual consumer price

index provided by Statistics Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1810000413

of 107

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/Ecosystem-Service-Values.pdf

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1810000413


Appendix IV. Ecological Offsetting Analysis and Costing

To provide an example of how an appropriate ecological offset for the loss of a natural heritage feature

and associated vegetation protection zone may be determined, consider the following scenario:

As part of a Planning Act application, a natural heritage feature was assessed and a section of the

woodland is proposed for removal after demonstrating through an Environmental Impact Study that

there will be no negative impact to the feature. Figure 1 shows a study area with an area of a natural

heritage feature and vegetation protection zone (VPZ) that will be removed as well as a candidate

location for feature replacement. It is important to note that the candidate feature replacement

location is in addition to retained natural features and associated VPZ.

Figure 1 Area where a feature will be removed (1.5 ha of woodland, 0.3 ha of VPZ) and the areas where it could be replaced

Based on the Ecological Offsetting Policy, Table 1 presents two options to offset for the removal of 1.5

ha of woodland and 0.3 ha of vegetation protection zone (VPZ). Option 1 is proponent led feature

replacement while Option 2 is cash-in-lieu with LSRCA leading feature replacement. Table 2 includes the

costing associated with feature replacement where the cash-in-lieu option is pursued.

of 107


Table 1 Ecological offsetting options for the removal of 1.5 ha of woodland and 0.3 ha of vegetation protection zone

Ecological Offsetting Option #1 preferred option Ecological Offsetting Option #2

Feature Replacement (Proponent Led) Cash-in-Lieu (LSRCA Led Feature Replacement)

Feature replacement requirement: 2:1 for woodland and 1:1 for VPZ = (woodland area x 2) + (VPZ area x 1) = (1.5 ha x 2) + (0.3 ha x 1) = 3.3 ha of woodland replacement

Feature creation cost: 2:1 for woodland and 1:1 for VPZ Woodland replacement cost = $48,500/ha (Table 2) = [(woodland area x 2) + (VPZ area x 1)] x $48,500/ha = [(1.5 ha x 2) + (0.3 ha x 1)] x $48,500/ha = 3.3 ha x $48,500/ha = $160,050

ESV payment requirement: Woodland ESV = $6,046/ha (Appendix III) = (woodland area + VPZ area) x woodland ESV = (1.5 ha + 0.3 ha) x $6,046/ha = $10,882.80

ESV cost: Woodland ESV = $6,046/ha (Appendix III) = (woodland area + VPZ area) x woodland ESV = (1.5 ha + 0.3 ha) x $6,046/ha = $10,882.80

Land securement cost: 15% of (feature creation cost + ESV cost) = 0.15 x ($160,050 + $10,882.80) = $25,639.92

Administration fee: 15% of all costs = 0.15 x ($160,050 + $10,882.80 + $25,639.92) = 0.15 x $196,572.72 = $29,485.91

Total requirement: Total requirement:

Replacement of 3.3 ha of woodland

Payment of $10,882.80 for ESV

Payment of $196,572.72 for feature creation cost + ESV + land securement cost

Payment of $29,485.91 for administration fee

Total payment = $226,058.63

of 107


Table 2 Cash-in-Lieu feature creation costing for ecological offsetting1

Wetland (1 ha)

Planning and Design $13,000

Site Preparation and Construction $37,600

Wetland Plant Material (1100 aquatic plugs, 1000 trees/shrubs, seed) $41,900

TOTAL $92,500/ha

Woodland (1 ha)

Planning and Design $5,000

Site Preparation and Construction $16,000

Woodland Plant Material (2100 trees/shrubs, seed) $27,500

TOTAL $48,500/ha

1 Values are adapted from LSRCA restoration project costs and TRCA, NGO and private consulting estimates.

Values are reviewed annually and may be subject to adjustment to account for inflation or fluctuations in service and/or material costs.

of 107


Appendix V. Implementation Guidelines for Cash-in-Lieu Offsetting

The following sections outline the implementation guidelines for LSRCA’s Cash-in-Lieu Ecological Offsetting: Implementation Committee, Project Selection Criteria, Project Funding, Project Execution, Interest on Cash-in-lieu Funds and Project Reporting.

Implementation Committee

An Implementation Committee (Committee) will be established and shall be responsible for:

identifying and reviewing potential natural heritage projects;

ensuring that projects meet the project selection criteria;

ensuring that projects are implemented as approved;

reviewing annual ecological offsetting reports and ensuring that desired outcomes are being achieved; and,

providing advice and direction on ways to improve the program.

The Implementation Committee will be comprised of six (6) members from the following service areas: Corporate Services, Planning & Development, Conservation Lands and Watershed Restoration Services.

Project Selection Criteria

The following criteria must be met for a project to be approved by the Committee:

Project will provide a net ecological gain

Project will be on lands that are protected in perpetuity o Existing LSRCA lands or lands to be acquired by LSRCA (preferred) o Public lands with a formal Agreement to allow LSRCA to construct the project and the land

owner to protect, inspect and maintain the feature to the satisfaction of LSRCA o Private lands with a formal Agreement to allow LSRCA to construct the project, for the

landowner to place a Conservation Agreement or Covenant on the land by LSRCA or a municipality and for the landowner to protect, inspect and maintain the feature in perpetuity to the satisfaction of LSRCA (least preferred)

Potential projects will also be prioritized based on the following guiding principles:

Project can generally be implemented in the same subwatershed from which the feature was lost

Project is cost effective (greatest return on investment)

Project can generally recreate similar feature to that which was lost

Project can support LSRCA’s Natural Heritage System and Restoration Strategy 2018

Project can support LSRCA’s Natural Heritage System Land Securement Project 2019-2025

Project can provide secondary benefits (e.g. flood reduction, groundwater recharge in significant recharge areas, improvement to e-flows, carbon mitigation, protection of infrastructure, thermal mitigation and urban heat reduction, social/community impacts, etc.)

of 107


Projects will be prioritized by the Committee and recommended to the General Manager of Watershed Restoration Services (GM) /Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and/or the Board of Directors (BOD) for approval as per LSRCA’s Purchasing Policy.

Project Funding

The cash-in-lieu value collected through the EOP includes an administration fee, project implementation costs and land securement allocation.

The administration fee (15%) will be used to fund program costs. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: Committee administration, project development and prioritization, consultant and contractor procurement, consultant and contractor project management, performance monitoring and inspection, financial controls and reporting, information management (mapping and database), corporate overhead and annual reporting.

The project implementation funds will be used to fund the project costs. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: design, design technical review, duty to consult, construction, construction management and inspection and as-built drawings, as required.

The land securement allocation will be directed to LSRCA’s land securement program to acquire lands for ecological protection and ecological restoration/enhancement initiatives.

A review of the project funds, including the administration fee, will be completed annually to ensure the amount is appropriate.

Project Execution

Projects will be executed by LSRCA. Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Committee.

A recommended, prioritized list of potential projects and budgets for each sub-watershed will be developed. The GM/CAO will approve projects in accordance with LSRCA's Purchasing Policy. Any projects with a projected budget exceeding the CAO’s approval threshold will be recommended to the BOD for approval. Consultant and contractor procurement will be in accordance with LSRCA’s Purchasing Policy.

Interest on Cash-in-Lieu Funds

Any idle cash-in-lieu funds will be invested under the provisions of the LSRCA Investment Policy. Interest revenue will remain in the program with 15% for administration and 85% divided for project implementation and land securement costs.

Reporting

Annual audited balances will be available at year-end or (unaudited) available upon request by the Committee or BOD.

Based on the audited balances and ecological offsetting reports, the Committee may provide recommendations on ways to improve the program.

of 107

Phosphorus Offsetting Policy

September 2017

Updated May 2019 of 107

Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, September 2017 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. iii

Conservation Authority Resolution ....................................................................................... iv

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 Context ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Principles .................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Zero Export Target ...................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Goals ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Definition .................................................................................................................... 8

4.4 Policies ........................................................................................................................ 9

5.0 Implementation ........................................................................................................ 11

6.0 Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................................................... 13

6.1 Phosphorus Offsetting Project Monitoring ................................................................. 13

6.2 Phosphorus Offsetting Revenue Monitoring ............................................................... 13

of 107

Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, September 2017 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority iii

Acknowledgements

This policy could not have been developed without the participation of and collaboration with:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation

City of Barrie

City of Kawartha Lakes

Regional Municipality of Durham

Township of Brock

Township of Scugog

Township of Uxbridge

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Town of Innisfil

Town of New Tecumseth

Township of Oro-Medonte

Township of Ramara

Regional Municipality of York

Town of Aurora

Town of East Gwillimbury

Town of Georgina

Township of King

Town of Newmarket

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)

Ontario Federation of Agriculture (Simcoe Chapter)

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority would especially like to acknowledgement the

support of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Hon. Glen Murray.

of 107

Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, September 2017 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority iv


The LSRCA Board of Directors on September 22, 2017 adopted the Phosphorus Offsetting Policy

by resolution as follows:

Moved by: S. Macpherson Seconded by: P. Ferragine BOD-131-17 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 38-17-BOD regarding the Lake Simcoe

Phosphorus Offsetting Program be received; and

FURTHER THAT the Phosphorus Offsetting policy be approved to take effect January 1, 2018; and FURTHER THAT LSRCA’s member municipalities and the Building Industry and Land Development Association be notified accordingly. CARRIED

of 107

Phosphorus Offsetting Policy, September 2017 (Updated May, 2019) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 5

1.0 Introduction

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Strategic Plan (2016–2020) sets the

groundwork for achieving a healthier watershed by 2041 than we have today. The Strategic

Plan provides action items and goals which speak to a thriving environment that inspires and

sustains the needs of generations to come. The first goal of the Strategic Plan is to support a

safer, healthier and livable watershed through exceptional integrated watershed management.

The initiation of a Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program (LSPOP) to reduce phosphorus is

one of the plan’s key activities and will ultimately protect and improve the water quality in Lake

Simcoe and its tributaries.

The LSPOP is the product of more than 4 years of work in collaboration with the First Nations, Chippewas of Georgina, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), our municipal partners, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and the watershed community. Extensive consultation was held during the study and to develop policy to operationalize the program. The study report and appendices were released in late 2014 and are available on the LSRCA website along with a summary document. This policy outlines the steps needed to facilitate an offset with the development industry and is intended to aid in operationalizing the program. The effective launch date of January 1, 2018 has been selected in order to provide a transitional period for municipalities and members of the Building Industry and Land Development Association.

It is noted that the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program will result in many other

environmental, social and economic benefits including:

• Reduced peak flows, frequency and severity of flooding, risk to life, property and social

disruption,

• Increased resilience of communities to climate change,

• Enhanced groundwater recharge to maintain ground-water drinking supplies and ecological

services,

• Creation of green industry - jobs in construction, operation and maintenance,

• Facilities that are aesthetically attractive and provide opportunities for carbon offsetting

and climate change mitigation.

2.0 Context

LSPOP requires that all new development must control 100% of the phosphorus from leaving

their property. This is referred to as the Zero Export Target, a key component of the LSPOP that

of 107

http://www.lsrca/watershed-health/phosphorus-offsetting-program


ensures new development or redevelopment activities do not continue to contribute to

phosphorus loading to Lake Simcoe. Under this Policy, as new urban growth occurs phosphorus

loads will be controlled to the maximum extent possible using the best available control

technology within the development itself in compliance with the MOECC Stormwater

Guidelines and the LSRCA Watershed Development Guidelines, whichever is most stringent.

Any remaining stormwater phosphorus load that cannot be controlled would trigger the need

for an offset to achieve a net zero target. An offset ratio of 2.5:1 would be applied meaning

that 2.5 kg of phosphorus per year would be removed for every 1 kg required to be offset. The

offset measures would consist of phosphorus load reduction through the use of Low Impact

Development (LID) techniques and the retrofit of existing stormwater discharges elsewhere in a

sub-watershed or in adjacent sub-watersheds.

LSPOP is based on the following provincial, regional, and watershed documents in the Lake

Simcoe watershed:

Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (1990-2007)

Assimilative Capacity Study (2006)

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009)

Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program (2014)

Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017)

Ontario Water Resources Act (R.S.O. – 2017)

Subwatershed Plans (2009 - 2017)

For example, Chapter 4 of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan identifies that phosphorus loadings

should be reduced to achieve a target for dissolved oxygen of 7mg/L in Lake Simcoe, which

equates to a long-term goal of 44 tonnes per year. Phosphorus offsetting is a means to help

achieve this long-term goal and target.

of 107


3.0 Principles

LSPOP is based on the following principles:

Accountable Mechanisms will be in place to demonstrate that actual

phosphorus reductions will result from the offsets and that

program implementation and decisions will be transparent.

Beneficial Offsetting will result in net water quality benefits to Lake Simcoe.

Defensible Offsetting parameters, such as credits and ratios, will be based on

reliable scientific evidence and methods.

Economical Reductions in phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe that result

from offsetting should be at an overall lower cost than traditional

approaches to water quality improvement.

Enforceable Offsetting procedures will be simple, consistent and

implementable.

Equitable Offsetting will avoid bias in terms of participation, location of

trades, and value of credits.

Adaptable Information about program operation and water quality

improvements will be reviewed from time to time and will be

used to adapt offsetting to changing knowledge and technology.

of 107

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=78y1mwE15fK_kM&tbnid=roTz0zxu9baVjM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.streets.mn/2013/09/10/what-does-mids-mean-to-minnesota-urbanism/&ei=sXQCU5ulBaSU2QW53YHwBg&bvm=bv.61535280,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNHxIoaOFmx8UBzXLstQGnwX7S0BhA&ust=1392756267897567


4.0 Policy Approach

4.1 Goals

To maintain and/or improve the water quality of Lake Simcoe and its tributaries by

addressing stormwater, which is defined as waste water and should not be discharged to a

receiving water body that is at or as a result of the discharge, would exceed its assimilative

capacity,

To assist in achieving the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan target for dissolved oxygen of 7mg/L

in Lake Simcoe with an annual phosphorus load of 44 tonnes per year.

4.2 Objectives

To reduce stormwater runoff to pre-development conditions as close to the source as

possible,

To ensure that development within the watershed contributes to the protection or

enhancement of water quality and quantity through the implementation of LID techniques

such as enhanced swales, rain-gardens, and permeable surfaces,

To prevent increases in phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe and its tributaries by utilizing LID

principles,

To recognize stormwater retrofit projects on public lands as a means to achieving the

overall phosphorus water quality target.

4.3 Definition

Phosphorus offsetting will be applied to the following applications under the Planning Act and

Condominium Act as well as to Environmental Compliance Approvals:

Plans of subdivision

Plans of condominium

Site plans involving major development

Consent applications resulting in the creation of four or more new lots

4.3.1 Exceptions: applications made under the Planning Act that facilitate permitted

agricultural uses or the construction of an accessory structure (e.g., garage or barn and non-

commercial structures) or a single family dwelling on an existing lot of record will not be subject

to the Phosphorous Offsetting Policy requirements.

of 107


For the purposes of this Policy, major development is defined as a proposed impervious area

that is greater than (>) 500m2.

4.4 Phosphorus Offsetting Policies

4.4.1 An application as identified in Section 4.3 shall be accompanied by a Preliminary

Phosphorus Budget as part of an overall Functional Servicing Report or Preliminary

Stormwater Management Report. This evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified

professional to the satisfaction of the municipality and local conservation authority prior

to any draft plan of subdivision, site plan approval or granting of provisional consent. A

Detailed Phosphorus Budget, based on the approved Preliminary Report, will be required

as a condition of draft plan of subdivision/condominium or site plan approval or granting

of provisional consent.

4.4.2 The Phosphorus Budget identified in Section 4.4.1 must demonstrate that the

phosphorus load from the development on the property will be zero. The Phosphorus

Budget shall be prepared in accordance with the following:

i. Municipality’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan prepared

under 4.5-SA of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009)

ii. Subwatershed Evaluations under 8.3-SA of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

iii. Designated Policy 4.8 of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

iv. Section 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

v. LSRCA’s Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions

vi. Provisions and Regulations of the Ontario Water Resources Act

vii. Policy 3.2.7 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017).

4.4.3 In situations where the phosphorus load cannot be met or demonstrated in a post-

development scenario to achieve the Zero Phosphorus, the developer or proponent shall

be required to provide phosphorus offsetting to the LSRCA.

The Phosphorus Offsetting Fee will be calculated as follows:

Offset Ratio = 2.5:1

Offset Value = $35,000/kg/year

Offset Calculation = (ratio (2.5) x P deficit in kg x $35,000)

And additional 15% Administration Fee will be added to the Phosphorus Offsetting Fee for

Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority Program Costs.

of 107


4.4.4 The revenue generated through phosphorus offsetting will be used to reduce the

phosphorus load in other parts of the subwatershed by funding the construction of;

stormwater pond retrofits, Low Impact Development best management practices. The

offset shall generally occur in the same catchment as the subject lands, subwatershed, or

watershed in order of priority.

4.4.5 Proper agreements shall be established in order to ensure the phosphorus offset will be

employed and maintained in perpetuity. The following agreements or legal instruments,

where appropriate, shall be required as a condition of approval for any draft plan of

subdivision or condominium, site plan under Section 41 of the Planning Act, or consent

application:

Subdivision or consent agreement;

Condominium agreement;

Site plan agreement;

Purchase and sale agreements; and,

Covenants as per the Conservation Land Act registered under the Land Titles Act.

4.4.6 Council may enact by-laws under the Municipal Act to help implement the approved

phosphorus offset. Existing fill or site alteration by-laws may be amended or updated to

include the offset requirements.

4.4.7 Applications under the Planning Act that facilitate permitted agricultural uses or the

construction of an accessory structure (e.g. garage) or a single family dwelling on an

existing lot of record will not be subject to this Phosphorus Offsetting Policy. In addition,

proposals requiring approval under Ontario Regulation 179/06 via the Conservation

Authorities Act will not be subject to the requirements of this Policy.

of 107


5.0 Implementation

Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Implementation Committee

An Implementation Committee (Committee) shall be established is to assist in implementing

LSPOP through informed decision making. The members will be responsible for:

Reviewing potential LID and retrofit projects for funding utilizing the LSPOP revenue.

Ensuring that the projects meet LSPOP Implementation Criteria and either approving or denying projects.

Reviewing and recommending which approved projects need to be monitored for water quality/quantity efficacy.

Reviewing the annual reports and ensuring that desired outcomes are being achieved.

Providing advice and direction on ways to improve the program.

The Committee shall be comprised of members from LSRCA, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), Building Industry and Land Developers (BILD), and Watershed Municipalities.

Minimum Project Selection Criteria

The following minimum criteria must be met for a project to be approved Committee:

Projects must be on public lands with a written commitment from the public land owner

to enter into an Agreement to include the following: inspect and maintain the facility to

the satisfaction of the LSRCA, and if applicable, the amended Environmental Certificate

of Approval (ECA) and to identify the project within an established asset management

database and provide inspection and maintenance records to LSRCA upon request.

Evidence that all previously LSPOP funded projects in the project’s municipality are

being inspected and maintained in accordance with their Agreement.

On private lands with a written commitment from the private land owner to enter into a

Conservation Agreement to include the following: the protection, inspection and

maintenance of the facility in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the LSRCA and if

applicable, the amended Environmental Certificate of Approval (ECA).

of 107


Project Prioritization

Projects will be recommended to the Committee based on the following:

Best P-reduction Value, ie. lowest cost of per kg of P-reduction based on preliminary

project cost estimates prepared by LSRCA. A 30% contingency cost will be included in

each estimate due to the preliminary nature of the estimate.

Secondary Benefits including but not limited to flood reduction, groundwater recharge

in significant recharge areas, improvement to e-flows, carbon mitigation, protection of

infrastructure, thermal mitigation and urban heat reduction, improvements to natural

heritage systems, bio-diversity and social/community impacts.

Public lands (preferred) vs. private lands.

Broader area of relevance, such as urban catchment, sub-watershed and watershed

(preferred) vs local area of relevance.

Project Funding

Phosphorus offsetting will be invoiced to the development applicant at issuance of the ECA.

Projects shall be 100% funded except for land procurement costs on public lands. Funding on private lands shall be recommended to the Lake Simcoe Region Construction Authority Board of Directors (Board) by the Committee.

The Administration Fee (15%) will be used by Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) to fund the Program costs. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: Implementation Committee Administration, Project Development & Prioritization, Consultant and Contractor Procurement, Consultant and Contractor Project Management, Performance Monitoring and Inspection, Financial Controls & Reporting, IMS Mapping & Database, Corporate Overhead and Annual Reporting. The Phosphorus Offsetting Fee will be used to fund the Project costs. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: Design (Consultant Fees or Staff Time), Design Technical Review, Duty to Consult, Construction, Construction Management and Inspection and As-builts as required. A Bi-annually review of the Program percentage will be performed to ensure the amount is appropriate.

of 107


Project Execution

Projects will be executed by LSRCA. Limited exceptions can be made at the discretion of the Committee.

A recommended prioritized list of potential projects and budgets for each LSPOP sub-watershed groupings will be developed and presented to the Committee for approval. LSPOP Sub-watersheds groupings are identified in Appendix A.

The Committee will provide a list of prioritized approved projects and budgets for each sub-watershed groupings to the Board for final approval. At any time the Committee can recommend to the Board amended sub-watershed groupings prioritized list of projects.

Consultant and Contractor procurement will be in accordance with the current of the day LSRCA’s Purchasing Policy.

The Committee will be advised if during the design the construction cost estimates show a reduction of more than 15% of the Best P-reduction Value. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board if the project should proceed or be canceled.

The Committee will be advised if after the construction tenders are opened if the project will not meet the offset ratio of 2.5:1. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board if the project should proceed or be canceled.

6.0 Effectiveness Monitoring

6.1 Phosphorus Offsetting Project Monitoring

LSRCA in association with the municipality will be responsible for implementing appropriate

offsetting projects. The effectiveness of some these projects where deemed necessary will be

monitored over time, and any reporting will be made available to the province, Building

Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), watershed municipalities and watershed

community on-line.

6.2 Phosphorus Offsetting Revenue Monitoring

Financial Controls

Offsetting funds will be tracked within a sub-watershed grouping account. Once a project has been approved by the Board the approved budget will be transferred to the project account.

of 107


Internal monthly reporting on project budget versus actual will be prepared and reviewed at each Committee meeting.

Interest on LSPOP Revenue

Due to timing difference between LSPOP revenue and project expenditures, LSRCA staff will segregate the idle LSPOP money and invest under the strict provisions of the LSRCA Investment Policy. All interest earned will be returned to the General Pool.

LSPOP Interest revenue remains in the program with 15% for Program costs and 85% for Project costs.

Reconciliation of Projects (Project close out)

At the conclusion of the project, any remaining funds from the project would be returned to a General Pool of LSPOP funding for redeployment towards other projects at the general discretion of the Committee and approved by the Board.

Project Reporting

Project reporting will be done internally monthly and be reported as part of the quarterly reporting at the LSRCA (typically only done at the end of quarter 2,3 and 4).

Available sub-watershed grouping balances, revenue received less committed expenditures, will be available for each Committee meeting.

Other Reporting

Annual audited balances (by sub-watershed or aggregate) will be available at year end or (unaudited) will be available upon request of the Committee or Board.

of 107

1

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Water Budget Policy for LSPP 4.8-DP and 6.40-DP

November 2018

Updated May 2019

of 107

2

Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Conservation Authority Resolution ............................................................................................................... 3

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Policy Requirements ................................................................................. 7

4.0 Policy Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 7

5.0 Significant Ground Water Recharge Areas/Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ....... 8

6.0 Policy hierarchy ....................................................................................................................................... 9

7.0 Infiltration ............................................................................................................................................... 9

8.0 Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 12

9.0 Recharge Compensation Program ........................................................................................................ 12

List of Figures Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Region of York WHPA-Q2. Development within the Region of

York WHPA-Q2 is subject to LUP-12. Development outside of the Region of York WHPA-Q2 is subject to

this Water Balance Offsetting Policy. ........................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Assessing policy applicability. ........................................................................................................ 8

Figure 3. Recharge policy hierarchy between South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan

and Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. ................................................................................................................. 9

List of Tables Table 1.LSRCA requirements for the implementation of infiltration type LID’s for linear developments

based on the Source Water Protection Vulnerable Area and road classification (Modified from City of

Barrie 2017). ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 2. Infiltration LID requirements for the impervious area (paved) runoff for major and non-major

development (Modified from City of Barrie 2017). .................................................................................... 11

Table 3. Cash Compensation values for the recharge policies within the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe

Source Protection Plan (2015) and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009). ............................................ 13

Table 4. LSRCA Recharge Compensation Fee Schedule (2019 numbers, subject to periodic revision (From

LSRCA 2017). ............................................................................................................................................... 14

of 107

3


At the LSRCA Board of Director’s Meeting on December 14, 2018, the Water Balance Offsetting Policy

was approved by the Board of Directors through the following resolution:

Moved by: P. Ferragine

Seconded by: M. Quirk

BOD-179-18 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 51-18-BOD regarding the Water Balance

Offsetting Policy be received; and

FURTHER THAT the Water Balance Offsetting Policy be approved for

implementation effective January 1, 2019.

of 107

4

1.0 Introduction The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Strategic Plan (2016 – 2020) sets the

groundwork for achieving a healthier watershed by 2041 than we have today. Through identified action

items and goals, the LSRCA envisions a thriving environment that inspires and sustains the needs of

generations to come. Goal one of the Strategic Plan is to support a safer, healthier and more livable

watershed through exceptional integrated watershed management. The development and

implementation of a Water Balance Offsetting Policy supports this goal by providing a consistent

approach to groundwater recharge, throughout the watershed.

2.0 Background Recharge areas are the areas of land over which precipitation in the form of rain or snow infiltrates into

the ground and flows to an aquifer. Recharge areas tend to be characterized by permeable and porous

soils such as sand or gravel. These soils allow water to percolate downward and replenish the water

system. A recharge area is considered to be significant when it helps to maintain the water level in an

aquifer that supplies drinking water, or groundwater to a cold water ecosystem that is dependent on

this recharge to maintain its ecological function. Recharge can occur in all areas where the ground

surface is permeable and groundwater is below surface. This policy document establishes goals for the

different areas where recharge occurs and establishes the maximum allowable infiltration deficit before

offsetting will be applicable.

The policies within the following provincial, municipal, and watershed documents provide the basis and

justification for LSRCA’s Water Balance Offsetting Policy:

Provincial Policy Statement (2014; Section 2.2)

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017; Section 4.2)

Greenbelt Plan (2017; Section 3.2.3)

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

Regional and Local Official Plans

Subwatershed Plans

The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan came into effect in 2009. Since then the Significant Groundwater

Recharge Areas (SGRAs) and Ecologically Significant recharge Areas (ESGRAs) have been identified and

mapped and by default areas of lower recharge have been established, recharge in these areas may still

be substantial. Sub-watershed plans have been produced for each of the sub-watersheds within the

Lake Simcoe Watershed.

Recognizing the importance of recharge areas to sustaining a healthy watershed the Lake Simcoe

Protection Plan (LSPP) includes a number of policies to help identify and protect SGRAs and ESGRAs. The

approach taken within the LSPP follows three basic steps: 1) define and identify SGRAs/ESGRAs; 2)

of 107

5

develop guidance for their protection and restoration, and 3) incorporate policies into municipal official

plans to protect, improve and restore.

This document will expand on the three points above by developing a Water Budget Offsetting Policy for

those areas where it is demonstrated that the post-development infiltration is unable to match the pre-

development infiltration volume and an infiltration deficit remains in the post-development scenario.

The proposed Water Budget Offsetting Plan is based upon the program developed for the York Region

Groundwater Recharge Management Area (WHPA-Q2). The program is being developed for those

regions that are outside of the Region of WHPA-Q2 area.

Municipalities outside of the Region of York WHPA-Q2 area (Figure 1):

County Simcoe

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury (part)

Town of Innisfil

City of Barrie

Township of Oro-Medonte

Township of Ramara

Regional Municipality of Durham

Township of Brock

Township of Scugog

Regional Municipality of York

Town of East Gwillimbury (part)

Town of Georgina

The water balance review and compensation program has been developed to support Urban Watershed

Restoration at Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, as well as local and regional municipalities in

the Lake Simcoe Watershed. This document has been developed to support this initiative as an internal

tool to provide information and direction to assist planning and technical staff on the following:

1. LSPP policy requirements related to recharge policies

2. Water balance technical study requirements

3. Compensation process

a. When recharge compensation would be required

b. Process for implementation.

of 107

6

Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Region of York WHPA-Q2. Development within the Region of York WHPA-Q2 is subject to LUP-12. Development outside of the Region of York WHPA-Q2 is subject to this Water Balance Offsetting Policy.

of 107

7

3.0 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Policy Requirements The Lake Simcoe Protection Act came into effect 2008, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan was released in

2009. Under Policies 4.8-DP and 6.40-DP it is required that water balance assessments be produced for

the pre- and post-development scenarios. Under policy 4.8-DP the effects of the development are to be

minimized. Under 6.40-DP the required environmental impact study is to demonstrate that the quality

and quantity of groundwater in these areas and the function of the recharge areas will be protected,

improved or restored.

A hydrogeological assessment, authored by a qualified person (i.e., P.Geo or exempted P.Eng as per

Professional Geoscientists Act (2000)), including a detailed climate based water balance should

accompany all planning applications for major development. During the review process for the

application the hydrogeological assessment should be reviewed by a qualified person.

The policy applies to major development which is defined by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan as

development consisting of:

a) the creation of four or more lots,

b) the construction of a building or buildings with an impervious area of 500 m2 or more; or

c) the establishment of a major recreational use (ORMCP)

Establishing a climate based water balance should be the first step in stormwater management. By

mitigating the post-development infiltration deficit a portion of the volume control for stormwater

management will have been addressed.

4.0 Policy Objectives The objective of the water balance policies under the Lake Simcoe protection Plan is to enhance the

quality of water within Lake Simcoe and its surrounding watershed. Policy 4.8-DP is one of the

stormwater management policies within the LSPP: An application for major development shall be

accompanied by a stormwater management plan that demonstrates… d) ”through an evaluation of

anticipated changes in the water balance between pre-development and post-development, how such

things shall be minimized”. Implicit is the requirement for a climate based water balance for the pre-

and post-development scenarios and the use of BMP to minimize any infiltration deficit. By considering

the water balance as the initial part of stormwater management it is likely that some of the 25 mm

volume control will have been managed as required by the LSRCA Stormwater guidelines (2016).

Policy 6.40-DP States “Outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine area an application for major development

within a significant ground water recharge area shall be accompanied by an environmental impact study

that demonstrates that the quality and quantity of groundwater in these areas and the function of the

recharge areas will be protected, improved or restored”. Ecologically significant groundwater recharge

areas shall be treated the same as significant groundwater recharge areas.

of 107

8

5.0 Significant Ground Water Recharge Areas/Ecologically Significant

Groundwater Recharge Areas

The definitions of a significant groundwater recharge areas, in accordance with LSPP policy 3.6-DP are as

follows:

a) Significant groundwater recharge area by any public body for the purposes of implementing the

PPS;

b) Significant groundwater recharge area (SGRA) in the Source Water Protection Assessment

report required under the Clean Water Act 2006 (CWA). Following the CWA definition, these are

areas within which it is desirable to regulate or monitor drinking water threats that may affect

the recharge of an aquifer.

c) An ecologically significant groundwater recharge area (ESGRA) is an area of land that is

responsible for replenishing groundwater systems that directly support sensitive areas such as

coldwater streams and wetlands.

Major Development?

Circulate hydrogeological assessment and water balance

to P.Geo for review

LSPP 4.8-DP

LSPP 6.40-DP

Assess policy applicability

Policy does not apply

No

Figure 2. Assessing policy applicability.

Yes Policy Applies

of 107

9

6.0 Policy hierarchy Between the 3 water balance policies pertinent to the Lake Simcoe Watershed there is a hierarchy

(Figure 3). In all areas the most stringent policy will apply. Should a property be within the WHPA-Q2

and contain either a SGRA or an ESGRA a feature based water balance may be requested to ensure the

natural heritage feature will continue to be supported. If a property falls within 2 or more policy areas

the more stringent policy will apply to the entire property.

7.0 Infiltration Infiltration of runoff from roofs and landscaped areas is always permitted. Infiltration of runoff from

pollution hotspots (e.g. gas stations) is never permitted.

7.1 Recommendations for Linear Development The nature of runoff originating from roadways is always contaminated to some degree and therefore

the viability of infiltration should be considered separately from other projects. The two major road

types are arterial/collector roads and local roads. Details as to how runoff should be treated are listed in

Table 1.

7.3 Recommendations for Major and Non-Major Development The recommended approach for the implementation of infiltration type LIDs for major and non-major

developments are to be based on the source of runoff to be directed to the facility. The four major

sources are: vegetated areas, rooftop runoff, paved areas (e.g., parking lots and walkways) and pollution

hot-spot runoff (e.g., gas station). Consideration is also given to the proposed land use activities of the

project property for certain sources of runoff from paved areas.

Vegetated and rooftop runoff: These sources and relatively clean and these sources are

permitted to be conveyed or treated using infiltration based practices regardless of the land use

activities proposed for the project site.

Pollution hot-spot runoff: Pollution hotspot runoff should never be permitted to be conveyed

or treated using infiltration based practices given the high potential for soil and groundwater

contamination.

Paved area runoff: The water quality characteristics of runoff from paved areas (including:

parking lots and walkways), changes depending on the land-use activities of the project site.

Road salt is of particular concern since salt cannot be attenuated by infiltration.

LSPP 4.8-DP LSPP 6.40-DP SPP LUP 12

Figure 3. Recharge policy hierarchy between South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan and Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

of 107

10

Upstream of private drinking water well supply: Should a project property be upstream of

private drinking water wells care is to be taken to ensure that the water supply to that well(s)

will not be adversely impacted by development on the project property, including by

stormwater management facilities.Table 1.LSRCA requirements for the implementation of

infiltration type LID’s for linear developments based on the Source Water Protection Vulnerable

Area and road classification (Modified from City of Barrie 2017).

Road Classification

Vulnerable Area Requirement

Art

eri

al a

nd

Co

llect

or

Issues Contributing Area Infiltration based practices not permitted

Wellhead Protection Area A and B Infiltration based practices not permitted

Wellhead Protection Area C and D Infiltration based practices not permitted

Intake Protection Zone 1 and 2 Infiltration based practices are permitted with

conditions

LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices are permitted with

conditions

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices are permitted with

conditions

WHPA-Q2 Dependent on underlying Vulnerable Area

Not Vulnerable Infiltration based practices are permitted with

conditions

Loca

l

Issues Contributing Area Infiltration based practices are permitted with

conditions


Wellhead Protection Area C and D Infiltration based practices are permitted

Intake Protection Zone 1 and 2 Infiltration based practices are permitted

LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices are permitted with

conditions

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices are permitted


Not Vulnerable Infiltration based practices are permitted

of 107

11

Table 2. Infiltration LID requirements for the impervious area (paved) runoff for major and non-major development (Modified from City of Barrie 2017).

Note: This table outlines requirements for impervious area runoff only. Runoff from vegetated areas and rooftop are always permitted. Runoff from pollution hotspot is never permitted.

Land Use

Vulnerable Area Requirement

Low

De

nsi

ty

Re

sid

en

tial

Issues Contributing Area Infiltration based practices are permitted


Wellhead Protection Area C and D Infiltration based practices are permitted


LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices are permitted

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices are permitted



Co

mm

erc

ial &

Ind

ust

rial



Wellhead Protection Area C and D Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions


LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices not permitted

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices not permitted



Ind

ust

rial



Wellhead Protection Area C and D Infiltration based practices not permitted

Intake Protection Zone 1 and 2 Infiltration based practices not permitted

LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices not permitted

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices not permitted

WHPA-Q2 Infiltration based practices not permitted

Not Vulnerable Infiltration based practices not permitted

Mix

ed

Use

an

d H

igh

De

nsi

ty R

esi

de

nti

al Issues Contributing Area Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions




LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions



Op

en

Sp

ace

s an

d

Envi

ron

me

nta

l

Pro

tect

ion

Are

as

Issues Contributing Area Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions

Wellhead Protection Area A and B Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions


Intake Protection Zone 1 and 2 Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions

LSPP SGRA/ESGRA Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Infiltration based practices are permitted with conditions



of 107

12

8.0 Implementation

This water balance offsetting policy is applicable to all lands subject to LSPP 4.8-DP or LSPP 6.40-DP.

This Water Balance Offsetting Policy will be primarily implemented through Ontario’s land use planning

process under the Planning Act. A detailed climate based water balance (pre- and post-development will

be required as part of the hydrogeological review). This water balance is to be assessed by a QP as

defined under the Professional Geoscientists Act.

The Water Balance Offsetting Policy will be applied to the following applications under the Planning Act

and the Condominium Act:

Plans of subdivision

Plans of condominium

Site plans involving major development

Consent applications resulting in the creation of four (4) or more lots

For the purposes of this Policy, major development is as defined in Section 3.0 above.

8.1 Transition Provisions for Applications under the Planning Act This policy applies to all applications under the planning act that are received and deemed complete

after 1st January, 2019.

8.2 Exemptions Applications under the Planning Act that facilitate permitted agricultural uses or the construction of an

accessory structure (e.g., garage or barn and non-commercial structures) or a single family dwelling on

an existing lot of record will not be subject to the Water Balance Offsetting requirements.

9.0 Recharge Compensation Program The preferred resolution is always for the post-development infiltration deficit to be mitigated during

the development process by the proponent. However, it is recognized that this is not always possible

such as in circumstances where the water table is high or the soils are impermeable (e.g., clay). In such

circumstances and only after all reasonable efforts have been made to meet the infiltration deficit then

cash compensation will be considered. In instances where the quantity of impervious area is an issue

rather than high water table/impermeable soils options such as a redesign are to be considered (e.g.,

decrease in density).

of 107

13

9.1 Off-Site Compensation Process Off-site compensation would be considered for development applications if they have met the following

requirements:

1. All the required technical studies have been completed; and

2. It has been identified that one or more of the constraints previously mentioned make it difficult

to maintain pre-development infiltration rates.

There are two processes in which off-site compensation may be achieved:

1. The developer may have an alternate site to make up the difference; or working with the

developers of an adjacent property the infiltration deficit (for both properties) may be infiltrated

in part or in full on the adjacent property.

2. Provide a Water Balance Offsetting Fee to LSRCA, thereby allowing LSRCA to implement low

impact developments (LID) to make up the difference.

The Offsetting Fee calculation is laid out in Tables 3 and 4. Should the goal not be met the charges are

to include the entire volume of the remaining infiltration deficit after BMPs have been employed. Both

conditions are to be met (percentage and volume).

Table 3. Offsetting Fee for the recharge policies within the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan (2015) and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009).

Policy Deficit goal Waived if within Costs/m3 deficit (2019)

SGBLS SPP LUP-12 0 5% and 100 m3 $47.00

LSPP 6.40-DP 0 7.5% and 150 m3 $47.00

LSPP 4.8-DP 0 10% and 200 m3 $47.00

of 107

14

Table 4. LSRCA Offsetting Fee Schedule (2019 numbers, subject to periodic revision (From LSRCA 2019).

LSRCA Offset Fee Cost Table

Water Balance Deficit (m

3/yr)

Storage Volume Required

1 (m

3)

Cost per m3 of

storage volume ($) Water Balance

Offsetting Fee ($) Administration

(15%) ($) Total Cost ($)

500 22 1,000.00 22,000.00 3,300.00 25,300.00

1000 44 1,000.00 44,000.00 6,600.00 50,600.00

1500 66 1,000.00 66,000.00 9,900.00 75,900.00

2000 88 1,000.00 88,000.00 13,200.00 101,200.00

2500 110 1,000.00 110,000.00 16,500.00 126,500.00

3000 132 1,000.00 132,000.00 19,800.00 151,800.00

3500 154 1,000.00 154,000.00 23,100.00 177,100.00

4000 176 1,000.00 176,000.00 26,400.00 202,400.00

4500 198 1,000.00 198,000.00 29,700.00 227,700.00

5000 220 1,000.00 220,000.00 33,000.00 253,000.00

5500 242 1,000.00 242,000.00 36,300.00 278,300.00

6000 264 1,000.00 264,000.00 39,600.00 303,600.00

6500 286 1,000.00 286,000.00 42,900.00 328,900.00

7000 308 1,000.00 308,000.00 46,200.00 354,200.00

7500 330 1,000.00 330,000.00 49,500.00 379,500.00

8000 352 1,000.00 352,000.00 52,800.00 404,800.00

8500 374 1,000.00 374,000.00 56,100.00 430,100.00

9000 396 1,000.00 396,000.00 59,400.00 455,400.00

9500 418 1,000.00 418,000.00 62,700.00 480,700.00

10000 440 1,000.00 440,000.00 66,000.00 506,000.00

Fifteen (15%) Administration Fee has been added to the Water Balance Offsetting Fee for program costs.

References

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2016; York region Source Protection Plan Water Balance

Assessment and Compensation; p.21.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2017; Costing recharge Compensation Projects; p.12.

The City of Barrie, 2017; Infiltration Low Impact Development Screening Process; p.18.

of 107

15

Appendix A. Implementation Guidelines for Water Balance Offsetting

Water Balance Offsetting Implementation Committee

An Implementation Committee (Committee) shall be established is to assist in implementing

Water Balance Offsetting Program through informed decision making. The members will be

responsible for:

Reviewing potential LID projects for funding utilizing the Water Balance Offsetting revenue.

Ensuring that the projects meet Water Balance Offsetting Implementation Criteria and either approving or denying projects.

Reviewing and recommending which approved projects need to be monitored for water quality/quantity efficacy.

Reviewing the annual reports and ensuring that desired outcomes are being achieved.

Providing advice and direction on ways to improve the program.

The Committee shall be comprised of members from Corporate Services, Planning & Development, and Watershed Restoration Services.

Minimum Project Selection Criteria

The following minimum criteria must be met for a project to be approved Committee:

Projects must be on public lands with a written commitment from the public land owner

to enter into an Agreement to include the following: inspect and maintain the facility to

the satisfaction of the LSRCA, and if applicable, the amended Environmental Certificate

of Approval (ECA) and to identify the project within an established asset management

database and provide inspection and maintenance records to LSRCA upon request.

Evidence that all previously Water Balance Offsetting funded projects in the project’s

municipality are being inspected and maintained in accordance with their Agreement.

On private lands with a written commitment from the private land owner to enter into a

Conservation Agreement to include the following: the protection, inspection and

maintenance of the facility in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the LSRCA and if

applicable, the amended Environmental Certificate of Approval (ECA).

of 107

16

Project Prioritization

Projects will be recommended to the Committee based on the following:

Best Infiltration Value, ie. lowest cost per m3 of infiltration based on preliminary project

cost estimates prepared by LSRCA. A 30% contingency cost will be included in each

estimate due to the preliminary nature of the estimate.

Secondary Benefits including but not limited to flood reduction, phosphorus reduction,

improvement to e-flows, carbon mitigation, protection of infrastructure, thermal

mitigation and urban heat reduction, improvements to natural heritage systems, bio-

diversity and social/community impacts.

Public lands (preferred) vs. private lands.

Broader area of relevance, such as urban catchment, sub-watershed and watershed

(preferred) vs local area of relevance.

Project Funding

Water Balance compensation will be invoiced to the development applicant once the technical review through the Planning Act process has been completed.

Projects shall be 100% funded except for land procurement costs on public lands. Funding on private lands shall be recommended to the Lake Simcoe Region Construction Authority Board of Directors (Board) by the Committee.

The Administration Fee (15%) will be used by Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) to fund the Program costs. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: Implementation Committee Administration, Project Development & Prioritization, Consultant and Contractor Procurement, Consultant and Contractor Project Management, Performance Monitoring and Inspection, Financial Controls & Reporting, IMS Mapping & Database, Corporate Overhead and Annual Reporting. The Water Balance Offsetting Fee will be used to fund the Project costs. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following: Design (Consultant Fees or Staff Time), Design Technical Review, Duty to Consult, Construction, Construction Management and Inspection and As-builts as required. A Bi-annually review of the Program percentage will be performed to ensure the amount is appropriate.

of 107

17

Project Execution

Projects will be executed by LSRCA. Limited exceptions can be made at the discretion of the Committee.

A recommended prioritized list of potential projects and budgets for each Water Balance Sub-watershed groupings will be developed and presented to the Committee for approval. Water Balance Sub-watersheds groupings are identified in Appendix A.

Projects will be prioritized by the Committee and recommended to the General Manager (GM)/CAO and/or Board of Directors (BOD) for approval as per LSRCA’s purchasing policy.

At any time the Committee can recommend to the General Manager (GM)/CAO and/or Board of

Directors (BOD) for approval as per LSRCA’s purchasing policy amended sub-watershed groupings prioritized list of projects.

Consultant and Contractor procurement will be in accordance with the current of the day LSRCA’s Purchasing Policy.

The Committee will be advised if during the design the construction cost estimates show a reduction of more than 15% of the Water Infiltration Value. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board if the project should proceed or be canceled.

The Committee will be advised if after the construction tenders are opened if the project will not meet the offset target. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board if the project should proceed or be canceled.

Financial Controls

Offsetting funds will be tracked within a sub-watershed grouping account. Once a project has been approved by the Board the approved budget will be transferred to the project account. Internal monthly reporting on project budget versus actual will be prepared and reviewed at each Committee meeting.

Interest on Water Balance Revenue

Due to timing difference between water balance offsetting revenue and project expenditures, LSRCA staff will segregate the idle water balance offsetting money and invest under the strict provisions of the LSRCA Investment Policy. All interest earned will be returned to the General Pool.

Water balance offsetting interest revenue remains in the program with 15% for Program costs and 85% for Project costs.

of 107

18

Reconciliation of Projects (Project close out)

At the conclusion of the project, any remaining funds from the project would be returned to a General Pool of water balance funding for redeployment towards other projects at the general discretion of the Committee and approved by the Board.

Project Reporting

Project reporting will be done internally monthly and be reported as part of the quarterly reporting at the LSRCA (typically only done at the end of quarter 2,3 and 4).

Available sub-watershed grouping balances, revenue received less committed expenditures, will be available for each Committee meeting.

Other Reporting

Annual audited balances (by sub-watershed or aggregate) will be available at year end or (unaudited) will be available upon request of the Committee or Board.

of 107

Staff Report No. 31-19-BOD Page No: 1 of 3

Agenda Item No: 3 BOD-05-19

TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rob Baldwin General Manager, Planning & Development DATE: May 13, 2019

SUBJECT: Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the

Protection of People and Property – ERO No. 013-4992

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 31-19-BOD and attached comments in

response to Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting NO. 013-4992, Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the Protection of People and Property be received; and

FURTHER THAT Staff continue to track and participate with

Conservation Ontario and the Province as potential changes or amendments are clarified; and

FURTHER THAT Staff provide updates to the Board of Directors as

required.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 31-19-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with a copy of staff comments in regards to Focusing Conservation Authority Permits on the Protection of People and Property – Proposed Changes to Conservation Authority Regulations and Permitting. Background: The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) released a proposal to focus Conservation Authority development permits on the protection of people and property through the creation of a regulation that would consolidate and harmonize the existing 36 individual conservation authority approved regulations into one MNRF approved regulation. This proposal was posted on April 5, 2019 and is open for comment for 46 days until May 20, 2019. (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4992).

of 107

https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4992



The intent of these amendments, if passed, is to make rules for development in hazardous areas more consistent to support faster, more predictable and less costly approvals. A related proposal was also released at the same time by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) dealing with proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. The proposed creation of a consolidated Regulation aims to address comments received through public consultation that has occurred previously through updates to the Conservation Authorities Act in 2018, through municipal consultations and through feedback to the Province from Conservation Authorities. These proposed amendments work well with another initiative underway among the 36 conservation authorities to streamline permitting activities. Issues: In general, LSRCA supports the proposed changes and amendments to bring all 36 conservation authorities under a consistent and consolidated regulation in regards to protecting people and property. The proposed regulation is intended to provide clear definitions for key regulatory terms to better align with other provincial policy. The more consistency that can occur between various provincial policies and legislation ensures consistent approaches and technical requirements across all. The propose regulation also includes the ability to have exemptions for low risk activities. This is a positive change as the current regulation does not allow for exemptions. This will decrease the regulatory burden for watershed residents or municipalities for simple low risk projects. All watershed residents and stakeholders will benefit from increased clarity, consistency and simpler regulatory processes. LSRCA staff are pleased with the proposed direction in this regard and look forward to reviewing the approved regulation at a future date. Relevance to Authority Policy: In April 2015, the Board approved the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Watershed Development Guidelines. These Guidelines are the technical guidelines for staff to review permit applications under O.Reg.179/06. Changes in the regulation/s as proposed by the Province would likely require amendments or changes to the Guidelines to ensure consistency and to be current with regulatory requirements. Staff will review the Guidelines against the approved regulation/s and make the

of 107



necessary changes. The amended Guidelines document will be brought before the Board for consideration and adoption at a future date. Impact on Authority Finances: At this time it is hard to fully predict whether there will be a direct impact on finances and revenue. The proposed changes include the opportunity for exemptions from permits for certain activities. These exemptions may reduce revenue but also should increase efficiencies which could result in a status quo situation. A more accurate prediction on impact to Authority finances will occur during a review of the formal regulation. Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 31-19-BOD and attached comments in response to Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting NO. 013-4992, Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the Protection of People and Property be received; and FURTHER THAT Staff continue to track and participate with Conservation Ontario and the Province as potential changes or amendments are clarified; and FURTHER THAT Staff provide updates to the Board of Directors as required. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer. Signed by: Signed by:

___________________________________ __________________________________ Rob Baldwin Michael Walters General Manager, Planning & Development Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: i) LSRCA Comments Letter Re: Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the Protection of

People and Property, ERO Number: 013-4992

of 107

May 17, 2019 Via email to [email protected] Mr. Alex McLeod, Policy Officer Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division, Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch Water Resources Section 300 Water Street Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5 Dear Mr. McLeod: Re: Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the Protection of People and Property, ERO Number: 013-4992 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed “Focusing Conservation Authority Development Permits on the Protection of People and Property”. We understand that the purpose of this proposed regulation is to streamline the permitting process under the Conservation Authorities Act. We provide the following comments for your consideration in the development of this regulation. Context The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) is one of 36 conservation authorities in Ontario that provides watershed-based services. We are a provincially and municipally mandated regional agency that delivers programs and services to our member municipalities within the watershed jurisdiction. In general, it is the objective of LSRCA to protect Lake Simcoe, its watershed, its residents and their property from natural hazards, in partnership with government, the agricultural sector, development industry, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), stakeholder groups, and landowners. 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. This regulation would replace Ontario Regulation 97/07, which governs the content of conservation authority regulations under the current Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, as well as existing conservation authority regulations. LSRCA currently administers Ontario Regulation 179/06 made pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act.

of 107


Mr. Alex McLeod, Policy Officer Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division, Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch May 17, 2019 Page 2

The proposed regulation would result in a number of proposed changes. These changes with the position of the LSRCA are as follows:

Proposed Regulation: LSRCA Comment:

Consolidation and harmonizing the existing 36 individual conservation authority-approved regulations into 1 Minister of Natural Resources approved regulation.

LSRCA is in support of the consolidation and harmonization of conservation authority regulations.

Update definitions for key regulatory terms to better align with other provincial policy, including: “wetland”, “watercourse” and “pollution”.

LSRCA supports the provision of updated definitions for “wetland”, “watercourse” and “pollution”. This will allow for the consistent interpretation of these terms, especially as they relate to legal proceedings. LSRCA recommends the definition of “wetland” be consistent with the definition provided by the Provincial Policy Statement (2014). LSRCA will provide further comments on the definitions of these terms and others once the regulation is circulated for review and comments.

Defining undefined terms including: “interference” and “conservation of land” as consistent with the natural hazard management intent of the regulation.

LSRCA supports the proposal to provide definitions for undefined terms such as “interference’ and “conservation of land”. This will allow for the consistent interpretation of these terms, especially as they relate to legal proceedings. LSRCA requests that the MNRF provide support material (i.e. fact sheets, technical guidelines) to assist in the implementation of these newly defined terms. LSRCA will provide further comments on the definitions of these terms and others once the regulation is circulated for review and comments.

Reduce regulatory restrictions between 30 m and 120 m of a wetland and where a hydrological connection has been severed.

LSRCA supports the reduction of restrictions between 30m and 120 m of a wetland.

of 107



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.

LSRCA supports this proposal. It would increase efficiencies and allow conservation authorities to focus on more important proposals. It is recommended that MNRF develop a risk management matrix for use by conservation authorities.

Allow conservation authorities to further exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit provided in accordance with conservation authority policies.

LSRCA supports this proposal. It would increase efficiencies and allow conservation authorities to focus on more important proposals. It is recommended that MNRF develop a risk management matrix for use by conservation authorities.

Require conservation authorities to develop, consult on, make publicly available and periodically review internal policies that guide permitting decisions.

LSRCA already follows this principle. This contributes to greater transparency and accountability of conservation authorities. To promote consistency among conservation authorities, it is recommended that MNRF provide a generic set of policies which conservation authorities could base their guidelines on.

Require conservation authorities to notify the public of changes to mapped regulated areas such as floodplains or wetland boundaries.

LSRCA supports this recommendation. It should be noted that the regulation is a text-based regulation and that if there is a discrepancy between the mapping and the text of the regulation, the text of the regulation shall prevail. It is recommended that this provision be retained. Consideration needs to be made to the scope of the proposed changes and why they are being made. Changes to wetland boundaries are made by MNRF and the information is incorporated into conservation authority mapping, whereas other changes to mapping dealing with flooding are initiated and driven by the conservation authority. Communication protocols prepared by MNRF distinguishing between the two circumstances would be beneficial.

of 107



Require conservation authorities to establish, monitor and report on service delivery standards including requirements and timelines for determination of complete applications and timelines for permitting decisions.

LSRCA supports this recommendation. LSRCA has followed and adhered to the service delivery timelines established by the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC) since it was introduced in 2010.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this policy proposal, and we look forward to the circulation of the regulation. LSRCA would be happy to provide advisory comments on the regulation to assist in the Province’s efforts to streamline the permitting process under the Conservation Authorities Act. If you have any questions with regard to these comments, please contact Rob Baldwin, General Manager, Planning & Development or the undersigned. Sincerely, Michael Walters Chief Administrative Officer cc: LSRCA, Rob Baldwin, General Manager of Planning and Development LSRCA, Beverley Booth, Director of Regulations

of 107