BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING
NO. BOD-03-14
Friday, February 28, 2014
9:00 A.M.
AGENDA
MEETING LOCATION:
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, ON
Minutes and agendas are available on our website: www.lsrca.on.ca
Upcoming Events
2014
Friday, March 28th
Board of Directors’ Meeting
120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, ON
Wednesday, June 11th
26th Annual Conservation Dinner
The Manor at Carrying Place
16750 Weston Road Kettleby, ON
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 2 of 8
I.
DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
II.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
III.
Pages 1-8
THAT the content of the Agenda for the February 28, 2014 meeting
of the LSRCA Board of Directors be approved as presented.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) Board of Directors – January 17, 2014
Pages 9-14
Included in the agenda is a copy of the minutes of the Special Board of Directors’ Meeting
No. BOD-01-14 held on Friday, January 17, 2014.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the minutes of the Special Board of Directors’ Meeting No.
BOD-01-14 held on Friday, January 17, 2014 be received and
approved as printed and circulated.
b) 63rd Annual General Meeting – January 24, 2014
Pages 15-21
Included in the agenda is a copy of the minutes of the 63rd Annual General Meeting of the
LSRCA Board of Directors, Meeting No. BOD-02-14 held on Friday, January 24, 2014.
RECOMMENDED:
c)
THAT the minutes of the 63rd Annual General Meeting of the LSRCA
held on Friday, January 24, 2014 be received and approved as
printed and circulated.
Conservation Ontario Council Meeting – December 9, 2013
Pages 22-31
Included in the agenda is a copy of minutes of Conservation Ontario Council Meeting #4/13
held on Monday, December 9, 2013.
RECOMMENDED:
IV.
THAT the minutes of Conservation Ontario Council Meeting #4/13
held on Monday, December 9, 2013 be received for information.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) LSRCA Chair/Vice Chair Challenge for Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation Page 32
b) Annual General Meeting photos
c)
Lake Simcoe Region Subwatershed Plans Implementation Report: 2013
Page 2 of 231
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 3 of 8
V.
DEPUTATIONS
There are no deputations scheduled for this meeting.
VI.
HEARINGS
There are no hearings scheduled for this meeting.
VII.
PRESENTATIONS
a) Guidance for the Protection and Restoration of Significant
Groundwater Recharge Areas in the Lake Simcoe Watershed
Pages 33-72
Manager, Subwatershed Planning and Source Water Protection, Ben Longstaff, will provide
a presentation on Guidance for the Protection and Restoration of Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The presentation is included in the agenda.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the presentation by Manager, Subwatershed Planning and
Source Water Protection, Ben Longstaff, regarding Guidance for the
Protection and Restoration of Significant Groundwater Recharge
Areas in the Lake Simcoe Watershed be received for information.
Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD regarding Guidance for the Protection and Restoration of
Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas in the Lake Simcoe, prepared by Manager,
Subwatershed Planning and Source Water Protection, Ben Longstaff, is included in the
agenda.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD regarding the Guidance for the
protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge
areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed be received for information;
and
FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors approve for release the
“Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant
groundwater recharge areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed”.
b) Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality Trading
Pages 73-136
General Manager, Watershed Management, Michael Walters, will provide a presentation
on the Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality Trading. The presentation will be
provided at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the presentation by General Manager, Watershed
Management, Michael Walters, regarding Showcasing Water
Innovation Water Quality Trading be received for information.
Page 3 of 231
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 4 of 8
Staff Report No. 05-14-BOD regarding Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality
Trading, prepared by General Manager, Watershed Management, Michael Walters, is
included in the agenda.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Staff Report No. 05-14-BOD regarding an update of the
Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality Offsetting for
Phosphorus Reduction in the Lake Simcoe Watershed be received
for information; and
FURTHER THAT the Proposed Framework for Phase 1 of the Lake
Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program be approved in principle.
VIII.
DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
(Reference Pages 6-8 of this Agenda)
IX.
ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
X.
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
XI.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board will move to Closed Session to deal with confidential legal matters.
a)
Confidential Legal Matter
Confidential Staff Report No. 14-14-BOD will be provided to Board members prior to the
meeting.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Confidential Staff Report No. 14-14-BOD regarding a legal
matter be received; and
FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained within Confidential
Staff Report No. 14-14-BOD be approved.
b)
Confidential Legal Matter
Confidential Staff Report No. 15-14-BOD will be provided to Board members prior to the
meeting.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Confidential Staff Report No. 15-14-BOD regarding a legal
matter be received; and
FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained within Confidential
Staff Report No. 15-14-BOD be approved.
Page 4 of 231
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 5 of 8
c)
Confidential Legal Matter
Confidential Staff Report No. 16-14-BOD will be provided to Board members prior to the
meeting.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Confidential Staff Report No. 16-14-BOD regarding a legal
matter be received; and
FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained within Confidential
Staff Report No. 16-14-BOD be approved.
d)
Confidential Legal Matter
Confidential Staff Report No. 17-14-BOD will be provided to Board members prior to the
meeting.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Confidential Staff Report No. 17-14-BOD regarding a legal
matter be received; and
FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained within Confidential
Staff Report No. 17-14-BOD be approved.
e)
Confidential Legal Matter
Mr. John Olah of Beard Winter will provide a confidential legal opinion to Board members
prior to the meeting.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Confidential legal opinion by Mr. John Olah or Beard
Winter be received; and
FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained within Confidential
legal opinion be approved.
The board will rise from closed session and report progress.
RECOMMENDED:
XII.
OTHER BUSINESS
XIII.
ADJOURNMENT
THAT the Board rise from Closed Session and report progress.
Page 5 of 231
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 6 of 8
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Correspondence
Pages 137-144
The following correspondence is included in the agenda
a) Copy of Town of Aurora letter to Premier Wynne and Minister Orazietti regarding
support for Reinstatement of the Ontario Ranger Program;
b) Copy of A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium letter of thanks to Manager, Watershed
Stewardship, Philip Davies;
c) Copy of Metrolinx letter to Aquatic Ecologist, Rob Wilson, regarding Smart Commute
Gold Workplace designation;
d) Copy of LSRCA letter to Premier Wynne and Minister Orazietti regarding support for
Reinstatement of the Ontario Ranger Program;
e) Copy of Ministry of the Environment letter to Rama First Nation regarding amendment
of O. Reg. 287/07 under the Clean Water Act, 2006;
f) Copy of The Corporation of the Township of Ramara letter to Coordinator, BOD/CAO,
Trish Barnett, regarding support for Reinstatement of the Ontario Ranger Program.
RECOMMENDED:
THAT correspondence listed in the agenda as items 1 (a) through (f)
be received for information.
2. Grant Funding Agreement:
Holland Marsh Riparian Planting Project
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 146-165
THAT Staff Report No. 06-14-BOD regarding the Holland Marsh
Riparian Planting Project be received for information; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to enter into an agreement with the
Ministry of the Environment to implement riparian tree planting
projects within the Holland Marsh.
3. Year-End Monitoring Report – Planning and Development
Applications for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2013
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 166-170
THAT Staff Report No. 07-14-BOD regarding the year-end monitoring
of planning and development applications for the period January 1
through December 31, 2013 be received for information.
Page 6 of 231
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 7 of 8
4. Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act: Annual Statistical Report
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Staff Report No. 08-14-BOD regarding the Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – 2013 Annual
Statistical Report be received.
5. Approval of the 2014 Occupational Health and Safety Policy
and the Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies for
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 174-182
THAT Staff Report No. 09-14-BOD regarding the Authority’s 2014
Occupational Health and Safety Policy and Workplace Violence and
Harassment Policies be approved and adopted in order to meet
legislative requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act.
6. Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan Review
Vision, Mission and Goals
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 171-173
Pages 183-190
THAT Staff Report No. 10-14-BOD regarding an update on the
Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan Review be
received for information; and
FURTHER THAT the proposed revisions to the goals for Scanlon
Creek Conservation Area be approved.
7. LSRCA Administration Office –
Backup Generator Project (#CL-2013-EBG)
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 191-217
THAT Staff Report No. 11-14-BOD regarding LSRCA Administration
Office Backup Generator Project be received for information; and
FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors approve the proposal
submitted by Pentor Electric; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with the purchase and
installation of the backup generator for the Administration Office.
Page 7 of 231
LSRCA – Board of Directors
Meeting Agenda BOD-03-14
February 28, 2014 - Page 8 of 8
8. Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer Recruitment
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 218-229
THAT Staff Report No. 12-14-BOD regarding THAT Staff Report No.
12-14-BOD be received and approved; and
FURTHER THAT the process for the recruitment of a new Chief
Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer for Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority be approved as outlined in the Request for
Quotation (RFQ) for an Executive Search Firm dated February 6,
2014.
9. Appointment to the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee
RECOMMENDED:
Pages 230-231
THAT Staff Report No. 13-14-BOD be received; and
FURTHER THAT the Board Members endorse the application of
Michael Walters, General Manager, Watershed Management to the
Ministry of the Environment as the LSRCA’s member on the Lake
Simcoe Coordinating Committee.
Page 8 of 231
SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING
NO. BOD-01-14 – Friday, January 17, 2014
120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, ON
MINUTES
LSRCA Board Members Present:
Regional Councillor D. Bath, Chair
Deputy Mayor B. Drew, Vice-Chair
Councillor M. Baier
Regional Councillor J. Ballinger
Councillor P. Craig
Councillor D. Crake
Mayor G. Dawe
Councillor A. Eek
Councillor D. Evans
Councillor K. Ferdinands
Mayor V. Hackson
Councillor B. Haire
Councillor D. Kerwin
Councillor J. O’Donnell
Councillor S. Strangway
Regrets:
Mr. E. Bull
Mayor R. Grossi, LOA
Mayor A. Orsi
Councillor B. Ward
LSRCA Staff Present:
D. G. Wood, Chief Administrative Officer
R. Jarrett, General Manager, Communications & Education
M. Walters, General Manager, Watershed Management
R. Baldwin, Director, Planning & Development Services
T. Barnett, Coordinator, BOD/CAO, Project & Services
B. Booth, Manager – Planning, Regulations & Enforcement
P. Davies, Manager, Watershed Stewardship
L. Hanson, Annual Fund Coordinator
S. Jagminas, Communications Specialist
D. Lembcke, Manager, Environmental Science and Monitoring
P. Strong, Sub-Watershed Planner
C. Taylor, Executive Director, LSCF
B. Thompson, Subwatershed Implementation Specialist
Guests:
D. Avery, IDA
H. Behrend, Citizen of Georgina
J. Chisholm, Toronto
J. Gibson, NGFA
C. Gibbons, NGFA
J. Gibbons, NGFA
N. Gibbons, NGFA
P. Harpley, South Lake Simcoe Naturalists
T. Kinnear, Citizen of Innisfil
L. Longo, Aird & Berlis LLP
J. Olah, Beard Winter LLP
A. Mott, Citizen of Georgina
F. Nelson, Metrus Development Inc.
A. Salomie, MPP Julia Munro’s office
A. Teuyens, Aware Simcoe
T. Usher, Anthony Usher Planning Consultant
S. Villiers, NGFA
The Chair called the meeting to order @ 9:16 a.m. and wished all a Happy New Year.
CAO Gayle Wood made an announcement regarding the recent statement by the North Gwillimbury Forest
Alliance who alleged that LSRCA holds the worst record for wetlands protection. CAO Wood advised that in
fact LSRCA’s record shows that LSRCA has taken a total of 55 watershed landowners to court over wetland
Page 9 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD-01-14
January 17, 2014 – Minutes
Page 2 of 6
violations and holds the highest conviction rate regarding wetland protection in the province of Ontario. She
went on to note that more than 10% of province’s wetland violations are issued by LSRCA.
I.
DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
None noted for the record of this meeting.
II.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
CAO Gayle Wood pointed out that Staff Report No. 01-14-BOD contained an error in that the reference to
February 17, 2014 in the recommendation on Pages 1 and 4 of the Staff Report should have read January
17, 2014.
CAO Wood advised Board members that a letter from Mr. Leo Longo of Aird & Berlis LLP had been
received by the Authority after the Agenda had been posted and asked the Chair for permission to
distribute it to the Board. With the Chair’s agreement, the letter was distributed to members.
Moved by:
P. Craig
S. Strangway
RESOLVED THAT the content of the Revised Agenda for the Special Meeting of the
LSRCA Board of Directors held Friday, January 17, 2014 be approved as amended to
correct a typo on Pages 1 and 4 of Staff Report No. 01-14-BOD where February 17,
2014 should read January 17, 2014, and to include a letter from Aird and Berlis LLP
dated January 14, 2014 as part of the deputation by Mr. Leo Longo. CARRIED
BOD-001-14
III.
Seconded by:
DEPUTATIONS
a) Mr. Leo Longo of Aird & Berlis LLP
Mr. Leo Longo of Aird & Berlis LLP, legal counsel for the North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance, made a
deputation to the Board requesting that LSRCA’s Watershed Development Policy 11.4.1.2 be deleted. Mr.
Longo referred to recommendations in Anthony Usher’s reports dated September 12, 2013 and October
22, 2013, which had been distributed to Board members, along with Mr. Longo’s opinion.
Mr. Longo noted that no other conservation authority had a policy similar 11.4.1.2. Manager, Planning,
Regulations and Enforcement, Beverley Booth, advised that based on her review, both Grand River
Conservation Authority and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority have similar policies. She did,
however, note that watershed development policies for conservation authorities are as unique as the
watershed that each one serves.
Moved by:
BOD-002-14
Moved by:
D. Crake
Seconded by:
G. Dawe
RESOLVED THAT Mr. Longo be permitted to continue with his deputation beyond
the ten minute time limit normally afforded deputations. CARRIED
J. Ballinger
Seconded by:
P. Craig
Page 10 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD-01-14
January 17, 2014 – Minutes
Page 3 of 6
BOD-003-14
RESOLVED THAT Mr. Anthony Usher be permitted to address the Board. CARRIED
Mr. Usher, Consultant for NGFA, responded to Councillor O’Donnell’s question regarding clarification of a
comment in his report regarding Lagoon City having no vacant residential lots located within provincially
significant wetlands. Mr. Usher explained that the vacant lots in Lagoon City are not located in provincially
significant wetlands, and therefore Policy 11.4.1.2 would not apply to any development on these lots.
Moved by:
BOD-004-14
V. Hackson
Seconded by:
A. Eek
RESOLVED THAT the Deputation by Mr. Leo Longo of Aird & Berlis LLP on behalf of
the North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance be received for information. CARRIED
b) Mr. Fraser Nelson of Metrus Development Inc.
Moved by:
BOD-005-14
D. Kerwin
Seconded by:
J. O’Donnell
RESOLVED THAT Mr. Nelson be permitted to more than the ten minute time limit
normally afforded deputations should it be required. CARRIED
Mr. Fraser Nelson, General Manager of Metrus Development, representing Maple Lake Estates addressed
the Board regarding LSRCA Watershed Development Policy 11.4.1.2. Mr. Nelson advised the Board that
Maple Lake Estates is not in support of the request of NGFA to delete LSRCA’s Policy 11.4.1.2. He
explained that Maple Lake Estates acquired several parcels of land in 1999, the largest parcel of 495 acres
is zoned and registered to permit 1073 units. Mr. Nelson went on to explain that their application is ready
to be submitted; however, they have mutually agreed with the Town of Georgina and LSRCA staff to
explore a transfer of land use from this parcel to another 200 acre lot also owned by Metrus Development.
For these reasons, Mr. Nelson asked that the Board not amend Policy 11.4.1.2.
Mr. Nelson, having reviewed Staff Report No. 01-14-BOD, offered an “undertaking” whereby Metrus
Developments will not submit an application on its site prior to the completion of the comprehensive
Watershed Development Policy review being proposed by staff.
Moved by:
BOD-006-14
IV.
S. Strangway
Seconded by:
B. Drew
RESOLVED THAT the Deputation by Mr. Fraser Nelson of Metrus Developments Inc.
on behalf of Maple Lake Estates be received for information. CARRIED
DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
The Board identified Item No. 2 for separate discussion.
V.
ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
Moved by:
BOD-007-14
J. Ballinger
Seconded by:
B. Haire
RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as
“Items Not Requiring Separate Discussion” be adopted as submitted to the Board,
Page 11 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD-01-14
January 17, 2014 – Minutes
Page 4 of 6
and staff be authorized to take all necessary action required to give effect to same.
CARRIED
1.
Correspondence
BOD-008-14
VI.
RESOLVED THAT correspondence listed as items 1 (a) to (d) be received for
information. CARRIED
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
2.
Watershed Development Policy 11.4.1 –
Development and Interference within Provincially Significant Wetlands
Manager, Planning, Regulations and Enforcement, Beverley Booth, addressed Staff Report No. 01-14-BOD
which had been distributed to Board members. Ms. Booth explained that LSRCA’s current watershed
development policies are 15 to 18 years old, and staff believe that a complete review at this time is
appropriate and is therefore seeking the Board’s approval to conduct a six month review of all watershed
development policies.
Mayor Hackson questioned if six months would be sufficient given that it would have staff trying to
complete their review at the beginning of summer, a very busy time for the department. She asked if
there was an opportunity to extend this timeframe out to nine months.
Director, Planning and
Development Services, Rob Baldwin, advised that staff would certainly appreciate the extra time as it
would allow for public consultation. LSRCA Legal Counsel from Beard Winter, John Olah, noted that
should the review timeframe be extended to nine months, it would be imperative that the “undertaking”
offered on this day by Mr. Nelson, also be extended to match the policy review timeframe. Mr. Nelson
agreed to extend his undertaking to nine months, and longer if additional time is required for the policy
review, as long as the outside date is reasonable.
Board members expressed a desire to hear from Mr. Olah in Closed Session regarding the legal opinion
prior to considering the recommendations contained in Staff Report No. 01-14-BOD.
Moved by:
BOD-009-14
D. Kerwin
Seconded by:
V. Hackson
RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 01-14-BOD regarding the LSRCA’s Watershed
Development Policy 11.4.1 – Development and Interference within Provincially
Significant Wetlands be received; and
FURTHER THAT the consideration of any remaining resolutions on Staff Report No.
01-14-BOD be deferred until after Item XI. Closed Session. CARRIED
Councillor Craig raised the earlier discussion regarding the agreement Metrus Developments has with the
Town of Georgina and LSRCA staff to explore the transfer of land for the Maples Lake Estates. Councillor
Craig also reiterated earlier discussions regarding NGFA being actively involved in these discussions and
accordingly, the following resolutions were passed.
Moved by:
P. Craig
Seconded by: A. Eek
Page 12 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD-01-14
January 17, 2014 – Minutes
Page 5 of 6
RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to be involved in the ongoing discussions
regarding the Maple Lake Estates “land swap’; and
BOD-010-14
FURTHER THAT the LSRCA Board of Directors hereby reiterates its support in having
the North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance representatives actively involved in these
discussions. CARRIED
Mr. Jack Gibbons, a guest in attendance at the meeting, inquired as to when the meeting’s resolutions
would be available. CAO Wood recommended that the resolutions would be available verbally at the close
of the meeting and on the Authority’s website by Monday, January 20, 2014.
Moved by:
G. Dawe
Seconded by:
J. Ballinger
RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to post the resolutions of the January 17, 2014
Board of Directors’ meeting on January 20, 2014; and
BOD-011-14
FURTHER THAT staff be permitted to release the resolutions verbally after the
January 17, 2014 meeting. CARRIED
Moved by:
J. Ballinger
D. Crake
RESOLVED THAT the Board reconvene following a ten minute recess. CARRIED
BOD-012-14
XI.
Seconded by:
CLOSED SESSION
The Board moved to Closed Session to deal with a confidential legal matter.
Moved by:
BOD-013-14
J. O’Donnell
Seconded by:
B. Haire
RESOLVED THAT the Board move to Closed Session to deal with confidential legal
matter; and
FURTHER THAT members of the Executive Management Team, the Manager Planning, Regulations and Enforcement, the Coordinator, BOD/CAO and legal
counsel from Beard Winter remain in the meeting for the discussion. CARRIED
Moved by:
BOD-014-14
J. O’Donnell
Seconded by:
P. Craig
RESOLVED THAT the Board rise from Closed Session and report findings. CARRIED
At the request of Councillor Craig, Chair Bath restated Resolution No. BOD-10-14, which read as follows,
RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to be involved in the ongoing discussions regarding the Maple Lake
Estates “land swap’; and FURTHER THAT the LSRCA Board of Directors hereby reiterates its support in
having the North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance representatives actively involved in these discussions.
CARRIED
Page 13 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD-01-14
January 17, 2014 – Minutes
Page 6 of 6
a)
Confidential Legal Matter
Moved by:
J. O’Donnell
Seconded by: J. Ballinger
RESOLVED THAT the LSRCA Board of Directors accept the verbal undertaking by
Metrus Developments dated January 17, 2014 to not submit an application on its
site during the comprehensive Watershed Development Policy review and adoption
of new policies by the Board of Directors; and
BOD-015-14
FURTHER THAT the verbal offer of this undertaking be reduced to writing. CARRIED
Moved by:
G. Dawe
Seconded by: D. Crake
RESOLVED THAT Staff be directed to complete a comprehensive review of LSRCA’s
Watershed Development Policies in consultation with watershed stakeholders; and
FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to bring the results of the policy review and the
Board to make a decision regarding any policy change at the December 2014 Board
of Directors’ meeting.
Councillor Craig proposed an amending motion, which was seconded by M. Baier as follows:
BOD-016-14
FURTHER THAT LSRCA Watershed Development Policy 11.4.1.2 be suspended until
such time as the Board has made any decisions regarding any policy changes.
DEFEATED
The original motion as moved by G. Dawe and D. Crake was considered.
BOD-017-14
RESOLVED THAT Staff be directed to complete a comprehensive review of LSRCA’s
Watershed Development Policies in consultation with watershed stakeholders; and
FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to bring the results of the policy review and the
Board to make a decision regarding any policy change at the December 2014 Board
of Directors’ meeting. CARRIED
XIII.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. on a motion by Councillor O’Donnell.
Original to be signed by:
Regional Councilor Debbie Bath
Chair
Original to be signed by:
_______________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 14 of 231
63rd ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-02-14
Friday, January 24, 2014
Holiday Inn Express, Newmarket, Ontario
MINUTES
2013/2014 Board of Directors
Present
Councillor Maria Baier
Regional Councillor Jack Ballinger
Regional Councillor Debbie Bath
Mr. Eric Bull
Councillor Phil Craig
Councillor Del Crake
Mayor Geoffrey Dawe
Regional Councillor Bobbie Drew
Councillor Avia Eek
Councillor Dwight Evans
Councillor Ken Ferdinands
Mayor Rob Grossi
Mayor Virginia Hackson
Councillor Bruce Haire
Councillor Dave Kerwin
Councillor John O’Donnell
Councillor Steve Strangway
Councillor Barry Ward
Regrets:
Mayor Angelo Orsi (ex-officio)
I.
Staff present:
Gayle Wood
Jocelyn Lee
Cheryl Taylor
John Brown
Darren Campbell
Dana Eldon
Jaclyn Kane
Susan McKinnon
Diane Sewell
Mike Walters
Reneé Jarrett
Trish Barnett
Jessica Burns
Phil Davies
Harley Fung
David Lembcke
David Palombi
Kristen Yemm
Brian Kemp
Rob Baldwin
Beverley Booth
Kevin Brygidyr
Natasha Denham
Susan Jagminas
Ben Longstaff
Geoff Peat
Guests:
Robert Atkinson, Scotiabank
Debby Beatty, Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation
Bill Duffy, Mayor, Township of Ramara
Kim Gavine, Conservation Ontario
Kenneth Hill, Hill Hunter Losell
Cindy Hood, Ministry of the Environment
Rob Messervey, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority
Brad Rogers, Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation
Peter Van Loan, MP, York-Simcoe
CHAIR’S WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Bath welcomed everyone to the Authority's 63rd Annual General Meeting and recognized a
number of guests in attendance.
Roll Call – 2013 Board Members
Chair Bath requested Board Members introduce themselves and state the municipality they
represent.
II.
DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
None recorded for this meeting.
Page 15 of 231
Darren C
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-02-14
rd
63 Annual General Meeting - January 24, 2014
Minutes - Page 2 of 7
III.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by:
A. Eek
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a)
Board of Directors
Moved by:
V. Hackson
BOD-019-14
V.
P. Craig
RESOLVED THAT the content of the Agenda for the Authority’s 63rd Annual
General Meeting held on Friday, January 24, 2014 be approved as presented.
CARRIED
BOD-018-14
IV.
Seconded by:
Seconded by:
S. Strangway
RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-1213 held on December 13, 2013, be adopted and approved as printed and
circulated. CARRIED
GREETINGS
Chair Bath called upon the following guests to bring greetings:





VI.
Honourable Peter Van Loan, MP, York-Simcoe, Leader in the House of Commons
Cindy Hood, District Manager, Barrie District, Ministry of the Environment
Kim Gavine, General Manager, Conservation Ontario
Mayor Virginia Hackson on behalf of Chairman Bill Fisch, Regional Municipality of York
Councillor Dave Kerwin, on behalf of Mayor Tony Van Bynen, Town of Newmarket
PRESENTATIONS
a)
2013 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Annual Report
Chair Bath provided an overview of the Authority’s 2013 Annual Report and credited the highly
engaged and dedicated staff and Board of Directors, along with the many partners, for the
successful year. Chair Bath then shared a video, which celebrated the many accomplishments
of 2013.
To obtain a copy of the 2013 Annual Report, please visit our website at Annual Reports or
contact Natasha Denham at [email protected]
b)
2013 Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation – Update
The Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation`s President, Debby Beatty, provided an update on
the Foundation`s activities for 2013 and was pleased to announce that that last year’s
fundraising goal was surpassed by $30,000. She spoke about the Foundation’s 2014 initiatives,
including the Inspiring Greener Communities initiative, which she hopes all builders will
participate in. Other initiatives include the Lake Simcoe Marinas Care program, which
connects boaters to the Foundation, the new Golf Program, Franklin Fishing Days, and the 3rd
Page 16 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-02-14
rd
63 Annual General Meeting - January 24, 2014
Minutes - Page 3 of 7
Annual Freezin’ for a Reason Polar Dip on February 22nd; as well as the 26th Annual
Conservation Dinner on June 11th. Mrs. Beatty thanked the Foundation’s Executive Director
Cheryl Taylor, along with her dedicated staff, for a great year.
For more information on these and other Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation events, please
visit the Foundation`s website at http://lakesimcoefoundation.ca/.
Moved by:
BOD-020-14
c)
J. Ballinger
Seconded by:
J. O’Donnell
RESOLVED THAT the presentations and updates provided by LSRCA Chair
Debbie Bath and LSCF President Debby Beatty be received for information.
CARRIED
2013 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Client Services Report
CAO Gayle Wood provided a Client Services Report for 2013, noting how proud she is each
year to be able to overview the outstanding compliments staff members continue to receive
from the various communities served.
CAO Wood thanked the LSRCA staff team for a job well done and introduced the four general
managers who are responsible for the different areas of the organization.
Moved by:
BOD-021-14
d)
M. Baier
Seconded by:
G. Dawe
RESOLVED THAT the 2013 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Client
Services Report as presented by the CAO be received for information.
CARRIED
Presentation to Regional Councillor Bobbie Drew
Chair Bath called upon Mayor Hackson to assist in presenting a gift to Regional Councillor/Deputy
Mayor Bobbie Drew in appreciation for her years of service and dedication while serving as the
Authority’s Vice Chair.
VII.
2013 BUSINESS IS CONCLUDED - CHAIR BATH VACATES POSITION OF CHAIR
In closing off the 2013 Business, Chair Bath thanked the Board and staff for their commitment and
dedication and noted what an honour it was to serve as both Vice Chair and Chair in 2013. She
asked everyone to reflect on all of the accomplishments of 2013 and to embrace 2014.
Chair Bath concluded the Year 2013 business and deemed the Chair vacant.
Moved by:
BOD-022-14
D. Kerwin
Seconded by:
D. Evans
RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors conclude the 2013 business and
declare the Chair vacant. CARRIED
Page 17 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-02-14
rd
63 Annual General Meeting - January 24, 2014
Minutes - Page 4 of 7
VIII.
2014 BUSINESS
The 2014 Business portion of this meeting was called to order by the Chief Administrative Officer of
the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Gayle Wood, who served as Chair Pro Temp during
the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2014.
IX.
ROLL CALL – 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A roll call was not necessary as there were no changes in Board members from 2013 to 2014.
X.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
CAO Wood conducted the election of officers, by first outlining the following general rules for
election:
A.
a)
All nominations require a nominator only, not a seconder.
b)
Nominations will be called a minimum of three (3) times before a motion to close nominations
is accepted. This motion requires a seconder.
c)
All nominees shall signify, when asked, if he/she will stand for the position.
d)
Nominees will be given the opportunity to address the Board of Directors in reverse order of
nomination.
e)
Members can vote by proxy providing it has been endorsed by their Council with a formal
resolution.
f)
No member shall hold more than one office.
g)
Positions are required for Chair and Vice-Chair of the LSRCA for 2014 and must be appointed
Members of the Board of Directors.
APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS
Moved by:
BOD-023-14
J. O’Donnell
Seconded by:
B. Drew
RESOLVED THAT in the event of a vote by ballot, the following persons will
act as scrutineers, Mr. Kenneth Hill, Partner, Hill Hunter Losell and Mr.
Robert Atkinson, Client Relationship Manager, Scotiabank; and
FURTHER THAT all ballots will be destroyed after the election. CARRIED
Page 18 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-02-14
rd
63 Annual General Meeting - January 24, 2014
Minutes - Page 5 of 7
B.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS – 2014
(i) Chair of the Authority
Regional Councillor/Deputy Mayor Debbie Bath was nominated by Regional Councillor Jack
Ballinger. Nominations were called for three times. No further nominations were put forward.
Moved by:
BOD-024-14
V. Hackson
Seconded by:
B. Haire
RESOLVED THAT the nominations for the position of Chair be closed.
CARRIED
Regional Councillor/Deputy Mayor Bath was named as Chair of the Authority for 2014.
(ii) Vice Chair of the Authority
Mayor Geoffrey Dawe was nominated by Regional Councillor Bobbie Drew.
called for three times. No further nominations were put forward.
Moved by:
BOD-025-14
P. Craig
Seconded by:
Nominations were
S. Strangway
RESOLVED THAT the nominations for the position of Vice Chair be closed.
CARRIED
Mayor Dawe was named as Vice Chair of the Authority for 2014.
C.
APPOINTMENT OF THE REGULATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE FOR 2014
Moved by:
P. Craig
E. Bull
RESOLVED THAT the Chair and Vice Chair of the Conservation Authority,
along with the Member representing the local municipality in which the
application under Ontario Regulation 179/06 is received, shall be members of
the sub-committee to review applications and report to the Board of
Directors. CARRIED
BOD-026-14
D.
Seconded by:
APPOINTMENT TO CONSERVATION ONTARIO FOR 2014
Moved by:
BOD-027-14
A. Eek
Seconded by:
J. Ballinger
RESOLVED THAT the 2014 Authority Chair, or her designate, be appointed as
the Authority’s voting delegate to Conservation Ontario; and
FURTHER THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be the alternate delegate.
CARRIED
Page 19 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-02-14
rd
63 Annual General Meeting - January 24, 2014
Minutes - Page 6 of 7
E.
APPOINTMENT TO THE LAKE SIMCOE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION FOR 2014
Moved by:
BOD-028-14
F.
Seconded by:
D. Evans
RESOLVED THAT three appointees: Chair Debbie Bath, Vice Chair Geoffrey
Dawe, and Regional Councillor Bobbie Drew be appointed to the Lake Simcoe
Conservation Foundation for 2014. CARRIED
APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITORS FOR 2014
Moved by:
BOD-029-14
XI.
E. Bull
J. O’Donnell
Seconded by:
B. Ward
RESOLVED THAT Stiver Vale, Hicks Morley, Hill Hunter Losell and Beard
Winter be appointed as the Authority’s legal firms for 2014. CARRIED
SIGNING OFFICERS – 2014
Moved by:
BOD-030-14
B. Haire
Seconded by:
D. Crake
RESOLVED THAT an account in the name of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (hereinafter called the “Organization”) be kept at the Bank of Nova
Scotia (hereinafter called the “Bank”; and
FURTHER THAT the Authority’s Chair Debbie Bath, Vice Chair Geoffrey Dawe,
D. Gayle Wood, Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer, and
Jocelyn Lee, General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services, or any two
of them are hereby authorized to sign, make, draw, accept, endorse and
deliver cheques, promissory notes, bills of exchange, orders for the payment
of money and such agreements and instruments as may be necessary or
useful in connection with the operation of the said account; and
FURTHER THAT any one of the above-mentioned officers is hereby authorized
for and in the name of the Organization to endorse and transfer to the Bank
for deposit or discount with or collection by the Bank (but for the credit of
the Organization only) cheques, promissory notes, bills of exchange, orders
for the payment of money and other instruments, to arrange, settle, balance
and certify all books and accounts with the Bank and to sign receipts for
vouchers. CARRIED
XII.
BORROWING RESOLUTION – 2014
Jocelyn Lee, General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services addressed Staff Report No. 02-14BOD regarding the Annual Borrowing Resolution, which was included in the meeting materials. GM
Lee explained that this borrowing resolution authorizes the Authority to borrow an amount up to
$500,000. She went on to explain that rarely are these fund called upon, the last time being 2010
when funding from partners was received significantly later than the completion of various
projects.
Page 20 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-02-14
rd
63 Annual General Meeting - January 24, 2014
Minutes - Page 7 of 7
Moved by:
K. Ferdinands
Seconded by:
D. Kerwin
RESOLVED THAT Staff Report 02-14-BOD regarding the Borrowing
Resolution be received for information; and
BOD-031-14
FURTHER THAT the signing officers for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority be empowered to borrow up to $500,000 on an Operating Loan
Agreement, as required, for administration and/or capital expenditures.
CARRIED
XIII.
MEETING SCHEDULE – 2014
The Board approved Staff Report No. 03-14-BOD, which outlined a proposed 2014 meeting
schedule for the Authority’s Board of Directors.
Moved by:
D. Crake
BOD-032-14
RESOLVED
Seconded by:
P. Craig
THAT Staff Report No. 03-14-BOD be received; and
FURTHER THAT the 2014 Schedule of Meetings for the Authority’s Board of
Directors be approved as presented. CARRIED
XIV.
CLOSING REMARKS
Vice Chair Dawe thanked the Board and advised that he is looking forward to all the new challenges
2014 will present.
Chair Bath thanked the Board, noting what an esteemed honour it is to represent them as their
2014 Chair.
XV.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. on a motion by J. Ballinger.
Original to be signed by:
Debbie Bath
Chair
Original to be signed by:
_______________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 21 of 231
Conservation Ontario Council
Minutes from Meeting #4/13
Monday, December 6, 2013
Black Creek Pioneer Village
Members Present:
Dick Hibma, Grey Sauble, Chair
Mark Burnham, Mississippi Valley, Vice Chair
Lin Gibson, Conservation Sudbury, Vice Chair
Tom Prout, Ausable Bayfield
Allan McPhail, Cataraqui Region
Steve Knechtel, Cataraqui Region
Sally Martyn, Catfish Creek
Kim Smale, Catfish Creek
Deb Martin-Downs, Credit Valley
Barry Rand, Crowe Valley
Tim Pidduck, Crowe Valley
Joe Bachetti, Essex Region
Richard Wyma, Essex Region
Forrest Rowden, Ganaraska Region
Linda Laliberte, Ganaraska Region
Jane Mitchell, Grand River
Joe Farwell, Grand River
John Cottrill, Grey Sauble
John Vice, Halton
Ken Phillips, Halton
James Howlett, Hamilton
Rob Messervey, Kawartha
Bill Mackie, Kettle Creek
Elizabeth VanHooren, Kettle Creek
Geoffrey Dawe, Lake Simcoe Region
Members Absent:
Central Lake Ontario
Niagara Peninsula
North Bay-Mattawa
Gayle Wood, Lake Simcoe Region
Bill Bartley, Lakehead Region
Mervi Henttonen, Lakehead Region
Cliff Evanitski, Long Point Region
Don Pearson, Lower Thames Valley
Craig Kerr, Lower Trent Region
Glenda Rodgers, Lower Trent Region
Phil Beard, Maitland Valley
Kees Pols, Mattagami Region
John Karau, Mississippi Valley
Paul Lehman, Mississippi Valley
Wayne Wilson, Nottawasaga Valley
Denyse Sanderson, Otonabee
Terry Murphy, Quinte
Ken Graham, Rideau Valley
Sommer Casgrain-Robertson, Rideau Valley
William Smirle, South Nation
Lawrence Levere, South Nation
Dennis O’Grady, South Nation
Steve Arnold, St. Clair Region
Brian McDougall, St. Clair Region
Brian Denney, Toronto and Region
Jane McKelvie, Upper Thames River
Ian Wilcox, Upper Thames River
Raisin Region
Saugeen
Sault Ste Marie
Guests:
Karen Armstrong, Grand River
Scott Peck, Hamilton
Peter Clarke, The Co-operators Group Ltd
Staff:
Kim Gavine, General Manager
Jayme Crittenden
Jane Dunning
Samantha Dupre
Bonnie Fox
Cameron Hare
Erin Harkins
Jane Lewington
Matthew Millar
Jo-Anne Rzadki
Mike Walters
Rick Wilson
Page 22 of 231
1.
Welcome from the Chair
Chair Dick Hibma called the meeting to order.
2. Adoption of the Agenda
The following addition was noted:
Item for Decision 7-5) Appointment to the Board of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation.
Ken Phillips (Halton) asked to provide an update on a legal matter under “New Business.”
# 26/13
Moved by: Forrest Rowden
Seconded by: Wayne Wilson
THAT the agenda be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
3. Declaration of Conflict of Interest
There was none.
4. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Staff confirmed that the MNR presentation Modernizing Approvals Project Overview & Introduction
to Regulatory Changes would be posted on the Council members page without the “confidential”
footer.
#27/13 Moved by: Bill Smirle
Seconded by: Bill Bartley
THAT the Minutes for the meeting #03/13, September 30, 2013 be approved as circulated.
CARRIED
5. Business Arising from the Minutes
There was none.
6. Motion to move from Full Council to Committee of the Whole
#28/13
Moved by: Lin Gibson
Seconded by: Mark Burnham
THAT the meeting now move from Full Council to Committee of the Whole.
CARRIED
Page 23 of 231
7. Committee of the Whole – Items for Decision
1) Conservation Ontario’s Comments on Strengthening Ontario's Trails Strategy
#35/13 Moved by: Mark Burnham
Seconded by: Ken Graham
THAT the November 29th comments submitted to the Ministry of Tourism Culture
and Sport in response to the discussion paper “Strengthening Ontario's Trails
Strategy” (EBR # 011-9565) be endorsed.
CARRIED
2) Conservation Ontario’s Comments in Response to the Land Use Planning and Appeal
System Consultation
#36/13 Moved by: Rob Messervey
Seconded by: Forrest Rowden
THAT the comments prepared in response to the Land Use Planning and Appeal
System Consultation (EBR # 012-0241) be endorsed.
CARRIED
3) Conservation Ontario – Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Partnership Agreement
Working Group Representation and Update
Bonnie reported that the Conservation Ontario website had been updated to remove any
reference to the Level 1, 2 and 3 agreements with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. A fact
sheet regarding the role of CAs is being finalized with the working group.
#37/13 Moved by: Ken Graham
Seconded by: Jane McKelvie
THAT John Karau (Vice Chair, Mississippi Valley CA) be endorsed as a member of the
Conservation Ontario – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Partnership Agreement Working
Group.
CARRIED
4) Conservation Ontario’s Comments on The International Joint Commission’s Report: Lake
Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP): Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations to Reduce
Nutrient Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms
#38/13 Moved by: Steve Arnold
Seconded by: Wayne Wilson
THAT the October 4th, 2013 comments submitted to the IJC on the Lake Erie Ecosystem
Priority Report “Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations to Reduce Nutrient
Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms” be endorsed.
CARRIED
Page 24 of 231
5) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Integrated Nearshore Framework Project Charter
Steve Arnold (St. Clair Region) suggested that Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA)
be included in the list of possible representative agencies and organizations. Bonnie agreed
to forward that recommendation to those responsible for soliciting participants.
#39/13 Moved by: Sally Martyn
Seconded by: Tom Prout
THAT Bonnie Fox be endorsed as the Conservation Ontario representative for the
Nearshore Framework Partners Roundtable;
AND THAT the “Project Charter: The Great Lakes Integrated Nearshore Framework”
(November 28, 2013) be endorsed for signature by the Chair of Conservation Ontario.
CARRIED
6) Addendum to Dodging the ‘Perfect Storm’ Conservation Ontario’s Business Case for
Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs
Mike Walters’ presentation slides are attached to the minutes of the meeting. Dick Hibma
added that he had met with the Minister of Natural Resources who was receptive to the
presentation.
Don Pearson (Lower Thames) encouraged engaging Association of Municipalities (AMO) as
an ally as the collective voice of the municipalities may be heard by the Province. Mike
concurred that this is a team approach and will possibly include the insurance industry as
well as the banks who hold the mortgages on houses in the flood plains.
Ian Wilcox (Upper Thames) expressed some concern around the dollar amounts and
timeframe with respect to the flood plain mapping.
Gayle Wood (LSRCA) asked if CAs would be expected to match funding, to which Mike
responded that the recommendation is for 100% funding from the province.
Rob Messervey (Kawartha) asked if there was any discussion about a broader provincial
investment structure beyond MNR. Kim reported that there was discussion about other
ministries participating in this “ask”, which is why this was taken to the Premier’s office.
Brian Denney (TRCA) reported that Public Safety Canada close to awarding a proposal with
respect to the need for flood plain mapping in Canada.
#40/13 Moved by: Rob Messervey
Seconded by: Jane McKelvie
THAT the Board of Directors of Conservation Ontario endorse the attached addendum to
the business case entitled Dodging the ‘Perfect Storm’ Conservation Ontario’s Business
Page 25 of 231
Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs, Services, and
Structure.
FURTHER THAT that staff be directed to continue to implement the interim strategy to
mobilize support to advance reinvestment in flood management programs within
Conservation Authorities and solicit new funding partners.
CARRIED
7) 2013 Section 39 Transfer Payment Update
Samantha’s presentation is attached to the minutes.
#41/13 Moved by: Don Pearson
Seconded by: Forrest Rowden
THAT the recalculated Total Costs for Flood Management Activities and the resulting
Shortfall derived from the 2014 forecast in the 2013 iteration of the Section 39 transfer
payment survey be used by CO in future activities to mobilize support to advance
reinvestment in flood management programs within Conservation Authorities;
AND THAT the Addendum to Dodging the ‘Perfect Storm’ Conservation Ontario’s Business
Case for Strategic Reinvestment in Ontario’s Flood Management Programs be amended
accordingly.
CARRIED
8) Whitepaper Status
Kim provided a verbal update. A whitepaper communications bulletin was circulated to
members in November. Kim noted that the original whitepaper advisory committee had not
been endorsed by council, so after contacting the CAs, those who expressed interest are
listed in the recommendation provided.
Don Pearson (Lower Thames) commented that the pushback from Regional Planning
Commissioners of Ontario (RCPO) requires a special intervention.
#42/13 Moved by: Bill Smirle
Seconded by: Cliff Evanitski
THAT Joe Farwell (Grand River), Paul Lehman (Mississippi), Deb Martin-Downs (CVC), Brian
McDougall (St. Clair), Rob Messervey (Kawartha), Dennis O’Grady (South Nation), Don
Pearson (Lower Thames), Brian Tayler (North Bay-Mattawa), Wayne Wilson
(Nottawasaga) and Richard Wyma (Essex Region) be endorsed as members of the
Whitepaper Advisory Committee.
CARRIED
Page 26 of 231
9) Conservation Ontario Organizational Purpose and Transformation
Kim’s presentation slides are attached to the minutes of the meeting.
Members asked that the report be re-circulated without patterns in the images as it is
currently difficult to read.
Kim confirmed that the proposed framework includes no financial implications for the trial
period. This will be brought back with a full report in June.
#43/13 Moved by: Mark Burnham
Seconded by: Steve Arnold
THAT Council endorse a temporary organizational alignment which reflects a Hub/Matrix
model and includes two new service areas; Business Development and Partnerships and
Conservation Authority Member Services;
FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario staff bring back to Council an evaluation framework
no later than June 23, 2014 to allow the members to provide feedback and assist them in
determining next steps moving forward.
CARRIED
10) Minutes from the Board of Director’s meetings
Regarding the November 19, 2013 minutes, members discussed the practice whereby CO
staff circulate materials on behalf of those interested in running for positions on the Board
of Directors. They further discussed scenarios where CO could share their Council members
distribution list with potential nominees. The Board of Directors will review this further at
their next meeting.
#44/13 Moved by: Sally Martyn
Seconded by: Mark Burnham
THAT the Minutes from the August 29 and November 19, 2013 Board of Directors meetings
be received.
CARRIED
11) Proposed Council Meeting Dates for 2014
#45/13 Moved by: Geoffrey Dawe
Seconded by: Forrest Rowden
THAT the 2014 Conservation Ontario Council meeting schedule be adopted.
CARRIED
Page 27 of 231
12) Conservation Ontario Representative to the Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure
(WECI) Program Committee
#46/13 Moved by: Ken Graham
Seconded by: Terry Murphy
THAT Anjum Amin (Sault Ste Marie Region Conservation Authority) be endorsed as a
Conservation Ontario representative on the Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure
(WECI) Program Committee.
CARRIED
13) Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee – Conservation Ontario
Representative for Eastern Ontario
#47/13 Moved by: Mark Burnham
Seconded by: Rob Messervey
THAT Gordon Earle of Otonabee Region Conservation Authority be approved as a
Conservation Ontario representative on the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning
Committee.
CARRIED
14) Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Enterprise License Agreement (ELA)
Renewal
Rick Wilson’s presentation is attached to the minutes.
#48/13 Moved by: Mark Burnham
Seconded by: Ken Graham
THAT Council endorse the proposed three-year extension to the existing Enterprise License
Agreement allowing Conservation Authorities to continue to enjoy affordable, unrestricted
use of ESRI software with no disruption in service.
CARRIED
15) Appointment to the Board of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation
#49/13 Moved by: Wayne Wilson
Seconded by: Brian Denney
THAT Rob Messervey (CAO, Kawartha Conservation) be identified as the Conservation
Ontario representative for appointment to the Board of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation.
CARRIED
Page 28 of 231
8. Program Updates
1) Source Water Protection
Mike Walters highlighted the report provided with the agenda.
2) Marketing and Communications
Jayme Crittenden’s Healthy Hikes program wrap up presentation is attached.
3) Watershed Stewardship
Jo-Anne Rzadki reported that there will be a meeting with Trees Ontario to talk about our
partnership.
9. Presentations
1) Engagement: The Who? What? And Why? of Addressing Climate Risks in the Insurance
Industry
Jo-Anne introduced Peter Clarke (The Co-operators Group Ltd) whose presentation is
attached to the minutes.
2) 2013 A.D. Latornell Strategic Review
Jane Lewington’s presentation is attached to the minutes of the meeting.
10. Committee of the Whole – Items for Information
1) General Manager’s Report
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
2) Budget Status Report to October 31, 2013
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
Page 29 of 231
3) Ontario Land Trust Alliance (OLTA) Update
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
4) Ontario Partner Environmental Network (OPEN) Portal
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
5) Certified Crop Advisors Update
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
6) Drainage Investment Group (DIG) Update
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
7) Conservation Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Risk Management Committee
Update
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
8) Provincial Stream Sediment Project
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
9) Board of Directors Recruitment
There were no updates to the report provided with the agenda.
10) Project Tracking
Gayle Wood (LSRCA) asked for an update on applications made to the International Joint
Commission for the science committee. Bonnie reported that feedback will not be before
mid-December, timing further delayed by the U.S. government shutdown.
Page 30 of 231
11) Correspondence
•
•
Minister of Natural Resources to CO re WECI Funding
Extreme Water Levels on Lake Huron (position statement) by the Lake Huron Centre
for Coastal Conservation
11. Motion to Move from Committee of the Whole to Full Council
#29/13
Moved by: Mark Burnham
Seconded by: Sally Martyn
THAT the meeting now move from Committee of the Whole to Full Council.
CARRIED
12. Council Business - Council Adoption of Recommendations
#30/13
Moved by: Wayne Wilson
Seconded by: Lin Gibson
THAT Conservation Ontario Council adopt Committee of the Whole (C.W.) Recommendations:
C.W. #35/13 to C.W. #51/13.
CARRIED
13. New Business
Ken Phillips (Halton) updated members on an ongoing legal case regarding shoreline development
which is now going to the Ontario Court of Appeal. As this decision will set a precedence for the
province, members discussed the feasibility of seeking intervenor status in this matter. CO Staff and
Directors will pursue this further.
James Howlett (Hamilton), expressed concern of the amount of fill being placed in local farmland,
being brought in from development in the Missisauga area. James was encouraged to contact
Kawartha or Nottawasaga CAs to gain from their experience with this issue.
Terry Murphy (Quinte) highlighted for those participating in the Group Insurance Program that their
current policy does not cover staff who travel on an aircraft or charter an aircraft in the course of
their duties. CAs need to pursue additional coverage.
14. Adjourn
#31/13 Moved by: Ken Graham
THAT the meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
Page 31 of 231
LSRCA Chair / Vice Chair Challenge
for the
Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation
Did You Know?




Last year the LSCF raised over $583,000 for the LSRCA
100% of the Foundation Staff contributed to LSCF
67% of Foundation Board members contributed to LSCF
16% of the Authority Board members contributed to LSCF
Let’s change those stats and have a gold
medal performance!
Our Goal:
100% LSRCA and LSCF Board annual
participation in contributing to our Foundation
It’s easy! Here are your options and it doesn’t matter how much:
 Donate by cash, cheque or online at
www.lakesimcoefoundation.ca
 Donate one of your per diems or mileage to a meeting
 Enroll in the Authority’s Payroll Deduction Program
 Questions? Contact LSCF Executive Director, Cheryl Taylor at
[email protected] or 905-895-1281 X310
Page 32 of 231
Page 33 of 231
Proud winner of the International Thiess River prize

Member of Conservation Ontario
Presented to the LSRCA Board of Directors
February 28, 2014
Manager, Subwatershed Planning and Source Water Protection
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority
Ben Longstaff
Guidance to Maintain Significant
Groundwater Recharge Areas
A Watershed for Life
Page 34 of 231
2
 A Watershed for Life
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
Ecologically Significant
Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Clean Water Act
Significant
Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
Significant
Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Significant Groundwater Recharge
Areas (SGRAs) and the LSPP
Page 35 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
3
 A Watershed for Life
Clean Water Act- Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Page 36 of 231
Step 3
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
• Implementation of Policies
4
 A Watershed for Life
• Develop Guidance for the Protection and
Step 2 Restoration of Significant Recharge Areas
• Define and Identify Ecologically
Step 1 Significant Recharge Areas
Stepped Approach to Developing
Guidance
• Define ESGRA
• Develop a
methodology for
ESGRA
identification
• Test uncertainty
• LSRCA
• MNR
• CAMC
• Earthfx
• MOE
5
 A Watershed for Life
• Definition
• Replicable
methodology
Outcomes
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Objectives
Study Team
Step 1: Define and Identify Recharge
Areas (ESGRAs) Pilot Study
Page 37 of 231
Page 38 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
6
 A Watershed for Life
Step 1: Define and Identify Recharge
Areas (ESGRA)
Page 39 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Significant Groundwater Recharge
Area= 1.15 * Average Recharge
7
 A Watershed for Life
Ecologically Significant
Groundwater Recharge Area=
Link between recharge area and
feature.
Step 1: SGRAs VS. ESGRAs
Page 40 of 231
Identify
Ecologically
Significant
Features
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Develop
Modelling
Tools
Complete
Particle
Tracking
Exercise
Undertake
Cluster
Analysis
8
 A Watershed for Life
Complete
ESGRA
Mapping
Step 1: Define and Identify Recharge
Areas
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
9
 A Watershed for Life
Oro Creeks North, South and Hawkestone Creek
Example
Identify Ecologically Significant
Features
• Coldwater Streams
• Cool water Streams
• Provincially Significant
Wetlands
• ELC mapping
• Areas of Natural or
Scientific Interest
• Species at Risk
Page 41 of 231
Page 42 of 231
10
 A Watershed for Life
Example of backward particle track pathlines
from wetlands (green) and streams (orange)
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Example locations of particle track starting
points for target wetlands (green) and
streams (orange)
Complete Particle Tracking
Page 43 of 231
11
 A Watershed for Life
24% of the study area is classified
as an Ecologically Significant
Groundwater Recharge Area
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
ESGRA Mapping
Page 44 of 231
ESGRA
CWA SGRA
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
LSPP SGRA
LSPP SGRAs
 A Watershed for Life
12
Page 45 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
13
 A Watershed for Life
Guidance Objectives
1. protect or enhance the quality and quantity of
groundwater and surface water and the
function of groundwater recharge/discharge
areas
2. ensure that development within the
municipality contributes to the protection,
maintenance and enhancement of water and
related resources and aquatic ecosystems on
an integrated watershed management basis.
3. ensure that development promotes water
conservation and supports the efficient use of
water resources on a watershed basis.
4. protect municipal drinking water from
contamination.
Step 2: Develop Guidance for the Protection
and Restoration of Recharge Areas
Page 46 of 231
Municipal
Stakeholder
Input
Internal
Working
Group
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Guidance
14
 A Watershed for Life
Step 2: Develop Guidance for the Protection
and Restoration of Recharge Areas
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
15
 A Watershed for Life
Avoid Infiltrating poor quality run-off from paved surfaces without pretreatment.
When high recharge areas cannot be avoided; ensure the predevelopment water balance is maintained.
Direct Development and incompatible land use away from Significant
Groundwater recharge areas
Avoid Developing in significant groundwater recharge areas
Identify Areas of Significant Groundwater Recharge
Step 2: Policy Implementation Requirements
Page 47 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
16
 A Watershed for Life
Assess road salt impacts in vulnerable areas, such as high recharge areas.
Provide financial assistance for projects promoting stormwater
management upgrades and infiltration projects within recharge areas
Promote awareness of the importance of recharge areas and the linkage
between SW activities and GW quality and quantity.
Direct rooftop runoff away from storm sewers and promote
recharge
Promote infiltration from clean water sources, such as rooftop
downpouts.
Step 2: Policy Implementation Requirements
Page 48 of 231
Page 49 of 231
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Mid 2014
2015/2016
Innisfil Creeks
Barrie Creeks
Hewitts Creek and
Lovers Creeks
Oro Creeks North, Oro
Creeks South and
Hawkestone
Ramara Creek, Whites
Creek and Talbot River
East Holland River,
West Holland River and
Maskinonge River
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
17
 A Watershed for Life
2016/2017 TBD
Complete
Black River and
Georgina Creeks
Beaver River and
Pefferlaw River
Expected Completion
Date
Subwatershed
Step 3: Implementation- What’s being
done Now?
Page 50 of 231
Delineate
ESGRAs
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Distribute
Guidance
Municipal
Workshop?
Implement
Policies
18
 A Watershed for Life
Monitor
Progress
Step 3: Implementation Next Steps
Page 51 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
19
 A Watershed for Life
Methodology for ESGRA identification was developed with support from:
• MNR
• MOE
• Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition
• Earthfx Inc.
Funding for these studies has been provided by the Province of Ontario
Acknowledgements
Page 52 of 231
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
20
 A Watershed for Life
Questions or Comments?
Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD
Page No:
1 of 4
Agenda Item No: VIIa) BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ben Longstaff
Manager, Subwatershed Planning & Source Water Protection
DATE:
February 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Guidance for the Protection and Restoration of Significant
Groundwater Recharge Areas in the Lake Simcoe Watershed
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD regarding the Guidance for the
protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge
areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed be received for information;
and
FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors approve for release the
“Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant
groundwater recharge areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed”.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD is to seek approval from the Board of Directors
to release the Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge
areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed.
Background:
Recharge areas are the areas of land over which precipitation infiltrates into the soil and
percolates downwards to replenish groundwater. 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 significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs). The
approach taken within the LSPP follows three basic steps: (1) define and identify significant
groundwater recharge areas; (2) develop guidance for their protection and restoration, and (3)
incorporate policies into municipal official plans to protect, improve and restore.
Within the LSPP, recharge areas include both SGRAs defined under the Clean Water Act, 2006
and a new concept of ecologically-significant groundwater recharge areas (ESGRAs). ESGRAs
Page 53 of 231
Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD
Page No:
2 of 4
Agenda Item No: VIIa) BOD-03-14
are identified as areas of land that are responsible for supporting groundwater systems that
sustain sensitive features like coldwater streams and wetlands.
Over the last few years LSRCA, with full financial support from the Province, has been (a)
undertaking a program of defining and mapping ESGRAs, and (b) preparing a guidance
document for protection and restoration of all LSPP defined recharge areas. Table 1 below
provides a summary of completed and pending ESGRA mapping.
Table 1
ESGRA Mapping Completion Schedule
Subwatershed
Expected Completion Date
Black River & Georgina Creeks
Completed
Innisfil Creeks
Completed
Barrie Creeks
Completed
Hewitts Creek & Lovers Creeks
Completed
Oro Creeks North, Oro Creeks South, & Hawkstone
Completed
Ramara Creek, Whites Creek & Talbot River
Mid 2014
East Holland River, West Holland River, & Maskinonge River
2014/15
Beaver River & Pefferlaw River
2015/16
The guidance document has been prepared to meet the requirements of LSPP Policy 6.37-SA
and has been prepared in collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the
Environment and watershed municipalities. Consultation on the guide included a workshop
with municipal staff, a 2 month review period, and presentations to council (upon request of
municipal staff).
Major elements of the guide include: (1) background as to the LSPP recharge policies and
requirements; (2) definition of LSPP recharge areas; (3) recommendations for the protection
and restoration of recharge areas; and (4) proposed optional wording for incorporation of
SGRAs into Official Plans.
The overall approach to protecting and restoring recharge areas within the recommendations
can be summarized as:

Avoid developing in significant groundwater recharge areas. Direct development and
incompatible land uses away from significant groundwater recharge areas;

When significant groundwater recharge areas cannot be avoided, ensure pre-development
recharge conditions are maintained through the completion of a water balance and
hydrogeological study;
Page 54 of 231
Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD
Page No:
3 of 4
Agenda Item No: VIIa) BOD-03-14

Avoid infiltrating poor quality runoff from paved surfaces such as parking lots and roads
without pre-treatment, and promote infiltration from clean water sources, such as rooftop
downspouts;

Promote awareness of the importance of significant groundwater recharge areas – the
linkage between surface activities and groundwater quality and quantity;

Provide financial assistance for projects promoting stormwater management upgrades and
infiltration projects within significant groundwater recharge areas; and

Adopt a multipronged approach to reducing the impact of winter salt application. Approach
to consider updates to salt management plans and education and outreach to contractors.
Recommendations within the guide are directed towards LSRCA, municipalities and the
Province.
Issues:
Once significant groundwater recharge areas have been identified, Policy 6.38-DP of the LSPP
requires municipalities to incorporate them into their Official Plans together with policies to
protect and restore the groundwater quality and quantity. The LSPP does not stipulate that the
policies must be based on the guidance document; however, it is our intent that this occurs.
Due to ongoing mapping of the ESGRAs, the guide will have to be updated periodically to
include the new information.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
It is anticipated that the guidelines will help inform development of LSRCA planning policies
that will be developed over the next 1 to 2 years.
Impact on Authority Finances:
There is no impact on Authority Finances. The funding to map the ESGRAs and prepare the
guidance document was provided by the Province.
Page 55 of 231
Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD
Page No:
4 of 4
Agenda Item No: VIIa) BOD-03-14
Summary and Recommendations:
It is therefore recommended THAT Staff Report No. 04-14-BOD regarding the Guidance for the
protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas in the Lake Simcoe
watershed be received for information; and FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors approve for
release the “Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge
areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed”.
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by General Manager, Watershed Management and the
Chief Administrative Officer.
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
___________________________________
Michael Walters
General Manager,
Watershed Management
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment:
1)
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas in
the Lake Simcoe watershed.
Page 56 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) in the Lake Simcoe watershed
2014
Page 57 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) in the Lake Simcoe watershed January 2014 Final Vs 1.1 (This guidance will be revised periodically in order to incorporate updated mapping of the recharge areas) Contents 1. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2. What are Lake Simcoe Protection Plan “significant groundwater recharge areas”? ........................... 3 2.1 Source Water Protection Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SWP SGRAs) ...................... 4 2.2 Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRAs) .................................................. 7 2.3 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ........................... 8 3. Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4. Existing LSPP policies .......................................................................................................................... 10 5. Summary of approach to protect and restore SGRAs ......................................................................... 10 6. Recommendations for the protection and restoration of SGRAs ....................................................... 11 7. Proposed Official Plan content and policies ....................................................................................... 13 2 Page 58 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas 1.
Background Recharge areas are the area of land over which precipitation infiltrates into the soil and percolates downwards to replenish groundwater. 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 significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs). The approach taken within the LSPP follows three basic steps: (1) define and identify significant groundwater recharge areas; (2) develop guidance for their protection and restoration (this guide), and (3) incorporate policies into municipal official plans to protect, improve and restore (Figure 1). • Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs) include areas identified under the Clean Water Act, 2006 and Ecologically Significant groundwater recharge areas (ESGRAs);
Define and • ESGRAs are areas of land that are responsible for replenishing groundwater Identify systems that directly support sensitive areas like coldwater streams and recharge area
wetlands.
Develop Guidance
• Guidance for the protection and Restoration of SGRAs (this document);
• Produced in collaboration with MOE, MNR and municipalities.
• Municipalities must incorporate policies in their Official Plans (OP) to Protect and Restore SGRAs;
Incorporate •
Recommended that the OP policies be based on this guidance document.
policies into OPs
Figure 1: Summary of Lake Simcoe Protection Plan approach for the protection of significant groundwater recharge areas. This guide has been prepared to meet the requirements of LSPP Policy 6.37‐SA and has been prepared in collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment and watershed municipalities. 2.
What are Lake Simcoe Protection Plan “significant groundwater recharge areas”? The definitions of significant groundwater recharge areas, in accordance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (Policy 6.36‐DP) are as follows: (Figure 2) a) Significant groundwater recharge areas identified by any public body for the purpose of implementing the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); 3 Page 59 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas b) A significant groundwater recharge area (SGRA) in 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; or c) An ecologically significant groundwater recharge area (ESGRA). ESGRAs are areas of land that are responsible for replenishing groundwater systems that directly support sensitive areas like coldwater streams and wetlands. SGRA identified by public body for the purpose of implementing the PPS
Source Water Protection SGRAs
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan ESGRAs
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan SGRAs
Figure 2: Summary of recharge areas that make up Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs). 2.1 Source Water Protection Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SWP SGRAs) Source Water Protection (SWP) SGRAs have been delineated for the entire Lake Simcoe watershed as required by the Clean Water Act, 2006 and in accordance with the Technical Rules 44‐46, 80‐81 (MOE, 2008a). The Technical Rules (MOE, 2008a) has defined SWP SGRAs within the Lake Simcoe watershed as:  An area that has an average annual recharge rate that is 15% greater than the average annual recharge rate for the entire Lake Simcoe watershed;  An area that has a hydrological connection to a surface water body or aquifer that is a source of drinking water for a drinking water system; and  An area delineated using models considering topography, surficial geology, and how land cover affects groundwater and surface water. Figure 3 illustrates areas of the landscape that are considered an SGRA in accordance with the Source Water Protection Technical Rules (MOE, 2008a). 4 Page 60 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas Figure 3: A conceptual diagram that depicts areas of the landscape that are considered Source Water Protection SGRAs in accordance with the Technical Rules. Note that the SWP SGRA occurs where there is both a drinking water well and an annual average recharge rate greater than 15% of the entire Lake Simcoe watershed recharge rate. The delineation of the SWP Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas within the Lake Simcoe watershed were completed using the recharge results from a surface water model that considers variations in topography, surficial soil, land cover and climate, when estimating average annual recharge (Figure 4). The average annual recharge determined for the Lake Simcoe watershed is 164 mm/yr, therefore any area that has an average annual recharge rate of 189 mm/yr is considered a SWP SGRA. Further information on how SWP SGRAs were delineated can be found in the Lake Simcoe and Couchiching‐Black River Source Protection Area Assessment Report (Chapter 4; http://www.ourwatershed.ca/documents/assessment_reports/approved_assessment_reports.
php ). 5 Page 61 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas Figure 4: Source Water Protection Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs) identified in the Assessment Report. Lake Simcoe and Couchiching‐Black River Source Protection Area Assessment Report (Chapter 4). SWP SGRAs are currently being revised as part of the Tier 3 Water Budget & Risk Assessment studies for the Region of York and City of Barrie water supplies. These revised SGRAs will be included in updates of the Lake Simcoe and Couchiching‐Black River Source Protection Area Assessment Report. 6 Page 62 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas 2.2 Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRAs) Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRAs) are identified as areas of land that are responsible for supporting groundwater systems that sustain sensitive features like coldwater streams and wetlands. To establish the ecological significance of the recharge area, a linkage must be present between the recharge area and the ecologically significant feature (e.g., a reach of a coldwater stream, a wetland, or an area of natural or scientific interest (ANSI)). See figure 5 for an illustration of an ESGRA. Figure 5: A conceptual diagram illustrating areas of the landscape that are considered to be an ESGRAs. The identification of an ESGRA is not related to the volume of recharge that may be occurring, rather they represent pathways in which recharge, if it occurred, would reach that feature. While delineating ESGRAs is an important task in establishing the linkage between a recharge area and an ecologically sensitive feature it is not a certainty that ESGRAs will coincide with Source Water Protection SGRAs, as they may not support high volumes of recharge. While 7 Page 63 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas ESGRAs and SWP SGRAs are not mutually exclusive, the areas where they do coincide support high volumes of recharge and support ecologically sensitive features. A program for completing ESGRAs is currently underway, with all subwatersheds planned to be completed by 2015‐16. Appendix A includes a draft schedule for completion of ESGRAs. Figure 6 illustrates areas of the Lake Simcoe watershed for which ESGRAs have been completed. Figure 6: Map illustrating areas of the Lake Simcoe watershed for which ESGRAs have been completed. 2.3 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas As discussed above, the LSPP defines SGRAs as being a combination of both SWP SGRAs and the newly delineated ESGRAs. The map below (Figure 7) provides the current delineation of the LSPP SGRAs. As ESGRAs for many subwatershed are still being delineated this map will be 8 Page 64 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas updated periodically to reflect the most current information. GIS files of the SGRAs can be obtained from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Figure 7: Map illustrating LSPP SGRA (i.e. Source Water Protection SGRAs plus LSPP ESGRAs) for those subwatersheds that both recharge areas are available. The map will be updated as studies to identify ESGRAs for remaining subwatersheds are completed. 3.
Definitions Definitions are consistent with those defined within the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan’s Glossary. For clarity we define recharge areas in accordance with Policy 6.36‐DP as: 9 Page 65 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas “Significant Groundwater Recharge areas (SGRAs)” mean Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs) required under the Clean Water Act, 2006, and Ecologically Significant Recharge Areas (ESGRAs) defined under Policy 6.37‐SA of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. 4.
Existing LSPP policies To provide context for the proposed policies in section 5, it is important to understand that the LSPP already contains two policies aimed at protecting SGRAs. These are: 6.39‐DP Outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine area, urban settlement area expansions should avoid significant groundwater recharge areas. 6.40‐DP Outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine area, an application for major development within a significant groundwater 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. 5.
Summary of approach to protect and restore SGRAs •
Avoid developing in significant groundwater recharge areas. Direct development and incompatible land uses away from significant groundwater recharge areas; •
When SGRAs cannot be avoided; ensure pre‐development recharge conditions are maintained through the completion of a water balance and hydrogeological study; •
Avoid infiltrating poor quality runoff from paved surfaces such as parking lots and roads without pre‐treatment. Promote infiltration from clean water sources, such as rooftop downspouts; •
Promote awareness of the importance of SGRAs – the linkage between surface activities and groundwater quality and quantity; •
Provide financial assistance for projects promoting stormwater management upgrades and infiltration projects within SGRAs; and •
Adopt a multipronged approach to reducing the impact of winter salt application. Approach to consider updates to salt management plans and education and outreach to contractors. 10 Page 66 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas 6.
Recommendations for the protection and restoration of SGRAs The following are provided as a guide for the protection and restoration of SGRAs. Where applicable it is anticipated that the recommendation be used as policy text for official plan amendment required under LSPP policy 6.38‐DP. See Section 6 for proposed Official Plan content. Implementer Existing/
Future # Tool 1 Science and research LSRCA F 2 Land Use Planning Municipality F 3 Land Use Planning Municipality E/F 4 Land Use Planning Municipality F 5 By‐Law Municipality E/F Recommendation The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) continue to delineate SGRAs throughout the watershed, and update mapping as the science is improved. Where not already noted in their Official Plans, municipalities should generally direct development and incompatible land uses away from Significant groundwater recharge areas. Where avoidance is not possible, municipalities shall only permit new development or redevelopment in significant groundwater recharge areas, where it can be demonstrated through the submission of a hydrogeological study and water balance, that the existing groundwater recharge will be maintained (i.e. there will be no net reduction in recharge). Municipalities should amend their planning documents to require the treatment of all contaminated runoff, prior to it being infiltrated. The treated runoff must meet the enhanced water quality criteria outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Guidance Document, 2003, as amended from time to time. That municipalities incorporate the requirement for the re‐use or diversion of roof top runoff (clean water diversion) from all new development in significant groundwater recharge areas away from storm sewers and infiltrated to maintain the pre‐development water balance (except in locations where a hydrogeological assessment indicates that local water table is too high to support such infiltration) in their municipal engineering 11 Page 67 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas 6 Prescribed Instruments MOE E 7 Prescribed Instruments MOE F 8 9 Education and Outreach Stewardship 10 Stewardship Municipality/ LSRCA LSRCA Municipality/ LSRCA standards. The MOE shall only consider issuing Environmental Compliance Approvals for Stormwater Management Facility retrofits within priority subwatersheds that attempt to improve, maintain or restore the pre‐
development water balance, and meet the enhanced water quality criteria outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Guidance Document, 2003, as amended from time to time. This document be adopted for the purpose of Policy 6.37‐SA of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Recommend that the Environmental Compliance Approval Application and Guidance documents be amended to reflect the importance of protecting SGRA as a priority consideration in the review of an Environmental Compliance Approval application for stormwater works. Promote conditions requiring infiltration trenches and grassed swales to enhance infiltration in an SGRA. E/F Municipalities in collaboration with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority shall undertake an education and outreach program to promote internal awareness for municipal and provincial staff and proponents focusing on the importance of SGRAs, and the actions residents and businesses can take to maximize infiltration from impervious surfaces while minimizing contamination such as salt. F The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority should create eligibility for infiltration projects and stormwater management system retrofits under the Landowner Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP), giving priority to those in significant groundwater recharge areas where possible, as promoted through the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Policy 4.12‐SA. E Municipalities shall collaborate with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to promote infiltration of clean water in significant 12 Page 68 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas groundwater recharge areas, and prioritize stormwater retrofits utilizing water quality controls, and ultimately infiltration devices for treated stormwater runoff. 11 12 Incentives Strategic direction Federal, Provincial Governments Municipality/ Commercial Property Managers and Contractors E/F F Federal and Provincial governments should consider extending programs like Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund and Showcasing Water Innovation that make investments into stormwater management facility retrofits and infiltration projects within recharge areas. Municipalities should include SGRAs in their assessment of areas vulnerable to road salt, and modify their municipal Salt Management Plans and snow disposal plans as necessary. Encourage outreach project to educate contractors and large commercial property managers promoting best management practices for maintaining winter roads and parking spaces with an objective of reducing application of road salt and other traction products. 7.
Proposed Official Plan content and policies The following information has been drafted to assist municipalities in amending their Official Plans in accordance with the LSPP policies (6.39 and 6.40) and the recommended policies within section 5 of this guide. 1.0 Objectives 1.1 To protect or enhance the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water and the function of significant groundwater recharge/discharge areas 1.2 To ensure that development within the municipality contributes to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of water and related resources and aquatic ecosystems on an integrated watershed management basis 1.3 To ensure that development promotes water conservation and supports the efficient use of water resources on a watershed basis 1.4 To protect municipal drinking water from contamination 13 Page 69 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas 2.0 Definition 2.1 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA) including Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRA) have been defined under 6.36‐DP of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan as those areas identified: 2.1.1 By a public body for the purposes of implementing the Provincial Policy Statement 2.1.2 Through the Assessment Report prepared under the Clean Water Act, 2006 2.1.3 By the guidelines prepared under 6.37‐SA of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan 2.2 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (including ESGRAs) have been shown on Schedule G – “Water Resources” of this Official Plan based on the information and mapping provided by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). For greater certainty regarding the location of SGRA, the LSRCA should be consulted for comment. 3.0 Policies 3.1 Urban settlement area expansions should avoid Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. Settlement area expansions shall only be permitted within SGRA when all other alternative areas for expansion have been fully explored. 3.2 Development and incompatible land uses shall be generally directed away from Significant Groundwater Recharges Areas as shown on Schedule “G”. The uses identified within the land use designations as shown on Schedule “A” to this Plan may be permitted within SGRA subject to Policy 3.3 and the requirement for a Hydrogeologic Evaluation. Any application to amend this Plan or the implementing Zoning By‐Law or any application to subdivide by consent or plan of subdivision must satisfy Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 prior to any approval. 3.3 An application for major development within SGRA and their minimum area of influence shall be accompanied by a Hydrogeologic Evaluation. This Evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the municipality and local conservation authority prior to any planning approvals or the issuance of permits under the Ontario Building Code Act or Regulations passed through the Conservation Authorities Act. For the purposes of this policy, major development is defined as a proposal with a proposed impervious area of greater than 500 square metres. 3.4 In general, the Hydrogeologic Evaluation must demonstrate that the quality and quantity of groundwater in the area and the function of the recharge area will be 14 Page 70 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas protected, improved, or restored. The Evaluation must also demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the associated aquatic features that depend on the significant groundwater recharge area including wetlands, watercourses, seeps and springs, and fish habitat. In particular, the Hydrogeologic Evaluation shall: 3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
Define the recharge/discharge conditions and area of influence Identify groundwater/surface water interactions Characterize the sensitivity to contamination Provide a pre‐to‐post water balance analysis Evaluate and recommend appropriate mitigation requirements 3.5 Further to Policy 3.4 and prior to the preparation of any Hydrologeologic Evaluation, the qualified professional shall consult with the municipality and conservation authority in order to establish the proper terms of reference for the study. Based on the magnitude, scale, and nature of the proposed development, the municipality in consultation with the conservation authority may scope the Evaluation. 15 Page 71 of 231
Guidance for the protection and restoration of significant groundwater recharge areas Appendix A: Proposed Schedule for completion of ESGRAs Subwatershed Black River & Georgina Creeks Innisfil Creeks Barrie Creeks Hewitts Creek & Lovers Creeks Oro Creeks North, Oro Creeks South, & Hawkstone Ramara Creek, Whites Creek & Talbot River East Holland River, West Holland River, & Maskinonge River Beaver River & Pefferlaw River Expected completion date Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Mid 2014 2014/15 2015/16 16 Page 72 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
05-14-BOD
Page 1 of 4
VIIb) BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Michael Walters
General Manager, Watershed Management
DATE:
February 10, 2014
SUBJECT:
Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality Trading
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 05-14-BOD regarding an update of the
Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality Offsetting for
Phosphorus Reduction in the Lake Simcoe Watershed be received
for information; and
FURTHER THAT the Proposed Framework for Phase 1 of the Lake
Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program be approved in principle.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 05-14-BOD is to (i) update the Board of Directors regarding
the status of the Showcasing Water Innovation: Water Quality Offsetting for Phosphorus
Reduction in the Lake Simcoe Watershed study, and (ii) seek Board of Directors’ approval in
principle of the overall framework so staff may proceed forward towards finalizing operational
components of the program.
Background:
Water Quality Trading is addressed in the Lake Simcoe Protection Act as one option to reducing
phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe and its watershed.
In December of 2012, the Authority was informed that we were successful in obtaining funding
to develop a program for Water Quality Trading for Phosphorus Reduction. A steering
committee comprised of representatives from federal, provincial and municipal agencies, First
Nations and stakeholder groups (BILD, agriculture, and private industry) have been
instrumental in guiding the work to achieve a program which will be widely accepted. A survey
to determine public attitudes and perception regarding water quality trading has been
Page 73 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
05-14-BOD
Page 2 of 4
VIIb) BOD-03-14
completed and public open houses have also been conducted to obtain feedback regarding the
development of the program. A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Offsetting has been produced
and has helped explain the concept of phosphorus offsetting to the public and was provided to
the Board of Directors in 2013.
Currently the study is proceeding on budget; however, due to the need for further discussions
within the Province the study has been granted a two-month extension with completion of the
final report scheduled for May 2014. Concurrently, the draft plan is nearing completion and a
number of recommendations are being made moving forward including a proposal to
implement a limited offsetting program dealing wholly with stormwater and new development.
Other aspects of the plan will be eligible upon completion of the discussions with the Province
and would include addressing all other sources of phosphorus excluding atmospheric
deposition. Attached is the draft report outlining the Proposed Framework for Phase 1 of the
Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program. Staff are seeking an approval in principle of the
report so that efforts to launch Phase 1 could be initiated for spring of 2015 subject to Ministry
of the Environment approval and final approval of the Board.
Issues:
Given the nature of some of these recommendations it is important to gain the perspective of
the Board of Directors and seek your approval in principal so staff can begin to discuss the path
forward with partners and stakeholders to operationalize Phase 1. Following is a summary of
the significant program recommendations for the Board of Directors’ consideration.
1. That the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority administers the Water Quality
Offsetting Program. As a science based, accountable and impartial decision-making body,
LSRCA is in the best position to ensure that offsetting is conducted in a fair and equitable
manner to benefit Lake Simcoe and its tributaries.
2. That all phosphorus offsets be initiated prior to or concurrently with the creation of new
loading sources to ensure that the receiving water is not degraded.
3. That phosphorus offset projects be completed within the geographic region where the
phosphorus input is located to ensure that the receiving water is not degraded by the
offset.
4. That the Authority establish a zero (0) phosphorus discharge target for stormwater runoff
from all new development within the Lake Simcoe watershed. This would require builders
to implement enhanced stormwater management to optimize their phosphorus loading
Page 74 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
05-14-BOD
Page 3 of 4
VIIb) BOD-03-14
reduction and to offset any remaining uncontrollable phosphorus balance associated with
the development.
5. That phosphorus offset projects be subject to the prescribed reduction ratio to ensure that
there is an overall benefit to the program. (For example, under urban stormwater the
phosphorus offset ratio is 2.5 to 1. Therefore a developer needing to purchase 2 kg/y of
phosphorus would be responsible to reduce 5 kg based on the application of the ratio (2 x
2.5 = 5kg/y).)
6. That phosphorus offsets projects be measured / monitored to ensure that they achieve the
reductions.
7. That the details of each offset be documented and reported on a website.
8. That an annual report regarding the offsetting program be produced and published for
general distribution documenting the specific details of each offset.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
The implementation of a Water Quality Trading Program in the Lake Simcoe basin will
accelerate remediation of phosphorus reduction within the watershed. It represents an
opportunity to generate the revenue needed to address water quality problems. The future
administration of the program by the Authority would be entirely within LSRCA’s mandate to
protect and restore the health of Lake Simcoe and its tributaries.
Impact on Authority Finances:
It is not anticipated that the program will impact on Authority finances as the program is intend
to be self-sufficient. A cost to administer the program will be determined and applied to fund
staff and associated resources needed to identify, evaluate, implement, and monitor the
individual water quality trades.
Summary and Recommendations:
It is therefore recommended THAT Staff Report No. 05-14-BOD regarding an update of the
Showcasing Water Innovation (SWI) Water Quality Offsetting for Phosphorus Reduction in the
Lake Simcoe Watershed be received. Further that the Proposed Framework for Phase 1 of the
Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program be approved in principle.
Page 75 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
05-14-BOD
Page 4 of 4
VIIb) BOD-03-14
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer.
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
________________________________
Michael Walters
General Manager,
Watershed Management
________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment:
1)
Proposed Framework for Phase 1 of the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Program
Page 76 of 231
XCG File No.: 3-3111-01-01
February 10, 2014
PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR PHASE 1 OF THE
LAKE SIMCOE PHOSPHORUS OFFSETTING PROGRAM
Prepared for:
LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 4X1
Prepared by:
XCG CONSULTANTS LTD.
2620 Bristol Circle
Suite 300
Oakville, Ontario
L6H 6Z7
in association with:
KIESER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
536 East Michigan Avenue
Suite 300
Kalamazoo, Michigan
49007 U.S.A.
Page 77 of 231
ACRONYMS
Environmental Compliance Approval .......................................................................... (ECA)
Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd..................................................................... (HESL)
Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offset Program ................................................................ (LSPOP)
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan ....................................................................................... (LSPP)
Landowner Environmental Assistance Program ........................................................ (LEAP)
Low Impact Development .............................................................................................. (LID)
Ministry of the Environment ........................................................................................ (MOE)
Official Plans ................................................................................................................. (OPs)
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ............................................... (MMAH)
Ontario Water Resources Act ................................................................................... (OWRA)
Phosphorus Reduction Strategy ..................................................................................... (PRS)
Provincial Policy Statement ........................................................................................... (PPS)
Stormwater Management Master Plan....................................................................(SWMMP)
Total Phosphorus ............................................................................................................. (TP)
Total Suspended Solids .................................................................................................. (TSS)
Urban Stormwater Retrofit Program .............................................................................(USRP)
Page 78 of 231
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 1
1.1
Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2
LSPOP Overview............................................................................................... 1
2.
LSPOP STORMWATER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ..................................................... 4
3.
LSPOP GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION ............................................................... 7
3.1
LSPOP Administrator - Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ............ 7
3.2
LSPOP Governance and Administration ........................................................... 7
3.3
Other LSPOP Participants ................................................................................. 9
4.
URBAN STORMWATER RETROFIT PROGRAM ............................................................... 11
4.1
Eligibility ......................................................................................................... 11
5.
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
Baseline Requirements .................................................................................. 11
Watershed Location ...................................................................................... 12
Eligible Participants ..................................................................................... 14
4.4.1
4.4.2
WMM Load Estimation Method .................................................................... 21
Construction Phase Load Estimates ............................................................. 25
4.2
4.3
4.4
Obtaining Offsets ............................................................................................. 14
Developing a Retrofit Project .......................................................................... 17
Urban Offset Calculation Methods .................................................................. 20
4.5
Offset Ratios .................................................................................................... 26
LEAP ......................................................................................................................... 28
5.1
Eligibility ......................................................................................................... 29
5.2
Recommended LEAP Offset Calculation Methods ......................................... 29
5.2.1
5.2.2
Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction BMPs .................................................. 29
Recommended BMP Calculation Approaches .............................................. 30
6.
LSPOP TRACKING AND REPORTING ............................................................................ 33
6.1
Tracking Activities .......................................................................................... 33
6.2
Reporting Activities ......................................................................................... 34
6.3
USRP Project Tracking and Reporting ............................................................ 35
7.
REFERENCES CITED ...................................................................................................... 36
Page 79 of 231
TABLES
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 5.1
Table 6.1
FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3
Eligible P Offset Transactions ......................................................................... 14
Percent Impervious Surface and Event Mean Concentrations by Land Use
(MDEQ, 2002; Wayne County, 1998) ............................................................. 22
Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies for Major BMP Classes (HESL, 2012)..... 23
Major BMP Classes Without Reported Treatment Efficiency Mean
Reductions (HESL, 2012). ............................................................................... 24
Proposed LSPOP Offset Ratios ....................................................................... 26
LEAP Projects ................................................................................................. 28
Recommended LSPOP Tracking ..................................................................... 34
Overview of LSPOP .......................................................................................... 2
Proposed LSPOP Governance ........................................................................... 8
Geographic Eligibility Zones ........................................................................... 13
Obtaining an Offset......................................................................................... 15
Developing a Retrofit Project .......................................................................... 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Policies and Procedures
Tracking and Reporting Examples
Page 80 of 231
1.
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
1.1
Purpose
This Technical Memorandum describes the proposed framework for Phase 1 of the Lake Simcoe
Phosphorus Offset Program (LSPOP). The purpose of the TM is to provide stakeholders the
proposed program details. Other aspects of the LSPOP are in the process of preparation.
Specifically, the review of offset demand and retrofit opportunities, LSPOP financial
transactions and other operational details are being finalized. This TM along with these and
other program aspects will be incorporated into the final project report.
The TM contents are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.2
Section 1 – Purpose and LSPOP Overview
Section 2 – LSPOP Policies and Procedures
Section 3 – LSPOP Governance and Administration
Section 4 – Urban Stormwater Retrofit Program
Section 5 – LEAP
Section 6 – LSPOP Offset Tracking and Reporting
Section 7 – References
Appendix A – Policies and Procedures
Appendix B – Tracking and Reporting Examples
LSPOP Overview
The goal of the LSPOP is to accelerate progress toward the long-term sustainable reduction of
the total phosphorus load reaching Lake Simcoe and its tributary watercourses. The
implementation of the LSPOP will proceed using a phased approach. This will allow efficient
program integration within the current structure of Lake Simcoe phosphorus management
activities while at the same time affording the benefits of an adaptive, “learning by doing”
approach. As noted, the current TM addresses the first phase of the program. Subsequent phases
will expand the program addressing other phosphorus sources and refining the program
framework.
In the initial phase of LSPOP the program will be exclusively focussed on mitigating urban
stormwater P loads from new development and redevelopment by providing incentives to
enhance stormwater load reduction in existing development. The program may consider other P
sources if specific opportunities arise.
The LSPOP includes two major components: the existing Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA) Landowner Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP), which is geared
towards assisting individual landowners implement environmentally oriented projects; and the
Urban Stormwater Retrofit Program (USRP) which will be a new LSRCA program aimed at
offsetting stormwater loads from new development and redevelopment. Figure 1.1 presents an
overview of the components of LSPOP.
Page 81 of 231
Figure 1.1
Overview of LSPOP
New development or redevelopment proposals within the Lake Simcoe watershed will in future
be required by LSRCA to ensure that no P load will be exported from the developed or
redeveloped parcel. This is the so-called Zero Export policy. This policy would go beyond the
current requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) and the Phosphorus Reduction
Strategy (PRS) with respect to urban stormwater management. The Zero Export policy will
provide the basis for achieving a net reduction in P load to local watercourses and the lake, and
will provide strong incentive for innovation in the design of new urban development projects. It
is discussed further in Section 2.
Under the proposed Zero Export policy, if it is not feasible by technological means e.g. detention
ponds or low impact development (LID) practices to eliminate P loads from new development or
redevelopment sites, P offsets may be obtained through the USRP. Offsets are simply P
reductions achieved by stormwater retrofit projects in areas of existing development within the
watershed. The rules governing the use of offsets are further described in Section 4.
LSRCA will administer the LSPOP as a whole including the USRP. They will maintain a
primary pool of offsets derived from the retrofit projects and apply it towards the new
development or redevelopment requests. In addition, the LSCRA will continue and enhance its
current LEAP projects. The LEAP projects while not specifically designed for P reduction may
Page 82 of 231
nevertheless have significant benefit in this regard. One of the LEAP enhancements proposed
under LSPOP will involve the tracking of P reductions. It is proposed to recognize these P
reductions through a backup offset pool that would also be maintained by the LSRCA. The
backup pool would afford the LSPOP insurance in the event that some primary pool offsets
became unavailable. LEAP projects are currently cost shared between the LSRCA and the
proponent and hence only the proponent’s share would be allocated to the backup pool. The
remainder would be tracked and recorded but would be assigned to the general benefit of Lake
Simcoe. The role of the LSRCA and other program participants is described in Section 3 while
the USRP and LEAP program details are presented in Sections 4 and 5 respectively.
A key aspect of both the USRP and LEAP programs will be maintaining transparency. Section 6
addresses this issue through the LSPOP tracking and reporting requirements.
Page 83 of 231
2.
LSPOP STORMWATER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The LSPOP will be implemented within the existing Lake Simcoe watershed policy framework.
The key policies and supporting procedures directly relevant to stormwater management that will
need to be considered include:
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and Phosphorus Reduction Strategy.
• Stormwater Management Policies including Zero Export Policy.
• Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process.
• Environmental Compliance Authorization Process.
• Development Approval Policies and Procedures .
The interactions and integration of each of these policies and procedures with the LSPOP are
presented in detail in Appendix A.
•
From the perspective of the LSPOP the key policy requirement is the Zero Export (ZE) Policy.
The specific requirements are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
LSPOP-1 Any new development in the Lake Simcoe watershed regardless of present land
use will be required to manage P loads from the defined development with the goal of zero
export on an annual basis for the life of the proposed P reduction measures applied on-site
and as retrofits (offsite) within the eligible watershed area.
LSPOP-2 The goal of zero export will also apply during the construction phase of the
development. The construction phase loadings estimated after implementation of required
erosion and sediment control measures will increase the required the annual offset amount
for the five years after the construction phase by 1/5th of the residual construction phase
loadings per annum.
LSPOP-3 P reduction to pre-development export loads must be achieved through on-site
measures consisting of Enhanced Protection Level stormwater detention facilities and/or onsite LID measures implemented within the public right-of-way.
LSPOP-4 Any residual P load remaining after the implementation of on-site measures may
be offset through agreement with the LSRCA under the USRP component of the LSPOP.
LSPOP-5 All redevelopment proposals less than 0.5 ha will be required to apply in so far as
possible on-site erosion/sediment control measures during construction phase and LID
measures subsequently to minimize P export from the site. The goal of the measures will be
zero export from the site on an annual basis for the life of the measures. Any residual load
will not require P offsets.
LSPOP-6 All redevelopment proposals greater than 0.5 ha will be required to apply in so far
as possible on-site erosion/sediment control measures during construction phase and LID
measures subsequently to minimize P export from the site. The goal of the measures will be
zero export from the site on an annual basis for the life of the measures. Any residual load
will require P offsets including offsets for the residual load exported during construction
amortized over the five years after the completion of construction.
Page 84 of 231
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LSPOP-7 The implementation of stormwater management measures including retrofit
measures located within the eligible watershed area must address all required planning
processes and must meet all required design and construction approvals.
LSPOP-8 All stormwater management measures including retrofit measures located within
the eligible watershed area must be maintained in a manner sufficient to meet P reduction
requirements as indicated in LSPOP-3 above and ensure compliance with ECA operational
requirements.
LSPOP-9 All P loading estimates will be based on the calculation methods specified by the
LSPOP.
LSPOP-10 All LSPOP transactions will be based on the offset being maintained in
perpetuity. New development and the associated additional P loading will continue to add P
to Lake Simcoe so long as the development exists. As such, the offset provided through the
LSPOP must be able to cover the potential outcomes.
LSPOP-11 Operation and maintenance roles and responsibilities are assigned to the local
area municipality with jurisdiction in the location of the new or retrofitted management
measure. The offset transaction price and other funding opportunities, such as stormwater
fees, must be in place to provide the necessary financing and furnish assurances that proper
operation and maintenance of the management measure will occur.
LSPOP-12 Purchasing an LSPOP offset is a one-time payment transaction for a set number
of offsets. The stability of the market depends, in part, on the assurance that purchases are
made in good faith based on currently available science, even though the future offset
calculation methodologies will be improved. A time-stamp approach will be used to track
the vintage of offsets purchased based on the calculation methodologies used at the time of
the approval.
LSPOP-13 The LSPOP activities are intended to be adapted over time, based in part on the
conditions of Lake Simcoe at the time of re-assessment. As such, if land use allocations of P
loading to Lake Simcoe change, or the threshold requirements for onsite activities is altered,
the vintage of credit established in LSPOP-12 also will protect the investment decisions
made in good faith during the time of the transaction.
LSPOP-14 Program assurances will be provided to address events and catastrophes that
reduce or remove the ability of a management measure to remove P and generate offsets. In
the instance of such events, offsets will be covered by an established backup pool generated
by LEAP-funded projects that generate P reductions. The backup pool will provide a
temporary replacement until the primary management measure can be repaired or replaced by
the party responsible for operation and maintenance. The conditions of the backup pool are:
− New LEAP activities generating P reductions will be tracked and split into i) Lake
Simcoe environmental benefits, or ii) the backup pool for LSPOP activities.
− The relative funding contribution from the landowner and the LSRCA will determine the
ratio of P reductions that are available to back up LSPOP offsets.
− The P reductions used in the backup pool, derived from LEAP-funded activities are
available for five years after the practice is established. After that five-year period, the P
reductions will be transferred and tracked as a Lake Simcoe environmental benefit.
Page 85 of 231
•
LSPOP-15 The LSPOP should be adaptable to incorporate new and/or improved phosphorus
reduction technologies that emerge in the future. If these technologies are put in place by the
party responsible for operation and maintenance of management measures that entity might
desire to use the additional reductions realized to offset future growth pressure. The
additional reductions can be generated either on the original offset generating site or within
the development footprint where additional phosphorus loading was produced. In either
case, the additional reductions generated will be considered new offsets available to LSPOP
participants, with first rights of refusal going to the party responsible for the upgrade.
Page 86 of 231
3.
LSPOP GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
3.1
LSPOP Administrator - Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Based on consultations with the Steering Committee and other key stakeholders the LSRCA is
proposed as the LSPOP Administrator. The proposed LSPOP governance and administration
activities are designed to integrate within the current LSRCA functions and will use the existing
institutional resources of LSRCA to the extent feasible.
LSRCA has for many years worked closely with all of the local area municipalities on land
development application review in connection with stormwater management, especially in
relation to potential impacts on watercourse flooding and regulatory flood-risk areas;
watercourse erosion control; and impacts on surface-water quality, terrestrial habitat and aquatic
habitat. LSRCA already has well-established in-house technical capability that currently works
on an as-needed basis to provide technical review and input to local municipalities and
development proponents on stormwater management requirements. LSRCA has and continues
to be directly involved in implementation of the LSPP, and has been assisting MOE with respect
to ongoing efforts to assess conditions and track progress in the watershed on reducing
phosphorus loadings to local waterways and Lake Simcoe.
LSRCA’s Board of Directors (BoD) includes representation from all the local area
municipalities. This allows all the local area municipalities to be kept fully informed of
LSRCA’s operations. This is a significant benefit, as the local area municipalities will be
proponents of most or all of the SWM retrofit/improvement projects that would be undertaken as
part of the LSPOP’s USRP.
It is expected that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) will continue its role of
reviewing and regulating the design and operation of stormwater management works under the
Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). This will ensure that OWRA approvals continue to be
based on independent review by MOE of environmental impact and benefit.
A further advantage of LSRCA’s governing role is that it facilitates the integration of the
LSRCA’s existing LEAP into Phase 1 of LSPOP. The benefit here is that LEAP projects that
provide a quantifiable reduction in phosphorus load can assist with the success of LSPOP by
providing a backup pool of offset projects that can be used if and when needed. The benefit to
LEAP is that through LSPOP, additional funding for LEAP projects would result if LEAP
projects can be applied, for example, to help offset new urban development.
Adopting this governance and administration model will minimize overhead requirements and
ensure more efficient LSPOP Phase 1 start up.
3.2
LSPOP Governance and Administration
The proposed governance structure is shown in Figure 3.1, and the new components related to
the LSPOP are discussed below.
Page 87 of 231
Figure 3.1
Proposed LSPOP Governance
LSRCA Board of Directors
The municipalities within the watershed appoint members to serve on the Conservation
Authority's Board of Directors (BoD). The Board reviews conservation projects managed by the
Conservation Authority and funded by a variety of partners. The Board also reviews
conservation area programming as well as planning and regulatory activities under The
Conservation Authorities Act.
In the context of the LSPOP, the BoD will exercise its normal role providing oversight to the
activities of the LSPOP and providing overall program review and guidance.
LSPOP Administration
Under the proposed LSPOP structure the LSRCA would act as Administrator. Specific LSRCA
activities include:
•
•
•
Overall LSPOP administration.
Contracting offset buyers and sellers.
Assuring the quantity and quality of offsets through:
− Offset quantification using established protocols.
Page 88 of 231
− Identifying third party verifiers.
− Ensuring monitoring is implemented.
• Determining offset costs.
• Maintaining a backup pool of offsets.
• Tracking and reporting P load reductions, offset inventory and offset activities.
• Addressing failed P reduction projects through contract enforcement including both LEAP
and USRP.
• Staff training on protocols and offsetting program requirements.
• Public and stakeholder outreach and education.
This structure offers lower overhead costs by relying upon existing LSRCA infrastructure and
program implementation capabilities. The LSPOP framework will be integrated into existing
stewardship efforts and stormwater management permitting under the LSRCA. It will not
necessarily change the direction of stewardship objectives of LEAP projects. Through the
existing watershed development authority, the LSRCA will continue to engage municipalities on
existing stormwater controls.
The day-to-day details of the LSPOP Administration will be further developed and refined
during the Phase 1 program.
USRP Projects Review Panel
The LSRCA as Program Administrator will establish a USRP Projects Review Panel. The Panel
will review each potential SWM retrofit/improvement project to determine if the project meets
LSPOP requirements and eligibility criteria.
The USRP Projects Review Panel would include representatives from LSRCA and the local area
municipalities as well as outside experts to assist with evaluation of projects.
Third Party Verification
The function of the third party verifier in the USRP will be to provide ”arms-length” verification
that retrofit projects have been completed as per their intended design. The third party will
retained by the LSPOP Administration and be unaffiliated with the LSRCA, local area
municipalities or the development industry.
3.3
Other LSPOP Participants
Participants in Phase 1 of the LSPOP will include a number of agencies and parties. Some will
act as direct participants inasmuch as they will be party to transactions involving the proposed
USRP, or will participate in the USRP Projects Review Panel.
The program participants will include:
•
Local Area Municipality - Each local area municipality may be eligible to obtain funding
from the USRP to enable design and implementation of approved SWM retrofit projects. As
well, local area municipalities currently have representation of the LSRCA BoD and will
have representation on the USRP Projects Review Panel.
Page 89 of 231
•
•
•
Land Developers - Individual land developers (land owners and/or development applicants)
will be direct participants in offset purchase transactions. They will have full access to
information regarding review and approval of transactions in which they participate, and will
have access to public information regarding the overall LSPOP and USRP.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Through its role as regulator of stormwater
discharges and stormwater treatment systems, MOE will have full access to all technical
information related to land development applications, their proposed stormwater
management system and associated works, as well as full details regarding proposed
offsetting strategies including any proposal to purchase offsets through LSPOP.
Public-at-Large - The public will have access to information on the LSPOP including
information on which stormwater retrofit projects have been funded through the USRP,
information on source of funding acquired through offset purchases, and net outcome to date
in terms of phosphorus load reductions achieved.
Page 90 of 231
4.
URBAN STORMWATER RETROFIT PROGRAM
4.1
Eligibility
Eligibility within the USRP rests on three considerations:
An ability to meet baseline requirements.
• Watershed location.
• Participant status.
The following presents the proposed LSPOP approach for each aspect.
•
4.1.1
Baseline Requirements
Baseline requirements are the requirements that must be met before a project can be considered
to be eligible for consideration in the LSPOP, either for offset supply or offset purchase.
Obtaining an Offset for New Urban Development or Redevelopment
The baseline requirements for obtaining an offset for urban development or redevelopment were
indicated in the Zero Export policy discussion in Section 2 and are as follows:
•
•
•
LSPOP-2: The goal of zero export will also apply during the construction phase of the
development. The construction phase loadings estimated after implementation of required
erosion and sediment control measures will increase the required the annual offset amount
for the five years after the construction phase by 1/5th of the residual construction phase
loadings per annum.
LSPOP-3: P reduction to pre-development export loads must be achieved through on-site
measures consisting of Enhanced Protection Level stormwater detention facilities and/or onsite LID measures implemented within the public right-of-way
LSPOP-6: All redevelopment proposals greater than 0.5 ha will be required to apply in so far
as possible on-site erosion/sediment control measures during construction phase and LID
measures subsequently to minimize P export from the site. The goal of the measures will be
zero export from the site on an annual basis for the life of the measures. Any residual load
will require P offsets including offsets for the residual load exported during construction
amortized over the five years after the completion of construction.
Developing a Retrofit Project
In order for retrofit projects to be considered they must meet the following:
•
•
The existing facility (if any) must meet its current ECA requirements and be in a good stateof-repair. For example, the LSPOP retrofit of an existing detention facility to Enhanced
Protection Level will not fund pond clean out or “catch up” maintenance activities.
Retrofit projects should also consider implementing LID measures. Only LID measures on
public lands or where there is a binding and registered agreement to provide ongoing
operations and maintenance support to the LID measures will be considered.
Page 91 of 231
The retrofit proponent must be willing to enter into an agreement with LSCRA indicating
willingness to commit to ongoing facility (including LID) operations and maintenance for the
term of the agreement.
Additional details regarding the type of projects that will be considered for offset supply are
presented in Section 4.3.
•
4.1.2
Watershed Location
Geographic eligibility boundaries are required to ensure that offset projects will provide
environmental benefit either locally or in reasonable proximity to the new land development they
address.
It is proposed that the USRP be organized on the basis of the 5 geographic eligibility zones
shown in Figure 4.1. Offset transactions must occur within a single zone. That is, new
development in Zone 3, for example, can purchase only offsets that are generated in Zone 3.
Effectively, this will mean that the USRP primary offset pool will be administered as five zone
pools (five accounts).
The backup pool offsets developed under the LEAP program will not have any geographic
restrictions. That is backup pool credits may be generated by projects anywhere in the
watershed.
Page 92 of 231
1
5
2
4
3
Figure 4.1
Geographic Eligibility Zones
Page 93 of 231
4.1.3
Eligible Participants
Table 4.1 presents the eligibilities for entities and programs and projects. As the program
matures other sources of supply and eligibilities may be considered.
Table 4.1
Transaction
Type
Eligible P Offset Transactions
Eligible
Transaction
Entity
Municipality
Municipality
P Offset
Supply
All Private
Landowners
Agricultural
Private
Landowners
Obtaining P
Offset
4.2
Municipality
/Developers
Eligible
Programs
Stormwater
Retrofits
LEAP
Stewardship
Program
LEAP
Stewardship
Program
LEAP
Stewardship
Program
New
Development/ReDevelopment
Stormwater
Offsets
Offset Pool
Primary pool
Backup pool
Backup pool
Backup pool
Primary pool
Example Eligible Projects/Transactions
•
Installation of new water quality control
structures.
•
Water quality control enhancements to existing
structures.
•
Urban LID retrofits.
•
Improving streams and retrofitting online ponds.
•
Upgrading septic systems.
•
Diverting runoff from sources of contamination.
•
Improving streams and retrofitting online ponds.
•
Upgrading septic systems.
•
Diverting runoff from sources of contamination.
•
Managing milkhouse wastes.
•
Managing manure.
•
Restricting livestock from watercourses.
•
Controlling cropland erosion.
•
Planting cover crops.
•
Baseline control implementation and purchase of
offsets for any remaining P loading reduction.
Obtaining Offsets
As was noted in Section 2, the requirement for offsets will be driven by land development or
redevelopment. In this case the conventional process will have the additional requirement to
ensure zero export of P. Part of this requirement will be met through on-site implementation of P
management measures and part will be met by measures implemented in existing development
elsewhere in the appropriate eligible watershed zone.
Figure 4.2 presents the five-step process for obtaining an offset.
Page 94 of 231
Figure 4.2.
Obtaining an Offset
Page 95 of 231
The steps are as follows:
OBTAIN STEP 0
At the time of Secondary Plan preparation (see Appendix A on the interaction of land
development and the LSPOP) the offset requirements and potential P reduction opportunities
within municipal boundaries will have been identified through the preparation of a Master
Stormwater Plan as required by the LSPP. The Secondary Plan process will have estimated:
The proposed land-use and development within the plan area.
• The P reduction requirement to meet the Zero Export policy.
• The P reduction feasible within specific development areas based on the Enhanced Protection
Level facilities plus any other on-site measures.
• The residual P amount needed in offsets from the Secondary Plan area.
On the strength of this planning, individual plans of subdivision will be prepared for specific
development proposals. It is expected that at this time the estimates for all four of the above four
aspects will be refined for the subdivision area. Accordingly, among the conditions of approval
for the subdivision will be the requirement for P offsets based on the refined calculations.
•
This will be the base information brought into the next step in the offset process.
OBTAIN STEP 1
The next step in the process will be a pre-consultation meeting with LSRCA staff to discuss the
proposed development and the required offsets. This meeting will also review the application
requirements. This step will culminate in the preparation of an application. This is similar to the
process used by the LEAP for project development.
OBTAIN STEP 2
Following the submission of the application, LSPOP administrative staff will review it. Any
expert input required will be obtained from within LSRCA or from external sources. The review
will examine among other factors:
• The development proposal
• The eligibility of the proposal for offsets based on the three considerations presented in
Section 4.1:
− Meeting the baseline.
− Watershed location.
− Participant eligibility.
• The proposed stormwater management plan.
• The Zero Export P reduction requirement including the assumptions and supporting
calculations.
• The P reduction feasible within the subdivision based on the Enhanced Protection Level
facilities plus other on-site measures including the assumptions and supporting calculations.
• The residual P amount needed in offsets from the subdivision area including the assumptions
(e.g. offset ratio) and supporting calculations.
Page 96 of 231
The culmination of OBTAIN STEP 2 will be a recommendation by LSPOP administrative staff
to URSP Review Panel to:
•
•
•
Authorize the offset as requested.
Authorize the offset but apply conditions or modifications i.e. changes to the stormwater
management features.
Reject the request.
OBTAIN STEP 3
For recommended projects with or without conditions the application is then referred to the
URSP Review Panel for authorization. The Review Panel will be provided advance information
regarding the requests as well as the status of the offset pools (primary and back up). The
Review Panel may accept or reject the recommendation for authorization at its discretion.
Formal agendas and meeting notes will be maintained for the Review Panel and posted to the
LSPOP website.
OBTAIN STEP 4
Following Review Panel authorization the development proponents will enter into a standard
offset agreement with LSRCA in its role as LSPOP Administrator.
4.3
Developing a Retrofit Project
The supply of offsets to the LSPOP primary pool will come from specific stormwater retrofit
projects. The LSPOP will in turn fund the retrofits. Potential retrofit projects that will be
considered include the following:
Implementation of a new Enhanced Protection Level stormwater detention facility.
• Upgrade of existing stormwater detention facilities to an Enhanced Protection Level.
• Upgrade of an existing stormwater detention facility to an Enhanced Protection Level
combined with expansion beyond current site boundaries.
• Implementation of LID measures on public lands within municipal boundaries either in
combination with an Enhanced Protection Level stormwater detention facility or
independently.
• Implementation of other stormwater treatment devices capable of efficiently removing P
either in combination with Enhanced Protection Level stormwater detention facilities and/or
LID projects or independently.
Figure 4.3 presents an overview of the steps involved in developing a retrofit project that will
generate offsets.
•
Page 97 of 231
Figure 4.3
Developing a Retrofit Project
Page 98 of 231
RETROFIT STEP 1
The first step in the process will be a pre-consultation meeting with LSRCA staff to discuss the
proposed retrofit project. This meeting will also review the application requirements. This step
will culminate in the preparation of an application. This is similar to the process used by the
LEAP for project development.
RETROFIT STEP 2
Following the submission of the application, LSPOP administrative staff will review it. Any
expert input required will be obtained from within LSRCA or from external sources. The review
will examine among other factors:
The retrofit project proposal including whether the project has been identified in the Master
Stormwater Plan.
• The eligibility of the proposal for offsets based on the considerations presented in Section
4.1.1:
− Meets current ECA and is in good repair.
− LID on public land or registered.
− Executed O&M agreement.
• The project preliminary design details.
• The P reduction expected including the assumptions and supporting calculations.
• Preliminary estimate of project cost and cost sharing arrangements including anticipated cash
flow requirements.
The culmination of RETROFIT STEP 2 will be a recommendation by LSPOP administrative
staff to URSP Review Panel to:
• Authorize the retrofit project as requested.
• Authorize the retrofit project but apply conditions or modifications.
• Reject the request.
•
RETROFIT STEP 3
For recommended projects with or without conditions the application is then referred to the
URSP Review Panel for authorization. The Review Panel will be provided advance information
regarding the requests as well as the status of the offset pools (primary and back up). The
Review Panel may accept or reject the recommendation for authorization at its discretion.
Formal agendas and meeting notes will be maintained for the Review Panel and posted to the
LSPOP website.
RETROFIT STEP 4
Following Review Panel authorization the development proponents will enter into a standard
agreement with LSRCA in its role as LSPOP Administrator. The agreement will set out the
responsibilities of the LSRCA as well as the retrofit project proponent. Since the retrofit design
and costing will be tentative at this stage the agreement will be executed in a stage-wise manner
with funding provided only for first/next stage of development. Funding and other details will
Page 99 of 231
then be reviewed and updated following the completion of the stage. Final payment will be
made on project completion and acceptance.
RETROFIT STEP 5
RETROFIT STEP 5 includes the normal steps required to develop a stormwater management
project that include Class EA, design, environmental approvals, tendering and construction
management. Appendix A provides details of the Class EA and ECA processes as they relate to
this type of project.
The management of the entire process will be the responsibility of the retrofit proponent.
LSRCA may contract expert support to assist their oversight of the process.
RETROFIT STEP 6
The last step in obtaining a retrofit project will be third-party verification. The function of the
third party verifier in the USRP will be to provide ”arms-length” verification that retrofit projects
have been completed as per their intended design. The third party will retained by the LSPOP
Administration and be unaffiliated with the LSRCA, local area municipalities or the
development proponent.
4.4
Urban Offset Calculation Methods
One of the key aspects of the LSPOP will be the calculation of P loads under the following
circumstances:
Proposed new development area current P export.
• Proposed new development area post-development P export.
• Proposed new development area construction phase P export after application of erosion and
sediment control measures.
• P reduction due to SWM measures including Enhanced Protection Level facilities and LID
measures.
• Residual P loads from proposed new development requiring offsets including allowance for
construction phase.
• Proposed redevelopment area > 0.5 ha current P export.
• Proposed redevelopment area > 0.5 ha post-development P export.
• Proposed redevelopment area > 0.5 ha construction phase P export after application of
erosion and sediment control measures.
• P reduction due to SWM measures.
• Residual P loads from proposed redevelopment area > 0.5 ha requiring offsets including
allowance for construction phase.
Following a detailed review and analysis of potentially applicable calculation tools for estimating
phosphorus reductions from urban stormwater controls, the adapted to Lake Simcoe Watershed
Management Model (WMM) was recommended. This calculation method was used in the
promulgation of Michigan’s Water Quality Trading Rules (MDEQ, 2002) for urban stormwater
applications and was originally derived from years of monitoring in Southeast Michigan.
•
Page 100 of 231
Additional information on model reviews is provided in an XCG/K&A Technical Memorandum
(XCG and K&A, 2013a).
The WMM approach represents a relatively simple methodology for urban stormwater load
estimations that has been selected as most appropriate for the purposes of advancing offset
calculation methodologies for the LSPOP. The approach provides a straightforward and
transparent method for estimating “before and after” loads that accounts for changes in land use
and the application of stormwater BMPs including LID measures. The method is a flexible and
adaptable approach that can be used at a local site scale or at the larger subwatershed scale, and
which can be updated over time as more local data are gathered and analyzed.
4.4.1
WMM Load Estimation Method
The WMM method first estimates the average annual stormwater runoff volume and then applies
characteristic or mean P concentrations values to compute the average annual P load. Load
reductions provided by various stormwater BMPs or LID measures are accounted for by
applying accepted estimates of load reduction percentages provided by individual measures or
combinations of measures.
Equation 4.1 provides the method for calculating pollutant loading for a specific land use.
𝑀𝐿 = 𝐸𝑀𝐶𝐿 × 𝑅𝐿 × 𝑘𝑈𝑆,𝑚
[EQ.4.1]
Where:
ML = Unit area phosphorus loading factor for land use L (lbs/acre/yr or kg/ha/yr)
EMCL = Event mean concentration of storm water runoff from a land use L (mg/l); specified in
table 1 or approved by the LSRCA on a case-by-case basis
RL = Total average annual surface runoff from land use L (in/yr or mm/yr)
kUS = 0.2266, a US standard unit conversion factor
km = 0.01, a metric unit conversion factor
Equation 4.2 provides the estimate of the unit area runoff volume used in Equation 1.
𝑅𝐿 = [𝐶𝑃 + (𝐶𝐼 − 𝐶𝑃 ) × 𝐼𝑀𝑃𝐿 ] × 𝐼
[EQ. 4.2]
Where:
RL = Total average annual surface runoff from land use L (in/yr or mm/yr)
IMPL = Fractional imperviousness of land use L; specified in Table 4.2 or as approved by
LSRCA
I = Long-term average annual precipitation (in/yr or mm/yr)
Cp = Pervious area runoff coefficient of 0.2 or as approved by the LSRCA
Ci = Impervious area runoff coefficient of 0.90 or as approved by LSRCA
Note: The total runoff in a drainage unit is the area-weighted sum of RL for all land uses.
Page 101 of 231
Table 4.2 is an abbreviated version of the table referred to in the IMPL definition. This table has
been abridged to reflect only phosphorus concentration values and excludes other pollutants
described in the full table. (Of note, is that this model is capable of estimating load reductions of
other pollutants. This can therefore be used to additionally assess other water quality benefits
associated with urban stormwater BMPs.)
Table 4.2
Percent Impervious Surface and Event Mean Concentrations by Land Use
(MDEQ, 2002; Wayne County, 1998)
Percent Impervious
TP
(mg/L)
Forest / rural open
N/A
0.11
Urban open
0.5%
0.11
Agricultural
N/A
0.37
Low density residential
10%
0.52
30%
0.52
50%
0.24
Commercial
90%
0.33
Industrial
80%
0.32
Highways
90%
0.43
Water/wetlands
100%
0.08
Land Use Category
Medium density residential
High density residential
*
Notes:
1. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Rule 323 (MDEQ, 2002) does not provide a high density residential percent
impervious value. The percent impervious value provided in the 1998 Rouge River Technical Memorandum has been
inserted (Wayne County, 1998).
Equation 4.3 provides the total annual phosphorus load estimate for a subwatershed or drainage
area without BMP reductions.
𝑛
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑃 = � 𝑀𝐿 × 𝐴𝐿
𝐿=1
[EQ. 4.3]
Where:
Load P = Total average annual phosphorus load, (lbs/yr or kg/yr)
ML = Loading factor for each land use L from EQ. 4.1 (lbs/acre/yr or kg/ha/yr)
AL = Area for each land use in the drainage area (ac or ha)
Page 102 of 231
Equation 4.4 provides the estimated percentage of load reductions for existing or future BMP
implementation for one subwatershed, with the recommended BMP percent reduction values in
Table 4.3.
𝑃𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥 = �𝐴𝐶𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥,1 × 𝑅𝐸𝑀1 � + �𝐴𝐶𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥,2 × 𝑅𝐸𝑀2 � + ⋯ + �𝐴𝐶𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥,𝑛 × 𝑅𝐸𝑀𝑛 � [EQ.4.4]
Where:
PL,SBx = Percent of annual stormwater phosphorus captured in subbasin SBs by application of the
management practices on land use L
ACL,SBx, MP = Fractional area coverage of management practices MP in subbasin SBx
REMMP = Removal efficiency of management practices MP from Table 4.3
For each land use L, ACL,SBx,MP is defined as the land use area within the BMP contributing area
divided by the total area of the land use in subbasin SBx.
The recommended BMP efficiencies for urban stormwater BMPs and LID features are gathered
from the MOE Phosphorus Budget Tool values provided in Table 4.4 (HESL, 2012). This report
summarized a literature review of BMP treatment results by category. These BMPs are
discussed in terms of whether they are relevant or transferrable to Ontario and if the range of
reported reduction efficiencies were within 40 percent of each other and/or if the BMP would
generate reductions versus add to the loading. If these criteria were met, a median treatment
efficiency value was provided by HESL. [Note: Some of the major BMP classes that currently
lack treatment efficiency information might be considered for use in the offset program through
application of future research and testing specific to a design standard.]
Table 4.3
Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies for Major BMP Classes (HESL, 2012)
BMP Class (MPx)
Median Removal Efficiency
(REMMP)
Constructed Wetland
77%
Dry Detention Ponds
10%
Flow Balancing Systems
77%
Perforated Pipe Infiltration/Exfiltration Systems
87%
Sand or Media Filters
45%
Soakaways-Infiltration Trenches
60%
Sorbtive Media Interceptors
79%
Underground Storage
25%
Vegetated Filter Strips/Stream Buffers
65%
Wet Detention Ponds
63%
Page 103 of 231
Table 4.4 lists the major BMP classes from the MOE Phosphorus Budget Tool report for which a
median value was not provided. Table 4.4 also lists the criteria that did not achieve the specified
objective.
Table 4.4
Major BMP Classes Without Reported Treatment Efficiency Mean
Reductions (HESL, 2012).
Major BMP Class
Reason Median Value Not Specified
Bio Retention Systems
Dry Swales
•
Citations not relevant to Ontario
•
Data results range not less than 40 percent
•
Citations not relevant to Ontario
•
Data results range not less than 40 percent
Enhanced Grass/Water Quality Swales
•
Citations not relevant to Ontario
Green Roofs
•
One citation provided
•
Citation not relevant to Ontario
•
Data results indicated an increase in loading
•
One citation provided
•
Citation not relevant to Ontario
•
Data results indicated an increase in loading
Hydrodynamic Devices
Equation 4.5 provides the method for summing every land use type to generate a drainage basinwide result.
𝑚
𝑛
𝑀𝐴𝑆𝑆 = � � 𝑀𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥 × 𝐴𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥 × �1 − 𝑃𝐿,𝑆𝐵𝑥 �
𝑆𝐵𝑥=1 𝐿=1
[𝐸𝑄. 4.5]
Where:
MASS = Annual stormwater runoff phosphorus loading for the watershed or drainage area,
(lbs/yr or kg/yr)
ML,SBx = The phosphorus loading factor for land use L in subbasin SBx as calculated in EQ. 4.1
AL,SBx = Area in land use L in subbasin SBx
PL,SBx = Percent of annual stormwater phosphorus captured in subbasin SBx by application of the
management practices on land use L as calculated in EQ. 4.4
The equations presented from the WMM are set up to generate a basin or watershed-scale
loading result. As given, Equation 4.5 can be adapted to allow for different analyses at different
scales. The contributing area to a specified location can reflect a large basin subdivided into
multiple subbasins, (SBx) or can represent a small catchment that consists of one land use treated
by a single BMP. This provides the WMM tool with a large degree of flexibility. Each area of
interest is divided into subareas based on the number of land uses contributing to the downstream
Page 104 of 231
point of concern. Each subarea is further divided to accommodate treatment differences. In this
manner, the catchments for treatment BMPs are tracked separately. The catchments can include
areas that are without treatment or areas treated by one or more BMP classes within a subarea.
For the Lake Simcoe setting, one intended model application would be to determine edge-offield phosphorus loading for a small urban drainage area being considered for potential
phosphorus reductions. Given this intended use, the WMM equations can be simplified to
estimate phosphorus loading and reductions associated with BMP options for a new
development. For such an application, a spreadsheet approach can be used to track the BMP
catchment area as summations of subbasin land uses. Another application of the model could be
to evaluate an existing untreated urban area that will be upgraded with a new BMP. The load
reduction associated with the new installation can be calculated using Equation 4.3.
4.4.2
Construction Phase Load Estimates
A method for estimating phosphorus loads from surface runoff during the construction phase of
new land development is presented in MOE’s “Phosphorus Budget Tool in Support of
Sustainable Development for the Lake Simcoe Watershed” (Hutchinson Environmental Sciences,
2012). The method is based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).
Equation 4.6 required input includes information on site slope and soils to estimate average
annual soil loss:
Average annual soil loss (kg/yr) = SL =
Σ 2247.1 x R x K x LS x C X P X Ai
[EQ. 4.6]
Where:
R = rainfall/runoff factor
K = soil erodibility factor
LS = slope length gradient factor
C = cropping factor, based on crop type, tillage practice, and duration of exposed soil conditions
P = management practice factor, used to account for benefits of BMPs that reduce soil erosion
Ai = area of sub-area i (hectares)
The TP Budget Tool document (HESL, 2012) provides guidance on how to evaluate these
parameters based on site conditions. Once soil loss rate (kg/year) is estimated, the associated
phosphorus load is estimated as:
Phosphorus load by soil loss = (Soil loss rate) x (soil P concentration) x (Duration of
construction)
As noted by Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited (HESL), to produce defensible
estimates, for analysis the site must be subdivided into a set of sub-areas of relatively uniform
slope, soil characteristics and BMP application. The load for the site is the sum of the loads from
the constituent sub-areas.
Page 105 of 231
4.5
Offset Ratios
In a water quality offset program, offset ratios are designed to complement program framework
elements and policies that ensure equal or greater environmental protection than traditional
command and control approaches. These ratios are discount factors incorporated into the
calculation process to help ensure the desired environmental benefits are achieved (US EPA,
2004). Such discount factors can be used to adjust for uncertainty, as well as account for
variability in environmental impacts associated with pollutant discharges from different sources
and/or different locations (US EPA, 2009).
The selection of offset ratios typically depends on the specific goals within the watershed, as
well as data availability and level of watershed understanding. Ratios commonly applied in
existing programs include consideration of:
Pollutant delivery to and within a water body.
• Location of offset credit generation in relation to the offset user.
• Equivalence between various pollutant forms (e.g., dissolved versus particulate).
• Uncertainty associated with offset credit calculations.
• Retirement of a portion of offset reductions for water quality benefits.
• Other policy factors.
These factors can be applied individually to offset credit generation and credit use, or combined
into a single value.
•
The offset ratios for the LSPOP vary depending on the source of offsets. The proposed ratios are
summarized in Table 4.5. In Phase I, only offsets from urban stormwater retrofit projects and
LID practices will be used. Reductions generated by LEAP-funded projects will be divided
between an offset backup pool and an overall environmental reduction. The division will be
based on the relative funding contributions from the LSRCA and the landowner. These
reductions will not be discounted (the offset ratio is 1:1). Later phases could incorporate
additional sources, such as polder water treatment, streambank restoration, and agricultural
BMPs.
Table 4.5
Proposed LSPOP Offset Ratios
Offset Source
LEAP-Funded Projects1
Offset Ratio
1:1
Storm Pond Retrofits
2.5:1
LID Practices
2.5:1
Notes:
1. Phosphorus reductions will be divided between offset credit backup pool and environmental reductions; proportions depend
on relative funding contributions from the LSRCA and landowner.
Page 106 of 231
The proposed offset ratios fall within the range of typical values based on an evaluation of ratios
used in other successful programs throughout North America (XCG, 2013c). Offset ratios in this
range have been accepted by regulatory agencies as protective of water quality.
For example, if a proposed urban subdivision will generate an estimated residual phosphorus
load of 86 kg/year, then the offset purchased must be in the quantity of 215 kg/year. The
rationale for this trading ratio has been documented the Technical Memorandum "Trade Ratios
for Water Quality Trading and Offsetting Programs" dated September 3, 2013, prepared by XCG
Consultants and Kieser & Associates for LSRCA (XCG, 2013c).
The main objective of the 2.5:1 ratio is to ensure a net environmental benefit from each
transaction. This is an essential purpose of the LSPOP.
Page 107 of 231
5.
LEAP
The LSRCA presently operates the LEAP stewardship program using Lake Simcoe watershed
local area municipal funding. It is one of several stewardship programs operating in the Lake
Simcoe basin or more broadly in the Province. It is, however, the only stewardship program
managed entirely by the Authority. As such, the LSPOP framework has been designed to
integrate LEAP.
Many of the projects eligible under LEAP result in phosphorus reductions to Lake Simcoe.
LEAP activities with potential for P removal are presented in Table 5.1.
LEAP projects are selected and funded based on “established criteria” that are consistent with the
proposed LSPOP framework. The current project development process is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
LSRCA staff review of projects.
Recommended projects are submitted to LEAP Project Grant Review Committee - except
municipal stormwater pond retrofits, which are selected based on anticipated phosphorus
reductions.
Funds allocated based on first-come, first-served basis.
Once funding is approved, projects must be completed within one year – invoices submitted
for reimbursement, so landowner is not paid until the project is “complete”.
Project implementation is verified through LSRCA
Table 5.1
LEAP Projects
Leap Project Type
P Removal Potential
Planting Trees and Shrubs
No
Improving Streams and Retrofitting Online Ponds
Yes
Decommissioning Unused Wells
No
Protecting Private Wells
No
Upgrading Septic Systems
Yes
Managing Milkhouse Wastes
Yes
Managing Manure
Yes
Restricting Livestock From Watercourses
Yes
Diverting Runoff From Sources of Contamination
Yes
Controlling Cropland Erosion
Yes
Planting Cover Crops
Yes
Enhancing Wildlife Habitat
No
Storing and Handling Fuel and Chemicals
No
Upgrading Stormwater Management Ponds
Yes
Page 108 of 231
5.1
Eligibility
LEAP eligibility requirements are as follows:
Farmers must have an approved Environmental Farm Plan prior to receiving LEAP costshare funding.
• Other landowners implementing voluntary conservation actions need only demonstrate that
land use practices and/or management activities have not changed in the last three years (to
demonstrate they have not removed an existing conservation practice to receive more
funding). This is often referred to as an “existing conditions baseline”.
• Project locations that have previously received stewardship funding must demonstrate that
previously paid practices are still in place and properly functioning and managed before
additional cost-share funding is received.
• Work that proceeds prior to funding approval does not qualify for funding assistance.
• New operations, new buildings, work associated with additions to homes, or building
expansions to increase herd capacity are not eligible.
• Funds are limited in each municipality. As a result, grants will be allocated by the committee,
on a priority basis.
• Properties are limited to a maximum of $25,000 for capital projects over the life of the
program.
• If you have an outstanding violation with the LSRCA, or other regulatory agency, you may
not be eligible.
For purposes of LSPOP, once a project is approved under LEAP, it will be eligible for
consideration as an LSPOP backup pool project if it provides a quantifiable reduction in
phosphorus loading. This determination will be made during the LEAP project review process,
and this may require some relatively minor modification to the process; see below under
operation requirements.
•
Additional details including cost sharing and project cost details can be found at
http://www.lsrca.on.ca/leap/.
5.2
Recommended LEAP Offset Calculation Methods
This section discusses and recommends methods for calculating phosphorus load reductions
associated with agricultural and other conservation practices.
The interest here is to provide a set of calculation methods to estimate phosphorus load
reductions associated with agricultural conservation practices during Phase I of LSPOP. During
later stages of the program, phosphorus reductions from septic system upgrades, polder water
treatment, and streambank stabilization projects could be incorporated. Recommended methods
to calculate the reductions associated with these practices are also summarized in this section.
Additional information can be found in the XCG/K&A memo (XCG and K&A, 2013b).
5.2.1
Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction BMPs
Several categories of BMPs are being implemented in the Lake Simcoe Basin. Some of these
BMP categories emphasize environmental conservation needs unrelated to phosphorus load
Page 109 of 231
reductions, such as proper management of fuel storage areas and wellhead-based groundwater
protection. Load estimation methods recommended here-in target BMPs that reduce phosphorus
loading to Lake Simcoe. The BMP categories that include elements that do provide consistent
phosphorus load reductions to Lake Simcoe are:
Managing manure.
• Controlling cropland erosion.
• Planting cover crops.
• Planting trees and shrubs.
• Improving streams and retrofitting on-line ponds.
• Upgrading septic systems.
• Upgrading stormwater management ponds.
• Restricting livestock from watercourses.
• Managing milkhouse waste.
• Diverting runoff from sources of contamination.
• Enhancing wildlife habitat.
Considerations for selection and recommendation of applicable phosphorus load reduction
calculation methods associated with these BMPs are as follows. Each of these methods is for
site-specific BMP calculation typically using empirical or mass balance approaches versus
extrapolations from more complex or deterministic watershed models.
•
5.2.2
Recommended BMP Calculation Approaches
Recommended phosphorus load estimation approaches are based on reviews of available Lake
Simcoe-specific approaches, as well as other existing non-point source (NPS) programs
throughout North America. Best professional judgment was used regarding the appropriateness
of the method for use in Lake Simcoe with an emphasis on three considerations:
1. Use of best available science.
2. Ability to apply the method within the Lake Simcoe Watershed with reasonable accuracy.
3. Provision of load reduction estimates for several types of phosphorus reduction BMPs being
implemented in the watershed.
Adapted PA DEP Phosphorus Spreadsheet Calculator
A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) phosphorus spreadsheet
calculation method is recommended for agricultural BMPs in the Lake Simcoe setting (PA DEP,
2007a). This calculation spreadsheet is used in Pennsylvania’s water quality trading program to
calculate offset credits (PA DEP, 2007b). It will be applied here for the following BMPs:
•
•
•
•
Managing manure.
Controlling cropland erosion.
Planting of cover crops.
Restricting livestock from watercourses.
Page 110 of 231
Diverting runoff from sources of contamination.
• Enhancing wildlife habitat (when it pertains to perennial cover).
The PA DEP tool calculates reductions by estimating phosphorus loads under two different
scenarios. The first scenario represents present-day conditions (the “before” scenario) and the
second scenario represents conditions with the proposed BMPs (the “after” scenario). The
difference between the “before” and “after” loadings reflects the edge-of-field phosphorus
loading reduction. The PA DEP spreadsheet calculation method accounts for phosphorus
reductions associated with managing soil erosion, reducing nutrient applications and
implementing BMPs. The method is able to address both particulate and soluble forms of
phosphorus. In addition, the spreadsheet considers the two separate source types originating in
an agricultural field, background from soil phosphorus concentrations and fertilizer applications.
•
Milkhouse Waste Correction Calculation
The Wisconsin NRCS Standard 629 provides guidelines for a relatively simplistic calculation for
phosphorus reductions associated with milkhouse waste corrections. This standard is titled,
“Milking Center Wastewater Guidelines” (Holmes et al., 2009). The phosphorus load associated
with each type of milking system is defined by size of the animal as well as the milkhouse setup
including parlor and animal holding area controls.
Septic System Correction Calculation
A loading calculation method from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT
DEQ) is recommended for Lake Simcoe applications. This approach is embodied in Montana’s
Water Quality Trading policy (MT DEQ, 2012). This load reduction estimation method provides
an easy-to-use approach where reduction estimates are provided in a lookup table based on
several factors, including:
Distance between the home and the water
• Hydrologic soil group
• Soil calcium carbonate content
The MT DEQ method can be combined with an LSRCA method to determine septic system
loading estimates. The LSRCA septic system calculation method determines the average
kilograms per household of phosphorus released to groundwater by septic systems. A recent
report, “Annual Water Balances, Total Phosphorus Budgets and Total Nitrogen and Chloride
Loads to Lake Simcoe (2004-2007)” provided a method for estimating household phosphorus
loading discharged to septic systems (O’Connor et al., 2012).
•
Polder Area Water Treatment Facility Calculation
Implementing an LSRCA-approved treatment technology can reduce phosphorus loading from
polder areas. The technology would be similar to a treatment facility in that it processes polder
runoff in a centralized location, prior to discharging into a natural stream. If this type of
treatment facility is implemented, sampling the influent and effluent associated with the facility
can be combined with flow monitoring for a mass balance calculation of phosphorus load
reduction.
Page 111 of 231
Bank Stabilization and Gully Erosion Calculation
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ) Pollutants Controlled
Calculation and Documentation provides equations for estimating phosphorus reductions
associated with correcting both channel and gully erosion (MI DEQ, 1999). With this method, a
channel erosion equation for estimating sediment reductions is coupled with equations for
calculating the particulate phosphorus loading associated with the sediment. This is a simple
mass balance equation based on the volume and density of the eroded bank. Many Midwestern
states in the U.S. apply this equation because of its simplicity. It can be applied to BMPs
including:
•
•
•
•
Animal trails and walkways.
Stream channel stabilization.
Streambank protection.
Stream crossings.
Page 112 of 231
6.
6.1
LSPOP TRACKING AND REPORTING
The Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offset Program (LSPOP) will perform tracking and reporting in
order to maintain a record of offset activity and provide program transparency. These tracking
and reporting efforts will supplement any existing ECA annual reporting to MOE. Additional
elements that will be tracked specifically for the LSPOP include information on offset
generation, transactions and backup credit pool status and use.
Tracking Activities
Tracking LSPOP activities enables the program to be evaluated for effectiveness and progress.
The LSPOP Administrator will track the following items:
Project inventory.
• Environmental phosphorus reductions.
• Phosphorus offsets (where the trade ratio is applied to phosphorus reductions).
• Backup pool phosphorus reductions as well as any use of such reductions to make up for
failed offsets.
• Offset and LEAP project verification and inspection activities and results.
• Enforcement actions and/or revocation activities.
As part of tracking efforts, detailed offset project information will be maintained in a LSPOP
registry database. Project-specific details that will be recorded are listed in Figure 6.1. The
program is not limited to these options and the list can be adjusted as needed. These
recommendations are based on registry databases utilized by existing offset programs.
•
Page 113 of 231
Applicant
Project
Location
Reductions
Cost
Verification/
Inspection
Table 6.1
•Name
•Contact information
•Technical contractor information (if used)
•Type
•Size
•Installation date
•Project duration after installation
•Address
•Latitude/longitude
•Subwatershed
•Current land use
•Date project began generating reductions
•Total estimated annual P reductions
•Total estimated P reductions over project duration
•Potential ancillary benefits
•Project implementation cost
•Operations and maintenance cost
•Cost-share program funding contribution
•Unit cost of reductions
•Name of inspector
•Date
•Results
•Enforcement actions needed
Recommended LSPOP Tracking
Only some project-specific information will be accessible to the public in order to:
Protect sensitive information of program participants
• Prevent disclosure of financial information that would unduly influence future offset costs.
Information could be made available to the public through a version of the registry that only
includes non-sensitive information. In addition, the LSPOP Administrator will issue reports with
summaries of program activities.
•
6.2
Reporting Activities
Regular reporting of offset program activities will help ensure program transparency for agencies
and the public. It will also demonstrate program progress toward achieving environmental goals.
Page 114 of 231
These reports will be produced by the LSPOP Administrator and provided to relevant
stakeholders, regulatory authorities, and the public. Information to be included in the reports
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
•
•
•
•
•
6.3
Number and types of projects implemented.
Phosphorus reductions generated.
Other ancillary environmental benefits where these can be readily calculated separately from
phosphorus.
Number of offset transactions.
Site inspection and project verification results.
USRP Project Tracking and Reporting
As noted above, all offset purchase transactions and all SWM retrofit funding allocations will be
against a single USRP primary pool. Based on the preliminary recommendation presented here
on geographic eligibility rules, there will effectively be five separate transaction accounts.
Separate transaction recording and reporting for each five eligibility zones will be required.
On the SWM retrofits program (USRP), a web-based inventory will be maintained. This
inventory at any time would be able to report on which projects have been implemented and at
what cost, and would also report on which USRP projects have been accepted but have not yet
been funded through the pool or implemented.
The above represent reasonably straightforward tracking and reporting requirements that can be
met with minimal ongoing overhead once accounting procedures and software are set up.
With respect to ongoing tracking and inspection of stormwater retrofit projects, the MOE
approvals (OWRA approvals) for USRP retrofit projects and for new facilities constructed within
new urban development areas, will set out requirements for regular reporting to the MOE. This
information is publicly available or can be supplied by the local area municipalities and can
thereby be used by LSRCA to assist with overall program tracking and status reporting.
Page 115 of 231
7.
REFERENCES CITED
Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto & Region Conservation, 2010. “Low Impact
Development Stormwater Planning and Design Guide, Version 1.0”. Prepared by Credit Valley
Conservation
and
Toronto
&
Region
Conservation.
Available
at
http://wwwsustainabletechnologies.ca
Holmes B.J., S. Struss, N.M. Berkani (2009) Milking center wastewater guidelines: A
companion
document
to
Wisconsin
NRCS
Standard
629.
Online
at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020247.pdf
(accessed
September 5, 2013).
Hutchinson Environmental Services Limited (HESL), 2012. “Phosphorus Budget Tool in
Support of Sustainable Development in the Lake Simcoe Watershed”. Prepared for Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment.
Available
at
http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/files/ptool/P%20Budget%20Guidance%20Ver2.pdf.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), 2007. “Lake Simcoe Basin Stormwater
Management and Retrofit Opportunities”. Available at http://www.Lsrca.on.ca
Louis Berger Group, Inc, 2010. “Estimation of the Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe”,
report prepared for Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Final Report dated September
2010. Available at www.lsrca.on.ca.
MDEQ (2002) Part 30 Rule 323, Water Quality Trading. 2002. Online at:
http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/orr/Files/AdminCode/102_91_AdminCode.pdf (accessed January
30, 2014).
MI DEQ (1999) Pollutants controlled calculation and documentation for 319 watersheds training
manual. June 1999. Online at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wb-npsPOLCNTRL_250921_7.pdf (accessed July 30, 2013).
MT DEQ (2012) Montana’s policy for nutrient trading. Circular DEQ-13. December 2012.
Online
at:
http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/NutrientWorkGroup/PDFs/CircularDEQ13.pdf
(accessed January 30, 2014).
Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), 2011. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.
Available at http://www.municipalclassea.ca/
O’Connor, E.M., C. McConnell, D. Lembcke, M.E. Palmer, E.A. Stainsby, J.G. Winter (2012)
Annual water balances, total phosphorus budgets and total nitrogen and chloride loads to Lake
Simcoe (2004-2007). Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2010. Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, June
2010.
PIBS
7633e.
Available
at
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/STD01_078834
Page 116 of 231
PA
DEP
(2007a)
Nonpoint
calculation
spreadsheet.
Online
at:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/credit_generation_process/21452/calcul
ations/1548037#npcalc (accessed August 8, 2013).
PA
DEP
(2007b)
Nutrient
Trading
Calculations.
Online
at
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/credit_generation_process/21452/calcul
ations/1548037 (accessed January 30, 2014).
US EPA (2004) Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-04-001. November 2004. Available online at:
http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading/upload/2004_11_08_watershed_trading_handbook_
national-wqt-handbook-2004.pdf
US EPA (2009) Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. EPA 833-R-07-004. Updated June 2009.
Available online at: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading/WQTToolkit.cfm
Wayne County (1998) Technical Memorandum User’s Manual: Watershed Management Model
4.1. November 1998. Online at: http://www.rougeriver.com/proddata/wmmmanul.pdf (accessed
July 18, 2013)
XCG Consultants Ltd., and Kieser & Associates, 2010. “Water Quality Trading in the Lake
Simcoe Watershed - Feasibility Study”, February 2010. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. With assistance from D.W. Draper Associates and Commexus Inc. Report
available
at
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@local/@simcoeprotection/documen
ts/nativedocs/stdprod_092637.pdf
XCG and K&A (2013a) Phosphorus load estimation for urban stormwater: Method details. XCG
File No.: 3-3111-01-03. October 7, 2013. Submitted to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA).
XCG and K&A (2013b) Memorandum: Selection of and Documentation for Phosphorus Load
Estimation Methods for Agriculture, Septic Systems, Polder Water and Streambank Restoration.
XCG File No.: 3-3111-01-03. October 8, 2013. Submitted to Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA).
XCG and K&A (2013c) Trade Ratios for Water Quality Trading and Offsetting Programs. XCG
File No.: 3-3111-01-02, dated September 3, 2013. Submitted to Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority (LSRCA).
Page 117 of 231
APPENDIX A
LSPOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Page 118 of 231
A.1
Introduction
The LSPOP will be implemented within the existing Lake Simcoe watershed policy framework.
The key policies and supporting procedures directly relevant to stormwater management that will
need to be considered include:
•
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and Phosphorus Reduction Strategy
•
Stormwater Management Policies of LSRCA and Local Municipalities
•
Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process
•
Environmental Compliance Authorization Process
•
Development Approval Policies and Procedures
The interactions and integration of each of these policies and procedures with the LSPOP are
presented in detail below.
A.2
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and Phosphorus Reduction Strategy
The main government policy that is likely to have the most significant effect on LSPOP is the
Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS), which was released in July 2010 (MOE, 2010). The PRS
outlines a long-term approach for phosphorus reduction, focusing on all the main sources
entering the Lake Simcoe watershed.
The July 2010 PRS provides a number of “strategic directions” and reiterates the policies
contained in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan 1.
A.2.1
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP)
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) was prepared and approved under the Lake Simcoe
Protection Act, 2008, to take effect on June 2, 2009. The LSPP is intended to work in
conjunction with relevant Provincial policies, plans and Acts, including the Provincial Policy
Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Clean Water Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the
Conservation Authorities Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Public Lands Act, and the
Planning Act. The LSPP, in conjunction with the other plans and Acts mentioned above, express
the Province’s interest and direction with regard to protecting the ecological health and
environmental sustainability of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The LSPP states that “there is
nothing in this Plan that limits the ability of decision makers on planning applications to adopt
policies more restrictive than the provisions in the Plan unless doing so would conflict with any
of the policies or objectives of the Plan” (MOE,2009).
The LSPP sets out a number of “designated policies” (DPs) pertaining to urban stormwater
management that have legal effect under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (2008). These DPs are
quoted below for reference.
1
MOE (2009).
Page 119 of 231
4.7-DP Municipalities shall incorporate into their official plans policies related to reducing
stormwater runoff volume and pollutant loadings from major development and existing
settlement areas including policies that:
a. encourage implementation of a hierarchy of source, lot-level, conveyance and endof-pipe controls;
b. encourage the implementation of innovative stormwater management measures;
c. allow for flexibility in development standards to incorporate alternative community
design and stormwater techniques, such as those related to site plan design, lot
grading, ditches and curbing, road widths, road and driveway surfaces, and the use
of open space as temporary detention ponds;
d. support implementation of programs to identify areas where source control or
elimination of cross connections may be necessary to reduce pathogens or
contaminants; and
e. support implementation of source control programs, which are targeted to existing
areas that lack adequate stormwater controls.
4.8-DP An application for major development shall be accompanied by a stormwater
management plan that demonstrates:
a. consistency with stormwater management master plans prepared under policy 4.5,
when completed;
b. consistency with subwatershed evaluations prepared under policy 8.3 and water
budgets prepared under policy 5.2, when completed;
c. an integrated treatment train approach will be used to minimize stormwater
management flows and reliance on end-of-pipe controls through measures including
source controls, lot-level controls and conveyance techniques, such as grass swales;
d. through an evaluation of anticipated changes in the water balance between predevelopment and post-development, how such changes shall be minimized; and
e. through an evaluation of anticipated changes in phosphorus loadings between predevelopment and post-development, how the loadings shall be minimized.
4.9-DP Stormwater management works that are established to serve new major development in
the Lake Simcoe watershed shall not be permitted unless the works have been designed
to satisfy the Enhanced Protection level specified in Chapter 3 of the MOE’s
“Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual 2003”, as amended from time to
time.
This policy does not apply if the works are intended to serve an infill development or a
redevelopment within a settlement area, it is not feasible to comply with the specified
design standard, and the person seeking to establish the works demonstrates that the
works incorporate the most effective measures in the circumstances to control the
quality and quantity of stormwater related to the development or redevelopment.
Page 120 of 231
4.10-DP Every owner and operator of a new stormwater management works in the Lake Simcoe
watershed shall be required to inspect and maintain the works on a periodic basis.
4.11-DP Every owner and operator of a new priority stormwater management works in the
Lake Simcoe watershed shall be required to monitor the operation of works, including
monitoring the quality of the effluent from the works, on a periodic basis.
The LSPP also sets out a number of “strategic actions” (SAs) that do not have legal effect under
the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, but which define actions that should be taken by public bodies
to help meet Plan objectives.
Under Policy 4.5-SA the municipalities, in collaboration with LSRCA will develop
comprehensive stormwater management master plans (SWMPs) that will include definition
and implementation of measures to better address stormwater from existing built-up areas;
and
• Policy 4.6-SA encourages municipalities to implement stormwater retrofit projects prior to
the completion of the comprehensive SWMP if the project has been identified as a priority
and is economically feasible.
In effect, particularly by way of designated policy 4.9-DP, the LSPP requires that the highest
standard of stormwater management be integrated into the design of new urban developments.
The LSPP places strong emphasis on minimizing stormwater impacts through innovative,
source-control approaches to help mitigate impacts on hydrologic water balance and phosphorus
loadings.
•
As well, through 4.5-SA and 4.6-SA, the LSPP is encouraging local municipalities to undertake
systematic review of existing stormwater infrastructure to ensure that best efforts are being made
to minimize impacts. The local municipalities have now begun the development of their
stormwater management master plans, all of which are expected to be completed in 2015.
A.2.2
Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS)
The LSPP Policy 4.24-SA directed the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) to develop a
Phosphorus Reduction Strategy (PRS), in cooperation with other Provincial ministries, First
Nations and Metis communities, the LSRCA and local municipalities.
The PRS was released in June 2010. It is presented as a living document, to be updated every 5
years. The PRS is intended to serve as a long-term framework to reach the target of annual
phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe of 44 tonnes per year. It is designed to achieve proportional
reductions from each major contributing source so that the proportional contribution each source
makes to the existing total load today will be the same proportional contribution it makes to the
44 T/yr goal in the future. The PRS states that this proportional reduction approach is to be
reassessed in 2015 to ensure that it reflects new science and information that becomes available.
For each major source or sector, the Strategy identifies specific reduction goals and potential
reduction opportunities that will work towards achieving the whole-lake goal of 44 T/yr. The
PRS incorporates six “strategic directions” to set out actions to be taken to reach the goals.
Page 121 of 231
With respect to urban stormwater, the PRS notes that this source currently accounts for
approximately 31% of the total phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe. The PRS stresses the
importance of dealing with this source, and identified a number of actions to be taken.
Stormwater Retrofits for Existing Development
The PRS noted that at the time, LSRCA had identified 160 retrofit opportunities that would
together generate a load reduction of 4.2 tonnes per year.
LID in Existing Urban Catchments
The PRS notes that Low Impact Development approaches should be implemented in existing
built-up areas, including measures such as green roofs, permeable pavement, infiltration
trenches, bio-retention gardens, rainwater harvesting and soakaway pits; and that preliminary
analysis available at the time indicated a potential load reduction of 2.7 tonnes per year.
New Urban Development
Strategic Direction #3 of the PRS suggests a move to “no net increase” in phosphorus loading
from new development. The PRS notes that this strategic direction could be enshrined in the
LSPP through amendment to Policy 4.8-DP that now requires major development applications to
be accompanied by stormwater management plans. The PRS notes that guidance documents
would be developed in consultation with municipalities, the development industry, other
provincial ministries, and other watershed partners to provide direction on the information
required (i.e. phosphorus budgets) to demonstrate how no net increase in phosphorus is to be
met; that this strategic direction would come into effect once guiding documents are finalized;
and that any proposal to amend the Plan to enshrine the strategic direction of moving to no net
phosphorus from new development in the watershed would be subject to further consultation.
Note that subsequent to the release of the PRS, the MOE has developed. “Phosphorus Budget
Tool in Support of Sustainable Development in the Lake Simcoe Watershed” (prepared for MOE
by Hutchinson Environmental Services Limited, 2012).
The PRS strongly encourages that LID and other effective measures be integrated into the design
of new urban developments to reduce phosphorus loads wherever possible. The PRS nonetheless
notes that significant phosphorus loadings from development will occur and should be offset in
some way; and that this is the reason for recommending a strategic direction of move to no net
phosphorus from new development.
The PRS states that to implement Strategic Direction #3, important issues have to be resolved;
for example, a method for determining no net additional phosphorus loads needs to be clearly
established. As well, the PRS notes that:
•
•
The MOE is considering an update to the 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and
Design Manual; and that this review will be directed at ensuring stronger water quality
protection and phosphorus reduction; and this review will engage municipalities,
conservation authorities, developers and industry representatives.
It is critical to support innovation and to eliminate any barriers to implementing new
approaches to potential reductions.
Page 122 of 231
A.3
LSRCA Policies
The Conservation Authority operates under several watershed development policies (LSRCA,
2012) that address a range of conditions affecting Lake Simcoe. Those areas of development
policy associated with P loading to the lake that will apply to issues of stormwater management
associated with offsetting include:
Valleyland protection;
• Watercourse protection;
• Environmentally significant areas (ESAs);
• Stormwater management;
• Wetland protection; and
• Shoreline development.
The LSRCA reviews development proposals to ensure these conform to the established
watershed development policies. This authority is derived from Section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act to implement and enforce the Development, Interference with Wetlands and
Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 179/06). There are
several technical and operational mechanisms utilized by the authority to address the impacts
associated with urban stormwater, including impacts on local hydrology, water budget,
streamflow and phosphorus loadings. These include:
•
Requirement for preparation of Environmental Impact Statements relating to hydrogeology
and biology of wetlands and water-dependent ESAs;
• Ensuring compliance of new development with LSRCA’s technical requirements regarding
urban stormwater management systems, per the LSRCA’s technical submission requirements
(LSRCA, 2013); and
• Ensuring consistency with the MOE’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual
(MOE, 2003).
These mechanisms can be used by LSRCA to assess the potential impact of new land
development proposals, and to assess the basis for stormwater offsets associated with a net-zero
load of phosphorus from new development and re-development.
•
These mechanisms become enabled through the LSRCA’s role in providing input the review of
development applications under the Planning Act, including the Provincially delegated
responsibilities to address natural hazards including flooding, erosion and unstable ground. The
LSRCA also has agreements with the Region of York, Durham, the City of Kawartha Lakes, and
the County of Simcoe for advisory planning assistance.
A.4
Municipal Stormwater Policies
The local municipalities generally own and operate the stormwater infrastructure within existing
built-up settlement areas. This infrastructure includes roadway drainage systems, including
catchbasins, storm sewer pipes, culverts, ditches, swales and related structures within municipal
road rights-of-way or on other municipal property. This includes stormwater management
facilities such as dry detention basins or stormwater treatment ponds.
Page 123 of 231
For any new urban development, the storm drainage system must be designed in accordance with
design standards established by the local municipality. These standards describe minimum
design requirements for various facets or components of the urban drainage system, including
required lot grading; catchbasin sizing and spacing; sizing and capacity requirements for storm
pipes, culverts and ditches; and guidelines regarding the design of stormwater pond facilities and
related infrastructure such as erosion control measures and pipe outfall structures. Examples
include:
City of Barrie, 2009. “Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management Policies and Design
Guidelines”;
• Town of Newmarket, 2009. “Engineering Design Standards and Criteria: Section C – Storm
Drainage & Stormwater Management”;
• Town of Aurora, 2013. “Design Criteria Manual For Engineering Plans, Infrastructure and
Environmental Services Department, Revised December 2013”; and
• Town of East Gwillimbury, 2012. “Engineering Standards and Design Criteria, September
2012”.
Through its review of development applications, the municipality will require that the developer
or development proponent submit detailed engineering designs to demonstrate that municipal
guidelines and standards will be met. Generally, the municipality must approve these designs
before a new subdivision plan or site plan can be legally registered; and before the municipality
will issue any building permits.
•
For stormwater improvement or retrofit projects within existing built-up areas, generally the
same municipal design standards and guidelines would be applied before the municipality would
approve the proposed project.
A.5
Policy Implementation
The foregoing policies are implemented through existing processes and procedures related to the
land development planning and approval process, and the regulatory approval process for new
municipal infrastructure. These processes are reviewed below, with respect to how the proposed
LSPOP would be integrated.
A.5.1
Development Approval
The requirement for an offset in the Phase 1 of the LSPOP will be initiated by a development or
redevelopment proposal. It is worthwhile before examining the details of the steps involved in
obtaining or supplying an offset to understand the relationship of the offset to the municipal
land-use planning process.
The local area municipalities, according to requirements of Ontario’s Planning Act, administer
approval of individual land development proposals. The municipality must also adhere to
relevant Provincial legislations and policies including the Places To Grow Act and the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act. The approval process is generally a multi-step
process, proceeding from the initial application made by the property developer to the
Page 124 of 231
municipality (often preceded by pre-consultation between developer and the municipal Planning
Department), through to final site or subdivision agreements, and then to final release from the
agreement once the municipality is satisfied that all requirements (servicing infrastructure, etc.)
have been met by the developer. The process is summarized in Figure A.1.
Figure A.1
Development Approval Process Linkage to LSPOP
Generally, the municipality will initially issue a conditional approval of a proposed site plan or
plan of subdivision. The conditions will include a set of standard conditions that apply to any
given development application, as well any number of specific conditions that relate to the
particular issues and circumstances of the individual application.
The conditions of site/subdivision plan approval will typically require submission to the
municipality of a stormwater management plan for the proposed development, and that the
stormwater management plan be satisfactory to relevant approval agencies including MOE and
the local Conservation Authority. As well, the stormwater drainage system must be designed in
accordance with the local municipality’s design guidelines and standards.
Page 125 of 231
With draft plan approval with conditions complete, the developer will then proceed with final
engineering design of the development, including all drainage systems and stormwater
management components.
The developer will seek final approval of the proposed drainage/stormwater management design
from the municipality, and obtain any required approvals from regulatory authorities. These
could include approvals from MOE (OWRA), the local Conservation Authority (under the
Conservation Authorities Act) and possibly other agencies including Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, railway companies or other affected
agencies. The set of required approvals will depend on the specific nature of the stormwater
management works proposed and their potential environmental or downstream impacts. In
general, any stormwater treatment works (e.g. stormwater ponds) will require MOE approval
under OWRA. The local Conservation Authority will require proof that there will not be adverse
impact on regulated flood-risk areas or regulated fill zones. As well, the Conservation Authority
or DFO may need to provide approval under the Federal Fisheries Act if it is determined that
there would be direct impacts on fish habitat.
Once final approval for stormwater systems and other servicing infrastructure is obtained, the
municipality will approve the registration of the plan of subdivision.
The municipality will also enter into a legal site/subdivision agreement with the land developer.
The agreement will identify all the infrastructure that will be constructed (in accordance with the
approved final engineering designs) before the municipality will issue building permits, and will
set out other terms and conditions that must be met before the municipality will take ownership
of (i.e. assume) new infrastructure such as roads, sewers, watermains and stormwater
management facilities.
Once all requirements have been met, the municipality will release the developer from the
site/subdivision agreement.
A.5.2
Class Environmental Assessment for Stormwater Projects
It is expected that the local municipality will generally undertake stormwater
improvement/retrofit projects within existing built-up areas. These projects will be subject to the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process.
Table A.1 lists the Municipal Class EA project classifications provided in the MEA Municipal
Class EA document (2011). In general, SWM projects that involve improvements to existing
stormwater pond facilities, will be Schedule A or A+; and that projects that involve construction
of new ponds or involve enlargement of existing ponds will be Schedule B projects.
Page 126 of 231
Table A.1
Implementing Stormwater Retrofit Improvement Projects - Applicable
Wastewater Project Classifications per MEA Municipal Class EA
Guidelines, 2011
Establish new or replace or expand existing stormwater detention/retention ponds or tanks and
appurtenances including outfall to receiving water body, provided all such facilities are in either
an existing utility corridor or an existing road allowance.
Schedule A:
Pre-Approved
Roadside ditches, culverts and other such incidental stormwater works constructed solely for the
purpose of servicing municipal road works
Construction of stormwater management facilities which are required as a condition of approval
on a consent, site plan, plan of subdivision or condominium which will come into effect under the
Planning Act prior to construction of the facility.
Schedule A+
Pre-Approved, Public
Notice Required
Modify, retrofit, or improve a retention/detention facility including outfall or infiltration system
for the purpose of stormwater quality control. Biological treatment through the establishment of
constructed wetlands is permitted.
Establish new stormwater retention/detention ponds and appurtenances or infiltration systems
including outfall to receiving water body.
Schedule B:
Public Consultation and
Reporting
Requirements
Enlarge stormwater retention/detention ponds or tanks, or sanitary or combined sewage detention
tanks by addition or replacement, at substantially the same location.
Construct a stormwater control demonstration facility or pilot facility for the purpose of assessing
new technology or procedures.
Page 127 of 231
Table A.2 summarizes the Class EA and OWRA approval requirements for the 278 potential
urban stormwater retrofit projects that have been identified to date by LSRCA based on its
review completed in 2007 (LSRCA, 2007).
Table A.2
SWM Retrofit Project Types and Class EA and OWRA Approval
Requirements
Count
Municipal Class EA
Project Schedule
MOE OWRA Approval
Requirement
New "Level 1" pond
175
Schedule B
New OWRA ECA
Convert quantity pond to "Level 1"
72
Schedule A+
Revise OWRA ECA
Convert quantity pond to "Level 2"
9
Schedule A+
Revise OWRA ECA
New "Level 2" pond
6
Schedule B
New OWRA ECA
Convert "Level 3" to "Level 1"
6
Schedule A+
Revise OWRA ECA
Convert "Level 2" to "Level 1"
3
Schedule A+
Revise OWRA ECA
Convert "Level 4" to "Level 1"
3
Schedule A+
Revise OWRA ECA
New "Level 3" pond
2
Schedule B
New OWRA ECA
New "Level 4" pond
1
Schedule B
New OWRA ECA
Repair & restore existing pond
1
Schedule A
None
Project Type
Total number of projects
278
Total Schedule B + new ECA
184
Total Schedule A+ and revised ECA
93
Terminology:
•
“Level 1” = “Enhanced” = 80% TSS removal (long-term average)
•
“Level 2” = “Normal” = 70% TSS removal
•
“Level 3” = “Basic” = 60% TSS removal
•
“Level 4” = 50% TSS removal
•
“Enhanced”, “Normal” and “Basic” are the terms used in the 2003 MOE Stormwater Management Planning & Design
Manual. “Level 1, 2, 3” are the corresponding terms from the 1994 MOE Stormwater Practices Planning & Design Manual.
“Level 4” also defined in the 1994 manual but not carried forward in the 2003 update.
Table A.2 shows that roughly two-thirds of all the identified projects will require completion of a
Schedule B Municipal Class EA during project planning and design. Figure A.2 shows how the
SWM retrofit projects are distributed amongst the local municipalities.
Page 128 of 231
Storm retrofit projects from LSRCA 2007:
Project count by local area municipality and Class EA project schedule
Orillia
5
Schedule B
Uxbridge
11
King
11
22
30
Innisfil
4
11
Figure A.2
A.5.3
15
1
17
Barrie
Aurora
6
31
Brock
Whitchurch-Stouffville
7
5
Georgina
Newmarket
Schedule A
1
East Gwillimbury
Bradford-West Gwillimbury
Schedule A+
3
2
22
14
12
17
13
18
Municipal Class EA Applicability to SWM Retrofit Projects
Environmental Compliance Authorization
Final designs for stormwater management works and facilities must be approved under OWRA,
by MOE. Approval of a new facility will result in issuance of an Environmental Compliance
Approval (ECA) by MOE to the facility owner.
In the case of a retrofit improvement of an existing stormwater facility, the existing ECA (or
previous “Certificate of Approval”) will likely need to be revised; refer to Table A-2. ECAs for
stormwater pond facilities will include a number of conditions of approval that will generally
include:
Page 129 of 231
Requirement for routine inspection and maintenance, including monitoring or routine checks
to estimate amount of accumulated sediment and resulting reduction in facility volume.
• Requirement to maintain records of facility operation and maintenance
• Requirement for annual reporting to MOE
• Requirement to maintain design volume by removal of accumulated sediment when needed,
as indicated by routine monitoring.
In general, it is not expected that ECAs for stormwater facilities will require routine or
occasional sampling of influent or effluent quality, or any other direct measurements of facility
performance. The approach that has been taken to date is that performance will be maintained
by maintaining facility design volume.
•
A.7
References Cited in Appendix A
1. City of Barrie (2009). “Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management Policies and Design
Guidelines”.
2. http://www.barrie.ca/Doing%20Business/PlanningandDevelopment/Documents/StormDraina
geandStormwaterManagementPoliciesandDesignGuidelines.pdf
3. Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA),
2010. Low Impact Development Stormwater Planning and Design Guide, Version 1.0, 2010.
Available at www.sustainabletechnologies.ca.
4. Hutchinson Environmental Services Limited (HESL), 2012. “Phosphorus Budget Tool in
Support of Sustainable Development in the Lake Simcoe Watershed”. Prepared for Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment.
Available
at
http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/files/ptool/P%20Budget%20Guidance%20Ver2.pdf
5. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), 2007. “Lake Simcoe Basin
Stormwater Management and Retrofit Opportunities”. Available at www. Lsrca.on.ca.
6. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), 2013. LSRCA Technical Guidelines
for Stormwater Management Submissions, Apri.l 26, 2013. Available at
http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/swm_guidelines.pdf.
7. Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), 2011.
Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment.
8. Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2009. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, July 2009.
PIBS 6932e01. Available at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/.
9. Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2010. Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction
Strategy,
June
2010.
PIBS
7633e.
Available
at
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/STD01_078834.
10. Ontario Ministry of Environemnt (MOE), 2003. Stormwater Management Planning and
Design Manual, March 2003. Copyright: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2003. ISBN 0-77942969-9,
PIBS
4329e
Available
at
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/
std01_079721.pdf.
Page 130 of 231
11. Town of Aurora, 2013. “Design Criteria Manual For Engineering Plans, Infrastructure and
Environmental
Services
Department,
Revised
December
2013”.
www.town.aurora.on.ca/app/wa/mediaEntry?mediaEntryId=6223
12. Town of East Gwillimbury, 2012. “Engineering Standards and Design Criteria, September
2012”.
http://www.eastgwillimbury.ca/Assets/CPI/Municipal+Design+Criteria.pdf
13. Town of Newmarket, 2009. “Engineering Design Standards and Criteria: Section C – Storm
Drainage
&
Stormwater
Management
(January
2009)”.
http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/resourcelibrary/5_SectionC_StormDrainageandStorm
water.pdf
14. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Watershed Development Polices, last
Approved by LSRCA Board of Directors March 23, 2012 Resolution No. BOD-03-12. (See:
http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/watershed_development_policies.pdf.)
15. LSRCA Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions Apri.l 26, 2013.
(See: http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/swm_guidelines.pdf.)
16. Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, March 2003, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment.
(See:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/
std01_079721.pdf.)
Page 131 of 231
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF TRACKING AND REPORTING
Page 132 of 231
B.
Examples of Tracking and Reporting Programs
Several existing water quality offset programs can serve as models when developing the final
tracking and reporting protocols for the LSPOP. Three of these programs are summarized here
to provide examples of tracking and reporting options. The first example is the Great Miami
River Watershed Water Quality Credit Trading Program . The second is the Willamette
Partnership’s ecosystem credit program. The third example is the Pennsylvania Nutrient Credit
Trading Program, which allows permitted sewage treatment plants to purchase nutrient credits to
meet discharge limits
B.1
Great Miami River
The Great Miami River trading program began operations in 2006 to address surface water
nutrient impairments in southwest Ohio (Newburn et al, 2012). It is a pre-compliance program
and involves trades between agricultural nonpoint sources and wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) (MCD, 2005). Twelve rounds of application submissions have been held since the
beginning of the program 2. More than 400 individual credit-generating practices have been
funded and hundreds of farmers have participated.
Given the large volume BMPs and associated nutrient reduction credits, the program needed a
relatively sophisticated method for tracking projects. To meet this need, a Microsoft Accessbased trade registry was developed. This registry maintains information on all credit-generating
BMPs. Data inputs include: BMP type, location, number of credits generated, cost, installation,
inspection/verification, local technician, and applicant name. 3 In addition, the registry is
designed to generate credit reports summarizing the reduction credits available at any given date.
These reports can be used to analyze overall credit availability and assess credits available to
each buyer.
Currently, this detailed trade information is available only to the trading program administrator.
The current administrator is the Miami Conservancy District, which acts as a clearinghouse for
buyers and sellers of nutrient credits in the Great Miami River Watershed. Once the program
transitions into a formal compliance trading program, a portion of the tracked information will be
publicly reported. This likely will include the number of trades, buyers, generalized location
information of sellers, types of projects implemented to generate credits, and any other relevant
WWTP permitting information required by the regulatory agency and specified in permits.
2
MCD Request for Proposals Round 12, Available online at:
http://newserver.miamiconservancy.org/water/documents/GMRTradingProgramRFP082013.pdf
3
Personal communications with M. Kieser, K&A representative for trade registry database management
Page 133 of 231
B.2
Willamette Partnership
The Willamette Partnership is a coalition of entities addressing ecosystem conservation in the
Willamette River basin of northwest Oregon. The Partnership has developed an Ecosystem
Credit Accounting System that includes protocols, tools, and resources for buyers and sellers of
ecosystem credits. Among these tools is an Ecosystem Crediting Platform. Participants enter
project information into this web-based tool, and the data then are used to provide program
tracking and reporting. Accounting System protocols are used to calculated credits generated by
the projects. In addition, certified projects are incorporated into a registry created by Markit
Environmental Registry. This registry is used to maintain a database of existing projects and
track credit transactions. The registry also is publicly accessible and therefore provides program
transparency. Publicly available data in this registry are more extensive than in water quality
trading programs examples cited herein. The Willamette River ecosystem credit registry
includes the following:
•
•
•
Account Holder Information
− Account Holder Name
− Classification
− Country
− Website
Project Information
− Project Name
− Category
− Standard Name
− Project Type
− Status
− Additional Certification
− Validator
− Developer
− Country
− Documentation
Issuances/Listings Information
− Vintage
− Project
− Account
− Standard
− Project Type
− Verifier
− Units
− Measurement
− Type
•
•
Holdings Information
− Vintage
− Project
− Account
− Standard
− Project Type
− Verifier
− Units
− Measurement
− Type
Retired Credits Information
− Retirement Date
− Vintage
− Project
− Account
− Standard
− Project Type
− Retirement Quantity
− Measurement
− Type
Page 134 of 231
B.3
Pennsylvania Nutrient Credit Trading Program
The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) operates a Nutrient Credit
Trading (NCT) program to help address nutrient discharges to surface waters connecting to
Chesapeake Bay in Pennsylvania. In this program, sewage treatment plants can purchase credits
to meet nutrient and phosphorus permit limits. PENNVEST serves as a clearinghouse for the
trades and facilitates periodic credit auctions. Markit Environmental Registry maintains the
credit registry database for the program.
The online registry for the PENNVEST NCT program includes publicly available information
regarding credit auctions. This includes the following auction results data:
Identifier of credit sold
• Winning buyers
• Bid or offer
• Total quantity won
• Total quantity traded
• Final price
In addition, PENNVEST credit registry information can be viewed in the same online database
as the Willamette Partnership program credit information. This is a general public registry view
that includes multiple trading program registries managed by Markit. All of the information
available through this view is the same as described in the Willamette Partnership discussion.
•
B.4
References Cited In Appendix B
1. Great Miami River Watershed Water Quality Credit Trading Program website:
http://www.miamiconservancy.org/water/quality_credit.asp
2. Willamette
Partnership’s
ecosystem
services
market
website:
http://willamettepartnership.org/about-markets
NCT
program
information
website:
3. PENNVEST
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/nutrient_credit_trading/19518
4. Newburn, DA and RT Woodward (2012) An ex post evaluation of Ohio’s Great Miami
Water Quality Trading Program. Journal of the American Water Resources Association.
48:1(156-169).
Available
online
at:
http://newserver.miamiconservancy.org/water/documents/NewburnandWoodward.ExpostEva
luation.pdf
5. MCD [Miami Conservancy District] (2005). Great Miami River Watershed Water Quality
Credit
Trading
Program
–
Operations
Manual.
Available
online
at:
http://www.miamiconservancy.org/water/documents/tradingprogramoperationmanualfeb8b2
005secondversion.pdf
Page 135 of 231
6. MCD
Request
for
Proposals
Round
12,
Available
online
at:
http://newserver.miamiconservancy.org/water/documents/GMRTradingProgramRFP082013.
pdf
7. Ecosystem Credit Accounting System website: http://willamettepartnership.org/ecosystemcredit-accounting
8. Ecosystem Crediting Platform website: http://willamettepartnership.ecosystemcredits.org/
9. Accounting System protocols are available online at: http://willamettepartnership.org/toolstemplates/tools-and-templates-1/
10. Markit website: http://www.markit.com/product/registry
11. PENNVEST
NCT
program
information
website:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/nutrient_credit_trading/19518
12. Markit
Environmental
Registry
PENNVEST
website:
http://www.markit.com/en/products/environmental/auctions/pennvest.page.
The public
version of the registry is available online at: http://mer.markit.com/brreg/public/index.jsp?s=ca
Page 136 of 231
Page 137 of 231
Page 138 of 231
January 2014
Philip Davies, BSc., MFC
Manager, Watershed Stewardship
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Dear Philip,
On behalf of Conservation Ontario and the Center for Land and Water Stewardship at the University of
Guelph, I would like to thank you for supporting Andee and her time and effort on the A.D. Latornell
Symposium Steering Committee. She is a pleasure to work with and worked on, among other things, the
entertainment committee to deliver the Latornell Amazing Race which was enthusiastically received by
our delegates! We look forward to her continued participation!
Once again, our event was another great success. All the numerous tasks required for such a premier
event would not be possible without the assistance of our Steering Committee. It is truly a team effort.
Our Steering Committee is composed of a selection of practitioners from government, conservation
authorities, academia, and environmental non-profit agencies. Our members range from people starting
their careers to seasoned professionals. It is their ability to bring the differing viewpoints afforded by
many diverse disciplines together that allows the Symposium to offer great opportunities for information
sharing, teaching, learning and networking.
Through their efforts, the A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium has grown into one of the largest and
most important environmental conferences in Canada. We have been able to attain this status by
assembling a team of dedicated professionals who are willing to contribute their time and energy in
support of the Symposium.
While membership on the Steering Committee can be demanding, it is also very rewarding. I believe that
this exposure will produce lasting benefits for both the organization and its employee long into the future.
Thanks again for your support.
Sincerely,
Deborah Martin-Downs, Chair
20th Annual A.D. Latornell Conservation Symposium
Page 139 of 231
Page 140 of 231
February 3, 2014
The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario
Via email: [email protected]
Legislative Building, Queen's Park
Toronto ON, M7A 1A1
The Honourable David Orazietti, Minister of Natural Resources
Via email: [email protected]
Suite 6630 6th Floor, Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, ON, M7A 1W3
Dear Premier Wynne and Minister Orazietti:
Re: Reinstatement of the Ontario Ranger Program
Please be advised that at a recent meeting of the Board of Directors of the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority, Board members raised their concerns regarding the discontinued Ontario
Ranger Program. Many of the Board members expressed seeing firsthand not only the benefits of this
program, but also the impact it has had on youths from large urban centres in its almost 70 year
existence. While we recognize that cuts are being felt in all areas, we strongly urge you to consider
reinstating this important youth program for the betterment of Ontario youth. The following resolution
was adopted:
Whereas: in September 2012 the provincial government cancelled the 70 year old Ontario Ranger
Program (ORP), formerly known as the Ontario Junior Ranger Program; and
Whereas when the government cancelled the Ontario Ranger Program, it claimed the Stewardship
Youth Ranger Program (SYP), an existing day program, would deliver the same experience and would
offer more jobs; and
Whereas this day program does not offer the same quality of experience youth gained under the
previous ORP in respect to knowledge of resource management and without the distractions of daily
life; and
Whereas since 2012, 278 Ontario Ranger jobs have been eliminated; and
Whereas in previous years, more than half of the Ontario Rangers were students from large urban
centres. By contrast, this year the current day program is just not accessible to those students in those
urban centres; and
Page 141 of 231
The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario
The Honourable David Orazietti, Minister of Natural Resources
February 3, 2014
Page 2
Whereas when the government cancelled the ORP, many youths lost an opportunity for a once-in-alifetime experience because the ORP only required enrolment in an Ontario high school and acceptance
into the program was based on a postal-code lottery system; and
Whereas cancellation of the 70 year old ORP does a disservice to public services in Ontario to those who
have come to admire and respect the natural beauty of our province; and
Whereas Conservation Authorities encourage students to learn about the importance of conserving our
shared natural environment and what they can do to make a positive impact; and
Whereas the provincial government committed $295 million dollars in the 2013 provincial budget for
youth employment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority supports the
Friends of the Ontario Ranger Program campaign to restore the Ontario Ranger Program in the 2014
provincial budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority shall send a letter to
Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Minister of Natural Resources, David Orazietti, urging their
government to restore the Ontario Ranger Program for future generations of young people; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority forward this resolution
for support to the other 35 conservation authorities.
Yours truly,
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
cc:
Conservation Ontario
Ontario’s Conservation Authorities
Lake Simcoe Watershed MPPs
Lake Simcoe Watershed Municipalities
LSRCA Board of Directors
Page 142 of 231
Page 143 of 231
Page 144 of 231
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA
Proud History Progressive Future
-
February 18, 2014
Trish Barnett, Projects and Services Coordinator
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway
Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1
Re:
Ontario Ranger Program
Ramara Council received and supported the Friends of the Ontario Ranger Program
Request for Support motion at their regular meeting held December 16, 2013.
I trust the above is self-explanatory however if you require further information or
clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
‘Janice McKinnon, CMO
Municipal Clerk
P.O. Box 130, Brechin, Ontario LOK 1BO, (705) 484-5374 Toll Free 1-800-663-4054 (for 689 exchange only) Page
Fax (705)
145 of 484-0441
231
Email: ramara(ramara.ca Web Site: www.ramara.ca
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
06-14-BOD
1 of 3
2 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Philip Davies, Manager, Watershed Stewardship
DATE:
February 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Grant Funding Agreement: Holland Marsh Riparian Planting Project
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 06-14-BOD regarding the Holland Marsh
Riparian Planting Project be received for information; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to enter into an agreement with
the Ministry of the Environment to implement riparian tree planting
projects within the Holland Marsh.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 06-14-BOD is to provide information to the Board of
Directors regarding the Authority entering into an agreement with the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) to receive $21,805 to implement tree planting projects within the Holland
Marsh.
Background:
The purpose of the Project is to decrease sediment and nutrients entering the West Holland
River subwatershed and Lake Simcoe to improve water quality for human and ecological health,
and to improve aquatic habitat.
The Project will take place in the Holland Marsh, which is 2,900 hectares of muck soil located in
Bradford West-Gwillimbury, King Township and a small portion in East Gwillimbury. The
Holland Marsh drains to the northeast by the West Holland River and empties into Lake Simcoe
through Cooks Bay. The outside of the Marsh is surrounded by a drainage canal and the inner
Marsh is divided by the West Holland River.
This project will see the planting of native shrubs and trees along the banks of the newly
relocated canal and watercourses that currently have no riparian buffer. The project objectives
include:
Page 146 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
06-14-BOD
2 of 3
2 BOD-03-14

Implementing planting projects that will directly improve the health of the watercourses in
the Holland Marsh by increasing the amount of riparian cover;

Working with local landowners to implement projects on their properties;

Delivering a community tree planting event with local community partners to engage
private landowners; and

Planting a minimum 7,500 native trees and shrubs in the spring and fall of 2014.
Program uptake will be encouraged through work with local community collaborators, the
preparation and distribution of promotional materials using traditional and social media
approaches, participation in local events such as the “Muck Vegetable Growers Conference”,
site visits with landowners, and through the establishment of demonstration sites showcasing
riparian buffer planting along the canal.
To ensure project success, LSRCA staff will continue to work with partners at the Holland Marsh
Drainage System Joint Municipal Services Board, Town of Bradford West-Gwillimbury, Township
of King, Holland Marsh Growers’ Association, Simcoe County, York Region and South Simcoe
Streams Network, and with private landowners.
Issues:
There are no issues related with this Staff Report. The funding provided by MOE through this
grant agreement will support outreach efforts, project planning and the purchase and
installation of plant materials.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
All planting projects are completed using established best management practices and are
designed to complement and enhance existing features. This project supports the LSRCA
mission to restore and protect the environmental health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its
watershed.
Impact on Authority Finances:
The funding secured through this agreement ($21,805) will be leveraged with partnership
funding confirmed through York Natural Planting Partnership (York Region, $5,000), Helen
McCrea Peacock Foundation ($2,750), LEAP ($6,000), Simcoe Trees (Simcoe County, $1,000),
and the Holland Marsh Drainage System Canal Improvement Project ($28,800), plus $18,467 of
in-kind funding from all partners for a total project value of $83,822.
Page 147 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
06-14-BOD
3 of 3
2 BOD-03-14
Summary and Recommendations:
It is therefore recommended THAT Staff Report No. 06-14-BOD regarding the Holland Marsh
Riparian Planting Project be received for information; and further that staff be directed to enter
into an agreement with the Ministry of the Environment to implement riparian tree planting
projects within the Holland Marsh.
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by the General Manager, Conservation Lands and the Chief
Administrative Officer.
Prepared by:
Philip Davies, Manager, Watershed Stewardship
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
___________________________________
Brian R. Kemp
General Manager, Conservation Lands
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
1) 2013 Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund Grant Funding Agreement - Project ID GLGCF2-558 Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority: Holland Marsh Riparian Planting Project
Page 148 of 231
2013 GREAT LAKES GUARDIAN COMMUNITY FUND
GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENT – PROJECT ID GLGCF2-558
LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY: HOLLAND MARSH RIPARIAN PLANTING
PROJECT
THE AGREEMENT effective as of January 6, 2014 (the “Effective Date”).
B E T W E EN :
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
as represented by the Minister of the Environment
(the “Province”)
- and LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
(the “Recipient”)
BACKGROUND:
The Province administers the Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund to support its ongoing
commitment to the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River Basin.
The Recipient has applied to the Province for funds to assist the Recipient in carrying out the Project and
the Province wishes to provide such funds.
CONSIDERATION:
In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are expressly acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1
Definitions. In the Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
“Agreement” means this agreement entered into between the Province and the Recipient and
includes all of the schedules and any amending agreement.
“Budget” means the budget attached to the Agreement as Schedule “B”.
“Funds” means the money the Province provides to the Recipient pursuant to the Agreement.
“Maximum Funds” means twenty-one thousand eight hundred and five Canadian dollars
($21,805.00).
“Party” means either the Province or the Recipient.
“Project” means the scope of work set out in Schedule “A”.
“Reports” means the reports described in Schedule “C”.
Page 149 of 231
1
ARTICLE 2
FUNDS AND CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT
2.1
Funds Provided. The Province shall:
(a)
provide the Recipient up to the Maximum Funds for the purpose of carrying out the
Project;
(b)
provide the Funds to the Recipient in accordance with the milestone payments set out in
Schedule “C”; and
deposit the Funds into an interest bearing account as directed by the Recipient provided
that the account is:
(i)
at a Canadian financial institution; and
(c)
(ii)
2.2
Limitation on Payment of Funds. Despite section 2.1:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
the Province does not have to provide any Funds to the Recipient until the Recipient
provides the insurance certificate required by section 5.12;
the Province does not have to provide the milestone payments set out in Schedule “C”
until it is satisfied with the progress of the Project;
the Province may reduce the amount of a milestone payment set out in Schedule “C” if the
Province is not satisfied with the progress of the Project or if Reports or other reports are
not completed to the satisfaction of the Province; and
if the Province does not get the necessary appropriation from the Ontario Legislature for
payment under the Agreement, the Province does not have to make any such payment to
the Recipient, and the Province may:
(i)
reduce the amount of the Funds and, in consultation with the Recipient, change
the Project; or
(ii)
2.3
in the name of the Recipient.
terminate the Agreement.
Use of Funds and Project. The Recipient shall:
(a)
carry out the Project:
(i)
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and
(ii)
(b)
in compliance with all federal and provincial laws and regulations, all municipal bylaws, and any other orders, rules and by-laws related to any aspect of the Project;
use the Funds only for the purpose of carrying out the Project; and
(c)
spend the Funds only in accordance with the Budget.
2.4
No Changes. The Recipient shall not make any changes to the Project, including timelines
and/or the Budget without the prior written approval of the Province.
2.5
Interest. If the Recipient earns any interest on the Funds:
2.6
(a)
the Province may deduct an amount equal to the interest from any further instalments of
Funds; or
(b)
the Recipient shall pay an amount equal to the interest to the Province as directed by the
Province.
Maximum Funds. The Recipient acknowledges that it shall not receive any more money for the
Project from the Province other than the amount of the Maximum Funds.
Page 150 of 231
2
2.7
Rebates, Credits and Refunds. The Recipient acknowledges that the amount of Funds is based
on the actual costs of the Project to the Recipient, less any costs (including taxes) for which the
Recipient has received, will receive, or is eligible to receive, a rebate, credit or refund. The
Recipient shall not use the Funds for any costs, including taxes, for which it has received, will
receive, or is eligible to receive, a rebate, credit or refund.
2.8
Intellectual Property. The Province is not the owner of any intellectual property generated as a
result of the Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
REPORTING, ACCOUNTING AND REVIEW
3.1
Preparation and Submission. The Recipient shall send to the Province at the address set out
after the signature block at the end of the Agreement:
(a)
all Reports set out in Schedule “C”, or in a form as specified by the Province;
(b)
any other reports required by the Province;
and the Recipient will ensure that all Reports and other reports are completed to the satisfaction
of the Province; and that all Reports and other reports are signed on behalf of the Recipient by an
authorized signing officer.
3.2
Record Maintenance. The Recipient shall keep and maintain:
(a)
(b)
3.3
all financial records (including invoices) relating to the Funds or otherwise to the Project in
a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles; and
all non-financial documents and records relating to the Funds or otherwise to the Project.
Inspection. The Province may, at its own expense, upon 24 hours’ notice to the Recipient and
during normal business hours, enter upon the Recipient’s premises to:
(a)
review the progress of the Project and the Recipient’s expenditure of the Funds;
(b)
(c)
inspect and copy the records and documents referred to in section 3.2; and
conduct an audit or investigation of the Recipient in respect of the expenditure of the
Funds and/or the Project.
3.4
Disclosure. To assist the Province with an inspection, the Recipient shall disclose any
information requested by the Province in any form requested by the Province.
3.5
No Control of Records. No provision of the Agreement shall be construed so as to give the
Province any control whatsoever over the Recipient’s records.
3.6
Auditor General. The Province’s rights of inspection in Article 3 are in addition to any rights
provided to the Auditor General pursuant to section 9.1 of the Auditor General Act (Ontario).
ARTICLE 4
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4.1
No Conflict of Interest. The Recipient shall carry out the Project and use the Funds without an
actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
4.2
Conflict of Interest Includes. For the purposes of this Article, a conflict of interest includes any
circumstances where:
(a)
the Recipient; or
(b)
any person who has the capacity to influence the Recipient’s decisions;
Page 151 of 231
3
has outside commitments, relationships or financial interests that could, or could be seen
to, interfere with the Recipient’s objective, unbiased and impartial judgment relating to the
Project and the use of the Funds.
4.3
Disclosure to Province. The Recipient shall:
(a)
disclose to the Province, without delay, any situation that a reasonable person would
interpret as either an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest; and
(b)
comply with any terms and conditions that the Province may prescribe as a result of the
disclosure.
ARTICLE 5
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
5.1
Experience. The Recipient has, and shall continue to have while undertaking the Project, the
experience and expertise necessary to carry out the Project.
5.2
Information. The Recipient confirms that the information the Recipient provided to the Province
in support of its request for funds (including information relating to any eligibility requirements)
was true and complete at the time the Recipient provided it and the Recipient promises that the
information shall continue to be true and complete while undertaking the Project.
5.3
Acquisition. The Recipient agrees that if it buys any supplies, equipment or services with the
Funds, it will ensure the best value for money.
5.4
Aboriginal. The Recipient agrees to immediately notify the Province if any aboriginal group
makes any inquiries about the Project.
5.5
Direction. The Recipient agrees to comply with the Province’s direction regarding the Recipient’s
consultation with any aboriginal groups.
5.6
Disclosure. The Province may make public the names of the Recipient, Project team members,
Recipient address, Recipient telephone numbers, Recipient e-mail addresses, Recipient website
addresses, Project description, funding amount, and Project results and progress in formats the
Province may choose (e.g. tweets, news releases, speeches).
5.7
Personal Information. The Recipient confirms that it has received permission to disclose the
personal information of all individuals whose personal information is disclosed in the Agreement,
and, in the case of minors, the legal guardian or parent has provided such permission on behalf of
the minor.
5.8
Consent. The Recipient consents to the Province’s collection of the information as contemplated
under the Agreement for the uses contemplated under the Agreement and section 5.6.
5.9
FIPPA. The Recipient acknowledges that the Province is bound by the Freedom of Information
and Privacy Act and that any information provided to the Province in connection with the Project
or the Agreement may be disclosed in accordance with that Act.
5.10
Indemnity. The Recipient agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Her Majesty the Queen in right
of Ontario, her ministers, agents, appointees and employees from and against any and all liability,
loss, costs, damages and expenses (including legal, expert and consultant fees), causes of
action, actions, claims, demands, lawsuits or other proceedings, by whomever made, sustained,
incurred, brought or prosecuted, in any way arising out of or in connection with the Project or
Page 152 of 231
4
otherwise in connection with the Agreement, unless solely caused by the negligence or wilful
misconduct of the Province and its agents, appointees and employees.
5.11
Insurance. The Recipient represents and warrants that it has, and shall maintain for the term of
the Agreement, at its own cost and expense, with insurers having a secure A.M. Best rating of B+
or greater, or the equivalent, all the necessary and appropriate insurance that a prudent person
carrying out a project similar to the Project would maintain, including commercial general liability
insurance on an occurrence basis for third party bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage, to an inclusive limit of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence. The
policy shall include the following:
(a) Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, her ministers, agents, appointees and
employees as additional insureds with respect to liability arising in the course of
performance of the Recipient’s obligations under, or otherwise in connection with, the
Agreement;
(b) a cross-liability clause;
(c) contractual liability coverage; and
(d) a 30 day written notice of cancellation, termination or material change.
5.12
Certificate. The Recipient shall provide the Province with certificates of insurance that confirms
the insurance coverage as provided for in section 5.11. Upon the request of the Province, the
Recipient shall make available to the Province a copy of each insurance policy.
5.13
Joint and Several Liability. Where the Recipient is comprised of more than one entity, all such
entities shall be jointly and severally liable to the Province for the fulfillment of the obligations of
the Recipient under the Agreement.
5.14
Termination on Notice. The Recipient agrees that the Province may terminate the Agreement at
any time upon giving at least 30 days notice to the Recipient. When the Agreement is terminated
the Recipient agrees to (a) return to the Province all unspent Funds remaining in the possession
or under the control of the Recipient by cheque made payable to the “Ontario Minister of Finance”
and (b) provide a final report to the Province setting out the information required in Schedule “C”.
5.15
Termination for Cause. The Recipient agrees that the Province may terminate the Agreement
immediately if in the sole opinion of the Province, the Recipient breaches any clause in the
Agreement. The Recipient also agrees that the Province may recover up to the full amount of the
Funds provided to the Recipient by the Province.
5.16
Expiry. The Agreement will expire 30 days after the Province receives a satisfactory final report
from the Recipient. The Recipient shall, upon expiry or termination of the Agreement, return to the
Province any Funds remaining in its possession or under its control.
5.17
Amendment. The Agreement may only be amended by a written agreement duly executed by the
Province and the Recipient.
5.18
No Assignment. The Recipient shall not assign any part of the Agreement or the Funds without
the prior written consent of the Province.
5.19
Entire Agreement. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with
respect to the subject matter contained in the Agreement and supersedes all prior oral or written
representations and agreements.
Page 153 of 231
5
5.20
Parties Independent. The Recipient acknowledges that it is not an agent, joint venturer, partner
or employee of the Province, and the Recipient shall not take any actions that could establish or
imply such a relationship.
5.21
Governing Law. The Agreement and the rights, obligations and relations of the Parties shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the
applicable federal laws of Canada. Any actions or proceedings arising in connection with the
Agreement shall be conducted in Ontario.
5.22
Consent. The Recipient acknowledges that it is the responsibility of the Recipient to obtain
expressed written consent from the legal guardian of any minors who are involved in any way with
the Project.
The Parties have executed the Agreement as of the Effective Date.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of Ontario
as represented by the Minister of the Environment
LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY
_________________________________
Name: Jim O’Mara
Title: Director, Operations Integration Branch
_________________________________
Name: D. Gayle Wood
Title: Chief Administrative Officer
Pursuant to delegated authority
I have the authority to bind the Recipient
Address:
Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund
Operations Integration Branch
Ministry of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 8th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
Address:
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority
120 Bayview Park
P.O. Box 282
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 4X1
Telephone: 905-895-1281 ext. 270
Fax: 905-853-5881
Page 154 of 231
6
SCHEDULE “A”
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TIMELINES
A.1
Overall Project Overview and Background
The purpose of the Project is to decrease sediment and nutrients entering the West Holland River
subwatershed, Lake Simcoe and ultimately Lake Huron; to improve water quality for human and
ecological health; and to improve aquatic habitat.
The Project will take place in the Holland Marsh, which is 2,900 hectares of muck soil located in Bradford
West-Gwillimbury, King Township and a small portion in East Gwillimbury. The Holland Marsh drains to
the northeast by the West Holland River and empties into Lake Simcoe through Cook Bay. The outside
of the Marsh is surrounded by a drainage canal, and the inner Marsh is divided by the West Holland
River.
The Recipient will be planting native shrubs and trees along the banks of the newly relocated canal and
watercourses that currently have no riparian buffer. The plant species will include Red Osier Dogwood,
Nannyberry, Highbush Cranberry, Tamarack, Eastern White Cedar, White Pine, Hackberry and willow
species. These species may change based on the site conditions and success of previous projects.
The objectives of the Project are:
1. To plant trees and shrubs along 5 kms of stream bank to increase riparian buffers in the Holland
Marsh, this includes along the north and south canals which border the Holland Marsh and the
Holland River which runs through the Holland Marsh;
2. To work with a minimum of 5-8 different landowners for projects. The actual number of
landowners and exact locations of the buffer planting projects will depend on uptake within the
community;
3. To work with the community to help spread the word through a direct mail-out to residents of the
Holland Marsh. The Recipient will also work with collaborators to connect with landowners who
are interested in creating riparian buffers on their properties. The Recipient will also participate in
the “Muck Vegetable Growers Conference” and will connect with attendees through a
presentation and information booth to promote tree planting and other Best Management
Practices. These actions will help to increase participation in the Project, as well as further
educate the public about the Recipient’s Landowner Environmental Assistance Program which
provides technical and financial assistance for a wide variety of environmental projects;
4. To have a minimum of one community tree planting event with the South Simcoe Streams
Network along the north-west section of the canal relocation. The planting will occur in Bradford,
Ontario, Lot 4 and Concession 1, with the possibility of extending to Lot 4 Concession 2;
5. To engage private landowners through at least one community tree planting event, as noted
above, in which the Recipient will create the planting plan and provide the plant material, shovels,
wheel barrels and mulch. The Recipient’s collaborators will engage community members to
participate in the event. This event will be promoted on the Recipient’s website and social media
sites;
6. To plant a minimum 1500 potted native trees and shrubs and install a minimum 2000 live stakes
cumulatively, in the spring and fall of 2014, along the canal relocation or along the Holland River,
with the help of other funding collaborators;
7. To plant tree seedlings along the canal relocation, in a large scale attempt to naturalize and
stabilize the canal, and;
Page 155 of 231
7
8. To work closely with community collaborators to engage private landowners to partake in the tree
planting program and to directly improve the health of the water ways in the Holland Marsh.
The objectives of the Project will be accomplished by promoting the Recipient’s tree planting program,
conducting site visits, and holding community tree planting events to demonstrate a planted riparian
buffer along the canal.
The Recipient will be engaging the Holland Marsh community with tree planting activities and in the
process will be able to determine other opportunities and promote the uptake of other environmental
projects in the Holland Marsh community.
Through the Project, the Recipient will work with the Holland Marsh Drainage System Joint Municipal
Services Board, Town of Bradford West-Gwillimbury, Township of King, Holland Marsh Growers'
Association, Simcoe County, York Region, South Simcoe Streams Network, and the private landowners.
A.1.1 Permissions, Permits and Approvals
Landowners will sign the Recipient’s Landowner Environmental Assistance Program contracts for
planting approval.
A.2
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES, PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND
TIMELINES
The Recipient will undertake the Project activities according to the following:
Project Activity / Task
A.2.1
A.2.2
A.2.3
A.2.4
A.2.5
The Recipient will procure materials for the
Spring 2014 planting project: 300 potted shrub
material, 300 live stakes, 4000 tree seedlings.
Spring 2014 tree planting: The Recipient will
engage a minimum of 2-3 private landowners to
participate in the planting of potted shrub
material, tree live stakes, and tree seedlings as
per the Budget on their properties. Additional
tree seedlings may be planted at this time
through other contributions.
The Recipient will hire 3 summer staff for the
Spring 2014 planting project. The staff will:
assist with organization and care of plant
material, and planting of material
Fall 2014 tree planting: The Recipient will engage
a minimum of 3-5 private landowners to
participate in tree planting activities on their
properties. The Recipient will procure and
complete the remaining planting of 1200 potted
shrub material and 1700 live stakes as per the
Budget.
Promotion of program and organizing community
planting events for Fall 2014.
The Recipient and collaborators will be promoting
the community event through the Recipient’s
Start Date
Finish Date
February 2014
April 2014
April 2014
May 2014
April 2014
May 2014
September 2014
November 2014
January 2014
November 2014
Page 156 of 231
8
A.2.6
A.3
website and social media sites, by attending the
Muck Vegetable Growers Conference, as well as
through direct mail out.
Fall 2014 community planting event. The
Recipient will place 24 yards of mulch as per the
Budget. Additional potted shrub material and
livestakes may be planted at this time through
other contributions.
November 2014
November 2014
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The Project will be undertaken by the following participants/Project team members:
Organization
Participant Name
Recipient
Phil Davies
Recipient
Paul Cottenden
Recipient
Pamela Martin
Recipient
Brittany Ballagh
Expertise, experience
and capacity of the
individual that is
relevant to this
Project
Manager, Watershed
Stewardship with
Recipient for 8 years,
BSc. and MFC., has
worked in the forestry
and stewardship field
for 14 years at other
conservation
authorities.
Forest Technician with
the Recipient for 14
years. Forestry
Diploma, previously
has worked at Grey
Sauble CA and forestry
consultant companies,
in total has worked in
the forestry and
stewardship industry
for 34 years.
Forestry Program
Assistant for 1.5 years,
Tree Planter and Parks
Operator with the
Recipient for 3 years.
BAS in Geography and
Zoology, Ecosystem
Management
Technician Diploma
Stewardship
Technician with the
Recipient for 2 years,
previous worked with
Kawartha CA. HBA in
Role and responsibility
of the participant/
organization in the
Project
Overall program
administration
Planting plan
development, site visits
and Project
implementation
Planting plan
development, site visits
and Project
implementation
Private landowner and
community project
coordinator
Page 157 of 231
9
Recipient
Dan Andrews
Recipient
To be determined
Geography and
Sociology, Ecosystem
Restoration Graduate
Certificate. Experience
working with
community groups and
private landowners.
Watershed
Coordinator, 1 year
with the Recipient.
HBOR, BSc., and
Parks and Forest
Recreation Diploma.
Former General
Manager/ Executive
Director Not-for-Profits,
vast experience in
fundraising, project
management, working
with the community,
strategic planning and
policy review
Summer Staff (3)
Holland Marsh
Growers
Association
Jamie Reaume
Executive Director
South Simcoe
Streams Network
(‘SSSN’)
Silvia Pedrazzi
Holland Marsh
Joint Municipal
Services Board
Frank Jonkman
Environmental Liaison
for SSSN, a community
organization in its fifth
year of operation. To
date SSSN has planted
over 29, 400 trees and
shrubs along
streamsides and have
engaged over 900
volunteers.
Drainage
Superintendent
Private
Landowners
To be determined
Holland Marsh Farmers
Project Consultant, Will
provide technical
support, as well as
support the community
outreach including
providing details on
websites, direct mailing
and participation in the
Muck Vegetable
Growers Conference
Three staff will be hired
to assist with the spring
planting. They will be
responsible for
organizing materials and
planting the trees and
shrubs according to
planting plan
instructions.
On the ground
community collaborator
for promotion of
stewardship programs
On the ground
community collaborator
for events and
community engagement
On the ground
collaborator for the
promotion of
stewardship programs
Allowing access to land
for planting projects
Page 158 of 231
10
SCHEDULE “B”
BUDGET
The Recipient will expend the Funds in accordance with the following Budget:
TABLE A
Item
Description
Materials and Supplies
1
2
3
4
Units or #
People
Unit Cost
or Rate
($/hour)
Time
if applicable
(# hours)
Total
Cost
Procurement
Process
($)
(Competitive
Or Noncompetitive)
Tree Seedlings- The
plant species will
include Red Osier
Dogwood,
Nannyberry, Highbush
Cranberry, Tamarack,
Eastern White Cedar,
White Spruce,
European Larch, Silver
Maple, White Pine,
Hackberry and willow
species. These
species may change
based on the site
conditions and
success of previous
projects.
Live Stakes- Species
will include willow and
red osier dogwood.
Mulch
4000
0.60
2,400.00 NonCompetitive,
The Recipient
has an
agreement
with
Sommerville
Nurseries to
provide all
seedling
stock for the
tree planting
program
2000
2.30
4,600.00 Competitive
24 yards
26.25/yard
Potted Tree and Shrub
Material- The tree and
shrub species that will
be planted will be
selected based on the
site conditions of each
specific planting
location. The species
may include:
Red Osier Dogwood,
Staghorn Sumac,
Common Elderberry,
Willow Species
(Bebb’s, Pussy,
Shining, Slender etc),
Highbush Cranberry,
Nannyberry,
Alderberry, Alternate
Leaf Dogwood,
1500
7.50
630.00 Competitive
11,250.00 Competitive
Page 159 of 231
11
Item
Description
Units or #
People
Unit Cost
or Rate
($/hour)
Time
if applicable
(# hours)
Total
Cost
Procurement
Process
($)
(Competitive
Or Noncompetitive)
Serviceberry, Sweet
Gale. The tree species
that be may selected
include: Tamarack,
European Larch,
Eastern White Cedar,
White Pine, Black
Willow, Balsam
Poplar, Trembling
Aspen, Hackberry,
White Spruce, Silver
Maple, Bur Oak,
Swamp White Oak.
Personnel
Personnel - Hired
Summer Staff
5
3
16.50/hour
Communication and Promotion
Promotion of Tree
800 post
6
Planting program
cards
(direct mail out)
50 hours
each
450.00 (for
800 cards)
450.00 Competitive
Table A Total Costs:
Note
2,475.00 Competitive
$21,805.00
As prescribed by LSRCA's purchasing policy three (3) quotes are required for purchases over
$2,500 and formal tenders are required for purchases over $35,000.
TABLE B
In-Kind Contributions: Expenses or non-financial contributions that the Recipient and other
organizations will contribute to the Project at no cost.
Item
1
Description
HMDSCIP Project Manager
Town of Bradford West
Gwillimbury
2
3
Township of King
Recipient-Forestry Program
Assistant Site Visits,
Assessments, Planting plan
development, reporting and
tree planting.
Recipient- Forestry
Units or #
People
Unit Cost
or Rate
($/hr)
Time
(# hrs) if
applicable
Total Cost
($)
$2,500 in
equipment
usage
$2,000
technical
assistance
1
$20.00/hr
154
3,080.00
1
$42.00/hr
119
4,998.00
4,500.00
Page 160 of 231
12
Item
4
5
6
7
Description
Technician Site Visits,
Assessments, Planting plan
development, reporting and
tree planting
Recipient- Stewardship
Technician Site Visits,
Assessments, Planting plan
development, reporting
Recipient- Planting plan
oversight
Recipient- community event
tree planting and planning
Recipient- Project Oversight
8
South Simcoe Streams
Network
9
Recipient travel costs
10
11
12
13
Units or #
People
Unit Cost
or Rate
($/hr)
1
$46.00/hr
28
1
$50.00/hr
7
1
$50.00/hr
21
1
$57.00/hr
7
Volunteers
for
community
planting
events,
educating
Holland
Marsh
residents,
advertising
events
Time
(# hrs) if
applicable
Total Cost
($)
1,288.00
350.00
1,050.00
399.00
2,000.00
$0.54/km
488.00
Recipient tractor usage
$5.50
18
99.00
Recipient trailer
$8.00
6
48.00
Recipient planter with sprayer
$7.60
18
137.00
Recipient covered trailer
$5.00
6
30.00
Table B Total In-Kind Contributions:
$18,467.00
Page 161 of 231
13
TABLE C
Other Funding Partners: The Province will not provide funding for the Project for costs already covered
by other sources. Activities funded by the Province must be separate and distinct from activities funded
by other sources
Name of Other Funders
to the Project
1
2
3
4
5
Description of Relevant
Activities
Anticipated
Funds
York Natural Planting
Partnership
Tree planting project funding
provided by York Region,
administered by the
Recipient. YNPP grant rate is
33%-50% of individual
projects depending on
location and area planted,
only applicable to projects in
York Region
5,000.00
Helen McCrae Peacock
Foundation
Funds administered by the
Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Foundation
2,750.00
Recipient's Landowner
Environmental Assistance
Program (LEAP)
Grants given to individual
landowners for tree planting
and other environmental
projects, 25%-75% of the cost
of the project if needed
6,000.00
Simcoe Trees
Tree planting project funding
provided by Simcoe County,
administered by the
Recipient, only applicable to
private property within
Simcoe County
1,000.00
Funds for naturalization along
the relocated canal on public
land. These fund can not be
used for areas owned by
private landowners
28,800.00
HMDSCIP
Town of Bradford West
Gwillimbury
Township of King
Have
Funds
Been
Secured?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Table C Total Anticipated Funds from Other Contributions: $43,550.00
Total Project Budget
(Proposed GLGCF costs + In-Kind Contributions + Anticipated
Funds from Other Funding Partners) $83,822.00
Page 162 of 231
14
SCHEDULE “C”
REPORTS AND PAYMENTS
The Recipient will submit to the Province all reports in this Schedule “C” in accordance with the content
requirements set out below. Funding provided by the Province for eligible costs relating to the Project will
be provided to the Recipient based on the following milestones.
TABLE A
Milestone
Start of the Project
Province’s approval of Progress
Report #1
Province’s approval of Final
Report
Other Reports as specified from
time to time
Due Date
Start of Project
June 16, 2014
January 2, 2015
On a date or dates specified by the
Province.
Payments
$13,083.00
$5,451.25
$3,270.75
Not Applicable
Payments
1. As indicated above in Table A, payments will be made by the Province to the Recipient following (i)
execution of agreement/ start of the Project; (ii) the Province’s approval of each progress report; and
(iii) the Province’s approval of the Final Report.
Report Details
2.
The Progress Report will:
(i)
set out actions, including any procurement activities, undertaken to the date of the report
and how they relate to the objectives of the Project;
(ii)
set out any Project tasks completed within the reporting period, show how Project
objectives / expectations have been met and report on performance measures set out in
Table B;
(iii)
set out any variances from the workplan, the reasons for such variances and the strategy
used to correct the variances and achieve the Project objectives;
(iv)
include a statement confirming the Recipient is in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement signed by the Chief Operating Officer, the Board chair or
equivalent unless otherwise agreed to by the Province;
(v)
if any Funds provided by the Province were used to purchase goods or services, include
all the procurement details about the Recipient’s purchase of those goods or services
related to the Project and a detailed description of the Recipient’s competitive process if a
competitive process was utilized;
(vi)
include an interim accounting of all Project expenditures to date signed by the Chief
Financial Officer, the Board chair or equivalent, if applicable, or as otherwise agreed to by
the Province confirming actual Project expenditures and providing an explanation for any
variances from the Budget;
Page 163 of 231
15
3.
4.
(vii)
include an accounting of any other funding received by the Recipient, the identification of
the funding organization, the amount and the specific aspect of the Project that the
additional funding is supporting as well as a statement confirming that there is no overlap
of funding from the Province and from any other organization; and
(viii)
identify whether or not the Project as described in the Agreement can be completed.
The Final Report will:
(i)
discuss Project objectives / expectations and activities completed, confirming that Project
objectives / expectations were met, setting out lessons learned;
(ii)
include a final accounting of all Project expenditures signed by the Chief Financial Officer,
and the Board chair or equivalent if applicable, or as otherwise agreed to by the Province,
confirming actual Project expenditures and providing an explanation for any variances
from the Budget;
(iii)
include an accounting of any unspent Funds and an explanation as to why there are
remaining Funds;
(iv)
include a final accounting of the other funding received by the Recipient, the identification
of the funding organization, the amount and the specific aspect of the Project that the
additional funding supported as well as a statement confirming that there has been no
overlap of funding from the Province and from any other organization; and
(v)
include a statement signed by the Chief Operating Officer, the Board chair or equivalent
unless otherwise agreed to by the Province confirming Recipient compliance with the
terms and conditions of the Agreement.
Other Reports:
(i)
the Province will specify the timing and content of any other Reports as may be
necessary.
TABLE B
The Recipient will report on the following quantitative performance measures in the Progress Report and
Final Report, as of the dates specified in Table A:
Performance Measures
IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS
1. Value of in-kind contribution of supplies and material
2. Value of in-kind contribution of personnel time
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
3. Value of financial contributions received from other sources for project
SPECIES AND HABITAT
4. Number of trees planted
5. Number of shrubs planted
SHORELINE AND TRAILS
6. Meters of shoreline restored
EDUCATIONAL MEASURES
7. Number of participants at event/workshop
Page 164 of 231
16
Performance Measures
8. Number of events and activities hosted
VOLUNTEER INVOLVEMENT
9. Number of volunteers involved
Page 165 of 231
17
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
07-14-BOD
1 of 3
3 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Beverley G. Booth, M.Sc., MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning, Regulations and Enforcement
DATE:
February 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Year-End Monitoring Report – Planning and Development
Applications for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 07-14-BOD regarding the year-end
monitoring of planning and development applications for the period
January 1 through December 31, 2013 be received for information.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 07-14-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with an
update of the progress of planning and development applications submitted to the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority for the period January 1 through December 31, 2013.
Background and Consideration:
A summary of the total number of planning applications for the period January 1 through
December 31, 2013 is shown in Tables 1 and 2. These tables summarize the number of
applications received by application type and by municipality for this period. The type of
applications reviewed and processed are statutory requirements under the following
legislation:
Planning Act (Table 1)





Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Community Plans and Amendments
Comprehensive Zoning By-Laws and Amendments
Consent and Minor Variance Applications
Plans of Subdivision and Condominium
Site Plan Applications
Page 166 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
07-14-BOD
2 of 3
3 BOD-03-14
Conservation Authorities Act (Table 2)




Section 28 Permit Applications
Public Information Requests (PIR)
Site Clearances
Solicitor Inquiries
Other Legislation (Table 2)


Undertakings in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act
Level III Fish Habitat Agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) under
the Federal Fisheries Act
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the total number of planning and development applications for the
period January 1 through December 31, 2012.
In general, the total number of applications reviewed under the Planning Act in 2013 was 18%
higher than the total number of applications received for the same period in 2012. The number
of applications received in 2013 under the Conservation Authorities Act was 30% higher than
the number of applications received in 2012.
Issues:
The statistics presented in the attached tables do not provide any indication of the complexity
of the applications. Many of the new development applications are being proposed on lands
that have previously been overlooked due to the constraints that are associated with them.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
Client service and satisfaction has been identified as an important guiding principle in the
LSRCA’s Strategic Plan. It is important to monitor the number and complexity of applications
processed by the LSRCA in order to ensure effective and efficient client service. There is also a
requirement to meet timelines for the issuance of approvals under the Conservation Authorities
Act established through the provincial ‘Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan
Review and Permitting Activities’.
Impact on Authority Finances:
Staff will continue to monitor both the quantity of applications as well as revenue to ensure a
high level of customer service.
Page 167 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
07-14-BOD
3 of 3
3 BOD-03-14
Summary and Recommendations:
THAT Staff Report No. 07-14-BOD regarding the year-end monitoring of planning and
development applications for the period January 1 through December 31, 2013 be received for
information.
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by the Director, Planning and Development Services, the
General Manager, Watershed Management and the Chief Administrative Officer.
Prepared by:
Beverley G. Booth, MSc, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Planning, Regulations and Enforcement
I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by a Registered Professional Planner,
within the meaning of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute Act, 1994.
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
________________________________
Michael Walters
General Manager,
Watershed Management
________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
1) Tables 1 and 2 – Summary of Planning Program Statistics - 2013
2) Tables 3 and 4 – Summary of Planning Program Statistics - 2012
Page 168 of 231
Page 169 of 231
21
1
0
0
0
1
2
Plans of
Subdivision,
Plans of
Condominium
Site Plans
Consents
Minor
Variances
Total Number
of
Applications
by
Municipality
40
22
0
6
3
9
0
0
38
16
9
2
1
7
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
New
Tecumseth
46
22
8
1
2
11
0
2
OroMedonte
County of Simcoe
8
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
Ramara
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
County
of
Simcoe
28
2
11
0
0
8
0
7
Brock
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Scugog
40
11
9
6
4
8
0
2
Uxbridge
Region of Durham
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
10
5
8
4
3
0
1
18
1
1
5
3
7
1
0
67
41
12
1
2
8
0
3
Region of
East
Aurora
Georgina
Durham
Gwillimbury
42
8
2
22
1
6
0
3
King
59
35
3
6
5
6
0
4
Newmarket
Region of York
29
15
5
1
0
5
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Whitchurch- Region
Stouffville of York
502
196
71
63
29
102
3
38
Total Number of
Applications by Type
9
0
3
1
1
0
14
Legal Inquiries
Site
Clearances
Letters of
Advice (DFO)
Environmental
Assessment
Undertakings
Total Number
of
Applications
by
Municipality
84
2
6
1
21
0
54
41
2
1
4
11
1
22
188
2
20
7
31
4
124
Bradford West
Barrie
Innisfil
Gwillimbury
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
Violation
Notices
City of
Barrie
Section 28
Applications
Application
Type
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
New
Tecumseth
111
1
19
3
2
2
84
OroMedonte
County of Simcoe
92
0
15
0
2
1
74
Ramara
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
County
of
Simcoe
46
0
4
0
10
2
30
Brock
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
Scugog
82
2
7
8
13
5
47
Uxbridge
Region of Durham
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
1
4
8
12
0
36
103
4
6
6
11
1
75
274
0
35
9
30
4
196
Region of
East
Aurora
Georgina
Durham
Gwillimbury
62
2
5
6
14
2
33
King
82
0
3
2
19
0
58
Newmarket
Region of York
43
0
2
1
11
3
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Whitchurch- Region
Stouffville of York
1287
17
129
56
191
25
869
Total Number of
Applications by Type
Table 2 -- Summary of Planning Program Statistics January 1 - December 31, 2013 ~ Review of Applications Under the Conservation Authorities Act & the Environmental Assessment Act
50
6
4
4
4
1
0
10
Bradford West
Barrie
Innisfil
Gwillimbury
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
0
City of
Barrie
Secondary
Plan Review
Zoning Bylaws, Zoning
By-law
Amendments
Official Plans,
Official Plan
Amendments
Application
Type
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
Table 1 -- Summary of Planning Program Statistics January 1 - December 31, 2013 ~ Review of Applications Under the Planning Act
Page 170 of 231
12
1
0
0
0
2
3
Plans of
Subdivision,
Plans of
Condominium
Site Plans
Consents
Minor
Variances
Total Number
of
Applications
by
Municipality
29
10
2
4
2
9
0
2
44
22
9
3
2
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
New
Tecumseth
37
19
10
5
0
3
0
0
OroMedonte
County of Simcoe
16
11
2
1
0
1
0
1
Ramara
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
County
of
Simcoe
6
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
Brock
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scugog
34
11
6
6
2
7
0
2
Uxbridge
Region of Durham
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
11
6
8
5
11
0
3
17
1
4
3
2
6
0
1
67
29
11
8
1
12
0
6
Region of
East
Aurora
Georgina
Durham
Gwillimbury
25
5
3
12
0
2
1
2
King
41
2
8
5
9
13
0
4
Newmarket
Region of York
15
4
2
0
2
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Whitchurch- Region
Stouffville of York
427
137
68
65
29
90
2
36
Total Number of
Applications by Type
3
0
4
1
0
0
8
Legal Inquiries
Site
Clearances
Letters of
Advice (DFO)
Environmental
Assessment
Undertakings
Total Number
of
Applications
by
Municipality
79
5
10
3
15
0
46
43
3
0
5
13
5
17
186
0
19
12
21
8
126
Bradford West
Barrie
Innisfil
Gwillimbury
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
Violation
Notices
City of
Barrie
Section 28
Applications
Application
Type
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
3
0
0
0
2
0
1
New
Tecumseth
90
0
11
10
11
1
57
OroMedonte
County of Simcoe
71
0
10
2
4
1
54
Ramara
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
County
of
Simcoe
52
2
6
3
9
4
28
Brock
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Scugog
72
0
3
10
7
9
43
Uxbridge
Region of Durham
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
5
8
11
1
33
94
2
8
4
11
6
63
210
2
30
33
24
10
111
Region of
East
Aurora
Georgina
Durham
Gwillimbury
74
1
9
14
8
7
35
King
55
2
5
4
7
2
35
Newmarket
Region of York
46
0
2
12
15
1
16
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Whitchurch- Region
Stouffville of York
1145
19
118
121
163
55
669
Total Number of
Applications by Type
Table 4 -- Summary of Planning Program Statistics January 1 - December 31, 2012 ~ Review of Applications Under the Conservation Authorities Act & the Environmental Assessment Act
48
10
3
10
4
0
0
9
Bradford West
Barrie
Innisfil
Gwillimbury
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
0
City of
Barrie
Secondary
Plan Review
Zoning Bylaws, Zoning
By-law
Amendments
Official Plans,
Official Plan
Amendments
Application
Type
City of
Kawartha
Lakes
Table 3 -- Summary of Planning Program Statistics January 1 - December 31, 2012 ~ Review of Applications Under the Planning Act
Staff Report No.
Page No.
Agenda Item No.
08-14-BOD
1 of 3
4 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Jocelyn Lee, General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
DATE:
February 3, 2014
SUBJECT:
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act:
Annual Statistical Report
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 08-14-BOD regarding the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act – 2013
Annual Statistical Report be received.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 08-14-BOD is to provide the Board with an overview of the
number and types of requests made to the Authority under the auspices of the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act).
Background:
The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act affords private individuals
the right to request access to conservation authority information, including most general
records, as well as their own personal information. In LSRCA this access encompasses, but is not
limited to, land use permits and supporting documentation, environmental, watershed and
land use reports as well as limited access to complaint and violation files. It should be noted
that personal information records held in Human Resources are neither affected nor covered by
the Act.
Section 3 of the Act stipulates that “the members of the council of a municipality may by by-law
designate from among themselves an individual or committee of the council to act as the head
of the municipality for the purposes of this Act.”. LSRCA policy entitled “Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act”, dated May 2005, states that the General Manager,
Corporate & Financial Services shall act as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Co-ordinator.
Issues
There are no major issues to report at this time.
Page 171 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No.
Agenda Item No.
08-14-BOD
2 of 3
4 BOD-03-14
Relevance to Authority Policy:
The FOI Coordinator ensures that each request is discussed with the staff members most
familiar with the requested information and that due diligence is completed to determine what,
if any information may be released. The work is carried out in accordance with the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act legislation as it pertains to the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
2013 Statistical Report:
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario requires that an annual statistical report
detailing the number and types of received by a municipality be submitted. The deadline for
filing the 2013 Statistical Report is March 3, 2014; LSRCA’s report was completed and filed on
February 3, 2014. In 2013 LSRCA processed a total of 20 Freedom of Information requests both
from the general public, public companies, and other government agencies. This compares to a
total of 17 requests processed in 2012. By legislation the Authority has 30 calendar days in
which to respond to each request; 19 of the 20 requests received in 2013 were completed
within the prescribed time period. In respect of the 20th request - due to the amount of records
to be considered for release, as well as the 2013 Holiday Season, a Notice of Extension was
issued extending the time limit by 14 days which was, in turn, accepted by the requestor.
Full access to records was granted for 15 of the 20 requests. The other requests included two in
which partial information was disclosed as no other records existed; and three that were
transferred to other agencies (i.e., Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of the
Environment) as LSRCA did not hold the requested records.
Impact on Authority Finances:
A request for access to information must be accompanied by a legislated fee of $5.00. Section
45 of the Act and Regulation 823 allow for additional fees to be charged to the requestor where
warranted. Fees can be levied for computer and/or manual searches for requisite files, record
preparation including reading the files and/or redacting personal information, the cost of any
invoice(s) issued to LSRCA for the purposes of preparing the response (such as copying of large
drawings or maps, courier charges, copying CDs, etc.), and photocopying the records for
released. In 2013 the Authority received legislated fees of $100.00 and $1,929.46 in additional
processing fees.
Summary and Recommendations:
THAT Staff Report No. 08-14-BOD regarding the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act – 2013 Annual Statistical Report be received.
Page 172 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No.
Agenda Item No.
08-14-BOD
3 of 3
4 BOD-03-14
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by Jocelyn Lee, General Manager, Corporate & Financial
Services.
Prepared by:
Shelley Fogelman, Senior Administrative Assistant
Corporate & Financial Services
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
________________________________
Jocelyn Lee, CMA
General Manager
Corporate & Financial Services
________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 173 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
09-14-BOD
1 of 3
5 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Keri Christensen
Manager, Human Resources
DATE:
February 10, 2014
SUBJECT:
Approval of the 2014 Occupational Health and Safety Policy and the
Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies for Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 09-14-BOD regarding the Authority’s 2014
Occupational Health and Safety Policy and Workplace Violence and
Harassment Policies be approved and adopted in order to meet
legislative requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 09-14-BOD is to receive Board approval of the Authority’s
2014 Occupational Health and Safety Policy and Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies in
order to post them in all our office locations to be in compliance with the Occupational Health
and Safety Act.
Background:
Under Section 25-2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act it is the Employer’s responsibility
to
“(j) prepare and review at least annually a written occupational health and
safety policy, and develop and maintain a program to implement that policy;
(k) post at a conspicuous location in the workplace a copy of the occupational
health and safety policy”
and under Part III, Section 32.0.1 Violence and Harassment under the Occupational Health and
Safety Act it is the Employer’s responsibility to:
Page 174 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
09-14-BOD
2 of 3
5 BOD-03-14
“(a) prepare a policy with respect to workplace violence;
(b) prepare a policy with respect to workplace harassment; and
(c) review the policies as often as is necessary, but at least annually.
(2) Written form, posting – The policies shall be in written form and shall be
posted at a conspicuous place in the workplace.”
Issues:
If the Authority does not post an Occupational Health and Safety policy as well as Workplace
Violence and Harassment policies we, as the Employer, will be in violation of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act and could face Ministry of Labour orders and fines.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
This report represents the amended Authority’s Occupational Health and Safety Policy and
Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies for 2014.
Impact on Authority Finances:
If we do not post our Occupational Health and Safety Policy, the Workplace Violence and
Harassment Policies the Authority could be found in violation of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act and be ordered to comply and possibly face fines ranging from $200 to a maximum
of $25,000 per violation.
Summary and Recommendations:
In order for the Authority to remain in compliance under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act we are required to post an Occupational Health and Safety Policy and Workplace Violence
and Harassment policies.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 09-14-BOD regarding the Authority’s
2014 Occupational Health and Safety Policy, Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies be
approved and adopted in order to meet the legislative requirements under the Occupational
Health and Safety Act.
Page 175 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
09-14-BOD
3 of 3
5 BOD-03-14
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services,
Jocelyn Lee. Prepared by: Keri Christensen, Manager – Human Resources
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
___________________________________
Jocelyn Lee
General Manager
Corporate & Financial Services
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
1. 2014 Occupational Health & Safety Policy
2. 2014 Workplace Violence Policy
3. 2014 Workplace Harassment Policy
Page 176 of 231
Health and Safety Policy
January 2014
Updated and Approved at Board of Director’s Meeting held February 28, 2014
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Occupational Health & Safety Policy
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and the Board of Directors is
committed to the ongoing objective of protecting our employees and property from accidental
injury, loss and occupational disease.
Protection of our employees from injury or other occupational mishaps is an ongoing objective.
LSRCA will undertake all reasonable efforts to provide a safe, healthy work environment, and all
General Managers, Directors, Managers, Supervisors, and employees must be dedicated to
reducing the risks of injury which are ever-present in our activities.
CAO, General Managers, Directors, Managers and Supervisors will be held accountable for the
health and safety of staff members under their supervision. General Managers, Directors,
Managers and Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that machinery and equipment is safe
and properly maintained. They must also ensure that employees work in compliance with
established safe work procedures. Workers must receive adequate training in their specific
work tasks to protect their health and safety. Workers must also sign off on all training that is
provided to them, confirming that they clearly understand the job function and requirements
to perform the tasks safely.
Each LSRCA employee must protect his or her own health and safety by working in compliance
with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and within the safe work practices and procedures
established by LSRCA.
It is in the best interest of everyone who works with LSRCA to consider health and safety in
every work related activity. Commitment to health and safety must form an integral part of all
the activities undertaken by our company. Health and Safety is everyone’s responsibility and an
important part of our jobs.
…Page 2
Page 177 of 231
January 2014
Page 2 of 2
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
LSRCA Chief Administrative Officer
__________________________________
Debbie Bath, LSRCA Chair
__________________________________
David Lembcke, JHSC Co-Chair
__________________________________
Robert Wilson, JHSC Co-Chair
Page 178 of 231
Workplace Violence Policy
January 2014
Approved at Board of Director’s Meeting held February 28, 2014
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Workplace Violence Policy
The management of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is committed to the
prevention of workplace violence and is ultimately responsible for worker health and safety.
We will take whatever steps are reasonable to protect our workers from workplace violence
from all sources. Workplace violence is an occupational health and safety hazard. Under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, as of June 15, 2010, workplace violence is defined as:

the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes or
could cause physical injury to the worker;

an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause
physical injury to the worker; or,

a statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to
exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury
to the worker.
Some of the types of violence that workers could experience in the workplace include hitting,
pushing, physical assault, sexual assault, stalking, criminal harassment, robbery, or threats of
violence.
Customers, visitors, students, workers, supervisors, managers, strangers, intimate partners, or
family members can introduce violence into the workplace.
Violent behaviour in the workplace is unacceptable from anyone. This policy applies to all
employees, volunteers, visitors, customers and contractors. Everyone is expected to uphold this
policy and to work together to prevent workplace violence.
A workplace violence procedure will be implemented shortly in support of this policy yet, in the
interim, please refer to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Code of Conduct to
address any issues of violence in the workplace should it arise.
...2
Page 179 of 231
January 2014
Page 2 of 2
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, as the employer, will ensure that this policy
and the supporting procedure, once implemented, is maintained and that all workers and
supervisors have the appropriate information and instruction to protect them from violence in
the workplace.
General Managers, Directors, Managers and Supervisors will adhere to this policy and the
supporting program. General Managers, Directors, Managers and Supervisors are responsible
for ensuring that measures and procedures are followed by workers and that workers have the
information and instruction to protect themselves.
Every worker must work in compliance with this policy and the supporting program. All workers
are encouraged to raise any concerns about workplace violence and to report any violent
incidents or threats.
Management pledges to investigate and deal with all incidents and complaints of workplace
violence in a timely and fair manner, respecting the privacy of all concerned as much as
possible.
Employees and volunteers who have committed an act of violence will be subject to disciplinary
action up to and including dismissal and may also be subject to criminal prosecution.
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
LSRCA Chief Administrative Officer
__________________________________
Debbie Bath, LSRCA Chair
__________________________________
David Lembcke, JHSC Co-Chair
__________________________________
Robert Wilson, JHSC Co-Chair
The workplace harassment policy should be consulted whenever
there are concerns about harassment in the workplace.
Page 180 of 231
Workplace Harassment Policy
January 2014
Approved at Meeting of the Board held February 28, 2014
Workplace Harassment Policy
The management of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is committed to providing a
work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity.
Workplace harassment will not be tolerated from any person in the workplace. The
Occupational Health and Safety Act (as of June 15, 2010) defines workplace harassment as
“engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is
known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.”
Some of the types of harassment that workers could experience in the workplace include sexual
harassment, teasing, intimidating or offensive jokes or innuendos, display or circulation of
offensive pictures or materials, unwelcome, offensive, or intimidating phone calls, or bullying.
Leering, unwelcome gifts or attention, offensive gestures, or spreading rumours could also be
considered harassment.
Workplace harassment, like workplace violence, can arise from a variety of sources, such as
other workers, supervisors, customers, visitors, students, intimate partners, or family members.
Harassment may also relate to a form of discrimination as set out in the Ontario Human Rights
Code, but it does not have to.
Everyone in the workplace must be dedicated to preventing workplace harassment. General
Managers, Directors, Managers, Supervisors, and workers are expected to uphold this policy,
and will be held accountable by the employer. This policy also applies to volunteers.
This policy is not intended to limit or constrain the reasonable exercise of management
functions in the workplace such as the directing and supervision of work and tasks, scheduling,
job evaluations and the undertaking of progressive discipline where necessary.
….2
Page 181 of 231
January 2014
Page 2 of 2
Workers are encouraged to report any incidents of workplace harassment and there will be no
negative consequences for reports made in good faith. Management will investigate and deal
with all concerns, complaints, or incidents of workplace harassment in a timely and fair manner
while respecting workers’ privacy as much as possible. Nothing in this policy prevents or
discourages a worker from filing an application with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal on a
matter related to the Ontario Human Rights Code within one year of the last alleged incident. A
worker also retains the right to exercise any other legal avenues.
A workplace harassment procedure will be implemented shortly in support of this policy, yet, in
the interim, please refer to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s Code of Conduct
to address any issues of harassment in the workplace should it arise.
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
LSRCA Chief Administrative Officer
__________________________________
Debbie Bath, LSRCA Chair
__________________________________
David Lembcke, JHSC Co-Chair
__________________________________
Robert Wilson, JHSC Co-Chair
The workplace violence policy should be consulted whenever
there are concerns about violence in the workplace.
Page 182 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
10-14-BOD
1 of 6
6 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Kate Lillie
Land Management Technician
DATE:
February 14, 2014
SUBJECT:
Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan Review
Vision, Mission and Goals
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 10-14-BOD regarding an update on the
Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan Review be
received for information; and
FURTHER THAT the proposed revisions to the goals for Scanlon
Creek Conservation Area be approved.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 10-14-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with an
update on the Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan Review and to propose
minor revisions to the goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area for consideration and
approval.
The vision, mission and goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area were previously approved by
the Board of Directors on November 22, 2013 through Staff Report No. 62-13-BOD.
Background:
At 292 hectares (722 acres), Scanlon Creek Conservation Area is the largest and most used
conservation area in the Lake Simcoe watershed and has been referred to as the “jewel in the
crown” of Lake Simcoe watershed public lands. Located in Bradford West Gwillimbury
(Attachment 1), it offers opportunities for outdoor recreation with over 10 kilometres of trails
(Attachment 2), two picnic pavilions, a discovery play garden, an off-leash dog park, a lookout
platform, forests, ravine, meadows and more. It is the primary location for LSRCA’s educational
programs and serves students from both Simcoe County and York Region. Additionally, several
Page 183 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
10-14-BOD
2 of 6
6 BOD-03-14
LSRCA facilities are located on the property including the Education Centre, Nature Centre,
workshop and original Scanlon farm house.
In 1963, a portion of this property, first settled by the Scanlon Family in 1824, came into LSRCA
ownership as the “Bradford Conservation Area.” Since then, the property has continued to
expand with LSRCA acquiring additional adjacent land parcels in 1965, 1966, 1971, 1975, 1980,
and most recently in 2006.
The first management plan for this conservation area was developed in 1967, providing a vision
for the property as a multi-purpose recreation and conservation facility. The management plan
was revised in 1979 and management of the property was re-directed with emphasis on
conservation and stewardship actions. The current Management Plan for Scanlon Creek
Conservation Area was developed in 2009 with a goal of managing the conservation area to be
an example of proper land and water stewardship as well as providing opportunities for naturebased education and recreation while maintaining a balance between public use and the
conservation of nature.
Over the last five years, LSRCA staff, with the support of the local community (Town of Bradford
West Gwillimbury, Friends of Scanlon Creek, members of the public), and funding from all levels
of government and the Conservation Foundation, have achieved many deliverables identified in
the 2009 Management Plan. Some of these accomplishments include the following;

Developed and have begun implementing a plan to improve water quality and quantity in
the Scanlon Creek watershed;

Completed an Environmental Assessment on the dam and reservoir to examine ways of
improving natural heritage values and wildlife habitat;

Scanlon Creek natural channel design complete and project has commenced;

Completed the design for Scanlon farmhouse renovation project;

Workshop facilities have been partially renovated/converted to office space;

Refurbished the gatehouse;

Trail development and enhancement project underway, including completion of new trails,
along with updated trail signage and mapping;

Discovery Play Garden has been built near the picnic pavilion – provides a safe, naturebased recreational opportunity for children and their families;
Page 184 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
10-14-BOD
3 of 6
6 BOD-03-14

Internal access roads in the conservation area have been upgraded;

Scanlon Creek Bark Park has been completed - a fenced and gated ‘dogs off-leash area’ that
allows users to run their pets off-leash;

Nature-based programs such as interpretive hikes, recreational events and wildlife
identification workshops are being provided on a seasonal basis; and

Established the Friends of Scanlon Creek – a community based team of volunteers that are
actively engaged in promoting Scanlon Creek, and undertaking program development,
community days, and fundraising.
In order to refine and focus the Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan to address
the current and anticipated challenges and opportunities, a strategic planning model will guide
a management plan review and update process. A key component of “strategic planning”
involves first defining an entity's vision and mission and then setting goals to align with them.
Once a vision, mission and goals are established, a plan can be developed with strategies to
achieve the goals.
Issues:
Over the years, Scanlon Creek Conservation Area has experienced changes in staffing levels,
infrastructure and recreational features, as well as changes in user groups and public
expectations. These changes have led to several new challenges and opportunities on the
property. Some of the previous Management Plans for the property identified a vision and/or
mission statements which are no longer applicable to current conditions. For this reason, it is
important that the vision, mission and goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area are refined to
ensure consistency with LSRCA’s vision and mission as well as reflect the current site conditions
and how LSRCA envisions the property in the future.
An internal LSRCA project team has been assembled to determine an appropriate vision,
mission and goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area as well as provide input and support
throughout the Management Plan review and update process. This project team is made up of
individuals representing LSRCA’s Conservation Lands, Watershed Management and
Communications & Education departments.
A Steering Committee has also been assembled to guide the Scanlon Creek Management Plan
review and update process. The Steering Committee members include:
Page 185 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:








10-14-BOD
4 of 6
6 BOD-03-14
Councillor Del Crake, Committee Chair and LSRCA Board Member
Brian Kemp – LSRCA, General Manager, Conservation Lands
Debby Beatty – Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation (LSCF), President
Cheryl Taylor – LSCF, Executive Director
Ken Vogan - Friends of Scanlon Creek, Chair
Jay Currier - Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, Town Manager/CAO
Chris Coburn - Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, Active Transportation Committee
Dan Kingsbury - Simcoe County, Planner
Members of the Steering Committee will be responsible for providing critical review and
feedback throughout the management plan review and update process as well as assisting with
public consultation, including stakeholder analyses and needs assessments. Once a vision,
mission and goals are determined, the Steering Committee will be responsible for ensuring that
the management plan is updated according to these statements and that suitable strategies
and targets are developed to achieve goals.
Working in collaboration with LSRCA’s Executive Management Team, the LSRCA project team
reached a consensus on proposed vision, mission and goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation
Area which was provided to the Board of Directors in Staff Report No. 62-13-BOD and approved
on November 22, 2013.
Upon further discussion with the Steering Committee, it was determined that goal #1 and #6
should be revised to provide more clarity and an additional goal #7 be included. Below are the
vision, mission and goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area, including the proposed revisions
for goal #1 and #6 and the additional goal #7:
Vision for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area:
“Scanlon Creek – A Destination for Natural Inspiration” (no changes)
Mission for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area:
“Scanlon Creek – Demonstrating leadership in the conservation of the natural
environment and providing opportunities for people to connect with nature.”
(no changes)
Page 186 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
10-14-BOD
5 of 6
6 BOD-03-14
Goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area with proposed revisions:
1. To promote and demonstrate sustainability (was previously, To promote sustainability
through innovation)
2. To inspire and empower the community through environmental education (no changes)
3. To protect, restore and enhance ecosystem function (no changes)
4. To provide opportunities for healthy active living (no changes)
5. To sustain a balance between public use and the conservation of nature (no changes)
6. To ensure sustainable resources to support operations (was previously, To optimize
operational resources to meet organizational needs)
7. To utilize existing infrastructure to accommodate growth in the organization (new)
Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the vision, mission and goals for Scanlon Creek
Conservation Area will guide the review and update of the management plan.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
The vision, mission and goals for Scanlon Creek Conservation Area will provide the foundation
necessary for updating the management plan to address current and anticipated challenges and
opportunities at this property. An update to the management plan will provide direction on
how the property will be managed, satisfying LSRCA’s strategic goal to “protect and restore the
watershed to support healthy communities”. Furthermore, the collaborative process in which
the management plan will be reviewed and updated will also satisfy the strategic goal to
“generate support, commitment and action for a healthy watershed”.
LSRCA’s mission is “to provide leadership in the restoration and protection of the health and
quality of the Lake Simcoe watershed with our community, municipal and other government
partners.” Scanlon Creek Conservation Area plays an important role in achieving this mission
because it is an example of natural heritage stewardship as well as a venue for encouraging
students and the community to protect and maintain a healthy watershed. The vision, mission
and goals and subsequent management plan will set the stage for Scanlon Creek Conservation
Area to become a centre built on inspiration, innovation and leadership.
Impact on Authority Finances:
Financial impacts to the authority will be identified during the Scanlon Creek Management Plan
review and update process. They will be captured in a 5-year business plan which will be
presented to the Board of Directors along with the final management plan for approval upon
completion (anticipated for fall 2014). The review and update of the Management Plan is
funded 100% through municipal special capital funding.
Page 187 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
10-14-BOD
6 of 6
6 BOD-03-14
Summary and Recommendations:
It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 10-14-BOD regarding an update on the
Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Management Plan review and update process be received for
information; and; FURTHER THAT the proposed revisions to the goals for Scanlon Creek
Conservation Area be approved.
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by Brian Kemp.
Prepared by: Kate Lillie, Land Management Technician
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
___________________________________
Brian Kemp
General Manager, Conservation Lands
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
1. Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Location Map
2. Scanlon Creek Conservation Area Trail Map
Page 188 of 231
Simcoe
si
ce s
on R
Line
oad
Stre et
Yong e
Co n
11th
9th
10
Line
Artesia n Ind
Yo nge
8th
Line
main tract
et
st Stre
B ath ur
y
ustrial Parkwa
Street
Page 189 of 231
York
Lake
Simcoe
900
1,350
York
1,800
Meters
Durham
²
Kawartha
Lakes
This product was produced by the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority and some information depicted
on this map may have been compiled from various sources.
While every effort has been made to accurately depict the
information, data / mapping errors may exist. This map has
been produced for illustrative purposes only.
© LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, 2013.
All Rights Reserved.
Some data layers used are © Queens Printer for Ontario, 2013.
Reproduced with Permission.
0 225 450
^
_
Simcoe
Lake
Simcoe
Subject property
Railway
Watercourse
Road
Legend
Location Map
Scanlon Creek
Conservation Area
Attachment 1
Page 190 of 231
Main Tract - Trail Map
Scanlon Creek Conservation Area
Attachment 2
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
11-14-BOD
1 of 3
7 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Brian R. Kemp
General Manager – Conservation Lands
DATE:
February 13th, 2014
SUBJECT:
LSRCA Administration Office
Backup Generator Project (#CL-2013-EBG)
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 11-14-BOD regarding LSRCA Administration
Office Backup Generator Project be received; and
FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors approve the proposal
submitted by Pentor Electric; and
FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with the purchase and
installation of the backup generator for the Administration Office.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 11-14-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with an
update on the procurement process for the LSRCA Administration Office Backup Generator
Project (#CL-2013-EBG) and to seek approval of the Board to proceed with the project as
outlined below and in the attached proposal.
Background:
The need for a backup generator for LSRCA’s Administration Office has been discussed for a few
years now and during the 2013 budget development process the expenditure associated with
this project was identified and approved, with an approximate value of $85,000. Over the
course of several months in 2013 staff developed the details for this project; including
researching options and seeking advice from other similar organizations that have installed a
backup generator in recent years. This included speaking with manufacturers, contractors, and
York Region.
Page 191 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
11-14-BOD
2 of 3
7 BOD-03-14
On October 21, 2013 LSRCA issued a Request for Proposal (#CL-2013-EBG) through Biddingo, a
public tendering site. A total of 20 firms downloaded the RFP from Biddingo and on October
29, 2013 eight firms attended a Mandatory Site Visit at LSRCA’s Administration Office. Minor
modifications were made to the original RFP, and the revised RFP was distributed to the eight
firms on November 1, 2013. The closing date for proposal submissions was November 8, 2013,
and LSRCA received the following two proposals:


Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. for $624,268.50 including taxes, and
Pentor Electric for $125,003.99.
Due to the considerable disparity between the two proposals, LSRCA staff continued with
further research and review to ensure the firm (Pentor Electric) that provided the lowest quote
was providing the equipment that LSRCA requires. Based on this additional research/review,
further supporting documents, follow-up conversations and a site meeting with Pentor Electric,
staff are confident that the proposal meets the requirements outlined by LSRCA.
Once the requisite approvals have been provided, staff will finalize the project contract and the
work will commence. It is anticipated that the work will take up to 12 weeks to complete.
Issues:
As noted above, staff have worked through a variety of issues related to this project and are
confident that our needs will be met utilizing the recommended contractor as they have met
our specifications and project requirements.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
Staff have followed LSRCA’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures for the RFP process, contractor
selection and requisite Board of Director approvals.
Impact on Authority Finances:
It is recommended that this project be funded utilizing the $85,000 assigned to the project,
with the remainder funded utilizing 2013 surplus.
Page 192 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
11-14-BOD
3 of 3
7 BOD-03-14
Summary and Recommendations:
It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 11-14-BOD regarding LSRCA
Administration Office Backup Generator Project be received; and FURTHER THAT the Board of
Directors approve the proposal submitted by Pentor Electric; and FURTHER THAT staff be
directed to proceed with the purchase and installation of the backup generator for the
Administration Office.
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer.
Prepared by: Brian R. Kemp – General Manager, Conservation Lands
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
___________________________________
Brian R. Kemp
General Manager – Conservation Lands
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
1)
2)
Request for Proposal – Design and Installation Services for Standby Backup Generator (#CL-2013-EBG)
Proposal received from Pentor Electric
Page 193 of 231
Page 194 of 231
Page 195 of 231
Page 196 of 231
Page 197 of 231
Page 198 of 231
Page 199 of 231
Page 200 of 231
Page 201 of 231
Page 202 of 231
Page 203 of 231
Page 204 of 231
Page 205 of 231
Page 206 of 231
Page 207 of 231
Page 208 of 231
Page 209 of 231
Page 210 of 231
Page 211 of 231
Page 212 of 231
Page 213 of 231
Page 214 of 231
Page 215 of 231
Page 216 of 231
Page 217 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
12-14-BOD
Page 1 of 3
8 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Keri Christensen
Manager, Human Resources
DATE:
February 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary Treasurer (CAO/ST) Recruitment Process
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 12-14-BOD be received and approved; and
FURTHER THAT the process for the recruitment of a new Chief
Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer for Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority be approved as outlined in the Request for
Quotation (RFQ) for an Executive Search Firm dated February 6,
2014.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of this Staff Report No. 12-14-BOD is to obtain approval from the Board of
Directors for the hiring of an Executive Search Firm for the recruitment of a new Chief
Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer (CAO/ST) and to receive approval for the process for
recruitment as outlined in the attached Request For Quotation (RFQ) for an Executive Search
Firm.
Background:
At the December, 2013 Board of Directors (BOD) meeting Ms Gayle Wood, CAO/ST of LSRCA
announced her plans to retire from LSRCA in 2014. On January 31, 2014 Gayle met with Chair
Bath and Vice Chair Dawe to review a proposed RFQ for the hiring of an Executive Search Firm
to assist with the recruitment of a new CAO/ST for LSRCA. During that meeting a proposed
Selection Committee to initially work with the Executive Search Firm to shortlist potential
candidates for the BOD’s final approval was discussed. It was suggested that the Selection
Committee be comprised of the following members:
Page 218 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
-
12-14-BOD
Page 2 of 3
8 BOD-03-14
Chair, Regional Councillor/Deputy Mayor Debbie Bath,
Vice Chair, Mayor Geoffrey Dawe,
Mayor Virginia Hackson – LSRCA Chair, 2012, and
Regional Councillor/Deputy Mayor Bobbie Drew – LSRCA Vice Chair, 2012.
Keri Christensen, Manager, Human Resources with LSRCA will serve as an Advisor to the
Selection Committee and Board of Directors throughout the recruitment process.
Upon the Chair and Vice Chair’s review of the RFQ staff released the RFQ to four (4) Executive
Search Firms on Friday, February 7, 2014 with a closing date of February 21, 2014 prior to the
Board of Directors’ meeting on February 28, 2013.
Issues:
After 18 ½ years with the LSRCA, Ms Gayle Wood has signalled her intent to retire in 2014.
Upon discussion with Chair Bath and Vice Chair Dawe an exit date of around mid-September
was selected. This will provide the time required for the Board of Directors to recruit a new
CAO/ST for LSRCA.
Relevance to Authority Policy:
In accordance with LSRCA’s Purchasing Policy, “A formal RFQ shall be issued for the
procurement of goods and services having a contract value of $10,001 or more, but not
exceeding $35,000.00. A minimum of three (3) written quotations shall be requested.” If the
quotations from the four (4) firms exceed the $35,000.00 it would go beyond the RFQ’s
threshold in accordance with LSRCA’s Purchasing Policy and therefore require staff to follow a
Request for Proposal (RFP) process. As the staff of LSRCA prepared the attached RFQ with
similar details to those found in an RFP, staff believe it would only be necessary for the Board of
Directors to approve any amount over and above $35,000.00.
Impact on Authority Finances:
The proposed LSRCA 2014 budget includes funds to support the hiring of an Executive Search
Firm up to $35,000.00. Should the amount of the quotations exceed $35,000.00 the differential
would be offset by the Working Capital Reserve in LSRCA’s proposed 2014 budget.
Summary and Recommendations:
In order for the Authority to recruit for the position of CAO/ST staff are seeking the Board of
Directors’ approval of the hiring of an Executive Search Firm as well as the process outlined in
the RFQ for the recruitment of the new CAO/ST.
Page 219 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
12-14-BOD
Page 3 of 3
8 BOD-03-14
It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 12-14-BOD be received and approved;
and FURTHER THAT the process for the recruitment of a new Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer for Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority be approved as
outlined in the Request for Quotation (RFQ) for an Executive Search Firm dated February 6,
2014.
Pre-Submission Review:
This Staff Report has been reviewed by General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services,
Jocelyn Lee. Prepared by: Keri Christensen, Manager – Human Resources
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
___________________________________
Jocelyn Lee
General Manager
Corporate & Financial Services
__________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
1) Request for Quotation for the Recruitment Process for Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary Treasurer –
February 6, 2014
Page 220 of 231
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ)
FOR
A RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY TREASURER
ISSUED BY:
LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION LSRCA (LSRCA)
Key Proponent Information
Closing Date for Response: Friday, February 21, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Local Time
LSRCA Contact
Name: Keri Christensen, Manager, Human Resources
Telephone: (905) 895-1281, ext. 233
Email:[email protected]
Information offered from sources other than the above is not official and may be inaccurate.
Proponents are advised to read and respond appropriately to ALL sections of this RFQ; an incomplete
quotation may be rejected.
Please use the above RFQ title on all related correspondence.
Page 221 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 2
February 6, 2014
1.
OBJECTIVE
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) is requesting Quotations from qualified
Executive Search Firms to undertake a recruitment process for the Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer (CAO/ST). The new CAO/ST shall possess strong leadership, vision,
and communication skills, the ability to work collaboratively with elected officials and partners, a
strong work ethic, and the ability to lead a high performance team with a strong client service
focus.
2.
BACKGROUND
The LSRCA is one of the earliest and most enduring collaborative partnerships for the protection
and restoration of the Lake Simcoe watershed. LSRCA was established in 1951 on the heels of the
provincial Conservation Authorities Act of 1946.
Over 60 years later, our conservation partnerships have grown to include participation of 20
upper, single and lower tier municipalities throughout the entire watershed, provincial and
federal governments as well as a variety of stakeholders.
LSRCA’s watershed is one of the fastest growing in Canada, yet also retains significant provincial
farmlands such as the Holland Marsh, resulting in unique challenges in the protection and
restoration of the watershed. Further, LSRCA is the only conservation authority in Ontario with
specific legislation – The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, which requires a higher level of
environmental protection while meeting the growth targets under the provincial Growth Plan.
For the past 18 ½ years LSRCA has been led by a Chief Administrative Officer who has signaled
their retirement to commence mid-September 2014. Under their leadership, LSRCA has moved
several initiatives forward which are enduring to the Authority:

Sustainable funding models with municipal, provincial, federal, international and foundation
partners;

Strategic plans which align with each term of LSRCA’s Board of Directors;

Business Plans, Annual Work Plans, Corporate Priorities and a Performance Review System to
ensure high quality delivery of programs and projects;

A Corporate Culture Initiative that is leading edge in the province;

A Twinning partnership with the International RiverFoundation in Australia and the AyuquilaArmeria Watershed in Mexico; and
Page 222 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 3

Compensation management initiatives which are timely and support staff to continue to be
leaders in terms of watershed competencies.
The CAO/ST is the chief executive officer of LSRCA and reports to a Chair and Board of Directors.
The CAO/ST has full charge and direction of all employees and is responsible for providing
leadership in all operational matters pertaining to the LSRCA mandate.
Key organizational points include:




LSRCA has approximately 87 full time equivalent staff and 20 part time or contract staff;
The total (unapproved) 2014 budget is around $14 million;
The CAO/ST has four General Managers, one Executive Director and a Coordinator as direct
reports; and
The CAO/ST reports to a municipally appointed Board of Directors of 18 elected or citizen
appointees.
Chair and Board of Directors
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Chief Administrative Officer/
Secretary-Treasurer
General Manager, Conservation Lands
General Manager, Communications and Education
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
General Manager, Watershed Management
Executive Director, Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation
Coordinator, BOD/CAO Projects and Services
Page 223 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 4
3.
POSITION OF CAO/ST
A position description outlining the main responsibilities associated with the position of CAO/ST is
attached in Appendix A.
4.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of the project contemplated is described herein, as part of the RFQ.
The LSRCA Selection Committee will consider the Quotations from Proponents with specific
experience and success in recruiting Chief Administrative Officers for the Public Sector.
The LSRCA Selection Committee will include the current LSRCA Chair and Vice Chair, as well as the
past Chair and Vice Chair from 2012, and will include the Manager, Human Resources as an
advisor to the Committee.
The following are the deliverables of the successful Proponent working in concert with the LSRCA
Selection Committee:

The successful Proponent will be responsible for the overall recruitment of qualified internal
and external candidates, including but not limited to: advertising, sourcing, screening,
interviewing, assessing, reference checks and recommending the preferred candidate(s).

The Successful Proponent will create a recruitment plan that utilizes best practices, principles
and proven recruitment methods to ensure that the best available candidate is
recommended.

Interview members of the LSRCA Board of Directors to develop and finalize key selection
criteria.

Develop position advertising for placement as appropriate.

Review all applications, inclusive of recruited candidates, and present a profiled list of not
less than six qualified potential candidates for consideration by LSRCA’s Selection Committee.

Develop and propose an interview process and questions for the short-listed candidates to
meet with the LSRCA Selection Committee.

The Successful Proponent will develop and propose an interview process and questions to
introduce no more than 3 finalists for final candidate selection by the Board of Directors.

Provide for an assessment process for the finalist candidate(s).
Page 224 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 5
5.

Assist with the onboarding process.

Assist in the offer and finalization of an offer letter and employment agreement with the
successful candidate.

Provide a no cost “quality” guarantee and candidate replacement should the successful
candidate leave the employ of LSRCA if their job performance is determined to be
unsatisfactory in the opinion of the LSRCA for the duration of twelve (12) months from the
start date of the successful candidate.
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
A. Details of quotation must be limited to no more than 10 pages in length, excluding
appendices.
B. Five hard copies and 1 digital copy must be provided.
C. Quotations must be submitted to the LSRCA Contact Person by no later than 4:30 p.m. on
February 21, 2014.
6.
RECRUITMENT PROCESS
KEY DATES
A. Week of March 17, 2014 - Successful Proponent chosen and notified;
B. Week of March 24, 2014 – Successful Proponent to meet with the Selection Committee;
C. Week of June 23, 2014 – Successful Proponent will introduce no more than 3 finalists for final
candidate selection by the Board of Directors after their regular meeting on June 27, 2014;
D. July 2014 – Successful Proponent will complete reference checks and assist Chair with an
offer of employment for the successful candidate; and, successful candidate negotiates a
start date with the Chair.
Page 225 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 6
7.
PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS
The proponent’s Proposal must contain, as a minimum, the following:
A. Abbreviated Company Profile and Experience – Proponent must demonstrate, in a concise
manner, that they have the experience, the ability and a successful history of providing
services as defined in the Scope of Work (item #4). Most specifically, Proponents must
demonstrate experience successfully recruiting senior executive talent in the Public Sector.
B. Methodology – Proponent must describe, in a concise manner, their approach, methodology
and timeline to providing the work as defined in the Scope of Work (item #4).
C. Client References – Proponent must provide three (3) references including organization
name, contact name, position, telephone number and description of work performed.
D. Financial – Proponent must provide a complete and itemized pricing quote based on a cost
per day rate, itemizing what is included and what is not included in the total contract cost.
Additionally, a unit price in the form of an hourly rate for additional out of scope services is
also requested. The Proponent will be responsible for its own travel, accommodation and
meal costs. Proponent is to include all long-distance phones, photocopying and other office
expenses in the quote. All prices must be in Canadian dollars, HST extra.
Each Proponent is solely responsible for all costs it incurs in preparing a response to this RFQ,
including costs of providing information requested by the LSRCA and for all costs it incurs in
subsequent negotiations arising from, or in connection with, this RFQ.
E.
8.
Miscellaneous – Proponent must confirm that their Proposal will remain open for acceptance
by the LSRCA for a period of no less than thirty (30) days from the RFQ closing date.
SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION
All RFQ’s must be delivered in a sealed envelope or package along with the Cover Page attached
to this RFQ which is signed by the proponent’s signing Officer by February 21, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
to the LSRCA Contact Person noted in Item #9 of the RFQ.
When the review and evaluation process of the submitted RFQ’s is completed and the Successful
Proponent is approved, LSRCA will notify the Proponents of the results.
Page 226 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 7
9.
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
All Proponents may make enquiries regarding any aspect of the RFQ through the Contact Person
via fax, email or phone, up to February 18, 2014, as follows:
Ms. Keri Christensen
Manager, Human Resources
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X1
[email protected]
(T) 905-895-1281 ext. 233
(F) 905-853-5881
10. ADDENDUM
A written Addendum is the only means of amending or clarifying this RFQ. Only the Contact
Person, with concurrence of the Selection Committee, is authorized to amend or clarify this RFQ
by issuing an Addendum.
Any Addendum should be issued to the Proponents before 48 hours of the closing time. Any
Addendum issued by LSRCA shall form part of this RFQ. If a response is required to the
addendum issued, failure to respond may result in a non-compliant Quotation or disqualification.
11. CONTRACT
The Request for Quotation is not a call for tender or a Request for Proposal. As outlined in the
LSRCA’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, the LSRCA may call for a minimum of three quotes
from Proponents providing services of this nature.
The RFQ and the Successful Proponents official submission (RFQ & official response) is expected
to contain sufficient detail concerning all terms and conditions to permit the issuance of a
Purchase Order with the RFQ & official response attached as the “Contract”.
12. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
All documents and other record in the custody of or under the control of the LSRCA are subject to
the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other applicable
legislation. Information pertaining to LSRCA obtained by the Proponent as a result of
participation in this RFQ is confidential and must not be disclosed without written authorization
from the LSRCA.
Page 227 of 231
Request For Quotation
Recruitment Process for a Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer
Page 8
13. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The LSRCA reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion to:






Amend the scope of the work
Accept or reject any quotation
Not accept any or all quotation
Re-advertise for new quotation
Extend from time to time, any date, time period or deadline provided in this RFQ, upon
written notice
Cancel the RFQ at any time.
All documents, including Quotations submitted to LSRCA become the property of the LSRCA.
They will be received and held in confidence, subject to the provisions of the RFQ and the
MFIPPA.
All communication with respect to this RFQ must be directed to the Contact Person.
Each Proponent shall declare in the Quotation, any situation which may be a conflict of interest
or that may appear as a potential conflict of interest in submitting a Quotation or undertaking
this work.
ATTACHMENTS
CAO/ST position description
LSRCA Strategic Plan
LSRCA 2013 Annual Report
Page 228 of 231
COVER PAGE
RECRUITMENT PROCESS:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/ SECRETARY-TREASURER
CLOSING TIME:
Friday, February 21, 2014 @ 4:30 p.m. EST
QUOTATION SUBMISSION TO:
Ms. Keri Christensen
Manager, Human Resources
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, ON
L3Y 4X1
INQUIRIES:
Ms. Keri Christensen
Manager, Human Resources
[email protected]
(T) 905-895-1281 ext. 233
(F) 905-853-5881
BIDDERS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Company Name
H.S.T. Number
Street, City, Province
Name and Title of Authorized Person (please print)
Name of Contact Person (please print)
Telephone Number
Fax Number
Company Website
Email address
BIDDERS ARE TO USE THIS PAGE AS THE COVER PAGE FOR SUBMISSIONS
Page 229 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No:
13-14-BOD
1 of 2
9 BOD-03-14
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
DATE:
February 18, 2014
SUBJECT:
Appointment to the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Staff Report No. 13-14-BOD be received; and
FURTHER THAT the Board Members endorse the application of
Michael Walters, General Manager, Watershed Management to the
Ministry of the Environment as the LSRCA’s member on the Lake
Simcoe Coordinating Committee.
Purpose of this Staff Report:
The purpose of Staff Report No. 13-14-BOD is to seek the Board of Directors’ endorsement of
recommending to the province that Mike Walters, General Manager, Watershed management
be appointed to the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee (LSCC).
Background:
In December, 2008, the Province of Ontario passed the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (LSPA).
Section 19 (4) 2 of the Act addresses the creation of the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee
(LSCC) and specifically mentions that LSRCA shall be afforded one appointee to this Committee.
Issues:
The Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer, Gayle Wood, has been the LSRCA’s appointee to
the LSCC since its inception. With the retirement of Ms. Wood in September, 2014, a new
LSRCA appointee to the Committee is required.
Page 230 of 231
Staff Report No.
Page No:
Agenda Item No.:
13-14-BOD
2 of 2
9 BOD-03-14
Relevance to Authority Policy:
Participation on the LSCC is critical as the province and LSRCA work in partnership to improve
the quality of Lake Simcoe. The provincial partnership with the Authority is important to
addressing the LSRCA’s mission to “provide leadership in the protection and restoration of the
environmental health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed.”
Impact on Authority Finances:
The LSCC meets approximately four times per year. Staff salaries for participation on the
Committee are covered by the LSRCA.
Summary and Recommendation
It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 13-14-BOD be received; and FURTHER
THAT the Board Members endorse the application of Michael Walters, General Manager,
Watershed Management to the Ministry of the Environment as the LSRCA’s member on the
Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee.
Original signed by:
________________________________
D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 231 of 231

Couchiching Family Health Team

ich eeso - Itasca Public School District 10

AGENDA Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Board

SMC 2015 Poster - Agriculture and Rural Development

map - Rumbling Bald

EGU2014-15050 - CO Meeting Organizer

download the registration form

KMOG FISHING REPORT 11_27_2010

Currahee Club . . .

Results - Thursday - Westaviat Golf Club