Grand River Conservation Authority Agenda - General Meeting

Transcription

1 Grand River Conservation Authority Agenda - General Meeting Friday, October 28, :30 a.m. Auditorium Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6 Pages 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Certification of Quorum 13 Members constitute a quorum (1/2 of Members appointed by participating Municipalities) 3. Chair s Remarks 4. Review of Agenda 5. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest 6. Minutes of the Previous Meeting - September 23, Business Arising from Previous Minutes 8. Hearing of Delegations 9. Presentations 10. Correspondence 11. 1st and 2nd Reading of By-Laws 12. Reports: a. GM Chief Administrative Officer's Report 11 b. GM Meeting Schedule for

2 c. GM Cash and Investment Status as of September 30, d. GM Financial Summary for Period Ending September 30, e. GM Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines Regulation 22 f. GM Environmental Assessments 42 g. GM A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario h. GM Municipal Planning Service Agreements 54 i. GM Permit and Planning Fees for j. GM Apps' Mill Nature Centre Addition and Renovation Tender Results 68 k. GM Residential Program Wind-down - Demolitions 70 l. GM Current Watershed Conditions 75 m. Report of the Special Recognition Committee Committee of the Whole 14. General Business 15. 3rd Reading of By-Laws 16. Other Business 17. Closed Meeting a. Approval of Minutes of Closed Meeting Held on September 23, Next Meetings General Membership Meeting - November 25, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Audit Committee Meeting - November 25, 2016 (immediatelyl following General Meeting) 19. Adjourn

3 20. Grand River Source Protection Committee Meeting - to be held immediately following General Meeting Regrets only to: Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Phone: ext. 2200

4 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Chief Administration Officer s Report Recommendation: That Report GM , Chief Administration Officer s Report, be received as information. Report: This report provides a brief overview of current activities. It covers ongoing programs and activities that are not included in monthly reports. 1. Self-Generated Revenue: At the September 23 Board meeting there was a question on how GRCA s self-generated revenue compares with other conservation authorities. The 2017 GRCA Draft budget includes self-generated revenue at 47.9% and municipal levy at 37.7% of total revenue. The latest data from Conservation Ontario 2015 statistical survey indicates average revenue figures from Ontario s 36 Conservation Authorities at 33.4% self-generated and 42.8% municipal levy. 2. GRCA Summer Camp Accreditation: Based on site inspections by the Standards Committee of the Ontario Camp Association (OCA), GRCA summer camps have been accredited for four years. The main purpose of the Ontario Camps Association s (OCA) Accreditation Program is to help camps create an enriching, positive, safe and healthy experience for the children and staff in their care. OCA was founded in 1933, and the introduction of the Standards Program and Accreditation occurred in Communications and Marketing Review: A staff team has carried out an initial review of the GRCA marketing and communication programs. Communication and marketing impacts a broad range of GRCA programs, from Parks promotion, flood control messages, through to media relations. A comprehensive third-party review of GRCA s Communication and Marketing program is proposed for Staff are preparing a request for proposal to retain a consultant with expertise in this area. It is expected that the consultant will solicit feedback from the board members on communication and marketing needs. The 2017 budget includes sufficient funding for the project. 11

5 4. Auditorium Sound System: A new sound system has been ordered for the auditorium, with anticipated delivery in the final quarter of The system will include a desktop unit placed in front of each board member, with an individual microphone and speaker. They will also be connected to the main auditorium speaker system, which will be broadcast throughout the room. Initially the system will be set up with the wiring visible from the desk tops, with the modifications to the furniture to follow. Changes to the auditorium s acoustic properties are being considered as well. The system will be funded from the head office maintenance account. Joe Farwell, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 12

6 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Subject: Meeting Schedule for 2017 Recommendation: THAT the Meeting Schedule for 2017 be approved. Summary: Not applicable Report: The General Membership of the Grand River Conservation Authority meets on the fourth Friday of each month unless there is a conflict with a statutory holiday. The only conflict in 2017 is the December meeting, which has been moved to the third Friday. Other significant events which have been taken into consideration are: ROMA Conference: January 29-31, 2017 AMO Conference: August 13-16, 2017 Latornell Conservation Symposium is normally the third week of November Additional events, such as a Special Budget Meeting, tours and special days, may be scheduled as needed during the year. All meetings are held in the Auditorium at the Grand River Conservation Authority Administration Office, 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, Ontario. Following, are the proposed meeting dates and times: DATE TIME MEETING January 27, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting (and elections of officers) February 15, 2017 (Wednesday) February 24, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. 9:30 a.m. Audit Committee Meeting Annual General Meeting March 24, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting April 28, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting May 26, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting June 23, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting July 28, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting August 25, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting September 22, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting 13

7 DATE TIME MEETING October 27, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting November 24, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting Audit Committee Meeting * December 15, 2017 (Friday) 9:30 a.m. General Membership Meeting Financial implications: Not applicable Other department considerations: Not applicable * immediately following the General Meeting Prepared by: Keith Murch Assistant C.A.O. and Secretary Treasurer Approved by: Joe Farwell Chief Administrative Officer 14

8 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Subject: Cash and Investments Status Report as at September 30, 2016 Recommendation: THAT Report Number GM Cash and Investments Status Report as of September 30, 2016 be received as information. Summary: The cash position including Notes Receivable of Grand River Conservation Authority as at September 30, 2016 was $31,414,400 with outstanding cheques written in the amount of $151,930. These funds were invested in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the General Membership. Report: Attached Financial implications: Interest rates, etc. are shown on the report. Other department considerations: Not applicable Prepared by: Carol Anne Johnston Senior Accountant Sonja Radoja Manager of Corporate Services Approved by: Keith Murch Assistant CAO/Secretary-Treasurer 15

9 Date Invested Location Type Amount Rate Maturity 2016 C.I.B.C. Current Account 6,274,201 2% Below Average Prime or.70% Wood Gundy Current Account % C.I.B.C. Property Account 128,629 C.I.B.C. SPP Account 947,438 2% Below Average Prime or.70% C.I.B.C. U.S. 68 C.I.B.C. PayPal Account 6,309 C.I.B.C. Call Centre 71,939 Royal Bank Conestogo 47,662 Royal Bank Brant 104,749 Royal Bank Luther 17,547 7,598,542 September 9, 2009 CIBC Renaissance Account 4,088, % 10,249 October 1, 2014 CIBC Trust Savings Account 2,766, % 6,936 July 15, 2016 One Investment Savings Account 2,002, % 7,364 November 8, 2012 National Bank Bond 1,940, % August 21, ,084 June 6, 2013 Royal Bank Bond 1,000, % March 12, ,479 November 7, 2013 Bank of Montreal Bond 1,746, % December 11, ,826 May 5, 2014 Royal Bank Bond 987, % March 12, ,949 December 8, 2014 Laurentian Bank Bond 1,578, % June 13, ,508 January 28, 2015 CIBC Bond 726, % May 15, ,105 September 3, 2015 CIBC Bond 2,000, % September 3, ,019 October 14, 2015 Laurentian Bank Bond 1,996, % January 23, ,067 March 1, 2016 CIBC Bond 1,300, % March 1, ,326 September 16, 2016 CIBC Bond 1,184, % March 13, ,470 Total G.R.C.A. Investments 23,315, ,383 Feb 2, 2011 ManuLife Bank Investment Account 500, % 1,255 Total S.P.P. Investments 500,583 G.R.C.A. Funds 31,414,400 Outstanding Cheques 151,930 Investment By Category and Institution % of Total Portfolio % of Total Portfolio Grand River Conservation Authority Cash and Investments Status Report September 30, 2016 Government 0% Gov't of Canada 0% Province of Ontario 0% Banks 92% C.I.B.C. 51% Bank of Nova Scotia 0% Bank of Montreal 7% Royal Bank 8% Toronto Dominion 0% National 8% ManuLife 2% Laurentian 15% Other 8% One Investment Program 8% 16

10 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Subject: Financial Summary for the Period Ending September 30, 2016 Recommendation: THAT the Financial Summary for the period ending September 30, 2016 be approved. Summary: The Financial Summary includes the 2016 actual income and expenditures. The budget approved at the February 26, 2016 General Meeting is included in the Budget column. The Previous Forecast and the Current Forecast columns are the same as the Budget column. In future meetings the Current Forecast column will indicate an estimate of income and expenditures for the whole year. Any changes between the Current Forecast and the Previous Forecast will be discussed during the meeting. At this time a surplus of $131,400 at year-end is anticipated. Report: The Financial Summary is attached. A. Total Revenue increased by $172,000. Government funding decreased $183,000. o Provincial (WECI 2016/17) grant for capital projects decreased by $100,000 due to deferral of water control structure projects to o Federal (Canada150) grant decreased by $83,000 due to deferral of the Elora Gorge Marston Pavilion renovations, as a result of a decision to retender. Self-Generated Revenue increased by $355,000. o Timber Sales increased $35,000. o Conservation Area revenue increased $300,000 due to increased attendance. o Nature Centre Camp revenue increased $57,000 due to increased attendance. o Nature Centre Community Program revenue decreased $15,000 due to reduced activity. o Foundation funding for outdoor education decreased $22,000 due to increased nature centre fee revenue being able to offset need for foundation subsidy. 17

11 B. Total Expenditures decreased by $416,000. Operating Expenses increased $20,000. o Outdoor Education program compensation and benefit expenses increased $20,000 due to increased casual staffing costs. Capital Expenses decreased by $436,000. o Water control structure expenses decreased $200,00 due to WECI projects deferred to o Conservation Area capital spending decreased by $236,000 due to postponement of Elora Gorge Marston Pavilion project. C. NET Funding to Reserves increased by $588,000. Funding TO Conservation Area Stabilization Reserve increased by $453,000 made up of the following movements: o $153,000 (GRCA s share of the funding for the Elora Gorge Marston Pavilion project) transferred to reserve due to the deferral of the project to 2017 o $300,000 Park surplus revenue transferred to reserve Funding TO Water Control Structure Reserve increased by $100,000. o WECI projects deferred to 2017 therefore municipal capital levy transferred to reserve. Funding TO Forestry Reserve increased by $35,000. o Timber Sales revenue transferred to reserve and to be used to fund Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) expenses. Financial implications: The activity summarized will result in a $131,400 surplus at December 31, Other department considerations: The management committee and appropriate supervisory staff receive monthly financial reports and advise the finance department of applicable forecast adjustments. Prepared by: Sonja Radoja Manager of Corporate Services Approved by: Keith Murch Assistant CAO/Secretary-Treasurer 18

12 GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FINANCIAL SUMMARY - FORECAST General Membership October 28, 2016 FORECAST - AUGUST 31, NET RESULT $131,400 CHANGES - September 2016 Sch 3 Water Control Structures $200,000 Capital Projects Expenses decreased (WECI projects deferred to 2017) $0 ($100,000) Provinical Funding decreased ($100,000) Funding to Water Control Structures increased Sch 10 Conservation Lands $35,000 Timber Sales Increased $0 ($35,000) Funding to Forestry Reserve increased Sch 8 Outdoor Education $57,000 Nature Centre Camping Revenue increased $0 ($15,000) Nature Centre Community Program Revenue decreased ($20,000) Nature Centre Community Program Expenses increased ($22,000) Foundation Funding decreased Sch 14 Conservation Areas $300,000 Conservation Area Revenue increased (from $8.0M to $8.250M) $0 ($300,000) Transfer to Conservation Area Reserve increased $236,000 Conservation Area Capital Project (Marston Pavillion deferred) ($153,000) Transfer to Conservation Area Reserve increased ($83,000) Federal Funding decreased FORECAST - SEPTEMBER 30, NET RESULT $131,400 19

13 GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 30, 2016 Actual Budget Actual Previous Current Forecast SCHEDULE YTD Forecast Forecast Change REVENUE Municipal General Municipal Levy (Operating) various 9,548,000 9,809,000 9,809,000 9,809,000 9,809,000 0 General Municipal Levy (Capital) various 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 Special Municipal Levy various 106, ,000 79, , ,000 0 Other various 1,104, ,000 1,673, , , ,759,496 11,789,000 12,561,717 11,789,000 11,789,000 0 Government Grants MNR Transfer Payments various 871, , , , ,073 0 Source Protection Program-Provincial various 1,532, , ,545 1,620,000 1,620,000 0 Other Provincial various 1,511,030 1,337,500 1,452,578 1,337,500 1,237,500 (100,000) Federal various 139, , , , ,000 (83,000) 4,054,673 3,435,073 3,182,333 4,126,573 3,943,573 (183,000) Self Generated User Fees and Sales Enquiries and Permits 4 453, , , , ,700 0 Plan Input and Review 4 441, , , , ,100 0 Nursery and Woodlot Management 5 470, , , , ,000 35,000 Consulting , Conservation Lands Income 10 62,936 71,000 34,222 71,000 71,000 0 Conservation Areas User Fees 13 7,788,138 6,900,000 8,132,135 8,000,000 8,300, ,000 Nature Centres and Camps 8 867, , , , ,000 42,000 Merchandising and Sales 8 5, , Property Rentals 11 3,071,295 3,067,900 2,539,728 3,092,900 3,092,900 0 Hydro Generation , , , , ,000 0 Land Sales , , , ,000 0 Grand River Conservation Foundation various 845, , , , ,500 (22,000) Donations various 132, , , , ,000 0 Landowner Contributions 5 240, , , , ,000 0 Investment Income , , , , ,000 0 Miscellaneous Income various 278,221 48,000 55,321 98,000 98,000 0 Total Self-Generated Revenue 15,683,948 14,810,700 14,548,602 15,752,200 16,117, ,000 TOTAL REVENUE 31,498,117 30,034,773 30,292,652 31,667,773 31,849, ,000 20

14 GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 30, 2016 Actual Budget Actual Previous Current Forecast SCHEDULE YTD Forecast Forecast Change EXPENSES OPERATING Water Resources Planning & Environment 1 1,937,885 2,132,400 1,507,645 2,102,400 2,102,400 0 Flood Forecasting and Warning 2 701, , , , ,700 0 Water Control Structures 3 1,559,236 1,687,400 1,286,695 1,687,400 1,687,400 0 Resource Planning 4 1,764,253 1,869,500 1,310,941 1,869,500 1,869,500 0 Forestry & Conservation Land Property Taxes 5 1,266,456 1,483,300 1,087,827 1,328,300 1,328,300 0 Conservation Services 6 720, , , , ,700 0 Communications & Foundation 7 624, , , , ,300 0 Environmental Education 8 1,208,150 1,174, ,454 1,174,400 1,194,400 20,000 Corporate Services 9 2,647,089 3,191,641 2,039,605 3,136,641 3,136,641 0 Conservation Lands 10 1,647,281 1,858,200 1,578,887 2,218,200 2,218,200 0 Property Rentals 11 1,683,995 1,886,100 1,378,900 1,950,700 1,950,700 0 Hydro Production ,666 93,000 74, , ,000 0 Conservation Areas 13 6,615,163 6,330,000 5,719,217 6,530,000 6,530,000 0 Miscellaneous 14 34,780 70,000 37,533 70,000 70,000 0 Information Systems 16 1,005,590 1,078, ,443 1,078,500 1,078,500 0 Motor Pool , , , , ,500 0 Less: Internal Charges (IS & MP) 16 (1,804,932) (1,952,000) (1,416,565) (1,952,000) (1,952,000) 0 Total OPERATING Expenses 22,520,519 24,005,641 18,596,134 24,550,241 24,570,241 20,000 CAPITAL Water Resources Planning & Environment 1 39, ,000 26, , ,000 0 Flood Forecasting and Warning 2 155, , , , ,000 0 Water Control Structures 3 1,186,517 1,500, ,847 1,500,000 1,300,000 (200,000) Nature Centres 8 39, Conservation Areas , , ,130 1,073, ,000 (236,000) Corporate Services Information Systems , , , , ,000 0 Motor Pool , , , , ,000 0 Less: Internal Charges (IS & MP) 16 (563,937) (411,000) (899,608) (411,000) (411,000) 0 Total Capital Expenses 2,175,738 2,672, ,949 3,062,000 2,626,000 (436,000) SPECIAL Water Resources Planning & Environment 1 272, , , , ,000 0 Flood Forecasting and Warning 2 180, , , , ,000 0 Forestry 5 163, ,000 78, , ,000 0 Conservation Services 6 1,154,108 1,056, ,242 1,056,000 1,056,000 0 Communications 7 35, Environmental Education , , ,500 0 Conservation Land Purchases 10 36, ,000 3, , ,000 0 Conservation Lands , , , , ,000 0 Property Development ,000 1,156 50,000 50,000 0 Miscellaneous 14 30,711 35,000 29,824 35,000 35,000 0 Source Protection Program 15 1,532, , ,545 1,620,000 1,620,000 0 Total SPECIAL PROJECTS Expenses 4,007,508 3,966,500 1,895,084 4,564,500 4,564,500 0 Total Expenses 28,703,765 30,644,141 21,142,167 32,176,741 31,760,741 (416,000) Gross Surplus 2,794,352 (609,368) 9,150,485 (508,968) 89, ,000 Prior Year Surplus Carryforward 273, , , , ,618 0 Net Funding FROM/(TO) Reserves (2,637,899) 179, ,750 (377,250) (588,000) NET SURPLUS 429,618 (0) 9,580, , ,

15 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation Recommendation: THAT Report GM , Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation, be received for information. Summary: Not applicable Report: The applications attached to this report conform to current Grand River Conservation Authority policies for the Administration of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation Ontario Regulation 150/06. This report includes applications that were approved by staff and issued since the previous General Membership meeting. Please see attached reports. Financial implications: Not applicable Other department considerations: Not applicable Presented by: Approved by: Fred Natolochny Supervisor of Resource Planning Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management 22

16 Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation September 27 th, 2016 Summary: The applications in this report were reviewed by the Staff Permit Evaluation Committee and were found to conform to current policies. Committee Members in attendance were Dwight Boyd and Fred Natolochny. Report: 1. Application 265/16 Owner: Neil and Julie Palmer-Donoahue Project Location: 3154 Lakeshore Road, Dunnville, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To construct an 83 square metre dwelling. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the shoreline erosion hazard and it will not negatively affect erosion of the shoreline. 2. Application 369/16 Owner: McClung Properties Ltd Project Location: 62 McClung Road, Caledonia, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To undertake grading and creek enhancements. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: A satisfactory Environmental Impact Study has been submitted for this proposal. 3. Application 571/16 Owner: Hunt Club Valley Inc. Project Location: 805 Speedsville Road, City of Cambridge Work Proposed: To grade and construct a sanitary pumping station and stormwater outlet immediately adjacent to a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the regulated allowance of the floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. The application is within the river valley and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 23

17 Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. This application implements works approved through a Class Environmental Assessment. 4. Application 579/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority Project Location: 450 Avenue Road, City of Cambridge Work Proposed: To replace 2 retaining walls. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 5. Application 588/16 Owner: HBK Holdings Inc. Project Location: 1051 Broad Street East, Dunnville, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To construct a new 744 square metre lumber storage building, a 986 square metre retail and warehouse addition, a 1,318 square metre greenhouse and a stormwater management facility. Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and its allowance and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 6. Application 596/16 Owner: Michael and Whitney Kosziwka Project Location: 5554 Erin First Line, Town of Erin Work Proposed: To remove approximately 1000 cubic metres of fill from a wetland and redistribute it on site and to construct a 46 square metre concrete pad 25 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. The application is to remove fill placed in a wetland, in violation of GRCA regulations. Conditions: 1. The submission and approval of final plans to the satisfaction of Grand River Conservation Authority staff. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. The work was initiated prior to this application being filed. This application was assessed 2x times the processing fee. 24

18 7. Application 597/16 Owner: Tom and Cathy Krizsan Project Location: 424 Maltby Road, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To construct a 600 square metre residential dwelling and 100 square metre accessory structure (garage) and remove a hectare wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within a wetland and meets policy requirements for removal. Other: A satisfactory Environmental Impact Study has been submitted for this proposal. 8. Application 598/16 Owner: Region of Waterloo Project Location: Sawmill Road east of Northfield Drive East, Conestogo, Township of Woolwich Work Proposed: To reconstruct a road and replace a storm sewer outlet. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. The application is within the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. The application is within the regulated allowance of the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively impact slope stability. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 9. Application 600/16 Owner: Penny and Raymond Egger Project Location: Part Lot 21, Range 2 from the Grand River, Moulton, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To construct a 300 metre driveway and install a culvert 30 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: The work was initiated prior to this application being filed. This application was assessed 2x times the processing fee. 25

19 10. Application 601/16 Owner: Duane Martin Project Location: rd Line, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To conduct site grading. Policy Application: The application is within the stream valley and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 11. Application 603/16 Owner: City of Hamilton Project Location: 884 Butter Road West, City of Hamilton Work Proposed: To replace a culvert. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 12. Application 604/16 Owner: Tanya Reis Project Location: 36 Gaskin Avenue, City of Cambridge Work Proposed: To install an in-ground swimming pool. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the river valley and it will not negatively impact slope stability. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 13. Application 605/16 Owner: Larry Armstrong Project Location: 2960 West River Road, Cayuga, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To construct a 100 square metre residential accessory structure (equipment storage shed) Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 14. Application 606/16 Owner: Maarten Hoogendoorn Project Location: 4647 Watson Parkway South, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To replace a septic system 30 metres from a wetland 26

20 Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 15. Application 607/16 Owner: Mark Melo Project Location: 3141 Greenfield Road, Township of North Dumfries Work Proposed: To install an in-ground swimming pool 60 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 16. Application 608/16 Owner: John Upshall Project Location: 545 Edgewater Place, Dunnville, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To construct a 58 square metre enclosed deck. Policy Application: The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline flooding and erosion hazard and this proposal will not negatively affect flood flows or erosion of the shoreline. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 17. Application 609/16 Owner: Sorin Mitrana Project Location: 501 River Oak Drive, City of Waterloo Work Proposed: To install a 33 square metre roof over a deck. Policy Application: The application is within the river valley and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 18. Application 610/16 Owner: Scott Jackson Project Location: 414 Highland Road East, City of Kitchener Work Proposed: To construct a new dwelling unit in an existing building. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. The application is within the regulated allowance of the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively impact slope stability. 27

21 Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 19. Application 611/16 Owner: Ian Baird Project Location: th Sideroad, Campbellville, Town of Milton Work Proposed: To construct a pedestrian bridge and install a boardwalk 5 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. The work was initiated prior to this application being filed. This application was assessed 2x times the processing fee. 20. Application 612/16 Owner: Ann and Doug Clarke Project Location: 1099 Perth Street, New Hamburg, Township of Wilmot Work Proposed: To upgrade a septic system. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the regulated allowance of floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. 21. Application 613/16 Owner: Paul Billings Project Location: 381 Orkney Road, Flamborough, City of Hamilton Work Proposed: To construct a 67 square metre residential accessory structure (storage shed) 30 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 22. Application 614/16 Owner: Jim Holmes Project Location: 185 River Road West, City of Cambridge Work Proposed: To construct a 49 square metre addition to a dwelling 42 metres from a wetland. 28

22 Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 23. Application 615/16 Owner: Maurice Perras Project Location: 416 Scenic Drive, County of Brant Work Proposed: To construct a 43 square metre residential accessory structure 97 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 24. Application 616/16 Owner: Nith River Campground Ltd. Project Location: 4417 Wilmot-Easthope Road, Township of Wilmot Work Proposed: To construct three 13.3 square metre cabins 5 metres from a wetland, to undertake grading and to install septic systems. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the regulated allowance of floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 25. Application 617/16 Owner: Martin Abell Project Location: th Line, Hillsburgh, Town of Erin Work Proposed: To construct a 1486 square metre accessory structure (hay storage) 64 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 26. Application 618/16 Owner: Piotr Okula Project Location: 5879 Fifth Line, Town of Erin Work Proposed: To replace a septic system 8 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 29

23 Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 27. Application 619/16 Owner: Frito Lay Canada Project Location: 1001 Bishop Street North, City of Cambridge Work Proposed: To construct a parking lot. Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 28. Application 620/16 Owner: Alvin Martin Project Location: 2426 Hackbart Road, Township of Wellesley Work Proposed: To clean-out 96 metres of a watercourse. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. 29. Application 621/16 Owner: City of Kitchener Project Location: 163 Biehn Drive, City of Kitchener Work Proposed: To replace a culvert immediately adjacent to a wetland. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 30. Application 622/16 Owner: Chad Hayden Project Location: 4399 Victoria Road South, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To construct an 85 square metre residential addition (garage) 75 metres from a wetland Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 31. Application 623/16 Owner: Jerry Auger 30

24 Project Location: 164 Hume Road, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To construct a 550 square metre residential dwelling and install a septic system and an in-ground swimming pool 25 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 32. Application 624/16 Owner: Felomena Teixeira Project Location: 70 Tutela Heights Road, County of Brant Work Proposed: To install an in-ground swimming pool. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively impact slope stability. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 33. Application 625/16 Owner: Bruce and Sherri Rolston Project Location: 25 Deerview Ridge, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To construct a 100 square metre residential accessory structure (garage) 34 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 34. Application 626/16 Owner: Robin Near Project Location: 20 Greenwood Road, Bloomingdale, Township of Woolwich Work Proposed: To construct a 57 square metre second storey addition 30 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the regulated allowance of the floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation October 11 th,

25 Summary: The applications in this report were reviewed by the Staff Permit Evaluation Committee and were found to conform to current policies. Committee Members in attendance were Nancy Davy, Dwight Boyd, Beth Brown, and Fred Natolochny. Report: 1. Application 628/16 Owner: Cedar Springs Holdings Ltd. Project Location: Wilson Street at Highway 52, Ancaster, City of Hamilton Work Proposed: To remove fill 5 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. The work was initiated prior to this application being filed. This application was assessed 2 times the processing fee. 2. Application 629/16 Owner: Ioan Szasz Project Location: 1031 Dumfries Road, Township of North Dumfries Work Proposed: To replace a 54 square metre rural residential accessory building (barn) 35 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 3. Application 630/16 Owner: Melanie Marsland Project Location: 395 River Oak Drive, City of Waterloo Work Proposed: To replace a septic tank. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively impact slope stability. 4. Application 631/16 Owner: Ontario Inc. / Joga Sandhar Project Location: 8616 Highway 7, Rockwood, Township of Guelph-Eramosa Work Proposed: To construct a parking lot and stockpile topsoil 42 metres from a wetland. 32

26 Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 5. Application 632/16 Owner: Chemtura Canada Project Location: 25 Erb Street, Elmira, Township of Woolwich Work Proposed: To construct a 35 metre long wall 45 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the regulated allowance of floodplain and it will not negatively impact flood flows. 6. Application 635/16 Owner: Randy Fahr Project Location: 6 Bannockburn Road, City of Kitchener Work Proposed: To install an above-ground swimming pool 60 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 7. Application 636/16 Owner: County of Wellington Project Location: Lot 26, Concession 1, Wellington Road 29, Township of Centre Wellington Work Proposed: To repair a bridge immediately adjacent to a wetland. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. The application is within a wetland and meets policy requirements for development in a wetland. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 8. Application 639/16 Owner: Robert James Wilkins Project Location: 1505 Wilson Street West, Ancaster, City of Hamilton Work Proposed: To enclose an existing 103 square metre patio and add a roof to an existing 76 square metre patio. 33

27 Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 9. Application 640/16 Owner: Nena and Craig Wicken Project Location: 1999 Berlett's Road, St. Agatha, Township of Wilmot Work Proposed: To construct an in-ground swimming pool 27 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 10. Application 641/16 Owner: Ontario Ltd. / Mike Kachur Project Location: 7541 Wellington Road 34 East, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To install servicing and grade 20 metres from a wetland and construct a drainage swale immediately adjacent to a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 11. Application 642/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority Project Location: 305 Niska Road, City of Guelph Work Proposed: To place 120 cubic metres of fill 3 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 12. Application 643/16 Owner: J.D. Sweid Foods Ltd. Project Location: 605 Kumpf Drive, City of Waterloo Work Proposed: To construct a 111 square metre addition to an industrial building. Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: The work being carried out satisfies the requirements of the City of Waterloo Two-Zone Floodplain policies. 34

28 13. Application 644/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority Project Location: Road 5 South, Cottage Lot 557, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To construct a boat launch. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 14. Application 645/16 Owner: Fern Sanderson Project Location: Part Lot 10, Concession 10, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To construct a 284 square metre dwelling, driveway, septic system, and in-ground swimming pool 15 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. Other: A satisfactory Environmental Impact Study has been submitted for this proposal. 15. Application 646/16 Owner: Twin City Rifle Club Inc. Project Location: 1858 Line 40, Township of Perth East Work Proposed: To construct a 74 square metre commercial accessory structure (office) 39 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 16. Application 647/16 Owner: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Project Location: East of Highway 24 and Northwest of Bethany Court, Township of North Dumfries. Work Proposed: To undertake an integrity dig on a pipeline. Policy Application: The application is within the river valley and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. The application is within the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 35

29 17. Application 648/16 Owner: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Project Location: Township Road 10, Township of Blandford-Blenheim Work Proposed: To undertake an integrity dig on a pipeline within a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the regulated allowance of the stream valley and it will not negatively impact slope stability. The application is within a wetland and meets policy requirements for development in a wetland. Other: The proponent will set aside muck soils and will restore the site. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 18. Application 649/16 Owner: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Project Location: 3 Bethany Court, Township of North Dumfries Work Proposed: To undertake an integrity dig on a pipeline. Policy Application: The application is within the river valley and its allowance and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. The application is within the riverine erosion hazard and its allowance it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 19. Application 650/16 Owner: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Project Location: 1843 West River Road, Township of North Dumfries Work Proposed: To undertake an integrity dig on a pipeline within a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the river valley and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. The application is within the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. The application is within a wetland and meets policy requirements for development in a wetland. Other: The proponent will set aside muck soils and will restore the site. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 36

30 20. Application 651/16 Owner: John Beingessner Project Location: 479 Cabot Trail, City of Waterloo Work Proposed: To construct a 20 square metre addition to a dwelling. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the stream valley and it will not negatively impact slope stability. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 21. Application 652/16 Owner: Chandler Kirwin Project Location: rd Line, Rockwood, Township of Centre Wellington Work Proposed: To replace a septic tank 100 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 22. Application 653/16 Owner: Robert Filiatrault Project Location: 7459 Sideroad 12, Moorefield, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To construct a 312 square metre accessory structure (driveshed) 90 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 23. Application 654/16 Owner: Jeff Weber Project Location: 7808 Road 131, Carthage, Township of Perth East Work Proposed: To replace a 138 square metre dwelling and septic system. Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Conditions: 1. The submission and approval of final plans to the satisfaction of Grand River Conservation Authority staff. 24. Application 655/16 Owner: Gordon Ostrander Project Location: 8218 Highway 7, Rockwood, Township of Guelph-Eramosa Work Proposed: To construct a telecommunication tower 75 metres from a wetland. 37

31 Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 25. Application 656/16 Owner: Union Gas Limited Project Location: 7332 Sideroad 16, Mapleton, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To install a natural gas pipeline under a watercourse. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 26. Application 659/16 Owner: Maple Lake Park Ltd. Project Location: Oxford Road 29, Township of Blandford-Blenheim Work Proposed: To install a mobile home 40 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 27. Application 660/16 Owner: Jeff Aitken Project Location: 63 River Run Place, Conestogo, Township of Woolwich Work Proposed: To construct an in-ground swimming pool 25 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. Other: Staff have inspected the site and have determined that the proposal will not negatively impact the hydrologic function of the wetland. 28. Application 661/16 Owner: Marty Long Project Location: 15 Saint Charles Street West, Maryhill, Township of Woolwich Work Proposed: To relocate a 56 square metre residential accessory structure (garage) 105 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 29. Application 662/16 Owner: Patty Lichty 38

32 Project Location: Blandford Road, Township of Blandford-Blenheim Work Proposed: To construct a 112 square metre addition to an agricultural accessory building (drive shed) 30 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 30. Application 663/16 Owner: Laurie Hines Project Location: 32 Lakeview Line, Dunnville, Haldimand County Work Proposed: To extend a breakwall by 5 metres. Policy Application: The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline flooding and erosion hazard and this proposal will not negatively affect flood flows or erosion of the shoreline. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 31. Application 664/16 Owner: Brady Dunlop Project Location: 76 Cooks Mill Road, Township of Puslinch Work Proposed: To construct an 84 square metre residential accessory structure (shed) 59 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Conditions: 1. The submission and approval of final plans to the satisfaction of Grand River Conservation Authority staff. 32. Application 665/16 Owner: Ryan Huber Project Location: 4973 Wellington Road 29, Township of Guelph-Eramosa Work Proposed: To construct a 140 square metre residential accessory building (storage) 80 metres from a wetland. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated area adjacent to a wetland. The hydrologic function of the wetland will not be negatively impacted by this development. 33. Application 666/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority 39

33 Project Location: Lot 916, Road 9 West, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To construct a 57 square metre accessory structure (detached garage). Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the floodplain and river valley and it will not negatively impact flood flows or slope stability. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 34. Application 667/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority Project Location: Lot 522, Road 5 North, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To repair a boat launch. Policy Application: The application is an alteration to a watercourse and it will not negatively affect the watercourse. The application is within the regulated allowance of the river valley and it will not negatively impact slope stability. The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. 35. Application 668/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority Project Location: Lot 188, Concession 1C, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To replace footings on a cottage. Policy Application: The application is within the river valley and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. The application is within the riverine erosion hazard and it will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 36. Application 669/16 Owner: Steve Zehr Project Location: 353 Mill Street, City of Kitchener Work Proposed: To construct a 54 square metre residential accessory building (detached garage). Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: The work being carried out satisfies the requirements of the City of Kitchener Two-Zone Floodplain policies. 37. Application 670/16 Owner: Grand River Conservation Authority 40

34 Project Location: Lot 915, Road 9 West, Township of Mapleton Work Proposed: To construct a 17 square metre addition to a cottage. Policy Application: The application is within the regulated allowance of the floodplain and river valley and it will not negatively impact flood flows or slope stability. Other: An engineering assessment has been completed and it has been determined that the development will not negatively affect the stability of the slope. 38. Application 671/16 Owner: Lori-Alyce and Brian Martin Project Location: 775 Old Highway 8, Rockton, City of Hamilton Work Proposed: To replace a 22 square metre solarium, construct an 18 square metre covered porch and construct a roof over walkway. Policy Application: The application is within the riverine flooding hazard and it will not negatively affect flood flows. Other: The work was initiated prior to this application being filed. This application was assessed 2 times the processing fee. 41

35 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28 th, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Environmental Assessments Recommendation: That Report Number GM , Environmental Assessments, be received as information. Summary: To provide the General Membership of the Grand River Conservation Authority with information on Environmental Assessments being reviewed, a summary report is presented below. The report has been prepared as directed through Motion No. P44-99 (May 18/99) adopted through General Membership Res. No (May 28, 1999). Report: Report on Environmental Assessments for October 28 th, 2016: A. New Environmental Assessments Received New: Environmental Assessments received by the Grand River Conservation Authority and currently under review. 1. First Notice Emma Street to Earl Street Bridge over the Speed River The City of Guelph has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment for a proposed pedestrian bridge connecting Emma Street to Earl Street over the Speed River. A bridge in this location is recommended in the Guelph Trail Master Plan (2005) and will provide a connection to the Downtown Trail. This study will be carried out as a Schedule B project in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. The site contains the Speed River, its associated floodplain, wetlands, erosion hazard and the associated allowances to these features. Staff have advised the City of Guelph that the GRCA has an interest in this EA and will continue involvement in the project. 2. First Notice Norwich Street Bridge Improvements at the Speed River The City of Guelph has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment for proposed improvements to the Norwich Street Bridge, located on the former Norwich Street right-of-way over the Speed River, between Cardigan Street and Arthur Street North. This study will be carried out as a Schedule B project in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. 42

36 The bridge, built in 1882, is listed in the Grand River Heritage Bridge Inventory the study will include an assessment of the heritage and cultural value of the bridge structure to ensure that the cultural heritage significance is respected. The site contains the Speed River, its associated floodplain, erosion hazard, slope valley and the associated allowances to these features. Staff have advised the City of Guelph that the GRCA has an interest in this EA and will continue with involvement in the project. 3. First Notice Pedestrian Bridges over the Speed River linking St. Patrick s Ward to Downtown (5 Arthur Street Bridges A and B) The City of Guelph has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment for two proposed pedestrian bridges crossing over the Speed River linking St. Patrick s Ward to Downtown. This study will be carried out as a Schedule B project in accordance with the Municipal Class EA process. The site contains the Speed River, its associated floodplain, and the associated allowances to these features. Staff have advised the City of Guelph that the GRCA has an interest in this EA and will continue with involvement in the project. 4. First Notice Rehabilitation of Eight Bridges along Highways 403 and 401 in Oxford and Brant Counties Detailed Design and Environmental Assessment The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is undertaking a Detailed Design and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for the rehabilitation of eight bridges along Highways 403 and 401 in Oxford and Brant Counties. This study will follow the approved planning process for a Group C project under the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities. The study area contains watercourses, floodplain, and portions of the Provincially Significant Whitemans Creek Kenny Creek Complex. Staff have advised MTO that the GRCA will be be involved in this project. B. Classification of Reviewed Environmental Assessments Minor: Minimal potential resource impacts that can be mitigated using conventional construction methods. Major: Significant impacts on identified resource features. Alternatives and proposed mitigation will be outlined in detail. Minor Impacts 1. Final Notice Arthur Waste Water Treatment Plan- Municipal Class C Environmental Assessment The Township of Wellington North (Village of Arthur) has finalized a Municipal Class C Environmental Assessment for the Village of Arthur Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The preferred alternative selected is for the expansion of the WWTP. GRCA staff are working with Wellington North through the Watershed-wide Wastewater Optimization Program to support the implementation of the preferred alternative. GRCA and 43

37 Wellington North will continue to work together to re-rate the existing infrastructure to treat additional wastewater, which is the key element of Phase Final Notice Breslau Settlement Plan Class Environmental Assessment, Township of Woolwich The Township of Woolwich has completed a Master Plan for the Breslau Settlement Area. The study was completed in accordance with the requirements for Master Plans outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) document. The study has defined existing problems and opportunities, considered and evaluated solutions and identified preferred land use, transportation and stormwater management solutions. The Breslau Settlement Area contains many features of interest to the GRCA, including the Grand River, Breslau Drain, Hopewell Creek, and associated tributaries, valleys, erosion hazards and floodplains. Several wetlands are also within the Settlement Area. GRCA staff participated throughout the EA process. The preferred municipal servicing strategy has identified a number of infrastructure projects whose requirements are being satisfied under this Settlement Plan/Master Plan. These projects are described as follows: Stormwater Management Projects - The Settlement Plan/Master Plan includes a comprehensive stormwater management strategy that serves the community and, Road Improvement Projects The Breslau Settlement Plan identifies an appropriate and comprehensive collector road network that appropriately serves the new development areas within the Breslau Community, including opportunities for cars, cyclists and pedestrians. The collector road network connects with the adjacent existing and planned arterial road and provincial highway networks. A natural heritage system was recommended and incorporated into the Breslau Secondary Plan. An environmental assessment of the alternatives was completed through the EA process and supplemental information was available to support two draft plan of subdivisions within the Settlement Area. Environmental impacts were avoided where possible or will be mitigated to the extent feasible at final design. Some wetland removal is anticipated to accommodate the transportation network. A permit from the GRCA will be required prior to construction of any development or municipal infrastructure within GRCA regulated areas. A future Class Environmental Assessment will be required to determine the need, justification and preferred route for a potential connecting road desired to integrate the north-east neighbourhoods with the south-west neighbourhoods of the Breslau Settlement Area and to serve a Proposed GO Station. Measures to prevent or minimize the impact to the adjacent natural heritage features will be recommended in the future EA. Major Impacts None for this report 44

38 Financial implications: Not Applicable Other department considerations: Not Applicable Prepared by: Fred Natolochny Supervisor of Resource Planning Approved by: Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management 45

39 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario Response to Environmental Registry Posting (EBR ) Recommendation: THAT Report GM A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario Response to Environmental Registry Posting (EBR ) be approved; AND THAT this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Report: The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has prepared a document entitled A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario The Strategy provides a broad framework for wetland conservation in the province with two main targets: to identify and conserve significant wetlands by 2025 and to achieve no net loss of wetlands by 2030 in areas of the province where wetland loss has been the greatest. The Strategy provides a number of desired goals and outcomes supported by actions/implementation items. The public comment period for the proposed changes is open until November 16, A description of the process can be found on the Environmental Registry and a copy of the Strategy can be downloaded at The Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario recognizes the need to better protect, conserve and restore Ontario s remaining wetlands. The Strategy offers a number of steps forward to halt the loss of wetlands in Ontario including: 1. Increasing public awareness, improving knowledge and strengthening conservation partnerships 2. Updating the existing wetland mapping and inventory 3. Identifying priority areas for conservation 4. Modernizing the current Ontario Wetland Evaluation System 5. Developing new policy approaches However, the Strategy also includes a suggestion that wetland compensation/offsetting approaches (removal of wetlands with replacement wetlands created elsewhere) could form a part of the plan for wetland conservation in Ontario. GRCA staff has developed detailed comments on the Strategy and offer the following considerations pertaining to offsetting: 1. Where pressure is greatest and wetland loss is greatest, offsetting should only be implemented with limited exceptions. Only removals supported by comprehensive studies (i.e. environmental assessments, subwatershed studies) should be permitted. Such removals should be contingent upon a thorough review of alternative options and 46

40 must be proven to be within the public interest (i.e. infrastructure projects for water and wastewater). 2. The province should require that wetland evaluations be completed using OWES prior to consideration for removal. 3. Removal should require an assessment of the individual role that the particular wetland plays within its subwatershed since not all wetlands perform the same hydrologic or ecological function in the watershed. 4. Evidence should be provided as to how to maintain the wetland s hydrologic and ecological function elsewhere within the same subwatershed. Similarly, created wetlands should be located in the same subwatershed. 5. Provincially significant wetlands should not be considered for offsetting except as noted in Point 1 above. Rare, sensitive and scientifically complex wetlands (i.e. bogs, fens, swamps) should be protected through strict avoidance, particularly in areas of the greatest loss, such as Southern Ontario. GRCA s Wetland Policy (2003) and the Policies for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation) do not include policies for offsetting. GRCA staff has tracked wetland loss that has been permitted through Ontario Regulation 150/06 permits since Even in the absence of wetland compensation policies, there has been a limited loss of wetlands approved through the permitting process. The losses have been mostly anthropogenic wetlands and those that were removed to support public infrastructure after the completion of comprehensive studies (i.e. environmental assessments). Overall, GRCA supports the province s efforts to develop a Wetland Strategy for Ontario. The release of the Strategy is timely given the recent reviews and changes proposed to the Conservation Authorities Act and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. We recommend, however, that further consultation with the public, conservation authorities and other stakeholders occur prior to the development of a new wetland policy that includes offsetting. A stronger focus on improving compliance mechanisms, wetland stewardship and awareness would greatly contribute to wetland protection and conservation in Ontario. Financial implications: Not applicable. Other department considerations: Natural Heritage staff provided input on this report. Prepared by: Melissa Larion Policy Planner Approved by: Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management 47

41 Appendix 1 GRCA Comments to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario Background The Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario recognizes the need to better protect, conserve and restore Ontario s remaining wetlands. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) commends the province for working towards a plan to halt the loss of wetlands in the province through public awareness, increasing knowledge, strengthening conservation partnerships and developing new policy approaches. The Strategy is complementary to Ontario s Climate Change Action Plan, as well as the recently proposed amendments to the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan which all recognize the essential role that wetlands play in the social, economic and environmental health of our communities. In the Grand River watershed and throughout southern Ontario, the cumulative loss of wetlands is a significant issue. The demand for land is high and wetlands have been lost through encroachment and in many cases, complete removal. Conservation Authorities (CAs) play a major role in the protection and management of wetlands through the regulation of such activities in or adjacent to wetlands. CAs also provide guidance to watershed municipalities through the planning process, providing advice based on provincial policies such as the Provincial Policy Statement as well as individual CA policies. GRCA is encouraged by many of the proposed actions of the Strategy including the plan to improve the province s wetland mapping and inventory, modernize the current Ontario Wetland Evaluation System and develop new policy approaches to prevent further loss of wetlands. However, the proposal to include wetland compensation/offsetting approaches (removal of wetlands with replacement wetlands created elsewhere) as part of a provincial strategy for conservation is of concern. GRCA s comments and suggestions are provided below. 2.0 Improving Wetland Mapping and Inventory In order to better understand the scale of wetland loss in Ontario and plan for the future, the current extent and status of wetlands which currently remain must be identified. GRCA supports the plan to update provincial wetland mapping. One of the targets listed is that by 2025 all provincially significant wetlands will be identified and conserved. It is not clear whether the wetland mapping exercise will also include an update to wetland evaluation records. It would be helpful to clarify who will be responsible for the identification and at what level of detail they will be identified. Many CAs have wetland mapping available that could assist the province in their efforts to map the extent of wetlands, assess historical loss and define priority areas. Based on a review of wetlands mapped by the GRCA and MNRF, there are approximately 12,255 hectares of wetlands in the Grand River watershed that have not been evaluated by MNRF. It is likely that some wetland areas would be evaluated as Provincially Significant wetlands and the absence of the evaluation at this time may result in the loss of significant wetlands over the next 9 years as this evaluation process is completed across the province. An option for the province 48

42 to consider is completing the evaluations in south-central Ontario where wetland loss has been most significant over the past several decades. Along with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Guelph, Aylmer and Midhurst Districts) and Ducks Unlimited, GRCA completed the Grand River Watershed Wetland Evaluation Protocol in June It provides a framework for determining priorities for evaluation of wetlands and a wetland boundary mapping process. This protocol and methodology may be of assistance to the province in identifying priorities for mapping and inventory updates. 3.0 Identifying Priority Areas A framework for determining priority areas for conservation and restoration is proposed to be developed. Further information should be provided on the criteria and methodology that will be used to identify these areas. In addition to a focus on areas of the province with the greatest wetland loss, we encourage the province to determine priority areas on a landscape level or watershed/subwatershed scale using a Natural Heritage Systems approach. This will ensure that functional connections are better understood and protected. We note that the province should be able to utilize existing information in more developed areas of the province by integrating information from previous studies such as environmental impact studies, environmental assessments and subwatershed studies. 4.0 Ontario s Wetland Evaluation System Review Ontario s Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) is a standardized tool to identify and assess wetlands of provincial significance. However, given its age and considering the number of advancements in wetland science over the years, GRCA supports the proposed review and assessment of the current OWES. A more efficient and detailed methodology would be beneficial. It is suggested that additional guidance on wetland delineations be included in the review. The current 50% cover rule is not always sufficient for the purpose of identifying wetland boundaries e.g. disturbed sites. The definition of wetland contained in the OWES manual suggests three factors must be present: hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. A reliance on vegetation alone can sometimes be problematic. The Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and more recent Northcentral-Northeastern Regional Supplement (2014) issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be of assistance in developing additional guidance materials. The Strategy notes that Tools other than the OWES may be used to map other wetlands (i.e. unevaluated wetlands) (Page 33). GRCA would be willing to offer assistance with a review of any new proposed methodologies. 5.0 Developing New Policy Approaches - Wetland Compensation/Offsetting The information provided on the proposed approach to wetland offsetting/compensation is quite high-level and additional detail is required on the concept and the criteria that would be utilized. It is unclear why a no net loss approach is now being considered given the extent of wetland loss, particularly in Southern Ontario. In order to garner support for such an approach, it is suggested that evidence of past successes using offsetting should be provided. Case studies and scientific studies that confirm a net gain of wetlands (qualitative and quantitative gain) using the approach would be helpful. 49

43 The concept of no net loss as proposed is a quantitative approach to wetland management i.e. equal hectares loss/replacement. Wetlands, by their nature, are qualitatively complex and their form and function is difficult to replace and hard to measure. For example, the form and function of a bog in southern Ontario cannot be replaced by the creation of another type of wetland e.g. marsh. Offsetting does not consider the impacts of cumulative loss of the hydrologic and ecological function of a subwatershed, because it typically occurs on a sitespecific basis. Cumulative loss of the function in a subwatershed may not be possible even with a compensation ratio greater than 1:1. Planning on a subwatershed scale is required to understand the extent of cumulative effects. Should the province move forward with plans to implement the no net loss approach using compensation policies, GRCA offers the following for consideration: 1. Where pressure is greatest and wetland loss is greatest, compensation should only be implemented with limited exceptions. Only removals supported by comprehensive studies (i.e. environmental assessments, subwatershed studies) should be permitted. Such removals should be contingent upon a thorough review of alternative options and must be proven to be within the public interest (i.e. infrastructure projects for water and wastewater). 2. The province should require wetland evaluations to be completed using OWES prior to consideration for removal. 3. Removal should require an assessment of the individual role that the particular wetland plays within its subwatershed since not all wetlands perform the same hydrologic or ecological function in the watershed. 4. Evidence should be provided as to how to maintain the wetland s hydrologic and ecological function elsewhere within the same subwatershed. Created wetlands should not be permitted outside of the existing subwatershed. 5. Provincially significant wetlands should not be considered for offsetting except as noted in Point 1. Rare, sensitive and scientifically complex wetlands (i.e. bogs, fens, swamps) should be protected through strict avoidance, particularly in areas of the greatest loss, such as Southern Ontario. The ecological function and diversity offered by these types of wetlands cannot be replicated. The success of a no net loss approach using compensation would be difficult to assess from a hydrologic perspective and would necessitate extensive monitoring required through a new legislative and policy framework. The administration and implementation of this approach would also present many challenges. In many cases, substantial effort would be required by the proponent to secure land for any new wetlands and the costs of technical assessments would fall on them to complete. 6.0 GRCA s Wetland Policy The vision of Ontario s Wetland Conservation Strategy aligns well in many ways with GRCA s Wetland Policy (2003). The policy was developed to promote public awareness of wetland values, provide a consistent approach to the review of permit applications under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and encourage municipalities to afford protection to all wetlands in their planning documents. It commits to managing wetlands on a landscape level/watershed scale through comprehensive study and analyses. The Wetland Policy differs from the Strategy, however, in the way it addresses the removal of wetlands. 50

44 GRCA has policies in support of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 150/06) that provide criteria to be applied where a wetland is proposed to be removed. Generally speaking, a wetland may be removed if it is small (less than 0.5 hectares), not provincially significant or evaluated as a bog or fen and not part of a groundwater recharge or discharge area. Anthropogenic wetlands less than 2 hectares (5 acres) may be permitted for removal subject to similar criteria. Wetland removals may also be permitted to enable public infrastructure if supported by a comprehensive study (i.e. environmental assessment) that proves hydrologic or ecological impacts are minimized. GRCA has tracked wetland loss that has been permitted through Section 28 permits since the formulation of the Wetland Policy. The information demonstrates that even in the absence of a no net loss approach a limited loss of wetlands has occurred through development applications or grading activities. Some types of wetland loss have not been quantified such as loss due to unpermitted activities and edge encroachment from existing development or land uses. In the early period following the establishment of GRCA s wetland policy framework, a portion of the wetland losses were associated with development applications that had received prior commitments to proceed. In the past five years, permitted losses have been mostly anthropogenic wetlands and those that were removed after comprehensive studies to support public infrastructure. Wetland gains in the watershed have occurred as result of conservation partnerships with landowners, organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, GRCA s rural water quality program and projects on GRCA properties. In reviewing the losses and gains, it is clear that there is a need for increased support to conservation incentive programs to help landowners and organizations with their efforts. Furthermore, improvements should be made to the compliance process to discourage and prevent illegal removal of wetlands. 7.0 Conservation Incentives Areas with the greatest loss or are under the greatest pressures of loss should utilize a net gain approach wherein conservation incentives promote the creation and restoration of wetlands. Additional technical and financial support could be provided to landowners to assist in their efforts to restore and protect wetlands through tax incentive programs, stewardship programs and land securement initiatives. Conservation organizations are well positioned to provide local technical advice. These incentives should be offered outside of any applications for removal/compensation of wetlands. It should be noted that the cost and effort required to create wetlands is significant. Prior to construction, detailed technical reports and plans must be prepared, lands may need to be secured and construction costs can be substantial. In 2012, Six Nations, GRCA, Grand River Conservation Foundation, Ducks Unlimited and other partners created four wetland cells, associated duck pairing ponds and trails along the top of the wetland containment berms at Taquanyah Nature Centre in Haldimand County. The wetland area created was 11.6 hectares in size and the construction costs alone were greater than $220,000. The Strategy should include an adequate and sustained funding source for wetland creation and restoration. 51

45 8.0 Compliance Some losses of wetlands in the Grand River watershed occur outside of the permitting and planning processes. These unauthorized losses occur even with GRCA s regulatory activities and municipalities by-laws intended to prevent illegal filling, draining and removal of wetlands. The compliance provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act (Section 28) need to be modernized to provide CAs with more effective legal mechanisms that will discourage such activities. Removals of wetland areas resulting in violation charges which go through the court system are quite costly. There is no opportunity for CAs to have any of the court costs reimbursed and the fines are limited. These issues should be addressed in order to better protect wetlands in the province. Fines should be increased and strict restoration requirements should be introduced. Enabling conservation authorities to issue stop work orders similar to those of their partnering municipalities would also be helpful. It is recommended that the province consider this through both the Strategy and the review of the Conservation Authorities Act. 9.0 Monitoring Success Using the conservation targets provided within the Strategy, a performance measurement framework will be established to report on its progress. It is unclear what criteria will be used to monitor the success of the Strategy. Further information should be provided that outlines how success will be measured beyond quantitative wetland loss data. For example, how will the success of the overall state of wetland condition across the province be assessed? What contingencies will be put in place if it is determined that the targets, goals and outcomes of the Strategy are not achieved? 10.0 Editorial/General comments: 1. Figure 1 depicts Ontario s Ecozones and associated land cover. Wetlands in southern Ontario are not visible at this scale. A separate map which more clearly illustrates the percent loss (or percent remaining) by municipality would be useful. 2. The Executive Summary (page i) provides two targets that by 2025, significant wetlands will be identified and conserved and that by 2030, the net loss of wetlands will be halted in areas where wetland loss has been greatest (Page i). Stronger wording is recommended. It is not clear why the target is to halt net loss only in areas of the greatest loss. It should be halted in all areas in order to not duplicate the historical patterns of loss. 3. Stronger wording is recommended under Point 5 (Page 20, Guiding Principles). Protection of provincially significant wetlands is noted as a priority and conservation of all/other wetlands is encouraged. Conservation of all wetlands should be based on the hierarchy presented protection, mitigation and restoration. Avoidance should also be considered within this hierarchy. 4. We suggest that restoration targets could also be included (Page 22). 5. Conservation authorities should also be included in the list of partners listed on Page

46 11.0 Conclusion The province should be commended on the development of a Wetland Strategy for Ontario. The release of the Strategy is timely given the many changes that have recently been proposed to provincial policies and legislation through the province s Coordinated Land Use Planning Review and Conservation Authorities Act review. GRCA is encouraged that additional effort will be paid to public awareness of the importance of wetlands and that improvements will be made to the current provincial wetland mapping, inventory and wetland evaluation system. GRCA recommends additional consultation with the public, conservation authorities and other stakeholders prior to the development of wetland polices that include compensation/offsetting. GRCA welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Strategy moving forward. 53

47 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Municipal Planning Service Agreements Recommendation: That Report Number GM , Municipal Planning Services Agreements, be received as information. Summary: The Grand River Conservation Authority has agreements with various municipalities to provide Planning Act review services for natural hazards and natural heritage features. Report: During the mid-1990 s the Province of Ontario was delegating responsibility for commenting on Planning Act applications to municipalities. The GRCA had agreements with 10 upper tier municipalities or cities. Where a lower tier municipality is within an area subject to an agreement with an upper tier municipality, we would consider the agreement to have effect. These agreements have provided a framework for the municipality to circulate Planning Act applications to the GRCA to provide comments on flood plains, wetlands, erosion hazards, storm water, fisheries, significant woodlands and wildlife habitat as well as additional features and issues the municipalities did not have expertise to address. Since the agreements were implemented in the 1990, most municipalities have developed additional capacity to review for some of these features. In addition, there have been changes in responsibility for some features identified in the original agreement. Fish habitat has been clarified as the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has legislation, and responsibility of species at risk and significant wildlife habitat. The agreements being considered currently seek to clarify these responsibilities to streamline processing and ensure there is an efficient review of applications. Through the discussions with the municipalities, GRCA is exploring the potential for municipalities to screen applications being sent for review to help in reducing the costs to applicants and gaining efficiencies in the review process where possible. As noted in the November 2015 Board report, the City of Hamilton agreement was renewed in Since that time the agreement with Haldimand County has been completed and is being circulated for signing. Wellington County has general agreement on a draft and should be ready for signing shortly. The City of Brantford is currently reviewing a final draft of an agreement. We have received and provided comment on an agreement with Norfolk County that was initiated by Long Point Region Conservation Authority. GRCA staff are working with Region of Waterloo staff on an updated draft agreement. Discussions are also underway with County of Oxford staff 54

48 with participation from the Upper Thames, Long Point and Catfish Conservation Authorities. A sample agreement is attached as Appendix A. GRCA has been in contact with the City of Guelph and County of Brant to initiate a review in these areas. Halton Region has indicated that they wish to start the renewal process and GRCA would participate but not lead that process. Perth County has not started discussions to review the agreement at this time. GRCA does not currently have an agreement with Grey County or Dufferin County. However, services are provided to these areas that are similar to those provided under agreements. The Conservation Authority with the majority of area within a municipality generally leads the review of the agreements. If agreements are proposed for Grey or Dufferin, GRCA would participate in the development of an agreement. Through the review of the agreements, staff are asking municipalities to consider screening applications circulated to the GRCA. This would include screening out applications that do not have natural hazard, natural heritage or water resource interests. Currently some municipalities screen applications while others do not. Having more consistent screening would reduce the number of applications received by the GRCA and staff would focus on applications with natural resource interests. Financial implications: No financial implications are anticipated from renewing the agreements. The fees charged for review of planning applications are determined though the fee schedule established by the GRCA and are not the subject of the agreement. Other department considerations: No impacts are anticipated. Prepared by: Beth Brown Supervisor of Resource Planning Approved by: Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management Fred Natolochny Supervisor of Resource Planning 55

49 Appendix A Memorandum of Agreement dated day of, 2015 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PLAN REVIEW SERVICES BETWEEN THE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Herein referred to as the County ) and THE GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, (Herein referred to as the GRCA ) Preamble In 1996 municipalities were delegated Municipal Plan Review responsibility by the Province of Ontario. A Memorandum was entered into in 1997 between the County and its six constituent Conservation Authorities to coordinate responsibilities with respect to natural heritage and hazard land protection. In 2001 Conservation Ontario on behalf of all Conservation Authorities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Province of Ontario to provide technical comments to the Upper and Lower Tier Municipalities with respect Natural Hazards as outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement. This agreement is an update to the 1997 agreement and a reflection of the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding with the Province. 1. Purpose The purpose of this Partnership Memorandum is to assist the County and Local Municipalities in making planning decisions on planning documents and site-specific planning applications as they relate to the features identified through the attached Schedules. 2. Goals The goals of the partnership between the County and GRCA are: to effectively address issues of provincial interest in the decision-making process on planning applications and planning documents for which the County prepares, is the approval authority, or otherwise comments on; to provide advice to ensure the implementation of County Official Plan policies; to share information which would assist and expedite decision-making; to ensure that each step of the process implementing the Plan Review function is complementary and does not provide duplication, and adds value to the decision-making process; to provide comments on Natural Hazards and select Natural Heritage Features identified in this agreement; to provide consideration of Conservation Authority Act regulation implications to the Planning Act review process. 56

50 3. Implementation As per the regulations of the Planning Act, the following applications shall be circulated to the Conservation Authority by the County of XXX or local municipalities: Subdivisions; Condominiums; Consents; Official Plans; Comprehensive Zoning By-Laws; Zoning By-law Amendments; Minor Variances; and, Site Plans where deemed necessary by the County or a local municipality a) The Conservation Authorities agree to provide comments to the County and local municipalities at no cost to the County and local municipalities. Conservation Authorities may set charges for recouping review costs that would be the responsibility of the applicant. The County and local municipalities agrees to advise applicants of the applicable fee schedule for County applications. b) The County agrees to make other arrangement to provide the plan review and technical clearance services identified in the Partnership Memorandum, where in the opinion of the County or the GRCA, utilizing services of the GRCA as specified in this agreement could result in a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict for the GRCA. c) Where planning matters have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, or Environmental Tribunal, the GRCA will act as a witness for the County on those matters the GRCA has provided technical or advisory comments to the County. While representing the County interests, the County will provide legal representation for Conservation Authorities at the cost of the County. Notwithstanding this clause, Conservation Authorities may independently appealing a planning decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and may participate in hearings to address their responsibilities, interests and mandates outside of this agreement. Where Conservation Authorities are not representing County interests, independent legal counsel would be the responsibility of the Conservation Authority. d) Notwithstanding the specific details listed under Schedule 1, this agreement may be updated and revised from time to time subject to changes in legislation and or policy. e) Notwithstanding the items listed under Schedule 1 changes in the Lead review agency may occur based on updated information, comprehensive studies, or legislative updates (subwatershed plans, secondary plans, community plans, Significant River Valley delineation, Significant Habitat delineation, etc.). 57

51 f) The County and GRCA may seek additional technical expertise from third parties as required (e.g. peer review of an Environmental Impact Study, Hydrogeological Report, Fluvial Geomorphology Study, etc.), the cost of which would not be at the expense of the County and/or Local Municipality. g) The GRCA agrees not to disseminate any data, maps, information or other documents either received directly from the Province or identified as Provincial data by the County. h) The County agrees to make arrangements for circulation of items listed under Schedule 1 to the GRCA; and the GRCA agrees to provide comments respective of the items listed under Schedule 1 on items circulated by the lower tier Municipality. i) This Partnership Memorandum may be terminated by provided six month written notice by either the County or the Conservation Authority. j) The County agrees to circulate decisions which have Conditions of Approval that reference the GRCA. k) Each Party will use its best efforts to take all actions and to do all things necessary, proper, or advisable to consummate, make effective, and comply with all of the terms of this Agreement. 4. Time Frame for Implementation This Memorandum of Agreement will take effect on The parties have duly executed this Memorandum of Agreement under the hands of their authorized Officers. The Corporation of the County of XXX (Name and title) Grand River Conservation Authority (Name and Title) 58

52 Schedule 1 Review Function Responsibilities: Review Agencies County/Local Municipality Conservation Authority Features/Functions Plan Review Technical Review Plan Review Technical Review Significant Wildlife Habitat(1) X (Lead) X X Threatened/Endangered Species (1) X (Lead) X X ANSI(1) X (Lead) X X Environmental Sensitive Area X(Lead) X(Lead) (ESA) Significant Woodlands X (Lead) X (Lead) X X Significant Valleylands X(Lead) X(Lead) X X Natural Heritage Systems X(Lead) X(Lead) X X (non-greenbelt Plan) Water (2)(as it relates to Infrastructure) X(Lead) X(Lead) Water (2)(as it relates to Natural features) X(Lead) X(Lead) Wetlands X X (Lead) X(Lead) Fish Habitat (3) X X (Lead) X Flood Hazards X (Lead) X(Lead) Erosion Hazards X (Lead) X(Lead) Sub-watershed / X X X (Lead) X(Lead) Stormwater Management(4)(as it relates to Natural Heritage and Natural Hazards) X X(Lead) X(Lead) Stormwater Management (4)(as it relates to operations, ascetics and outlet) X(Lead) X(Lead) X Hazardous Sites (5) X(Lead) X(Lead) X - Indicates comments may be provided and that the party has an interest (Lead)- indicates the party having the primary role for PPS, Official Plan or technical capacity Plan Review includes screening application to determine potential impacts, need for technical reports and mitigation measures, assist in development of terms of reference, specifying conditions of approval. Technical Review includes assessing technical reports submitted by the proponents consultants in terms of applicable guidelines and standards. 59

53 Notes: 1. The Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and for the mapping and designation of ANSI and Significant Wildlife Habitat. However the County has a responsibility for the protection of these areas under the Provincial Policy Statement. 2. Review of Water Policies as they relate to Section 2.2 of Provincial Policy Statement and County of XXX Official Plan shall be addressed by the party responsible for ensuring the long term management and efficient and sustainable use of water as it relates to the resource features and ecological system or management objectives and infrastructure needs of users. 3. Review of Fish Habitat is provided in consideration of the Provincial Policy Statement and does not provide clearance on the required statues or legislation from either the Ministry of Natural Resources or Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 4. Stormwater Management is a shared responsibility with the County and its municipalities being responsible for location, aesthetics, legal outlet and engineering design. The Conservation Authority would be responsible for the review of function and potential impacts on Natural Heritage and Natural Hazards that may be impacted. 5. Hazardous sites mean property or lands that could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to naturally occurring hazards. These may include unstable soils (organic soils), or unstable bedrock (karst topography). 60

54 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Permit, Plan Review, Title Clearance and Inquiry Fee Schedule Recommendation: THAT the recommended Permit, Plan Review, Title Clearance and Inquiry Fee Schedule be approved, as per the attached fee schedule (Appendix 1) effective January 1, Summary: Not applicable Report: The proposed Grand River Conservation Authority fee increase for January 2017 is 2.0%. Minor fees have not been increased since It is proposed that these fees be included in the recommended increase in fees this year. Consultation The proposed changes have been discussed with the Home Builders/GRCA Liaison Committee and the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (OSSGA). Members of the Home Builders Liaison Committee and the OSSGA have no objections to the proposed fee schedule. Staff have also considered adjacent Conservation Authorities and local municipality fee schedules when considering revisions to the fee schedules. Permit Fees A 2% increase (rounded to the nearest $5.00) in the permit fees is proposed, with the exception of the per cubic metre fee for large fill permit applications. Table 1 below provides the existing and proposed fee schedule for permits. Total permit numbers continue to increase. Permit processing and compliance related to the GRCA regulation require a large amount of time by the planning and permitting staff. Year 2016 to October 1st Permits In 2015 there were 20 permits for work that was initiated before a GRCA permit was issued. The applicants were charged 2x the applicable base fee. Title Clearance and Inquiry Fee A 2% increase (rounded to the nearest $5.00) is proposed in the fee for written responses to legal and general inquiries. Table 2 provides the existing and proposed fee schedule. 61

55 Plan Review A 2% increase (rounded to the nearest $5.00) in the Plan Review fees is proposed, with the exception of the fee for Below water table extraction within 120 metres of a feature of interest. Table 3 provides the existing and proposed fee schedule for plan review applications. Financial implications: While volume and complexity of the applications received varies considerably over time, recent experience is that permit application numbers are rising, while circulations under the Planning Act from municipalities has remained high. In 2016 to date, no below water table aggregate applications and one large fill permit were received. With the volume of applications, budget revenue projections are expected to be achieved. Other department considerations: The fees collected for permits and planning contribute to staffing in Resource Planning, Engineering, Natural Heritage ecologists as well as Information Systems. Prepared by: Fred Natolochny Supervisor of Resource Planning Approved by: Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management Beth Brown Supervisor of Resource Planning 62

56 Table 1: Current and Proposed Permit Fee Schedule Category of Permit Application Minor - Low risk of impact on natural hazards or natural features, no technical reports required. Standard- Moderate risk and/or potential impact on natural hazards or natural features. Detailed report and/or plans required. Major -Requires one or more reports (Environmental Impact Study, Hydraulic Analysis, Stormwater Management, Geotechnical, etc.) Fee for Development Applications $390 (was $380) $390 (was $380) Fee for Alterations or Interference with Wetlands, Shorelines and Watercourses Applications $570 (was $560) $1010 (was $990) $8,695 (was $8,525) Large Fill over 1,000m 3 $8,695 plus $0.50/m 3 (was $8,525) Works initiated prior to GRCA approval 2 times the fee for the category Rural Water Quality Programs or related projects $75 (was $75) Expired Permit $75 (was $75) Plans amended to an approved permit $75 (was $75) Table 2: Current and Proposed Inquiry Schedule Category of Application Fee Title Clearance and Inquiry Fee $220/property (was $215) Table 3: Current and Proposed Plan Review Fee Schedule $5,700 (was $5,590) Bridge or Culvert replacements $8,695 (was $8,525) All other applications Category of Application 2017 Proposed 2016 Fee Fee Subdivision and Vacant Land Condominium Base fee $2,130 $2,090 per net hectare $1,110/hectare $1,090/hectare Applicant driven modification or Red line Revision $1,420 $1,390 Final clearance for registration of each stage: technical review required $5,700 $5,590 Final clearance Processing Fee: no reports or review required $220 $215 Official Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw Amendment Major $2,130 $2,090 Minor $390 $380 Consent Major $1,010 $990 Minor $390 $380 Minor Variances Major $570 $560 Minor $255 $250 Site Plan Approval Applications Major $2,985 $2,925 Minor $390 $380 Complex Applications $8,695 $8,525 Below Water Table Aggregate Applications 63

57 No features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $8,695 $8,525 Features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $37,145 $37,145 Above Water Table Aggregate Applications No Features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $390 $380 Features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $8,695 $8,525 64

58 Permit Fee Schedule Appendix 1 Proposed JANUARY 1 st, 2017 FEE SCHEDULE GRCA Permit, Plan Review, Title Clearance and Inquiry Fee Schedule Category of Permit Application Fee for Development Applications Fee for Alterations or Interference with Wetlands, Shorelines and Watercourses Applications Minor - No technical reports required. $390 $390 Standard - Detailed report and/or $570 $1010 plans required. Major -Requires one or more reports with high potential for impacts on flooding, pollution, conservation of land or shoreline processes. $8,695 $5,700 Culvert/Bridge replacement $8,695 All other applications Large Fill over 1,000m 3 $8,695 plus $0.50/m 3 Works initiated prior to GRCA approval 2 times the fee for the category Rural Water Quality Programs or $75 GRCA projects Expired Permit $75 Plans amended to an approved permit $75 Inquiry Schedule Category of Application Title Clearance and Inquiry Fee Fee $220/property 65

59 Plan Review Fee Schedule Category of Application Fee Subdivision and Vacant Land Condominium Base fee $2,130 per net hectare $1,110/hectare Applicant driven modification or Red line Revision $1,420 Final clearance for registration of each stage: technical review required $5,700 Final clearance Processing Fee: no reports or review required $220 Official Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw Amendment Major $2,130 Minor $390 Consent Major $1010 Minor $390 Minor Variances Major $570 Minor $255 Site Plan Approval Applications Major $2,985 Minor $390 Complex Applications $8,695 Below Water Table Aggregate Applications No features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $8,695 Features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $37,145 Above Water Table Aggregate Applications No Features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $390 Features of interest within 120 metres of licence limit $8,695 When reading the Permit and Planning fee schedule, please refer to the Fee Notes outlined below. Fee Notes 1. All fees are made payable and submitted directly to Grand River Conservation Authority. 2. Applicants are encouraged to consult with staff prior to submission of all applications to determine the extent and nature of the information required to accompany the application, and to determine the appropriate fee. 3. Permit applications that fall into one or more categories will be charged one fee, at the highest rate. 4. Plan review applications that fall into one or more categories will be charged one fee, at the highest rate. 5. The Conservation Authority may provide a refund or require the applicant submit additional funds for a permit or plan review fee if it is found that an incorrect fee has been submitted. 6. Minor Categories Low risk of impact on natural hazards or natural features. Plans required. No technical reports required. 66

60 7. Standard Permit Category Moderate hazard risk and/or potential impact on natural hazards or natural features. Detailed plans required. Scoped technical reports required. 8. Major Permit Category High hazard risk and/or potential impact to natural hazards or natural features. Detailed plans required. One or more technical report required (Environmental Impact Study, Hydraulic Analysis, Storm Water Management, Geotechnical, etc.). Development permit applications for: golf courses, trailer parks, campgrounds, lifestyle communities will be considered as a major permit. 9. Major Plan Review Category High or Moderate hazard risk and/or potential impact on natural hazards or natural features. Detailed plans required. One or more technical reports (may be scoped) are required. 10. Complex Plan Review Category- Planning Act (e.g. OPA/ZC) and/or Site plan applications for: golf courses, trailer parks, campgrounds, lifestyle communities. 11. Large Fill - The fee is applicable to material placed within the Conservation Authority s regulated areas. Grading associated with Planning Act approvals is not considered a large fill application. 12. Major permit applications that have previously paid application or clearance plan review fees to the GRCA will be charged fees under the Minor or Standard category. 13. Permit fees are non-refundable, except where review indicates that no permit is necessary. 14. Expired permit - After a permit has expired, a new application must be submitted. For applications to replace a prior permit received within one year of expiry a fee of $75 is required. Any changes to the plans or a lapse of more than one year will require a full review and the Schedule of Fees in effect at the time will apply. 15. The subdivision or vacant land condominium base fee including per net hectare fee will be capped at $25, The net hectare fee will be based on the initial submission and will exclude lands outside of the development limit (e.g. natural hazard, natural heritage areas and buffers). Stormwater management facilities and other open space or park uses are to be included in the net hectare fee calculation. 17. At the submission of a subdivision or vacant land condominium application, 70% of the base fee and per net hectare is required. Prior to issuance of conditions of draft plan approval, the remaining 30% of the fee is required. 18. A Processing Fee will apply for a clearance letter for a subdivision or condominium application where no technical review/reports (e.g. no Erosion and Sediment Control plan, SWM brief, etc.) are required. 19. For Aggregate Applications, features of interest include all Natural Heritage, Natural Hazard and surf ace water features. 67

61 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority App s Mill Nature Centre Addition & Renovation Tender Results Recommendation: THAT the Grand River Conservation Authority award the tender for the App s Mill Nature Centre Addition & Renovation Project to Vicano Construction Limited of Brantford, Ontario in the amount of $433, excluding HST. Summary: Not applicable Report: The App s Mill Nature Centre is a two storey building that was built in The upper level contains a large auditorium, kitchen, office space and foyer. The lower level contains two classrooms, washrooms and miscellaneous storage and mechanical spaces. The total floor area of the building is approximately 438 m 2 (4,720 ft 2 ). At the present time the building is mostly inaccessible to persons requiring wheelchair support. The main goal of this project is to permit barrier free access to both floors of the building as well as the lower level classrooms and to provide barrier free washroom facilities. The addition/renovation project involves the following scope of work: Addition construction of a small addition at the lower level rear entrance to provide a vestibule area for student coats and boots and a storage area for outdoor equipment; Elevator / LULA installation of a limited use limited access (LULA) elevating device to provide barrier free access to both floors of the nature centre; Washrooms construction of a new, gender neutral washroom on the upper level will provide a barrier free option for students, staff and visitors. Existing washrooms on the lower level will be updated; Classrooms doorway openings to the lower level classrooms are inadequate to allow wheelchair entry. These doorways will be widened and new doors installed; Main Entrance the concrete slab at the main entrance will be raised to provide a level transition to the main floor of the nature centre; and Outdoor Classroom a new outdoor classroom will be constructed approximately 30 metres west of the nature centre building. 68

62 The tender for the App s Mill Nature Centre Addition and Renovation was publicly advertised on the Biddingo electronic procurement website and posted on the GRCA website. Complete tender packages were received from six (6) companies prior to the closing deadline. The tender packages were opened at 10:30pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at GRCA s Administration Centre. The tender opening committee consisted of Helen Jowett (Chair), Keith Murch (Assistant CAO), Dave Bennett (Director of Operations), Mark Slade (Supervisor of Central Services) and Paul Lucier (Capital Projects Coordinator). Each of the tender bids included a stipulated contingency amount of $37,700. The lowest bid was received from Vicano Construction Limited and it met all of the requirements outlined in the tender package. The results of the tender process are shown below: Rank Company Bid Amount (HST Excluded) 1 Vicano Construction Limited $433, Gateman-Milloy Inc. $449, Paulsan Construction Inc. $471, Stracor Inc. $576, Gen-Pro / Ontario Limited $591, Collaborative Structures Limited $705, Financial implications: The construction budget for this project was established at $327,800 plus a contingency amount of $37,700 for a total construction budget of $365,000. This project was approved for a grant under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program. The federal government will provide a total of $137,531 towards this project of which $120,815 is allocated towards the construction portion. The remainder of the grant is allocated towards design and project management fees. The remainder of the project funding, approximately $312,621.00, will be provided through the Grand River Conservation Foundation (GRCF). Although the tendered construction value is higher than originally estimated, the GRCF has sufficient funds available that can be applied to this project. Other department considerations: Environmental Education and Restoration staff have been involved in this project throughout the design phase. Accommodations have been made during the construction period to control impacts on the nature centre program. It is expected that construction will be substantially completed on this project by the end of January Prepared by: Dave Bennett Director of Operations Approved by: Joe Farwell Chief Administrative Officer 69

63 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: October 28, 2016 To: Subject: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Residential Program Wind-down - Demolitions Recommendation: THAT the Grand River Conservation Authority demolish the house, known as the Cameron Residence, located on Part of Lot 5, Concession 4 in the former Township of Garafraxa, Township of Centre Wellington, County of Wellington, known municipally as 8321 Ninth Line, RR4 Fergus; AND THAT the Grand River Conservation Authority demolish the house, known as the Jamieson Residence, located on Part of Lot 4, Concession 3, Part of Mill Property No. 2, Registered Plan 140, in the former Township of Pilkington, Township of Centre Wellington, County of Wellington, known municipally as 7251 Wellington Road 21, RR2 Ariss. Summary: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) owns a number of houses which were acquired as part of various land acquisition projects. Houses that were not immediately demolished for the project were rented as part of a residential tenancy program. A review of the residential program concluded that rural rental properties represent a poor business model. A four-stage framework for winding down the program was proposed and approved by the General Membership (Resolution No ) on July 22, The Cameron and Jamieson houses are being addressed in Stage 2 of the program wind-down. Options for future use of houses include using the rentals for GRCA s own use (alternative business use), severing and disposing of the house or, if neither of the previous options are feasible, demolishing the house. In August, Cameron house was transferred as a park asset. The house has since been evaluated and is not viable for use by the park. Due to the condition and location of both houses, staff are recommending demolition. Neither of these houses is listed as having heritage value. Report: Houses owned by the GRCA were acquired as part of various land acquisition projects, most often for flood control. The houses that were not immediately demolished for the construction of the projects were held for future assessment and rented to tenants. In 2013, staff began a comprehensive review of the GRCA s residential tenancy program. The review concluded that rural rental properties represent a poor business model; the program as a whole is projected to represent a net loss to the GRCA. A framework for winding down the program was proposed to the General Membership on July 22, The framework consisted of four stages; Stage 1 houses representing the most imminent house closures and Stage 4 houses representing properties that can be held for a period of time and re-evaluated once 70

64 properties from the first three stages have been removed from the inventory. The General Membership approved the recommendation to wind-down the residential program and the proposed four-stage approach (Resolution No ). When contemplating future use of the houses, the options include using the house for GRCA s own use (alternative business use), severing and selling the house or demolishing the structure. A residence could be used in the conservation area if the park anticipates they have a use for the structure for their business operations. Houses that are in good condition and qualify for disposition based on the Ministry of Natural Resources (and Forestry) Guidelines for Disposition of Conservation Authority Property will be proposed for severance and disposition. Houses that are in poor condition, cannot be used by the conservation areas or and are not candidates for disposal are proposed for demolition. Cameron and Jamieson are two houses that are being addressed in Stage 2 of the window-down because they have represented, and are projected to continue to represent a financial loss for the GRCA. Because of the condition and location of the houses, it is not recommended these houses be repurposed for an alternative business use or severed and sold, t is proposed that these houses be demolished. Cameron, Belwood The Cameron House was acquired by the Grand River Conservation Commission as part of the Shand Dam Flood Control Project. During the site visits and through the subsequent program evaluation, it was identified that the Cameron house is in poor condition and required upgrades that would exceed what would be practical to undertake. The residence is located inside the Belwood Lake Conservation Area, so sale of this residence is not an option. In August the General Membership approved the recommendation (Resolution # ) that the Cameron residence become a park asset so that the feasibility of using the structure for park operations could be evaluated. Because the structure of the house is in poor condition and because the septic and the well have both begun to show signs of failure, it is not recommended that this house be repurposed for park use. It is proposed that the house be demolished. The Township of Centre Wellington has confirmed that the Cameron house does not have any heritage value. 71

65 Jamieson, West Montrose The Jamieson House was acquired by the Grand River Conservation Authority as part of the West Montrose Flood Control Project. During the site visits and through the subsequent program evaluation, it was identified that, although ongoing repairs and improvements have been done to the Jamieson house over the past several years, the house continues to have large structural renovation projects that need to be completed. The house has, for the past seven years, operated in a deficit, and it is projected that the house will continue to operate in a deficit. The residence is located adjacent to a steep slope and Swan Creek. A portion of the property contains the provincially significant Inverhaugh Valley Wetland Complex, and is located in the floodplain. Because the house has operated in a deficit, and is projected to continue to operate in a deficit, this house will be addressed in Stage 2 of the wind-down. It is not in the vicinity of a park or other GRCA operation, and would not be of use to GRCA operations. Because natural hazards (slope and floodplain) and natural features located on the property, it is not recommended that this property be disposed of. It is proposed that the house be demolished. The Township of Centre Wellington has confirmed that the Jamieson house does not have any heritage value. 72

66 73

67 Financial implications: This report recommends the demolition of two houses. Based on previous estimates, the anticipated cost to demolish these buildings would be approximately $50,000 - $75,000. These estimates assume a straightforward dismantling of the buildings and do not include decommissioning of wells and septic systems, removal of asbestos and hazardous materials, or removal of any outbuildings or other factors that may complicate the building s removal. The demolitions will be undertaken as expenditure of the Flood Control projects for which the houses were acquired. These demolitions will be funded from the land sale reserve. Once demolished, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation will reassess the properties, and the GRCA may see an annual reduction in municipal taxes for the properties. The demolition of these properties will also reduce potential safety hazards and operating expenses. Forecast adjustments will be made to reflect the proposed changes. Other department considerations: The Conservation Areas, Planning and Finance Departments have been consulted with respect to the proposed demolitions. Prepared by: Approved by: Trina Seguin Property Analyst Dave Bennett Director of Operations Samantha Lawson Manager of Property 74

68 Grand River Conservation Authority Report number: GM Date: September 23, 2016 To: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority Subject: Current Watershed Conditions as of October 19, 2016 Recommendation: That Report No. GM Current Watershed Conditions as of October 19, 2016 be received as information. Report: Precipitation After the wet conditions in August, the watershed returned to drier weather. The watershed received between 35% and 90% of normal precipitation in September. The southern part of the watershed received the most precipitation, with the Brantford Airport station recording 72mm of rain in the month or 90% of normal. The southern watershed is starting to recover, but cumulative precipitation is still well below normal over the past six months. The first 19 days of October have been very similar to September with about half of the watershed receiving near normal precipitation and half below normal precipitation. The central part of the watershed has been the driest to date in October. Most of the rain observed in October has been from fairly light rainfall events, with few daily totals over 10mm. There has been very little runoff from these rain events. Figure 1 shows cumulative precipitation since May for the Shand Dam climate station. Table 1 includes monthly and recent precipitation trends for watershed climate stations. Table 1: Precipitation Averages at Watershed Climate Stations Reservoir Monthly Precipitation Percentage of Long Term Average 19-Oct Long Term Current Last Last Last Last Last Average Half Full Three Full Six Full Twelve Full Fifteen Full (mm) (mm) Month Month Months Months Months Months Shand % 84% 105% 90% 106% 98% Conestogo % 54% 99% 88% 110% 108% Guelph % 44% 97% 91% 100% 98% Luther % 65% 85% 78% 100% 96% Woolwich % 62% 107% 91% 100% 99% Laurel % 35% 95% 92% 107% 99% Shades % 86% 134% 105% 101% 97% Brantford % 90% 90% 73% 89% 82% 75

69 Air Temperatures September was a very warm month, with two days of daytime high temperatures above 30 degrees and most other days well above 20 degrees. Overnight low temperatures averaged near 11 degrees, but varied from 5 to 20 degrees. The average temperature for the month was 17.4 degrees which is about 3.4 degrees above the long term average, but below the average for last September of 18.5 degrees. The first half of October has continued above average trends with an average air temperature of 13.4 degrees at the Shand Dam weather station. This is about 3.5 degrees above the long term average for the first half of October. If warm conditions continue in October it will be the 6 th month in a row with above average temperatures. Since last August only one month has had below normal temperatures, which was last April. Figure 2 presents recent mean monthly air temperature departures from normal recorded at Shand Dam. Lake Erie Conditions The level of Lake Erie continues to be above the long term average, although the level is gradually dropping. The average lake level in September was 0.18m above the long term average, compared to August when it was 0.20m above the long term average. The October 1 st forecast from the Canadian Hydrographic Service is for the lake to be about 0.24m above the long term average into the winter and possibly higher in early spring of next year. High lake levels increase the potential for Lake Erie shoreline flooding by lake-surge events. Figure 3 presents current and forecast Lake Erie level from the Canadian Hydrographic Service. Groundwater Levels The water level in the overburden monitoring well near Burford peaked in May just below the long term average. Since May the level has been decreasing steadily and is currently about 0.31m below the long term average. The current level is similar to what was observed in 2007, which was the second lowest October level recorded at this site. This site has a data record that goes back to For most months, 2003 had the lowest recorded water levels at this well, but November and December were lower in Water levels in this overburden aquifer respond to high water use in this region as well as to changes in precipitation. This part of the watershed has been very dry with less than 45% of normal precipitation during the May through July period. Precipitation has increased since July but long term averages are still well below normal. Figure 4 shows the average monthly water level data for the Burford well for the period of record. Reservoir Conditions Water levels in Shand and Guelph reservoirs are below the normal operating range; Conestogo Dam is at the lower end of the normal range, and Luther is within its normal operating range for this time of year. Discharges from the reservoirs have been reduced as a result of lower fall flow targets, but the demand for augmentation is still high. Flow targets through Kitchener and Guelph decrease at the start of October to coincide with lower water temperatures and improved water quality in the river. 76

70 To date in October, augmentation accounted for approximately 65% of the flow through Kitchener, 25% of the flow through Brantford and 35% of the flow on the Speed River below Guelph. Flows in downstream reaches were maintained at or above flow targets. Reservoir levels for 2016 are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for Shand Dam, Conestogo Dam, Guelph Dam, and Luther Dam. Augmentation for the Grand River and Speed River are shown in Figure 7. If dry conditions persist, augmentation from the large reservoirs may be further reduced to stabilize reservoir levels and retain water to add to the river over the winter. Conditions are very dry. Low Water Response The watershed remains in a Level 2 low water condition. Recent rainfall has not been sufficient to replenish water in the reservoirs, wetlands or the shallow groundwater system. The Grand River Low Water Response Team will continue to monitor conditions and remove the low water status as the watershed recovers to normal conditions. The Grand River Low Water Response Team is comprised of representatives from municipalities, agriculture, golf course operators, aggregate operations, water bottlers, First Nations and provincial ministries. It meets as needed to carry out the Ontario Low Water Response Program in the Grand River Watershed. Long Range Outlook Environment Canada s seasonal forecast is predicting above average temperatures for most of Canada for the October through December period. Precipitation is predicted to be near normal for Southern Ontario to the end of December. Weather forecasters are predicting the potential for greater snowfall through the upcoming winter because the Great Lakes are quite warm and coupled with the warm fall are likely to have low ice coverage this year. Open water on the Great Lakes in the winter increases the potential for Lake Effect Snow storms. Flood Preparedness Conditions are being monitored closely. Staff continue to hold weekly Senior Operator meetings as part of overall succession planning initiatives and flood emergency preparedness. Financial implications: Not applicable Other department considerations: Not applicable Prepared by: Stephanie Shifflett Water Resources Engineer Approved by: Dwight Boyd Director of Engineering 77

71 Departures From Average Monthly Air Temperature ( o C ) Cumulative Precipitation (mm) Figure 1: Cumulative precipitation at Shand Dam from May to December 1000 May to December Cumulative Precipitation at Shand Dam (1940 to 2016) % MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Months % 95% Figure 2: Departures from Average Air Temperatures Departures From Average Monthly Air Temperature at Shand Dam Jan-16 Jan-15 Jan-14 Jan-13 Jan-12 Jan-11 Jan-10 Jan-09 Jan-08 Jan-07 Jan-06 Date Mean Monthly Temperature Departure (C) 78

72 Groundwater Level (m asl) Figure 3: Forecasted Lake Erie Levels Figure 4: Groundwater Levels Burford Monitoring Well (W065-4) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average