Long Point Region Conservation Authority

(1)

Long Point Region Conservation Authority

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, November 4th, 2015 @ 6:30PM

TILLSONBURG ADMINISTRATION OFFICE AGENDA

1. Welcome

2. Additional Agenda Items

3. Disclosures of Interest

4. Presentations: none

5. Minutes of the Previous Meeting:

a) Regular Board Meeting – October 7, 2015 Pg 1-8

6. Business Arising: none

7. Review of Committee Minutes: none

8. Correspondence:

a) Haldimand County Re: Conservation Authorities

Act Review Discussion Paper Pg 9-10

9. Development Applications: (L. Minshall)

a) Staff-approved applications Pg 11-13

b) New Applications Pg 14-16

10. New Business

a) Calendar Review (J. Robertson) Pg 17 b) General Manager’s Report (C. Evanitski) Pg 18 c) Vittoria Dam Safety Report (L. Minshall) Pg 19-20 d) Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan (L. Minshall) Pg 21-26 e) Timber Tender – Dawes/Chambers/Tontsch Tract Pg 27-28

(2)

11. In-Camera Session

a) Closed session minutes – Regular Board Meeting

- October 7, 2015 Pg 1-2

b) Closed session minutes – Hearing Board Meeting

- October 7, 2015 Pg 3

c) Confidential Staff Report – personnel matter (C. Evanitski-verbal)

d) Out of camera

(3)

FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Noel Haydt, David Hayes, John Scholten, Tom Southwick

LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS – MINUTES

October 7, 2015

Members in attendance: Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Roger Geysens, John Scholten,

Staff in attendance: C. Evanitski, D. Holmes, J. Robertson, J. Maxwell, L. Minshall, J. Miller, P. Gagnon and D. McLachlan

Hearing attendees – Mr. J. Notarianni

Regrets: Craig Grice, Noel Haydt and David Hayes

The LPRCA Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 in the Tillsonburg Administration Office Boardroom.

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS

None

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

None

DEPUTATIONS

None

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

MOTION A-114/15 moved: J. Scholten seconded: D. Beres

THAT the minutes of the LPRCA Board of Directors regular meeting held September 2nd, 2015 be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING

None

REVIEW OF COMMITTEE MINUTES

(4)

Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Noel Haydt, David Hayes, John Scholten, Tom Southwick CORRESPONDENCE

The GM presented the Conservation Authorities Act Review at Haldimand County Council on August 31, 2015.

MOTION A-115/15 moved: L. Bartlett seconded: J. Scholten

THAT the correspondence outlined in the Board of Directors’ Agenda of October 7th, 2015 be received as information.

CARRIED

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors does now sit as a Hearing Board.

CARRIED

a) Hearing re: John Notarianni

The roll was called.

The Chair gave his opening remarks and reviewed the guidelines and process to be followed for the hearing.

Staff introduced the applicant and gave an overyiew of the Ontario Regulation (O. Reg) 178/06 under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Staff then reviewed the subject property in relation to the regulation and noted the reasons for refusal. Of note, conservation authorities did not have the authority to regulate shoreline activities until 2006. All units in the development except two had been completed prior to the change of the Regulation in 2006. The second last unit was completed and complied with the new regulationsin 2014.

Staff responded to questions from the Board regarding the retaining wall construction, ownership and most recent inspection.

The applicant presented his position on the basis that the original plan was approved prior to the 2006 regulation change and all of the units except one are in line with the 15m setback rather than the 18m setback.

The Board asked questions of both the applicant and staff. If the applicant agreed to the 18m setback, staff would be able to approve the permit application.

(5)

MOTION A-117/15 moved by: R. Geysens seconded: D. Beres

That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now enter into an “In Camera” session to discuss:

• a matter in respect of which a Conservation Authority may hold a closed meeting under another Act.

CARRIED

MOTION A-118/15 moved by: J. Scholten seconded: R. Geysens

That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now adjourn from the “In Camera” session.

CARRIED

MOTION A-119/15 moved by: R. Chambers seconded: R. Geysens

That the LPRCA Board of Directors adjourn from sitting as a Hearing Board.

CARRIED

Mr. Notarianni was advised that his appeal was successful to construct a dwelling with a 15 metre setback. He then left the meeting.

b) Staff Approved applications

Staff approved 18 applications since the last meeting in September: LPRCA-110/15, LPRCA-112/15, LPRCA-113/15, LPRCA-114/15, LPRCA-115/15, LPRCA-116/15, LPRCA-118/15, LPRCA-119/15, LPRCA-120/15, LPRCA-121/15, LPRCA-122/15, LPRCA-123/15, LPRCA-124/15, LPRCA-125/15, LPRCA-126/15, LPRCA-127/15, LPRCA-128/15 and LPRCA-129/15. No comments or questions.

MOTION A-120/15 moved: R. Geysens seconded: T. Southwick

That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Staff Approved Section 28 Regulation Applications report as information.

CARRIED

c) New Applications

The Planning Department sought approval for two applications. No further questions or comments.

(6)

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the following Development Applications contained within the background section of the report:

A. For Work under Section 28 Regulations, Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06),

LPRCA-130/15 LPRCA-131/15

B. That the designated officers of LPRCA be authorized to complete the approval process for this Development Application, as far as it relates to LPRCA’s mandate and related Regulations.

CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS

a) CALENDAR REVIEW

The remaining parks, Backus Heritage, Haldimand, Norfolk and Waterford, close October 15th. The Biennial Tour was a success with a lot of positive comments. The Chair reviewed the highlights of the Tour.

MOTION A-122/15 moved: R. Chambers seconded: J. Scholten

THAT the LPRCA board of Directors receives the October Calendar Review Report as information.

CARRIED b) GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

The GM reported on his activities regarding the Conservation Authorities Act Review. After meetings with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), it was made clear that there would be no further funding for the Source Water Protection Program beyond the current funding.

MOTION A-123/15 moved: R. Chambers seconded: J. Scholten

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Report for September 2015 as information.

(7)

Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Doug Brunton, Robert Chambers, Michael Columbus, Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Noel Haydt, David Hayes, John Scholten, Tom Southwick c) CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT REPORT

The GM has made presentations at eight municipalities and will be visiting Tillsonburg in the next week. He GM noted in his presentations that there is little likelihood of funding coming from the province, and that the hope is that conservation authorities will be allowed to approach all ministries to request funding.

MOTION A-124/15 moved: D. Beres seconded: L. Bartlett

That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Conservation Authorities Act Review update as information;

AND THAT a letter endorsing Conservation Ontario’s comments on the CA Act Review be forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (EBR 012-4509) from the Chair on behalf of LPRCA.

CARRIED

d) BLACK CREEK CA REPORT

Staff noted that prior to the funding cutbacks in the 1990s, there was a crew of six to eight people who would maintain the little parkettes within the watershed. Since the cuts, most of the parkettes have had limited or no maintenance as there is now only one seasonal staff person to complete the duties.

Black Creek Conservation Area is a well-used area with parking and a boat launch but sees a large amount of illegal dumping. Staff maintains the area biweekly and a volunteer group cleans the area in the spring but dumping still occurs on a regular basis. Staff offered a number of options with a preference for Option 2: Seasonal Closure – Gate the area annually starting October 15th and ending April 15th. This would allow for pedestrian access only in the closed season but would allow access to the boat launch during the boating season. Discussion ensued.

MOTION A-125/15 moved: D. Beres seconded: L. Bartlett

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves Option #2 for the operation and maintenance of Black Creek Conservation Area as outlined in the staff report dated September 29th, 2015.

CARRIED

e) TIMBER TENDER – DEAN/POWELL TRACT

The prescription for the Dean/Powell Tract was presented at an earlier board meeting and has since been implemented and tendered as Contract LP-283-15. Staff

recommended accepting the highest bid received from L. Pilkey who has completed LPRCA timber operations in the past. The bid was above the reserve.

(8)

MOTION A-126/15 moved: D. Brunton seconded: N. Haydt

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors accepts the tender submitted by Leonard Pilkey for marked standing timber at the Dean/Powell Tract for a total tendered price of $85,600.00.

CARRIED f) SECTION 28 REGULATION REPORT

The draft policy document was originally brought to the Board for review in June. Staff was directed to review the policy with an ad hoc committee which has since met three times and has completed the review. The Committee recommended that the updated policies now be submitted to watershed municipal planning departments for comment prior to public consultation. Staff reviewed the proposed timeline with the hope that the process will be completed by May 2016.

MOTION A-127/15 moved: D. Brunton seconded: T. Southwick

THAT LPRCA staff be directed to consult with member municipalities and other non-government organizations on the draft LPRCA Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and

Watercourses Regulation.

CARRIED g) LAKE LEVELS REPORT

Staff presented that Lake Erie is currently approximately .4m above average for this time of year meaning the shoreline is more vulnerable to flooding and erosion from wind/storm events. November and December is the most vulnerable time if the lake is not frozen due to the frequency and severity of storms. One metre above average can lead to potential minor nuisance flooding and 1.4m above average could lead to

potential severe flooding resulting in road closures.

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Lake Erie water levels update report as information.

CARRIED

h) ELGIN COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

The Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan is in the final draft phase. The public consultation process was completed in August and the Steering Committee was to meet on September 29th to consider the plan and discuss the next steps. Further information is to follow.

(9)

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan Update as information.

CARRIED

MOTION A-130/15 moved: J. Scholten seconded: R. Chambers

That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now enter into an “In Camera” session to discuss:

 personal matters about an identifiable individual, including Conservation Authority employees;

 a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the Conservation Authority;

 litigation or potential litigation, including matters affecting the Conservation Authority.

CARRIED

That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now adjourn from the “In Camera” session.

CARRIED

MOTION A-132/15 moved: L. Bartlett seconded: T. Southwick

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors awards the tender for the Dereham Wetland Restoration Project to Allan’s Excavating Inc. at a price of $1.70/cubic metre to a maximum of $55,400.

CARRIED

MOTION A-133/15 moved: R. Geysens seconded: J. Scholten

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the GM’s verbal updates regarding two personnel matters as information.

(10)

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the modification of the Healthy

Watershed specialist position to that of Water Resources Specialist at a Salary Grade 5;

AND THAT said position be advertised on the LPRCA website.

CARRIED

MOTION A-135/15 moved: L. Bartlett seconded: R. Geysens

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the acquisition of Part Lot 20,

Concession 2, STR, Middleton, designated as Part 1, Plan 37R-3187 (Norfolk County) from William and Michele Goldie for a tax receipt of $7,600.00;

AND THAT the Chair and General Manager be directed to sign the (attached) Acknowledgement and Direction.

CARRIED

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:05pm.

_____________________________ ________________________________ Michael Columbus Dana McLachlan

(11)

(12)

(13)

LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

STAFF REPORT

Date: October 26th, 2015 File: 3.3.1

To: Chair and Members,

LPRCA Board of Directors

From: General Manager, LPRCA

Re: Section 28 Regulation – Staff Approved Applications

Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06)

______________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the Staff Approved Section 28 Regulation Applications report as information.

STRATEGIC PLAN

Goal #1 - To develop and maintain programs that will protect life and property from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion.

BACKGROUND

Application# LPRCA-132/15

Plan 219, Lot 125, 7 Perch Lane, Norfolk – South Walsingham • The proposed work – remove and replace roof system;

• The application is within the regulated flood hazard of Lake Erie and the control of flooding should not be affected by the proposed development.

Concession 9, Part Lot 11, 180 John Street South, Oxford – Norwich • The proposed work – to construct a 55.7m2

single-storey garage approximately 105 m from a wetland;

• 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.

Concession 14, Part Lot 12, 38 14th Street, Norfolk – Simcoe

• The proposed work – to remove and replace a septic tank approximately 65 m from a wetland;

(14)

Plan 189, Block 13, Part Lots 1 & 8, 105 Main Street, Norfolk - Delhi • The proposed work – to construct a 345 m2

two-storey addition approximately 100 m from a wetland;

Plan 436, Lot 356, 38 Beach Avenue, Norfolk – South Walsingham

• The proposed work – to recognize the construction of a replacement deck; • The structure is detached and the same size (16 m2

) and height;

• There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space in the future;

• The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline flood hazard allowance and this proposal will not negatively flooding.

Concession 1, Part Lot 14, 34 & 36 Erie View Lane, Haldimand – Walpole

• The proposed work – to repair/replace the existing gabion shoreline protection structure with a concrete block shoreline structure;

• A satisfactory engineer’s design was submitted;

• There will be no adverse impacts to the natural shoreline processes;

• The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline erosion hazard and this proposal will not negatively affect erosion of the shoreline.

Concession 1, Part Lot 2, 94 Lakeshore Road, Haldimand – Rainham • The proposed work – to construct a 66.8 m2

single-storey attached garage; • There is no opportunity for conversion into habitable space in the future;

• The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline erosion hazard allowance and this proposal will not negatively affect erosion of the shoreline.

Concession 1, Part Lot 11 & 12, Elgin – Port Burwell

• The proposed work – grade beach and plant native species to create habitat; • The work will be completed by the Lands & Waters Supervisor;

• The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline flood hazard allowance and this proposal will not negatively affect flooding.

BUDGET IMPLICATION

N/A

Prepared by: Approved and submitted by:

Bonnie Bravener Cliff Evanitski

(15)

LPRCA Approved Permits Summary Universal Transverse Mercator - Zone 17 (N) Map centre: East 553086 m North 4740514 m

Created : 27/10/2015 7:30:09 AM ©LPRCA GIS SERVICES 2011

N 0 20 km NC-41/09-1 LPRCA-132/15 LPRCA-136/15 LPRCA-133/15 LPRCA-134/15 LPRCA-135/15 LPRCA-140/15 LPRCA-141/15 LPRCA-142/15

(16)

LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

STAFF REPORT

Date: November 4th, 2015 File: 3.3.1

Re: Section 28 Regulation Approval

Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves the following Development Applications contained within the background section of this report:

A. For Work under Section 28 Regulations, Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06),

B. That the designated officers of LPRCA be authorized to complete the approval process for this Development Application, as far as it relates to LPRCA’s mandate and related Regulations.

STRATEGIC PLAN

BACKGROUND .

Concession 9, Part Lot 16, 55852 Eden Line, Elgin - Bayham

• The proposed work – to demolish and reconstruct a single-family dwelling;

• A satisfactory site layout plan and design drawings were submitted in support of this application;

• The proposed work is set back from the stable top of bank;

• The application is within the erosion hazard allowance associated with Big Otter Creek and it will not negatively affect the slope stability.

(17)

Concession 1, Part Lot 17, 374 & 376 New Lakeshore Road, Norfolk – Woodhouse • The proposed work – to install a new shoreline protection structure and grade

the slope;

• A satisfactory shoreline coastal assessment was submitted; • A satisfactory engineered design was submitted;

• The application is within the Lake Erie shoreline erosion hazard allowance and this proposal will not negatively affect erosion of the shoreline.

N/A

Bonnie Bravener Cliff Evanitski

(18)

Universal Transverse Mercator - Zone 17 (N) Map centre: East 558149 m North 4739950 m

Created : 27/10/2015 7:59:36 AM ©LPRCA GIS SERVICES 2011

N

0 20 km

NC-41/09-1

LPRCA Application Summary

(19)

LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY STAFF REPORT

October 26th, 2015 File: 0.1.4.1

To: Chair and Members

From: General Manager, LPRCA

Re: November Calendar of Events

RECOMMENDATION

That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the November Calendar Review Report as information.

STRATEGIC GOAL

GOAL #2–Maintain and enhance watershed health

GOAL #3–Link people to the environment through outdoor, education and cultural

heritage experiences

BACKGROUND

Reaching out to engage existing and new stakeholders helps to create partnerships for building a healthy and resilient watershed.

What’s On the Calendar? The following conservation activities take place during November.

UPCOMING EVENTS

&

ACTIVITIES

November 5: Elgin Shoreline Mgmt Plan Presentation, Bayham Council, 7pm November 14-15: Royal Canadian Army Cadets Campout, Backus Heritage CA

November 23: Long Point World Biosphere Reserve Foundation, Ecosystem Stresses Workshop, Backus Heritage CA

Prepared by: Approved by:

Janice Robertson Cliff Evanitski

(20)

Date: October 27th, 2015 File: 1.1.2

From: General Manager, LPRCA

Re: GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT – October 2015

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager’s Report for October 2015 as information.

STRATEGIC GOAL

Goal #5 Work collaboratively with watershed stakeholders to deliver high-value, efficient and innovative solutions.

BACKGROUND

On October 2nd, the General Manager met with ALUS Norfolk’s Bryan Gilvesy to discuss the potential expansion of ALUS Bayham across Elgin County. A meeting with ALUS Bayham’s Board along with the other Elgin County conservation authorities is slated for November 5th. Funding has been secured from the W. Garfield Weston Foundation to support the expansion. The Vice-chair and GM spoke to the Township of South-West Oxford on the 6th regarding the Conservation Authorities Act Review; the GM presented to Brant County Council on the same issue that evening. The Town of Tillsonburg was briefed on the Review at its meeting of October 13th. The GM participated in the Joint Advisory Committee conference the next day regarding Source Water Protection funding. Staff from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) says that any funding for stewardship activities in the future would most likely have to be from threats that were above and beyond normal threats to the local water source. Conservation authority General Managers met in Toronto on the 20th. Discussions included current court cases relating to Section 28 Regulations, the Conservation Authorities Act Review, Criminal Reference checks for volunteers and staff, as well as, the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. The GM met with Tillsonburg’s CAO the next day to discuss on-going support for

developing forest management programs in the Town along with proposed work for the Lake Lisgar Restoration Project. The GM met with developers in Norfolk on the 22nd to discuss a proposal. The Backus Museum Committee met on the 26th at the Backus Heritage

Conservation Area. Marlene Smith, a former LPRCA Curator, was present to speak to the collection of artifacts in the Village. Afterwards, the GM met with BHCA staff to discuss the 2016 events schedule.

Prepared and submitted by:

Cliff Evanitski

(21)

Date: October 7th, 2015 File: 3.6.7

To: Chair and Members,

LPRCA Board of Directors From: General Manager, LPRCA

Re: Vittoria Dam Safety Review – Final Report

_____________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Dam Safety Review – Vittoria Dam, prepared by AECOM and dated November, 2015 be received for information.

STRATEGIC PLAN

BACKGROUND

The Vittoria Dam was first constructed between 1805 and 1810 to power grist and saw mills. During its operation the dam was rebuilt a number of times due to failure and deterioration. In 1964, the Big Creek Conservation Authority commissioned an earthfill and concrete gravity dam at its present location approximately 5 kilometres from Lake Erie on Young Creek. Three permanent overhead cranes facilitate the operation of water levels by adding or removing stop logs from two bays. The earthfill berm and concrete structure provides a base for Mill Pond Road.

The Vittoria Dam is over 50 years old and is experiencing noticeable concrete

deterioration, seepage downstream of the berm and leaking between stop logs. It was determined necessary to initiate a Dam Safety Review based on the structure’s age, condition and potential impacts to public safety.

In 2014, AECOM was hired by LPRCA to undertake a Dam Safety Review of the Vittoria Dam. The work determined the hazard potential of the dam to be high based on the potential for loss of life and environmental damage. Because structures with high hazard potential require a higher standard of review, AECOM was hired in 2015 to complete the additional work. The study is now complete.

The report sets out the need for a number of repairs and actions that the structure needs. However, a major finding is that the dam embankment will be overtopped during

(22)

the design event. A Class EA Process would be required to determine if rehab, replacement or removal is the best option to deal with deficiencies.

An AECOM representative will attend the Board meeting to present their findings and recommendations.

The Vittoria Dam Safety Review was prepared by AECOM in 2014 and 2015 at a total cost of $75,420. The provincial Water Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) program funded 50% of the project cost. The remainder of the cost was funded from the Capital Levy budget.

The Report recommends that a Class Environmental Assessment be undertaken to determine if rehab, replacement or removal is the best option to deal with the safety issues. Next steps and the associated costs should be included in budget discussions for 2016 and subsequent years.

Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng. Cliff Evanitski Interim Manager Watershed Services General Manager

(23)

Date: November 4th, 2015 File: 3.3.14

To: Chair and Members,

LPRCA Board of Directors From: General Manager, LPRCA

Re: Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan Update

______________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION

That the Elgin County Shoreline Management Final Report be adopted by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, and

That the Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan be incorporated into the Long Point Region Conservation Authority’s own policies for administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation, Ontario Regulation 178/06, and

That the Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan be sent to the County of Elgin for adoption.

STRATEGIC PLAN

BACKGROUND

In 2014 the Catfish Creek Conservation Authority (CCCA), Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA), Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA), Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority (LTVCA), County of Elgin and its shoreline municipalities collaborated on an Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).

Prior to 2014, CCCA, KCCA, LPRCA and LTVCA had separate Shoreline Management Plans covering the coastal zone of the Lake Erie shoreline. These reports were

prepared independently by the same consultant in the late 1980s or in the case of LTVCA were a compilation of different reports pertaining to shoreline erosion and management. These plans are now out-of-date and need to take into consideration newer mapping and technical standards pertaining to shoreline hazards.

(24)

shoreline municipalities being asked to fund the other half based on the amount of shoreline within their jurisdiction. The project was tendered in 2014 and the winning bid was submitted by W.F. Baird & Associates for $186,000. While the price of the project was over the estimate of $144,000 the conservation authorities felt strongly about the quality of product offered by Baird and agreed to cover the shortfall. Due to the collaborative nature of the project, Environment Canada provided $40,000.

Three Open Houses were held in August 2014 - one in each of West Elgin, Central Elgin and Port Burwell. Each Open House had an afternoon and evening session. A formal presentation was provided on the development of the SMP and the consultant presented the preliminary findings and management approaches. In addition, a select number of the draft hazard maps were on display for the attendees to view. Each session included a question and answer section. A synopsis of these sessions is included in Appendix C of the SMP.

Drafts of the report including its recommendations were vetted through the Technical Advisory Committee, which included representatives of each Conservation Authority, the County of Elgin, the shoreline municipalities and MNRF.

Once approved by each individual CA board the Shoreline Management Plan will be presented to Elgin County Council for adoption and incorporation in the County’s Official Plan.

SUMMARY

The Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan contains eight main chapters. Chapters One to Four outline the background and purpose of the study, detail the technical analysis, and describe the region’s shoreline hazards and the overall coastal

management approach. Chapters 5 – 8 each pertain to an individual CA. While the report needs to be read in its entirety, the individual chapter pertaining to a CA is in essence an executive summary for each CA and clearly outlines management approaches unique to its jurisdiction.

The consultant traversed the Elgin County shoreline from the west to the east boundary in July 2014 visiting a total of 51 sites and was struck by the severity of the erosion.

The plan itself was shaped from the following objectives:

• Maintain natural physical processes along the coast • Protect and restore coastal habitat

• Focus new development in the port communities • No negative impact for new development

• Standardize interpretation of the SMP • Regular communication of coastal hazards

(25)

Shoreline erosion is a natural process along the north shore of Lake Erie and is an important source of new sand and gravel for these littoral systems. Sediment eroded from the bluffs is transported along the shore and ultimately accumulates in large depositional features along the coast, such as the Long Point and Rondeau sand spits. To maintain natural coastal processes along the north shore of Lake Erie and protect these significant natural heritage features requires a holistic regional scale approach to coastal management.

The Elgin County SMP recognizes the inter-connected nature of the coastline and the need to manage the coast at large spatial scales. This approach is similar to the principals of Section D2 in the Elgin County Official Plan (2012) for protecting and restoring water resources, which recognizes that watersheds are the appropriate scale for effective planning and management of issues related to water.

The study area, as defined by the spatial extent of the Elgin County shoreline, represents approximately 90 km of Lake Erie coastline. In order to quantify coastal hazards and establish suitable management objectives, the shoreline was sub-divided into a series of reaches that featured similar geologic and geomorphic conditions, land -use patterns, and exposure to coastal hazards. The primary shoreline reach types are summarized as High Bluff, Large Beaches, Port Lands and Navigation Channel and Residential Development in Port Communities. Each reach and its overarching management recommendation is described below.

High Bluffs: Managed Retreat

Baird & Associates confirmed that erosion rates in the study area are some of the highest in the Great Lakes Region, ranging from a low of 0.6 m/yr to a high of 4.5 m/yr. To put these rates in context the average annual recession rate on Lake Ontario is 0.26 m/yr and Lake Michigan is 0.3 m/yr.

The previous shoreline management plans used an average annual recession rate to generate the hazard mapping. However, to generate the mapping for the Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan the annual average rate of recession was used plus one standard deviation. If the annual average rate of erosion is used, the

erosion hazard setback would only be 50% successful at mitigating future erosion over the 100-year planning horizon in Elgin County. The annual average rate of erosion plus one standard deviation is 86% successful at locating future

development landward of the eroding bluff over the 100-year planning horizon. The new mapping was shown during the public consultation.

Losses due to erosion in the high bluff areas are not limited to agricultural land but affect road networks, building and utility lines. Therefore, the SMP recommends that no additional shoreline protection structures be permitted along the High Bluff

coastline in Elgin County. The recommended approach is “managed retreat” which includes relocating structures and critical infrastructure, such as roads, when the erosion hazard reaches a critical threshold, (e.g. within the 3:1 stable slope setback.)

(26)

Large Beaches: Protect Dune Habitat and Promote Public Access

Each of the four Port Communities feature jettied navigation structures which

protrude into the lake at varying distances, trapping sediment in fillet beaches. Over time, both Port Bruce and Port Burwell Provincial Parks were established because of this process. These areas should be protected with ongoing investments in associated facilities including parking and multi-use trails.

Navigation Channels: Maintain Flood Conveyance and Sediment Bypassing

The jettied navigational structures in the four port communities were initially constructed to improve navigation into the river mouths and marina basins for commercial vessels and local fishing fleets. Maintaining the hydraulic conveyance in these navigation channels is required to mitigate flooding risks and ice jamming upstream. Before extending the harbour jetties in the future it is recommended that technical investigations be undertaken to capture key physical processes such as littoral cell. Recommendations include quantifying rates of sediment accumulation in the fillet beaches using historical and modern bathymetry and aerial photography.

Port Community Development: Hold the Line

Elgin County features four prominent port communities, including Port Glasgow, Port Stanley, Port Bruce, and Port Burwell and are all important economic

components of the local economies. Given the high long-term erosion rate in Elgin County, some of the waterfront development in these communities is protected with engineering structures, such as rock revetments, steel sheet pile walls, and ad hoc structures (e.g. dumped concrete rubble). The shoreline protection is typically located on the downdrift (east side) of the port communities since the western beaches feature a long-term accretion trend. The SMP recommends that this existing shoreline protection should be maintained to “Hold the Line” and stop any further erosion in these areas of high settlement density. Further, shore parallel or linear development along the eroding bluff crest should be discouraged. Where possible, community planning should focus on maintaining public open spaces along the lakeshore and connecting the existing and new residential areas to the lake with a multi-use trail system.

Based on the severity of the erosion hazards in Elgin County and the results of the geo-technical engineering review, two additional hazard mapping lines were developed during the study: Zone of Pending Failure and Zone of Higher Risk.

Based on site observations and the geotechnical review completed for the SMP, the tablelands located in a 10 m buffer from the existing top of bank have been identified as a “Zone of Pending Failure”. Within this narrow strip of land along the top of bank, it is not a question of “will” the land be lost due to erosion, it is just a question of “when”. While this is a non-regulatory line the SMP recommends that landowners be educated on the hazards associated with any activity in close proximity to the eroding bluff.

(27)

A 3:1 stable slope setback is included on all the hazard maps generated for the SMP, with all the tablelands within this zone forming the Zone of Higher Risk. The 3:1 stable slope setback is also presently a non-regulatory line with respect to the existing

development. However, for proposals dealing with new development the SMP uses the 3:1 setback line as part of the formula to define the locations of regulated lands.

Finally, the SMP identified a policy gap that conservation authorities and municipalities will have to consider in the future. In most cases, buildings constructed decades ago, long before present regulatory guidelines, when the top of bank was much further

lakeward - are now within the Zone of Higher Risk. Ongoing erosion processes will bring the top of bank within close proximity to the existing development. The regulatory

authority of the CA pertains to new development on hazard lands not existing

development that becomes threatened due to erosion and bluff recession over time. Currently, there is no regulatory or policy regime to address this development risk.

The SMP recommends that landowners within both the Zone of Pending Failure and Zone of Pending Risk be informed about the hazards associated with any activity in close proximity to the eroding bluff, and further that conservation authorities and

municipalities lobby the province to provide for solutions to the policy gap noted above.

Shoreline management plans were first developed twenty-five years ago when shoreline erosion first became a concern along the Great Lakes, jeopardizing development and municipal infrastructure. In the past, the province acquired hazard lands, but this

became too expensive. Instead, regulating agencies turned to development policies that would direct development away from hazards. The problem is that erosion is catching up to the planning horizon. The never-ending lake erosion is now reaching structures that were developed within a safe zone twenty-five years ago or more.

The goal of shoreline management plans is not to stop shoreline erosion. Shoreline erosion is unstoppable. Shoreline Management Plans are designed to help regulators evaluate future development permits and assess infrastructure at risk along the Lake Erie shoreline.

The Elgin County Shoreline Management report provides landowners with best

management practices to help slow shoreline erosion and to avoid exacerbating coastal hazards. Some of the best management practices include:

• Maintaining tile drain outlets so they do not drain down the bluff face • Avoiding dumping debris on the bluff crest

• Utilizing vegetated buffer strips along the bluff crest. The lost revenue from cropping the land might be small versus the savings in avoided erosion

• Locating lightweight moveable structures, such as gazebos landward of the Zone of Higher Risk

(28)

NEXT STEPS

The Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan and its associated recommendations have been vetted through the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. It is currently being presented to the four conservation authority boards of directors for approval. Once approved by the CA Boards, it will be presented to Elgin County Council for adoption.

At its meeting on September 29, 2015, the SMP Steering Committee passed the following motion:

Moved by: Sally Martyn Seconded: Cliff Evanitski

That the Technical Advisory Committee established for the purposes of the development of the Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan remains in place to collaboratively consider how the plan’s recommendations may be carried out.

Carried

There is merit in continuing the Technical Advisory Committee to collaboratively address some of the recommendations included in the plan and to continue to work cooperatively on shoreline erosion issues. CA Boards, the County of Elgin and the shoreline municipalities will be encouraged to continue to name a representative to this body so that discussion on how to carry out many of the recommendations in the report can be achieved.

LPRCA will pay $2318.77 in 2015 as its contribution to the cost of the project.

Lorrie Minshall, P.Eng. Cliff Evanitski Interim Manager Watershed Services General Manager

(29)

Date: October 27th, 2015 File: 1.3.7.1

Re: Timber Tender: LP-284-15

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors accepts the tender submitted by Leonard Pilkey for marked standing timber at the Dawes/Chambers/Tontsch Tract for a total tendered price of $155,800.00.

STRATEGIC PLAN

Goal #2 Maintain and enhance watershed health; and

Goal #3 Work collaboratively with watershed stakeholders to deliver high-value, efficient and innovative solutions.

BACKGROUND

As part of the ongoing forestry program of the LPRCA, staff prepared a prescription/operating plan for the Dawes/Chambers/Tontsch Tract and then

implemented the marking program in the field. Once completed, tenders were prepared and distributed to various interested sawmills and timber buyers.

All forestry operations conducted on LPRCA lands employ good forestry practices only, implementing approved silvicultural guidelines. The silvicultural guidelines are updated continuously as new science and technology is made available. Forest dendrology, economics, species genetics and associated site habitat, soils, moisture regimes, etc. are some of the parameters considered when practicing good forestry.

The goal of good forestry is to continuously increase forest health and quality while still maintaining and enhancing all integrated resource management considerations. The Dawes/Chambers/Tontsch Tract is a prime example of these practices as described below:

1997 – Commercial Timber Harvest of 1308 trees or 369,309 board-feet (FBM), $82,120.

2015 – Commercial Timber Harvest of 1071 trees or 370,123 board-feet (FBM), $155,800.

(30)

When implementing good forestry practices, the goal of increasing forest health and quality - results in less trees being harvested while maintaining volume in each

subsequent cycle plus increased values. In addition to the two above listed commercial timber operations, four improvement operations have been instituted from 1997 to 2015, removing poor quality/form, diseased and low-value stems from the stand to again improve the overall forest health and quality. This low grade product was sold as fuelwood generating an additional $6800.

Results of the tendering process are as follows:

1) Leonard Pilkey $155,800

2) Townsend Lumber Inc. $116,750

The bid submitted by Leonard Pilkey is well within the expected bid range and LPRCA has previously successfully dealt with this watershed-based company.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Funds are to be applied towards the 2015 Forestry Operations Budget that anticipated $260,000 in revenues. To date, $277,153.78 has been generated with the tendering of the Dawes/Chambers/Tontsch Tract. Staff is currently in the process of marking the Landon Tract which will be tendered and awarded prior to the end of the 2015 operating year.

David Holmes Cliff Evanitski

(31)

Lake Erie shoreline management plan says erosion of

bluffs is a fact of life in Elgin county

0

St. Thomas Times-Journal Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:03:32 EDT

AM

Elgin county is slip-sliding away.

And a new, comprehensive, 166-page Lake Erie shoreline management plan says erosion of bluffs which define much of Elgin's 90 km of coast, is a fact of life about which little can be done by way of shoreline protection. Nor should it be attempted, the plan says, for fear of detriment to shoreline farther along.

The plan, instead, says there should be what it calls a “managed retreat” of occupation from the edge of high bluffs which are eroding at a rate of as much as 4.5 metres annually – some of the highest rates of erosion along the Great Lakes.

The plan says that while there's little that regulators can do about existing development, land within 10 m of clifftops is in immediate danger and landowners should be advised of the hazard. It calls the strip a “zone of pending failure” where collapse is just a matter of time.

In extreme cases of public safety, the document suggests Elgin and local municipalities could consider prohibiting occupation of a small number of houses and outbuildings which are threatened by cliff collapse under them. The plan says new development should be prohibited on land that's within a 3:1 stable slope setback, or three times the bluff height. It says no existing development is safe on the land.

Taking a long-range view, the document identifies land at risk during the next 100 years and says development should be directed away. East of Port Burwell, where erosion is greatest, that hazard line could be drawn as much as 480 metres landward of existing bluffs. But the plan suggests an even longer-range horizon by creation of an

agricultural buffer as much as 1 km from high bluffs. Otherwise, it says, the problem only is being passed along to future generations.

(32)

The new plan contains a series of management proposals for Elgin's varied Lake Erie shoreline, which it summarizes as high bluff, large beaches, port lands and navigation channels, and residential development in port communities. But one question the plan doesn't answer is what can be done about existing development which continuing erosion now threatens.

It says landowners should be educated about the concern and ways to mitigate it. But it also says conservation authorities and municipalities need to lobby the province for solutions to the problem.

The plan says there are 115 primary buildings and 55 secondary buildings in the 3:1 zone, representing an estimated $34 million worth of property.

The plan raises the spectre of environmental damage from buildings and other assets tipping into the lake. Developed over the past year by consultants W.F. Baird & Associates at a cost of $186,000, the new plan updates and consolidates the four conservation authorities' individual shoreline management plans dating to at least the late 1980s.

During that time, planning tools like mapping have improved. But, also, erosion has caught up with the earlier plans' shorter timelines.

Created in collaboration with the conservation authorities and municipalities, the new plan already is consistent with much of Elgin county's 2012 Official Plan,

Elizabeth VanHooren, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority general manager, is quoted in a release. The county is the approving authority for development in its lower-tier municipalities.

“The plan balances environmental, social, cultural and recreational objectives with the boundaries of natural coastal systems …,” she is quoted. She was not immediately available for comment.

The plan is available online through the KCCA website at kettlecreekconservation.on.ca.

It's to be presented for approval Oct. 22 to Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, Nov. 4 to Long Point Region CA, Nov. 12 to Catfish Creek CA, Nov. 18 to Kettle Creek CA, and Nov. 24 to Elgin county council.

WHAT TO DO

Elgin County Shoreline Management Plan recommendations:

High bluffs: “Managed retreat” as erosion approaches, including relocation of buildings, roads and other

infrastructure; adoption of a 100-year-plus planning horizon

Large beaches: Ongoing investment in facilities in Elgin's four port communities – ports Glasgow, Stanley, Bruce and

Burwell -- including parking and multi-use trails, to protect dune habitat and promote public access

Navigation channels: Continued dredging of Elgin's four ports to maintain water flow and mitigate flooding risk

Port community development: Maintain existing shoreline protection to protect waterfront development; discourage new development along eroding bluffs

(33)

Where are we with Port Dover’s Misner Dam?

By Port Dover Maple Leaf

NORFOLK County has spent more than $665,000 on the Misner Dam since 2009.

The money has been spent assessing safety concerns at the historic dam on the Lynn River and seeking permission to make repairs.

To date no repairs have been made. It’s not for lack of trying.

Repairing dams is a complicated process in Ontario requiring permission from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

And the ministry is not easily satisfied.

“It’s the single most frustrating item I’ve dealt with in 35 years as a (municipal) councillor,” Mayor Charlie Luke says.

Port Dover Coun. John Wells adds: “A turtle moves more quickly than we’ve been able to on this particular project.

“We’ve not done much but spend money.”

How has the county spent two-thirds of a million dollars? Some big-ticket items include:

♦More than $275,000 for engineering and consultants’ reports.

♦Nearly $190,000 to dredge the Lynn River after heavy rains washed huge amounts of sediment over the dam in 2010. So much sediment plugged the river that there was concern boats wouldn’t get out of their boathouses.

(34)

♦And the county’s solicitor has received more than $32,000 for legal opinions about the dam’s ownership.

The solicitor, Peter Tice of Hamilton, says Norfolk does not own the dam.

The Maple Leaf recently filed two Freedom of Information requests for details of Norfolk’s spending on Misner Dam.

The county responded with figures for the period from 2009 to the end of 2014, totalling $628,000. Mayor Luke in an interview cited another $39,000 for a soil contamination study in 2009.

Adding that study to the FOI figures brings the total to nearly $668,000. More bills for consultants’ reports are on their way.

One report from consultant Stantec of Montreal expected this month may prove to be a turning point. The report will offer short-term options to repair the dam — which is what county council wanted to do five years ago.

“I think the community is frustrated,” Coun. Wells says.

“They keep being told we’re working on it and there will be a report. Then there’s another report and the next report.

“Surely, there’ll be a time when we’re reported out.”

It seems, Coun. Well says, that all county council can do is wait for the next report and then spend money for more reports.

Coun. Wells says all he wants to do is repair Misner Dam to the state it was in before the engineer found problems in 2009.

When the dam is repaired, it will be time to look at what’s to be done with Silver Lake, he says. The lake has lost much of its open water.

The dam’s water level was lowered in December 2009 as a safety precaution.

The lake has gradually choked with silt and vegetation and as a result a large part of its north end now is overrun with loosestrife.

Mayor Luke says the key thing is to repair the dam, then other things like restoring Silver Lake can happen.

In 2010 county council budgeted $1.1 million to repair the dam. The county has spent $207,000 of this money.

The remainder — $892,000 — is still budgeted for the dam.

The mayor in his first year of office has made it a priority to move things along. “I want this thing to be resolved,” he said in an interview in his office.

“Through no fault of anybody, it’s gone on too long.”

Mayor Luke can see how some people might think the county has nothing to show for all the money it has spent on Misner Dam.

(35)

The mayor is optimistic that this month’s Stantec report will let county council know where it stands regarding short-term repairs.

“I hope in this term (ending in 2018) we can come to some conclusion on how and if to proceed.” The million-dollar question, the mayor said, is whether the MNR will have enough information to allow the dam to be repaired.

And if the dam can be repaired, Mayor Luke said it makes sense to look at restoring Silver Lake. County council has not discussed what to do, if anything, about the lake.

The Long Point Region Conservation Authority and the MNR have both said Norfolk should do an environmental assessment before trying to restore the lake.

The assessment would take a year and cost from $100,000 to $150,000.

Dredging the lake, if it happens, would be a huge project — say $4 million or $5 million — with multiple partners, Mayor Luke said.

The volunteer group Friends of Silver Lake has offered to lead efforts to raise $1 million to restore the lake.

Full restoration of the lake would cost more than the community could contribute, Friends member Ron Keating said in an interview.

Mr. Keating praised Mayor Luke’s efforts to move forward on Misner Dam.

It’s been five years since Norfolk first sought MNR permission to repair the dam, Mr. Keating noted. “What’s wrong with the mechanisms of governments that for five years we have struggled, so far in vain, to repair a dam to put it back to the way it was?” he asked.

Government “can hardly be called responsive,” he said. The first priority should be to repair the dam, Mr. Keating said. Next establish ownership.

The federal and provincial governments won’t give money unless they know who owns the dam. Finally, tackle the growing problem of sediment in Silver Lake.

Mr. Keating hopes Norfolk will hold a public meeting in Port Dover to discuss the Stantec report on short-term repairs.

For six years, Norfolk’s focus has been on repairing Misner Dam. But that won’t be the long-term answer.

The MNR has said the dam should be removed from the river.

If not, it must be replaced and expanded to withstand a catastrophic flood.