Initial comments on pending…

Initial comments on pending updated Regulation:
- Recommend re-instating the CA Working Group (CAWG) with representatives from the provincial agencies, conservation authorities, municipalities, developers, and other key stakeholders to work together on drafting the updated regulation and then hold a fulsome and sincere consultation on the draft regulation.

- While not the subject per se of this ERO posting, I would like to express my disappointment with the recent removal of 'conservation of land' and 'pollution' from the CA Act. These are short-sighted changes that will make the protection of natural areas and use of natural solutions to address natural hazards more challenging, and will have long term negative impacts on protecting the public and financial resources in the long term.

- Sec. 2.1.2 - Permit Exemptions - I support the inclusion of exemptions, however, some of the proposed exemptions may not be 'low-risk' such placement of excavated material from an off-line pond in hazardous lands or the excavation of an offline pond in areas of unstable soils or bedrock or erosion. Care should also be taken to ensure that exemptions don't inadvertently result in structures likes walls or other barriers to floodwaters be exempted as a fence or tile drains that alter a proposed outlet location. Cumulative impacts should also be considered within an exemption clause (e.g., several small structures may pose the same risk as a single larger structure).

- Sec. 2.1.2 - Watercourse definition - The proposed definition does not account for reaches where a feature becomes poorly defined due to natural conditions (e.g., wetland) or anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., grading activities, piped enclosures) but where floodwaters continue to be conveyed
and pose a natural hazard. This could result in “gaps” in watercourse mapping and regulation implementation (e.g., middle sections of a watercourse that are piped or that traverse a wetland would be omitted from mapping and unregulated). The proposed definition may also not allow for the capture of all features with a large drainage area and resulting flood hazard (e.g., wetland that forms the headwaters to a river, stream or creek).

Sec. 2.1.2 - Valleys - The extent of changes proposed are unclear until a draft regulation is presented. Regulatory allowances are important to ensure new hazards are not created or existing ones are not aggravated as per the PPS. The regulatory allowances encompass the provincial erosion access allowance outlined in the Provincial technical guides and allow for access 1) during flooding or erosion emergencies, 2) to undertake regular maintenance or repair failed structures and 3) provide protection against external events. Allowances also provide a freeboard between flooding and adjacent development. There are current gaps in CA regulations regarding flood plains associated with apparent valleys that extend beyond the limits of stable top of bank that should be addressed. (e.g., add floodplains under the applicable flood event standard to apparent valleys).

Sec.2.1.2 - Updates to the Provincial technical guides for all of the hazardous areas are essential to improving the delivery of effective natural hazard management. Consultation on the guidelines should be extensive and include multiple focussed discussions with stakeholders (CAs, municipalities, developers, consultant industry, etc.) as well as broader ERO postings.

Section 3 - Exemptions for development authorized under the Planning Act - I fully support that CAs and municipalities continue to work together to improve coordination between municipal and CA approvals; however, outright exemptions of CA Act approvals could be very problematic or lead to increased risks to the public. I recommend this recent update to the CA Act not be implemented through Regulation. If the Province opts to implement this part of the Act through Regulation, I recommend extreme caution to ensure that the exemptions don't result in inadvertent outcomes and increase risk to the public. For example, how will it be ensured that natural hazards will be adequately addressed at the Planning Act approval stage and who will be responsible for compliance and inspections for works that are exempted from CA Act approvals? Municipalities do not currently have the capacity or expertise to replace the highly specialized and cost effective work of CAs as it relates to natural hazards. The extent or nature of this regulation is very unclear and I recommend extensive consultation (i.e., time for back and forth and robust discussions with all key stakeholders) if the Province decides to proceed to enacting a regulation in this regard.