The Ministry proposals and…

The Ministry proposals and Long Point Region Conservation Authority’s responses are
included below:

1. Update definitions for key regulatory terms to better align with other provincial policy, including: “wetland”, “watercourse” and “pollution”;

LPRCA response:
• LPRCA supports this proposal. Conservation Authorities through Conservation Ontario have encouraged the province to define these terms in relation to natural hazards to provide clarity and minimize variation across the province. In order to achieve a consistent interpretation of these terms and to assist in future legal matters that may challenge these definitions, the MNRF should also consider providing supporting documentation in the future e.g. fact sheets or implementation guidelines.

2. Defining undefined terms including: “interference” and “conservation of land” as consistent with the natural hazard management intent of the regulation;

LPRCA response:

• LPRCA supports this proposal. These terms are integral to the implementation of a new regulation and the evaluation of an activity that requires a permit. Definitions for these terms and future implementation guidelines or fact sheets would provide clarity for conservation authorities, applicants and legal matters.
A portion of the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) is not proclaimed at this time. The province has indicated that it is proposing to proclaim sections of the CAA following the approval of the proposed Regulation. This includes: “S28.1 (1) An authority may issue a permit to a person to engage in an activity specified in the permit that would otherwise be prohibited by section 28, if, in the opinion of the authority, ... (b) the activity is not likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property.”
• LPRCA requests that the province also provide guidance on the interpretation and implementation of this clause to assist in the review of permit applications where this test may apply. Factors that may be considered include:
o safe ingress and egress of people and vehicles during a flood event
o health and safety of emergency responders entering flood waters
o floodproofing requirements
o damage to structures on the site or to other landowners (offsite impacts)
o future costs to protect property or manage risk to people and property due to climate change

3. Reduce regulatory restrictions between 30m and 120m of a wetland and where a hydrological connection has been severed;

LPRCA response:
• The LPRCA supports the reduction of regulatory restrictions between 30m and 120m from a wetland for low risk activities that would not impact the hydrologic function or public safety. A LPRCA assessment of 2017 permits found that 36 of 48 were located in the 30m -120m regulated area and many of these permits could be considered low risk activities. In this case, low risk would be considered as a project that would not have a substantial effect on the hydrologic function of the wetland.

4. Exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit including certain alterations and repairs to existing municipal drains subject to the Drainage Act provided they are undertaken in accordance with the Drainage Act and Conservation Authorities Act Protocol;

LPRCA response:
• The LPRCA supports this provision to enable the explicit exemption of some low risk activities. In some regulated areas, there are low risk activities that currently require a permit that could be considered for exemption. LPRCA policies currently include activities of this nature that occur outside of a wetland or some hazard areas such as minor landscaping or grading, replacement of service connections, small non-habitable accessory structures e.g. shed. The proposed exemption and other initiatives outlined in this proposal will result in faster and less costly approvals.
• LPRCA is also supportive of including the low risk activities outlined in the Drainage Act and Conservation Authorities Act protocol.

5. Allow conservation authorities to further exempt low-risk development activities from requiring a permit in accordance with conservation authority policies;

LPRCA response:
• LPRCA supports this initiative to allow individual conservation authorities to identify low risk activities in limited parts of natural hazard areas where there is current technical information and mapping. Exemption of low risk activities includes two options: outright exemption and a permit by rule system where the applicant agrees to a specific set of rules before they start a specific regulated activity in a defined area.
The MNRF should consider the requirements that will need to be in place for the implementation of a permit by rule system, such as regulation maps that are current. Provincial investment in updating components of the natural hazard maps may be necessary e.g. floodplain and wetland mapping. Current and reliable maps are a key part of the successful implementation of this option so property owners can use the conservation authority regulation maps to identify where an exemption may or may not be applicable and avoid enforcement issues.
The LPRCA is currently investing in updated floodplain and erosion hazard mapping under the National Disaster Mitigation Program.

6. Require conservation authorities to develop, consult on, make publicly available and periodically review internal policies that guide permitting decisions;

LPRCA response:
• LPRCA supports this proposal. LPRCA existing permit policies have been documented and posted on the LPRCA website at https://www.lprca.on.ca/pages/1372334366/Policies-and-Guidelines.

7. Require conservation authorities to notify the public of changes to mapped regulated areas such as floodplains or wetland boundaries;

LPRCA response:
• LPRCA supports this proposal. Notification may be provided to the public in several ways. Where the LPRCA is leading a comprehensive update, a process similar to municipal comprehensive studies is used including broad public notification through local print media, online media, website postings, public meetings and reports presented at the LPRCA board meeting which is open to the public.
• Where a municipality is undertaking a land use planning approval such as a secondary or community plan or environmental assessment and new or updated natural hazard mapping is available, the LPRCA considers the public to be notified of these changes through the municipal consultation process. This avoids duplicate public processes.
• Many updates to mapping are the result of site-specific planning or permit applications and the landowner is notified as part of the process. These are considered minor housekeeping updates and are undertaken from time to time. Since affected parties are involved and aware of the changes, additional public notification is not undertaken.
• Guidance on acceptable public notification processes would be helpful to outline options available to conservation authorities. The guidelines should consider factors such as the scale and scope of changes and alternative public notification opportunities to avoid duplication.

8. Require conservation authorities to establish, monitor and report on service delivery standards including requirements and timelines for determination of complete applications and timelines for permit decisions.

LPRCA response:
• LPRCA supports this proposal. LPRCA has been monitoring performance for permit approvals using the MNRF guidelines and its own, more stringent service objectives. Staff report permit approval statistics to the Board annually. Although the LPRCA is able to achieve success in meeting the provincial timelines, there are opportunities to improve the complete application process and improve the quality of technical submissions and achieve faster approvals using checklists and technical guides. LPRCA would support an update to the 2002 Provincial Natural Hazard Guideline including new information to address climate change.
Table 1: LPRCA Permit Decisions within MNRF Guidelines (April 2019)

9. Once a Regulation is established, the province is also proposing to bring into force unproclaimed sections of the Conservation Authorities Act associated with conservation authority permitting decisions and regulatory enforcement.

LPRCA response:
• The LPRCA supports proclaiming S.28 and S.30 of the Conservation Authorities Act. The Act was updated to include modern approaches to the compliance and enforcement requirements including the ability to use tools such as a ‘Stop Work Order’ for work started without approval. There are also substantial increases in fines that may be a deterrent to illegal activities.