|
EBR Registry Number: PB06E6012 |
Type of Posting: Policy |
|
Ministry: Natural Resources |
Status of Posting: Decision |
|
Date Proposal Loaded: 2006/03/24 |
|
Date Decision Loaded: 2006/06/19 |
|
Comment Period: 45 day(s) |
|
Written submissions were permitted between March 24, 2006 and May 08, 2006. |
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006
Issuance of a Policy and Procedural Directive to MNR field organization providing clear direction with respect to the decision to not issue approvals under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA)
To proceed with the proposal as described, subject to changes made below as a result of public consultation and additional changes made by the ministry.
Number of Comments Received: 3
The comments were generally
supportive of the proposal, with the exception of a specific issue related to
the capacity for Conservation Authorities (CAs) and potential conflict of
interest for CAs to issue approval under the Conservation Authorities Act.
Comment 1: Finds the amendments to be a benefit to watershed residents as the
changes will be less onerous on the landowner; that these changes will not
result in additional work for Conservation Authority staff; that there will be
no reduction in the protection of the environment with regards to alterations
to watercourses as a result of the proposed amendments.
Response 1: MNR agrees that the proposed amendments will not adversely affect the
environment. For MNR to eliminate the approval under the LRIA, CAs must have
Development Regulations in effect. MNR approval will continue to be required
where a conservation authority does not exist or does not have regulations in
effect. As well, approval of MNR will continue to be required for any works
involving dams.
Comment 2: Suggested that CAs be provided with guidance documents related to
pertinent sections of the Act, in order to allow CAs to incorporate useful
policies and/or practices in their own internal documents.
Response 2: MNR has issued comprehensive technical support documents to ensure
consistent application of CA regulations that account for all the purposes of
the Act. MNR will also be issuing updated LRIA Technical Guidelines that are
currently under review by CAs.
Comment 3: Serious reservations about CAs being delegated additional authority
to regulate works in a watercourse – when the record suggests they are not
capable of adequately implementing floodplain regulations within their current
authority.
Response 3: This proposal is for the exemption of approval for specific works
under the LRIA and is not a delegation of additional authority to CAs. Since
the mid 1980s, the local conservation authorities have had the responsibility
for administration of floodplain regulations and the control of flooding, or
the conservation of land that may be affected by development, and are the lead
in providing comments to municipalities on development proposals.
Comment 4: There is disparity in the apparent capabilities of Conservation
Authorities to apply sound floodplain management – which they are tasked with
under Section 28 of the Conservation Authority Act.
Response 4: Engineering support would continue to be offered by MNR to
conservation authorities that do not have sufficient technical expertise, upon
their request. Some conservation authorities already have working arrangements
for pooling or sharing their technical resources with those of surrounding CAs
who possess the required capabilities. The Regional Engineer of the MNR will
continue to be involved in decision making regarding potential application of
two-zone floodplain management.
Comment 5: Need for posting approvals under the CA Act on the Environmental
Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry, enabling third parties to seek Leave to Appeal
to the Mining and Lands Commissioner.
Response 5: Conservation Authorities are not prescribed under Ontario
Regulation 73/94 of the EBR for purpose of posting their decisions on the
Environmental Registry. However, environmental assessments conducted by CAs or
municipalities require public consultation.
The proposal as it was originally published appears below.
The Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR), in administering its responsibilities under the LRIA, utilizes direction
from 1977 Technical Guidelines. These Guidelines set out information
requirements and review and approvals processes for activities that include
construction of dams, water crossings, channelization of rivers or streams,
enclosures of rivers and streams, and installation of cables or pipelines into
the bed of a river.
This Policy and Procedural Directive will be provided to notify MNR staff that
LRIA approvals are not required for specific activities, with the exception of
dams. This direction will not remove the requirement for an approval for a dam
that acts as a “barrier across a river, lake, pond or stream to hold back water
in order to raise its level, create a reservoir to control flooding or divert
the flow of water”.
Furthermore, any dam decommissioning works still require approval under the
LRIA as an alteration to a dam.
This proposal will reduce overlap which currently exists between approvals
required from MNR under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) and from
Conservation Authorities of Ontario (CAs) under the Conservation Authorities
Act (CA Act).
Overlap of approvals currently exists between MNR and the CAs, where CAs have
regulations pursuant to Section 28 of the CA Act:
• Under LRIA- Section 2 of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg. 454/96) identifies work
that requires approval, and
• Under CA Act- Section 28, a conservation authority makes regulations
applicable in the area under its jurisdiction (see links below).
Therefore it was proposed during the review that the government eliminate
specified permitting requirements (i.e. clauses 2 (b), (c), (d), and (e) of O.
Reg. 454/96) in conservation authority areas with regulation.
The purpose of this proposal is to improve client services while continuing to maintain safety, by eliminating overlap and duplication which currently exists between approvals required from MNR under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) and from the conservation authorities under the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act), for construction, alteration and improvement of water related structures.
The Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) began a review of work permits issued under the LRIA and the Public Lands
Act in 2001 and recommended some LRIA approvals, except those for dams, be
issued by appropriate partners who possessed the capacity and willingness to
carry out these duties. CAs were subsequently identified as the logical choice.
The report also recommended streamlining of LRIA approvals (i.e., amending the
regulations) as a longer term strategy. Over the past few years, the MNR has
been working closely with Conservation Ontario (CO) and several key
conservation authorities developing options to remove duplication and develop a
one-window approach to permitting under the LRIA and the CA Act.
The current referral process of CA permit applications to Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) already ensures protection of fish habitat. Further,
under O. Reg 97/04 made under the CA Act, there will be greater consistency in
how Conservation Authorities administer these matters.
Engineering works associated with design, construction and rehabilitation of
dams require highly specialized expertise which is not readily available within
all the CAs. It is therefore proposed to continue to require MNR approval for
work on dams, including decommissioning of dams, under sections 14 and 16 of
the LRIA.
Approximately 100 LRIA permits are issued annually in Southern Ontario, where
CAs are in place, of which about 15 are for construction or improvements to
dams. For other works (i.e. water crossings, channelization, enclosures and
utility crossings), impacts of proposed work on upstream and downstream
riparian owners (e.g. flooding, and erosion) could adequately be addressed by
Conservation Authorities.
CA referral of Alteration to Waterway applications to DFO (or their designate)
will ensure continued protection of fish habitat. The ministry has worked
closely with Conservation Ontario over the past few years to develop options
for removing duplication and developing a one window approach to LRIA
permitting.
The environmental consequences of the proposed direction to MNR staff not to
issue LRIA approvals in addition to Conservation Authority approvals are
expected to be minimal. Conservation authorities are subject to the
requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, and all activities performed
by them are consistent with their objectives of controlling flooding, pollution
and conservation of land. The removal of the need for approval by MNR, as
proposed, will not therefore have an adverse impact on the environment.
Furthermore, MNR will continue to review and approve proposals for design,
construction, alteration and improvement to dams, where the potential for
adverse environmental impacts are greater, and efforts to minimize these
impacts will continue to be addressed through LRIA approvals.
The web-links which appear towards the bottom of this notice provide the
following additional information about this notice:
- Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
- O.Reg. 454/96 under Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
- Conservation Authority Act
- O.Reg. 97/04 under Conservation Authority Act
MNR conducted extensive consultation with the CAs and their umbrella organization, Conservation Ontario.
Carl Seider, Emergency Management
Policy Officer
MNR Lands and Waters Branch
5th Floor, South Tower, 300 Water Street
Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 8M5
PHONE: (705) 755-1221 FAX: (705) 755-1267
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l03_e.htm
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/960454_e.htm
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c27_e.htm
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/040097_e.htm
The EBR stipulates that the Ministry must take every reasonable step to ensure that all comments relevant to the proposal received as part of the public participation process are considered in this decision (S. 35 ebr). Only comments relevant to this proposal were considered in this decision.