01 - November 26, 2019 RIPA Committee MinutesVIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
III'%ui°mutes (*sulll )cct "to revusew aind all4 ll4 uro ally at fl,,lie next inleefling of fll,,iie IIII u114
ui ui uua ur csilll Illaui ui uiuiAdvuusoiry Coimimu1tee)
Date: November 26, 2019
Location: Elgin County Administration Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Human Resources Boardroom, 3rd Floor
Time: 2.00 p.m.
Attendees: Members of the Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee
Councillor Ed Ketchabaw
Councillor Sally Martyn
Councillor Dominique Giguere
2019 Warden Duncan McPhail
Heather Derks (Citizen Appointee)
Elgin County Staff
Chief Administrative Officer and County Clerk, Julie Gonyou (until 2.12 pm)
County Manager of Planning, Steve Evans
Consultant Team — Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA)
Cathy Quinlan, Terrestrial Biologist, Project Coordinator
Terry Chapman, GIS Specialist
Tracy Annett, Manager Environmental Planning and Regulations
1. Call to Order
The Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee met this 26t" day of November, 2019
in the Human Resources Board Room, at the County Administration Building, St.
Thomas at 2.00 p.m., with County Chief Administrative Officer and County Clerk in the
chair.
2. Appointment of Chair
Councillor Ketchabaw was nominated for the position of Chair by Warden McPhail. No
further nominations were received for this position and nominations were declared closed.
Councillor Ketchabaw accepted the nomination and members unanimously resolved to
appoint Councillor Ketchabaw as Chair of the Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory
Committee.
Moved by: Warden McPhail
Seconded by: Councillor Martyn
Resolved that Councillor Ketchabaw be appointed as Chair of the Rural
Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee.
VIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
3. Approval of Agenda
Chief Administrative Officer and County Clerk, Julie Gonyou, as a matter of housekeeping,
noted that the meeting agenda incorrectly referenced an "Elgin Natural Heritage Systems
Study Meeting" and an amendment is required to clarify that the meeting is a "Rural
Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee Meeting".
No further amendments to the agenda were noted.
The Chief Administrative Officer and County Clerk left the meeting at 2.12 p.m., with
Councillor Ketchabaw in the chair.
4. Welcome and Introductions
Chairman Ketchabaw welcomed members and guests, provided a general overview of the
purpose of the meeting — to provide the Steering Committee with a comprehensive update
on the ENHSS Project and an opportunity for discussion.
5. Review of Minutes
Project Coordinator. C. Quinlan (UTRCA) reviewed the presentations, minutes and report
recommendations from previous meetings.
6. Review key steps of the study and the three meetings
September 11, 2018: Project Kick -Off Meeting
Project Coordinator, C. Quinlan reviewed the presentation delivered at the Project Kickoff
Meeting jointly to members of the Steering Committee and the Project Team on September 11,
2018. The presentation included an overview of the Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study
(ENHSS), review of the selection of UTRCA as consultants, the methodology used to map the
vegetation units and the Ecologically Important Criteria applied to the vegetation units, and
general implementation options.
The woodland size criteria were raised as an issue that would need to be decided upon
by the Project Team (i.e., 2 ha or 4 ha minimum size limit); was dealt with at the Dec. 6tn
Technical Workshop with the Project Team.
A question was raised about the accuracy of the mapping and aerial photography
interpretation; GIS Specialist, T. Chapman provided information with respect to the first
Middlesex NHSS where ground-truthing was conducted. Results of field verification
confirmed the use of aerial photo interpretation for identifying vegetation communities
VIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
and boundaries was appropriate for a landscape scale study. Staff completing the
aerial photo interpretation has 15 years of experience with these studies. Staff has
found the mapping is at least 90% accurate. It was explained that when land use
change is proposed, verification of the vegetation boundaries and criteria met can be
carried out at the site scale by the proponent. The mapping from this study provides
information on possible natural heritage considerations up -front and early in the
process, before detailed studies are contemplated.
A question was raised about whether drain maintenance activities within 30m of
significant features would be affected. Manager of Planning, S. Evans clarified that the
activity would be covered under the Woodlands Conservation By -Law. Currently the
By -Law allows for drain maintenance in these circumstances.
A question was raised regarding phragmites and if this non-native wetland grass was
identified differently than other native wetland vegetation communities. Project
Coordinator, C. Quinlan confirmed that phragmites is not well distinguished on the
photography from other marsh plants such as cattails. This is true of other non-native
plants in woodlands and thickets as well. The mapping can't get to the species level.
Strips of phragmites in ditches are not features identified in this study (i.e., a vegetation
community must be >_30m wide and >_0.5 ha in area).
December 6, 2018: Ecological Criteria and other Technical Components
Project Coordinator, C. Quinlan reviewed highlights from the Dec 6, 2018 Technical Workshop
Minutes (Project Team meeting). A question was raised with respect to Woodland Size cutoff: C.
Quinlan explained that mapping showing the two scenarios for woodland size (4 ha and 2 ha)
were provided to Project Team members to review. After much discussion and review of other
nearby county studies, the Project Team agreed 4 ha was the suitable cutoff for Elgin County.
A question was asked regarding a comment in the minutes from the Lower Thames
Valley Conservation Authority regarding the Drainage Act in Chatham -Kent. Manager of
Planning, S. Evans clarified that the comment from LTVCA was based on their
experience in Chatham -Kent where there is very little forest cover.
As a follow up, it was asked if an area such as Muskoka needed a natural heritage
systems study too, given the significant amount of forest cover there. The answer is
yes, it is a PPS requirement. Manager Environmental Planning and Regulations, T.
Annett noted the Natural Heritage Reference Manual that is used to implement the
natural heritage policies contained in the PPS, provides guidelines for minimum
woodland size cutoffs depending on percent forest cover (e.g., the higher the amount of
existing forest cover, the larger the woodland size cutoff can be, e.g.10 or 20 ha).
C. Quinlan reviewed the difference between those features identified in the PPS as
Significant and those features that have been identified in the Elgin Natural Heritage
Systems Study as "Ecologically Important".
VIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
A question was raised about why we are looking at Ecologically Important features if it is
not required? S. Evans and T. Annett clarified that the PPS requires a natural heritage
system to be identified. The Ecologically Important features are important to the County
and its local municipalities and are key in maintaining linkages that help make up the
natural heritage system. Councillor Martyn pointed out that Central Elgin already has
many of these features identified in their Official Plan.
It was clarified that the Elgin County Woodlands Conservation By-law already affects all
woodlands (>_1 ha). S. Evans provided an example where the conditions of a
development approved in Port Stanley required replanting of the same area on another
property to ensure no net loss as per the Woodlands Conservation By -Law. The
ENHSS provides baseline data which will help in monitoring natural heritage cover over
time and inform the effectiveness of policies at achieving the County's natural heritage
objectives. It was also mentioned that the UTRCA has had success in partnering with
industry to increase natural heritage cover (e.g., Toyota, Cami). Goal of the Province is
to maintain natural vegetation cover — no net loss.
April 91", 2019: Joint Steering Committee and Project Team Meeting
C. Quinlan reviewed the minutes of the April 9t", 2019 joint Steering Committee and Project Team
meeting. The draft ENHSS report was reviewed on April 9, 2019, with a focus on the
recommendations in Chapter 5. Some recommendations were revised based on the comments
received during the meeting and follow-up submissions. It was noted that the revised report,
dated June 5t", 2019 was made available to the Project Team for further review.
Cathy Quinlan reviewed the revised recommendations implementation measures (Chapter 5) in
the June 5t" Draft ENHSS report.
Section 5.1 Planning Recommendations
• S. Evans suggested the mapping from the study be included as an Appendix in the
County's Official Plan. S. Evans explained that the natural heritage system features will
not be shown as land use designations but will be provided for education and public
awareness purposes.
• The EIS Guideline document in Appendix B of the Elgin County Official Plan (OP) will
need to be updated.
Section 5.2 Other Implementation Measures
There was a question about the last recommendation regarding an update to the
watercourse layer to ensure smaller watercourses are mapped accurately and
distinguished from swales, etc., and the Note ("...all open watercourses are considered
to be potential fish habitat...") and whether that might re -ignite debate over the Fisheries
Act. After some discussion it was decided to leave the recommendation and note as is,
as the note simply reminds the reader of the policies.
VIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
7. Discussion
• The purpose of the Natural Heritage Systems Study is a background document to
inform the Official Plan. The OP polices will be part of the public consultation.
• Councillor Giguere recommended that the draft study be shared with the public prior to
OP review.
• S. Evans indicated that staff can be directed to do so, but the science is defensible. He
clarified that this will be one of several background studies for the OP review. The
Official Plan is the document that requires public consultation and input.
• A question was asked "What is recommended for a public process?" S. Evans
responded that the process is the review of the County Official Plan -- research is used
to develop policies for the OP and the public then get the opportunity to review the OP
through public consultation. The ENHSS report will become a reference document to
the OP.
• Councillor Giguere rejects the statement that the science can't be disputed as there can
be different opinions/conclusions, etc. She feels the nature of this study is contentious
and, based on lessons learned, feels that people would push back on the policy if they
haven't had a chance to review the study.
• Chairman Ketchabaw suggested that there is a high degree of confidence in this study
and consultants and it would be dangerous ground to challenge the science. The
general public does not have the means to review the science; what is important is to
review the changes to the OP and to provide feedback to council.
• Councillor Martyn agreed that the public may assume that the ENHSS is the policy (if it
is released for public input), and not that it simply informs the policy which is yet to be
written. Scientific methods had to be used to do the study.
• Councillor Giguere feels we can't assume the public can't digest the study and that their
concerns should not be diminished.
• H. Derks asked about the timeline for the 5-year review. S. Evans indicated that work
on the OP policies should start in 2020. S. Evans stated that the study was completed
by competent professionals and it provides the best information to take to the OP. The
best time for the public to comment is through the OP review process.
• Warden McPhail agreed that the operative part is the OP. The ENHSS is a resource
document that summarizes facts about the natural heritage system in Elgin.
• Councillor Martyn agreed that the study represents the facts about the natural heritage
system. Going to the public outside of the OP process might be misinterpreted. Public
VIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
input is often about how it will affect them personally and they need to see the OP policy
first to be able to understand how it affects them.
Chairman Ketchabaw asked for a summary of the proposed next steps. S. Evans
outlined that pending the final review of the study by the steering committee, the
ENHSS report should be taken to Council for review to be used as a background
document in the development of OP policies. It was clarified that the receipt of the study
does not mean approval of the OP policies.
• S. Evans expected that a report to Council for a motion to initiate the OP process will be
required to formally start the OP review process.
• Councillor Giguere asked whether there have been challenges to the science in other
similar studies? Steve will look into it (e.g., Waterloo). C. Quinlan indicated there was
concern in Perth County around implementation, but the scientific methodology was not
questioned per se. In the end, Perth Council accepted the study.
• H. Derks agreed with the motion to present the report to County Council provided that
additional wording be included to clarify that no new designations will be placed on land
and that only those areas identified as Provincially Significant would be designated. The
Natural Heritage System mapping will be included as an appendix for information.
• H. Derks wondered if clarification needs to be provided to answer the questions "What it
means if a property is designated". S. Evans clarified that the OP policies will reflect the
Natural Heritage System Study, but the intent is not to designate. He also explained
that any person can apply for an OP amendment through the planning process.
8. Public information posting on County website
• C. Quinlan reviewed the Frequently Asked Questions FAA's and maps hosted on the
County's website. The information was posted in the summer and no feedback from the
public has been received.
• H. Derks wondered if some clarification wording can be added to the FAQs regarding
`designations' as discussed above. C. Quinlan and S. Evans to follow up.
9. Next Steps and Motions
The chair requested a resolution.
The following motion was passed at the November 27, 2019 meeting of the Rural
Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee in their role as Steering Committee for
the Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study.
Moved by: Councillor Sally Martyn
Seconded by: Heather Derks
VIIIIOumuu
r ogr e ssr"ve by N a tw e
Resolved that the Elgin Natural Heritage Systems Study 2019 (June 5th Draft) be
presented to Elgin County Council by the Consultant (Upper Thames River
Conservation Authority) at a date to be determined; and that the Rural
Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee (Steering Committee for this Study)
forward the Study to Elgin County Council for its consideration with the proviso
that lands that are mapped as ecologically important in the ENHSS shall not be
designated as a land use on the County of Elgin Official Plan Land Use Schedule
when the County completes its five year review of the Official Plan.
Motion Carried
10.Adjournment
Moved by: Heather Derks
Seconded by: Councillor Giguere
Resolved that the Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee meeting of
November 26, 2019 adjourn.
11. Action Items:
a. S. Evans will check on the Waterloo natural heritage study — for background.
b. S. Evans to provide Warden McPhail with a hardcopy the study.