Thread by @mr_lois_lane

🏞️👷The Hamilton Conservation Authority board is looking into establishing an official “offsetting” policy to relocate natural features such as wetlands, floodplains, and rivers in some situations. I talked to people in the know to unpack what that means. [1/12]

https://twitter.com/TheAgenda/status/1389231267766493192

A discussion paper will be shared for public consultation early this month. The HCA board will make a decision in the fall. For now, you can read the paper on pg 47 of the April 1 HCA board meeting agenda: conservationhamilton.ca/wp-content/upl… [2/12]

The paper defines offsetting as an agreement “to compensate for harm to biodiversity at one site by creating, restoring or enhancing biodiversity elsewhere, generally on a ‘like for like’ basis.” (See pg 8 of the discussion paper attached) [3/12]

“I am not a fan of [offsetting] policies being adopted in regions like Hamilton where a large percentage of the natural wetlands in the region have already been destroyed,” says McMaster wetland scientist and Canada research chair in ecohydrology @peatofmind. [4/12]

He says it is very difficult to recreate a wetland's functions in a new location.

Ontario Nature calls wetlands "critical to water filtration, flood retention, erosion control, carbon storage, nutrient cycling and groundwater recharge.” [5/12]

If the HCA does adopt an offsetting policy (which would apply to the watershed it oversees but not to HCA-owned lands, such as conservation areas), Hamilton's will become one of a number of authorities in the province that allow the practice in some form. [6/12]

Scott Peck, the HCA’s deputy chief administrative officer and director of watershed planning and engineering, says similar policies applied by the Toronto and Region, Credit Valley, and Lake Simcoe Region conservation authorities, consider offsetting a last resort. [7/12]

Lynda Lukasik of @EnvHamilton worries about allowing offsetting at all, worrying it could be a slippery slope. “If there is a policy, then it’s far more likely they’re going to end up going there at some point with a proponent who comes in and pushes.” [8/12]

.@clrferguson, chair of the HCA’s board of directors, supported creating the discussion paper and sharing it for consultation. He says he expects developers to push — but that policies can check private interests. “They’re motivated by profit. It’s our job to say no.” [9/12]

HCA board member @BCouncillor voted against creating and sharing the paper. “I’m very nervous about any policy that would enable the paving over of wetlands with the option of creating an engineered pond ... ,” he says. [10/12]

The board commissioned the paper following an Ancaster development proposal. Landscape architect Le’ Ann Seely, a consultant on the development, told me she believes a better wetland can be created nearby if the developer is permitted to dig one up on the site. [11/12]

There's more on the Ancaster case, the policy specifics and the debate in the article: tvo.org/article/is-rel…
I also recommend reading the discussion paper. [12/12]