What is the Panel?• Established in 2001, to "advise" Council on matters affecting the

quality of lake waters in our municipality• Completed it�’s 3rd term

M b hi Citi ith i l i t t i L k W t Q lit• Membership: 7 Citizens with special interest in LakeWater Qualityappointed by CouncilExperts:– Ministry of Environmenty– Ministry of Natural Resources– Sudbury District Health Unit– Nickel District Conservation Authorityy– FreshWater Ecology Cooperative– City of Greater Sudbury Environmental Staff

2002 Mi i2002 Mission

To serve as a watchdog on behalf of all citizens in thecommunity and actively promote and protect ecologicalhealth of lakes within the City of Greater Sudbury through:health of lakes within the City of Greater Sudbury through:Scientific and Social Scientific Research, public education,policy advocacy, community partnerships and strategic

i i i i icommunity initiatives.

2002 Vi i2002 Vision

That within one generation, the watersheds and waterbodies of Greater Sudbury will achieve and sustain a levelof health and quality much better than today makingof health and quality much better than today, makingGreater Sudbury a world class model for living with lakes.

A i i iActivities

GSLIP Panel meets approximately 10 times a yearInteracts with City Staff on issues,S h k f S d hi G b i iSupports the work of Stewardship Groups by reviewingproposals and assigning funds to projects to improve waterquality,q y,Monitors community concerns and offers advice to councilwhen possible and appropriate

h h blCommunicates with the Public

A hiAchievements

1. Policy Development Input2. Public Education by Media3. Support for Community Volunteer Initiatives Stewardship Groups

Policy: Lake and Water Quality input to the City�’s new Official Plan.Background report stage for the Natural Heritage and StormwaterManagement Background StudiesManagement Background StudiesPolicy development to plan draft Comments and 22 recommendations withmany incorporated into Official Plan for City of Greater Sudbury adopted byCity Council on June 14, 2006, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs onMarch 7, 2007 i.e. watershed focus, storm water retention, waterfront lot sizesi i din unserviced areas.Provided significant advice to staff and Council with respect to water qualityissues

• Input to LakeWater Quality report card and icons (lake trout andloons) to communicate health status of each major City lake.

• Organizing / Co organizing an annual LakeWater Quality Forum atS i N h V f id l b i

g g / g g Q yScience North Venue for area residents to learn about water issuesfor area residents; Gets new citizen interest in lake stewardshipissues and projects; Showcases the LakeWater Quality Program andpartner program successes.

• Assists the City in education and communication on water qualityissues. Panel members have written newspaper articles on waterquality topics.

• Provided input to staff �’s lake sampling program about which lakes tosample and advice concerning the significance of the resultsobtained.

Stewardship Groups23 Lake Stewardship Groups developed and now networked, offeringmutual educational and moral support, harnessing huge amounts ofvolunteer energy and working with City Staff.

Grant Programwith criteria to engage and assist individual lakestewardship committees to spread the workload and speed penetrationof stewardship ideas down to the grass rootsof stewardship ideas down to the grass roots.Stewardship Assistance Program grants awarded since 2001 andauthorized from part of the budget allocated to the LakeWater QualityProgram to organisations to assist in the imitative of lake stewardshipg g pgroups in achieving their goals of healthy waterfront living. .Know how to become incorporated as independent organisations.

C ti i S t i P blContinuing Systemic ProblemsCity Planning• Over capacity developmentOver capacity development• Lack of understanding of Watersheds drainage areas into the lakes from

huge areas of land within which our 300 lakes existDevelopment decisions• Lake shore development without buffer zones• Lake shore development without buffer zones• Despite the Official Plan, stewardship groups and individuals are fighting

rear guard actions to try to get input to decisions and / or to get decisionsreversed. Very inefficient and unnecessarily adversarial.

• Lake of guidance about lakeshore living for lakeshore residents• Lake of guidance about lakeshore living for lakeshore residents.Pesticide and Fertilizer use on Lake Front and Watershed propertiesSeptic system maintenanceShoreline degradation and wild life destruction by boaters

Ci M iCity Maintenance• Infrastructure repair with inadequate runoff protection• Waste Management regulations• Road Salt and Sand application and removalRoad Sa t a d Sa d app cat o a d e ova

S i S l iSystemic Solutions

ll b d f l d l l d kFull cost budgeting of Planned Development including LakeWater / Watershed protection• Stick with the official plan working cooperatively withStick with the official plan working cooperatively withdevelopers

• By law enforcement• Fund educational materials for all residents• Define lake capacity

So?

We need to review and revise the panels mandate incooperation with the stakeholderscooperation with the stakeholders.

Political will needed to give more priority to maintainingg p y gand improving Greater Sudbury�’s greatest resources forquality of life, tourism, business and for our image as acommunitycommunity

Themes

Communication Proactive not ReactiveSystemic not Ad HocKnowledge alone will not produce positive �–actionKnowledge alone will not produce positive actionIgnorance can allow negative action

RecommendationsRecommendations1. Mission statement for the panel should be updated in the light

of progress and changes over the years with input from the fullrange of stakeholders.Th t t th t t f h d t C il th h th P li2. That at the start of each mandate, Council through the PolicyCommittee, the Planning Committee, Committee ofAdjustment and other key decision making groups be givenbasic information aboutWatersheds, Lake Capacities, and, p ,major issues of LakeWater Quality that should inform theirdiscussions.

3. A systemic approach be taken to ensure that all City StaffDepartments responsible for advice on decision making aboutDepartments responsible for advice on decision making aboutprojects with Direct impact LakeWater Quality and impact onlakes and water viaWatersheds are well informed aboutpotential impacts.p p

R d ti4. That the City work with the Living Lakes Centre on projects and

communication about LakeWater and Watershed health

Recommendationscommunication about LakeWater and Watershed health.4a. That the GSLIAP present to the Budget Process advice on seedfunding required to enable all Lake Stewardship Groups to fulfilltheir mandate to protect and enhance LakeWater Quality4b That GSLIAP and City Staff support coordination of Stewardship4b. That GSLIAP and City Staff support coordination of StewardshipGroup efforts to reduce costs of materials and eliminate unnecessaryefforts

5. That Greater Sudbury Council consider moving in advance of theProvince to protect non municipal drinking water sources 15% ofProvince to protect non municipal drinking water sources 15% ofSudbury residents off services.

6. Transition signs on main streets indicating locations of watersheds.7. City staff from waste management, planning, conservation authority,7 y g , p g, y,

environmental services, roads and engineering departments workcooperatively with the LakeWater Quality Program.

8. That Greater Sudbury brand itself as The City of Lakes in itspromotional materials.promotional materials.