FAQs

A mitigation plan has been submitted for the approval of MECP in accordance with the Act and the District awaits a reply. The District will act within the limitations of such approval should it be provided.

Desktop SAR Screening (using the Ministry’s SAR website) was completed which showed nothing of concern in the area. Upon receiving information from Mr. Dyment contradicting that of the SAR website an MECP Application was completed. The activity was registered with the MECP throughout.

MNRF Work Permit – Submitted May 18, 2021 – Received approval September 20, 2021, provided work permit conditions are met. Greer Galloway ensured all conditions were being followed.

DFO Request for Review – Submitted July 7, 2021 – Received approval to move forward with proper mitigation measures.

MNR Information Gathering Form – Submitted March 14, 2022. This submittal was made in the context of Mr. Dyment's additional concerns and recognizing that this activity is exempted from the requirements of the ESA under the “threats to health and safety, not-imminent” provisions set out under section 23.18 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 (General) made under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) – July 21, 2022.

In addition to the above, a Mitigation Plan was submitted prior to construction and will be adhered to during construction. A mitigation plan to create new habitat has been prepared and, pending MECP approval, it will be designed and implemented with input from SAR specialists.

Yes, as noted above an MNRF Work Permit was submitted and approved.

No permit is required under the Fisheries act. At the start of the project the DFO mapping of aquatic SAR records was reviewed, and it showed no records of aquatic SAR to be present in the river/area of construction. However, as noted above a Request for Review was submitted to DFO and impacts to fish are not expected and, where and if appropriate, mitigation measures will be applied.

The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) is applied for the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and safety of dams in Ontario. As no dams are proposed a permit is not required.

The Municipal Class EA (MCEA) was completed through the Schedule A requirements as part of the Environmental Assessment Act. The supporting rationale for selection of this Schedule can be found here: https://municipalclassea.ca/manual/page75.html, specifically considered as; “Normal or emergency operation and maintenance of linear paved facilities cycling lanes/facilities & multi-purpose paths, sidewalks, parking lots and related facilities located within or outside existing rights of-way.”. Such projects typically fall under pre-approved Schedule A criteria in which case the proponent may proceed without following the procedures set out in any other part of this Class EA.

Supplementing the minimum requirements set out through the MCEA process, two qualified biologists were consulted with regard to the existing habitat through the construction zone (which was determined to be transitory for Blanding’s Turtles). As a final measure, Mr. Dyment’s historical field observations were shared with both biologists and the MECP for their reference, review and consideration when developing the mitigation plan (available at: https://www.engagemuskoka.ca/muskoka-road-14).

See links provided above which provide provincial guidance on the selection of the EA Schedule.

EMS access was re-established once the 2019 flood waters had receded. Restorative work in this area was also completed including re-instating portions of road base and pavement lost during the flood and installation of severely damaged sections of guide rail. Costs associated with this are outlined in Question 4 (Section 2) below.

Several options with respect to the project were reviewed in light of the following considerations:

• capital costs and construction feasibility;
• long-term advantages; 
• impact to environment;
• impact to residents; and
• requirement for in water works;

The option selected was the best available and practical option to mitigate the impacts of future flood events.

The District prioritizes the safety of all residents and, as noted above, has selected the best option to mitigate the impacts of future floods. If you are requesting information related to specific individuals, the information sought should be clarified and submitted through a request for information pursuant to the applicable municipal freedom of information and protection of privacy (MFIPPA) legislation.

Several options with respect to the project were reviewed in light of the following considerations:

• capital costs and construction feasibility;
• long-term advantages; 
• impact to environment;
• impact to residents; and
• requirement for in water works;

The option selected was the best available and practical option to mitigate the impacts of future flood events.

The District currently does not provide air ambulance services and as such cannot offer comment.

Non-military emergency vehicles were unable to safely cross through the flooded section of roadway due to the velocity of water. The road was closed for both the safety of our EMS staff and members of the public. The Canadian Armed Forces Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) was deployed throughout the declaration of a state of emergency to assist emergency crossings. Examples of the vehicles used for this are available at https://www.engagemuskoka.ca/muskoka-road-14

This question appears to call for information related to individuals and would need to be submitted through a request for information pursuant to the applicable freedom of information legislation. In the meantime, staff reviewed the number of properties that were impacted by the flood and road closure during the 2019 event. A summary has been provided below:

See answer 8. Additionally, based on the geotechnical report completed in February of 2020 the soil physiography in this area is defined as shallow till and rock ridges with underlying bedrock. Boreholes drilled to a depth of 3m did not encounter rock, however based on background documents for the bridge, bedrock is present at deeper depths. The lack of surface soils and depth to bedrock would make the installation of steel pylons (or other driven steel structures such as sheet piles) a challenge and potentially not a viable solution.

Furthermore, due to the flow velocities expected during high flow events, scour could remove soil between the natural bank and the steel structures. This would make restoration after an event extremely challenging. The proposed concrete cable mats provide a level of protection for both the road and its structure, allowing for natural vegetation to reestablish itself while protecting the bank from erosion