Exploring Conservation Authority operations in Sudbury, northern Ontario: constraints and opportunities.

Despite the downward trend, there are three exceptions, 1982, 1983, and 1990. In 1982 and 1983, revenues climbed to approximately $3,500,000, peaking again at $2,943,313 in 1990. These peaks are attributable to supplemental provincial funding for capital works projects. For example, in 1990 $1,436,189 was allotted to land and water resource management programs to pay for the construction of large capital projects for erosion control (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., January 2004). Following this isolated infusion of funds, annual revenues and expenditures decline.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

From 1980 to 2002, NDCA revenues were provided by all levels of government and by other sources as noted above. As experienced in other CA jurisdictions, the relative importance of each funding source has changed recently. Provincial funding to the NDCA has decreased sharply, dropping 78.5% between 1992 (start of provincial reforms) and 2002, while municipal funding has increased by 22%, closer to levels typical during the 1980s. In 2002, provincial funding accounted for 17% of NDCA revenues.

A historical comparison of mean revenues by source, before (1980-1995) and after (1996-2002) OMNR cutbacks, shows that municipal contributions accounted for almost one half of NDCA total funding (Figure 3). In turn, the average provincial share has decreased from 56% to 26%. Other sources of NDCA revenue have increased from 16% to 21%. This was mainly accomplished by raising permit fees, increasing land lease payments, and through the sale of conservation lands (NDCA 1994, 1995, Vaillancourt 2003, P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., January 2004). At time of writing, user fees and local partnerships were not significant sources of other revenues.

NDCA Programs, 1980 to 2002

Results show an overall trend of decline in total program operations from the overall maximum of $2,208,109 in 1980 to $460,073 in 2002 (-79%) (Figure 4). Program spending hit its lowest point at $399,246 during the funding transition period in 1996. A comparison of mean program spending indicates that annual program spending for 1980 to 1995 was $1,179,368, compared to $630,916 for 1996 to 2002. This difference represents a 47% decline in mean annual program spending.

Resource program spending has historically been more significant than conservation program spending. There is no program spending separation available for the period 1992 to 1995, so data for the existing years are used to illustrate differences in program spending before and after provincial reforms. Mean annual conservation spending for the period 1980 to 1991 was $118,280, while mean annual resource program spending was $1,197,483. However, for the period 1996 to 2002 mean annual conservation and resource spending was reduced to $27,324 and $513,461 respectively. This represents a 77% decrease for conservation programs and 57% decrease for resource programs. Although expenditures in both categories have decreased over time, conservation spending has also decreased in relative importance to total program spending. From 1980 to 1991, mean conservation program spending accounted for 9% of total program spending, which diminished to 5% for the period 1996 to 2002. It should be noted that spending reductions were spread across all NDCA categories including administration, job creation programs and miscellaneous expenses (e.g. travel and equipment costs).

An inventory of programs indicates the large range of programs offered as reported by NDCA from 1980 to 2002 (Table 2). Since 1980, initiatives have focused on water management. During the first 25 years of operation the NDCA completed 20 major flood control projects (NDCA 1982). By 1998, this number had grown to 36 (NDCA 1998a). From 1982 to 1998, the NDCA completed one major flood control project per year. Alterations to stream channels and banks have been ongoing to control flow and the NDCA has developed an automated system for flood monitoring, forecasting and warning. Flood plain mapping, risk assessments and flood damage reduction surveys accompanied these projects. Flood plain regulation and enforcement has been very important. Consultation with citizens and businesses has also been a major task. By 1990 the NDCA was processing 450 to 500 flood plain inquiries monthly (NDCA 1990).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The ability to undertake capital works projects for flood management has decreased since the mid-1990s. The cost of building dams, dykes and culverts once required large provincial contributions. Currently, NDCA focuses on noncapital flood management activities (e.g. flood monitoring) and maintaining existing infrastructure, which requires less funding (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., November 2003).

NDCA conservation programs include conservation area maintenance and development, wildlife habitat improvement, environmental education and recreation. Such programs have been very limited and now consist of activities held at the 950 ha Lake Laurentian Conservation Area. Originally acquired for headwater source protection in the mid-1960s (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., November 2003), the importance of this conservation area to NDCA conservation programming was recognized in 1984 when the Nickel District Conservation Foundation (NDCF) was established for its support (NDCA 1984). Outdoor education and awareness programs have been particularly affected by the provincial introduction of core/non-core programming. In 1996 two full-time naturalist positions were eliminated when environmental education programs were categorized as non-core (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., January 2004). Consequently, remaining programs at Lake Laurentian are now offered on a seasonal basis. The Lake Laurentian nature centre and a children's summer day camp are maintained by contributions from the NDCF.

As a more recent example, the NDCA rejected participation in the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network coordinated by the MOE (A. Todd, pers. comm., February 2004). Of the 36 Ontario CAs, 30 had joined the program. At time of writing none of the northern CAs were participating due to resource constraints. For the NDCA, the decision not to participate was dictated by a lack of resources to support this non-core program (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., March 2004).

Hinterland Character of the NDCA

The NDCA exhibits several land base and population attributes linked to the hinterland geography of northern Ontario. Although the NDCA is very large by total land area, its low population density, annual revenue and staffing reflect the small size of operations (Table 3). Bureaucratic impediments might be reduced with only one municipal member, yet local funding and expertise must be supplied by a single lower-tier government and community. The City of Greater Sudbury is the largest municipality in Ontario by total land area (3,354 [km.sup.2]) and its communities are very spread out (Wuksinic 2004). It is over five times the size of the City of Toronto with one-sixteenth of the population (Saarinen 2004). In addition, several small communities are interspersed with 330 lakes and large tracts of undeveloped land within municipal boundaries (City of Greater Sudbury 2004). Whereas ample public space is accessible in the vast Crown lands that surround all northern centres, there is also considerable open green space in Sudbury and the outlying NDCA jurisdiction. Approximately 56% of the NDCA jurisdiction is Crown land extending north of Sudbury.

A comparison of all CAs in Ontario illustrates the large extent of the NDCA (7547 [km.sup.2]), its isolation, and low population density (19 persons per [km.sup.2]) (Figure 5). These are limiting factors known to reduce opportunities to generate user fees from recreation facilities (OSCCA 1967, Fehl 1997). To illustrate, Baldin (2003) found that some southern CAs generated very high revenues from campgrounds (e.g. $5,131,918 for Grand River CA [GRCA] in 2000), while all northern CAs reported no revenues from user fees because they do not operate campgrounds. Of the five CAs accounting for 70% (4,670,017) of annual conservation area visitors, two were heavily populated, densely developed settings (MTRCA, Hamilton Region CA), two were centrally located along highway 401 and close to large population centres (GRCA, Upper Thames River CA) and one was sparsely populated but located at a major Canada-US border crossing near a major city (St. Clair Region CA). When surrounding populations are considered in relation to the NDCA, its isolation becomes clear. Large unpopulated expanses between urban centres in northern Ontario create distance decay issues, whereas CAs near core areas of southern Ontario have access to very high populations by proximity. Conversely, the unorganized territories that surround the NDCA are sparsely populated and so do not hold significant revenue potential. It stands to reason that low populations, easy/free access to green space and isolation make it difficult to operate profitable recreation facilities.