source protection committee - agenda · region spc is the only spc that has chosen to exclude...
Post on 17-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Source Protection Committee - AGENDA
Agenda for Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) to be held on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, in
the Essex Civic Centre, Committee Room C, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON, commencing at 4:00
PM.
PAGES
Chair’s Welcome
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
Agenda
Agenda for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014.
Recommendation
THAT the Agenda for the Wednesday, July 16, 2014, Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection
Committee (SPC) be approved.
1 - 2
Minutes
Minutes for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Wednesday, April 9, 2014.
Recommendation
THAT the Minutes for the Wednesday, April 9, 2014, Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection
Committee (SPC) be approved.
3 - 11
Correspondence
None
Source Protection Authority (SPA) Information
None
MOE Liaison’s Update
Teresa McLellan, Crown Liaison Officer, Ministry of the Environment (MOE) will provide a brief
update to the SPC.
Reports
1. Report SPC 02/14 – Microcystin Issue
Recommendation
THAT the technical work completed by ERCA and considered by our TAC is included in the updated
Assessment Report for the Essex Region Source Protection Area based on the information provided in
the report; and further,
12 - 28
THAT microcystin be identified as an issue under the Clean Water Act pursuant to rule 115.1 (or other
appropriate wording provided by MOE) at Lake Erie intakes; and further,
THAT policy promoting best management practices for phosphorous discharge to the western basin of
Lake Erie through education and outreach and encouraging discretionary inspection and maintenance
of septic systems be developed. ( If appropriate, these concepts may be incorporated into existing
policies); and further,
THAT policy be developed supporting monitoring of microcystin and phosphorous at the intakes based
on information provided in the report.
Report SPC 03/14 – MOE comments on the Essex Region SPP
Recommendation
THAT Report SPC 03/14 be received for members information and discussion purposes; and further,
THAT Policy 35 be removed from the SPP, given that Policy 8 accounts for all NASM applications; and
further,
THAT ERCA staff review all Policies that use Part IV tools and write additional policies that use Section
59 (Restricted land uses) where appropriate; and further,
THAT a general statement on Official Plan conformity be included in the SPP
29 - 50
Report SPC 04/14 – Affected Property Owners Consultation
Recommendation
THAT Report SPC 04/14 be received for information and discussion purposes.
51 - 59
Report SPC 05/14 – Update on Proposed Risk Management Services
Recommendation
THAT Report SPC 05/14 be received for members information.
60 - 65
Other Business
1. Windsor Star Advertisement (attached)
This advertisement is calling for an expression of interest to fill two vacancies on the Committee
for David Watsa and Robert Auger, who have resigned. More information can be found the SWP
website. The advertisement was placed in the Windsor Star on July 5th, posted on the SWP and
ERCA website, and shared via email to the SWP stakeholder list.
66
New Business
Date – Next Meeting
The next meeting of the SPC is not yet scheduled but is expected to be held in September.
Conclusion of Meeting
Katie Stammler, Source Water Protection Project Manager/ Water Quality Scientist
Source Protection Committee - MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on Wednesday April
9, 2014, in the Essex Civic Centre, Council Chambers, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, Ontario.
Members
Present:
John Barnett – carrying proxy for David Church
Tom Fuerth (Chair)
Tim Mousseau – carrying proxy for Antonietta
Giofu
Charles McLean
Bernard Nelson
Robert Peterson
Hans Peter Pfeifer
Mario Songeo – carrying proxy for Thom Hunt
David Watsa
Absent: John Stuart
Regrets: Robert Auger
David Church
Antonietta Giofu
Thom Hunt
Andrew Pula
Ashley Stevenson
Larry Verbeke (SPA Liaison)
Staff: Richard Wyma, General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, Acting SWP Project Manager
Candice Kondratowicz, Corporate Services Assistant
Shaun Anthony, (Acting) Water Quality Specialist
Jovana Burz, GIS/Data Assistant
Mike Nelson, Watershed Planner
Roger Palmini, GIS Technician
Susanne Tomkins, Communications Specialist
Michael Dick, Agricultural Technician
Delegates: None
Guests: Bob Bedggood, Chair, SPC, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Area
Rajesh Bejankiwar, Physical Sciences Officer, International Joint Commission
Chris Tasker, SWP Project Manager, Thames Sydenham and Region
Kit Woods, Manager of Environmental Services, Municipality of Leamington
SPC Agenda Page 3 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
CALL TO ORDER
The Chair of the SPC, Tom Fuerth, called the meeting to order
CHAIRS WELCOME
Chair Tom Fuerth noted that he attended the Chair’s meeting in March.
It was mentioned that Chair Fuerth and Mr. Wyma have been continuing with the Municipal visits to
discuss the Risk Management Services options available to the Municipalities. Visits have been
completed with the Town of Tecumseh, City of Windsor, Town of Lakeshore, Town of Amherstburg
and Township of Pelee Island.
MOE’s Source Protection Program is currently being audited. The Essex Region has recently
completed a teleconference with the Auditors to address any concerns that needed to be addressed.
Chair Fuerth let Mr. Wyma speak about the work plan that was recently submitted to MOE. Details
included the Source Protection Plan Updates and the Municipal Readiness.
ERCA has hired a new Project Manager/Water Quality Scientist. Katie Stammler will officially start in
May.
INTRODUCTIONS
Bob Bedggood, Chair, SPC, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Area
Rajesh Bejankiwar, Physical Sciences Officer, International Joint Commission
Chris Tasker, SWP Project Manager, Thames Sydenham and Region
Kit Woods, Manager of Environmental Services, Municipality of Leamington
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. David Watsa made an announcement that with great regret he is resigning from the Source
Protection Committee immediately. He thanked the SPC for their great work and was pleased to be
part of this committee. Mr. Watsa is relocating and is no longer able to be part of this committee.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None
AGENDA
1. The Agenda for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Wednesday, April 9, 2013.
Resolution SPC 01/14 Moved by Robert Peterson
Seconded by Bernard Nelson
THAT the Agenda for the Wednesday, April 9, 2013, Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection
Committee (SPC) be approved. - CARRIED
SPC Agenda Page 4 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Resolution SPC 02/14 Moved by Tim Mousseau
Seconded by Mario Sonego
THAT the Minutes of the Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on Thursday,
November 28, 2013 and the recommendations therein be adopted as distributed. - CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
None
PRESENTATION
1. Mr. Rajesh Bejankiwar, Physical Sciences Officer International Joint Commission (presentation attached)
SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY (SPA) INFORMATION
None
MOE LIAISON’S UPDATE
Teresa McLellan, Crown Liaison Officer, MOE provided a brief update to the SPC.
Ms McLellan thanked both Mr. Wyma and Mr. Palmini for their efforts during this time and
expressed gratitude for pulling together and submitting the work plan to the MOE.
Comments on the SPPlan are expected to be sent back in July. Currently, Lakehead and
Niagara are the only SPC’s that have had their SPPlans approved.
REPORTS
1. Report SPC 01/14 – Harrow-Colchester South, Pelee West Shore ICA and Threats Analysis
As indicated in the report, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was suggested to be formed
to work with the TSR TAC to review microcystin for all intakes based on the modeling &
information developed and discussed. The TAC would then make a recommendation to the
Essex Region and TSR SPC’s.
Tim Mousseau, John Barnett & Hans Peter Pfeifer volunteered to be part of this TAC. It was
also suggested that John Stuart be asked to be part of this committee as well.
Resolution SPC 03/14 Moved by Tim Mousseau
Seconded by Charles McLean
THAT the SPC report 01/14 be received for information and discussion purposes; and further,
THAT the SPC establish a ‘Technical Advisory Committee’ to look at various methods to deal with
the ‘microcystin’ issue with TSR Technical Advisory Committee - CARRIED
OTHER BUSINESS
None
SPC Agenda Page 5 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
NEW BUSINESS
None
MEETING ADJOURNMENT
Resolution SPC 04/14 Moved by Tim Mousseau
Seconded by Mario Sonego
THAT the meeting be adjourned. - CARRIED
DATE – NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the SPC is scheduled for May 21, 2014, but was noted that this meeting would not be necessary
and should happen after the Technical Advisory Committee meets. Therefore, it was suggested that the next SPC
meeting will be held sometime in June (date to be confirmed at a later date).
CONCLUSION OF MEETING
Tom Fuerth, Chair Source Protection Committee
SPC Agenda Page 6 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
15/07/2014
1
A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing
Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms
- Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP) Report Overview -
Essex Region Source Protection Authority Meeting Essex, ON April 9, 2014 Raj Bejankiwar International Joint Commission
Overview
Lake Erie Overview
IJC Role
Context and Origin of LEEP
Key Findings
Recommendations
-
2
3 4
5
West Basin Harmful Algal Blooms
6
Central Basin Hypoxia
SPC Agenda Page 7 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
15/07/2014
2
IJC Role
Boundary Waters Treaty (1909):
“It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the
boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other”.
International Joint Commission (IJC) established to prevent and resolve disputes related to shared waters
7
8
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
1972 Agreement led to improvements in Lake Erie
Agreement updated in 1978, 1983, 1987, 2012
Role of IJC – periodic assessments, provide advice, public outreach Assessments of progress
Provide advice
Public outreach
Article 7(l) – “Providing to the Parties, at any time, special reports concerning the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes”
9
IJC Priorities – 2012-15
10
To provide science and policy advice to governments that would reduce nutrient loads and harmful algal blooms
(with a focus on the west and central basins of Lake Erie)
11
Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP) Objective
Lake Erie Lakewide Action and Management Plan’s (LAMP) Binational Nutrient Management Strategy
Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Nutrients Initiative
Lake Erie Commission’s Ohio Phosphorus Task Force I and II reports
U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Catfish Creek Conservation Authority’s stewardship programming
…among others
12
Complementarity
SPC Agenda Page 8 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
15/07/2014
3
Spring, 2012 - Science Advisory Board – Taking Action on Lake Erie (TAcLE) Work Group established
Fall, 2012 – Consultations on IJC approach
Winter, 2012/13 – Preparation of 7 Review Papers e.g., external loading, load-response curves
February, 2013 – Expert Workshop
August, 2013 – Draft LEEP Report Release
September – October, 2013 – Consultations
February 27, 2014 (tentative) – LEEP Report Release
13
LEEP Process
Findings
14
Estimated Annual External TP Loads to Lake Erie (MT)
Source: Dolan
15
>66% from agricultural/rural non-point sources
50% monitored agricultural/rural NPS
~ 16% unmonitored NPS
~ 16% point sources
4-6% from Lake Huron
4-6% from atmospheric
16
Sources of Phosphorus Loads
17 18
Source: Heidelberg University, unpublished data
SPC Agenda Page 9 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
15/07/2014
4
Key Findings – Phosphorus Loading
Non-point sources predominate
Agricultural operations are the major source of non-point source loads
84% row crops, 16% manure (Ohio)
Increasing influence of dissolved reactive phosphorus
Priority watersheds e.g., Maumee delivers ~50% of west basin load in high concentrations
At least half of annual load from March 1 – June 30
19
Key Findings – Effects
West basin HABs driven by high concentration loads from (primarily) Maumee R. and other Ohio tributaries
Central basin hypoxia driven by west and central basin loads including low concentration, high load Detroit River
East basin benthic algae influenced by local sources?
Fish communities affected e.g., oxy-thermal squeeze
20
Key Findings - Other
Confounding influence of climate change
Limited data on economic effects and human health effects
Limited understanding of the effectiveness of beneficial management practices (BMPs) in removing dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP)
Uneven regulation and policy across Lake Erie jurisdictions
21
Recommendations
Report includes Recommendations addressing:
Loading Targets
Agricultural Sources
Urban Sources
Monitoring and Research
22
Recommendations – Loading Targets
Using Modelled Load/Response Curves:
To reduce west basin harmful algal blooms to no/mild bloom conditions, a 37% reduction in TP and 41% reduction in DRP will be required from Maumee River and west basin tributaries (WB target load of 3,200MT)
To reduce central basin hypoxia to 2,000km2 and 10 days, a 46% reduction in TP and 78% reduction in DRP will be required from WB and CB tributaries (WB and CB target load of 4,300MT)
Current Interim Load Target for Lake Erie may be too high
23
Recommendations – Agriculture and Non-Point Sources
Incentive-based programs: Expand focus to include DRP and TP
Focus on critical March-June period
Focus on priority watersheds
Increase scale and intensity of projects
Protection and restoration of natural lands
Regulatory interventions: Mandatory certification standards for applicators
Link crop/production insurance with conservation performance
Ban applications on frozen ground
Mandatory septic system inspections
24
SPC Agenda Page 10 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
15/07/2014
5
Recommendations - Urban
Improve adoption of green infrastructure through a variety of mechanisms
Prohibit the sale and use of phosphorus fertilizers for lawn care, with some exceptions
25
Recommendations – Research and Monitoring
Monitoring Enhanced tributary monitoring including wet weather Detroit River outlet continuous monitoring Effectiveness of rural and urban BMPs
Research Improved modelling Open lake dredged material disposal Influence of climate change on fish communities
Improved data management through greater coordination and monitoring
26
Next Steps
Public Report Released on February 27, 2014
LEEP Phase 2 (2014, 2015):
Human health effects
Modeling tools
Economic impacts
27
Thanks!
28
For draft LEEP report visit www.ijc.org
(final report will be posted February 27, 2014)
bejankiwarr@windsor.ijc.org
SPC Agenda Page 11 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 02/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Project Manager, Source Water Protection
Roger Palmini, GIS/Database Technician
SUBJECT: Microcystin Issue
DATE: July/16/2014
PURPOSE
To make a final decision regarding microcystins as a drinking water issue.
REPORT SUMMARY
Microcystin, a parameter listed on schedule 2 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, has
the potential to be a drinking water issue
Microcystin data at drinking water intakes were reviewed using the issues evaluation methodology
The link between phosphorus and microcystins was explored using models in streams near drinking
water intakes to determine the potential local influence of phosphorus
The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed all available data and came to the consensus to
recommend that microcystin be identified as an issue under the Clean Water Act pursuant to rule
115.1 (or other appropriate wording provided by MOE) at Lake Erie intakes (Option 2)
BACKGROUND
Microcystin information and data
Microcystin is a parameter listed on schedule 2 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards. It has a
standard 0.0015 mg/L (MAC). Microcystin is a neurotoxin which is present in blue green algae
(cyanobacteria). It is released into the water when the cell wall breaks. As long as the algae remain
intact, the microcystin it is able to be removed through the filtration processes at the water treatment
plants. Pre-chlorination used to discourage zebra mussel growth in the intake would cause the algae to
release the toxin before it can be removed through the filtration. In addition to the microcystin, algae in
the source water also results in taste and odour concerns. Activated carbon is often used to reduce the
taste and odour concerns during algal blooms.
Weekly testing for microcystin in raw water entering the treatment plant is undertaken in the summer
period when algal blooms are possible. Attached are graphs showing microcystin concentrations in the
raw water at the Wheatley, Union and Harrow-Colchester water treatment plants from 2011 to 2013.
Treated water values are also shown for the Wheatley plant for the same time frame. The graphs also
show the detection limit for microcystin (0.1 ppb - values below this indicate that microcystins are likely
present, but an exact concentration cannot be determined), the maximum allowable concentration
(MAC; 1.5 ppb), and ½ MAC (0.75 ppb). The raw (source) water for each plant shows that microcystins
SPC Agenda Page 12 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
are often below detection, with some occurrences approaching ½ MAC and two occurrences above the
MAC. The treated water, while generally below detection, does show that some microcystins are
getting through treatment occasionally. Note: ppb = ug/L.
Identifying an Issue and Issue Evaluation
The technical rules outline the methods for identifying an Issue. Rules 114 to 116 are described below:
Rule 114
If the source protection committee is aware of one of the following, the committee shall describe it as
a drinking water issue under clause 15(2)(f) of the Act in accordance with rule 115:
(1) The presence of a parameter in water at a surface water intake or in a well, …, if the parameter is
listed in Schedule 1, 2 or 3 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards… and,
(a) the parameter is present at a concentration that may result in the deterioration of the quality
of the water for use as a source of drinking water, or
(b) there is a trend of increasing concentrations of the parameter at the surface water intake, well
or monitoring well and a continuation of that trend would result in the deterioration of the quality
of the water for use as a source of drinking water.
Assessing an issue requires consideration of the rules related to issue identification. If an issue is identified
pursuant to rule 114, then rule 115 outlines the information which must be included in the AR. This rule
is outlined below.
Rule 115
Only in respect of a drinking water issue identified in accordance with rule 114, where the drinking
water issue is the result of, or partially the result of, anthropogenic causes, the description of the
drinking water issue shall include the following information:
(1) The parameter or pathogen concerned.
(2) The surface water intake, well or monitoring well at which the presence of the parameter or
pathogen has occurred.
(3) The area within a vulnerable area where activities, conditions that result from past activities,
and naturally occurring conditions may contribute to the parameter or pathogen and this area shall be
identified as the “issue contributing area”; and
(4) The identification of the drinking water threats listed in accordance with rules 118, 119 or
126 that contribute or may contribute to the parameter or pathogen of concern
SPC Agenda Page 13 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Rule 115.1 was added November 16, 2009 (along with other revisions in this section of the rules). For
issues not identified pursuant to rule 114, rule 115.1 identifies the information which must be included in
the AR. (This is later described as an issue according to the Act, while issues identified pursuant to rule
114 is referred to as an issue identified pursuant to the rules.)
i. Rule 115.1
ii. In respect of a drinking water issue that is not identified in accordance with rule 114, the description
of the drinking water issue shall include,
(1) the parameter or pathogen concerned; and
(2) an explanation of the nature of the issue and the possible causes of the issue.
The Thames-Sydenham and Region developed an issues evaluation methodology to satisfy rule 114 for
potential drinking water issues. This methodology was adopted by the Essex Region SPC. This process is
illustrated on the flow chart attached and included in the AR. It is a 2 staged process undertaking a
screening based on basic information included in the Watershed Characterization Report. For
parameters which are flagged through this screening process, more detailed water monitoring
information is used to assess the concern and determine if is appropriate to identify the parameter as an
issue pursuant to rule 114.
Microcystin is identified on schedule 2 as a parameter that could be considered a drinking water issue.
Screening included consideration of operator concerns through operator interviews suggesting that
microcysin is a concern at the ERCA intakes and Wheatley. The operational concerns include the
increased cost and operational challenges discussed above. It was also identified that if cells break down,
microcystin which is released is difficult to remove through current treatment processes. The raw water
monitoring data from the past 3 years includes a few occurrences approaching the ½ MAC but only two
occurrences of a level above the MAC. Based on the limited data it is difficult to determine if a trend is
occurring, however each year there were an increasing number of occurrences above the detection limit
and the number of occurrences of levels approaching the ½ MAC also increased at the Wheatley intake.
At the Issue Identification stage all available data is considered. As all of these data were used at the
previous stage it results in an assessment of the same data. At this stage data is assessed to determine if
the parameter exceeds or is trending towards the MAC. There are two samples which exceeded the
MAC. While the screening stage suggests that single events can be excluded, this would only be done if
this is expected to be an anomaly and not be an accurate representation of the water quality. As this
point is consistent with what might be expected during the particular bloom, without additional results to
corroborate or contradict the result, it is difficult to ascertain whether it should be excluded. As noted
above, it is difficult to determine based on the limited data, whether a trend may exist, however it is
possible that increases could be expected in future years with similar conditions and forecast being made.
Treatment capabilities are also considered at this stage in the assessment process. Treated water quality
results were reviewed to determine the effectiveness of the treatment process. As very few occurrences
above the detection limit were reported with higher raw water levels the operator is confident that the
SPC Agenda Page 14 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
current treatment with the operational adjustment made during blooms is adequately dealing with the
current levels of microcystin.
The lack of long term data makes it difficult to assess whether there is a trend which might result in
deterioration in the water quality for the purposes of drinking. However, new equipment installed at and
around Essex Intakes may, over time, provide more insight into algae and microcystin. ERCA will
evaluate the presence of algal blooms using one mobile and two stationary optical probes which gather
photometric data indicating the presence/absence of photo-pigments in real-time. These data, combined
with physical and chemical data, such as the concentration of microcystins, temperature, pH and
dissolved oxygen, will form the basis of a mathematical model to predict the onset of algal blooms with
potentially harmful impacts (microcystins) on human health and the environment. There are currently 14
Nearshore (sampled bi-weekly until bloom and then on an as needed basis TBD – 3 on Pelee Island) and
15 Inland Tributaries (sampled 2x/year)
Link between phosphorus and microcystins
While microcystin is the parameter being considered as an issue it is not related directly to activities
which can be considered drinking water threats. Phosphorous (P) is necessary for the growth of algae
and has been referred to as the limiting nutrient. Although there is a positive correlation between
mincocystin levels and phosphorous levels, the relationship is weak. There are other factors which affect
the growth of algae, including temperature, sunlight and low wind. P is a chemical of concern identified in
a number of activities which can be considered a drinking water threat.
Research reviewed suggests P of 0.026-0.035 mg/L could result in microcystin exceeding ½ MAC and
approaching MAC. This is consistent with the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) for nuisance
growth of Algae which is 0.02 mg/L. The PWQO was used as a criterion in the ERCA modelling.
The data currently available for the assessment is limited and does not offer much insight into the local
correlation between microcystin and P. Weekly data collected by water system operators may have
missed elevated micocystin levels in the raw water and do not consider P levels in the same source
water. More recent monitoring initiatives will, over time, provide more insight into this relationship
around the local intakes assessed in the ERSPA.
P data and results from ERCA modelling indicates a similar concentration of P discharging from the
Muddy Cr into Lake Erie as is present at near shore monitoring stations in the vicinity of the intake.
Measured P in Muddy Creek is as high as 130 times the PWQO. At the mouth of Muddy Creek this is
reduced to 8 times the PWQO, suggesting that the contributions within the watershed are not uniform.
This data demonstrates the potential for local blooms, however if P levels were lower in the lake, dilution
would reduce the concentrations below levels thought to support the blooms. Blooms along shore or in
the watercourse could contribute to microcystin even although dilution of the P from Muddy is below
PWQO. Other watersheds in ERCA produce similar or higher loadings of P to the western basin as seen
by the model results for for Hillman/Ledo Creek (as pertains to Wheatley intake), Sturgeon Creek
(Wheatley and Union intakes), Cedar Creek (Union intake), and Big Creek (Harrow-Colchester)
SPC Agenda Page 15 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
While this demonstrates a local contribution to the P and therefore the microcystin, there is much more
P available in the lake. A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie (LEEP, 2014) suggest that the single largest source
of dissolved reactive phosphorous is the Maumee River which enters Lake Erie at Toledo Ohio.
Options to consider
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met jointly with a TAC formed by Thames Sydenham Region
SPC. They met in Chatham June 18 to discuss the identification of microsystin as an issue. At this
meeting the information summarized above was reviewed and discussed. MOE presented 3 options
which the SPCs may consider. Those options are:
1. if the issue is identified (in the Assessment Report) under the technical rules (114), then an issue
contributing area (ICA) delineation + identification of Significant Drinking Water Threats
(SDWT) within the Issues Contributing Area related to Issue, and policies to address the threats
must be completed or a work plan satisfying rule 116 must be included in the AR.
2. if the issue is identified (in the AR) under the CWA ONLY, then Issues Contributing Area cannot
be delineated nor SDWTs be identified within the ICA related to the Issue. To address this, the
SPC still has the option to write monitoring policy(ies) for the Issue (identified under the CWA)
under S. 22(2)-[7] of the CWA.
3. if there is no issue identified in the AR, the SPC has the option only to write generic policy as
E&O / Incentive Programs under S.22 [7] of the CWA considering that the policies meet the
objectives of the SP plan.
Technical Advisory Committee meetings
Following the joint meeting with the Thames-Sydenham and Region Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), the Essex TAC met by to review the information and considered whether microcystin should be
identified as an issue. The committee considered:
the microcystin information presented
the application of the issues evaluation methodology to the available microcystin data
the connection between phosphorous and microcystin
the local and lake-wide contributions to microcystin and phoshorous
the 3 options presented by MOE
The members of the TAC felt that there was enough evidence of microcystins at the drinking water
intakes to consider it a concern, and therefore determined that Option 3 should not be considered. It
was suggested that option 1 would be very difficult to implement given that the limited microcystin data
and inconclusive results of P modeling. By consensus, the Essex Region TAC agrees that option 2 is the
best way to proceed as it allows for identification of the issue and establishment of appropriate policies
including those directed at monitoring. The Thames-Sydenham and Region TAC also came to the same
conclusion.
SPC Agenda Page 16 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Updated Assessment Report and New Policies
Based on the technical work completed by ERCA and considered by the TAC, addition information will
be added to the updated Assessment Report including:
Summary description of microcystin levels in raw and treated water
(Limited) extent of the treatment concerns
Connection between phosphorous and microcystin
Local contributions in the context of western basin loading
Similarities and differences to the other Lake Erie intakes in the region
In addition, it will be necessary to include new policies in the Source Water Protection Plan. Policies
promoting best management practices for phosphorous discharge to the western basin of Lake Erie
through education and outreach as well as those encouraging discretionary inspection and maintenance
of septic systems will be developed. If appropriate, these concepts may be incorporated into existing
policies. Monitoring policies will be developed that support monitoring of microcystin and phosphorous
at the intakes based on the following concepts:
The monitoring be in a coordinated manner
Maximize the use of existing data and monitoring programs and expand or develop new
programs where appropriate
Consider event based monitoring (both blooms and runoff events)
The monitoring be flexible and based on appropriate funding levels being available
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the technical work completed by ERCA and considered by our TAC is included in the updated
Assessment Report for the Essex Region Source Protection Area based on the information provided in the
report; and further,
THAT microcystin be identified as an issue under the Clean Water Act pursuant to rule 115.1 (or other
appropriate wording provided by MOE) at Lake Erie intakes; and further,
THAT policy promoting best management practices for phosphorous discharge to the western basin of Lake
Erie through education and outreach and encouraging discretionary inspection and maintenance of septic
systems be developed. ( If appropriate, these concepts may be incorporated into existing policies); and further,
THAT policy be developed supporting monitoring of microcystin and phosphorous at the intakes based on
information provided in the report.
SPC Agenda Page 17 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Katie Stammler
Project Manager, Source Water Protection
Roger Palmini
GIS/Database Technician
SPC Agenda Page 18 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Agenda Page 19 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Agenda Page 20 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Agenda Page 21 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Agenda Page 22 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Issue evaluation methodology applied to microcystins
SPC Agenda Page 23 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
!!
!!
!!HO
HO
HO
HO
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
!!
C H A T H A M - K E N TL E A M I N G T O N
MC-3
MC-3N
MC-3S
HLC-1
TALBOT
DEER RUN
FOX RUN
MERSE
A RD 2
1
MERSEA RD 7
MERSEA RD 6
MILO
HICKSONPUL
LEY
COUN
TY RD
37
KENT C
OUNT
Y RD 1
KAY
LAKESH
ORE
MERSE
A RD 2
1
M7/KLN3 (HW)3.6 km from outlet
TP = 3.89 mg/L130X PWQO benchmark
M80.63 km from outlet
TP = 0.40 mg/L13X PWQO benchmark
Lake OutletTP = 0.155 (simulated)8X PWQO benchmark
Muddy Creek TP Modelling
E . R . C . A .
L . T . V . C . A .
IntakesTP = 0.0037 mg/L (estimated based on
Baird dilution factor of 42 for Muddy Ck)
Lake Erie NearshoreTP = 0.09-0.26 mg/L
5-13X PWQO benchmark
Lake Erie NearshoreTP = 0.07-0.16 mg/L
4-8X PWQO benchmark
Legend;=A Intake - Type AHO ERCA Monitoring!! MOE Station
ERCA BoundaryRoadsDrainageMunicipal Boundary "0 1 Kilometers
1:25,000
SPC Agenda Page 24 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
!!
!!
!!
!!
YH
Y
H
Y
H
Y
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
;=A
;=A
!!
C H A T H A M - K E N TKLN4/HW
Hillman Creek
Lebo Creek
Lebo Creek
Hillman Marsh
Muddy Creek
MC-3
MC-3N
MC-3S
HLC-1
HLC-1N
HLC-1S
M6
M7
M8
E11
TALBOT
MERSEA RD 2
FOX RUN
CO
UN
TY
RD
37
MERSEA RD B
ME
RS
EA
RD
15
ME
RS
EA
RD
21
DEER RUN
MERSEA RD 5
MERSEA RD 6
COUNTY RD 20
EA
ST B
EA
CH
MERESA RD 1
ME
RS
EA
RD
19
MI L
O
HICKSON
PU
LLEY
KE
NT
CO
UN
TY
RD
1
KIL
DE
ER
COTT
ERIE
LAK
ESH
OR
E
CA
RR
DEER RUN
CO
UN
TY
RD
37
CO
UN
TY
RD
37
ME
RS
EA
RD
21
MERSEA R
D 6
KLN4 (HW)
6.76 km from outlet
TP = 4.39 mg/L
145X PWQO benchmark
M6
3.72 km from outlet
TP = 2.84 mg/L
95X PWQO benchmark
Lake Outlet
TP = 0.297 (simulated)
15X PWQO benchmark
Hillman / Lebo Creek TP Modelling
E . R . C . A .
L . T . V . C . A .
Intakes
TP = 0.000879 mg/L (estimated based on
Baird dilution factor of 338 for Hillman/Lebo Ck)
Lake Erie Nearshore
TP = 0.05-0.26 mg/L
2-13X PWQO benchmark
E11
2.2 km from outlet
TP = 1.68 mg/L
56X PWQO benchmarkLegend
;=A Intake - Type A
HO ERCA Monitoring
H
Y KLN2012Sites
!! ERCA Station (E)
!! MOE Station (M)
ERCA Boundary
Roads
Drainage
Municipal Boundary "0 1 Kilometers
1:40,000
L E A M I N G T O N
Lake Erie Nearshore
TP = 0.05-0.23 mg/L
2-12X PWQO benchmark
SPC Agenda Page 25 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
!!
!!!A
!!
!!
!!
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
HY
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
!!
KLN4/HW
Hillman Creek
Lebo Creek
Lebo Creek
Hillman Marsh
Muddy Creek
L . T . V . C . A .
C H A T H A M - K E N T
K I N G S V I L L E
Sturgeon Creek
Sturgeon Creek
!!
M 6
M 7
M 8
E11
TALBOT
ERIE
SEACLIFF
OAK
MERSEA RD 5
HIGHWAY 3
MERSEA RD 2
ROAD 5
MERSEA RD C
ROAD 4
ROAD 3
MERSEA RD B
COUN
TY RD
31 FOX RUN
DEER RUN
COUN
TY RD
37ME
RSEA R
D 19
ROBSON
MERSE
A RD 1
5
UNION
MERSE
A RD 1
2
MERSEA RD D
COUNTY RD 20
COUNTY RD 18
SHERK
MERSEA RD 3
MERSEA RD E
MERSEA RD 4
EAST B
EACH
HIGHW
AY 77
MERSE
A RD 2
1
MILLMO
RSEFRA
SERROAD 2
KILDE
ER
FOX
ELLISON
ELLIOT
T
BENNIE
CLARK
WIGL
E
MILO
HICKSON
PETERS
ON
OLIND
A
COUNTY RD 34
DANF
ORTH
COUNTY RD 33
HOPE
PULLEY
ORANGE
CHER
RY
BRUN
ER
COTTERIE
MARE
NTETT
E BEAC
H
SENECA
LYON
GRACE
ELLIS
MALIB
U
FADER
JAMES
PARK
ALDERTON
ROWLEY PARK
FULLE
RUN
ION
COUN
TY RD
37
MERSE
A RD 1
2
COUNTY RD 20
DEER RUN
COUNTY RD 33
JAMES
M6
M7
M5
M8
E11
HW (Morse Rd)10.448 km from outlet
TP = 15.803 mg/L525X PWQO benchm ark
M53.38 km from outlet
TP = 10.982 mg/L365X PWQO benchmark
Lake OutletTP = 1.145 (simulated)57X PWQO benchm ark
Sturgeon Creek TP Modelling
E . R . C . A .
IntakesTP = 0.0000802 mg /L(estimated based on
Baird dilution factor of14286 for Sturgeon Ck)
Legend;=A Intake - Type A
H
Y KLN2012Sites!! ERCA Station (E)!! MOE Station (M)!!!A MOE Station + Wet Weather (M(W))
ERCA BoundaryRoadsDrainageMunicipal Boundary "0 3 Kilometers 1:72,000
L E A M I N G T O N
"
IntakesTP = 0.000778 mg/L(estimated based on
Baird dilution factor of1471 for Sturgeon Ck)
SPC Agenda Page 26 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
!!!A
!(
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
#
## ###
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
!!
K I N G S V I L L E
L E A M I N G T O N
1817
192015
16
KLN9
KLN12
KLN11 KLN10
ROAD 3
ROAD 4
ROAD 2
ILER
ROAD 5
ROAD 6
HIGHWAY 3
COUNTY RD 20
COUN
TY RD
23
ARNE
R
COUN
TY RD
31
MCCA
IN
GRAH
AM
FOX
COUNTY RD 34
OLIND
A
HERITAGE
COUN
TY RD
29
MAIN
TALBOT
FERRIS INMAN
UNION
COUNTY RD 18
KRATZ
8TH CONCESSION
COUNTY RD 50
6TH CONCESSION
5TH CONCESSION
4TH CONCESSION
3RD CONCESSION
QUEEN
UPCOTT
HUFFMAN
MILLERI
E
DOLSO
N
PETERS
ON
JASPER
SON
CULL
DIVISIO
N
JOHNS
ON
MCCO
RMICK
LAKEVIEW
SPINK
S
LEWIS
JAMES
SUMA
C
MCRA
E
LONGL
EE
OAK
LYNDO
N
OXFO
RD
SUFFOLK
FORD
COTTA
GE GR
OVE
ROWLEY PARK
TALBOT SERVICE
CONS
ERVATI
ONWALNUT
MALO
TT
MCCO
RMICK
GRAH
AM
ROAD 5
TALBO
T
MCCA
INTALBOT
TALBOT
COUNTY RD 20
ROAD 6
GRAH
AM
MCCO
RMICK
E9M4
E10
M4 (HW)5.53 km from outlet
TP = 0.182 mg/L6X PWQO benchm ark
ArnorTwnln Brdg4.14 km from outlet
TP = 0.156 mg/L5X PWQO benchmark
Lake OutletTP = 0.104
5X PWQO benchm ark
Cedar Creek TP ModellingLegend;=A Intake - Type A# Greenhouse Sample Site
H
Y KLN2012 Site!( New TP Sampling Site!!!A MOE + Wet Weather Station
RoadsDrainageMunicipal Boundary
0 3 Kilometers1:72,000
E S S E X
"
IntakesTP = 0.000787 mg/L(estimated based on
Baird dilution factor of132 for Cedar Ck)
KLN12TP = 5.16 mg/L
KLN11TP = 23.39 mg/L
KLN9TP = 28.15 mg/L
KLN10TP = 11.23 mg/L
SPC Agenda Page 27 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
!!
!(
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
H
Y
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
;=A
E S S E X
A M H E R S T B U R G
E8
BC3
BC2
BC1
BC4
ALMA
GORE
COUNTY RD 20
SOUTH
DUNN
FERRIS
S
4TH CONCESSION
COUNTY RD 11
CONC
ESSION
7
HOWA
RD
MALDEN
COUNTY RD 50
6TH CONCESSION
COULT
ER
COUNTY RD 18
RIDGE
CREEK
CONC
ESSION
5
COUN
TY RD
15
FRYER
ERIE
MCLEOD
BELL
WRIGH
T
CONC
ESSION
6
CONC
ESSION
4
FOX
LOWES
KING
9TH CO
NCESS
ION
SNAK
E
COLLISON
COUN
TY RD
13
SIMCOE
SANDWICH
MELO
CHE
MALD
EN-CO
LCHEST
ER
5TH CONCESSION
BRUSH
8TH CONCESSIONVIC
TORIA
TREMBLEYRICHMOND
LECCLAKESIDE
SMITH
3RD CONCESSION
DALHO
USIE
QUEEN
FRONT
GIARD
INI
LAKEWOOD
COUN
TY RD
41
BRITO
N
LAIRD
MCLEA
NAR
THUR
CONC
ESSION
3
ORAM
KNAPPS ISLAND
HUFFMAN
RIZZO
NICO
LABA
GOT
MCCO
RMICK
DRAPERDR
UMMO
ND
ROSEB
OROU
GHHO
WE
MAPLE
CRYSTA
L
TILFORD
KAEL
LYPPS BEACH
CROWNRIDGE
LEVERG
OOD MCCARTHY
PARK
KLIESPRA
DO
EVERG
REEN
CHESTER
SHAW
MARTIN
7TH CONCESSION
CRAIG
COUNTY RD 50
FERRIS
S
MALDEN
COUNTY RD 20
COUNTY RD 18
SOUTH
ERIE
Big Creek TP ModellingLegend;=A Intake - Type A
H
Y Big Creek P Sampling!( Big Creek Sampling Point!! ERCA Station (E)
RoadsDrainageMunicipal Boundary
0 3 Kilometers1:80,000"
IntakeTP = 0.000438 mg/L(estimated based on
Baird dilution factor of626 for Big Creek)
BC1TP = 0.241 mg/L
BC2TP = 0.221 mg/L
BC3TP = 0.238 mg/L
BC4TP = 0.264 mg/L
Mouth of Marsh OutletTP = 0.274 mg/L
9X PWQO benchmark
SPC Agenda Page 28 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 03/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Project Manager, Source Water Protection
SUBJECT: MOE comments on the Essex Region SPP
DATE: July 16, 2014
PURPOSE
To inform the SPC of the comments provided by the MOE on the Source Protection Plan submitted in
August 2012. To receive direction from the SPC on a subset of comments.
REPORT SUMMARY
The MOE provided comments on the Essex Region SPP on June 25, 2014
The comments are under review by ERCA staff and discussions with MOE are ongoing
Most comments can be addressed with editorial changes
Three comments (#5, 7 and 18) are discussed in more detail to receive direction from the SPC
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2014, the MOE provided their first round of comments on the SPP, which are included in
this report in two formats. The first is the original word document provided by the MOE and the second
is a spreadsheet prepared by ERCA staff. ERCA staff has reviewed the comments and will be
participating in a teleconference with MOE review staff to address any concerns or questions that MOE
raised through their comments. Following this teleconference, the final MOE comments will be delivered
in a Director’s letter.
The majority of the comments are editorial and can be easily addressed, indicated in green italic text in
the spreadsheet. Many comments will require further technical work or clarification from the MOE, this
are indicated in blue regular text. Comments for current discussion by the SPC are indicated in red
bold text and are discussed below.
Comment #5
The MOE’s Comment #5 suggests that Policy 35 be removed (The application of Non Agricultural
Source Material (NSAM) in Windsor IPZ-2). OMAFRA states that land application of NASM containing
materials generated by a meat plant or sewage, (classified as category 3 NASM materials), is always
subject to a NASM plan regardless of the volume. Policy 8 in the Essex Region SPP calls for the use of
Prescribed Instruments for the application of NASM in Windsor IPZ-2 (including OMAFRA’s NASM plan)
and would capture all occurrences of NASM application. Further information about OMAFRA’s NASM
plans can be found on their website http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm.html. The excerpt
from that website below indicates when a NASM is required – note that Policy 35 relates to Category 3
NASMs and that no volume threshold is listed
SPC Agenda Page 29 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Information from OMAFRA’s website:
“When do I need a NASM Plan
In general, NASM Plans are needed to apply or store Category 2 and 3 materials.
You don't need a NASM Plan, nor do you need to register your operation with OMAFRA, to apply Category 1 materials on your farm. Instead, Category 1 materials must follow a maximum application rate set out in O. Reg. 267/03. NASM land applicators must be licensed by OMAFRA and must follow the practices set out in the NASM Plan.”
Comment #7
The MOE’s comment #7 suggests that section 59 (Restricted land use) policies be included for all policies that use Part IV tools to address significant drinking water threats. Using section 59 provides a link between the Part IV tools and municipal planning approvals and building permits. In this way, the application of section 59 can be seen as providing a “screening” tool for municipalities when reviewing applications under planning, to prevent the unintentional approval of applications (or building permits) that would lead to the creation of significant drinking water threats. It will also help ensure that applicants are following the applicable source protection policies.
An explanation for why Section 59 was not used in included in the ‘Rationale’ section for each of the Policies in the SPP that use Part IV tools, but do not include a Section 59 Policy. However, the Essex Region SPC is the only SPC that has chosen to exclude Section 59 Policies and as such, these rationales need to be reviewed and confirmed to be justifiable.
The description of Section 59 from the Clean Water Act is as follows:
“59. (1) If a source protection plan that is in effect designates a land use as a land use to which this section should apply and an area within which this section should apply,
(a) a person shall not make an application under a provision of the Planning Act prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of using land for that land use at any location within that area; and
(b) despite section 58, a person shall not construct or change the use of a building at any location within that area, if the building will be used in connection with that land use,
unless the risk management official issues a notice to the person under subsection (2). 2006, c. 22, s. 59 (1).
Issuance of notice
(2) The risk management official shall, on application, issue a notice to a person for the purpose of subsection (1) if, and only if, the applicant has paid all applicable fees and,
(a) neither section 57 nor section 58 applies to the activity for which the land is to be used at the location where the land is to be used; or
SPC Agenda Page 30 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
(b) section 58 applies to the activity for which the land is to be used at the location where the land is to be used and a risk management plan that applies to that activity at that location has been agreed to or established under section 56 or 58. 2006, c. 22, s. 59 (2).
Time for application
(3) If section 58 applies to the activity for which the land is to be used at the location where the land is to be used, an application for the issuance of a notice under subsection (2) may be made at the same time that an application is made in respect of the activity under section 58 or 60. 2006, c. 22, s. 59 (3).
Copies
(4) If a risk management official issues a notice under subsection (2), he or she shall give a copy of the notice to the persons prescribed by the regulations. 2006, c. 22, s. 59 (4).
Definitions
(5) In this section,
“building” has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; (“bâtiment”)
“construct” has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992. (“construire”) 2006, c. 22, s. 59 (5).”
Comment #18
The MOE’s comment #18 requests that we include a general section on ‘Official Plan conformity’ in our SPP that describes why certain Policies are to be reflected in the Official Plans of some municipalities, but not others. Rather than repeating the statement verbatim as suggested, it may be most beneficial to include a more general statement to this effect
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Report SPC 03/14 be received for members information and discussion purposes; and further,
THAT Policy 35 be removed from the SPP, given that Policy 8 accounts for all NASM applications; and further,
THAT ERCA staff review all Policies that use Part IV tools and write additional policies that use Section 59
(Restricted land uses) where appropriate; and further,
THAT a general statement on Official Plan conformity be included in the SPP.
SPC Agenda Page 31 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Katie Stammler
Water Quality Scientist/
Project Manager, Source Water Protection
SPC Agenda Page 32 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
1 A-106, A-
110, A-
114, A-
118, A-
126, A-
134
27, 28, 29,
30, 32, 34In some cases policies prohibit existing and future
occurrences of significant threat activities, including certain
waste, sewage and agricultural threats. According to the
explanatory document, these threats currently are “not
known to exist” or “highly unlikely to exist” in the future.
Please confirm that given more recent work to verify threats
that
We will need to go through all of the
'prohibit' policies to ensure that we have
provided as much rationale and detail as
possible since we need to be able to defend
that threats do not in fact exist
2 ** See MOE document for full comment
To summarize - there are certain sub-categories of of waste
storage/disposal that are not covered by Prescribed Instruments
(the Environmental Compliance Approval), but there are other
tools that can be used. Two suggestions are: - the SPC could
consider adding an EO policy to address any instance where an
ECA wouldn’t apply as an alternative tool to manage the storage
of hazardous or liquid industrial waste. A statement in the
explanatory document would need to be included on the use of
EO as the only tool to address this specific waste sub-category.
OR
- The SPC could use s. 58 risk management plan (RMP) to address
any instance where an ECA wouldn’t apply as an alternative tool
to manage this waste sub-category.
This will require more discussion with the
MOE. This comment was provided to most
SPCs as the MOE did not anticipate this
problem. Regardless of the direction we
chose to go, we will be required to write at
least one new policy
RED BOLD text indicates comments for discussion by the SPC
GREEN ITALIC text indicates comments that refer to simple editorial changes
BLUE REGULAR text indicates comments that require further direction from the MOE and/or technical work by ERCA staff prior to discussion with the SPC
SPC Agenda Page 33 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
3 A-22 4 addresses the future (new) storm water management
facilities which discharge to surface water bodies in the
Windsor IPZ-1 and IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and
Amherstburg IPZ-1. There does not appear to be another
policy in the plan that addresses existing occurrences of
storm water management facilities. We recommend either
expanding on Policy No. 4, or write a new policy to address
the existing significant threat activity. If the committee
decides to not write a policy to address the existing threat, a
statement in the explanatory document would need to be
included.
Rationale: Current land uses do not preclude these
activities from happening. Based on discussions with City of
Windsor staff, there is a possibility of constructing
stormwater management facilities in the Windsor IPZ-1 and
Windsor IPZ-2. Such projects would be beneficial and
should be encouraged. There are also substantial
commercial/industrial areas in the Windsor IPZ-2 which
may have stormwater management needs. The
Amherstburg IPZ-1 and areas surrounding it also include
industrial and commercial land uses. The Lakeshore (Belle
River) IPZ-1 is comprised of the marina and a municipal
park.
Based on the wording in the rationale, it
appears that this is not an exisiting threat,
but one that may occur in the future. As
such, is it necessary to have a policy for
exisiting threats?
4 A-160 40 The reference to “consist of documentation” in the above
statement does not clearly outline how the RMP will address the
significant drinking water threat. It is important to note, a RMP
outlines the actions required to address an identified significant
drinking water threat. Therefore, the policy may include and
account for risk management measures and regulatory controls in
order to address a significant threat activity. As well, it is the
discretion of the RMO as to what documentation is received to
assess compliance with the RMP. Please revise the policy
accordingly, and also consider additional changes to be made to
the “Rationale Section” of the monitoring policy.
The Risk Management Plan will consist of
documentation, to be provided by the owner of the
works, to demonstrate compliance with the Technical
Standards and Safety Act (TSSA) requirements for
installation, operation, regular inspections and others.
The Risk Management Official will have discretion as to
what constitutes a satisfactory Risk Management Plan.
We need to provide specific examples of
documentation that would comply with the
TSSA
SPC Agenda Page 34 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
5 A-138 35 According to OMAFRA land application of NASM containing
materials generated by a meat plant or sewage, (classified as
category 3 NASM materials), is always subject to a NASM plan
regardless of the volume. As a consequence this threat would be
addressed by the requirements for a NASM plan for category 3
NASM materials that are required by the Nutrient Management
Act (NMA). Given this policy addresses only category 3 NASM,
you may want to consider OMAFRA’s comment and delete the
policy.
Through Clean Water Act, Section 58 Rick Management
Plan – Manage future applications of non agricultural
source material (NASM) in the Windsor IPZ-2, in those
cases in which the subject activity is not subject to the
Prescribed Instruments. The Prescribed Instruments
are a NASM plan under the Nutrient Management Act
(NMA) or an Environmental Compliance Approval
(Certificate of Approval) under the Environmental
Protection Act (EPA) - Part V for waste disposal sites,
organic soil conditioning sites and waste management
systems.
if a NASM plan is indeed always required,
this policy is not necessary
6 A-152 38 It is unclear if this policy addresses existing, future or both
occurrences of significant drinking water threats. Under the
“Threat Status Section” of the policy it references future activities,
but in the body of the “Policy Text” it references both existing and
future storage of pesticides. Please clarify and apply consistent
language in the policy.
Policy text: The following activities are designated for
the purpose of Section 58 ‘Risk Management Plans’ of
the Clean Water Act in the Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg
IPZ-1 and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1: The existing and
future storage of pesticides such that the quantity
stored is > 2500 kg (for retail sale or for use in
extermination).
Rationale: There is no known storage of pesticides MCPA
and mecoprop in quantities of 2500 kg or more...This
activity is very unlikely to occur or be proposed in the
subject area and therefore implementation has no
negative impact.
Compliance Date: For future threats, the date of
compliance is when the Source Protection Plan takes
effect.
For existing threats, the Risk Management Official shall
comply with the policy within 5 years from the date the
Plan the Plan takes effect.
There is inconsistency throughout the policy.
Need to determine the original intent. Given
the wording of the rationale, it appears that
'existing' threats were added in error.
SPC Agenda Page 35 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
7 27, 28, 29,
34, 35, 36,
37, 40
We suggest that you use section 59 policies for all policies that
use Part IV tools to address significant drinking water threats.
Using section 59 provides a link between the Part IV tools and
municipal planning approvals and building permits. In this way,
the application of section 59 can be seen as providing a
“screening” tool for municipalities when reviewing applications
under planning, to prevent the unintentional approval of
applications (or building permits) that would lead to the creation
of significant drinking water threats. It will also help ensure that
applicants are following the applicable source protection
policies.
I understand that our SPC had some
rationale for not including section 59 for
every Part IV policy (these rationales are
included in each policy using a Part IV tool
that does not have a corresponding Section
59 ploicy), however we are the only the SPC
that has chosen this direction. If we want to
leave it as is, we will have to provide
extensive rationale for why we haven't used
section 59 more frequently
8 A-228 54 directs the Conservation Authority to request Transport Canada to
manage runoff from airport de-icing facilities. Transport Canada
has indicated that they do not have a role in the approval or
construction of new airport facilities. Given this, the policy text
should be changed to replace “Transport Canada” with “Airport
Authority” since this body is responsible for management
practices and standards for de-icing fluids.
Approach: Specify Action that the Conservation
Authority request Transport Canada to manage runoff
from airport de-icing facilities. The action specified is a
non-legally binding commitment policy directed at
Federal agencies. Policy text: The Essex Region
Conservation Authority will request Transport Canada, in
their consideration of any new airport facilities, to
include appropriate design standards and management
practices to manage the significant drinking water threat
activity of run-off generated from airport de-icing
facilities.
change all occurrances of "Transport Canada"
to "Airport Authority"
Appendix B: Corrections in the Legal Provisions List in Appendix
B of the Source Protection Plan
9 A-95, B-5 25 should be included in List J and K Add to J, but K is for policies that do not
belong under any other list so not sure why
this is suggested
10 A-170, B-3 42 should be included in List E. Add to list E
SPC Agenda Page 36 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
11 A-217, B-
3, B-5
52 this policy should be captured in List E (instead of List J), since it is
a significant threat policy that addresses the existing and future
occurrences of the handling and storage of fuel.
Remove from List J, add to List E
Appendix C: Minor Editorial, Typographical and Technical Errors
12 87 table 5.2 There is a sentence that is incomplete when the plan lists the
drinking water threats in Table 5.2, Policy No. 53 ( Page 87). It
should read as the following…”the establishment, operation or
maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or
disposes of sewage”.
the establishment, operation or maintenance of a
system that collects, stores,
make suggested change
13 througho
ut plan,
policies
and
website
Please make sure web links included in the plan are up-to-date This is an ongoing challenge since the
government migrated all the Ministries to
the new OneSite. The Minisitry has provided
new links to most pages. We will have to
update the plan, policies and website
accordingly
14 A-208, A-
213, A-
222
50, 51, 53 Verify that dates and timelines included in the plan are up-to-date.
For example, the education/outreach and stewardship/incentive
policies for moderate and low threats (Policy No. 50, 51 and 53)
reference the date of 2014.
The E & O will be targeted for implementation by the
end of 2014, and will continue as needed based on a
review at that time.
Remove specific date references and leave
timelines more broad/relative to SPP
approval. E.g "within 12 months of effective
date"
15 througho
ut plan
and
policies
The plan refers to TSSA as Technical Standards and Safety
Association; it should either be “Authority” or “Act” depending on
the specific reference. This reference should be corrected
throughout the plan
find and correct
SPC Agenda Page 37 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
16 30 section 4.0 Under Section 4.0: prescribed instruments on page 30, refers to a
list of legislation. The way it reads, it sounds like the Acts
themselves are prescribed. We recommend listing the exact
instrument or include a qualifier, such as “instruments prescribed
under Section 1.0.1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 287/07”.
Prescribed Instruments
Under the Clean Water Act an ‘instrument’ is defined as
any document of legal effect, including a permit, licence,
approval, authorization, direction or order issued or
otherwise created under Ontario legislation. The Clean
Water Act states that instruments may be prescribed for
the purposes of the Act, which means that they can be
used to implement policies in a Source Protection Plan
and manage threats to source water. Also, the Clean
Water Act requires that any future decision to issue,
create or amend a prescribed instrument must conform
with (i.e., comply with) any applicable significant threat
policies that are set out in a Source Protection Plan.
Instruments prescribed under Section 1.0.1(1) of Ontario
Regulation 287/07 are issued under the following
legislation:
SPC Agenda Page 38 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
17 34 section 4.0 Under Section 4.0: non-legally binding on page 34; the way it
reads, it appears that any education and outreach or specify
action policy is not legally binding. We recognize that this could be
related in some way to the first bullet that describes the legal
effect for significant, moderate and low policies implemented by
bodies other than municipalities, local boards or source protection
authorities. However that connection is not clear and it seems to
create an inaccurate picture of legal effect of policies
Non-legally Binding
The Source Protection Plan includes other types of
policies that, while the Source Protection Committee
may determine are important to achieving the Plan’s
objectives, are not given legal effect by the Act. These
include:
policies to be implemented by bodies other than
municipalities, local boards or source protection
authorities and which do not rely on Part IV, prescribed
instrument or Planning Act tools
o Education & outreach programs, specify the action to
be taken to implement the Source Protection Plan or to
achieve the Plan’s objectives; establish
stewardship/incentive programs; specify and promote
best management practices; establish pilot programs;
and govern research – for moderate and low threats
o The update of spills prevention, contingency or
response plans along highways, railways or shipping
lanes
o Climate conditions data collection
o Transport pathways in Wellhead Protection Areas
(WHPA) or Intake Protection Zones (IPZ)
o Moderate/low threats in areas where the threat could
never become significant
o Monitoring of other permissible Plan policies (e.g.
E&O policies are legally binding when they in
regard to a significant drinking water threat
and are directed at a municipality, local
board or SPA. This section will
need to be edited to reflect this nuance.
SPC Agenda Page 39 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
18 A-71 14 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would like the
following wording from Policy No. 49 (NB this text is actually in
policy 14) that is part of the “Rationale Section” of the policy to
be repeated in a general section of the plan to provide
clarification for the reader: “Although the policy will be reflected
in the Official Plans for the City of Windsor and Town of
Amherstburg, there is no benefit in Lakeshore providing land use
planning measures to complement this Prescribed Instrument
policy, given the unique nature of this particular IPZ-1. The land
based portion of the IPZ-1 affects only a very narrow protrusion
into Lake St. Clair, including marina and small portion of a
municipal park ”.
Include a section in the plan on 'official plan
conformity' that describes why some may
be different than others. Including this
statement as is would not fit into the
general sections of the plan and could be
rewritten to reflect what MMAH is asking
for
19 92 Section
6.3/ Land
Use
Planning
In Section 6.3 of the plan, the first paragraph uses the word “also”
twice...”These polices also will also require...”
These policies also will also require that all decisions
under the Planning Act or Condominium Act ‘conform
with’ the policies, once the Source Protection Plan takes
effect.
make editorial change
20 througho
ut policies
Please ensure the policy names are consistent under the “Legal
Effect Section” of the policies in the plan.
check all 'Legal Effects Sections' of policies,
ensure they are completed and in the same
order in each policy. See also comment #28
and 31
21 need to ID
which
policies
this would
affect
We noticed for the fuel policies the quantity of fuel is measured in
litres and some are in cubic metres. Please apply consistent metric
measurements. We recommend using litres since the MOE
Circumstance Tables refer to litres.
edit for consistency
22 A-25 4M There is a minor grammatical error under the “Rationale Section”
of monitoring Policy No. 4M. Please remove the word “issue”.
The Ministry of Environment shall issue ensure that the
terms and conditions of the Environmental
Compliance Approval (Certificate of Approval)
make suggested change
SPC Agenda Page 40 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
23 A-28, A-
33
5,6 We recognize Policy No. 5 and Policy No. 6 complement one
another. Specifically, Policy No. 6 manages existing and future
systems that discharge non-contact cooling water to surface
water in the Windsor IPZ-1 and 2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
and the Amherstburg IPZ-1. However, in the “Approach Section” of
Policy No. 6 specifies managing the threat, while in the “Policy
Text Section” indicates prohibition. We think the prohibition
statement was to be included in Policy No. 5, so please revise the
wording, where applicable.
Approach: Through Prescribed Provincial Instrument,
manage existing and future systems that discharge non-
contact cooling water to surface water in the Windsor
IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and
the Amherstburg IPZ-1.
Policy Text: The date of compliance for prohibiting
existing and future threats is when the Source
Protection Plan takes effect.
make suggested change
24 A-70, 72 14 Under the “Policy Text Section” of Policy No. 14: you include the
following compliance provision: “The date of compliance for
prohibiting existing and future threats is when the SPP takes
effect. For managing existing threats the MOE Shall comply with
the policy within 5 years from the date the plan takes effect, or
such other dates Director determines based on a prioritized review
of Environmental Compliance Approvals that govern significant
drinking water threat activities". However, under the
“Compliance Date Section” you direct MOE to comply with the
policy within 3 years. Please clarify and/or update the compliance
date to be consistent.
edit for consistency
25 A-100 26 In Policy No. 26, we noticed that the policy effective date is
different compared to the other policies in the Source Protection
Plan. Please clarify if the intent is to have a 2-year effective date
versus a 3-5 year effective date. If your intent was to include a
shorter timeline, you may want to reconsider so that the effective
date is consistent with the other policies in the plan.
compliance date: Within 2 years of the Source
Protection Plan taking effect
edit for consistency
26 A-138 35 Under “Compliance Date” , “...the Plan…” is written twice. For existing threats, the Risk Management Official shall
comply with the policy within 5 years from the date the
Plan the Plan takes effect.
edit as suggested
SPC Agenda Page 41 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
27 A-203; A-
231
49; 55 Policy 49 applies to Windsor IPZ-1, 2, and Amherstburg IPZ-1, and
is complimented by Policy No. 55. However, Policy No. 55 applies
to Lakeshore IPZ-1. Can you please clarify why the two policies
reference different vulnerable areas?
Although the Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 has the same
vulnerability score as the Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-
1s, which results in the activity being a significant threat
in the Assessment Report, this policy has not been
applied to the Lakeshore IPZ-1, given the unique nature
of this IPZ-1. As the land based portion of the IPZ-1
affects only a very narrow protrusion into Lake St. Clair,
including a municipal marina and small portion of a
municipal park, it is inconceivable that agricultural
livestock operations could occur in this IPZ-1. However,
as the Clean Water Act requires policies for all significant
threats, an Education and Outreach policy has been
developed for this purpose.
this appears to be explained in the
"Rationale" section of policy 49 and 55.
Should Policy 55 (E&O) also include Windsory
and Amherstburg IPZs?
28 “The Legal Effect Section” reads “confirm”. This should be
changed to “conform”.
edit as suggested (see also comment #20)
29 A-207; A-
212; A-
222
50, 51, 53 We note there are three (3) education/outreach and
stewardship/incentive policies to address a variety of moderate
and low threats, specifically 16 out of the 19 drinking water
quality threats. However there are three (3) drinking water quality
threats not addressed by these policies: (i ) the application of road
salt, (ii ) the management of runoff that contains chemicals used
in the de-icing of aircraft, and (iii ) the use of land as livestock
grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-
animal yard. We recommend providing some clarification in the
Explanatory Document on why these policies only address certain
moderate and low drinking water quality threats.
Were these purposefully left off or perhaps
an oversight?
SPC Agenda Page 42 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
# Page # Policy MOE Comment/Recommendation Exisiting Policy Wording comment_KS
30 A-217 52 This policy is being used to manage the existing occurrences of
storing liquid fuels in the vulnerable areas through a
stewardship/incentive tool in conjunction with other policies. It is
not clear which policy it is supposed to complement. According to
the Explanatory Document the committee references an
education and outreach policy that does not exist in the Plan:
“SLWA123-handlestorefuel-2”. Please clarify and update the
policy text.
Stewardship/Incentive would complement the proposed
Education & Outreach policy
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-2 (Education & Outreach),
through which ERCA will inform
potentially affected parties of the requirements of the
significant threat policies, the
rationale for these policies, as well as ‘best management
practices’ assisting in reducing
the threat level. This Stewardship/Incentive program
would also be linked to the ‘Specify
Action’ policy through which ERCA will develop of an
inventory of above ground liquid
fuel storage facilities with volumes above the significant
threat thresholds in the subject
vulnerable areas.
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-2 exists in the plan
but refers to Policy 52M (Monitoring), page
A-220. Should this be a reference to either
Policy 50 or 51?
31 53M missing the legal effect information "Not Applicable" edit as suggested (see also comment #20),
unless "N/A" is correct for this policy
SPC Agenda Page 43 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 1 of 7
Appendix A: Recommended Revisions for Essex Region’s Source Protection Plan 1. In some cases policies prohibit existing and future occurrences of
significant threat activities, including certain waste, sewage and agricultural threats. According to the explanatory document, these threats currently are “not known to exist” or “highly unlikely to exist” in the future. Please confirm that given more recent work to verify threats that these statements in the explanatory document continue to be valid.
2. We note that the prescribed instrument tool is being used to address waste within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) in the source protection plan.
When considering waste threat policies, the following might provide some important context. The waste threat includes ten sub-categories of waste in MOE’s Table of Circumstances. The prescribed instrument (i.e. Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) under the EPA) that addresses waste is available for seven of the sub-categories, and these same ECAs manage the remaining three sub-categories when they occur at a landfill or transfer station. For the three sub-categories, prescribed instruments cannot be used to manage the activities when waste is generated or stored at waste disposal sites other than landfills and transfer stations. The Ministry has other tools to ensure they are managed appropriately. However, these other tools, such as Director’s instructions, are not prescribed under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The policy approaches available for these sub-categories are outlined below. The three subcategories are:
a) storage of wastes described in clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), or (u) of the definition of hazardous waste, or in clause (d) of the definition of liquid industrial waste*;
b) storage of hazardous or liquid industrial waste; and
c) storage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) waste.
*Note that wastes described in clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), or (u) of the definition of hazardous waste, or in clause (d) of the definition of liquid industrial waste generally represent small quantities of hazardous or liquid industrial waste.
Other Waste Disposal Sites:
In addition to landfills, which are what most people associate with the term “waste disposal site”, the legal definition in the EPA for a “waste disposal site” also includes sites where waste is stored, transferred,
SPC Agenda Page 44 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 2 of 7
treated or processed. Since most sites that generate small or large quantities hazardous or liquid industrial waste (sub-categories ‘a’ and ‘b’ above), or PCB waste (sub-category ‘c’ above) do not dispose of them on their own sites, these operations must store these wastes until picked up by a waste management company for off-site management. Hence sites that generate and store these wastes meet the definition of a waste disposal site and can be significant drinking water threats under the Clean Water Act and therefore, a policy is required to address them.
Storage of small and large quantities of hazardous and liquid industrial wastes:
Small and large quantities of hazardous and liquid industrial wastes (the first two sub-categories listed above – ‘a’ and ‘b’), can be generated in the industrial, manufacturing, commercial and institutional sectors. Hazardous wastes include a broad range of materials such as manufacturing residues (e.g. waste acids, contaminated sludge and complex chemicals), biomedical wastes from hospitals, spent photo finishing chemicals, waste pesticides, motor oil, used cleaning products, and discarded batteries. For example activities occurring in a wide range of land uses such as, nursing homes, medical and alternative health clinics, dental offices, dry cleaning and laundry plants, printing operations, retailers, salvage yards; or commercial industrial/manufacturing, photography/photo finishing, laboratories, welding works, etc. may be inadvertently impacted.
Currently as written, Essex’s plan only addresses existing and future occurrences of the storage of hazardous or liquid industrial waste (sub-category ‘b’ above), as this is the only waste sub-threat out of the three sub-categories mentioned above that can be significant in the IPZ-1s. Policy No. 14, Reference W1L1A1-waste-1 addresses this threat sub-category by prohibiting the activity through a prescribed instrument. Therefore, the policy as currently written, would affect any existing or future generators of small or large quantities of hazardous and liquid industrial waste and, consequently, the impact could be more extensive than intended. It would be challenging to prohibit the storage of large or small quantities of hazardous and liquid industrial waste prior to disposal without extensively eliminating existing or future institutional, commercial or industrial facilities. For example, the IPZ-1s in Windsor, Lakeshore (Belle River) and Amherstburg are located in areas where commercial, industrial, or institutional activities are taking place, or are zoned for these uses.
Based on the information mentioned above, the SPC should review the policy as currently written, to ensure all potential impacts have been considered.
SPC Agenda Page 45 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 3 of 7
If the SPC is aware of the waste information above and has considered the impacts of the prohibition of both large facilities such as landfills and transfer stations as well as generators of waste, then the policy can remain as it is. In this case, for existing activities the explanatory document must include the committee’s rationale explaining why management would not be appropriate to address the significant threat. Where the prohibition applies to future activities an explanation in the explanatory document of how the policy would apply would be helpful.
Furthermore, we would like to have a discussion about the SPC’s intended approach to address the storage of hazardous or liquid industrial waste, as there are a number of options to address this type of waste where it would be a significant threat when an ECA is not available. Here are two suggestions:
If the SPC is of the opinion that education and outreach (EO) would satisfactorily address the significant drinking water threat (SDWT) as per section 22 of the CWA, the SPC could consider adding an EO policy to address any instance where an ECA wouldn’t apply as an alternative tool to manage the storage of hazardous or liquid industrial waste. A statement in the explanatory document would need to be included on the use of EO as the only tool to address this specific waste sub-category.
OR
The SPC could use s. 58 risk management plan (RMP) to address any instance where an ECA wouldn’t apply as an alternative tool to manage this waste sub-category.
3. Policy No. 4, Reference W1W2L1A1-stormwater-1 addresses the future (new) storm water management facilities which discharge to surface water bodies in the Windsor IPZ-1 and IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1. There does not appear to be another policy in the plan that addresses existing occurrences of storm water management facilities. We recommend either expanding on Policy No. 4, or write a new policy to address the existing significant threat activity. If the committee decides to not write a policy to address the existing threat, a statement in the explanatory document would need to be included.
4. Policy No. 40, Reference SLWA123-Handlestorefuel-1 includes the following statement in the “Policy Text”: “The Risk Management Plan will consist of documentation, to be provided by the owner of the works, to demonstrate compliance with the Technical Standards and Safety Act (TSSA) requirements for installation, operation, regular inspections and others. The Risk Management Official will have discretion as to what constitutes a satisfactory Risk Management Plan”. The reference to
SPC Agenda Page 46 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 4 of 7
“consist of documentation” in the above statement does not clearly outline how the RMP will address the significant drinking water threat. It is important to note, a RMP outlines the actions required to address an identified significant drinking water threat. Therefore, the policy may include and account for risk management measures and regulatory controls in order to address a significant threat activity. As well, it is the discretion of the RMO as to what documentation is received to assess compliance with the RMP. Please revise the policy accordingly, and also consider additional changes to be made to the “Rationale Section” of the monitoring policy.
5. We understand that Policy No. 35 Reference W2-app1NASM-1 uses RMPs to manage future applications of non-agricultural source material (NASM) in Windsor IPZ-2, where the activity is not subject to a prescribed instrument. According to OMAFRA land application of NASM containing materials generated by a meat plant or sewage, (classified as category 3 NASM materials), is always subject to a NASM plan regardless of the volume. As a consequence this threat would be addressed by the requirements for a NASM plan for category 3 NASM materials that are required by the Nutrient Management Act (NMA). Given this policy addresses only category 3 NASM, you may want to consider OMAFRA’s comment and delete the policy.
6. It is unclear if Policy No. 38, Reference W1A1L1-storagepesticide-1 addresses existing, future or both occurrences of significant drinking water threats. Under the “Threat Status Section” of the policy it references future activities, but in the body of the “Policy Text” it references both existing and future storage of pesticides. Please clarify and apply consistent language in the policy.
7. We note that section 59 policies have only been included in the plan to complement the section 57 policy for the handling and storage of NASM and road salt, and the section 58 policy for the handling and storage of pesticide in the IPZs where significant. We suggest that you use section 59 policies for all policies that use Part IV tools to address significant drinking water threats. Using section 59 provides a link between the Part IV tools and municipal planning approvals and building permits. In this way, the application of section 59 can be seen as providing a “screening” tool for municipalities when reviewing applications under planning, to prevent the unintentional approval of applications (or building permits) that would lead to the creation of significant drinking water threats. It will also help ensure that applicants are following the applicable source protection policies.
SPC Agenda Page 47 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 5 of 7
8. Policy No. 54, Reference W1A1L1-deicair directs the Conservation Authority to request Transport Canada to manage runoff from airport de-icing facilities. Transport Canada has indicated that they do not have a role in the approval or construction of new airport facilities. Given this, the policy text should be changed to replace “Transport Canada” with “Airport Authority” since this body is responsible for management practices and standards for de-icing fluids.
Appendix B: Corrections in the Legal Provisions List in Appendix B of the Source Protection Plan 9. Policy No. 25-All 123transportcorridor-1 (Specify Action) should be
included in List J and K.
10. Policy No. 42-W2effluent-1 (specify action) should be included in List E.
11. We noticed List J includes Policy No.52-SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (stewardship/incentive). Instead, this policy should be captured in List E, since it is a significant threat policy that addresses the existing and future occurrences of the handling and storage of fuel.
Appendix C: Minor Editorial, Typographical and Technical Errors 12. There is a sentence that is incomplete when the plan lists the drinking
water threats in Table 5.2, Policy No. 53 and on Page 87. It should read as the following…”the establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage”.
13. Please make sure web links included in the plan are up-to-date.
14. Verify that dates and timelines included in the plan are up-to-date. For example, the education/outreach and stewardship/incentive policies for moderate and low threats (Policy No. 50, 51 and 53) reference the date of 2014.
15. The plan refers to TSSA as Technical Standards and Safety Association; it should either be “Authority” or “Act” depending on the specific reference. This reference should be corrected throughout the plan.
16. Under Section 4.0: prescribed instruments on page 30, refers to a list of legislation. The way it reads, it sounds like the Acts themselves are prescribed. We recommend listing the exact instrument or include a qualifier, such as “instruments prescribed under Section 1.0.1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 287/07”.
17. Under Section 4.0: non-legally binding on page 34; the way it reads, it appears that any education and outreach or specify action policy is not legally binding. We recognize that this could be related in some way to
SPC Agenda Page 48 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 6 of 7
the first bullet that describes the legal effect for significant, moderate and low policies implemented by bodies other than municipalities, local boards or source protection authorities. However that connection is not clear and it seems to create an inaccurate picture of legal effect of policies.
18. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would like the following wording from Policy No. 49 that is part of the “Rationale Section” of the policy to be repeated in a general section of the plan to provide clarification for the reader: “Although the policy will be reflected in the Official Plans for the City of Windsor and Town of Amherstburg, there is no benefit in Lakeshore providing land use planning measures to complement this Prescribed Instrument policy, given the unique nature of this particular IPZ-1. The land based portion of the IPZ-1 affects only a very narrow protrusion into Lake St. Clair, including marina and small portion of a municipal park”.
19. In Section 6.3 of the plan, the first paragraph uses the word “also” twice...”These polices also will also require...”
20. Please ensure the policy names are consistent under the “Legal Effect Section” of the policies in the plan.
21. We noticed for the fuel policies the quantity of fuel is measured in litres and some are in cubic metres. Please apply consistent metric measurements. We recommend using litres since the MOE Circumstance Tables refer to litres.
22. There is a minor grammatical error under the “Rationale Section” of monitoring Policy No. 4M. Please remove the word “issue”.
23. We recognize Policy No. 5 and Policy No. 6 complement one another. Specifically, Policy No. 6 manages existing and future systems that discharge non-contact cooling water to surface water in the Windsor IPZ-1 and 2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and the Amherstburg IPZ-1. However, in the “Approach Section” of Policy No. 6 specifies managing the threat, while in the “Policy Text Section” indicates prohibition. We think the prohibition statement was to be included in Policy No. 5, so please revise the wording, where applicable.
24. Under the “Policy Text Section” of Policy No. 14: W1L1A1-waste-1 you include the following compliance provision: “The date of compliance for prohibiting existing and future threats is when the SPP takes effect. For managing existing threats the MOE Shall comply with the policy within 5 years from the date the plan takes effect, or such other dates Director determines based on a prioritized review of Environmental Compliance Approvals that govern significant drinking water threat activities".
SPC Agenda Page 49 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Source Protection Plan MOE Recommended Revisions June 25, 2014
Page 7 of 7
However, under the “Compliance Date Section” you direct MOE to comply with the policy within 3 years. Please clarify and/or update the compliance date to be consistent.
25. In Policy No. 26 Reference All123transportcorridor-3, we noticed that the policy effective date is different compared to the other policies in the Source Protection Plan. Please clarify if the intent is to have a 2-year effective date versus a 3-5 year effective date. If your intent was to include a shorter timeline, you may want to reconsider so that the effective date is consistent with the other policies in the plan.
26. Under “Compliance Date” in Policy No. 35, “...the Plan…” is written twice.
27. We noticed that Policy No. 49, Reference W1W2A1-livgraz-1 applies to Windsor IPZ-1, 2, and Amherstburg IPZ-1, and is complimented by Policy No. 55, Reference L1-livgraz-1. However, Policy No. 55 applies to Lakeshore IPZ-1. Can you please clarify why the two policies reference different vulnerable areas?
28. As well, “The Legal Effect Section” of Policy No. 49 reads “confirm”. This should be changed to “conform”.
29. We note there are three (3) education/outreach and stewardship/incentive policies to address a variety of moderate and low threats, specifically 16 out of the 19 drinking water quality threats (Policy No. 50, 51 and 53). However there are three (3) drinking water quality threats not addressed by these policies: (i) the application of road salt, (ii) the management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft, and (iii) the use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard. We recommend providing some clarification in the Explanatory Document on why these policies only address certain moderate and low drinking water quality threats.
30. Policy No. 52, Ref#SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 is being used to manage the existing occurrences of storing liquid fuels in the vulnerable areas through a stewardship/incentive tool in conjunction with other policies. It is not clear which policy it is supposed to complement. According to the Explanatory Document the committee references an education and outreach policy that does not exist in the Plan: “SLWA123-handlestorefuel-2”. Please clarify and update the policy text.
31. Policy No.53M is missing the legal effect information.
SPC Agenda Page 50 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 04/14
FROM: Susanne Tomkins, Communications Specialist
SUBJECT: Affected Property Owners Consultation
DATE: July 14, 2014
PURPOSE
To recommend further details regarding consultation for the Updated Assessment Report
BACKGROUND
As endorsed by the Source Protection Committee, a Communication and Consultation Plan (Report
04/13) has been applied, including early consultation with Significant Drinking Water Threat landowners.
Affected property owners include businesses with large above ground fuel storage facilities such as
gasoline and diesel for vehicles, equipment, and furnaces which has been identified as a result of ongoing
desktop inventory.
With consultation now beginning with fuel SDWT landowners, the following schedule is proposed based
on this plan:
A targeted information package (attached) mailed to property and business owners of confirmed and
unconfirmed existing significant threats as outlined in the Updated Assessment Report and are
represented in the table below:
Notes: Parcels = total number of parcels containing at least one fuel tank Confirmed = confirmed by supplier information or field verification Unconfirmed = confirmation pending
Municipality #Parcels Confirmed Unconfirmed
Leamington 164 114 50
Kingsville 93 59 34
Windsor 33 19 14
Essex 31 27 4
Lakeshore 29 28 1
Amherstburg 16 13 3
Tecumseh 12 12 0
LaSalle 3 0 3
Pelee Island 3 3 0
Totals 384 275 109
SPC Agenda Page 51 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Hosting two public meetings to receive comments and address, if any, concerns from identified
SDWT landowners. The public meetings dates are proposed as the following:
Wednesday September 3, 2014
Wheatley Legion, 27 Erie Street North, Wheatley
3:00pm – 7:00pm
Held in partnership with Thames-Sydenham and Region SPA
Wednesday September 24, 2014
Essex Civic Centre, 360 Fairview Avenue West
3:00pm – 6:00pm
Additionally, further communications and consultation will continue throughout the process of
updating the Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan with ongoing and planned activities to
engage and inform municipalities, other implementing bodies, and the general public.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report SPC 04/14 be received for information and discussion purposes.
Susanne Tomkins
Communications Specialist
SPC Agenda Page 52 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, Ontario, Canada N8M 1Y6 phone: (519) 776-5209 fax: (519) 776-8688
pm@essexregionsourcewater.org www.essexregionsourcewater.org
Date Name Company Address City/Town, Postal Dear Name:
The Essex Region Source Protection Committee, established under the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006,
is working to create a plan by XXX to protect sources of drinking water in our area. The Committee
includes people from the Windsor-Essex Region, from a variety of sectors including municipalities,
industry, agriculture, and business. The Essex Region Conservation Authority is undertaking technical
studies to assist the Committee in evaluating land use activities located in specific vulnerable areas.
A vulnerable area, or Intake Protection Zone, is the area of land surrounding a municipal drinking water
intake, where water run-off or discharge may directly affect the quality of water in the streams, rivers, or
lakes which serve as sources of water for municipal drinking water systems. Special care may need to be
taken in these areas in the use and handling of chemicals and other potential contaminants. Your business
or property at the following location in the Town/City/Intake is located in an Intake Protection Zone, as
identified through technical mapping studies of the Updated Assessment Report required under the
Clean Water Act:
Landowner Address
The technical studies have also indicated that the land use activities, that are permitted and may be
occurring on your property or business, are in a category which is identified at this time as an
“unconfirmed significant drinking water threat". A list of the 21 drinking water threat categories as
specified by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) under the Clean Water Act has been
included with this letter. Our preliminary information shows that the following potential threat(s) may be
applicable to the land use activity that may be present on your property:
The handling and storage of fuel
Volume Location (see attached map)
15,000 L (15 m3 or ~4,000 U.S. gallons) IPZ-1, IPZ-2, or IPZ-3 (upstream of intakes)
3,000,000 L (3,000 m3 or ~800,000 U.S.
gallons)
IPZ-1and IPZ-2 (downstream of intakes)
More information on the Table of Drinking Water Threats compiled by the Ministry of the Environment
can be accessed using the following link:
SPC Agenda Page 53 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/tables-drinking-water-threats
With this information, the Committee has prepared a science-based Assessment Report for the Essex
Region Source Protection Area, which is currently being updated. If you would like to learn more about
the Report and this overall process, the Committee will be holding Public Meetings on:
Wednesday September 3, 2014
Wheatley Legion, 27 Erie Street North, Wheatley
3:00pm – 7:00pm
Wednesday September 24, 2014
Essex Civic Centre, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex
3:00pm – 6:00pm
Further work is planned to confirm whether the particular activities should be considered as Significant
Threats, which would require corresponding policies in the Source Protection Plan. It is anticipated that
some sites will be determined not to be Significant Threats, based on this further evaluation. Your
assistance is respectfully requested in our further evaluation of your property or business for this
purpose. Please be assured that this planning process is governed by privacy legislation. Personal
information collected will be held in confidence, and will not be disclosed to the public.
We ask that you please contact us regarding further information which may assist in this process, and
regarding any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Katie Stammler
Project Manager, Source Water Protection
c/o E.R.C.A
360 Fairview Avenue West, Suite 311
Essex, ON N8M 1Y6
staylor@erca.org
519-776-5209 x342
Cc Tom Fuerth, Source Protection Committee Chair (provided via email)
Cc Source Protection Committee (provided via email)
SPC Agenda Page 54 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Drinking Water Threats
A drinking water threat is defined, according to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), as a chemical or pathogen that poses a potential risk to the drinking water source. The MOE has prescribed 21 types of activities that are considered as drinking water threats as listed below:
1. The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage
2. The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act
3. The application of agricultural source material (ASM) to land 4. The storage of agricultural source material (ASM) 5. The management of agricultural source material (ASM) to land 6. The application of non-agricultural source material (NASM) to land 7. The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material (NASM) 8. The application of commercial fertilizer 9. The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer 10. The application of pesticide 11. The handling and storage of commercial pesticide 12. The application of road salt 13. The handling and storage of road salt 14. The storage of snow 15. The handling and storage of fuel 16. The handling and storage of non-aqueous dense phase liquids (DNAPL) 17. The handling and storage of organic solvent 18. The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft 19. The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-
animal yard 20. An activity that takes water from an aquifer or a surface water body without returning the water
taken to the same aquifer or surface water 21. An activity that reduces the recharge of an aquifer.
Out of the above mentioned 21 activities, the first 19 are the drinking water quality threats while the last two are the drinking water quantity threats. In addition to the above mentioned threats, the Essex Region Source Protection Committee has the authority to include additional threats specific to the ESPR Areas where they deem appropriate as long as the threat meets the criteria outlined in the Technical Rules (Part XI.2, Rule 125).
SPC Agenda Page 55 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Fuel Storage and Handling - A drinking water threat
Detroit River Watershed
The Ontario Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (2006) plays a major role in ensuring that all Ontarians have access to safe drinking water. It means stopping
contaminants from getting into sources of drinking water -- lakes, rivers and aquifers. During the past several years, under the guidance
of a multi-sector Source Protection Committee, ERCA has carried out technical studies and developed a Source Protection Plan
specifying actions to be undertaken to protect sources of drinking water, to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Why is Fuel a Drinking Water Threat?
A spill or leak of liquid fuel could contaminate drinking water sources, cause damage to the natural environment, and damage to
property. Potential contaminants are BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) and PHCs (petroleum hydrocarbons).
Benzene is recognized as a carcinogen. Large volumes of above ground storage of liquid fuel have been identified as Significant
Drinking Water Threats.
Handling & Storage of Fuel
Liquid fuels are typically used for transportation and heating purposes (e.g. gasoline
and diesel for vehicles, equipment, and furnaces). Operations with large above
ground liquid fuel storage facilities may include transport companies, heavy
construction contractors, marinas, large agricultural operations, public works yards
and other municipal facilities, quarries, petroleum companies (e.g. distribution cen-
tres or oil wells), and large industries. Volume thresholds that trigger the activity
being a significant level threat to drinking water sources are provided in the attached
table. Note that where multiple tanks exist on the same property, the combined
volume is considered.
Intake Protection Zones in the Essex Region
Intake Protection Zones are the areas of land where special care must be taken in the use of handing chemicals and other potential
contaminants, as these areas are upstream of the intakes for municipal drinking water treatment plants. These protection areas account
for the influence of runoff from heavy rains that may pick up pollutants and affect water quality in local watersheds and the near-shore
waters where municipal water treatment plant intakes are located. These areas are considered high risk, as pollutants spilled in the
zone have a high probability of reaching the intake and adversely affecting the water quality.
Where Do Source Protection Policies Apply?
The Essex Region intake protection zones are extensive and include many land uses where the handling and storage of large quantities
of liquid fuel is a necessity. The following list summarizes the circumstances where the above ground handling and storage of large vol-
umes of liquid fuel is a significant threat to sources of drinking water.
SPC Agenda Page 56 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Agenda Page 57 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
The Source Protection Plan will safeguard our health and the health of our families; ensure enough safe, clean drinking water is available for ourselves and the environment; and protect
current and future sources of municipal drinking water.
Significant Threats Criteria for 2% Benzene Fuel
Water Treatment Plant (s) Significant Threats – Above Ground Fuel Tanks, Tankers
Volume ** Location
Lake St. Clair Intakes (Lakeshore and Stoney Point)
15,000 L
(15 m3 or ~4,000 U.S. gallons) IPZ-1, IPZ-2 or IPZ-3
Detroit River Intake (A.H. Weeks/Windsor)
15,000 L
(15 m3 or ~4,000 U.S. gallons) IPZ-1, IPZ-2, or IPZ-3
(upstream of intakes)
3,000,000 L
(3,000 m3 or ~800,000 U.S. gallons)
IPZ-1and IPZ-2
(downstream of intakes)
Detroit River Intake (Amherstburg)
15,000 L
(15 m3 or ~4,000 U.S. gallons)
IPZ-1, IPZ-2 or IPZ-3
(upstream of the intake, from the intake to vicinity of Turkey Creek, including Turkey Creek and Canard River watersheds)
3,000,000 L
(3,000 m3 or ~800,000 U.S. gallons)
IPZ-1, IPZ-2 or IPZ-3 (upstream of the intake, from McKee Drain to Upper Detroit River)
15,000,000 L
(15,000 m3 or ~4 million U.S. gallons) IPZ-1 and IPZ-2
(downstream of the intake)
* Lake Erie Intakes (Colchester, Union, Wheatley, Pelee Island)
15,000 L
(15 m3 or ~4,000 U.S. gallons) IPZ-1, IPZ-2, and IPZ-3
*These areas are currently being evaluated for inclusion in the Updated Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan ** Note where multiple tanks exist on the same property, the combined value is considered
Source Protection Plan Policies
As required by the Clean Water Act, the Essex Region Source Protection Committee
developed a proposed Source Protection Plan with policies to address storage and
handling of fuel where they are considered a significant drinking water threat. As
noted in the table above, the Source Protection Plan is currently being updated to
address the fuel threats associated with the municipal drinking water intakes in Lake
Erie, and IPZs along nearby tributaries and shorelines.
It is feasible to manage these existing and future significant drinking water threats
through various policy approaches. It is felt that the existing Technical Standards and
Safety Act (TSSA) requirements are an acceptable means of managing these threats.
In most cases, future and existing above grade handling and storage of liquid fuel will
be managed under Section 58 of the Clean Water Act, which requires a Risk Management Plan. The Risk Management Plan will
consist of documentation to demonstrate compliance with TSSA requirements.
SPC Agenda Page 58 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Assessing Threats and Issues
Identifying threats to our source water and understanding the extent and scope of these
threats is a key step to source water protection.
Drinking water issues can be chronic, meaning they have existed over a long period of
time or reoccur seasonally, and are likely to continue if nothing is done to address the
activities that cause them. Through the source protection planning process, issues that
impact water quality are be linked to specific land uses and/or areas so that actions can
be taken to manage them.
Examples of human activities that could negatively affect local water quality if not
managed properly include:
Chemical storage
Spreading sewage treatment sludge
Storing and spreading road salt
Animal feed lots
Use of fertilizers and pesticides
Accidental spills of hazardous materials
Septic systems
Underground storage tanks
Wastewater discharge
Sewage bypasses
Stormwater runoff
The technical work related to fuel storage facilities and phosphorous issues in Lake Erie is
currently underway. This work will likely lead to policies in a Essex Region Source Protection Plan.
For more information on the Source Water Protection Program contact
pm@essexregionsourcewater.org
Source Protection Committee
The Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) has been created to develop a Source Protection Plan to protect municipal
sources of drinking water in the Essex Region. The SPC will oversee the preparation of the technical Assessment Report, Source Pro-
tection Plan, and related public and stakeholder consultations.
Source protection planning builds on the work municipalities are already doing to protect drinking
water. The SPC represents the broad interests across our local watershed to create a locally
developed and delivered source protection plan. Our community will use a science-based approach
to protecting our water supplies – one that works for us.
For more information visit www.essexregionsourcewater.org
360 Fairview Avenue West, Suite 311, Essex, ON, Canada N8M 1Y6 phone: (519) 776-5209 fax: (519) 776-8688
pm@essexregionsourcewater.org
www.essexregionsourcewater.org
SPC Agenda Page 59 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 05/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Water Quality Scientist/Project Manager, Source Water Protection
SUBJECT: Update on Proposed Risk Management Services
DATE: July 16, 2014
PURPOSE
To inform the SPC on discussions with municipalities regarding Risk Management Services
REPORT SUMMARY
The Essex Region Draft Source Protection Plan identified a number of Significant Drinking Water
Threats (SDWT) including the storage of fuel. Municipalities with SDWTs will need to have Risk
Management Officials (RMO) and Risk Management Inspectors (RMI) to implement the Clean Water
Act Part IV policy tools identified in the SPP. As per Board direction (BD 40/13), the Essex Region
Conservation Authority (ERCA) has proposed to provide RMO/I services on behalf of the
municipalities as allowed for by the Act.
ERCA Administration developed a Risk Management Services Proposal that includes program
development, CWA Part IV tasks (risk management plans, prohibition and restricted land use),
compliance monitoring and enforcement, site specific risk assessment review, land use planning
support, monitoring and reporting
ERCA Administration has held further discussions with municipal administrations and presented the
proposal and associated costing for each municipality based on shared fixed costs and specific costs
associated with SDWTs in each municipality.
BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that a Source Protection Committee (SPC) develop a Source
Protection Plan (SPP) for the protection of Drinking Water Sources. The Essex Region SPC prepared a
draft SPP which identifies Significant Drinking Water Threats (SDWTs) in the region and contains policies
which protect drinking water sources in the region from existing and future SDWTs. The Draft SPP
contains policies for existing and future SDWTs such as storage and discharge of sewage or industrial
effluent; storage or application agricultural or non-agricultural source materials; handling, storage and
transportation of fuels; application and storage of pesticides; and storage of road salt or snow. These
policies are based on the policy tools listed in the CWA including:
Prescribed Instruments (i.e. other provincial legislations prescribed by the CWA)
Risk Management Plans (per CWA Part IV Section 58)
Prohibition (per CWA Part IV Section 57)
Restricted Land Use (per CWA Part IV Section 59)
Land Use Planning
Education and Outreach
Stewardship
Other specified actions (e.g. research pilot studies)
SPC Agenda Page 60 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Following approval of the SPP, municipalities will be responsible for the implementation of these policies.
Policies written pursuant to Sections 57, 58, and 59 of the CWA can only be implemented by trained and
qualified Risk Management Officials and Inspectors, collectively referred to in this report as RMO/I. Final
approval of the SPP is anticipated by early 2015, as such municipalities must be ready for implementation
by Fall 2014.
The CWA allows for a municipality to delegate their RMO/I responsibilities under Part IV to a Source
Protection Authority (SPA), Health Unit or other municipality. In light of the types and numbers of
identified and proposed Significant Drinking Water Threats (SDWTs) in the Essex Region, which is lake
and river intake based rather than well based, where there are inherently greater numbers of potential
threats, the SPC and ERCA acknowledged that there were efficiencies associated with offering the
services on a larger scale across the SP area and in conjunction with other services provided by the CA:
CAs were established on a watershed basis as a municipal-provincial partnership and continue as a
municipal partnership
The CWA built on this partnership to establish the SPA to facilitate the SPP development and provide
resources to the SPC
The ERCA Board of Directors Members are appointed by the municipalities of the watershed and
additionally meets as a SPA to carry out the business of the SPA
ERCA provides the staffing and other resources to the SPA to carry out its responsibilities under the
CWA
Since the source water protection program started, ERCA provided the technical and policy
development capacity to the SPA for over seven years. This experience and understanding of the
comprehensive requirements of the Clean Water Act including Risk Management Services is an
inherent part of its capacity
ERCA also has similar regulatory responsibilities which it carries out in partnership with the local
municipalities
For these reasons, as well as economies of scale, in November 2011(BD 41/11), the ERCA Board
recommended that ERCA offer to provide Risk Management Official services to affected municipalities
for implementation of those specific policies which are under Part IV of the Clean Water Act. ERCA
Administration held preliminary discussions with municipalities based on threats identified in the Draft
Source Protection Plan and draft policies. Municipalities agreed in principle to ERCA delivering services,
and asked that ERCA Administration develop a more comprehensive proposal.
ERCA Administration outlined a more comprehensive approach for the ERCA Board of Directors in
November 2013 (BD40/13). That approach acknowledged that some aspects of RMO/I services (such as
program development, education and outreach, land use planning support, reporting, etc.) are 'fixed', to
be shared equally by all participating municipalities, and that some costs associated with specific threats
(e.g. Risk Management Plans, site specific assessment reviews, compliance and enforcement, etc.), should
be tied to numbers of threats in those municipalities. For example, the draft SPP included SDWTs within
the Lake St. Clair and Detroit River Intake Protection Zone 3's (IPZ3s) related to large fuel storage sites.
As a result, the preliminary estimates for program delivery identified greater costs for municipalities
within those intake zones. Further to the draft SPP, the SPC with encouragement from municipalities,
requested, in their 2012/13 workplan, support and funding from the Ministry of Environment to identify
SPC Agenda Page 61 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
IPZ3s and related Issues Contributing Areas (ICAs) for the Lake Erie water intakes related to large fuel
storage, as well as concerns related to phosphorous and microcystins. The MoE approved and funded
that work, and Administration is now completing the modelling and identification of IPZ3 issues for Lake
Erie intakes. Once approved by the SPC, those threats will require similar policies for implementation.
Table 1: Existing SDWT Requiring Risk Management Plans and Types of Properties in IPZs
Municipality Existing
SDWT
No. of properties within IPZ-1, 2 and 3
Industrial Agricultural Commercial
Tecumseh 12 226 450 21
Lakeshore 28 205 1,972 51
Essex 27 38 1,198 16
Amherstburg 13 56 783 17
Windsor 19 296 139 104
LaSalle 0 40 405 20
Leamington 114 50 1,105 24
Kingsville 59 40 1,151 21
Pelee Island 3 13 177 4
The Risk Management Services (RMS) proposal being developed by ERCA/SPA Administration is based on
the goal of having the services fully implemented within five years. The RMS proposal will provide an
estimate of costs based on the scope of work described in the section above. It is proposed to enter into
a 5 year agreement with municipalities, with a renewal option at the end of the third year. This renewal
at the end of the third year allows for a review of program tasks and costs up to then, and a reasonable
estimate of the tasks and costs for the remainder of the term. It is hoped that RMPs for existing threats
would be in place within the first three or four years dependant on workloads associated with the other
program areas. It is anticipated that the costs for the first few years may be slightly higher than
subsequent years. As this is a completely new program there are a number of uncertainties which could
affect the cost of the services.
SPC Agenda Page 62 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 2 presents totals for the five year proposed period of the municipal service agreement.
Table 2: Estimated Costs for RMO Service Over Five Years
Program Area Annual Average Five Year Total
Program Development $ 10,798.28 $ 53,991.40
Risk Management Planning – Existing
Significant Drinking Water Threats
$ 32,587.74 $ 162,938.70
Restricted Land Use and Risk Management
Planning - Future
$ 11,959.92 $ 59,799.60
Compliance – Existing and Future $ 12,656.87 $ 63,284.35
Monitoring and Reporting $ 3,405.74 $ 17,028.69
Site Specific Risk Assessment $ 637.86 $ 3,189.31
Education and Outreach $ 7,973.28 $ 39,866.40
Land Use Planning Support $ 5,082.97 $ 25,414.83
Technical Inquiries Support $ 3,986.64 $ 19,933.20
Totals $ 89,089.30 $ 445,446.48
Based on those principles, ERCA Administration has held further discussions with municipal
administrations and presented the proposal and associated costing for each municipality based on shared
fixed costs and specific costs associated with SDWTs in each municipality.
ERCA Administration has presented the proposal to Lakeshore, Tecumseh, Windsor, Amherstburg,
Leamington and Pelee Island. Additional meetings are being planned for Essex and Kingsville. To date:
Pelee Island has confirmed their participation through Council resolution.
Lakeshore, Tecumseh, and Windsor administration support participation, though their respective
Councils have not formally approved participation.
Amherstburg has posted a Request for Proposal. ERCA Administration is preparing a response, and
will additionally meet with Amherstburg administration as costs will be higher without consideration
of shared fixed costs.
ERCA and Leamington Administration have met on several occasions. The inclusion of IPZ3 and large
fuel storage threats, as described above, has increased the estimated costs for Leamington over those
originally presented in 2011, where there were no SDWTs identified. Leamington Administration has
presented a report to Council requesting additional information. Council deferred discussions until
the Source Protection Plan is complete. ERCA Administration will again meet with the municipality to
respond to questions, as deliver of RMO/I services, through ERCA or by the municipality, must be
confirmed prior to plan approval.
SPC Agenda Page 63 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Municipal Implementation Funding
On November 1, 2013 the Ministry of Environment launched Ontario’s Source Protection Municipal
Implementation Fund, which will distribute $13.5 million to 189 eligible municipalities over three years.
This funding is to offset a portion of the costs in implementing the SPP in small, rural municipalities for
risk management services, and education and outreach. It provides one-time funding for implementation
from December 2013 to December 2015 in keeping with the Source Protection Municipal
Implementation Fund Guide
In Essex region, a total of $250,346 was announced for municipalities within the by Essex Region SPA,
including:
No. Municipality Funding Source Protection Authority
1 Amherstburg $69,803 Essex Region
2 Chatham-Kent $75,000 Essex Region, Lower Thames Valley, St. Clair Region
3 County of Essex $42,742 Essex Region, Lower Thames Valley
4 Lakeshore $32,801 Essex Region, Lower Thames Valley
5 Tecumseh $30,000 Essex Region
Each Municipality identified has approved their involvement in the program. ERCA Administration will
work with municipalities to implement the programs in those municipalities.
The announced funding is based on results of the approved Assessment Report, and as such, does not
include the current work being completed by the SPC related to Lake Erie intakes, where the number of
fuel threats has increased and there are new phosphorous threats as well.
ERCA Administration, and the SPC Chair have met with MoE senior officials, as well as the Ontario
Auditor General's office (which is conducting an audit of MoE's Source Protection Plan program and has
had discussions with CAs related to their audit report) to request that the funding program be extended
to those municipalities which would have been eligible, and would have received funding if they were
included in the original SPP.
ERCA Administration, and other CAs, have also asked that the province consider extending the program
to 2016, recognizing that most plans will not be approved until end 2014 and that most implementation
requirements would not begin until early to mid 2015, thereby reducing the eligible period for
implementation of the program.
Next Steps
To assist ERCA in preparing final costs for program delivery, and to assist municipalities in budgeting,
Administration proposes to request municipalities confirm their participation, based on proposed costs,
as they were presented, recognizing that should any municipality decide to deliver services on their own,
costs to those participating municipalities (related to shared fixed costs) will increase. Administration will
be available to meet with Councils as may be required to confirm participation.
SPC Agenda Page 64 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Administration will then provide final estimates to the ERCA Board and municipalities, and any variance in
costs depending on participation. Following that, ERCA Administration will draft Transfer Agreements
based on MoE Transfer Agreement templates, for delivery of RMO services.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report SPC 05/14 be received for members information.
Katie Stammler
Project Manager, Source Water Protection
Water Quality Scientist
SPC Agenda Page 65 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Invitation for Expressions of Interest Essex Region Source Protection Committee
Under Ontario Regulation 288/07, Clean Water Act, 2006
The Essex Region Source Protection Committee was created to develop a Source Protection Plan to protect drinking water sources in the Essex Region Source Protection Area. The SPC oversees the amendments and completion of the Updated Assessment Report, Source Protection Plan, and related public and stakeholder consultations.
We are seeking to fill vacancies for two positions on the SPC. There is a commitment to participate in monthly meetings for a 12 month period, with a possible extension. Representatives must reside, own or rent property, be employed, or operate a business in the Essex Region Source Protection Area. A full job description is available under the Committee section at www.essexregionsourcewater.org.
To be considered candidates must describe their interest in writing, accompanied by their resume by 4:00 pm on Friday, July 25, 2014. Expression of Interest forms can be obtained from the website. To send your application or request more information contact:
Katie Stammler Source Water Protection Project Manager Essex Region Conservation Authority, 360 Fairview Avenue W. Suite 311
Essex, Ontario N8M1Y6 kstammler@erca.org (519) 776-5209 ext. 342
SPC Agenda Page 66 of 66 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
top related