source protection committee - agenda · region spc is the only spc that has chosen to exclude...

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


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.


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


NEW BUSINESS

None

MEETING ADJOURNMENT


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


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


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


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


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


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)

[email protected]


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


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


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


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)


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.


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.


Katie Stammler

Project Manager, Source Water Protection

Roger Palmini

GIS/Database Technician


Issue evaluation methodology applied to microcystins


!!

!!

!!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


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


!!

!!

!!

!!

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


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



!!

!!!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


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)


!!!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


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


!!

!(

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



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


http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm.html

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


http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_06c22_f.htm#s59s1



(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.





Katie Stammler

Water Quality Scientist/



# 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



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



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.



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



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



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:



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.



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)




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.


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.


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


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



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?



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


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,



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.



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



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.



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



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".



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.


4


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


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


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


360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, Ontario, Canada N8M 1Y6 phone: (519) 776-5209 fax: (519) 776-8688

[email protected] 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:


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:


Wheatley Legion, 27 Erie Street North, Wheatley

3:00pm – 7:00pm


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


c/o E.R.C.A

360 Fairview Avenue West, Suite 311

Essex, ON N8M 1Y6

[email protected]

519-776-5209 x342

Cc Tom Fuerth, Source Protection Committee Chair (provided via email)

Cc Source Protection Committee (provided via email)


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).


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.


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.


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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

www.essexregionsourcewater.org



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)


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


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.


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.


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.


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


Water Quality Scientist


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 [email protected] (519) 776-5209 ext. 342


source protection committee - agenda · region spc is the only spc that has chosen to exclude...

Documents