AGENDA Source Protection Authority Meeting No. SPA-02-18 October 26, 2018 - 9:00 a.m. Location: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 120 Bayview Parkway Newmarket, ON Tel: 905-895-1281 Source Protection Authority Members: Mayor G. Dawe, Chair York Region (Aurora) Councillor R. Simpson, Vice Chair Town of Innisfil Deputy Mayor/Regional Councillor N. Davison York Region (At Large) Mr. J. Dolan City of Barrie Regional Councillor B. Drew Durham Region (Scugog) Councillor A. Eek York Region (King) Councillor K. Ferdinands York Region (Whitchurch-Stouffville) Councillor P. Ferragine Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor John Grant Durham Region (Brock) Mayor V. Hackson York Region (East Gwillimbury) Councillor S. Harrison-McIntyre Town of New Tecumseth Councillor P. Kelly District of Muskoka Councillor D. Kerwin York Region (Newmarket) Councillor M. Kyle Township of Algonquin Highlands Councillor S. Macpherson Township of Oro-Medonte Councillor P. Molloy Durham Region (Uxbridge) Mayor M. Quirk York Region (Georgina) Councillor P. Silveira City of Barrie Councillor S. Strangway City of Kawartha Lakes Councillor M. Taylor Township of Severn Councillor S. Valiquette-Thompson City of Orillia No representative Township of Ramara Staff: T. Barnett, Coordinator, BOD/CAO, Project and Services B. Thompson, Manager, Integrated Watershed Management M. Walters, Chief Administrative Officer Guests: L. Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority
Transcript
AGENDA Source Protection Authority
Meeting No. SPA-02-18 October 26, 2018 - 9:00 a.m.
Location:
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, ON Tel: 905-895-1281
Source Protection Authority Members: Mayor G. Dawe, Chair York Region (Aurora) Councillor R. Simpson, Vice Chair Town of Innisfil Deputy Mayor/Regional Councillor N. Davison York Region (At Large) Mr. J. Dolan City of Barrie Regional Councillor B. Drew Durham Region (Scugog) Councillor A. Eek York Region (King) Councillor K. Ferdinands York Region (Whitchurch-Stouffville) Councillor P. Ferragine Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor John Grant Durham Region (Brock) Mayor V. Hackson York Region (East Gwillimbury) Councillor S. Harrison-McIntyre Town of New Tecumseth Councillor P. Kelly District of Muskoka Councillor D. Kerwin York Region (Newmarket) Councillor M. Kyle Township of Algonquin Highlands Councillor S. Macpherson Township of Oro-Medonte Councillor P. Molloy Durham Region (Uxbridge) Mayor M. Quirk York Region (Georgina) Councillor P. Silveira City of Barrie Councillor S. Strangway City of Kawartha Lakes Councillor M. Taylor Township of Severn Councillor S. Valiquette-Thompson City of Orillia No representative Township of Ramara Staff: T. Barnett, Coordinator, BOD/CAO, Project and Services B. Thompson, Manager, Integrated Watershed Management M. Walters, Chief Administrative Officer Guests: L. Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black
River Source Protection Authority
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority Agenda: Meeting No. SPA-02-18 October 26, 2018 Page 2 of 3
I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS II. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Pages 1-3)
RECOMMENDED: THAT the agenda for the meeting of Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority No. SPA-02-18 held on October 26, 2018 be approved as presented.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(a) Source Protection Authority (Pages 4-7)
RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes of the Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River
Source Protection Authority meeting No. SPA-01-18 held April 27, 2018 be approved as circulated.
(b) Source Protection Committee (Pages 8-33)
RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source
Protection Committee meetings held on April 5, 2018 and July 12, 2018 be received for information.
V. CORRESPONDENCE (Page 34-35)
The following correspondence items are included in the agenda:
a) September 13, 2018 letter from South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee to Hon. Rod Phillips, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks
RECOMMENDED: THAT Correspondence Item a) included in the agenda be received for
information.
VI. GENERAL UPDATES
(a) SPC Update (Pages 36-37)
Lynn Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee will provide an update on the activities of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe (SGBLS) Source Protection Committee. This report is included in the agenda.
Page 2 of 46
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority Agenda: Meeting No. SPA-02-18 October 26, 2018 Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED: THAT the update by Lynn Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe
Source Protection Committee regarding the activities of the SGBLS Source Protection Committee be received for information.
(b) Establishment of Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Pages 38-40)
Bill Thompson, Project Manager, SGBLS Source Protection Region, will provide a presentation regarding the establishment of Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This presentation will be provided at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by Bill Thompson, Project Manager, SGBLS
Source Protection Region, regarding the establishment of Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act be received for information.
Staff Report No. 02-18-SPA regarding the establishment of Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act is included in the agenda. RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 02-18-SPA regarding the establishment of
Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act be received for information.
(c) Draft Workplan for Requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act (Pages 41-46) Bill Thompson, Project Manager, SGBLS Source Protection Region, will provide a presentation regarding the draft workplan to meet the requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act. This presentation will be provided at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by Project Manager, SGBLS Source Protection
Region, on the draft workplan for requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act be received for information.
Staff Report No. 03-18-SPA regarding the draft workplan to meet the requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act is included in the agenda. RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 03-18-SPA regarding the draft Workplan to meet
the requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act be received; and
FURTHER THAT the Source Protection Authority Board endorse the draft workplan prior to submission to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
April 27, 2018 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, ON
Source Protection Authority Members in attendance: Mayor G. Dawe, Chair York Region (Aurora) Councillor R. Simpson, Vice Chair Town of Innisfil Regional Councillor/Deputy Mayor N. Davison York Region (At Large) Mr. J. Dolan City of Barrie Regional Councillor B. Drew Durham Region (Scugog) Councillor A. Eek York Region (King) Councillor K. Ferdinands York Region (Whitchurch-Stouffville) Councillor P. Ferragine Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor J. Grant Durham Region (Brock) Mayor V. Hackson York Region (East Gwillimbury) Councillor S. Harrison-McIntyre Town of New Tecumseth Councillor D. Kerwin York Region (Newmarket) Councillor S. Macpherson Township of Oro-Medonte Councillor M. Kyle Township of Algonquin Highlands Deputy Mayor P. Molloy Durham Region (Uxbridge) Mayor M. Quirk York Region (Georgina) Councillor S. Strangway City of Kawartha Lakes Regrets: Councillor P. Kelly District of Muskoka Councillor P. Silveira City of Barrie Councillor S. Valiquette-Thompson City of Orillia Councillor M. Taylor Township of Severn No representative Township of Ramara Guests: L. Dollin, Chair, South Georgina Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee Staff: T. Barnett, Coordinator, BOD/CAO, Project and Services B. Longstaff, General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management B. Thompson, Manager, Integrated Watershed Management M. Walters, Chief Administrative Officer M. Wilson, SWP Coordinator/Hydrogeologist
I. WELCOME FROM CHAIR AND INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Dawe welcomed everyone and noted that Councillor Kyle was participating via webinar.
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black
River Source Protection Authority
Page 4 of 46
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority Meeting No. SPA-01-18 – April 27, 2018 - Minutes Page 2 of 4
II. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None identified for the record of this meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Moved by: S. Macpherson Seconded by: P. Ferragine SPA-01-18 RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the meeting of Lakes Simcoe and
Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority held on April 27, 2018 be approved as presented. CARRIED
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(a) Source Protection Authority
Moved by: S. Strangway Seconded by: P. Molloy SPA-02-18 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River
Source Protection Authority meeting No. SPA-01-17 held March 24, 2017 be approved as circulated. CARRIED
(b) Source Protection Committee
Moved by: S. Strangway Seconded by: P. Molloy SPA-03-18 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source
Protection Committee meetings held on October 18, 2016, March 22, 2017, and October 19, 2017 be received for information. CARRIED
V. CORRESPONDENCE
Included in the agenda was a letter from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change dated February 14, 2018 regarding the review and approval of the amended South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe source protection plan, with an effective date upon posting the notice of approval of plan amendments on Ontario’s Environmental Registry.
Moved by: V. Hackson Seconded by: P. Ferragine SPA-04-18 RESOLVED THAT Correspondence Item a) included in the agenda be received for
information. CARRIED
VI. GENERAL UPDATES
(a) SPC Update Lynn Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe (SGBLS) Source Protection Committee (SPC),
provided an update on the activities of the SGBSL SPC since the last meeting one year ago, noting
Page 5 of 46
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority Meeting No. SPA-01-18 – April 27, 2018 - Minutes Page 3 of 4
that lots of work is being done, three meeting have been held to update on Source Protection Plan implementation progress. She noted that the SPC is impressed with the amount of work done to date, and the Committee will be passing along its satisfaction to the Minister.
Chair Dollin went on to note that agricultural representatives on the Committee continue to be
leaders in their sector and were invited to share their experiences to an international audience. Chair Dollin updated on the Source Protection Municipal Implementation fund (SPMIF) implemented
by MOECC to assist small municipalities in taking on their new Source Protection Plan obligations, noting that the fund has been extended several times including recently being extended to the end of 2018. Municipalities looking for opportunities to utilize these funds locally may seek advice from their risk management official of SPA staff.
Looking ahead, Chair Dollin noted that the work plan is due to the Minister’s office in November and
the SPC will be working with staff to assess technical and policy effectiveness and required revisions.
Moved by: R. Simpson Seconded by: B. Drew
SPA-05-18 RESOLVED THAT the update by Lynn Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee regarding the activities of the SGBLS Source Protection Committee be received for information. CARRIED
(b) The First Source Water Protection Annual Report to the Ministry
Mike Wilson, LSRCA’s SWP Coordinator, provided a presentation regarding the First Source Water Protection Annual Report to the Ministry, noting that a provision of the Source Protection Plan is the submission of an Annual Progress Report by May 1st of each year, the primary goal of which is to assess if threats to municipal drinking water sources are being reduced through the implementation of the Plan. Secondary goals include ensuring the program’s effectiveness and efficiency; providing accountability and transparency through public reporting; informing future budget requests; reducing uncertainty of plan success or failure; informing decision-making and implementation; and enabling more effective on-the-ground management of significant drinking water threats. The Coordinator reported on progress, noting 71% of significant drinking water threats have been addressed either through verification or policy implementation, 81 risk management plans have been completed and 61 remain, and 97% of septic inspections have been completed, with less than 1% requiring major work. He also reviewed potential issues, which include: risk management plan establishment may need to be increased in order to be completed by the 2020 deadline; one municipality has not started its septic inspections; and risk management officials are asking for an improved database product. To view this presentation, please click this link: Section 81 Risk Management Official Annual Reporting
Moved by: A. Eek Seconded by: J. Dolan
SPA-06-18 RESOLVED THAT the presentation Mike Wilson, SWP Coordinator/ Hydrogeologist regarding First Source Water Protection Annual Report to the Ministry be received for information. CARRIED
Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority Meeting No. SPA-01-18 – April 27, 2018 - Minutes Page 4 of 4
Staff Report No. No. 01-18-SPA prepared by Mike Wilson, SWP Coordinator/Hydrogeologist regarding the First Source Water Protection Annual Report to the Ministry was included in the agenda.
Moved by: N. Davison Seconded by: S. Strangway SPA-07-18 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 01-18-SPA regarding the first source water
protection annual report to the Ministry be received; and FURTHER THAT the Annual Report be submitted to the Director of Source
Protection (MOECC) to meet the May 1, 2018 deadline. CARRIED
(c) Update from SPA Staff
Bill Thompson, Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, provided a presentation regarding updates from the Source Protection Region, noting ongoing activities include: providing implementation support to RMO working group and municipal working group; building program awareness; participating in provincial working groups; SPP amendments (minor or under Section 34); technical support for changes to drinking water systems (new/change system); data management, and program management (SPC and SPA meetings). He also noted the website continues to be updated: www.ourwatershed.ca
To view this presentation, please click this link: South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region Update
Moved by: B. Drew Seconded by: P. Ferragine SPA-08-18 RESOLVED THAT the presentation by Bill Thompson, Manager, Integrated
Watershed Management, regarding the updates from the Source Protection Authority be received for information. CARRIED
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
a) Chair Dollin commended staff for all their hard work, noting this is the most complicated region
and staff can be proud of their accomplishments to date.
VIII. ADJOURN Moved by: V. Hackson Seconded by: R. Simpson SPA-09-18 RESOLVED THAT the meeting be adjourned @ 9:40 a.m. CARRIED Original to be signed by: Original to be signed by: ________________________________ _________________________________ Mayor Geoffrey Dawe Michael Walters Chair Chief Administrative Officer
Monte Carlo Inn Barrie Suites, 81 Hart Dr., Barrie, ON. April 5, 2018
1:00 pm – 4:00 pm MEMBERS: Lynn Dollin, Chair Municipal Economic/Development Public Sector First Nations Herb Proudley (1) Collin Elliott (1) Clayton Cameron TBD John Boucher David Ketcheson Fred Ruf Stan Wells David Ritchie Larry Slomka Don Goodyear (1) John Hemsted Stephanie Hobbs Ian Chadwick Dianne Corrigan Rick Newlove Tom Kurtz (1)
Liaisons Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit – Karen Kivilahti Nottawasaga Valley Source Protection Authority – Doug Hevenor Severn Sound Source Protection Authority – Julie Cayley Lakes Simcoe & Couchiching, Black River Source Protection Authority – Ben Longstaff Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change – Bilal Kidwai Staff Ryan Post, NVCA Melissa Carruthers, SSEA Mike Wilson, LSRCA Jessica Burns, minutes, LSRCA Bill Thompson, LSRCA Guests Scott Drewette, Barrie Shane Ross, First Nations Ted Benson, First Nations Christina Wieder, Safe Water, SMDHU Regrets Colin Nisbet (Economic) – proxy to Colin Elliott Bob Duncanson (Public) – proxy to Tom Kurtz Katie Thompson – proxy to Don Goodyear for duration of her maternity leave Debbie Korolnek (Municipal) – proxy to Herb Proudley Kyle Mitchell (Municipal)
Page 8 of 46
Page 2 of 11
I. WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS All were welcomed to the meeting, a roundtable took place and the following attendance details were reviewed:
• Bilal Kidwai from MOECC was welcomed as a liaison in place of Elizabeth (Beth) Forrest, currently on maternity leave;
• Shane Ross and Ted Benson from First Nations were welcomed; one of whom will be appointed to the SPC in place of Dan Schilling pending a Band Council Resolution.
II. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST No pecuniary interests were declared. III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed and circulated. Moved by: John Hemsted Seconded by: John Boucher
RESOLVED: THAT the agenda for the April 5, 2018 meeting of the Source
Protection Committee was approved as presented.
CARRIED BY CONSENSUS
IV. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
(a) Source Protection Committee The minutes from the October 19, 2017 Source Protection Committee (SPC) meeting were approved as circulated. Clarification was requested pertaining to action item 2 from the October 19, 2017 SPC meeting minutes, re inserted below:
Action Item 2 Will provide a review of SPC membership terms and rules at the next SPC meeting as well as clarify whether the SPC Agricultural Representatives were re-appointed or re-elected to the Committee during the last SPC membership refresh.
Responsibility Bill Thompson and Lynn Dollin It was confirmed that the committee decided to replace members stepping down, to develop a long-term plan to replace members expiring Dec 31, 2019 and that 2/3 of the existing members would be affected by this expiry date.
Page 9 of 46
Page 3 of 11
Moved by: Rick Newlove Seconded by: Ian Chadwick RESOLVED: THAT the minutes of the October 19, 2017 meeting of the Source
Protection Committee were approved as printed and circulated. CARRIED BY CONSENSUS
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Activities of the Chair & Committee
• Technical Working Group (TWG): Larry Slomka indicated that he is stepping down as Chair of the Technical Working Group (TWG) but would like to remain a member; he requested that this be indicated as an item on the next TWG meeting agenda. He noted that as he is no longer as involved with the issues being dealt with by the TWG, he feels it would be beneficial to elect a new Chair.
Lynn thanked Larry for his aid, involvement and work to date as Chair.
• Chairs & Project Managers Meeting: Lynn Dollin and Bill Thompson gave a
quick review of topics discussed at the March 2018 Chairs & Project Managers meeting. Most notable was the fact that the Province is looking at how the Source Water Program is evolving; what that looks like for the rest of the Province, how it might play out for municipalities that are not currently supported by a Conservation Authority and for drinking water systems that are not municipally operated.
• Doug Hevenor announced that Ryan Post has been named the Senior
Hydrogeologist at NVCA. Ryan was congratulated by the Committee and guests.
b) Agricultural Sector Update to the SPC
None. c) MOECC Update
Bilal Kidwai provided a brief update on the status of MOECC Source Water Program and activities.
Additional points addressed at the March 2018 Chairs and Project Managers Meeting were noted:
Page 10 of 46
Page 4 of 11
• The Source Protection Planning Unit is working on a guidance document with a user friendly approach to the principals of safe drinking water to allow anyone to participate in protecting their sources of drinking water – may develop into an interactive online tool
• Currently there is no funding for Source Water incentive programs; • Annual Reporting and 2018/19 funding is coming to a close; • MOECC is focusing on Section 36 guidance documents and regulations
changes made to the Safe Drinking Water Act, some of which will be integrated into the Clean Water Act;
• Work being done on the First Nations outreach program to inform on Source Water;
• Conservation Ontario (CO) is leading a Climate Change Program to address how the next iteration of the Source Protection Plan (SPP) may be effected;
o Series of handbooks with worksheets to assess risk and vulnerability to Source Water components to Climate Change.
VI. DELEGATIONS None. VII. PRESENTATIONS a) Source Protection Overview Bill Thompson provided a general overview and update from the Source Protection Region. Some program elements touched on included:
• MOECC Program Review, including a proposal to streamline the amendment, update processes and the addition of hydrocarbon pipelines as an additional threat type;
• Provincial Working Groups remain engaged in sharing of resources, knowledge and experience that feed into processes and input for reporting tools, approaches, program reviews and assessment of achieved policy requirements;
• Working Groups formed of members of local implementing bodies such as the Risk Management Officials (RMO) Working Group and Municipal Working Groups continue to share information
In 2018 the Source Water program is expected to identify needed updates for the next iteration of the Source Protection Plan (SPP), and submit a workplan to the MOECC by November 2018. Criteria to be used in this assessment include reports on municipal water quality, projections regarding infrastructure and drinking water systems, and challenges in
Page 11 of 46
Page 5 of 11
policy implementation, including an assessment of the effectiveness of agricultural prohibition policies. This will require municipal consultations and SPC and Working Group meetings, within a rather tight timeline. Resources required to complete the identification of necessary updates to the SPP were included in 2018 SWP funding negotiations. Discussion occurred around who is to pay to define any new Well Head Protection Areas (WHPAs) moving forward. In most cases it is said to be the responsibility of the municipality and that they, depending on the nature of the application and available municipal resources, may charge back to the proponent as part of the application process i.e. growth driven/ development. Additionally considered was whether any funds received through the development of new water systems could be used to pay for the water system assessment portion of the process and how situations in which a municipality takes over a private water system and the required definition of a WHPA process would play out. Added complexity may also arise in cases where developments only require a portion of the water concerning how the supply would be appropriately divided. This is not clearly defined in the development charge by-law but may be addressed under water rates or tax levy. Generally, it was understood that in most cases, it falls to the municipalities to address the costs of these process requirements; however, smaller municipalities may be in a position to request support from the MOECC in certain situations. Given that Development Charges by-laws are scheduled to be re-assessed on a 5 year cycle it may be beneficial to request adjustments to address these issues at that time.
Action Item 1 A Development Charge by-law expert will be asked to speak to this item at the next SPC meeting.
Responsibility Bill Thompson Moved by: Clayton Cameron Seconded by: Rick Newlove
RESOLVED: THAT the update provided by Bill Thompson on the Source Protection
Region, be received for information. CARRIED BY CONSENSUS b) Communications Update Lynn requested that SPC members reflect on opportunities within their respective communities to engage in some Source Water E & O outreach. An example of such was the Source Water 101 sessions provided to municipal staff in Severn Sound, to bring new staff up to speed and provide a source water refresh to others.
Page 12 of 46
Page 6 of 11
Ryan Post provided an update on recent Education and Outreach (E & O) activities (Staff Report No. SPC-2018-01-01). All E & O resource materials discussed have been posted to ourwatershed.ca and shared with local Conservation Authorities and municipalities. Some E & O update items touched on included:
• New tagline “Water is life. Protect Yours”; • Revised artwork/illustrations and improved photo library; • Municipal Orientation Campaign; • Infographics, social media memes, videos, revised “front desk” fast sheets; • Fuel storage workshop with the Canadian Oil & Heat Association.
Revisions and upgrades made to the ourwatershed.ca site were reviewed live. Positive feedback has been received on the site upgrades and E& O materials developed. An abstract to Latornell has been submitted to showcase the work. Credit and acknowledgement was given to Source Water Communications staff, including Joan Patch, Source Water Protection Communications Specialist with Conservation Ontario.
Action Item 2 Will inquire as to whether analytics are being tracked on ourwatershed.ca to gage effectiveness, interest and feedback.
Responsibility Ryan Post Conservation Ontario has been provided a copy of the Source Water Protection E & O materials. These materials have been designed in such a way that they can easily be adapted to other watersheds/areas. It was noted that Joan Patch, mentioned above, completed a gap analysis of materials at the front end of this project and has now been tasked with a similar project on a Province wide scale. Moved by: Larry Slomka Seconded by: Dianne Corrigan RESOLVED: THAT Staff Report No. SPC – 2018-01-01 be received for information. CARRIED BY CONSENSUS c) Annual Reporting Mike Wilson presented on the first annual implementation report (Staff Report No. SPC-2018-01-02). Elements of the annual reporting process reviewed, included:
• prescribed instruments progress; • Potential issues; • Next steps.
Overall, results of the first annual implementation report are positive; they show participation, cooperation and active SPP policy engagement. It was noted that early adopters of the SPP policies are likely accounted for in this series of reporting and that the next phase of proponents may require more staff time for policy adoption. However, additional positive engagement of the SPP appears to be shaping development in more ways than are captured in this annual reporting period, as applications for development are being stopped and/or modified to comply with SPP policies. It was clarified that given the uncertainty around the Percent Managed Lands (PMLs) calculation approach, some Risk Management Officials (RMOs) have not moved forward with agricultural Risk Management Plans (RMPs). The PMLs item will be re-addressed at the next Technical Working Group (TWG) committee meeting. It was noted that the effect of policy outcomes on farmers will be considered as part of the PMLs decision making process. Following a decision on approach, clarification will be provided to the RMO working group. Regarding areas in which SPP policies have not yet been met, barriers to success such as staff turnover, other pressing political issues, or lack of a “best fit” approach(es) were noted as possible hindrances. Additional support will be provided where needed and reminders of responsibility will be provided to those out of compliance. Moving forward, a plan will be implemented to provide support to those who are behind in meeting SPP policy requirements i.e. RMPs and septic inspections, to get them back on track. Revisions to the Source Protection Annual Reporting database will be undertaken in late 2018 to improve functionality. Additionally, training on the Source Protection Annual Reporting (SPAR) database will be provided to RMOs and other stakeholders, to improve ease of use and consistency of question interpretation. Discussion on the annual reporting grade to be indicated on the report to the Ministry took place. It was agreed that although a lot of good work has been done and that the overall data indicates a positive result, there are areas in which improvement is needed. As such the grade of “SATISFACTORY” on achieving source protection plan objectives this reporting period was agreed upon. The narrative to accompany the grade of “SATISFACTORY” was reviewed and discussed. The following decisions were made and agreed upon:
1. 96% of the policies that address significant drinking water threats have been or are in the process of being implemented.
Page 14 of 46
Page 8 of 11
INCLUDE AS IS.
2. Approximately 71% of Significant Drinking Water Threats (SDWTs) that existed at the time of SPP approval have been addressed through policy implementation.
2 EDIT: add “through policy implementation or threat verification” and delete last 3 words and replace with “removal by verification”
3. 106 Risk Management Plans (RMPs) have been established across the source
protection region. However the rate of Risk Management Plan establishment may need to increase to complete all required RMPs by the 2020 deadline.
3 EDIT: last phrase to be more cautionary
4. The majority of municipalities in our source protection region have processes in place to ensure that their day-to-day planning decisions conform to our source protection plans. INCLUDE AS IS.
5. York Region’s incentive program has clearly demonstrated that funding the cost of implementing risk management measures in Risk Management Plans (RMPs) can play an important role in successful and timely RMP negotiations.
5 EDIT: remove first two words and speak to Incentive Programs only
6. To-date there have been only two prohibitions of future activities where the activity
would be a significant drinking water threat.
6 EDIT: add “most have been avoided through pre consultation” and take out “only”
7. The section 59 policy captured only four development proposals requiring an RMP
for a future activity that would be a significant drinking water threat.
7 EDIT: add “most have been avoided through pre consultation” and take out “only”
8. 97% (2005 of the 2071) of on-site sewage systems have been inspected in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. However one municipality has not started their septic inspection program as of the end of 2017.
INLCUDE AS IS.
Page 15 of 46
Page 9 of 11
9. All municipalities, with the exception of one, submitted their 2017 annual reports to
Source Protection Authority staff. This one municipality may have been without a Risk Management Official for all or part of 2017. INCLUDE AS IS.
10. All local municipalities within the Lake Simcoe Source Protection Authority portion of
the York Well Head Protection Area (WHPA) - Q2 are implementing policy Land Use Planning (LUP) - 12 (which requires a water balance study for all major developments) by having all applications peer reviewed by a Hydrogeologist. INCLUDE AS IS.
Moved by: John Hemsted Seconded by: Ian Chadwick RESOLVED: THAT Staff Report No. SPC-2018-01-02 regarding the section 46
Annual Report be received for information. FURTHER THAT the Source Protection Committee utilize section II of the Annual Report template to make the MOECC aware of progress made on Source Protection Plan implementation, as outlined in the Issues section of Staff Report No. SPC-2018-01-02. AND FURTHER that SPA staff be directed to rate progress as Satisfactory in section II of the Annual Report template.
CARRIED BY CONSENSUS d) Proposal to Expand the Greenbelt Bill Thompson provided a summary of comments received regarding the Provincial proposal to extend the Greenbelt. He then reviewed the themes in the comments received back from SPC members regarding the draft SPC submission letter, drafted in case it should be decided to submit. Discussion occurred around whether a comment letter should be submitted from the SPC regarding the Greenbelt expansion proposal. Some noted points of discussion included:
• Out of the scope of the SPC; • Appropriate for a group such as the SPC to comment on such a proposal; • A knowledgeable body such as the SPC should share their knowledge on such
topics/considerations; • As this issue concerns work that has been completed by the SPC, some feel that
the SPC should comment and speak to that; • Focus should be on the implementation of this expansion and how it might work
with existing policies, groups, municipalities and so on; should be in general support
Page 16 of 46
Page 10 of 11
of this expansion but need to emphasize what is already in play, that the work of the SPC should be recognized and be part of the policy;
• As per the MOECC, this expansion focuses on drinking water systems outside municipal systems and as it is in draft stage, no water source has been ruled out i.e. water used for agricultural purposes.
All in favor of submitting a letter: 12 in favor All opposed to submitting a letter: 6 opposed Abstained: 2 As a majority of two-thirds of the members present was not reached therefore no letter will be submitted. Moved by: Larry Slomka Seconded by: Fred Ruf RESOLVED: THAT the presentation provided by Bill Thompson on greenbelt
expansion be received for information. CARRIED VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION None. IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Moved by: Dianne Corrigan Seconded by: Clayton Cameron RESOLVED: THAT the recommendations respecting items not requiring separate
discussion be approved, and staff be authorized to take all necessary actions to effect those recommendations.
CARRIED BY CONSENSUS X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION None. XI. OTHER BUSINESS Items mentioned under other business included the following:
• RMO Working Group information was requested to be presented at future SPC meetings;
Page 17 of 46
Page 11 of 11
• A request to provide Source Water Protection information to Tay and Simcoe
County planners was noted; • SPC members were asked to send ideas on how members might be able to engage
in Source Water Education & Outreach in their local communities to Lynn Dollin or Bill Thompson.
XII. CLOSED SESSION
None for the record of this meeting.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the SPC will take place in the 2018 summer months; the location and date of the next meeting are to be determined. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Herb Proudley at 4:10pm.
Monte Carlo Inn Barrie Suites, 81 Hart Dr., Barrie, ON. July 12, 2018
1:00 pm – 4:00 pm MEMBERS:
Larry Slomka (Public), Acting Chair Municipal Economic/Development Public Sector First Nations Herb Proudley Colin Elliott Clayton Cameron Shane Ross John Boucher David Ketcheson Bob Duncanson Stan Wells David Ritchie Stephanie Hobbs Don Goodyear (1) Ian Chadwick Dianne Corrigan Debbie Korolnek Rick Newlove Tom Kurtz Kyle Mitchell Liaisons Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit – Christina Wieder (for Karen Kivilahti) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority – Bill Thompson Severn Sound Environmental Association – Julie Cayley Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority – Ryan Post Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change – Bilal Kidwai Staff Mike Wilson, LSRCA Sandra Ingott, minutes, LSRCA Melissa Carruthers, SSEA Tara Harvey, LSRCA Kate Thomson, NVCA Guests Danielle Marcoux, Barrie Tavis Nimmo, Durham Region Brittany Barkes, OMAFRA Caroline Hawson, LSRCA Stacey Baker, MECP Regrets Lynn Dollin Fred Ruf (Public) Karen Kivilahti, SMDHU Colin Nisbet, (Economic) John Hemsted (Economic) Katie Thompson - proxy to Don Goodyear for the duration of her maternity leave
Page 19 of 46
Page 2 of 15
I. WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS All were welcomed to the meeting, a roundtable took place and the following attendance details were reviewed:
Lynn Dollin sends her regrets. Larry Slomka accepted to Chair the meeting on her behalf.
Shane Ross from First Nations welcomed as newest member to the committee. II. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST No pecuniary interests were declared. III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as printed and circulated. Moved by: Don Goodyear Seconded by: Debbie Korolnek RESOLVED: THAT the agenda for the July 12, 2018 meeting of the Source
Protection Committee was approved as presented. CARRIED BY CONSENSUS IV. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) Source Protection Committee The minutes from the April 5, 2018 Source Protection Committee (SPC) meeting were approved as circulated. An update on action items 1 and 2 from the April 5, 2018 SPC meeting was provided. Action items re-inserted with update provided below: Action Item 1 A Development Charge by-law expert will
be asked to speak to this item at the next SPC meeting.
Responsibility Bill Thompson There was discussion at the previous meeting regarding the funding model for technical work and assistance, and question to whether development charges could be used to off-set the cost of that work. Researching continues; however, it looks as though the answer is most likely, yes. The Act for development charges was defined for capital works; not explicitly for technical studies. A technical study that is required, before a capital work can be completed, is typically approved.
Page 20 of 46
Page 3 of 15
The expectation from Provincial and Municipal staff is that development charges could be levied should Municipal by-laws be amended as such. Under the Act, Municipalities are limited to recovering 90% of the cost of capital works however, and this is expected to be the case for technical studies as well. Action Item 2 Will inquire as to whether analytics are
being tracked on ourwatershed.ca to gage effectiveness, interest and feedback.
Responsibility Ryan Post Ryan Post confirmed with Sue Jagminas that analytics are being tracked. The following stats were provided:
Website went live January 9, 2018; As of last week, had 2,500 users on the website viewing approx. 9,000 pages
(50% typed in website directly and 50% reached it through Google or other search engines); and,
Commonly viewed pages are Source Protection Plan, Assessment Report, resources page (contains all materials Ryan showed at the last presentation), and our map, in that order of popularity.
CARRIED BY CONSENSUS V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Activities of the Chair & Committee
Bill Thompson stated that Lynn attended a Chair’s meeting since the last SPC
meeting; however staff not invited so not sure what the content was of that meeting. Lynn will have to report at the next SPC meeting.
David Ritchie mentioned that he and Colin Elliott assisted at two workshops held in Severn and Victoria Harbour. Municipal staff brought up-to-date on source water policies. There was concern regarding why a Municipality determines water taking for large subdivisions but a farmer or golf course would have to go to MOE. Bill’s understanding is that municipal wells also require a Permit to Take Water (PTTW). Bilal explained that a Municipality would contact the Province to amend their drinking water system, well system intakes, or PTTW, based on quantity and changes to the well etc. Permits would be created or amended to include that subdivision. It was brought up that according to Ontario Regulation 205/18 (as of July 1, 2018) not only is a PTTW and licence for a drinking water system required, but a Source Protection Plan must be modified and approved by the Minister prior to bringing the new well into production.
Page 21 of 46
Page 4 of 15
b) MECP (MOECC) Update Bilal Kidwai provided a brief update on MECP status and activities: MOECC is now the MECP (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and
Parks). Rod Phillips named Minister, and Serge Imbrogno Deputy Minister of the MECP. Currently waiting for mandate letters, in the meantime, it is business as usual. The MECP assumes responsibility of supporting Conservation Authorities and Parks.
Gearing up for section 36 workplans. It’s expected that quite a few section 34’s will be coming through the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe (SGBLS) Source Protection Committee.
Stacey Baker, Program Analyst at MECP is introduced. Stacey previously supported the decision of approval for the SGBLS Source Protection Plan and will to do so again during the section 36 amendment process.
Some guidance’s released yesterday regarding Section 36 identifying how Municipalities can work towards implementing the 36’s and the new regulations.
VI. DELEGATIONS None. VII. PRESENTATIONS a) OMAFRA Implementation of Prescribed Instrument Policies Brittany Barkes, Environmental Specialist with OMAFRA provided a general overview of OMAFRA’s experience in implementing Prescribed Instrument policies as follows: The Nutrient Management Act regulates certain agricultural activities when an operation becomes subject to the regulation. May require a Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS), a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), or NASM plan depending on what they propose to do in their operation. NMS and NASM plans all regulate their own specific activities; however, these activities are also prescribed drinking water threats under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These plans are all prescribed instruments (PIs) under the CWA. Depending on the PI, either OMAFRA or the preparer (NM consultant) are responsible for ensuring conformity. The three (3) main areas of focus are:
a. Screening of future or new PIs, i.e., NMS and NASM plans OMAFRA have been reviewing since the Source Protection Plan (SPP) came into effect.
b. Identification, review and amendment of existing PIs. This includes NMS and NASM plans that were approved prior to SPP coming into effect.
c. General requirement of annual reporting to SPAs across the province.
Page 22 of 46
Page 5 of 15
Integrate SWP in the NM program by creating a process to check for and implement applicable policies for new and existing PIs. SWP impacts determined using SWP data layers in property reviews to see if they are subject to policies. If subject to policies, they are handled on a case by case basis specific to each SPA and their associated policies. If required, conditions are included based on site specific considerations and best management practices for the activities handled by that specific PI. OMAFRA will connect with NM consultant and/or farmer during the review process, if required, to explain the impact of SW and why they may be looking for additional information and/or proposing conditions on their approval. If necessary, contact is made with the Risk Management Official (RMO) during the review process. This to ensure the correct policy is being reviewed and that they are interpreting the policy correctly. Resources like the OFEC SWP framework is used during the review process. Provincially, there are approx. 8,000 active PIs (approved and active NSM and NASM plans). 134 of the 8,000 have been identified where properties in that PI overlap vulnerable areas where there could be significant drinking water threats; 38 of the 134 are subject to significant threat policies and either currently have conditions on their approval or may need conditions on their approval during the review process. In the SGBLS area, there are approx. 368 active PIs (approved and active NMS and NASM plans). 13 identified as potentially being subject to significant drinking water threat policies, 3 of which are subject to policies. All three were NASM plans. A small percent of the total work OMRAFA does is impacted by source water. Conditions were put on all 3 NASM plans to ensure best management practices (BMPs) were followed. All BMPs are made into conditions and are enforceable. These BMPs are in addition to the NM Regulation already taking place on the operations. A visual example of a NASM plan was shown. The assessment role number and OMAFRAs internal GIS tools are used to search a property. A detailed review of different features of the property is complete to ensure they are current and correct. The NM consultant provides a sketch of the NASM plan with outline of vulnerable areas where they intend to apply NASM to address threat. Conditions added to plan approval to formalize what they say and to enforce it. MECP is responsible for enforcing the PI. Those properties which did not require conditions could have been for various reasons, e.g. NASM plan expired, vulnerable area not included in area managed by PI, etc. Some of the challenges include: time to review PIs impacted by SWP vs the overall impact source water has on the program; the divide in responsibility for ensuring conformity of PIs. Under the Clean Water Act, the NM consultant is similar to the provincial government for ensuring conformity. RMOs concern is the assurance that source water is taken seriously by these consultants; and, the amount of variations of the policy across the province. Delivery of provincial program where same rules apply to
Page 23 of 46
Page 6 of 15
everyone, however, with source water, trying to establish provincial approach and scope down to local level approach while still applying it consistently to everyone across the province. Successes include: increased awareness and education on SWP and NM, i.e., training for NM consultants on programs and PIs; ensuring relationships and communication channels are established with others regarding SWP; and, incorporation of SWP into NM program. Discussion occurred regarding the conditions put on PIs and what is done with results of monitored tile drains. It’s unclear if this data is collected, however, if NASM is being discharged through tiles it would have to be reported ASAP. With an approved NASM plan, NASM cannot be applied until a land application schedule is created (material analysis of the NASM, soil samples, etc.). Data is input into software where provincial limits, guidelines and regulations are built into it. The program polices the application in terms of what the regulatory limits are. MOE must be contacted so they have the opportunity to inspect during land application. Data collected includes Phosphorus, PH, potassium and 13 regulated heavy metals. Debbie Korolnek asks about a study that Wellington County completed 2 years ago on septage disposal in County. Conclusion was that there was adequate capacity as long as land applications still committed. A working group in Wellington County was looking into this and would like to know what the status is. Bilal will follow-up. Action Item 1 Bilal to make inquiry regarding the
working group septage disposal study completed 2 years ago in Wellington County.
Responsibility Bilal Kidwai Moved by: Rick Newlove Seconded by: Ian Chadwick RESOLVED: THAT the presentation provided by Brittany Barkes on
implementation of Prescribed Instrument policies, be received for information.
CARRIED BY CONSENSUS b) Negotiation of DNAPL Risk Management Plans Tavis Nimmo, Supervisor of Technical Support at Durham Region and a Risk Management Inspector, provided an overview of their experience in negotiating risk management plans for the handling and storage of DNAPLs and industrial solvents. A few items touched on included:
Page 24 of 46
Page 7 of 15
A map of Durham Region outlining vulnerable areas was shown and the division of three different SWP regions (CTC to the south, TCC to the east). Under 1% of the total land mass in the region is considered vulnerable area. Negotiation of DNAPL RMPs started in the community of Cannington which has an existing condition for trichloroethylene (TCE). Tavis pointed out the wells that supply the community, industrial / commercial operations, and an old rail corridor south of Cannington. A brief overview was given on existing issues and concentrations of TCE in the area. Treatment for TCE is currently managed by pumping between two wells. The Risk Management Plan (RMP) for a spur conveyor company was prioritized because of existing TCE concentrations in the area. An RMP process began with this large international corporation, hoping they already had good chemical handling and health & safety practices in place. A two page RMP template was developed containing standard clauses for negotiating a RMP with the Region of Durham. The RMP includes a map and text outlines the applicable circumstances and policies for drinking water threats. A standard set of risk management measures are also included for DNAPL sites. A larger set of measures were applied when negotiating with this company. Outcome showed that the company has good BMPs and very diligent regarding waste disposal and storage. A SWP component added to their Health & Safety meetings to discuss SWP. Designated Spill Responders receive a 40 hour training regimen every 5 years. Moved by: Kyle Mitchell Seconded by: Dianne Corrigan RESOLVED: THAT the presentation provided by Tavis Nimmo on negotiation of
DNAPL risk management plans, be received for information. CARRIED BY CONSENSUS c) Implementation of WHPA-Q2 policies Caroline Hawson, P. Geo., Hydrogeologist at LSRCA provided an overview of LSRCA’s experience in implementing policies requiring a hydrogeological study and water balance in the York WHPA-Q2. Some noted points of discussion included: Land Use Policy (LUP) 12 states that planning authorities shall only permit a new major development in a WHPA-Q2 where the activity would be a significant drinking water threat if it can be demonstrated through a hydrogeological study that the existing water balance can be maintained through BMPs, such as LIDs. This excludes single family dwellings, barns, and non-commercial agricultural structures. Where necessary, implementation and maximization of off-site recharge enhancement within the same WHPA-Q2 to compensate for any predicted loss of recharge from a development.
Page 25 of 46
Page 8 of 15
There are several recharge areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed: high volume recharge areas and ground water recharge areas (soils are porous and permeable); sandy or open soils (good infiltration and drainage); ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas (with hydrological connection to natural heritage features, such as wetlands); and, regional recharge features of the Oak Ridges Moraine (covers portion of southern area). WHPA-Q2 is the cone of influence of the municipal wells and other wells (PTTW users, e.g. large permanent dewatering sites or construction sites) in the area where increased demand could be a risk to supply. Q2 in York is an area where reduced recharge could create a supply problem. This scenario also applies to Q1. The York WHPA-Q2 developed through Tier 3 Water Budget and extends into TRCA and LSRCA lands. A major policy statement released in 2014 was updated last year in the Greenbelt Plan, the ORM Plan, and Places to Grow Plan. All now have recharge policies included. With LUP-12, if infiltration cannot be met on site, an off-site or cash compensation is required. A similar water balance off-setting policy is now being developed for the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Based on LUP-12, cash compensation may be required to encourage developers to develop in less vulnerable areas. The policy is to be completed by December. Caroline gave a brief summary of WHPA-Q2 statistics and the locations of files reviewed from 2015-2018. Some challenges faced include: under LUP-12, single family dwellings are explicitly exempt regardless of their size however there may be situations where a hydrogeological review may be required if in the Oak Ridges Moraine; assessment and reports not always circulated at the same time; incompatible industries wishing to expand that exist within the WHPA-Q2 where recharge is required or in an ICA where you cannot infiltrate because of potential contamination; infiltration for a new subdivision upstream of private drinking water wells. The Magna Centre, located in the Town of Newmarket, had uncontrolled runoff into SWM ponds and a local creek, carrying contaminants and pollutants. An LID retrofit was built between the parking lot and SWM pond. The goal was to infiltrate runoff, peak controls and runoff volume reduction, and improve water quality through best efforts and LID design elements. SWM pond recharge and water quality has improved. In conclusion, a water balance assessment should be forethought, develop a water balance offsetting policy, and continued education in order to update industry standards. Questions / Comments: Clayton: Where does money go for developments that have insufficient recharge and cash compensation was required? LSRCA puts it towards building some of the retrofits. Funds are pooled from cash compensations and an LID facility built upstream of where the deficit was - preferred within the same WHPA-Q2 and the same watershed.
Page 26 of 46
Page 9 of 15
Rick: City of Barrie had some problems with an industry that wanted to expand but not able to because of impact to the land. The City has an Economic Development Officer and City owned property, so wouldn’t the City give them a grant or relocate them and sell the property? Caroline unsure and cannot comment. Rick suggests they approach the Municipality’s Economic Development Officer directly with their concern. Colin: How much is the cash compensation per cubic metre? Caroline states that it’s $52.80. Don G states that York Region had a snow storage facility project in WHPA-Q2 and because of site conditions and water quality concerns to build the facility, the recharge deficit incurred would have cost $285,000 to do another project elsewhere and makeup that difference in recharge. Instead, they did their own offset, volume to volume, at the Admin Centre for a SW infiltration project instead of cash-in-lieu. Moved by: Tom Kurtz Seconded by: Don Goodyear RESOLVED: THAT the presentation provided by Caroline Hawson on
Implementation of WHPA-Q2 policies, be received for information. CARRIED BY CONSENSUS d) MECP Implementation of Prescribed Instrument Policies Bilal Kidwai, Liaison Officer and Stacey Baker, Program Analyst at MECP provided an overview of their experience implementing PI policies for sewage works as required by the Source Protection Plan. When the Source Protection Plans (SPP) went into effect, it was implemented by municipalities, ministries, Source Protection Authorities, and other agencies across the province due to legislative duties under the Clean Water Act. The Source Protection branch and MECP rely on PIs to help carry out their duties as identified in policy O.Reg. 287/07. The SGBLS Source Protection Plan specifies where these policies apply and any additional requirements the province can report on to the committees. This information was detailed in reports and provided to SP Authorities in February 2017 and 2018 and will continue on an annual basis. For significant threat policies regarding sewage and waste, the Signing Director’s decision must conform with PI policies, e.g., they may have to ensure that risks are managed through terms and conditions within an ECA. For Moderate and Low threat policies, the Signing Director’s decision must have regard to these policies, i.e. the SPP must be considered and report on policy implementation.
Page 27 of 46
Page 10 of 15
The Ministry analysed all source protection policies in the province and procedures for issuing PIs to determine how they were going to conform and resulted in the development of Standard sewage works, PTTW, hauled sewage and biosolids, and pesticides permits. The SOP for sewage works includes design and operational requirements that can be included when reviewing new ECA applications. A summary of these specific SOPs can be searched for through the Environmental Registry: EBR#012-2968. New ECA applications submitted to MECP Client Services and Permissions Branch undergo primary screening process to determine ECA activity (sanitary sewers, storm sewers, etc.), verify location of ECA activity, and check for potential significant threats. If location is in: a vulnerable area scoring 8 or higher; Issues Contributing Area; or, modelled Event Based Area, it is then turned over to the Source Protection Programs Branch for further assessment. Six analysts review these applications and where significant threats were confirmed, use the ministry’s drinking water threats and technical rules, look at site plans, and consider specific source water protection policies for that area. Once assessment is complete it is sent back to Client Services Branch where applications are reviewed further and determine, using the SOP, if terms and conditions are necessary to manage the risk. The Ministry will not issue an ECA where the activity is prohibited. Existing approved and implemented ECAs are going through a similar screening process. Flagged ECAs will go through a secondary screening to confirm if there is a significant drinking water threat. The Signing Director will contact the owner/operator if amendments are required within the existing ECA. The SGBLS Source Protection Plan has 5 years from the effective date to open and amend any ECAs. Between 2015 – 2018, 19 existing sewage works ECAs (mainly sanitary and storm) have been identified as significant drinking water threats. None of the four new system works applications screened in 2018 were significant drinking water threats. Of the 72 ECAs identified as potential significant threats for the SGBLS area, Barrie has a system wide ECA so they had a number of individual sanitary or sewer ECAs all revoked and replaced with one ECA number for the entire City. John B.: In your breakdown you don’t include anything about treatment facilities. Stacey states that they were asked to talk specifically about sewage; however information on other facilities can also be provided. We get down to the threat sub category because based on the circumstances of the technical role there could be different triggers if it’s a significant drinking water threat or not. It could be in one application. If sanitary sewers are a significant threat but the storm sewers are not the Signing Director could decide that the ECA needed to be amended but only for that sanitary sewer, and possibly just a portion of it where it crossed a vulnerable area.
Page 28 of 46
Page 11 of 15
Don G: You mentioned that if there’s a prohibition policy, the ECA wouldn’t proceed. Even if there’s only one sewage policy that the province applies, do you look at the individual SPP? Stacey says yes. The technical rules and table of circumstances are guiding principles across the province, but each SPP will have a different approach and policy. If it’s a significant threat, they determine what policies may apply to that area. Bilal shows a graph using data taken from the annual report, showing all the work that’s been done locally from the ministries, municipalities, RMOs, etc. The graph demonstrates the significant drinking water threats / activities (in percentages) that were addressed. SGBLS falls under the central region which is at the provincial average. These numbers are always affected by the complexity of the region which is relatively high for this region. These include a number of threats as well as on the ground issues. All threats were either eliminated or managed. A second graph showed policies that have been implemented or being continuously implemented within the region. Central and northern regions falls very high on the list, typically because although most have been addressed, a lot of the policies have been on-going, in addition the stagnation of the effective date allows us to focus more on the central or northern regions to implement their policies. Moved by: Stephanie Hobbs Seconded by: Rick Newlove RESOLVED: THAT the presentation provided by Bilal Kidwai and Stacey Baker
on MECP Implementation of Prescribed Instrument Policies, be received for information.
CARRIED BY CONSENSUS e) SPA Update Bill Thompson provided an update on the progress on section 36 plan review and other activities being undertaken by the Source Protection Authority staff. At the last meeting, the regulation was only in draft format and has now been approved. The new regulation 205/18 is under the Safe Clean Drinking Water Act and the intent of this regulation is to make sure the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act work in harmony. It’s intended to ensure that as we’re expanding our drinking water systems, that they fall under SPPs so that new drinking water systems are protected as well as the existing drinking water systems. The intent of the regulation is to provide a point in time or requirement that the two processes/acts touch base. At the April 4th meeting the proposal was that municipalities would need to endorse a proposed amendment SPP before they could submit an application for their new drinking water system. At the time it wasn’t a significant issue as we already required a municipal endorsement before we can go to public consultation on our draft SPPs. The
Page 29 of 46
Page 12 of 15
final regulation however states that there are two points of contact now between the clean water act process and the same drinking water act process. When municipalities are applying for a drinking water works permit for a new or expanded system, part of the application package needs to be a notice from the SPA to say that the technical work is complete. They can then submit their package to the Ministry for approval. When they get their permit back, there will be a clause in that permit that says that water may not be provided by that system to the public until our SPP amendment is approved by the Minister. The creates a very clear set of steps that need be followed before water can be provided from new systems but it also provides critical timelines for SPA staff, SPC’s, and the municipalities to manage to ensure we don’t find ourselves in a situation where water can’t be provided from wells and service new communities. The committee may need to meet more frequently and spend more time reviewing and doing more frequent plan amendments. The province has developed, along with Chitra Gowda from Conservation Ontario, a proposed process that municipalities would go through under the Safe Drinking Water Act under this new regulation. Early consultation is very important to make sure we are aware of any changes to systems before they happen (this process is already in place as part of our annual reporting). Under the new rules, municipalities or proponents are now responsible to ensure the SPP technical work is complete. This includes identifying any WHAPAs, intake protection zones, vulnerability scoring, and where activities could be significant drinking water threats. Technical work could be done in parallel with or subsequent to environmental assessment work, but before the permit application to the Minister. A notice from the SPA to the municipality that the work is complete is to be submitted as part of their application package to the Province under their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. We have a prescribed set of steps to go through in amending the SPP: Once we receive the technical work from the municipalities we need to see if existing policies are sufficient or assess if new policies are required. Both the SPA and SPC are to agree upon this. We would consult with the Ministry and municipalities, compile a draft amendment, provide as a draft in pre-consultation to implementing bodies, municipality, and MECP, request written comments from them and consider those written comments, and make revisions as required. This must be taken to municipal council for endorsement before going to public consultation. It then goes back to the SPC to revise the amendment as necessary and endorse the draft amendment to the SPP. It will then go to the local SPA and the lead SPA for their endorsement, and finally to the Minister for approval. A new drinking water system is proposed in York Region within the next two years. Anticipate the technical work will be completed in 2018 and submitted to the Minister in 2019. Durham Region has a well in Sunderland they need to take off-line and replace with another well as backup. The Province has accepted that as an emergency situation
Page 30 of 46
Page 13 of 15
and exempting the need to do an environmental assessment and to meet the requirements of this Regulation. We do however have to amend the SPP. This maybe initiated next year as well. Additional proposed new drinking water systems are possible in Durham, Oro-Medonte, New Tecumseth, Lagoon City, Wasaga Beach, and Peel over the next five years. Timing uncertain in areas where some development may occur in the future such as Springwater, Tiny, New Tecumseth, Collingwood, Innisfil, Adj-Tos, Midland, Orillia, Kawartha Lakes, Durham and Shelburne. The pros with this regulation is that it does create clear protection for new municipal drinking water systems and ensures that the SPP applies if new systems come online. Additional work for the SPA or committees is work they have to do anyway. The cons are the very strict timelines and while it manages the risk of public health it creates a risk around public infrastructure and creates a risk that water may not be provided in a timely fashion to residents. Questions / Comments: Colin: Generally, who pays for the well, i.e., plans and the work to build the well? Is it the Municipality? Bill states that it’s most likely the Municipality. In most cases it is development driven, in which case the cost can be passed to the developer. Where they have to increase or change within existing systems supporting an existing community, that cost would most certainly be relayed back to municipality. Historically the Ministry has covered the cost of the technical work but going forward they will not cover this cost. They also said that if smaller municipalities have exhausted all alternatives for the funding, the Ministry may step forward in these cases. Don: The concern municipalities have is the time delay between submitting the amended assessment report, and plan approval. One of the recommendations at a CTC meeting was that, similar to the way is special consideration for simple updates that the Ministry might consider streamlining updates for new systems and perhaps delegating that authority to the Director or some other streamlined approval. Would the committee consider sending a letter or passing a resolution suggesting this? Don requests that the committee pass a resolution suggesting the Ministry provide a simplified version of approvals for new systems where we’re not amending the policy but just adding a new vulnerable associated with a new system and the existing policy would apply. Dave K. who has pecuniary interest states that proponents will now have to go forward and do all the technical work whereas the original assessment was all done by the SPC or the core team. As a consultant, is the technical standard that’s going to be advocated by the Municipality going to clash with needs and desires of the SPC having done the original assessment work? How does that get resolved? This should be considered and address how it needs to be resolved ahead of time before it causes a problem.
Page 31 of 46
Page 14 of 15
Rick: When a permit is attained to pump more water so another subdivision can be added and another addition to their water storage tank is needed, is there any requirement for SWP? Bill says that not for a storage tank, only for an additional well. Don states that one of the challenges with the development charge act is that we need the infrastructure before the development starts so you have to front end the financing. Once the development starts, you pay it back. The challenge isn’t the funding it’s doing all the technical work, submitting it and potentially waiting and we’re just trying to manage that risk. If that decision lies with the Minister we would wait longer than if the decision rested with the Director of the Source Protection Branch. Municipalities need to be informed of this new infrastructure so at planning stages, staff can inform potential developers of the additional requirements. Municipalities should be aware of the additional time that could be expended, until it is resolved, including the additional cost. Don isn’t sure how informed the municipalities are but it could potentially serve them well to highlight this. Larry asks the committee if there is support to draw up this letter to the Ministry. It is noted that Dave K. is abstaining due to pecuniary interest in this particular motion. RESOLVED: THAT the SPC send a letter to the Minister requesting that they
streamline the final approval of amendments to the source protection plan for new drinking water systems when new policies are not required.
Moved by: Don Goodyear Seconded by: Debbie Korolnek CARRIED Action Item 2 Draft a letter to the Minister requesting
they streamline the final approval of amendments to the source protection plan for new drinking water systems when new policies are not required.
Responsibility Bill Thompson Bill continues with his presentation providing an update on the work being done surrounding the SPP. Reminder that section 36 of the Clean Water Act requires the Minister to ask us to review and amend our plan on a periodic basis. The intent is to ensure it remains appropriate and relevant in light of the challenges that may have arisen since the plan was approved. The Minister provided a deadline of Nov. 30 2018 to submit a workplan.
Page 32 of 46
Page 15 of 15
Bill provided an update on the progress made on addressing questions MECP wanted included in workplan development A more detailed presentation will be provided at the SPC meeting in September for the Committee’s consideration along with a proposed workplan. This needs to go to the SPAs for endorsement at their meetings in Oct. / Nov. then submit to the Minister by the end of November. VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION None. IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION None. X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION None. XI. OTHER BUSINESS None. XII. CLOSED SESSION None for the record of this meeting. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the SPC will take place in the 2018 fall months; the location and date of the next meeting are to be determined. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Larry Slomka at 3:59 pm.
To: Chair Geoff Dawe and members of the Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority
From: Lynn Dollin, Chair, South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee CC: Bill Thompson, Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, LSRCA Date: October 22, 2018 Re: Source Protection Committee Update Chair Dawe and Members: It is my pleasure to bring you a brief update from the Source Protection Committee since the last Source Protection Authority Board meeting in April. The Source Protection Committee (SPC) continues to remain involved in the Source Protection Program although in recent years its role has largely been one of providing oversight to plan implementation. This has included hearing reports back from implementing bodies on which policies are working well and which have been challenging to put into use. The SPC is very happy to hear the progress that Risk Management Officials and municipal staff have made to date on Risk Management Plan development, septic system inspections, as well as drafting updates to municipal official plans. Since the Provincial election in June and the audit introduced by the new government, the SPC has heard very little from the Province on the Sourcewater program. SPC Chairs typically meet in October to get program updates from Provincial staff, but that meeting has been put on hold until staff get a more clear direction on the future of the program from Queen’s Park. SPC Chairs met as a group this summer and drafted a letter to Minister Phillips on the importance of the Source Protection Program, advocating for the Minister’s ongoing support of the program. At the last SPC meeting, the Committee asked that a letter be sent to Minister Phillips expressing some concerns about a new Regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A copy of this letter can be found under Correspondence in this agenda. This new Regulation requires that any time a new municipal drinking water source comes online, the local Source Protection Plan must be updated and approved before water can be provided. While the SPC fully supports the need to continue to protect raw sources of municipal drinking water, past experiences with plan amendments suggests it can take over two years to receive Ministerial approval. The Committee is concerned about delays that could interfere with municipalities providing the critical services to residents.
Chair Geoff Dawe and LSCBR SPA members Source Protection Committee Update October 22, 2018 Page 2 Finally, when the Source Protection Plans were first coming into effect across the province, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) established a Source Protection Municipal Implementation Fund (SPMIF), which was intended to assist small municipalities in taking on their new obligations. At that time, 41 municipalities in the Source Protection Region received funding totalling nearly $2 million. However, there have been challenges in utilizing this money due to the initial short timeframe that funding was available and the limited list of eligible activities. In response, the Province has extended this funding program to the end of 2018 and has expanded the list of eligible activities. While Provincial staff have needed to remain silent on this program since the election, it is important to note that any municipalities with remaining SPMIF funding will be expected to use it by the end of 2018, or the funding will return to the Province’s general coffers. Thank you for your time, Lynn Dollin Chair
TO: Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority FROM: Bill Thompson, Project Manager DATE: October 20, 2018 SUBJECT: Establishment of Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report 02-18-SPA regarding the establishment of
Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act be received for information.
Purpose of Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 02-18-SPA is to bring awareness to new Regulation No. 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act and its requirements for municipalities and Source Protection Authorities before new, expanded, or assumed drinking water systems can provide water to the public. Background: Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act entitled Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in Source Protection Areas came into force in July 2018 and is intended to ensure that new or expanded municipal drinking water systems are protected by Source Protection Plan policies before water is provided to the public. The Regulation creates three new requirements for municipalities when applying for Drinking Water Works Permits: 1) Completion of all technical work required by the Directors Technical Rules under the Clean
Water Act (i.e. mapping of wellhead protection areas or intake protection zones, vulnerability scoring, and the identification of areas where specific threats could be significant;
2) A notice from the Source Protection Authority that the technical work is complete, which is to be included as part of the application package for a Drinking Water Works Permit; and
3) The approval of any required amendments to the Source Protection Plan before water
could be provided to the public. Issues: Rules under the Clean Water Act prescribe a process for amending Source Protection Plans, which includes consulting with the Source Protection Committee, municipal staff, implementing bodies, as well as seeking Council endorsement from affected municipalities, and completing public consultation before submitting to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for Ministerial approval. It should be expected that this process would take 18 – 24 months to complete. While Ministerial staff anticipate that their review of proposed amendments to the Source Protection Plan would happen concurrently with the review of municipal applications for Drinking Water Works Permits, this new regulation does introduce a new risk to providing water to municipal residents in a timely fashion. No transition period was provided for this Regulation, and as such municipal drinking water systems currently in development will experience these new requirements. Municipal drinking water systems that are expected to come online within the next 1 – 2 years include a well in Sunderland (Durham Region), a well in Aurora (York Region), and a well in East Gwillimbury (York Region). The Sunderland well has been granted exemption to this process under an emergency Exemption Order, and the Aurora well is a twinning which is not anticipated to change vulnerable area delineation. The East Gwillimbury well will require an amendment to the Source Protection Plan before it can provide water. Regional and Source Protection Authority staff are working closely together on the East Gwillimbury file and anticipate submitting a proposed amendment for Ministerial approval in 2019. Given growth and development pressures in the Source Protection Region, the risk to provision of critical municipal services and associated SPA workload is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future. In order to start managing this longer term risk, Source Protection staff met with staff from the majority of municipalities in the Region to discuss this new regulation and its implications, and followed the meeting with a written notification. This same information has also been posted on the LSRCA and Sourcewater Protection Region websites. This staff report and associated presentation will be provided to each of the three SPA Boards to assist in ensuring municipal and Regional councils are also aware of the issue. Summary and Recommendation: New Provincial Regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act have introduced a new process for the provision of water from new, expanded, or assumed municipal drinking water systems,
including the approval of an amended Source Protection Plan which would include a delineation of any associated vulnerable areas. It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 02-18-SPA regarding the establishment of Regulation 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act be received for information. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by LSRCA’s General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management and the Chief Administrative Officer. Prepared by: Bill Thompson, Project Manager, South Georgian Bay – Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region Original signed by: Original signed by: ______________________________ __________________________________ Ben Longstaff Mike Walters General Manager, Chief Administrative Officer Integrated Watershed Management
TO: Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority FROM: Bill Thompson, Project Manager DATE: October 20, 2018 SUBJECT: Draft Workplan for Requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 03-18-SPA regarding the draft Workplan to meet
the requirements of Section 36 of the Clean Water Act be received; and
FURTHER THAT the Source Protection Authority Board endorse the draft workplan prior to submission to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Purpose of Staff Report: The purpose of Staff Report No. 03-18-SPA is to seek Board endorsement of the workplan to amend the Source Protection Plan as required under section 36 of the Clean Water Act. Background: Section 36 of the Clean Water Act requires the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to establish a date for a review of Source Protection Plans when they are approved. In his approval letter, Minister Murray established a date of November 30, 2018 for the lead Source Protection Authority to submit a workplan, which is to identify the portions of the plan to be reviewed, the consultation process to be undertaken, and proposed timelines. More recently, MECP staff provided Source Protection Authorities four bulletins outlining the requirements for the development of the workplans. These requirements include SPA staff conducting a review of:
• The results of environmental monitoring programs to determine if trends in water quality
are evident; • Growth and infrastructure changes to determine if there are new drinking water systems in
place or planned; • Council resolutions to determine if there are resolutions relating to new drinking water
systems; • Policy effectiveness based on the annual implementation report and feedback from
implementing bodies; • Implementation challenges if concerns exist with source protection plan implementation
that need to be addressed); • Technical rule changes since the approval of the Assessment Report; • The impacts of prohibition policies for agricultural activities outside of the Well Head
Protection Area-A (WHPA-A) or Intake Protection Zone-1 (IPZ-1), including an assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the prohibition policies versus what could be achieved through management approaches;
• Specific directions in Ministerial approval letters (not relevant for the South Georgian Bay – Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region); and
• Other local considerations. Following further direction in the Provincial bulletins, meetings were held with municipalities across the Source Protection Region to gather information to answer the above questions. A summary of this consultation process and the significant items that were raised will be presented to the SPA Board at the October 26th meeting. The workplan resulting from this consultation was developed collaboratively between the three Source Protection Authorities and was collaboratively presented to the SPC for its approval. Local implications of the workplan will be presented to the local Source Protection Authority Boards before coming to the Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching/Black River Source Protection Authority Board for endorsement as the lead Source Protection Authority in the Region, prior submitting to the Minister for consideration. Issues: Based on a review of the annual report on implementation, municipal consultation, and a review of the impacts of agricultural prohibition policies, the table below lists the proposed items for inclusion in the Section 36 workplan:
1 Assess trend in sodium at Craighurst drinking water system, to determine if Issue exists. Map Issue Contributing Area and review Source Protection Plan to determine if additional policies will be necessary
AR for mapping; SPP for policy changes
TBD
2 Assess trend in sodium at Warminster drinking water system, to determine if Issue exists. Map Issue Contributing Area and review Source Protection Plan to determine if additional policies will be necessary
AR for mapping; SPP for policy changes
TBD
3 Assess trend in TCE at Coldwater wells 1 and 2 to determine if Issue has been resolved. Revise mapping of Issue Contributing Area, if appropriate.
AR for mapping; SPP for policy changes
TBD
4 New wellhead protection area mapping and vulnerability scores for a new groundwater well at the existing Sunderland drinking water system, including assessing if current policies in the plan will be appropriate in the new WHPA or if modifications to the policies will be necessary.
AR for mapping; SPP for policy changes
TBD
5 Review wellhead protection area mapping in Durham Region AR TBD 6 Remove well 6 at Cannington Drinking Water system, and
revise wellhead protection area mapping AR N/A
7 Review wellhead protection area mapping for groundwater-based drinking water systems in southern and central Simcoe County
AR TBD
8 Add second well at Maplewood Estates drinking water system and revise wellhead protection area mapping
AR
TBD
9 Addition of new well at Horseshoe Highlands drinking water system and decommissioning of pre-existing
AR TBD
10 Add fourth well to existing Stayner municipal drinking water system and revise wellhead protection area mapping
AR
TBD
11 Update calculation of percent managed lands AR RMO, MECP, OMAFRA
12 Develop Education and Outreach policies related to commercial fertilizer application for residential homeowners in vulnerable areas with a vulnerability score of 10
SPP RMO, SPA
13 Update livestock density mapping in Churchill drinking water system wellhead protection areas
AR RMO, MECP, OMAFRA
14 Review policy WAST(b)-2 policy to determine if situations exist wherein future establishment of waste disposal sites could be managed, rather than prohibited.
SPP RMO
15 Revise policy SEWG(a)-2 to include reference to Low Impact Development approaches to stormwater management
16 Revise policy SEWG(c)-4 to establish minimum standards or guidelines for septic system inspections
SPP MUN
17 Revise policies SALT(ICA)-1, SALT(ICA)-2 & SNOW(ICA)-1 to expand their area of applicability
SPP RMO
18 Revise policy FUEL-3 to improve policy effectiveness SPP TSSA 19 Revise policies DNAPL-1 and DNAPL-2 to clarify what
constitutes an ‘incidental volume for personal/domestic use’ SPP RMO
20 Revise policy DNAPL-2 to assess whether there are situations wherein future handling and storage of DNAPLs could be managed, rather than prohibited
SPP RMO
21 Revise policies DEMD-1, DEMD-3 and DEMD-4 to include reference to New Tecumseth
SPP MECP, MUN
22 Revise policy RLU-1 to include reference to waste disposal sites
SPP Planning Approval Authority
23 Review policies LUP-2 and LUP-3 to determine if additional conditions could be added that would allow the infiltration of “clean” run-off from rooftops, green spaces, and land uses not associated with the application of road salt.
SPP Planning Approval Authority
24 Revise policy LUP-7 to clarify that it only applies with the Issue Contributing Area for nitrates
SPP Planning Approval Authority
25 Revise policy LUP-12 and LUP-13 to remove duplicate reference to York in ‘applicable local area’ column
SPP Planning Approval Authority
26 Revise policy LUP-12 to specify that a Geoscientist as defined in the Hydrogeological Assessment definition of a “Qualified Person” must do the water balance study and water balances should also be subject to a peer review by a Qualified Person
SPP Planning Approval Authority
27 Revise policy LUP-12 to replace exemption for single family dwellings with an exemption for development proposals under a minimum size.
SPP Planning Approval Authority
28 Assessment of new liquid hydrocarbon pipeline threat AR for mapping; SPP for policy changes
TBD
29 Make updates to SPP and AR to reflect changes in Technical Rules that identify above ground fuel storage as a significant drinking water threat in IPZs and WHPA-E scoring 9 or higher
30 Utilize Technical Rule 95.1 to revise vulnerability scoring in the Rope IPZ
AR TBD
31 Minor revisions to SPP and AR to reflect changes in the Technical Rules, including • Removal of the term dairy from circumstances 1965 –
1967, 1970 • Amendment to the definition of soil, groundwater, and
sediment standards • Addition of reference to sediment-based contamination
in intake protection zones • Update maps and text in Assessment Reports to remove
reference to vulnerability scoring in SGRAs • Revise reference to discharge to Lake Simcoe as a factor
in SGRA delineation Remove references to sodium and chloride in the circumstances related to on-site sewage systems and holding tanks.
AR SPP
N/A
32 Incorporation of climate change considerations AR SPP
TBD
33 Revise references to Tables of Circumstances throughout Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan to promote compliance with AODA
AR SPP
N/A
34 A review of the nitrate Issue Contributing Area for the Georgian Sands / Lafontaine drinking water system
AR MECP, RMO, OMAFRA, Planning Approval Authority
35 Clarify existence of TCE Drinking Water Issue at Robert St well in Penetanguishene
SPP RMO
36 Update Source Protection Plan and Assessment Report as required, to meet forthcoming amendments to the Technical Rules
SPP, AR TBD
This workplan proposes a timeline for submitting a draft amendment to the Source Protection Plan of December 2022. A draft of the full workplan can be found by clicking the following link: Workplan for Comprehensive Review and Update of the SGBLS SPP Summary and Recommendation: A workplan which outlines the scope of the proposed amendment to the South Georgian Bay – Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan under section 36 of the Clean Water Act is due to the Minister on November 30, 2018.
A review of the first annual report on plan implementation, consultation with implementing bodies, and a review of the impacts of agricultural prohibition policies identified a range of issues, including emerging water quality concerns, projected changes in municipal drinking water infrastructure, and implementation challenges with SPP policies for consideration in plan amendment. It is therefore recommended THAT Staff Report No. 03-18-SPA be received for information; and FURTHER THAT the Source Protection Authority Board endorse the workplan, prior to its submission to the Ministry in November. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by LSRCA’s General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management and the Chief Administrative Officer. Prepared by: Bill Thompson, Project Manager, South Georgian Bay – Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region Original signed by: Original signed by: ______________________________ __________________________________ Ben Longstaff Mike Walters General Manager, Chief Administrative Officer Integrated Watershed Management
