kettle creek source protection authority · 2017-10-13 · kcspa meeting minutes january 18, 2017...

KettleCreekSourceProtectionAuthority AgendaOctober18,2017 KCCAAdministrationCentre8p.m.

Introductions and Declarations of Pecuniary Interest

Disclosures of Intention to Audio/Video Record Meeting Board members, staff, guests and members of the public are reminded that the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority Board/Committee meeting is being recorded, and will be posted to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority’s web site along with the official written minutes. As such, comments and opinions expressed may be published and any comments expressed by individual Board members, guests and the general public are their own, and do not, represent the opinions or comments of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority and/or the KCCA Board of Directors.

The recorded video of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority meeting is not considered the official record of that meeting. The official record of the meeting shall consist solely of the Minutes approved by the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority.

Delegations

Minutes of Meetings a) Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority January 18, 2017 ..........................................................2 b) Lake Erie Source Protection Region Committee Meetings

i) December 1, 2016 .......................................................................................................6 ii) April 6, 2017 .............................................................................................................. 14 iii) July 6, 2017 .............................................................................................................. 22 iv) September 7, 2017 ..................................................................................................30

Correspondence

New Business

a) Proposed 2016 Kettle Creek Annual Report ................................................................................39

of 51

KCSPA Meeting Minutes January 18, 2017 Page 1 of 4

KETTLE CREEK SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY Full Authority Meeting

Wednesday, January 18, 2017, 11:00 a.m. KCCA Administration Centre

A meeting of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. at the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Administration Centre. Members Present: Ian Chard Southwold Township Stephen Harvey Middlesex Centre Heather Jackson City of St. Thomas Bill Mackie City of London David Marr Central Elgin Marcel Meyer Thames Centre Max Moore Malahide Township Linda Stevenson City of St. Thomas Ralph Winfield City of London Regrets: Jared Zaifman City of London Staff Present: Emily Fenn Administrative Assistant Joe Gordon Director of Operations Kathleen Sebestyen‐Scott Financial Services Supervisor Elizabeth VanHooren General Manager/Secretary Treasurer Guests: Tom Marks

1. Introductions and Declarations of Pecuniary Interest There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. 2. 2017 Elections Mr. Tom Marks, past Chair of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 2005 ‐ 2006, conducted the elections. Mr. Marks declared the office of chair and vice chair of KCSPA vacant and conducted the election of officers for the Year 2017. KCSPA1/2017 Moved by: Marcel Meyer Seconded: Linda Stevenson

of 51


That in the event of a contested election, Kathleen Sebestyen‐Scott and Emily Fenn act as scrutineers and that the ballots be destroyed after the election. Carried Mr. Marks then called for nominations for the position of Chair for the year 2017. KCSPA2/17 Moved by: Bill Mackie That Heather Jackson be nominated for the position of Chair of Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for the Year 2017. Mr. Marks called twice and thrice for any other nominations for the position of Chair. There were no further nominations. KCSPA3/17 Moved by: Marcel Meyer Seconded: Ian Chard That nominations for the position of Chair of Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for the Year 2017 be closed.

Carried Heather Jackson was declared Chair of KCSPA for 2017. Mr. Gordon called for nominations for Vice Chair. KCSPA4/17 Moved by: Heather Jackson That David Marr be nominated for the position of Vice Chair of Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for the Year 2017. Mr. Marks called twice and thrice for any other nominations for the position of Vice Chair. There were no further nominations. KCSPA5/17 Moved by: Ralph Winfield Seconded: Max Moore That nominations for the position of Vice Chair of Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for the Year 2017 be closed.

Carried David Marr was declared Vice Chair of KCSPA for 2017. 3. Year 2017 Administrative Approvals a) Approval of 2017 Nominating Committee Report

of 51


KCSPA6/17 Moved by: Linda Stevenson Seconded: Stephen Harvey That the report of the Year 2017 Nominating Committee be adopted as presented. Carried b) 2017 Signing Officers KCSPA7/17 Moved by: Bill Mackie Seconded: Marcel Meyer That the signing officers of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for 2017 be one of the Chair or Vice Chair and one of the General Manager/Secretary Treasurer or Director of Operations.

Carried

c) Borrowing Maximum KCSPA8/17 Moved by: Ralph Winfield Seconded: David Marr That the borrowing maximum for the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for all expenditures in 2017 be $12,000.00 and further that signing officers be authorized to execute the necessary documents in this regard. Carried d) Appointment of Auditor KCSPA9/17 Moved by: David Marr Seconded: Ian Chard That the firm of Graham Scott Enns be appointed auditors for the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for 2017.

Carried

e) Appointment of Solicitor KCSPA10/17 Moved by: Max Moore Seconded: Stephen Harvey That the firms of Little, Inglis, Price & Ewer LLP, and Duncan Linton LLP be appointed solicitors for the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority for 2017.

Carried

of 51


4. Minutes of KCSPA Meetings a) Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority August 24, 2016 b) Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Meeting July 7, 2016 c) Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Meeting October 6, 2016 KCSPA11/17 Moved by: Linda Stevenson Seconded: David Marr That the minutes of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority August 24, 2016 meeting be approved as presented; and further That the minutes of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of July 7, 2016 and October 6, 2016 be received.

Carried 6. Correspondence There was no correspondence. 7. Other Business No new business was introduced. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

Elizabeth VanHooren General Manager/Secretary‐Treasurer

of 51

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

MINUTES

Date: Time: Location:

December 1, 2016 1:00 pm Auditorium Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6

Members Present W. Wright-Cascaden (Acting Chair), H. Cornwell, A. Dale, P. General, R. Haggart, C. Hill, , E. Hodgins, K. Hunsberger, J. Kirchin, R. Krueger, I. Macdonald, J. Oliver, L. Perrin, P. Rider, G. Schneider, B. Strauss, B. Ungar, M. Wales, D. Woolcott

Members Absent A. Henry, C. Jonathan, P. Wilson Liaisons E. Forrest (Provincial Liaison), H. Jowett (SPA Liaison) Region Management M. Columbus (LPRCA), C. Evanitski (LPRCA), B. Mackie (KCCA), S.

Martyn (CCCA), K. Smale (CCCA), E. Van Hooren (KCCA) Proxy Representatives L. Perrin (A. Henry), J. Oliver (P. Wilson) Staff D. Boyd, S. Cooke, N. Davy, J. Farwell, D. Hartley, M. Keller, S.

Strynatka

1. Call to Order

W. Wright-Cascaden called the meeting to order at 1:03 pm

2. Roll Call and Certification of Quorum – 17 Members Constitute a Quorum (2/3 of Members plus Chair)

The Recording Secretary called the roll and certified a quorum with 20 members present.

3. Chair’s Remarks

M. Keller and W. Wright-Cascaden attended a provincial chairs meeting held in Toronto on November 9 and 10, 2016. Attendees received a program update from the Province,

of 51

including details on recent amendments to the Technical Rules; M. Keller to provide a report on changes to the Technical Rules later in the meeting.

4. Review of Agenda

Res. No. 27-16 Moved By B. Ungar Seconded By M. Wales

THAT the agenda of December 1, 2016 be approved as distributed.

Carried

5. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest

There were no declarations of pecuniary interests made in relation to the matters to be dealt with.

6. Minutes of the Previous Meeting - October 6, 2016

Res. No. 28-16 Moved By A. Dale Seconded By L. Perrin

THAT the minutes of the previous meeting on October 6, 2016 be approved as circulated.

Carried

7. Hearing of Delegations

None

8. Presentations

None

9. Correspondence

Correspondence from Heather Malcolmson, Director of Source Protection Programs Branch, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to Wendy Wright-Cascaden, Source Protection Committee Chair (A), Lake Erie Source Protection Region regarding the committee's request that the Ministry finalize the content and framework of the Annual Progress Report.

10. Reports

10.1 SPC-16-12-01 Temporary Relaxation of the Source Protection Committee Rules of Procedure

Martin Keller presented report SPC-16-12-01. L. Perrin inquired if other municipalities were in agreement with the decision to allow K. Davis to participate in committee meetings in a non-voting capacity until a new member is appointed. M. Keller confirmed discussions have taken place with Halton Region, the City of

of 51

Guelph and Dufferin County and all municipalities were in agreement with the recommendation.

Res. No. 29-16 Moved By J. Oliver Seconded By P. Rider

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee temporarily relax the Rules of Procedure to allow Kyle Davis, Risk Management Official for the area municipalities in Wellington County, to participate in Source Protection Committee meetings in a non-voting capacity on behalf of Wellington County and area townships until the Grand River Source Protection Authority appoints a municipal representative for municipal grouping #1.

Carried

10.2 SPC-16-12-02 Source Protection Program Update

M. Keller presented report SPC-16-12-02. M. Wales agreed with the Province’s proposed water bottling regulations. H. Cornwell inquired if there were other water bottle facilities in the area and, the quantity of water used by Nestle Waters compared to the City of Guelph. M. Keller suggested Nestle uses a fraction of the amount of water used by the City of Guelph. I. Macdonald suggested that the larger issue is water used by a bottling facility leaving the Grand River watershed potentially permanently as opposed to remaining available for local use. M. Keller agreed that the issue of consumptive versus non-consumptive is important.

A. Dale commented about the complexity of the water use issue for a company such as Nestle Waters, versus the standard being applied to another company such as Sleeman Brewery. E. Forrest added that the new regulations are specifically looking at groundwater takings by water bottling facilities. There are a number of water bottlers that take from municipal supplies that are not captured in the moratorium.

E. Hodgins expressed disappointment that the province is considering a one-size-fits-all approach for addressing Prescribed Instruments; a standardized approach may not necessarily meet municipal objectives and is inconsistent with an actual implementable plan. The Province’s technical approaches are practically not implementable with regard to operating infrastructure. Also, the Province has not made a commitment to report back to the municipalities regarding which clauses have been implemented to mitigate threats. E. Hodgins requested clarification regarding the Annual Progress Report and the change from a letter-grading system to a more generic descriptive grading system, more specifically, what measures may be used to determine the progress score. M. Keller could not provide more detailed information but the topic would likely be discussed during a teleconference the following day. E. Forrest commented that the Province presented the idea of a standardized approach to Prescribed Instruments during the chairs meeting for discussion purpose, not for immediate implementation. The proposal was presented as offering a more protective approach.

J. Kirchin also commented on the issue of provincial reporting requirements raised by E. Hodgins and suggested that the committee discuss the issue further

of 51

to provide comments to the Province. M. Keller confirmed that if the committee wished to have a voice at this stage in time, that the committee will have opportunities to comment if and when the idea becomes a more developed proposal.

J. Oliver asked how much Source Protection Municipal Implementation Fund (SPMIF) money was allocated to Lake Erie Source Protection Region, whether the funds were provided to each individual municipality and if unspent funds are lost or reallocated. M. Keller responded that the funds were allocated to municipalities based on individual agreements. Funds can be pooled and transferred between or among municipalities, subject to certain criteria. J. Oliver inquired if a status report could be provided to the committee highlighting where funds have been spent and which municipalities have funds remaining; M. Keller replied that information is available. E. Forrest commented that originally, agreements with municipalities went until the end of 2016 but there were also options that municipalities could apply for an extension to March 2017. K. Davis added that a time extension to allow remaining funds to be spent would be useful to municipalities.

In response to E. Hodgins request for clarification with regard to amendments to the Technical Rules, M. Keller commented that a working group was established in the summer of 2016 to work on Phase 1 changes to the Technical Rules; Phase 2 discussions have begun and there will be opportunities for municipalities to provide input through the program manager and through the Environmental Registry as well, once posted. E. Forrest added amendments to the Technical Rules have been through a culmination of hearings with various source protection agencies. Records have been kept and any amendments would reflect information contained in the records.

Res. No. 30-16 Moved By R. Krueger Seconded By L. Perrin

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-16-12-02 - Source Protection Program Update - for information.

Carried

10.3 SPC-16-12-03 Long Point Region Tier 3 Update – Simcoe Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process (RMMEP)

M. Keller presented report SPC-16-12. J. Kirchin inquired whether water conservation was considered in the community as a Risk Management Measure rather than drilling more wells. M. Keller responded that if residents used less water, the municipality would lose revenue but also still need to pump the same amount of water in order to flush the pipes to ensure no contamination of water supply; it is understood that it was not feasible for Norfolk County to consider further reductions. J. Kirchin found it difficult to believe that the community could not reduce water use while also ensuring the public’s health and safety.

J. Oliver agreed that there are challenges to maintaining a long-term supply of water when less water is used by customers but the same cost is incurred. J. Oliver questioned the consultant’s review of Risk Management Measures to

of 51

retain water in Kent Creek watershed upstream of the well field and inquired if a review of options has occurred to retain water in the watershed for longer periods of time to allow for infiltration. M. Keller confirmed water storage had been considered however it is difficult to access stored water in a large geographic area. J. Oliver suggested a review of existing municipal drainage systems ‘best practices’ to retain water for a long period of time. M. Keller responded that further discussions with consultants regarding additional options could be pursued.

Res. No. 31-16 Moved By B. Strauss Seconded By E. Hodgins

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-16-12-03 – Long Point Region Tier 3 Update – Simcoe Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process (RMMEP) – for information.

Carried

10.4 SPC-16-12-04 Update on the Scoped Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment Study for the Township of Centre Wellington (Fergus Elora)

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-16-12-04. P. Ryder commented that the public consultation process is somewhat unique to the Tier 3 process and inquired if the MOECC would be funding the public component. S. Strynatka confirmed the Ministry would provide funding for the public consultation process. J. Oliver inquired who within the organization would be representing the agricultural sector. S. Strynatka responded that invitations were extended to Chamber of Commerce. The agricultural sector will be represented by D. Parker, former SPC member, and C. Richardson, a certified crop advisor.

Res. No. 32-16 Moved By L. Perrin Seconded By A. Dale

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receive report SPC-16-12-04 – Update on the Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment study for the Township of Centre Wellington (Fergus Elora) – for information.

Carried

10.5 SPC-16-12-05 Update on the Water Budget and Risk Assessment Study for the City of Guelph and Township of Guelph-Eramosa

M. Keller presented report SPC-16-12-05. K. Davis expressed support of the Tier 3 study and commended opening up the process to the community.

Res. No. 33-16 Moved By B. Ungar Seconded By P. Rider

of 51

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receive report SPC-16-12-05 – Update on the Water Budget and Risk Assessment Study for the City of Guelph and Township of Guelph-Eramosa – for information.

Carried

10.6 SPC-16-12-06 Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Comments on Bill 39 - Aggregate Resources and Mining Act, 2016

M. Keller presented report SPC-16-12-06. J. Kirchin suggested an amendment to the second clause to include the two key recommendations on page two of the report; the proposed amendment is included below.

I. Macdonald inquired whether the recommendations expressed by the committee would be more suited to a regulation as opposed to an Act. M. Keller suggested the wording change is not strong enough to become an act; the amended wording in the Act may allow it to become regulation.

G. Schneider, as a member of Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (OSSGA), respectfully did not agree with the prohibition amendment, stating that there are many examples where aggregate extraction and Source Water Protection co-exist successfully. The OSSGA supports a case-by-case information approach.

R. Haggart inquired if there was a discussion at the chairs meeting regarding this report, specifically the two included recommendations. M. Keller replied that amendments to the Aggregate Resources and Mining Act, 2016, were not discussed at the chairs meeting. W. Wright-Cascaden questioned the number of additional Source Protection Areas affected to the same extent as Lake Erie Region with respect to sand, gravel, other extractions and pressures from various sectors on this resource. G. Schneider suggested the Golden Horseshoe Area has a high demand for aggregate and a significant dependence on groundwater. W. Wright-Cascaden suggested an email forwarded to the chairs advising them of Lake Erie Region’s position and requesting their support. Lake Erie Region staff should include a copy of the amended resolution in a report to send to the Province and the Conservation Ontario Council meeting to be held Monday, December 5, 2016.

Res. No. 34-16 Moved By J. Kirchin Seconded By P. Rider

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-16-12-06 - Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Comments on Bill 39 - Aggregate Resources and Mining Act, 2016 - for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee recommends that

1. The Province should prohibit extraction within the 2-year time of travel (WHPA-A and B) of municipal drinking water wells, consistent with the advice of the 2014 Water Technical Group, a multi-ministry, stakeholder group comprised of surface and groundwater technical experts; and

of 51

2. The Province prohibit extraction below the water table where a breach of the aquitard could impact municipal drinking water sources to better protect municipal drinking water sources and prevent these sources from becoming GUDI (groundwater under direct influence).

AND THAT direct staff to submit report SPC-16-12-06 to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry through Environmental Registry Number 012-8443.

Carried, G. Schneider and B. Ungar opposed

11. Business Arising from Previous Meetings

There was no business arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

11.1 Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee request under Technical Rule 119, from February 3, 2011, Re: rehabilitation activities at an aggregate operation within a vulnerable area of a municipal drinking water system that allows ponding of water.

12. Other Business

12.1 Scheduling of Source Protection Committee Meetings

M. Keller suggested February 2, 2017 for the next Source Protection Committee meeting with quarterly meetings to follow. Lake Erie Region staff will present a report at the meeting in February to outline the revised schedule.

12.2 Question and Answer Period

13. Closed Meeting

Not applicable

14. Next SPC Meeting

February 2, 2017 at 1:00pm, Grand River Conservation Authority, 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, ON

15. Adjourn

The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of December 1, 2016 adjourned at 3:30 pm.

Res. No. 35-16 Moved By L. Perrin Seconded By M. Wales

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting of December 1, 2016 be adjourned.

Carried

_________________________

Chair

of 51

_________________________

Recording Secretary

of 51

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE MEETING

MINUTES

Date: Time: Location:

April 6, 2017 1:00 pm Auditorium Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6

Members Present W. Wright-Cascaden (Chair), H. Cornwell, K. Davis, P. General, R. Haggart, A. Henry, C. Hill, E. Hodgins, K. Hunsberger, C. Jonathan, J. Kirchin, R. Krueger, I. Macdonald, J. Oliver, L. Perrin, P. Rider, G. Schneider, B. Strauss, B. Ungar, M. Wales, P. Wilson, D. Woolcot

Members Absent A. Dale Liaisons E. Forrest (Provincial Liaison), H. Jowett (SPA Liaison) Region Management E. Van Hooren (KCCA) Proxy Representatives H. Cornwell (A. Dale) Staff N. Davy, J. Farwell, I. Feldmann, C. Jacques, M. Keller, L. Stocco, S.

Strynatka, S. Sutherland

1. Call to Order

W. Wright-Cascaden called the meeting to order at 1:00pm




W. Wright-Cascaden has been appointed Chair of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) until August 2019. There will be a number of major tasks to complete during that time including the completion of Tier 3 studies, development of water quantity policies, updating Assessment Reports and Source Protection Plans,

of 51

annual reporting and development of workplans. M. Keller and W. Wright-Cascaden attended a provincial chairs and program managers meeting in Toronto at the end of March 2017. W. Wright-Cascaden provided a few highlights from the meeting:

• the Minister reiterated that the MOECC is reviewing the possibility of multi-year funding for the Source Protection Program;

• the Ministry provided new chairs an orientation to the Clean Water Act, 2006. W. Wright-Cascaden felt the orientation would be a good resource for new SPC members and;

• attendees received a presentation on the provincial water bottling moratorium and engagement on water quantity management. Lake Erie Region will be inviting Ministry staff to the July 6, 2017 meeting to provide a similar presentation to the SPC.

E. Forrest introduced two Ministry staff members that attended the meeting: K. Baker and B. Dewsbury.

4. Review of Agenda

Res. No. 1-17 Moved By B. Ungar Seconded By B. Strauss

THAT the agenda of April 6, 2017 be approved as distributed.

Carried



6. Minutes of the Previous Meeting - December 1, 2016

Res. No. 2-17 Moved By R. Krueger Seconded By L. Perrin

THAT the minutes of the previous meeting on December 1, 2016 be approved as circulated.

Carried


7.1 County of Wellington with respect to agenda item 10. d) Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment

W. Wright-Cascaden introduced the delegation from the County of Wellington to provide comment on agenda item 10. d) Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment. The delegation included Kyle Davis, Risk Management Official, Wellington Source Water Protection and Dennis Lever, Mayor of Puslinch Township and Warden of the County of Wellington.

of 51

Following the delegation, J. Oliver asked if the email from the City of Guelph regarding Tier 3 model ownership addressed the County's concerns. K. Davis replied the County would still like to see written confirmation of model ownership from Lake Erie Region or the Province. Wellington County believes they will be able to negotiate access to the model with the City of Guelph. K. Davis asked the SPC to consider funding when talking to the Province as the models are costly to run and maintain.

A. Henry commented that the SPC has been discussing model funding and ownership for a number of years and asked if there would be an opportunity for the City of Guelph to have a royalty free license in place with all the municipalities as long as there is a substantive funding model. K. Davis and D. Lever supported A. Henry's comment. I. Macdonald was supportive of the concept of the MOECC funding Tier 3 models across the province; K. Davis agreed that model funding and maintenance was not just a local issue. D. Woolcot asked if the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) should be responsible for the model; K. Davis responded that there are contractual agreements in place that state ownership of the model. M. Keller clarified that the funding agreement between the GRCA and the City of Guelph states that the Intellectual Property (IP) remains with the City. J. Oliver asked if there was action the SPC should take moving forward; W. Wright-Cascaden replied that M. Keller would cover that question and any remaining questions through presentation SPC-17-04-04.

10. Reports


M. Keller presented report SPC-17-04-01.

Res. No. 3-17 Moved By B. Strauss Seconded By J. Oliver

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-04-01 - Source Protection Program Update - for information.

Carried

10.2 SPC-17-04-02 Water Quantity Update


J. Oliver asked when community consultation for Long Point Region (Simcoe) water quantity policies would occur. M. Keller stated that there are currently are no specific dates in place, but consultation will like occur sometime in the fall 2017. Lake Erie Region staff still need to meet with Norfolk County to discuss draft policy approaches and the timing for the public consultation process.

Res. No. 4-17 Moved By A. Henry Seconded By H. Cornwell

of 51

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receive report SPC-17-04-02 – Water Quantity Update for Long Point Region, the Town of Centre Wellington and Whitemans Creek – for information.

Carried

10.3 SPC-17-04-03 Region of Waterloo Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment


E. Hodgins was very pleased that the Region of Waterloo Tier 3 was complete considering breadth of the project and stated that it will not be a simple undertaking to include the study in the Updated Assessment Report because the entire structure of the Assessment Report will need to be revised. E. Hodgins encouraged Lake Erie Region to ask the Ministry for an extension to submit the Updated Assessment Report. J. Kirchin thanked M. Keller for the report.

H. Jowett asked if M. Keller could elaborate on the Region of Waterloo water quantity policies with regard to neighbouring communities, i.e. the City of Guelph. M. Keller felt it was premature to provide any details on the policies as this process is only just commencing. E. Hodgins added that it was too early to know details of overlap water quantity policies, but the Region may piggy-back on Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa policy development and, because the study found that the risk level for the vulnerable area is low, the policies will likely be voluntary not mandatory in nature. H. Jowett asked about the accuracy of the municipal forecasting data and M. Keller replied that the study uses the best available data but if targets and growth changes in the future, the model may need to be revaluated. E. Hodgins added that when the Grand River Tier 2 study was undertaken, water taking demands were developed from the Region's 2007 Water Supply Master Plan. However, as the Region of Waterloo Tier 3 study progressed, it became clear that that future demand diminished from the original estimate so the Region updated their Water Supply Master Plan and modified the water demand figures in the Tier 3.

Res. No. 5-17 Moved By E. Hodgins Seconded By A. Henry

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to incorporate the components of the report entitled Region of Waterloo Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment: Final Report (Matrix Solutions Inc., September 2014) into the Updated Grand River Source Protection Area Assessment Report.

Carried

10.4 SPC-17-04-04 Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment


of 51

J. Oliver noted that the Region of Waterloo Tier 3 had a decrease in future water demand whereas the Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa (GGET) Tier 3 showed a significant increase in water demand. J. Oliver asked if the same modeling method was used for both studies. M. Keller replied that future demand predictions were driven by the municipalities. E. Hodgins added that the Region of Waterloo updated its Water Supply Master Plan as the Tier 3 progressed to reflect the decrease in water demand; water demand is increasing overall but the demand decreased first before it was predicted to go up again.

K. Davis brought forward and expanded on the delegation's remaining technical concerns and asked the SPC for support to push forward the Lake Erie Source Protection workplan timeline from November 2019. K. Davis shared that one of the remaining technical concerns was related to surface water loss in the Eramosa River in the Eden Mills area. This item was discussed with provincial peer reviewers in June 2016 and although the model was accepted, the provincial peer reviewers wanted to resolve the question how much water is lost from the river and gained into the aquifer. The provincial peer reviewer comments supported some of the points brought forward by the municipal peer reviewers, e.g., H. Whiteley and D. Rudolph. K. Davis stated that if additional field work need to be conducted, then it may be best to plan for the work now as opposed to waiting until 2019.

K. Davis raised the issue of the size of the vulnerable area (WHPA-Q) and questioned whether there should be additional investigations regarding how the cones of influence that make up that vulnerable area, interact. The WHPA-Q is large because the County of Wellington's municipalities' cones of influence overlap with the City of Guelph's water takings. K. Davis citied provincial peer reviewer D. Rudolph, who suggested that additional field investigations could be completed. K. Davis requested SPC support to encourage the GGET Tier 3 project team to address the technical gaps now. M. Keller was happy to hear that the County of Wellington did not want to delay the completion of the Tier 3 and that moving forward, it is important that the SPC see the water quantity policies developed and the Updated Grand River Source Protection Plan submitted. M. Keller added that Lake Erie Region is open to discussing with the MOECC if some of those additional studies would be considered.

A. Henry was in favour of the GGET Tier 3 but also emphasized the importance of pushing the MOECC to develop sustainable model management. W. Wright-Cascaden responded that SPC chairs from across the Province have been advocating for sustainable model management, i.e., sustainable funding, for some time.

I. Macdonald stated that a number of the concerns brought forward by K. Davis had not been addressed. K. Davis then proceeded to review the delegation summary slides with the SPC. M. Keller commented that the delegation's request for funding for additional studies is a discussion that Lake Erie Region would be happy to facilitate with the Province, but there is no funding under the current 2017/18 agreement. K. Baker added that the MOECC will be reluctant to consider funding the identified gaps until water quantity policy direction is established and any additional field work funding would require a very strong case. The significant risk level assigned to the Vulnerable Area is no longer triggered just because of uncertainty, but triggered by the Queensdale well. W.

of 51

Wright-Cascaden stated that it may be premature to prioritize those additional studies until the GGET Risk Management Measures Process (RMMEP) and policy development is complete - additional field work could be part of the next round of updates. K. Davis replied that the County of Wellington is asking to begin to talk about and collect information for those additional studies now as opposed to in 2019. L. Perrin asked the SPC if it were not reasonable to vote on the recommendation presented in the report, then bring forward another motion advocating for the requests brought forward by the delegation. R. Haggart agreed that the SPC should move forward with the recommendation then address the delegation's concerns as a second part of the discussion.

Res. No. 6-17 Moved By A. Henry Seconded By I. Macdonald

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to incorporate the components of the report entitled Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment: Final Report (Matrix Solutions Inc., March 2017) into the Updated Grand River Source Protection Area Assessment Report.

Carried

R. Haggart began the second part of the discussion by commenting that for the SPC to make a recommendation at this point in time would be premature and detrimental to the process. M. Keller commented that Lake Erie Region has funding in place for the 2017/18 fiscal; staff will present more details on the Grand River and Long Point Region workplan at the July 6, 2017 SPC meeting. E. Hodgins supported R. Haggart's comments and felt that it was appropriate to include the request for additional studies in the broader work-planning. K. Davis was understanding of the members’ comments and asked M. Keller if the workplan that will be brought to the SPC in July would examine and incorporate the gaps identified. M. Keller replied that would have to be looked at more closely but there is no official window to bring the additional studies forward any sooner than November 2019. The workplan mentioned before was in reference to work that will be completed within the 2017/18 fiscal.

The SPC proceeded to discuss funding for public consultation. M. Keller shared that Lake Erie Region is committed to continue with the RMMEP collaboratively and undertake a consultative process; Lake Erie Region is also committed to an inclusive policy development process but that may not occur in the 2017/18 fiscal year. Lake Erie Region does not have funding committed from the Province beyond March 2018. The policy development team will consider employment growth during the policy development process and strive for a balanced approach.

Lake Erie Region will investigate if there is an opportunity for municipalities to participate in the consultation process on changes to the water quantity technical rules. With respect to Tier 3 model access, discussions have been initiated among the model owners, Lake Erie Region and the MOECC to begin reviewing the current framework for access to models.

of 51

W. Wright-Cascaden asked the committee if they would like to take further action on the requests brought forward by the delegation. J. Oliver did not feel that a motion was required. R. Haggart suggested that the SPC receive the requests and concerns for staff to consider. D. Woolcot was disturbed that the Tier 3 model may not be available to those who need it, was disappointed to know that the Region of Waterloo Tier 3 and the GGET Tier 3 used a different methodology and felt that changes to the technical rules appear to be retroactive. D. Woolcot also expressed a concern with the term "fit for purpose", felt that the executive summary did not align with the full technical report and was of the opinion that the points brought forward by the County of Wellington needed to be addressed. D. Woolcot was unsure that the project was moving in a forward direction after reading the full technical report.

E. Hodgins commented that model ownership is a funding issue and the points brought forward in the delegation's summary slides should be pushed forward to the future workplan. E. Hodgins argued that conservatism underpins the whole approach to the Source Protection Program; it would be difficult to make the argument to change the way the program deals with low water responses, for example, without undermining the integrity of Source Protection as a whole. Although there is conservatism, it gets projects and studies to a significant point where all those involved can work through some of the challenges. The Province's tweaking of the technical rules is not bad considering the uncertainty of water.

W. Wright-Cascaden stated that Lake Erie Region staff will bring back the requests brought forward by the delegation and discussed by the SPC, when it is more appropriate to address them.

10.5 SPC-17-04-05 Annual Progress Reporting Update

I. Feldmann presented report SPC-17-04-05.

*J. Oliver left the meeting at 3:05pm *G. Schneider left the meeting at 3:30pm

R. Krueger asked if Lake Erie Region had received all the annual reporting templates; M. Keller responded that all required reports have been submitted. E. Forrest added that last year (February 2016) only a few ministries reported on time. As a result, the MOECC facilitated the process by developing standardized templates and ensuring that they were submitted on time. J. Kirchin asked if specific municipal results would be provided in the Lake Erie Region Report Cards. M. Keller replied that discussions regarding the content of the report cards began roughly a year ago with the Implementation Working Group (IWG). IWG members indicated during more recent discussions that they would prefer that the information be presented at the watershed level. K. Davis commented that because municipalities report to their councils on Source Water Protection, it would be beneficial to think about ways to link council reports to the report cards. A. Henry agreed with Lake Erie Region's annual reporting approach to take it one step at a time.

Res. No. 7-17 Moved By A. Henry Seconded By R. Krueger

of 51

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-04-05 - Annual Progress Reporting Update - for information.

Carried

10.6 SPC-17-04-06 Proposed Source Protection Meeting Schedule



THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-04-06 – Proposed Source Protection Committee Meeting Schedule - for information.

Carried




E. Forrest shared that review of the Aggregate Resources Act was still ongoing. The Ministry is waiting on the review and any proposed changes that may be made.

15. Adjourn

The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of April 6, 2017 adjourned at 4:10pm.

Res. No. 9-17 Moved By I. Macdonald Seconded By L. Perrin

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting of April 6, 2017 be adjourned.

Carried

_________________________ Chair _________________________ Recording Secretary

of 51

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES Date: Time: Location:

July 6, 2017 1:00 pm Auditorium Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6

Members Present W. Wright-Cascaden (Chair), H. Cornwell, A. Dale, K. Davis, P.

General, R. Haggart, K. Hunsberger, R. Krueger, I. Macdonald, T. Nevills, J. Oliver, P. Rider, G. Schneider, B. Strauss, B. Ungar, M. Wales, P. Wilson, D. Woolcot

Members Absent

A. Henry, C. Hill, E. Hodgins, C. Jonathan, J. Kirchin, L. Perrin,

Liaisons

K. Baker (Provincial Liaison), H. Jowett (SPA Liaison), C. Komorowski (Public Health Liaison)

Region Management

C. Evanitski (LPRCA), N. Haydt (LPRCA Chair), K. Smale (CCCA)

Proxy Representatives A. Henry (B. Ungar), C. Hill (P. General), E. Hodgins (P. Rider), J. Kirchin (R. Haggart)

Staff

A. Best, I. Feldmann, M. Keller, S. Strynatka

1. Call to Order

W. Wright-Cascaden called the meeting to order at 1:00pm.




W. Wright-Cascaden introduced the Source Protection Committee's (SPC) new public interest member, Tom Nevills. Introduction of SPC members followed. W. Wright-Cascaden noted that E. Forrest was absent and that K. Baker would be representing the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change at the committee table.

of 51

J. Oliver acknowledged N. Haydt - recently elected Chair of the Long Point Region Conservation Authority Board.

W. Wright-Cascaden explained the role of the attending conservation authority liaison members and introductions followed.

W. Wright-Cascaden commented that there were still two vacant SPC seats; the goal is to have them filled by fall 2017. At a recent program manager and chairs meeting, the Ministry provided a very useful presentation/orientation about the source protection program. W. Wright-Cascaden felt that sharing a similar presentation with the committee at the September 2017 meeting would be beneficial for all members.

W. Wright-Cascaden noted changes to the content and structure of the source protection program update report and requested member feedback on the new approach.

4. Review of Agenda


THAT the agenda of July 6, 2017 be approved as distributed.

Carried



6. Minutes of the Previous Meeting - April 6, 2017

Res. No. 11-17 Moved By M. Wales Seconded By J. Oliver

THAT the minutes of the previous meeting on April 6, 2017 be approved as circulated.

Carried


None

8. Presentations

E. Ammentorp provided a presentation about actions to protect drinking water in Ontario with a focus on the water bottling moratorium.

P. Rider commented that the list of provincial objectives outlined in the presentation was lengthy and asked how many full time staff are working on the initiative. E. Ammentorp replied that several divisions are involved. Within water policy specifically, there are three or four people, however they are also working on other projects. P. Rider felt that it was a tall order to achieve all the objectives. E. Ammentorp commented that the Ministry hopes to have a plan of what needs to be done within two years, e.g., what should replace high use watersheds.

of 51

B. Ungar questioned how the Ministry will monitor and audit industry water takings. E. Ammentorp replied that industries already track their takings and privately report to the Ministry - now that reporting will be public. E. Ammentorp added that the comment on how industries will be audited will be brought back to the Ministry's enforcement group.

A. Dale commented that the moratorium only applies to water bottlers that use their own wells, not municipal wells; E. Ammentorp replied that the statement was correct. A. Dale provided an example of a municipality that encouraged residents to conserve water and as a result revenues decreased, then a private water company asked to buy the municipality's water. A. Dale found that example interesting and questioned if a water bottling company that uses municipal sources is still considered a consumptive taking.

J. Oliver commented that in 2005/2006, the Ministry imposed a High Water Use designation in the Long Point Region watershed. However, at the end of the Tier 3 process, only one municipal supply in Simcoe was identified as having a significant water quantity risk. Despite the Tier 3 results, the Ministry has not removed the High Water Use designation. J. Oliver asked if removal of the designation had been discussed at the provincial level. E. Ammentorp commented that it has been discussed, specifically how to analyze updated data and policy aspects. J. Oliver reiterated the need for the Ministry to acknowledge that the science is updated and that the designation should be removed.

K. Davis asked for more detail regarding ongoing engagement on activities during the moratorium. E. Ammentorp shared that during the review process letters will be going out to several municipalities to ask to be involved, including Wellington County and the City of Guelph.

H. Cornwell asked if bottled water was an export commodity, i.e., sold out of the country. E. Ammentorp could not speak to that question. I. Macdonald asked why some water takers were singled out by the Ministry as opposed to others. E. Ammentorp replied that the technical guidance that will be developed would apply to all water bottlers and large bottling companies, like Nestle Waters Canada, would be used as a guideline for others.

9. Correspondence

9.1 RE: Rehabilitation Activities at an Aggregate Operation

Correspondence from Peter Rider, Risk Management Official, City of Guelph and Dave Belanger, Water Supply Program Manager, City of Guelph to Wendy Wright-Cascaden, Lake Erie Source Protection Region Committee Chair.

P. Rider outlined the details of the correspondence. G. Schneider was supportive of the correspondence and request for a response from the Ministry. K. Davis noted that in the original 2011 letter to the Province, Wellington County municipalities were not in the list of municipalities in which the local threat would apply. M. Keller replied that at the time Wellington County systems were not considered; they were not relevant.

Res. No. 12-17 Moved By P. Rider Seconded By R. Haggart

THAT the correspondence be received as information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to write a letter to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to ask the Ministry to

of 51

provide the Committee an update at its September meeting on the Committee’s request under Technical Rule 119, from February 3, 2011, regarding rehabilitation activities at an aggregate operation within a vulnerable area of a municipal drinking water system that allows ponding of water in light of the amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act and how the Ministry will be responding to the February 3, 2011 request.

Carried

10. Reports



Res. No. 13-17 Moved By R. Krueger Seconded By B. Ungar

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-01 – Source Protection Program Update – for information.

Carried

10.2 SPC-17-07-02 Progress Report Long Point Region AR and SPP Update

M. Keller presented report SPC-17-07-02. J. Oliver asked for Lake Erie Region feedback regarding public involvement at the June 26, 2017 Simcoe public open house. M. Keller responded that Councillor Peter Black and journalist Jeff Tribe attended as well as three additional public members.

Res. No. 14-17 Moved By J. Oliver Seconded By P. Rider

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-02 – Progress Report Long Point Region Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan Update – for information

Carried

10.3 SPC-17-07-03 Delhi Water Quality Technical Study

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-17-07-03. A. Dale commented that the vulnerability of Lehman Reservoir was a concern several years ago and that with the addition of new wells, they are planning to phase it out; J. Oliver confirmed A. Dale's assessment.

Res. No. 15-17 Moved By I. Macdonald Seconded By T. Nevills

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-03 – Delhi Water Quality Technical Study - for information.

of 51

Carried

10.4 SPC-17-07-04 Norfolk County Draft Water Quantity Policy Approaches

M. Keller presented report SPC-17-07-04. M. Wales raised concern regarding the Permit To Take Water (PTTW) for livestock farms. M. Keller responded that there are no agricultural lands in the Simcoe WHPA-Q but will bring back the comment to the policy development team for consideration. K. Baker commented that if a PTTW were required, that there would be discussions with the Ministry ahead of the permit approval. M. Keller added that water quantity policies developed for Simcoe would not add additional requirements.

J. Oliver thought M. Wales made a good point and stated that the Simcoe WHPA-Q area is mostly residential. J. Oliver asked how water takings from private shallows wells are addressed and if the Ministry would be able to regulate those takings if requested through Simcoe water quantity policies. M. Keller responded that as part of the Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process (RMMEP) it was determined that private shallow wells, as a potential threat, fell to the bottom of the risk ranking, i.e., shallow wells were not considered a driver of the significant risk assigned to the Simcoe WHPA-Q. K. Baker added that although it is good to technically evaluate the impact of private wells on supplies, the Province does not have the ability to prohibit private takings. Under the Municipal Act, the municipality has legal authority to enact by-laws to prohibit private takings in serviced areas. J. Oliver asked if there were any known municipal examples where incentives had been used successfully to decrease consumption. M. Keller was unaware of any examples and added that the policy development team will work with Norfolk County when drafting water quantity policies to see if incentives would be valuable.

B. Strauss shared that the Region of Waterloo has rain barrel incentives. H. Jowett added that the Region has strategic water initiatives. P. Rider commented that the City of Guelph also offers incentives for reducing water consumption and changing public behaviour.

Res. No. 16-17 Moved By B. Strauss Seconded By M. Wales

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-04 –Draft Water Quantity Policy Approaches for Simcoe (Norfolk County) – for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to develop draft water quantity policies for Norfolk County.

Carried

10.5 SPC-17-07-05 Progress Report Grand River AR and SPP Update

M. Keller presented report SPC-17-07-05. D. Woolcot commented on the length of time that is required for a Tier 3 study to be completed and how development cannot occur during that time. M. Keller replied that a Tier 3 study does not

of 51

restrict development from occurring while the study is taking place. W. Wright-Cascaden added that municipal growth management plans plan for growth for about 20 years, therefore it would be unusual to come up against a single development project. D. Woolcot commented that waiting four years before a water budget study is complete is not appealing to developers.

H. Jowett asked if Lake Erie Region was coordinating and monitoring data among municipalities evaluating their water supply that have different timelines. M. Keller replied that Tier 3 studies are complex and not always completed quickly, particularly in an area such as Lake Erie Source Protection Region which has one of the greatest growth pressures in the Province.

K. Baker commented that the Province hopes that source protection information can be used to better inform water resource challenges more broadly. Moving forward, model management should help the addition of new wells to be much faster and more transparent. Also, there are a number of efforts to build on a coordinated land review to provide better linkages between growth and water supply. Growth in the Lake Erie Region was one of the triggers that led to the water bottling moratorium.

K. Davis shared that the Grand River Tier 2 study identified Centre Wellington as having a moderate potential for hydrologic stress. This classification triggered the Tier 3 process for the Township of Centre Wellington. K. Davis noted that although the Minister's Grand River Source Protection Plan approval letter outlined December 31, 2017 as the deadline for completing new updates to the Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan, Lake Erie Region had not sent the Ministry an official request for an extension. M. Keller replied that an official extension had not been requested nor will it be as Lake Erie Region received funding for technical work beyond the submission deadline. K. Baker added that the deadline in the approval letter was a strongly worded request but not legally required, and hoped that technical work would be completed by the end of this fiscal. Given work on the moratorium, the Province is interested in adhering to the planned timeline. K. Baker was aware that Centre Wellington Tier 3 study would not be completed and included in the updated Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan by the December 2017 deadline, but that funding for technical work would be finished by the end of the fiscal.

Res. No. 17-17 Moved By M. Wales Seconded By A. Dale

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-05 – Progress Report Grand River Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan – for information.

Carried

10.6 SPC-17-07-06 Airport Water Quality Technical Study

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-17-07-06.

of 51

Res. No. 18-17 Moved By B. Strauss Seconded By R. Haggart

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-06 – Airport Water Quality Technical Study - for information.

Carried

10.7 SPC-17-07-07 Draft Lake Erie Source Protection Region Annual Report

I. Feldmann presented report SPC-17-07-07. J. Oliver liked the layout and visuals of the draft annual report and asked if there were any attempt across the Province to develop something similar. M. Keller responded that right now the draft annual report is purely Lake Erie Region-specific and is complimentary to provincial annual progress reporting requirements. The eight-page, public facing annual progress report produced by the Ministry will however be consistent and used across the Province by other Source Protection Regions.

Res. No. 19-17 Moved By A. Dale Seconded By R. Krueger

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-07-07 – Draft Lake Erie Source Protection Region Annual Report - for information.

Carried

10.8 SPC-17-07-08 EBR Comments - Record of Site Condition


Res. No. 20-17 Moved By G. Schneider Seconded By B. Strauss

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to submit a letter to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change with respect to EBR Registry Number 013-0299 Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal in support of staff comments sent June 23, 2017 to include source protection matters in Ontario Regulation 153/04

Carried




of 51

12. Other Business


None

13. Closed Meeting

Not applicable


September 7, 2017 at 1:00pm, Grand River Conservation Authority, 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, ON

15. Adjourn

The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of July 6, 2017 adjourned at 3:45pm.


THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting of July 6, 2017 be adjourned.

Carried

_________________________

Chair

_________________________

Recording Secretary

of 51

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES Date: Time: Location:

September 7, 2017 1:00 pm Auditorium Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6

Members Present W. Wright-Cascaden (Chair), B. Carberry, A. Dale, K. Davis, P.

General, A. Henry, C. Hill, E. Hodgins, K. Hunsberger, C. Jonathan, J. Kirchin, R. Krueger, I. Macdonald, T. Nevills, J. Oliver, P. Rider, G. Schneider, B. Strauss, B. Ungar, M. Wales, D. Woolcot

Members Absent

H. Cornwell, R. Haggart, L. Perrin, P. Wilson,

Liaisons E. Forrest (Provincial Liaison),

Region Management

C. Evanitski (LPRCA)

Proxy Representatives H. Cornwell (A. Dale), R. Haggart (P. General), L. Perrin (A. Henry), P. Wilson (J. Oliver)

Staff

J. Farwell, I. Feldmann, E. Hayman, M. Keller, S. Strynatka

1. Call to Order

W. Wright-Cascaden called the meeting to order at 1:00pm.


The Recording Secretary called the roll and certified a quorum with 20 members present, four absent and four proxies.


W. Wright-Cascaden welcomed B. Carberry to the committee as the new agricultural representative and noted that T. Nevills was also recently appointed.

of 51

Work is ongoing to appoint a municipal representative for Wellington, Dufferin, Southgate, and Halton municipalities (Group 1) led by the Township of Centre Wellington. In the interim K. Davis is acting as a temporary non-voting member on the committee. Lake Erie Region staff hope to have a full complement of members in time for the December 7, 2017 committee meeting. B. Carberry introduced himself to the committee and a round table of introductions followed.

A. Dale shared the Ontario Federation of Agriculture magazine "In Sight", featuring K. Hunsberger, with committee members.

4. Review of Agenda

M. Keller introduced E. Hayman, Lake Erie Region's new Source Water Protection Hydrogeologist.

Res. No. 22-17 Moved By M. Wales Seconded By A. Henry

THAT the agenda of September 7, 2017 be approved as distributed.

Carried



6. Minutes of the Previous Meeting – July 6, 2017


THAT the minutes of the previous meeting on July 6, 2017 be approved as circulated.

Carried


None

8. Presentations

8.1 Source Water Protection 101

E. Forrest provided an overview presentation on the Source Water Protection Program. A more detailed version of the presentation will be provided to the committee at a later date and posted on the September 7, 2017 eScribe meeting site.

8.2 County of Wellington with Respect to Chloride Monitoring Program Results in Well E3 in Elora

K. Davis presented the results of the County of Wellington’s (Elora) chloride issue monitoring program.

of 51

A. Dale asked if well F7 is in close proximity to well F6. K. Davis replied that F7 is about 5km west of F6. Recent increases in chloride concentrations at F7 prompted the addition of well F7 to the monitoring program in 2017.

P. Rider asked if any of the wells are identified as GUDI; K. David responded that none of the wells are identified as GUIDI. K. Davis shared that when pumping was increased at well F1, concentrations of chloride increased; when F6 and E3 increased pumping, chloride decreased in each well. Additionally, the source of the chloride is different among the monitored wells.

J. Oliver asked if the bedrock is a potential source of chloride in well F6 and if anything could be done to address the issue. K. Davis replied that well F6 chloride concentrations are lower than in wells E3 and F1 and with regard to the technical rules, there are no options to address bedrock sources. As a result, the Township has decided to focus on wells F6 and E3. M. Keller confirmed that under the technical rules, the source of chloride needs to be anthropogenic for it to be identified as an Issue. J. Oliver questioned why the Township is planning to continue to monitor well F6 if policies cannot be developed. K. Davis commented that the Township may scale back sampling at well F6 at some point in time.

W. Wright-Cascaden requested that Lake Erie Region staff provide a report to the committee before the end of the year describing the status of the chloride issue in well E3 and next steps in the source protection process.

9. Correspondence

9.3 RE: Rehabilitation Activities at an Aggregate Operation

W. Wright-Cascaden shared that Heather Malcolmson, Director of the Source Protection Program Branch, extended an invitation to Chair and members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee to meet with staff of the Ministries of the Environment and Climate Change and Natural Resources and Forestry in October 2017 to discuss the committee's concerns. W. Wright-Cascaden expressed interest in attending such a meeting and shared that senior staff of the GRCA would also interested in attending. P. Rider, G. Schneider and B. Ungar expressed interest in attending the meeting; the committee was satisfied with the proposed delegation. E. Forrest commented that she would find out how many additional members could attend the meeting. W. Wright-Cascaden extended her thanks to H. Malcolmson for responding to the committee.

Res. No. 24-17 Moved By J. Oliver Seconded By R. Krueger

THAT the correspondence be received as information.

Carried

10. Reports



of 51

Res. No. 25-17 Moved By A. Dale Seconded By B. Ungar

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-01 – Source Protection Program Update – for information.

Carried

10.2 SPC-17-09-02 Progress Report Long Point Region


Res. No. 26-17 Moved By R. Krueger Seconded By J. Kirchin

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-02 – Progress Report Long Point Region – for information.

Carried

10.3 SPC-17-09-03 Simcoe Water Quality Technical Study

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-17-09-03. B. Ungar questioned the changes in vulnerability score for the Northwest wellfield. S. Strynatka explained that in the Northwest wellfield, the intrinsic vulnerability shifts from low to medium vulnerability within the WHPA –D. This change in vulnerability is related to the geology of the area and the degree of protection to the underlying aquifer. In WHPA-D a low intrinsic vulnerability rating translates to a vulnerability score of 2, and where the intrinsic vulnerability shifts to a medium rating, the vulnerability score for WHPA-D is 4.

J. Oliver asked what triggered the Simcoe technical study and whether it is mandatory to conduct a study if there is new information. M. Keller responded that initiating a study is to some degree discretionary. In the case of Simcoe, Lake Erie Region did not want two different model interpretations, one for quality and one for quantity. Water quality updates used the Tier 3 model because it is more refined. J. Oliver asked what the expense incurred was to update the WHPAs. S. Strynatka replied it was an additional expense of $45,000. J. Oliver noted that the new WHPAs have more significant threat activities but fewer properties than the previous delineation. J. Oliver asked to be notified when significant drinking water threat notification letters are sent to property owners in the County of Norfolk.

A. Dale commented that some municipalities often alter their pumping rates and questioned how and if property owners should be notified if WHPAs are always changing. S. Strynatka replied that a change in pumping rate does not facilitate a re-evaluation of a WHPA.

Res. No. 27-17 Moved By A. Henry Seconded By B. Strauss

of 51

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-03 – Simcoe Water Quality WHPA Update Technical Study - for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to incorporate the results of the Simcoe Water Quality WHPA Update Technical Study into the Draft Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report.

Carried

10.4 SPC-17-09-04 Waterford Water Quality Technical Study

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-17-09-04.

Res. No. 28-17 Moved By T. Nevills Seconded By I. Macdonald

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-04 – Waterford Water Quality WHPA Update Technical Study - for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to incorporate the results of the Waterford Water Quality WHPA Update Technical Study into the Draft Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report.

Carried

10.5 SPC-17-09-05 Richmond Nitrate Issue Identification, Issue Contributing Area Delineation and Policy Changes

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-17-09-05. B. Ungar commented that synthetic fertilizers are not likely used near the Richmond WHPA. S. Strynatka shared that the Risk Management Official for Bayham has been in contact with the farmer with property adjacent to the WHPA and that farmer has agreed to not apply any fertilizers in the WHPA-A. Nitrate monitoring results from early 2017 show reduced nitrate concentrations in one of the two wells of the Richmond wellfield. B. Ungar suggested that Lake Erie Region consult with the other farmers with property located in the ICA. S. Strynatka added that Lake Erie Region, in consultation with the RMO, decided to implement Risk Management Plans (RMPs) in WHPA-B of the ICA. P. Rider commented on the health risks associated with high levels of nitrate in drinking water. S. Strynatka replied that the results presented are raw data - the drinking water is treated for nitrate.

T. Nevills asked if the policy could define specifically the kind of fertilizer that is may be prohibited or would require an RMP. M. Keller responded that staff will contact the Ministry to see if fertilizer can be further specified beyond the prescribed drinking water threat "commercial fertilizer". M. Keller agreed that the policy should specify nitrate fertilizer. T. Nevills asks how long one should monitor a well if it has a high level of nitrate. M. Keller replied that the Richmond

of 51

wellfield was once a communal system; now it is a municipal system and is addressed through the source protection program. The municipality has a treatment system to remove nitrate, however, there is a cost to the municipality. The Source Protection program could help the municipality by reducing the amount of nitrate it needs to remove through treatment. A nitrate monitoring policy is currently in place to ensure sufficient data is available to make informed policy decisions.

E. Hodgins noted that the wells are GUDI but do not have a WHPA-E delineated. S. Strynatka replied that in 2015 it was determined that there was no surface water feature nearby that warranted the delineation of a WHPA-E. E. Hodgins asked why the ICA was delineated in WHPA-A and B versus the entire WHPA area. M. Keller responded that education and outreach efforts already occur in WHPAs A-D. WHPA-A and B were only included in the ICA because the RMO believes the nitrate is coming from the adjacent field, the pumping rates of the wells are quite low and the uncertainty of the influence of areas in WHPA-C and D is high.

A. Dale questioned why the wells are considered GUDI when there are no water bodies associated with the wells. S. Strynatka and M. Keller replied that the Richmond wellfield has shallow unconfined wells, which makes them GUDI, and nearby creeks are too far away to have a direct connection to the wells.

Res. No. 29-17 Moved By A. Dale Seconded By R. Krueger

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-05 – Richmond Nitrate Issue Identification, Issue Contributing Area Delineation and Policy Changes - for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee support the staff recommendation that nitrate be identified as an Issue under Technical Rule 114 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, a nitrate issue contributing area (ICA) be delineated for the Richmond wellfield and draft updated significant drinking water threat policies be included in the Draft Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee recommends that the Municipality of Bayham continue to monitor and report on nitrate concentrations at the Richmond wellfield in accordance with Long Point Region Source Protection Plan policy EC-CW-1.14.

Carried

10.6 SPC-17-09-06 Norfolk County Draft Water Quantity Policies

M. Keller presented report SPC-17-09-06. A. Henry questioned if the policy applicability map essentially depicts just the WHPA-Q1 and if it should delineate the serviced area. M. Keller agreed that the map should also depict the serviced area.

of 51

D. Woolcot discussed the implications that the proposed land use planning policy may have on new developments that require a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) in the WHPA-Q. A. Henry commented that not all water takings require a PTTW and felt land use planning policy 16.2 was appropriate. J. Oliver added that the land in the WHPA-Q catchment area is mostly developed. J. Oliver supported the policy language as did Norfolk council.

P. Rider commented that policy 16.6 (Tier 3 model funding) is a "nice to have" and questioned how the model will be maintained if the Ministry does not provide financial support. M. Keller replied that it will be important to have those discussions and to develop a framework for managing models. Lake Erie Region currently does not have any financial commitment from the Ministry to support and fund Tier 3 models. K. Davis noted that the policy is similar to a CTC Source Protection Region policy which requests funding for Tier 3 models - CTC has not heard any response from the Ministry with regard to that policy. E. Forrest commented that the Ministry is currently reviewing non-legally binding policies across the Province to determine which can be implemented - the list includes policies to fund managing Tier 3 models.

A. Henry and J. Oliver left the meeting at 3:23pm.

Res. No. 30-17 Moved By J. Oliver Seconded By J. Kirchin

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-06 –Norfolk County Draft Water Quantity Policies – for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to include the draft water quantity policies for Norfolk County in the Draft Updated Long Point Region Source Protection Plan.

Carried

10.7 SPC-17-09-07 Progress Report Grand River


G. Schneider left the meeting at 3:34pm.

Res. No. 31-17 Moved By B. Strauss Seconded By M. Wales

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-07 – Progress Report Grand River – for information.

Carried

10.8 SPC-17-09-08 Inclusion of Optional Reportable in Annual Progress Reporting Supplemental Form

I. Feldmann presented report SPC-17-09-08.

of 51

Res. No. 32-17 Moved By A. Dale Seconded By B. Ungar

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-17-09-08 –Inclusion of Optional Reportable from Annual Progress Reporting Supplemental form - for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to include Annual Progress Report Supplemental Form reportable #36 in Lake Erie Region’s 2017 Municipal Annual Report template and future templates.

Carried




P. Rider suggested that agenda item 11.1 continue to be included in future SPC agendas.

12. Other Business


None

13. Closed Meeting

Not applicable


October 5, 2017 at 1:00pm, Long Point Region Conservation Authority, 4 Elm St., Tillsonburg, ON N4G 0C4

15. Adjourn

The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of September 7, 2017 adjourned at 3:45pm.

Res. No. 33-17 Moved By P. General Seconded by T. Nevills

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting of September 7, 2017 be adjourned.

Carried

of 51

_________________________

Chair

_________________________

Recording Secretary

of 51

DATE: October 6, 2017

TO: Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority

FROM: Elizabeth VanHooren

SUBJECT: 2016 Proposed Kettle Creek Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority approve the 2016 Kettle Creek Annual Report.

BACKGROUND:

Lake Erie Region is aiming to produce four Lake Erie Source Protection Region Annuals Reports, one for each watershed, to compliment the provincially‐required annual progress reports. The purpose of the Lake Erie Region annual reports is to provide a snapshot of the program’s progress in all four watersheds. Provincial annual reporting requirements for the Lake Erie Region to the Province will start in May 2018 for Kettle Creek and Catfish Creek and May 2019 for Long Point Region and Grand River.

Proposed Kettle Creek Annual Report

Following the September 7, 2017 Source Protection Committee meeting Lake Erie Region and Kettle Creek Conservation Authority staff further reviewed the template and made changes to the content and parameters of the report so that they more accurately reflect the on‐the‐ground implementation efforts in the Kettle Creek watershed; a number of the reportable outcomes were not applicable (only two significant drinking water threats were enumerated at the time of plan approval) or were skewed by the Source Protection Area’s (SPA) unique circumstances. A few new parameters were developed, additional content added and the format restructured to paint a more accurate picture of progress in the Kettle Creek SPA. The proposed annual report was brought to the September 27, 2017 Implementation Working Group for their review; and the October 5 Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting. The Proposed 2016 Kettle Creek Annual Report is attached.

Moving forward, Lake Erie Source Protection Region Annual Reports are aimed to be completed and released to the public in May of each year, in conjunction with the reporting deadline to the MOECC. In May 2018, Lake Erie Region will produce two annual reports (Kettle Creek and Catfish Creek). The annual reports for the Long Point Region and Grand River will be produced for the May 2019 reporting to the Province.

While not required to at this time, once approved by the KCSPA it would be the intention of KCCA staff to work with the Municipality of Central Elgin to release the annual report to the public.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority approve the 2016 Kettle Creek Annual Report.

of 51

2016 Annual Report Kettle Creek Source Protection Area

www.sourcewater.ca

of 51

This page is intentionally left blank.

of 51

2016 ANNUAL REPORT | KETTLE CREEK SOURCE PROTECTION AREA | WWW.SOURCEWATER.CA

Kettle Creek Source

Protection Area

2016

Annual

Report Kettle Creek’s 2016 Annual

Report is a reflection of Source

Water Protection Program

implementation efforts and

more broadly, a snapshot of

the program’s progress in the

Kettle Creek watershed.

This is the first Annual Report on

the progress of the Source

Water Protection Program in the

Kettle Creek Source Protection

Area.

This report is produced by the

Lake Erie Source Protection

Region and written for the

citizens of the Kettle Creek

watershed, the Lake Erie Region

Source Protection Committee,

and local stakeholders.

The report uses seven Source

Water Protection Program

categories developed by the

Ministry of the Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC). The

categories help tell the story of

progress towards full

implementation of Source

Protection Plans and the

protection of municipal drinking

water sources.

We acknowledge and recognize

the tremendous efforts made by

our local municipalities,

stakeholders, and the Source

Protection Committee in the

development of the Source

Protection Plans,

implementation of Source Water

Protection policies, and

development of this annual

report.

Clean Water Act

The Ontario government passed

the Clean Water Act in 2006 to

implement some of the

recommendations of the

Walkerton Inquiry. The Clean

Water Act ensures communities

protect their drinking water

supplies through prevention - by

developing collaborative,

watershed-based Source

Protection Plans that are locally

driven and based on science.

Source Water

Protection Program

The Clean Water Act led to the

creation of the Source

Protection Program, establishing

Source Protection Regions and

Source Protection Areas. Ontario

has 19 Source Protection

Regions and 38 Source

Protection Areas. The goal of the

program is to protect current

and future municipal drinking

MAP OF THE KETTLE CREEK SOURCE PROTECTION AREA

1

of 51


2

water sources from

contamination and overuse by

developing collaborative,

watershed-based Source

Protection Plans. A Source

Protection Plan is the first

barrier in a multi-barrier

approach.

The Lake Erie Region is made up

of four watersheds or Source

Protection Areas: Grand River,

Long Point Region, Catfish

Creek, and Kettle Creek. Each

watershed has its own Source

Protection Plan. The Kettle

Creek Source Protection Plan

(the Plan) was approved on

September 11, 2014 and took

effect January 1, 2015.

Kettle Creek Source

Protection Area

The Kettle Creek Source

Protection Area includes Kettle

Creek and its tributaries. They

drain 520 square kilometres of

agricultural and urban lands

before entering Lake Erie at Port

Stanley. The area includes parts

of Elgin County, Middlesex

County, the City of St. Thomas,

and City of London.

Two municipal drinking water

systems serve the communities

of the watershed: a well system

in Belmont and the Elgin Area

Primary Water Supply System

(EAPWSS) in Port Stanley. The

Plan established policies to

address significant drinking

water threats for both systems.

Only two existing significant

drinking water threats (SDWT)

were identified in the Kettle

Creek Source Protection Area

when the Plan took effect, both

within the EAPWSS. Since that

time, both threats have been

addressed: one no longer exists

and the other was managed

through a Risk Management

Plan.

Due to the low number of

significant threats, many of the

policies in the Plan focus on

education and outreach efforts

and prohibition of future

activities that may become

significant drinking water

threats.

Outcomes presented in this

Annual Report are directly

influenced by the relatively small

size of the Source Protection

Area, recent implementation of

the program, and the current

number of significant drinking

water threats.

Population: 52,000

Size: 520km2

Drinking Water Systems: 2

Municipal Wells and Intakes: 2

SDWTs at Plan Approval: 2

SDWTs Addressed: 2

KETTLE CREEK QUICK FACTS

Township of Malahide

Implementing Bodies: 3*

Municipality of Thames Centre

Municipality of Central Elgin

*Elgin County has not been included as it is

only responsible for implementing one policy.

LOCATION OF MUNICIPAL WELLS AND INTAKE

of 51


Method of Evaluation

The Source Protection Program’s

progress in the Kettle Creek

Source Protection Area is

measured through a Program

Assessment – a high-level

evaluation tool developed by

the MOECC for implementation

reporting purposes.

This report showcases a

selection of annual reporting

results that measure policy

implementation efforts made

from January 1 to December 31,

2016. The annual reporting

results or hereon ‘outcomes,’ are

sorted according to the

implementation category they

best describe, e.g. Knowledge

and Tools. The implementation

categories in this report

progress from short-term to

medium-term, then long-term.

The outcomes that are

showcased in this report were

chosen to highlight progress

made during initial

implementation of the Plan.

Want More Detail?

The 2016 Kettle Creek Annual

Report Supporting Document

includes additional details,

methodology, and rationale for

the Kettle Creek 2016 Annual

Report framework and program

assessment.

Find out more information

about the Source Water

Protection Program and what’s

happening in the Lake Erie

Source Protection Region at

sourcewater.ca.

Program Assessment

Measure of the Program’s Progress in the Kettle Creek Source Protection Area

Progressing Well Satisfactory Limited Progress Made

Most of the source protection

plan policies have been

implemented and/or are

progressing according to the

timelines in the source

protection plan.

Some of the source

protection plan policies have

been implemented and/or

are progressing according to

the timelines in the source

protection plan.

A few of the source

protection plan policies have

been implemented and/or

are progressing according to

the timelines in the source

protection plan.

KEEPING OUR MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER SAFE

3

of 51


Outcome: Knowledge and Tools Description: Implementing bodies have knowledge, skills, processes, and resources to implement policies.

Outcome: Awareness and Willingness Description: Implementing bodies are willing to integrate source protection into day-to-day business.

Figure 1. Indicates the percentage of

municipalities that have opted to use the

resources listed to assist in the

implementation of policies since the Plan

took effect January 1, 2015.

*The Campaign in a Box Toolkit created

by the MOECC was not used, however

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority

(KCCA), on behalf of the implementing

municipalities, developed an education

and outreach campaign that went beyond

that of the Toolkit. These methods will be

outlined later on in this report.

100% Interactive Mapping Tool

100% Risk Management Official Forum

100% Campaign in a Box Toolkit*

100% Education and Outreach Webinar

100% Education and Outreach Community of Practice

100% Guidance Materials

100% MOECC Training

33% OMAFRA Information Sessions

Figure 1. Percentage of Municipalities Using Various Implementation Resources.

100%

Land use planning and/or s. 59 policy staff trained in source protection

Maps and schedules include vulnerable areas

Complete planning application requirements

66%

Has a public works operation

Sitting/placement of activities are away from vulnerable areas

S. 59 procedures are in place

33%

Land use planning guidance documents updated/produced to include source protection

Applicant planning design and technical guidelines updated/produced for source protection

Planning documents updated

0%

Reduce the number of applicants that need RMO screening

Source protection integrated into other business processes

Official Plan (OP) and Zoning Bylaw (ZBL) strategy/timeline in place*

Figure 2. Percentage of Municipalities Integrating Source Protection into Various Business Processes.

Figure 2. Illustrates the percentage of municipalities integrating source protection into various business

processes. Please note that each bullet point represents a different business process.

*Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law (ZBL) policies have been established, however they will not be up for

review until 2018, and will be updated at that time.

4

of 51


Outcome: Stakeholder Promotion Description: Methods used to raise awareness and promote source protection.

Outcome: Changes in Public and Stakeholder Behaviour Description: Implementing bodies display positive changes in behaviour as a result of knowledge.

24 Signs Installed on Municipal Roadways

Figure 3. MOECC Approved Road Sign.

Figure 3. Showcases the provincially approved Drinking Water

Protection Zone road sign. Within the reporting period, 24 signs

were installed on municipal roadways marking source

protection areas within the Kettle Creek watershed.

There were no signs installed on provincial roads in the

watershed, as there are no provincial roads intersecting the

Belmont Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) or the Port Stanley

Intake Protection Zone (IPZ).

In addition to the road signs, a sign was installed in Port Stanley

at the public boat launch to educate boaters, typically non-

locals, about the IPZ.

Education and Outreach Methods

Social Media Blog postings about the Belmont WHPA and the Port Stanley IPZ were written and posted

on the KCCA website, and then shared on social media.

Website Update

A source protection webpage was added to the KCCA website. The webpage provides

information about source protection history and the Plan. Both primers and all factsheets

were also made available online, as well as an interactive mapping tool. This mapping tool

allows users to click and view the associated polices within each of the Belmont WHPAs

and Port Stanley IPZs. This information was shared with partnering municipalities to be

added to each of their respective websites.

Events

An information booth was manned with a display featuring information about the Plan at

Port Stanley Harbourfest and Belmont Fun Day. Information on the Plan was available via

factsheets and one-on-one discussions.

Youth Outreach

Information about the Plan was incorporated into the Yellow Fish Road Program and 47

St. Thomas-Elgin Children’s Water Festival activities. The Plan was also incorporated into

an in-class education program for elementary school students, which has run four times.

Primers

Primers were developed to provide high-level knowledge about the Plan. One primer

summarized source protection, and the second focused on Part IV policies. Both primers

provided supplemental information provided during presentations.

5

of 51


Education and Outreach Methods (continued)

Factsheets

The Belmont Wellhead Protection Area factsheet educates the public about the Plan, and

specifically focuses on the Belmont WHPA.

The Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPLs) factsheet provided additional

information about DNAPLs and their prohibition throughout WHPA-A, B, and C.

The Port Stanley Intake Protection Zone factsheet educates the public about the Plan, and

specifically focuses on the Port Stanley IPZ.

The Where Does My Drinking Water Come From? factsheet educates individuals receiving

their drinking water from the EAPWSS about the Port Stanley IPZ.

Mail Out

A package was mailed to all residences/businesses owning land within the Belmont

WHPA and Port Stanley IPZ. The packages were sent to 442 Belmont landowners and 495

Port Stanley landowners and included: a letter outlining the specific WHPA/IPZ their

property was within, and a copy of relevant factsheets.

Port Stanley IPZ factsheets were also mailed out to marinas in Port Stanley that agreed to

display them in their store and/or clubhouse. Marinas included: Stan’s Marina, Kettle

Creek Marina, and Kanagio Yacht Club.

A package was sent to MPP Jeff Yurek and included: a letter, all factsheets, and mapping

of both the Belmont WHPA and the Port Stanley IPZ.

Door-to-Door

A door-to-door education and outreach campaign was established for landowners within

the Belmont WHPA and the Port Stanley IPZ. A ‘sorry we missed you’ letter was written to

leave when a landowner was not home. All parcels of land within the Belmont WHPA and

Port Stanley IPZ were visited, in which 106 of landowners in Belmont and 89 landowners

in Port Stanley were home.

Presentations

Presentations about the Plan were made to KCCA staff and Board of Directors, and to

various service clubs and community groups throughout the Kettle Creek watershed.

A presentations was made to all municipalities responsible for implementing Plan policies

including: the Township of Malahide, the Municipality of Thames Centre, the Municipality

of Central Elgin, and Elgin County.

To complement the revision of emergency preparedness plans, presentations were made

to introduce a spill reporting protocol to all four of the Municipality of Central Elgin’s Fire

Rescue Stations located in Union, Belmont, Port Stanley, and Yarmouth Centre. This

protocol describes the individuals/organizations that must be contacted in the event of a

spill within the Belmont WHPA and the Port Stanley IPZ.

A presentation was also made to the Canadian Coast Guard, St. Williams Auxiliary Station,

to educate staff about the Plan. The presentation focused on the Port Stanley IPZ and

introduced a marine spill reporting protocol. This protocol describes the individuals/

organizations that must be contacted in the event of a marine spill. A copy of the Plan

and mapping of the Port Stanley IPZ was provided during the presentation.

6

of 51


Outcome: Threats Cease To Be

100%

Implemented

In Progress

Not Applicable

60%

25%

15%

Implemented

In Progress

Not Applicable

Description: Plan policies have been implemented to address significant drinking water threats.

Figure 5. Implementation status of municipal policies not directly

associated with addressing drinking water threats activities

expressed as a percentage.

Figure 4. Implementation status of municipal policies that

address drinking water threat activities expressed as a

percentage.

Figure 6. Location of significant

drinking water threats (SDWT) at

the Elgin Area Primary Drinking

Water Supply System (EAPWSS).

Two existing SDWTs were

identified within the EAPWSS when

the Plan went into effect. Since

that time, both threats have been

addressed: one no longer exists

and the other was managed

through a Risk Management Plan.

Future handling and storage of

fertilizer (greater than 5,000 cubic

metres) and fuel (greater than

6,000 litres) is prohibited within

the Port Stanley IPZ.

The development and implementation of the Source Water In-Class

Education Program provides elementary school children with more

opportunities to learn about their drinking water. Students understand the

importance of protecting our drinking water in terms of quality and

quantity. They also learn about how they can help protect their water at

home and in their community. By educating children, their knowledge and

awareness of protecting water passes to their parents. During this

reporting period, four programs have been taught. This resource has also

been shared with the members of the Lake Erie Region Implementation

Working Group to contribute to their education and outreach campaign.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH SPOTLIGHT: SOURCE WATER IN-CLASS EDUCATION PROGRAM

Figure 6. Location of Significant Drinking Water Threats within the Port Stanley IPZ.

7

of 51

Outcome: Locally Informed Decision Making Description: Science is integrated into policy and program-related decisions.

Figure 7. Illustrates the area within the Belmont

Water Supply System where the future

prohibition of prescribed drinking water threat

activities could occur. Although there are

prohibition policies for this area, many of the

activities to which the policies apply are not of

concern as the land is already developed and

most of the land is either owned by KCCA or

the Municipality of Central Elgin. KCCA has

chosen to conduct an education and outreach

campaign to provide knowledge and awareness

to landowners within this area. Figure 7. Location of Prohibited Activities within the Belmont WHPA.

Outcome: Implementation of Plans Description: Prescribed instruments and Planning Act decisions conform to source protection policies.

Figure 10. Indicates municipal program areas that

the Municipality of Central Elgin has integrated or

is integrating source protection knowledge. The

Township of Malahide and the Municipality of

Thames Centre are not listed as these program

areas are not applicable within the boundaries of

the Kettle Creek Source Protection Area.

KCCA has also conducted an education and

outreach campaign to provide knowledge and

awareness to landowners within the WHPA about

storage and handling of DNAPLs.

*Pesticide storage and application is not

applicable in the Municipality of Central Elgin.


Figure 10. Program Areas Integrating Source Protection Knowledge.

Figure 8. Amendments

to incorporate source

protection into

municipal Official

Plans (OP) and Zoning

By-laws (ZBL) are in

progress. OPs and

ZBLs will be reviewed

and updated in 2018.

Township of Malahide

Municipality of Thames Centre

Municipality of Central Elgin

Elgin County

Figure 8. Integration of the Plan into OP and ZBL.

Municipal Well Maintenance Operations

Municipal Water Quality

Snow Storage

Stormwater Infrastructure

Fuel Storage

Organic Solvent Storage

Hazardous Waste Storage

Pesticide Storage and Application*

Figure 9. Percentage of municipalities that

are integrating source protection into land use

planning and/or building permit processes.

Land Use Planning

Building Permit

100%

100%

8

of 51

This page is intentionally left blank.

of 51

(519) 621-2763 | [email protected] | www.sourcewater.ca

Kettle Creek Source Protection Area

Lake Erie Region Source Protection Area

c/o Grand River Conservation Authority

400 Clyde Rd, Cambridge ON, N1R 5W6

of 51

kettle creek source protection authority · 2017-10-13 · kcspa meeting minutes january 18, 2017...

Documents