Lake Erie Region Source Protection CommitteeAgenda

 

 

Thursday, December 1, 2016

1:00 pm

Auditorium

Grand River Conservation Authority

400 Clyde Road, Box 729

Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6

Pages

1. Call to Order

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

3. Chair’s Remarks

4. Review of Agenda

5. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest

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

7. Hearing of Delegations

8. Presentations

9. Correspondence 1

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

10. Reports

a. SPC-16-12-01 Temporary Relaxation of the Source Protection Committee Rulesof Procedure

3

b. SPC-16-12-02 Source Protection Program Update 5

c. SPC-16-12-03 Long Point Region Tier 3 Update – Simcoe Risk ManagementMeasures Evaluation Process (RMMEP)

10

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

15

e. SPC-16-12-05 Update on the Water Budget and Risk Assessment Study for theCity of Guelph and Township of Guelph-Eramosa

18

f. SPC-16-12-06 Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Comments on Bill39 - Aggregate Resources and Mining Act, 2016

20

11. Business Arising from Previous Meetings

a. Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee request under Technical Rule119, from February 3, 2011, Re: rehabilitation activities at an aggregateoperation within a vulnerable area of a municipal drinking water system thatallows ponding of water.

12. Other Business

a. Scheduling of Source Protection Committee Meetings

b. Question and Answer Period

13. Closed Meeting

14. Next SPC Meeting

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

15. Adjourn

1

2

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. SPC-16-10-01 DATE: December 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee SUBJECT: Temporary Relaxation of the Source Protection Committee Rules of

Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 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. REPORT: In July 2016, D. Murray resigned from the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee as municipal representative for municipal grouping #1, which includes Grey County, Township of Southgate, County of Dufferin, Townships of Melancthon, Amaranth, and East Garafraxa, Town of Grand Valley, Wellington County, Townships of Centre Wellington, Guelph-Eramosa, Mapleton, Wellington North, Puslinch, Town of Erin, Region of Halton, and the Towns of Milton and Halton Hills. The seat is currently vacant. The appointment process for municipal representatives on a Source Protection Committee is prescribed in O. Reg. 288/07 section 3. Specifically, section 3 (3) states:

(3) For each group established under clause (1) (a), the source protection authority shall appoint the number of members of the source protection committee that are assigned to the group under clause (1) (b) from a list of persons that is submitted jointly by the councils of the municipalities that are in the group. O. Reg. 288/07, s. 3 (3).

Until a new municipal representative for the municipal grouping #1 is appointed by the Grand River Source Protection Authority, the municipalities in this grouping are without a voice on the committee. Currently, two Tier 3 Water Budget and Risk Assessment studies are ongoing in the area of this municipal grouping, namely the Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 and the Centre Wellington Tier 3 study. A number of municipalities including the Townships of Puslinch, Guelph-Eramosa, Centre Wellington, the Town of Erin and Wellington County have shown a specific interest in these studies. Without a member on the Source Protection Committee, municipalities have limited options to participate in the discussions around the committee table. As such, Lake Erie Region staff propose that the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee temporarily relax their Rules of Procedure to provide Wellington County Townships a

3

voice around the committee table. Staff propose that Kyle Davis, Risk Management Official (RMO) for the area municipalities in Wellington County, be invited to sit on the committee as an interim representative. K. Davis would be allowed to participate in committee discussions but would not have any voting rights as he is not an appointed committee member. The invitation for K. Davis to sit on the committee would remain until the Grand River Source Protection Authority appoints a municipal representative for the municipal grouping #1. Discussions have started with municipal staff to initiate the process to appoint a regular municipal representative for municipal grouping #1. Prepared by: Approved by:

______________________________ ______________________________ Ilona Feldmann Martin Keller, M.Sc. Source Protection Program Assistant Source Protection Program Manager

4

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. SPC-16-12-02 DATE: December 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee SUBJECT: Source Protection Program Update RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-16-12-02 - Source Protection Program Update - for information. REPORT:

Provincial Source Protection Committee Chairs and Program Managers Meeting

Acting Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Chair W. Wright-Cascaden and Program Manager M. Keller attended the provincial Chairs meeting in Toronto on November 9 and 10, 2016. Discussion topics included: S. 34 and S.35 Plan Amendments The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) provided an update on the S.34 Amendment (SPA initiated) and S.35 Amendment (Minister’s Order) of Source Protection Plans. A Source Protection Plan Bulletin providing an overview of requirements for plan amendments, including assessment reports, under S.34 and S.35 of the CWA is expected to be released soon. A separate bulletin with guidance on the considerations and process for reviewing and updating assessment reports and plans under S.36 is currently under development. Source Protection Value for Money Audit MOECC is continuing with implementing recommendations from the Auditor Generals 2015 value for money audit, e.g., implementing technical framework review, inventory of activities in Great Lakes near-shore. Future work will include program review and review of O. Reg. 903 (wells regulation). MOECC Standard Operating Policy (SOP) for Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA) and Transfer of Review (ToR) program MOECC has re-established a working group to review SOPs and propose changes to address implementation challenges. MOECC is also changing the SOP to allow ECA sewage works applications identified as significant drinking water threats (SDWT) to be handled under the ToR program provided certain criteria are met. End of Life Vehicle Sites MOECC is proposing amendments to O. Reg. 347 to designate End of Life Vehicle sites as waste (tightening existing derelict motor vehicle exemption to sites with low numbers of ELVs or

5

sites that do not process vehicles and store for limited period). This may have implications where Risk Management Plans (RMP) are required. SPMIF Update

MOECC reported that province-wide, $7M (52%) was spent as of October 2016, with $6.5 M (48%) unspent with 4 months remaining in the agreement term. Municipalities in Lake Erie Region spent on average 50-75% of SPIMF funding received; however, some municipalities have spent less than 25%. Environmental Registry:

• For information about Bill 39 – proposed amendments to Aggregate Resources Act and

Mining Act, please see report SPC-16-12-06. • Proposed water bottling regulation – on October 17, 2016 MOECC proposed regulation

establishing a moratorium on the issuance of new or increasing permits to take groundwater for water bottling (ER # 012-8783). Actions planned during moratorium include examining water pricing and other tools, reviewing water taking regulatory and policy framework including the designation of high use watersheds, and advancing knowledge of water resources, including how climate change and population growth might impact groundwater supplies. Scientific work will build on water budgets undertaken as part of the Source Protection Program and will play a significant role in better understanding water resources.

New Threats Tool

• The MOECC is releasing a web-based tool that allows users to search all information

contained in the Tables of Drinking Water Threats in several different ways, i.e. by vulnerable zone, threat, chemical, etc.)

• Tool can be easily accessed anywhere with a computer or mobile device with internet connection, and will replace paper based threats tables

• http://swpip.ca/Threats Program Review

• MOECC is considering changes to how and when source protection technical work is

completed for new and expanding drinking water systems and how and when these changes are incorporated into a Source Protection Plan. Aspects for consideration include:

o MEA Parent Class EA amendments and training o Exploring option for Minister’s regulation under Safe Drinking Water Act to require

source protection technical work to be completed prior to a system license or amendment to an existing license being issued

o More detailed “planned drinking water system” definition • Considering changes to the legislative structure for approving certain types of plan

amendments o Consideration of using local approval mechanisms as opposed to provincial-level

approval for changes such as removing areas where policies apply and extending areas where existing policies apply

• Exploring adding transportation activities as a prescribed drinking water threat • Exploring regulation amendments to exempt Source Protection Committees from having to

write policies where the committee is satisfied there is no likelihood of an activity occurring in

6

the future • Considering limiting s.61 exemption for requirement to develop a RMP only to those

Prescribed Instruments that are provincially approved • Considering enabling ability for committees to write legally-binding policies for transport

pathways through policy tools under the Planning Act, Part IV under the Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA)

• Considering standardising Prescribed Instrument policies and limiting the local decision for Prescribed Instrument policies to a decision about “manage” or “prohibit” only

• Considering allowing future requests for provincial action beyond using Prescribed Instruments and Planning Act tools as recommendations only in Source Protection Plans, i.e., not through non-legally binding policies.

• MOECC is in the process of implementing phase 1 amendments to the Technical Rules – the ER commenting period closed November 5, 2016. MOECC is planning to post updated rules by end of 2016; includes changes such as creating or amending definitions to provide clarity and consistency, clarifying the intent of the rules where needed, and removing rules that overlap with other rules.

• MOECC has initiated phase 2 amendments to Technical Rules – these include more substantial amendments to the technical approaches detailed in the rules and used for the delineation of vulnerable areas (IPZ, WHPA), vulnerability scoring, prescribed drinking water threats (e.g., including pipelines), threat circumstances (e.g., considering quantity thresholds for DNAPLs, review of sewage and waste related circumstances, application of road salt), and approach to water quantity risk assessments. The MOECC expects to have management approved recommendations by the end of this year.

Annual Progress Reporting Information Management System Update (APRIMS) The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) released a draft public-facing Annual Progress Report template at the provincial Chair’s meeting November 9, 2016 (see Appendix A). At the same time, the Ministry released the final version of the Annual Progress Report Reportables and Performance Measures, now referred to as the Annual Progress Reporting Supplemental Form for Source Protection, along with an accompanying draft guidance and rationale (Appendix B). Lake Erie Region staff continue to develop the Annual Progress Reporting Information Management System (APRIMS) to collect, store, analyze and report on information necessary to meet the provincial reporting requirements. Lake Erie Region staff released the final 2016 version of the APRIMS worksheet templates (Municipal Annual Reporting and RMO Annual Reporting template) at the November 23, 2016 Lake Erie Region Source Protection Plan Implementation Woking Group (IWG) meeting. Municipalities will submit their RMO and Municipal Annual Reports to the Source Protection Authority by February 1, 2017, as required by the source protection plan policies. 2017 will act as dry-run to test the functionality of the APRIMS system and address any issues. Requirements to report annually to the province will start in 2018.

Technical Studies

St. George (Brant County) / Lynden (City of Hamilton)

7

Both the communities of St. George and Lynden are drilling new municipal supply wells to meet capacity needs. Funding was received from the Province in March 2016 to complete a Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) and vulnerability study for the new St. George wellfield. This project, which has yet to start, is to be completed by summer 2017 for inclusion in the Grand River Assessment report prior to its submission. GRCA is managing this project on behalf of Brant County.

The City of Hamilton is developing a new municipal well for the community of Lynden and is planning to delineate WHPAs and complete a vulnerability/threats assessment in the next year. As Lynden is in close proximity to St. George, the GRCA is working jointly with the City to develop a groundwater model that will cover both communities and develop WHPAs for the two communities in one project. The City of Hamilton will be providing funding to cover the Lynden portion of the project. This joint project reduces overlap and duplication of technical effort, as well as overall project costs.

The agreement between GRCA and the City of Hamilton is currently under review by the City. It is anticipated that the agreement will be signed by the end of 2016, and technical work to begin in early 2017.

Delhi (Norfolk County)

Norfolk County is bringing two new municipal wells into production for the communities of Delhi and Cortland. In March 2016, the Province provided funding to develop new WHPAs for these wells and complete a vulnerability and threats assessment. The contract to complete this work was awarded to Matrix Solutions Inc and is being managed by GRCA on behalf of Norfolk County.

Draft WHPAs have been completed; however, the project is on hold as efforts have been focused on other technical studies. The project will be completed in the first quarter of 2017.

Dundalk (Township of Southgate)

This study, managed by GRCA on behalf of the Township of Southgate, is to develop WHPAs, and complete a vulnerability and threats analysis for a new well as a part of the Dundalk drinking water system. The project will not be started until 2017 as efforts have been focused on other technical studies; however, it will be completed for inclusion in the Grand River Assessment Report together with other ongoing technical studies.

Whitemans Creek Tier 3

In 2014, EarthFX Inc. commenced the Whitemans Creek Tier 3 Water Budget project to consider risks to the municipal water supplies in the Village of Bright and the Town of Paris Bethel well field. Calibration results of the integrated numerical model were presented to the peer review team on November 8th, including results of the irrigation demand modeling and updates to water use estimates. Peer review comments are expected by the end of November with any updates to the numerical model completed by the end of the year. EarthFX Inc. will proceed with the risk assessment once the peer reviewers approve the calibration of the integrated numerical model. It is expected the draft risk assessment will be completed early in 2017 and presented to peer review in late January or early February 2017.

Model Management Guidance Manual

8

The Model Management Guidance Manual, which provides advice on setting up and managing modelling projects, to project close out and data licensing, is undergoing editing by a technical writer. The technical editing has been delayed, but the Manual is still expected to be completed by the end of 2016. WHPA-Q1 Screening Tool

Work is ongoing on the study to facilitate the ongoing use of Tier 3 water budget data and information for water resource decision-making. The study uses the Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 Water Budget as a pilot project. Prepared by: Prepared by:

______________________________ ______________________________ Ilona Feldmann Stephanie Shifflett, P.Eng. Source Protection Program Assistant Water Resources Engineer Prepared by: Approved by:

_______________________________ ______________________________ Sonja Strynatka, P.Geo. Martin Keller, M. Sc. Senior Hydrogeologist Source Protection Program Manager

9

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. SPC-16-12-03 DATE: December 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee SUBJECT: Long Point Region Tier 3 Update – Simcoe Risk Management Measures

Evaluation Process (RMMEP) RECOMMENDATION:

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.

SUMMARY:

The Long Point Region (Simcoe) Tier 3 Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process (RMMEP) has been completed in November 2016. This process is used to select and evaluate Water Quantity Risk Management Measures (RMM), using the Water Budget models developed in the Tier Three Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment (Tier Three Assessment), to determine what measures can be used to manage the Water Quantity Risks to drinking water within the Local Area. The conclusion of the RMMEP is recommendations for a Threats Management Strategy that together with the Water Quantity RMM Catalogue informs the policy development process.

Optimization of pumping rates for sustainable yields and an increase in supply through the addition of new supply wells were the two RMMs that were most promising in addressing the significant drinking water threat. The evaluation of scenarios that shifted pumping from the Cedar St wells (1A, 2A, and 3) to the Chapel St well showed this optimized pumping regime was not sufficient to reduce the risk levels in all municipal supply wells. The testing of a scenario that transferred pumping to the proposed Northeast wellfield, a new supply currently in an EA planning process, showed that this would create a new and separate Local Area, which provides support for this option to possibly lower the risk level of Local Area A.

Water quantity policy development is expected to commence in early 2017. Lake Erie Region staff will return to the Source Protection Committee as policy development progresses.

REPORT:

Background A Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment (WQRA) was completed for the communities of Waterford, Simcoe, and Delhi in Norfolk County in April 2015. As part of that study, six Local Areas (designated Local Areas A through F) were delineated. These Local Areas are areas on the landscape where increases in municipal pumping and reductions in recharge due to land use development (relative to the existing condition) have the potential to cause water levels at the municipal wells and intake to fall below safe water level elevations, or to reduce groundwater discharge to cold water streams that exceed the Province’s thresholds.

10

Results of the WQRA led to the designation of a Significant Risk level for Local Area A (Chapel St. and Cedar St. well fields in the community of Simcoe). As a result, all consumptive water users and potential reductions to groundwater recharge within Local Area A were classified as significant water quantity threats. In accordance with provincial guidance, a RMMEP was undertaken to rank those significant threats, evaluate potential RMMs and inform the policy development process. This report provides a summary of the Long Point Region Tier 3 RMMEP which has been completed in November 2016.

Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process for the Community of Simcoe The Simcoe RMMEP study was conducted in accordance with the RMMEP approach under the framework of the Clean Water Act, 2006.

Selecting the Water Budget Model

The RMMEP used the Tier 3 Assessment local-scale Simcoe South (MIKE SHE) model and a regional FEFLOW model refined near the proposed municipal wells currently undergoing a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) northeast of Simcoe.

Ranking the Water Quantity Threats

A Water Quantity Threats Ranking Process was undertaken for Simcoe as part of this study. Significant water quantity threats identified in the WQRA were incorporated into a series of threats-ranking scenarios using the transient Simcoe South model. The scenarios were designed to evaluate and rank the significant threats according to the impact they create relative to the Safe Available Drawdown (SADD) at the municipal well or intake. Nine scenarios were evaluated, including a baseline scenario which was the benchmark against which all modelling results were compared, and sorted according to three levels: mandatory (I), sector-based (II) and locally-relevant (III).

I. Mandatory level I scenarios examined the cumulative impact of all current or future consumptive water uses, or future land use developments, on the municipal water supplies and identified which groups of takings or land use developments warranted a more detailed level of investigation.

II. Level II scenarios identified the potential impact that classes of permitted and non-permitted water takings and future land development have on municipal water supplies. Level III scenarios estimated the influence of specific water users or land use changes on municipal water supplies.

III. Level III scenarios are designed to represent site-specific conditions and address existing or future water demands.

The only permitted water takers within Local Area A are municipal water supply wells, these include Cedar St wells 1A, 2A, 3, 4, and 5, the infiltration gallery, and the Chapel St. well. All municipal wells and the infiltration galley are identified as permitted consumptive water takings and classified as significant water quantity threats. The Tier 3 Assessment also considered the impact of future land use development activities on water levels in the municipal wells as land use development could have the potential to reduce groundwater recharge. All reductions in groundwater recharge within Local Area A were also classified as significant water quantity threats. A series of scenarios were conducted using the transient Simcoe South MIKE SHE model. These scenarios were designed to evaluate and rank the significant threats according to the impact they create relative to the SADD at the well or intake.

11

After the scenarios were completed, the percentage impacts at each municipal well for each scenario were calculated and ranked according to the greatest percent impact they caused relative to the SADD at the municipal wells. This served to identify the threats that had the greatest potential to benefit from measures to reduce overall impact. The results of the ranking indicated that the Cedar St. wells were the water quantity threats that had the most impact on the Local Area (262%). The Infiltration Gallery was ranked second (62%), and the Chapel St. Well was ranked third (30%). Recharge reductions due to land use development to the Official Plan were ranked fourth related to the impacts at Cedar St. well 4. The remaining threats did not have notable impacts on the municipal wells. The results of the threats ranking were then used to inform the next tasks, which involved selecting and evaluating the water quantity RMM and conducting RMM scenarios.

Evaluating Water Quantity RMM

Water quantity RMMs were evaluated for their potential to mitigate water quantity threats and reduce the Water Quantity Risk Level identified through the Tier 3 WQRA. The evaluation uses a web-based RMM catalogue to select the RMM. The RMM Catalogue contains a dataset that allows the user to search for measures that are most applicable for managing the Water Quantity Threats activities in the Local Areas and that will be evaluated under the RMM Evaluation Process. The Tier Three Assessment Water Budget model may be used to evaluate certain measures, while other previously implemented measures may be evaluated with historical data. Discussions with Norfolk County regarding conservation efforts that had been implemented by the County revealed that no further reduction in water use would be possible. Based on the results of the Threats Ranking, the RMM catalogue was consulted under the specific category of threat: “Consumptive water use–wells.” As the impacts from land use changes and recharge reductions did not have a noticeable impact, RMMs related to the threat from recharge reductions were not explored. From this category of threat, two RMMs were selected from the RMM catalogue to be used to re-evaluate the risk to the Local Area using the Tier 3 WQRA model:

1. Optimization of pumping rates for sustained yield; and 2. Increase of supply – addition of new supplies

Based on the two RMMs, three RMM scenarios were designed to evaluate the ability for the municipal system to supply the Allocated Quantity of water at a lower level of risk to the Local Area than identified in the Tier 3 WQRA. The RMM scenarios were designed based on discussions with Norfolk County which highlighted the following:

1. An opportunity for system optimization is to shift demand away from Cedar St. wells 1A and 2A which the County are planning to decommission in the future. Well 1A suffers from high turbidity and iron fouling leading to issues of iron sedimentation in the reservoir. Well 2A has very low yield that the County has tried to address by switching from a turbine pump to a submersible pump to allow for slightly increased pumping rates.

2. Cedar St. well 3 could also be decommissioned (in addition to wells 1A and 2A) and its demand shifted away from the Cedar St. Well Field. Well 3 will likely experience the same problems as wells 1A and 2A in the future and decommissioning it will leave the remaining wells 4 and 5 with more spacing between them. This could help to reduce the Risk Level for the remaining wells.

3. Demand could be increased at the Chapel St. well, which has been pumping at 1,500 to 1,600 m3/day and there is 800 to 900 m3/day of additional capacity. Although this would

12

be enough to accommodate the additional future demand from wells 1A and 2A (total Allocated Rate of 862 m3/day), it would not be enough to sustainably accommodate the addition of the future demand of well 3 (549 m3/day).

4. Demand could also be shifted to an alternate water source, such as the Northeast wells that are currently undergoing a Class EA.

The RMM scenarios 1 and 2 were designed to explore RMM - “Optimization of Pumping Rates for Sustainable Yield” to see if shifting pumping away from the Cedar St. Well Field could reduce the Risk Level of the Local Area. Neither scenario was able to completely reduce the risk level. The RMM scenario 3 was designed to test RMM – “Increase of supply - addition of new supplies.” A Municipal Class EA is in process for a proposed Northeast Well Field that is outside of the Simcoe South study area and the current Local Areas. This scenario was modelled to determine the potential extent of the new Well Head Protection Area for Water Quantity (WHPA-Q1) and subsequent Local Area of a hypothetical new municipal well at the site northeast of Simcoe. The potential WHPA-Q1 of the proposed Northeast Well Field was delineated to assess its extent and to evaluate the possibility of the proposed site to take on some of the water demand from the Cedar St. wellfield. The results of this scenario indicated that a new municipal well at the proposed Northeast Well Field location would create a Local Area that is separate and distinct from the other Local Areas. This provides support that the transfer of pumping from the Cedar St. Well Field to the proposed Northeast Well Field would possibly lower the Risk Level of Local Area A. Based on the three RMM scenarios evaluated, the preferred RMM is - “Increase of supply – addition of new supplies.” Attempts to optimize the existing system were not successful at reducing the Risk Level of Local Area A which would require all wells to not exceed their safe water levels while maintaining the ability to pump at the Allocated Rate. Thus, sourcing additional water supplies outside of the current Local Areas to supplement the existing supply is the preferred measure to manage the water quantity risk.

Recommendation for Threats Management Strategy

A Threats Management Strategy addresses the significant water quantity threats identified through the Long Point Region (Simcoe) Tier 3 Assessment and ranked in the RMMEP study. The following should be considered for inclusion in a Threats Management Strategy for the Simcoe Local Area A:

• Identify Local Area A as under a Significant Water Quantity Risk Level, and in particular, the Cedar St. wells as under the greatest risk in their ability to supply the Allocated Rates.

• Identify Cedar St. wells as significant drinking water quantity threats to the sustainability of the Simcoe water supply.

• Identify the preferred RMM – “Increase of supply - addition of new supplies.”

• Provide a summary of expected policy outcomes that would result from the water

quantity source protection plan policies. The following should be considered:

o Permit to Take Water (PTTW) Policies: Ensure future water takings do not impact the municipal supplies through the PTTW process. Where a future water taking could be a significant water quantity threat, require the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to ensure that the PTTW process includes use of the

13

most recent Tier 3 Water Budget findings, the Tier 3 models and other available data to demonstrate that the taking can be maintained on a sustainable basis and will not affect the ability of the aquifer to meet municipal water supply requirements.

o Land Use Planning Policies: Restrict future land development to the Official Plan and require that the relevant planning approval authority ensures that new developments 1) do not require a new or amended PTTW, 2) are only approved once the MOECC has determined that any proposed water taking meets the requirements of any PTTW policies, 3) conduct a water balance assessment of the proposed development, and 4) implement best management practices such as Low Impact Development (LID) to maintain pre-development groundwater recharge.

o Growth Management Policies: Ensure that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

Housing in consultation with the MOECC and Norfolk County use the findings of the Tier 3 Assessment to ensure that growth forecasts or plans will not worsen the Significant Water Quantity Risk Level by increased water demand.

o Source Protection Tools Policies: Ensure that the MOECC fund maintenance of the

Tier 3 Water Budget models as the primary model to review existing and future PTTWs and to facilitate the use of the models by other regulating and planning bodies as decision-making tools. This could include policies regarding the funding of surface and groundwater monitoring and additional data collection to enhance the conceptual and numerical models and verify the long-term predictions of the Tier 3 Assessment.

• Provide a summary of timelines (including public consultation) for the implementation of

the preferred RMM, and include a history of work done that supports the RMM. This could include a summary report on the Class EA currently underway for the Northeast Well Field.

Based on the information gained through this RMM Evaluation Process and with the Threats Management Strategy, policies can be drafted for inclusion into the Long Point Region Source Protection Plan to address the significant water quantity drinking water threats.

Next Steps Lake Erie Region staff will initiate the water quantity policy development process in early 2017. Staff have requested an extension of the timeline to submit the updated Long Point Region Source Protection Plan by one year from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017, to allow for adequate municipal engagement in the water quantity policy development. Lake Erie Region staff will return to the Source Protection Committee as policy development progresses. Prepared by: Approved by: _________________________________ _________________________________ Ilona Feldmann Martin Keller, M.Sc. Source Protection Program Assistant Source Protection Program Manager

14

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. SPC-16-12-04 DATE: December 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee SUBJECT: Update on the Scoped Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk

Assessment Study for the Township of Centre Wellington (Fergus Elora) RECOMMENDATION:

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.

SUMMARY:

The Centre Wellington Scoped Tier 3 Water Budget study commenced in August 2016 with Matrix Solutions Inc. retained as the project consultant. Over the past four months, efforts have been focused on developing a communication strategy for the project given the wide interest in Wellington County groundwater takings.

REPORT: As a result of increased interest in Wellington County groundwater takings, this report includes more details on the initial stages of the Scoped Tier 3 process than what normally would be provided to the committee. Background

The Township of Centre Wellington currently has a population of 29,885 people. According to Places to Grow, the population is planned to reach 52,310 by the year 2041. This represents a 57% increase in population over the next 25 years. Growth will likely take place within serviced areas of the Township. The Fergus-Elora municipal water supply system currently operates nine wells at approximately 50% of their total firm maximum daily capacity. With the planned increase in population over the next 25 years, the Township will need to identify additional sources of municipal drinking water. A Growth Management Strategy is being developed for the Township and is expected to be completed in early 2017. The Strategy will establish growth/density targets and areas for intensification for the next 20 years. The Township is currently without a Long-Term Water Supply Master Plan, however this is planned to be started in 2019. The Scoped Tier 3 Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment will help guide future water supply strategies and better define the need for additional supply wells. The project is being managed by the GRCA on behalf of the Township of Centre Wellington. Matrix Solutions was awarded the contract to complete the project in August 2016, following GRCA board approval.

Communications There has been intense local, provincial, and national interest in water takings within Wellington County, specifically with respect to bottled water takings. To open up the Centre Wellington Tier

15

3 process to local stakeholders and encourage community engagement, a Community Liaison Group (CLG) has been established for the Centre Wellington Scoped Tier 3 study. To date, a public engagement process has not been incorporated into any Tier 3 study within the province. For this study, given the community interest, the decision was made to engage the public at the outset and as the Centre Wellington Scoped Tier 3 progresses. Communication is carried out on two fronts: through a series of meetings with the CLG, and a publicly accessible website dedicated to the Centre Wellington Scoped Tier 3 project.

The CLG, which meets at key points throughout the project, provides a forum to discuss the study with local stakeholders and Centre Wellington residents. The CLG operates through a Terms of Reference which all the members have agreed to abide by. The group is composed of organizations representing the following sectors:

• Business • Environment • Industrial water users • Conservation • Commercial / Communal water

users • General public

• Agriculture

The CLG contains 15 members from the following organizations:

• Chamber of Commerce • Murray Group • Elora Business Improvement Area • Nestlé Waters Canada • Fergus Golf Club • Public Interest Representatives • Friends of the Grand River • Save Our Water • Highland Pines Campground • Landowners/Developers

• University of Guelph Aquaculture Research Station

• Wellington Water Watchers The website (www.sourcewater.ca/CW-Tier3) contains a link to the CLG Terms of Reference, provides access to all CLG meeting agendas and minutes, and will also house a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page that will be updated as the project progresses. The first CLG meeting was held on November 8th, 2016 at the Centre Wellington Sportsplex in Fergus. LURA Consulting has been retained by the GRCA to provide facilitation services for all CLG meetings. A group presentation was made by LURA, the GRCA, the Township of Centre Wellington, Matrix Solutions, and the MOECC to orient CLG members on the Terms of Reference and the Tier 3 water budget process. This was followed by a question-answer period with the group. The next CLG meeting will be held after the first report in the water budget (Physical Characterization Report) is peer reviewed. Reporting Structure Since a public engagement process has been incorporated into the Centre Wellington Scoped Tier 3, each peer reviewed report (three in total) will be made available for review and comment by the CLG before the next report begins. The following process diagram illustrates the relationship between the project team, Provincial Peer Reviewers, and CLG members. This cycle will be followed for each of the three reports which form the complete water budget study.

16

Next Steps Matrix Solutions is beginning a review of background studies and collecting data to develop the physical characterization of the study area. The next CLG meeting will be held in 2017 after the physical characterization report has been reviewed by the Township and Provincial Peer Review team. Prepared by: Approved by: _________________________________ _________________________________ Ilona Feldmann Martin Keller, M.Sc. Source Protection Program Assistant Source Protection Program Manager Prepared by: _________________________________ Sonja Strynatka, P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist

17

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. SPC-16-12-05 DATE: December 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee SUBJECT: Update on the Water Budget and Risk Assessment Study for the City of

Guelph and Township of Guelph-Eramosa RECOMMENDATION:

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.

SUMMARY:

Some aspects of the Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process (RMMEP) for the Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa municipal drinking water systems have commenced, in parallel to completing the provincial peer review process for the Water Quantity Risk Assessment (WQRA). The WQRA was expected to be completed and presented to the Source Protection Committee on December 1, 2016. Ongoing discussions with River Valley Developments Inc. about shared data, data transfer and data interpretations regarding the Dolime quarry have delayed the completion of the WQRA. Staff expect that the WQRA can be completed in early 2017.

REPORT: The draft WQRA report for Guelph, Hamilton Drive and Rockwood has been peer reviewed and municipally peer reviewed by the Townships of Guelph-Eramosa and Puslinch, and Town of Erin. The consultant has completed the Model Update Appendix, which documents the changes made to the Tier 3 model over the last two years as a result of the municipal comments, except for changes that would need to be made as a result of ongoing consultations with River Valley Developments Inc. about shared data for the Dolime quarry. The goal of these technical discussions are to reach a mutual understanding on site characterization and data interpretations within the Tier 3 model of data shared by River Valley Developments Inc. regarding the Dolime quarry area. Over the course of this project, the project team has reached out to a number of corporate businesses (e.g., Royal Canin, Nestle Waters Canada, Guelph Tool Inc.) to ask for recent and relevant data (e.g., groundwater monitoring data, borehole logs) that would strengthen the Tier 3 model. Similarly, municipalities have been approached for well infrastructure related data, e.g., to be able to determine the safe available additional drawdown at municipal supply wells. The project team is optimistic that the technical discussions with River Valley Developments Inc. can be completed to everyone’s satisfaction. Once the Model Update Appendix is updated, it will be circulated to the Provincial Peer Reviewers for final technical review and final sign-off. Following peer review sign-off, the final Guelph/Guelph-Eramosa Tier 3 Water Budget and Risk Assessment (WQRA) Report and Peer Review Summary Report, which contains the full chronology of the peer review comments and responses, including the Provincial Peer Reviewers’ conclusions, will be presented to the Source Protection Committee and submitted to the Province for acceptance. Once released by the committee, the final reports will be posted on the sourcewater.ca website. Staff expect that the WQRA can be completed in early 2017.

18

Prepared by: Prepared and Approved by:

______________________________ ______________________________ Ilona Feldmann Martin Keller, M.Sc. Source Protection Program Assistant Source Protection Program Manager

19

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. SPC-16-12-06 DATE: October 6, 2016 TO: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee SUBJECT: Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Comments on Bill 39 -

Aggregate Resources and Mining Act, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 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 direct staff to submit report SPC-16-12-06 to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry through Environmental Registry Number 012-8443. REPORT: Background In late 2015, the Province proposed changes to the Aggregate Resources Act through its “Blueprint for Change” policy framework. The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee provided recommendations to the Ministry regarding the proposed changes in December 2015 (see report SPC-15-12-03). The report focussed on source protection related matters and the protection of municipal drinking water sources and included two specific recommendations:

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

2. the Province should 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).

Bill 39 – Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 On October 6, 2016, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) posted Schedule 1 of Bill 39 – Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 to the Environmental Registry. The public comment period for the proposed changes is open until December 5, 2016. Detailed information about proposed Bill 39 can be found on the Environmental Registry at www.ebr.gov.on.ca under registry number 012-8443). A report was presented to the Grand River Conservation Authority Board November 25, 2016 (Appendix A), highlighting key changes proposed through Bill 39.

20

In relation to municipal drinking water sources Bill 39 proposed two changes to the Aggregate Resources Act:

• A new exception where a hearing is not required if the Minister changes the conditions of an aggregate license or permit as a result of implementing a source protection plan under the Clean Water Act, 2006; and

• Adding effects on municipal drinking water sources to the effects on ground and surface water resources the Minister “shall have regard to” when considering new aggregate extraction licenses and wayside permits.

Bill 39 is silent on restricting extraction activities in the 2-year time of travel (WHPA-A and B) of municipal drinking water wells. The proposed amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act also don’t provide any restrictions to extraction below the water table where a breach of the aquitard could impact municipal drinking water sources. Staff consider the proposed changes as insufficient in providing better protection to municipal drinking water sources from aggregate extraction activities and recommend that the following recommendations are re-submitted via the Environmental Registry:

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

2. The Province should 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).

Bill 39 has passed second reading at the Ontario Legislature and was ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy on November 15, 2016. It is currently under consideration by the Standing Committee. Prepared by: Approved by:

______________________________ ______________________________ Ilona Feldmann Martin Keller, M.Sc. Source Protection Program Assistant Source Protection Program Manager

21

APPENDIX A

Grand River Conservation Authority

Report number: GM-11-16-136

Date: November 25, 2016

To: Members of the Grand River Conservation Authority

Subject: Schedule 1 of Bill 39 - Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 (EBR 012-8443)

Recommendation: THAT Report GM-11-16-136 – Schedule 1 of Bill 39 - Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 (EBR 012-8443) be received as information.

Report: In October 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) released a consultation paper entitled “A Blueprint for Change: A Proposal to modernize and strengthen the Aggregate Resources Act policy framework”. GRCA provided comments to the MNRF on the paper noting concerns with requirements for identifying impacts to water resources and natural heritage features, particularly related to cumulative effects. On October 6, 2016, the MNRF posted Schedule 1 of Bill 39 – Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 to the Environmental Registry. The Bill is to amend both the Aggregate Resources Act and the Mining Act. Many of the proposed changes are enabling in nature, requiring amendments to regulations and policies under the Act, or changes to the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards in order to be implemented. GRCA’s comments on the ‘Blueprint for Change’ document were focused on areas that are related to the implementation of the Act. For example, the development of a cumulative effects assessment methodology and database and requirements for records of fill importation during site rehabilitation. These areas of concern will be considered by MNRF in future amendments to the regulations, policies or standards. The public comment period for the proposed changes is open until December 5, 2016. A description of the process can be found on the Environmental Registry and a copy of the Schedule can be found at https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI5NTI5&statusId=MTk2MzA4&language=en. If the Bill passes, the province will consult the public on any proposed regulatory and policy changes needed under the revised Act. Key changes proposed through the Bill include: Licences/Site Plans

• New exemptions to allow a person to operate a pit or quarry without an aggregate licence or aggregate permit in limited circumstances (i.e. non-commercial, low-risk).

22

• A new provision for the Minister to amend existing licences and permits and require a licensee or permittee to prepare a new site plan.

• Allowing a licensee to apply to have conditions of a licence removed or amended and apply to amend an existing site plan.

• New provisions for self-filing of minor site plan amendments (i.e. moving stockpiles, changing the type of fencing) in accordance with regulations.

Source Protection • A new exception where a hearing is not required if the Minister changes the conditions

of an aggregate licence or permit in support of a source protection plan (Clean Water Act, 2006).

• Currently, the Minister “shall have regard to” possible effects on ground and surface water resources in considering new licences for both pits and wayside pits. The Bill proposes that effects on municipal drinking water sources must also now be considered.

The Lake Erie Source Protection Committee provided comments to the Province in December 2015 on the ‘Blueprint for Change’. In addition to other comments, the Source Protection Committee report included two recommendations: a prohibition for extraction within the 2-year time of travel of municipal drinking water wells and a prohibition on extraction below the water table where a breach of the aquitard could impact municipal drinking water sources. A report will be prepared for the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting on December 1, 2016 to provide comments on the Act in relation to the Grand River Source Protection Plan and protection of municipal drinking water sources. Notification/Consultation – Custom Plans

• New clauses for custom plans that change the required notification and consultation procedures through the application process for unique applications (i.e. large quarries, in-bed-of-lake/river).

• A requirement through regulation for a custom plan where the applicant outlines alternative/additional procedures, description of surveys, studies, etc.

Compliance/Reporting

• Annual compliance reports would no longer be required in all cases with the frequency of recommended submissions outlined in regulation.

• A new requirement for licensees and permittees to submit reports on the progressive and final rehabilitation of a site of a pit or quarry.

• A new ability to require licensees or permittees to prepare reports on their operation including records of fill imported for rehabilitation and also direct them to submit new inventories, tests or studies.

• New regulations may also provide for a qualified professional to review technical studies or reports prepared by a licensee or permittee and submitted to the Minister

• Increased fines for non-compliance (maximum fine of $1,000,000 and a new maximum daily fine of $100,000).

• More protection for the Minister, inspectors and public servants from liability for actions done in good faith under the Act.

Most of the amendments proposed would be implemented through new or amended legal instruments or policies. The GRCA will contact MNRF to offer assistance and technical expertise on any working groups/technical committees established to review future changes to the

23

regulations, policy and/or provincial standards related to the implementation of the Aggregate Resources Act.

Financial implications: Not applicable.

Other department considerations: Source Protection staff provided input to this report.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Melissa Larion Policy Planner

Nancy Davy Director of Resource Management

24