Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority · a) SPC-14-09-01 Source Protection Program Update . M. Keller reviewed report SPC -14-09-01 – Source Protection Program Update . M. Wales

KettleCreekSourceProtectionAuthority AgendaJanuary21,2015 KCCAAdministrationCentre11a.m.

Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

2015 Election for Chair and Vice Chair (Joe Gordon)

2015 Administrative Approvals

a) Approval of 2015 Nominating Committee Report ...................................................... 2

b) 2015 Signing Officers

c) Borrowing Maximum

d) Appointment of Auditor

e) Appointment of Solicitor

Minutes of Meetings

a) Lake Erie Source Protection Committee Meeting

i) September 4, 2014 ..........................................................................................3

ii) November 6, 2014 ........................................................................................13

b) September 17, 2014 Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority Meeting ..................21

Matters Arising

a) KCSPA Financial Statements and 2015 Budget ..........................................................24

b) Auditor General’s Report on Source Water Protection .............................................25

Correspondence

a) From Ling Mark, Director of SPPB MOE Re: Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan in

effect January 1, 2015 ..................................................................................................26

New Business

Page 1 of 27

Year 2015 KCSPA Nominating Committee Report

Executive Committee (4 positions) 2015 Chair 2015 Vice Chair Heather Jackson (representing Past Chair) Planning and Community Relations Chair

Planning and Community Relations Committee (6 positions) 2015 Chair Max Moore Jared Zaifman Linda Stevenson Ian Chard Marcel Meyer

Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Bill Mackie General Manager/Secretary Treasurer.

Personnel and Finance Committee (6 positions) 2015 Vice Chair 2015 Chair Ralph Winfield Heather Jackson Conrad Wodrich Ian Chard

Page 2 of 27

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Thursday September 4, 2014

The following are the minutes of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting held on Thursday, September 4, 2014 at the GRCA Administrative Office, 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge. Members Present: C. Ashbaugh (Chair); M. Ceschi-Smith; H. Cornwell; A. Dale; R.

Haggart; A. Henry; K. Hunsberger; C. King; R. Krueger; I. MacDonald; D. Murray; J. Oliver; D. Parker; L. Perrin; P. Rider; G. Schneider; B. Strauss; M. Wales; P. Wilson; D. Woolcott; W. Wright-Cascaden.

Members Regrets: P. General; D. Hill; T. Schmidt; B. Ungar. Proxy Representatives: N. Kodousek (T. Schmidt) Liaisons: J. Mitchell (SPA Liaison); H. Gardiner (Provincial Liaison)

Region Management C. Evanitski, LPRCA; C. Murray, KCCA; K. Smale, CCCA; Committee: E. VanHooren, KCCA Staff: A. Davidson, County of Brant; K. Davis, Centre Wellington; N. Davy,

GRCA; J. Etienne, GRCA; E. Fanning, GRCA; D. Goudreau, Oxford County; H. Kovacs, GRCA; M. Keller, GRCA; D. Schultz, GRCA; S. Strynatka, GRCA.

1. Call to Order

C. Ashbaugh called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

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

The Recording Secretary called the roll and certified quorum.

3. Chairman’s Remarks C. Ashbaugh welcomed the committee members and acknowledged W. Wright-Cascaden for chairing the previous SPC meeting. C. Ashbaugh also acknowledged the passing of John Harrison, former SPC member and indicated that a file containing John’s obituary and memorial donation letter has been compiled and will be circulated during the meeting.

Page 3 of 27

Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Meeting Minutes – September 4, 2014

4. Review of Agenda M. Keller noted that the agenda has been revised to include an additional correspondence item and the presentation of report SPC-09-10 has been moved to the second presentation following the Program Update report.

Moved by: B. Strauss Seconded by: M. Wales carried unanimously

THAT the agenda of September 4, 2014 be approved as distributed.

5. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest There were no declarations of pecuniary interest made in relation to the matters to be dealt with.

6. Minutes of Previous Meeting – June 5, 2014 D. Parker requested that a summary of NASM categories be circulated at the next meeting as per his request on June 5, 2014.

Moved by: A. Henry Seconded by: M. Ceschi-Smith carried unanimously

THAT the minutes of the previous meeting on June 5, 2014 be approved as amended.

7. Hearing of Delegations

None

8. Presentations

None

9. Correspondence

a) Copies for Members

Correspondence from Ling Mark, Director at the Source Protection Programs Branch, to Jane Mitchell, Chair of the Board of Directors, Grand River Source Protection Authority and Craig Ashbaugh, Chair of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee acknowledging the completed review of the Grand River Source Protection Plan by Ministry staff Correspondence from Ling Mark, Director at the Source Protection Programs Branch, to Roger Geysens, Chair of the Long Point Region Source Protection Authority and Craig Ashbaugh, Lake Erie Region SPC Chair acknowledging the completed review of the Long Point Region Source Protection Plan by Ministry staff Correspondence from Ling Mark, Director at the Source Protection Programs Branch, to Craig Ashbaugh, Chair of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection

2

Page 4 of 27


Committee and Sally Martyn, Chair of the Catfish Creek Source Protection Authority acknowledging the approval of the Catfish Creek Assessment Report

b) Not Copied

None

Res. No. 27-14 Moved by: R. Krueger Seconded by: A. Henry carried unanimously

THAT the correspondence be received as information.

10. Reports

a) SPC-14-09-01 Source Protection Program Update

M. Keller reviewed report SPC-14-09-01 – Source Protection Program Update. M. Wales questioned what is in place to support implementation, given that we face the imminent implementation of two plans; have municipalities identified their Risk Management Officials (RMOs). M. Keller responded that the Municipality of Central Elgin is responsible for implementation and L. Perrin is the RMO in the Kettle Creek watershed. Oxford County will be responsible for the implementation of the Catfish Creek plan and have identified their RMOs as well. M. Wales questioned if the communication plan directs people to contact Lloyd for more information. L. Perrin indicated that communication will be through the local municipality; plan implementation will not affect everyone in the municipality. L. Perrin indicated that staff from Central Elgin are working with staff from the Townships of Malahide and Thames Centre to ensure that they are ready for implementation. H. Kovacs gave a demonstration of the Policy Applicability Pre-screening Tool. The tool can be accessed via the Lake Erie Region website. J. Oliver requested that the reasons to delay the submission of water quantity policies be clarified; noting that much of the Long Point Region watershed is under a high water use designation and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change won’t consider removing this until the water budget is complete. If work is delayed will the Ministry also delay the removal of the high water use designation? There are only one or two small areas actually impacted by water use in the Long Point Region watershed. M. Keller indicated that Lake Erie Region staff are working with Norfolk County to complete the necessary technical work and start policy development. M. Keller further clarified that work is not being postponed; rather it has been identified that the work will not be complete in time to be included in the anticipated spring 2015 re-submissions of the Long Point Region SPP and AR. M. Keller indicated he has not had specific discussions regarding high water use designation, but will put this back on the agenda for future discussions with Norfolk County and the Ministry.

3

Page 5 of 27

http://www.sourcewater.ca/


D. Parker indicated that when a source protection information session is held with local certified crop advisors he would like to be invited to the meeting. M. Keller indicated that he will circulate an invite to the information session to all SPC members.

Res. No. 28-14 Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: D. Parker carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-01 Source Protection Program Update – for information.

b) SPC-14-09-10– Update on Bethel Road Wellfield, County of Brant Municipal Wells

Vulnerability and Threat Assessment

S. Strynatka presented report SPC-14-09-10 – Update on Bethel Road Wellfield, County of Brant Municipal Wells Vulnerability and Threat Assessment.

D. Parker asked why the new wells are located near salt storage given our existing knowledge. A. Davidson indicated that water flow is towards the Grand River; Paris requires another water source and this location was the next most readily available. The County of Brant completed pumping tests to ensure that there wasn’t any infiltration of salt into the groundwater. The salt storage facility has been there for a long enough period of time that there is no identified legacy concentration.

Res. No. 29-14 Moved by: A. Henry Seconded by: A. Dale carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee accept report SPC-14-09-10 Update on Bethel Wellfield, County of Brant Municipal Wells Vulnerability and Threat Assessment - for information. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to continue working on the technical components of the Update on Bethel Road Wellfield, County of Brant Municipal Wells Vulnerability and Threat Assessment project.

c) SPC-14-09-02 – Draft Source Protection Policy Revisions for the Townships of

Amaranth and East Garafraxa and Oxford County Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan

H. Kovacs presented report SPC-14-09-02 – Draft Source Protection Policy Revisions for the Townships of Amaranth and East-Garafraxa and Oxford County Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan.

Res. No. 30-14 Moved by: B. Strauss Seconded by: L. Perrin carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-02 – Draft Source protection Policy Revisions for the Townships of Amaranth and East-Garafraxa and Oxford County Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan – for information. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan in

4

Page 6 of 27


response to comments received from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

d) SPC-14-09-03 – Recommended Approaches for Ministry Comments on the Wellington County and Region of Halton Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan.

H. Kovacs presented report SPC-14-09-03 – Recommended Policy Revisions for Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Comments on the Wellington County and Region of Halton Section of the Grand River Source Protection Plan.

Res. No. 31-14 Moved by: R. Krueger Seconded by: A. Henry carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-03 – Recommended Policy Revision Approaches for Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Comments on the Wellington County and Region of Halton Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan – for information.

AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address the plan review comments received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

e) SPC-14-09-04 – Draft Recommended Approaches for Ministry Comments on the City of Guelph and Region of Waterloo Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan

H. Kovacs presented report SPC-14-09-04 – Draft Recommended Approaches for Ministry Comments on the City of Guelph and Region of Waterloo Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan. D. Woolcott referred to Table 1 item 5 and commented that the City of Guelph and Region of Waterloo are listed as taking different approaches; is there a reason for this. H. Kovacs indicated both proposed approaches are valid. M. Keller commented that this is an item where discussions are on-going with both municipalities. A. Dale asked if the Region of Waterloo has a different definition of a parking lot than other municipalities. M. Keller indicated that the Region of Waterloo is the only municipality that needs a definition based on their policy. Other municipalities have generally referred to parking lots and not detailed categories.

J. Oliver asked if it is legal to store salt uncovered; suggesting that if all salt storage is covered, policies for salt storage should also be consistent. M. Keller indicated he was not certain of the regulations regarding uncovered salt storage, but did note that uncovered salt storage is listed in the Provincial Table of Circumstances. A. Henry noted that it is certainly not a best practice to store salt uncovered.

Res. No. 32-14 Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: I. MacDonald carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-04 – Draft Recommended Approaches for Ministry Comments

5

Page 7 of 27


on the City of Guelph and Region of Waterloo Sections of the Grand River Source Protection Plan - for information. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes in the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address the plan review comments received from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

f) SPC-14-09-05 – Draft Recommended Approached to Ministry Commends on

the City of Hamilton, Perth County, City of Brantford and County of Brant Sections of the Grand Rivers Source Protection Plan.

E. Fanning presented report SPC-14-09-05.

Res. No. 33-14 Moved by: R. Krueger

Seconded by: M. Ceschi-Smith carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-05 – Draft Recommended Approaches for Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Comments on the City of Hamilton, Perth County, City of Brantford, and County of Brant Section of the Grand River Source Protection Plan - for information. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address the plan review comments received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

g) SPC-14-09-06 – Draft Recommended Approaches to Batch 5 Ministry of the

Environment and Climate Change Comments on the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan.

E. Fanning presented report SPC-14-09-06. P. Rider referred to a letter received from the Ministry dated June 13, 2011 regarding the addition of the “transportation of oil and fuel products through pipelines within vulnerable areas of municipal drinking water systems” as a local drinking water threat. P. Rider commented that the letter from the Ministry refers to O. Reg 210/01 and questioned why the Ministry’s review comments suggested that any reference to the above regulation be removed from local threat policies. M. Keller indicated staff would review the June 13, 2011 letter from the Ministry and discuss this issue with Ministry staff if necessary.

Res. No. 34-14 Moved by: J. Oliver Seconded by: L. Perrin carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-06 – Draft Recommended Approaches to Batch 5 Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Comments on the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan – for information. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan

6

Page 8 of 27


and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address plan review comments received form the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

h) SPC-14-09-07 – Draft Recommended Approaches to Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Comments on the Long Point Region Source Protection Plan.

E. Fanning presented report SPC-14-09-07. J. Oliver asked what the Lakehead Source Protection Plan definition of existing was. E. Fanning indicated she did not have the exact definition available but clarified that the recommendation was to review approved definitions of existing for further guidance on definition revisions. M. Keller added that the main reason staff are looking at approved plan definitions is because they have been approved by the Ministry; any revisions to the definition will be reviewed to ensure it still captures the intent of the original definition. W. Wright-Cascaden asked if comment 5 in report SPC-14-09-04 stating the recommendation “to be revised” applied to the Lakehead definitions. M. Keller indicated it did. W. Wright-Cascaden added that some municipalities do not like the broadness of the Lakehead definition hence why they are trying to clarify the definition and revise to meet their own requirements.

L. Perrin left the meeting at 2:41pm

Res. No. 35-14 Moved by: I. Macdonald Seconded by: D. Murray carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-07 – Draft Recommend Approaches for Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Comments on the Long Point Region Source Protection Plan – for information. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Long Point Region Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address plan review comments received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

i) SPC-14-09-08 – Draft Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report and

Source Protection Policies: Tillsonburg North Street Issue Contributing Area and Revised WHPA Delineation.

M. Keller presented report SPC-14-09-08. D. Parker commented that there has been a significant change in WHPA delineation, as such will funding be available to support new properties within the WHPAs. M. Keller indicated that the area where policies are applicable hasn’t changed that much. There is no further funding through the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program; however municipalities may have other programs is place to support landowners.

Res. No. 36-14 Moved by: D. Parker Seconded by: B. Strauss carried unanimously

7

Page 9 of 27


THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-08 – Draft Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report: Tillsonburg Issue Contributing Area and Revised WHPA Delineation – for information.

D. Woolcott left the meeting at 2:50pm A. Dale left the meeting at 2:55pm

j) SPC-14-09-09 – Draft Updated Grand River Assessment Report: Dunnville

Emergency Grand River Intake.

M. Keller presented report SPC-14-09-09. Res. No. 37-14 Moved by: A. Henry Seconded by: R. Krueger carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-09 – Draft Updated Grand River Assessment Report: Dunnville Emergency Grand River Intake – for information.

k) SPC-14-09-011 – Lake Erie Region Water Quantity Update for Long Point,

Region of waterloo and the City of Guelph

J. Etienne presented report SPC-14-09-11. B. Strauss left the meeting at 3:05pm

J. Oliver questioned the timing of the peer review process for the Long Point Region Risk Assessment and asked if staff are satisfied that the peer review panel is aware of the timelines; is it possible to apply pressure to ensure that this will be finalized. J. Etienne indicated that staff have held preliminary discussions with the peer reviewers and they are aware of the timelines associated with the project and will strive to complete their review as soon as possible. W. Wright-Cascaden asked if a part of the decision to not include the water quantity element in the Long Point Region Plan was because the Ministry can’t accept a plan that does not have policies to support technical work included in the Assessment Report. This was possible in the past as the Plan wasn’t going to come into effect. M. Keller confirmed that this was the case, noting that the Ministry cannot approve a plan which has technical work in the Assessment Report and does not have supporting policies in the plan. This would delay the approval of the rest of the plan. As a result we have decided to submit the plan without water quantity policies or technical work. In the future, once both are complete an updated version of the plan will be submitted to the Ministry. W. Wright-Cascaden commented that this is the better approach for the plan, but it may not help the Ministry with decisions related to other water quantity issues. J. Oliver commented that once the technical work is complete the rest of the Long Point Region and Norfolk County high use designation can be lifted, as the technical work should indicate that there are only one or two locations within the watershed where water quantity is an issue. W. Wright-Cascaden questioned at what point will the Ministry accept the outcome of the Tier 3 technical studies and act on the results. J. Etienne indicated that this can be discussed with the Ministry and a report made back to the Committee in December.

8

Page 10 of 27


Res. No. 38-14 Moved by: H. Cornwell Seconded by: A. Henry carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-09-11 – Lake Erie Region Water Quantity Update for Long Point, Region of Waterloo and the City of Guelph – for information.

11. Business Arising from Previous Meetings

a) 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.

H. Gardiner reported that the status of this item has not changed. M. Keller indicated it will continue to remain on the agenda.

12. Other Business

a) Question and Answer Period A. Henry commented that western neighbours in the Lake Erie basin are dealing with blue-green algae blooms and reports are becoming more prevalent in the media; is there any indication that blue-green algae will be required to the included in a future update of the source protection plans. M. Keller indicated that he did not have a formal response in terms of what the Ministry is considering and noted that right now it is addressed through treatment. A. Henry indicated that its inclusion would have large implications as land use has impacts on the formation of blue-green algae. M. Keller commented that there is currently no indication that the Ministry will formally include BGA as part of the source protection program, and that currently it is more of an overall lake health issue. A. Henry agreed that this is not just a treatment issue, and commented that although at this time he is not worried about BGA at the Elgin Primary intake specifically he is concerned that public and political perception will surpass the technical need for this to be addressed by the source protection program and scientific investigations. P. Wilson commented that the Ministry directed Haldimand County to monitor for BGA; and that samples are coming back at non-detect levels. R. Krueger commented that residents of Lynden can’t drink water because of an E.coli outbreak in the municipal water supply and questioned if the modeling has been reviewed to determine if this was identified as a potential issue. M. Keller indicated that staff would examine this to determine what actions the City of Hamilton and GRCA have taken regarding this. C. Ashbaugh thanked M. Ceschi-Smith for her service to the Source Protection Committee. M. Ceschi-Smith commented that it has been an honour to be part of the source protection process in the Lake Erie Region.

13. Closed Meeting

Not applicable 14. Next Meeting – November 6, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. - LPRCA

15. Adjourn

9

Page 11 of 27


The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of September 4, 2014 adjourned at 3:24pm.

Moved by: D. Parker Seconded by: D. Murray carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting of September 4, 2014 be adjourned.

_______________________________ _______________________________ Chair Recording Secretary

10

Page 12 of 27

LAKE ERIE REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Thursday November 6, 2014

The following are the minutes of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting held on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at the Long Point Region Conservation Authority Office, 4 Elm Street, Tillsonburg. Members Present: C. Ashbaugh (Chair); H. Cornwell; A. Dale; R. Haggart; A. Henry; K.

Hunsberger; C. King; R. Krueger; I. MacDonald; D. Murray; J. Oliver; D. Parker; L. Perrin; P. Rider; B. Strauss; M. Wales; D. Woolcott; W. Wright-Cascaden.

Members Regrets: P. General; D. Hill; T. Schmidt; G. Schneider; B. Ungar. P. Wilson Proxy Representatives: E. Hodgins (T. Schmidt, P. Wilson) Liaisons: J. Mitchell (SPA Liaison); H. Gardiner (Provincial Liaison) Region Management C. Evanitski, LPRCA; J. Farwell, GRCA; R. Geysens, LPRCA; S. Committee: Martyn, CCCA; C. Murray, KCCA; K. Smale, CCCA; E. VanHooren,

KCCA Staff: E. Fanning, GRCA; C. Jacques, LPRCA; H. Kovacs, GRCA; M. Keller,

GRCA; D. Schultz, GRCA. 1. Call to Order

C. Ashbaugh called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.

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

The Recording Secretary called the roll and certified quorum.

3. Chairman’s Remarks C. Ashbaugh thanked members for attending the Source Protection Committee meeting at the Long Point Region Conservation Authority. C. Ashbaugh commented he had recently attended a meeting of the Source Protection Committee chairs from across the province. Minister Glenn Murray spoke at the meeting, and he was an enthusiastic speaker who enjoyed interacting with audience members. C. Ashbaugh noted he felt the Minister has our needs in mind and that under Minister Murray’s guidance the Source Protection Program should move forward with enthusiasm. C. Ashbaugh also attended a session at which the new MTO road sign was unveiled. This is an example of simplicity at its finest. The signs will be placed along provincial highways at the entrance to a vulnerable area. Other presentation topics included pipelines and phosphorus loadings and harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie. C. Ashbaugh indicated that overall the Chair’s meeting was a successful event and many great discussions were had.

Page 13 of 27

Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee Meeting Minutes – November 6, 2014

2

4. Review of Agenda

Moved by: B. Strauss Seconded by: A. Henry carried unanimously

THAT the agenda of November 6, 2014 be approved as distributed.

5. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest There were no declarations of pecuniary interest made in relation to the matters to be dealt with.

6. Minutes of Previous Meeting – September 4, 2014

Moved by: M. Wales Seconded by: R. Krueger carried unanimously

THAT the minutes of the previous meeting on September 4, 2014 be approved as amended.

7. Hearing of Delegations

None

8. Presentations

None

9. Correspondence

a) Copies for Members

Correspondence from Glenn Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, to Craig Ashbaugh, Chair of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee, Bud Polhill, Chair of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority, Elizabeth VanHooren, General Manager of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and Jane Mitchell, Chair of the Grand River Conservation Authority acknowledging the approval of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan Correspondence from Glenn Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, to Craig Ashbaugh, Chair of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee, Sally Martyn, Chair of the Catfish Creek Source Protection Authority, Kim Smale, General Manager of the Catfish Creek Conservation Authority and Jane Mitchell, Chair of the Grand River Conservation Authority acknowledging approval of the Catfish Creek Source Protection Plan Correspondence from Elizabeth VanHooren, General Manager of the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority to Craig Ashbaugh, Chair of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee regarding the approval of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan

Page 14 of 27


3

b) Not Copied

None D. Woolcot made reference to the third last paragraph of the approval letters from the Ministry, citing that it speaks to a workplan and annual report; how does this fit into the on-going program. M. Keller indicated that the Source Protection Authority is required to submit annual reports to the MOECC. There is a two year gap between plan approval and the first report submission date. The workplan that is referenced is due six months after the first annual report. It is designed so that the annual reports can be reviewed and used to submit the workplan to update the approved plan. D. Woolcot asked if there are early implementation successes, would there be an option to give an early update and submit the workplan prior to the November 2018 due date. The public may not see what has been accomplished in the time between plan approval and the first report. M. Keller indicated there is a process by which the committee, at any stage, can submit an update of the plan to the Ministry. This is not related to the annual reporting process, but is a mechanism to keep the plan current.

Res. No. 39-14 Moved by: A. Henry Seconded by: L. Perrin carried unanimously

THAT the correspondence be received as information.

10. Reports

a) SPC-14-11-01 Source Protection Program Update

M. Keller presented report SPC-14-11-01. W. Wright Cascaden referred to the report and commented that it states the first annual report is due 2018; does this include all actions from the time the plan is approved until the submissions of the report in 2018. If this is the case it may be a good idea to draft an interim report so that information is not lost. A. Henry commented that once a Risk Management Official (RMO) is appointed they are required to submit an annual report; will this process begin in 2018 as well? M. Keller indicated the requirements for these reports are different. The RMO reports must be submitted following the appointment of an RMO, regardless of plan approval or effective status. The RMO reporting content is only a portion of what is to be included in the annual report. J. Oliver suggested that Conservation Authorities should be including a Source Protection component in their annual reports as well; this could be completed in consultation with the Source Protection Committee. J. Oliver also questioned what the SPC’s role would be once plans are approved. M. Keller indicated that there have been initial discussions with the municipal implementation working group regarding a framework for annual reporting; however we are still waiting for final requirements from the province. The vision is that there will be a process in place that allows for on-going updates of information. J. Oliver commented that there hasn’t been any movement to address the role of an SPC as far out as 2018; how will the province keep the committees together in the interim. M. Keller indicated that originally the committee’s role was intended to be complete once the plans were finalized. During the third reading of the Clean Water Act in the legislature two mandatory items were added where the committee has an on-going role. One is annual reporting and the other is any updates to the plans. There is an understanding (from the regulations) that the SPC will continue once the plans are finalised. However, we are still

Page 15 of 27


4

waiting for direction from the Ministry as to how this will unfold. There were discussions at the Chairs meeting that one third of the SPC will be replaced every year following the approval of the plan. A working group has been established to look at this process. This is only a portion of the necessary discussion and the continuity of the committee needs to be discussed in a broader context. In the Lake Erie Region there will be sufficient work to keep momentum of the committee moving forward. A. Henry commented it was his understanding that the committee has no end. It will continue on because updates are needed etc., however there has been no indication as to how this will be funded. H. Gardiner commented as the plans are being approved the Ministry is starting to look towards the long term and study the role of the committees moving forward. At this time there are no answers to the committee’s questions; however there is a long term vision. The Great Lakes Protection Act and climate change in addition to the Clean Water Act should be considered moving forward. Ministry staff have discussed that one third of the committee is to be refreshed every year following plan approval. It should be noted that presently members can re-apply to be on the committee if they would like. D. Murray commented that in 2018 the committee will have two primary functions, and they will likely be more technical than anything else; how will the committee be involved? M. Keller replied that this still has to be determined and noted that the process has involved technical work from the very beginning. In the future there will also be a need to determine if there have been changes on the landscape and if the program is being effective, which is a broader task than just technical updates. J. Oliver suggested that if the province is looking for ways to implement the Clean Water Act, couldn’t the SPA boards act as the SPC moving forwards? The boards represent the interest of their watershed. M. Keller indicated these considerations were included in Justice O’Conner’s report. J. Oliver made reference to the Tier 3 update remarks and indicated, in the case of the Long Point Region study where there are only two small subwatersheds subject to stress, does this mean that the MOECC won’t consider readdressing the designation until all the Tier 3 work for those two small watersheds is complete. If so what can we as a committee do to address this, as I believe it is unnecessary. M. Keller indicated there have not been specific discussions with Ministry staff regarding this; the Tier 3 water use studies are only looking at municipal drinking water needs and the high water use designation includes other water uses. The Tier 3 information will need to be examined to determine how the high use designation may be reviewed. The MOECC knows that this needs to be reviewed. H. Gardiner commented that the science from the Tier 3 studies will be used in other parts of the Ministry (e.g., PTTW, changes in processes and considering new information). It will be used to inform future decision. J. Oliver suggested that the Tier 2 studies provided a high level of watershed assessment and that the results of these studies indicated there are only two subwatershed where there needs to be a level of concern regarding water use. M. Keller indicated he could continue to raise this issue with the Ministry and H. Gardiner agreed this is an issue she would take back as well.

Res. No. 40-14 Moved by: A. Henry Seconded by: R. Krueger carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receive report SPC-14-11-01 Source Protection Program Update – for information.

b) SPC-14-11-02 – Dunnville Update – Assessment Report and Draft Policies

Page 16 of 27


5

M. Keller presented report SPC-14-11-02 – Dunnville Update: Assessment Report and Draft Policies.

Res. No. 41-14 Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: R. Krueger carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receive report SPC-14-11-02 - Dunnville Update - Assessment Report and Draft Policies - for information.

c) SPC-14-11-03 – Tillsonburg Update – Assessment Report and ICA Policies M. Keller presented report SPC-14-11-03. J. Oliver made reference to residential septic systems and Nitrate Issue Contributing Areas and asked if it has been acknowledged that tertiary systems with nitrate removal would be acceptable in a Nitrate ICA. M. Keller indicated that in the Long Point Region and likely the Grand River plan there has been no distinction made between the types of systems. In some cases there can be challenges with the operation and effectiveness of these systems.

Res. No. 42-14 Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: E. Hodgins carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee receive report SPC-14-11-03 - Tillsonburg Update - Assessment Report and Draft ICA policies - for information.

d) SPC-14-11-04 – Wellington County and Region of Halton Final Recommended

Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions E. Fanning presented report SPC-14-11-04.

Res. No. 43-14 Moved by: B. Strauss Seconded by: D. Murray carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan in response to comments received from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process. AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to contribute to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address the plan review comments received from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

e) SPC-14-11-05 – City of Guelph and Region of Waterloo Final Recommended Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions

E. Fanning presented report SPC-14-11-05.

Page 17 of 27


6

Res. No. 44-14 Moved by: I. MacDonald Seconded by: A. Henry carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-11-05 - City of Guelph and Region of Waterloo Final Recommended Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions - for information AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address the plan review comments received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

f) SPC-14-09-06 – City of Hamilton, County of Perth, City of Brantford and

County of Brant Final Recommended Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions H. Kovacs presented report SPC-14-11-06.

Res. No. 45-14 Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: B. Strauss carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee received report SPC-14-11-06 - City of Hamilton, County of Perth, City of Brantford and County of Brant Final Recommended Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions - for information AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address the plan review comments received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as part of the plan review process.

g) SPC-14-09-07 – Long Point Region Source Protection Plan Final

Recommended Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions H. Kovacs presented report SPC-14-11-07.

Res. No. 46-14 Moved by: R. Krueger Seconded by: A. Dale carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee receives report SPC-14-11-07 - Long Point Region Source Protection Plan - Final Recommended Approaches and Draft Policy Revisions - for information AND THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee direct staff to make the recommended changes to the Proposed Amended Long Point Region Source Protection Plan and to continue to work with affected municipalities to find solutions to address Plan review comments received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Changed as part of the plan review process.

Page 18 of 27


7

11. Business Arising from Previous Meetings

a) 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.

H. Gardiner reported that the status of this item has not changed. M. Keller indicated it will continue to remain on the agenda. R. Haggart commented that throughout the County of Brant there continues to be aggregate industry breaking through aquitards and into the water table. County residents don’t understand how this is not a threat to drinking water. This continues to be a concern to many throughout Ontario. R. Haggart hopes that in the future this challenge can continue to stay on our agenda and that the Ministry is contacted for more information on how this issue can be addressed. We are finding that once the water table has been breached rehabilitation is very difficult. As we move forward we should continue to address this issue and express concern. R. Haggart suggested that this be brought forward at the next meeting of the SPC Chairs. A. Henry suggested this speaks to a greater issue in that a majority of work completed under the mandate of the Clean Water Act looks at land use with respect to biological and chemical contamination and threats to water. This doesn’t address activities that could potentially change the landscape vulnerability and this should be addressed in future iterations of the Assessment Report, Source Protection Plans and guidance documents. C. Ashbaugh commented that this is something the committee has been discussing since its inception and he is unsure if there has been any headway made. R. Haggart commented that the issue can’t be given up on. The committee must continue to express their concern and press the issue with the Ministry. E. Hodgins suggested that the request be expanded to include where land uses and activities may impact the vulnerability of municipal wells. E. Hodgins further commented that this should be included as a result of the Director’s denial to include the breaking of aquitards as a local threat and in recognition that the Clean Water Act does not speak to changes in vulnerability or include activities that physically change the vulnerability of the landscape. A. Henry commented that the mechanisms that the committee have been following have been to assess the vulnerability of WHPAs and IPZs and this seems to be inflexible. There has not been any attempt to address the situations where land use activities do not involve biological or chemical threats, but changes to the landscape so that the vulnerability is altered. This is not captured in the current program and could be one area where there would be an opportunity for future improvement. H. Cornwell questioned if drilling a private well would change vulnerability. M. Keller indicated the current regulations allow this in situations where there is a cluster of wells. In Lake Erie Region we have made changes to the vulnerability where clusters of wells are present. I. MacDonald commented that the original motion would be clouded with the inclusion of a second part. P. Rider’s original concerns need to be addressed. M. Keller suggested that this would be a broader statement. P. Rider indicated he would prefer if his original request could be addressed first. E. Hodgins commented that the issues are still separate; Guelph’s concern would be addressed under the current program framework and the second would direct the Ministry to areas where the Clean Water Act has gaps. A. Henry agreed that they are separate and suggested that this would be an opportunity for improvement. P. Rider commented that the

Page 19 of 27


8

original request was related to a local threat and the discussion currently seems to be directed towards why this is not a prescribed threat. E. Hodgins reiterated that he believes there are deficiencies in the Clean Water Act. For example, in locations where boreholes are present there is nothing preventing new boreholes from being drilled which could result in a change in vulnerability; the Act is missing the powers to limit activities that could change the existing vulnerability and further threaten source water. I. MacDonald suggested this still would not address P. Rider’s initial concern. Something must be done to get a response from the Ministry. Is there anything that the committee can do to help the City of Guelph? P. Rider suggested that the original request could be discussed at the next Chair’s meeting and that the Chairs could request a response from the Ministry as well.

Res. No. 46-14 Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: A. Henry carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee continue to express their concerns with regard to land uses and activities that penetrate into the municipal aquifer and / or increase the vulnerability of wellhead protection areas or intake protection zones.

b) Non-Agricultural Source Material

M. Keller indicated this was brought forward by D. Parker at a previous committee meeting; a fact sheet with information summarizing the different categories and how the circumstances address significant threats has been provided.

12. Other Business

a) Question and Answer Period

13. Closed Meeting

Not applicable 14. Next Meeting – December 4, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. - GRCA

15. Adjourn

The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee meeting of November 6, 2014 adjourned at 3:15pm.

Moved by: L. Perrin Seconded by: D. Parker carried unanimously

THAT the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee meeting of November 6, 2014 be adjourned.

_______________________________ _______________________________ Chair Recording Secretary

Page 20 of 27

KCSPA Meeting Minutes September 17, 2014 Page 1 of 3

KETTLE CREEK SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY Full Authority Meeting

Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 8:38 p.m. St. Thomas Golf and Country Club

A meeting of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority was held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 8:38 p.m. at the St. Thomas Golf and Country Club. Members Present: Cliff Barwick City of St. Thomas Ian Chard Southwold Township Heather Jackson City of St. Thomas Bill Mackie City of London Charlie Murray Thames Centre Bud Polhill, Chair City of London Ralph Winfield City of London Conrad Wodrich Middlesex Centre Regrets: Max Moore Malahide Township Bill Walters, Vice Chair Central Elgin Staff Present: Michael Buis Lake Whittaker Conservation Area Coordinator Joe Gordon Director of Operations Elizabeth VanHooren General Manager/Secretary Treasurer

1. Introductions and Declarations of Pecuniary Interest There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. The Chair welcomed Mr. Ian Chard to the meeting as the new representative from Southwold Township. 2. Minutes of Meetings a) April 28, 2014 Lake Erie Regional Management Meeting KCSPA21/14 Moved by: Charlie Murray Seconded: Conrad Wodrich That the minutes of the April 28, 2014 Lake Erie Regional Management Meeting be accepted as submitted.

Carried

Page 21 of 27


b) Lake Erie Source Protection Committee Meeting KCSPA22/14 Moved by: Charlie Murray Seconded: Bill Mackie That the minutes of the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee Meetings of January 9, 2014, March 13, 2014 and June 5, 2014 be accepted as submitted. Carried c) Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority Meeting KCSPA23/14 Moved by: Conrad Wodrich Seconded: Ian Chard That the minutes of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority Meeting of March 19, 2014, be approved. Carried 3. Matters Arising a) Approval of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan Ms. VanHooren was pleased to report that the Ministry of the Environment approved the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan on September 11, 2014. The plan will take effect on January 1, 2015. Staff have circulated letters to the member municipalities advising of the plan’s approval and will be following up with those who have responsibilities under the plan. The plan’s approval represents over ten years of work by conservation authority and municipal staff. KCSPA24/14 Moved by: Charlie Murray Seconded: Conrad Wodrich That a letter of gratitude be sent to the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee for their assistance and support of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan.

Carried

Page 22 of 27


4. Correspondence a) Letter from Ling Mark, Source Protection Program Branch April 10, 2014, Re: Receipt of

the Amended Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan and Updated Assessment Report

b) Letter from Ling Mark, Source Protection Programs Branch May 15, 2014, Re: Approval of the Updated Assessment Report

KCSPA25/14 Moved by: Bill Mackie Seconded: Charlie Murray That the correspondence be received as presented.

5. New Business No new business was introduced. The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.

Elizabeth VanHooren General Manager/Secretary‐Treasurer

Page 23 of 27

ActualsAssets:

Accounts Receivable 570.63

Total Assets 570.63

Liabilities and EquityAmounts Due to KCCA 570.63

Total Liabilities and Equity 570.63

ProposedBudget Actual Difference Percentage 2015 Budget

Revenues:SPP Transfers from GRCA 16,000.00$ 9,553.69$ 6,446.31$ 40.3% 12,000.00$

Expenditures:Wages: 12,000.00$ 8,698.71$ 3,301.29$ 27.5% 10,000.00$

Liason 6,380.80 Communications 225.43 Technical - Information Technology - Stewardship 2,092.48

Telecommunications -$ 855.00$ (855.00)$ 0.0% -$ Material & Supplies 3,000.00$ -$ 3,000.00$ 100.0% 1,000.00$ Equipment Purchases

Meeting Costs & Billable Mileage 1,000.00$ - 1,000.00$ 100.0% 1,000.00 Total Expenditures: 16,000.00$ 9,553.69$ 6,446.29$ 40.3% 12,000.00$

Net Income/Loss

Statement of Revenue and ExpenseAs At December 31, 2014

Kettle Creek Source Protection AuthorityBalance Sheet

As At December 31, 2014

Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority

Page 24 of 27

News ReleaseFor Immediate Release December 9, 2014

For more information, please contact:Bonnie LysykAuditor General(416) 327-1326

For more information and to view the full report, please visit www.auditor.on.ca

Key Recommendation Still Not Implemented 14 Years After Walkerton, Auditor General Says (TORONTO) Since 2000, when seven people died and more than 2,300 became ill when the drinking water in Walkerton became contaminated, Ontario has still not implemented a key recommendation of the Walkerton Commission of Inquiry into the tragedy, Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk says in her 2014 Annual Report.

“Fourteen years after the Walkerton crisis, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is still in the process of reviewing and approving locally developed source water protection plans. Development of these plans, the first defence against contamination of drinking water, was recom-mended by the Walkerton inquiry and are required by the Clean Water Act of 2006,” Lysyk said today following release of the Report. “The Ministry still has no clear time frame when all source water protection plans will be approved.”

Soon after the Clean Water Act was proclaimed in 2006, the Ministry established a committee in each of 19 regions of the province to develop source water protection plans to assess existing and poten-tial threats to source water and ensure policies were in place to reduce these threats. In 2002, the government passed the Nutrient Management Act to try to prevent buildup of excess nutrients in the soil that can run off into surface waters or leach into groundwater.

Other significant findings included the following:

• Only some farms that produce and use manure fall under the requirements of the Nutrient Management Act. For example, the farm that was the source of contamination in Walkerton would not be captured under the Act’s regulations.

• The Ministry lacks a long-term strategy to ensure that the plans, once approved, are appropriately implemented.

• There is a high likelihood that spills from industrial and commercial facilities pose a threat to water intakes in the Great Lakes, but source water protection plans do not currently address them.

• In 2013/14, the Ministry inspected only 3% of the farms that must adhere to the Act’s regulations for proper storage and application of manure. Of those farms, about half were non-compliant, some in ways that caused a risk or threat to the environment and/or human health. The audit found that the Ministry often did not follow up on issues of non-compliance and rarely issued offence notices that could lead to fines in provincial court.

• The Ministry is recovering only about $200,000 of the $9.5 million in annual program costs associ-ated with the taking of water by industrial and commercial users such as water-bottling companies.

-30-

Page 25 of 27

Page 26 of 27

Page 27 of 27

Documents

Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority · a) SPC-14-09-01 Source Protection Program Update . M. Keller reviewed report SPC -14-09-01 – Source Protection Program Update . M. Wales