Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-11-135 - Clean Water Act - RMOW SPP ApproachJ Staff Reporf KITC;H~,~T~R Community Services Department www.kircnenerca REPORT T0: Community & Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: October 17, 2011 SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO Community Services Department PREPARED BY: Barbara Steiner, Senior Environmental Planner, 519-741-2293 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: October 5, 2011 REPORT NO.: CSD -11-135 SUBJECT: ONTARIO CLEAN WATER ACT: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO'S APPROACHES TO POLICIES IN THE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN RECOMMENDATION: For information. BACKGROUND: The Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 received royal assent on October 19, 2006. The purpose of the Act is to protect existing and future sources of drinking water throughout the province. The background of this new legislation was outlined in Kitchener staff report DTS - 07 - 031, and presented for information to Kitchener Council in February, 2007. Many of the provisions of the Act will be implemented under the direction of Source Protection Committees that have been established for each source protection area or region. Source Protection Committees are comprised of stakeholders representing a broad range of interests, including municipalities located in a particular region. Kitchener is located in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region that includes all lands under the jurisdiction of the Catfish Creek, Grand River, Kettle Creek and Long Point Region Conservation Authorities. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has been appointed as the Source Protection Authority (the lead conservation authority responsible for administering the Source Protection Committee). The City of Kitchener supported the delegation of authority to Regional Council to select the Source Protection Committee member for the Region of Waterloo, including Kitchener, through Council resolution on October 22, 2007 as recommended in Kitchener staff report DTS - 07 - 161.Accordingly, the Region selected Thomas Schmidt, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to sit on the Source Protection Committee. 6-1 J Staff Reporf KITC;H~,~T~R Community Services Department www.kircnenerca Under the Act, Source Protection Committees are required to develop three (3) pieces of documentation: (1) Terms of Reference; (2) an Assessment Report; and (3) a Source Protection Plan. The Terms of Reference were completed, and the Grand River Watershed Assessment Report was submitted to the Province on December 20, 2010 and is currently undergoing provincial review. The GRCA and Region are now in the process of developing the Source Protection Plan. The Source Protection Plan which will affect the City of Kitchener is now being developed by the Region of Waterloo for all of the lands located in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The approach that the Region is taking to the development of the risk-reduction policies of their Source Protection Plan is outlined in the Region's staff report E - 11 - 102 attached to this report. REPORT: The City of Kitchener has been monitoring the development of the Terms of Reference and the Assessment Report with an eye towards understanding any implications for both our policies and practices. Although the Clean Water Act's source water protection initiatives have a greater impact on upper-tier and single-tier municipalities who are directly responsible for supplying drinking water, lower-tier municipalities will be impacted, the degree to which will be determined by the ultimate scope and nature of the Source Protection Plan. The GRCA formed two (2) groups of municipal representatives in 2006 at the outset of their endeavour to implement the Clean Water Act in order to disseminate information and receive input. The Lake Erie Source Protection Water Services Technical Group is comprised of staff from upper-tier and single-tier municipalities who are directly responsible for supplying drinking water, including staff from the Region of Waterloo. A second group is comprised of planning officials from all of the municipalities in the source protection area, with the City of Kitchener providing representation from the Planning Division. Regular meetings of this second group have allowed Kitchener staff to monitor progress and keep abreast of any potential implications for our municipality. From time to time during these years, the Region would also convene meetings of planning officials and / or water managers from the component area municipalities to discuss issues unique to the Region of Waterloo. Because the Region's Source Protection Plan is now being developed, more input from the area municipalities is, of course, being sought by the Region, and provided by the area municipalities in key areas of their operation. For example, in the spring and summer of this year, Kitchener staff were consulted and participated in workshops on: road salting, stormwater management, fleet re-fuelling and other potential threats at City-owned facilities or properties. Emer~ ~ic~ng Issues forthe City of Kitchener At the completion of the assessment reports including the Grand River Watershed Assessment Report, the GRCA had concluded that the most prevalent threats across the Lake Erie Source Protection Region of which the Grand River Source Protection Area, including the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, is a part, are: • Systems that collect, store, transmit, treat or dispose of sewage (i.e., mainly septic systems but, in Kitchener also sanitary sewage pumping stations and pipes and stormwater management facilities); 6-2 J Staff Reporf KITC;H~,~T~R Community Services Department www.kircnenerca • The handling and storage of road salt; • The handling and storage of a DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquid); and • The handling and storage of fuel. Accordingly, in 2011, discussion papers were prepared on these, and other, threats to help guide the preparation of the Source Protection Plan. Proposed Tools to Mana, e Threats The Region's approach to policies in their Source Protection Plan is outlined in the attached report. Different tools are proposed to address the different threats throughout the Region including: • Education • Incentives (e.g. existing Rural Water Quality Program) • SmartAbout Salt©Certification • Risk Management Plan (e.g. Nutrient Management Plan, Salt Management Plan) • Mandatory area municipal inspection of sanitary sewerage facilities (e.g. pipes, pumping stations) and small septic systems • Ministry of Environment Conditions on Certificates of Approval • Land Use Planning • Prohibitions of Uses constituting Threats (e.g. landfills, snow and salt storage) • Instruments and actions under the Clean Water Act Details are given in the attached report which outlines the Region's approach to developing and implementing the Source Protection Plan required by the Province. Different tools will be required depending upon whether the Threat is existing, or might occur in the future. Possible Implications for the City of Kitchener The Region has been in consultation with area municipalities as they have been developing their approach to the Source Protection Plan this year. As the Workshops and Discussion Papers were conducted and written, participation and input was sought from the City of Kitchener along with the other area municipalities. This provided a mechanism to involve staff from various functional areas of the City whose practices and / or policies might be affected by a Source Protection Plan once in place. Accordingly, the City of Kitchener's relevant staff members have been and are participating in the development of the Region's Source Protection Plan including staff from the Infrastructure Services Department (Engineering, Stormwater Utility, Fleet and Operations) and the Community Services Department (Building and Planning). It should be noted that any measures that become a requirement of the Region's Source Protection Plan under the Province's Clean Water Act will be focussed on areas closer to vulnerable areas in relatively close proximity to drinking water sources referred to as Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) or Intake Protection Zones (IPZs). It is anticipated that, as with current Regional Water Services programs, broader areas of the Region will be subject to more general education initiatives to protect source water throughout the municipality. 6-3 J Staff Reporf KITC;H~,~T~R Community Services Department www.kircnenerca Vulnerable areas around drinking water sources and the Significant Threats in those areas have been identified by the Region in the Assessment Report. The identification of discrete properties as Significant Threats is based on best available information including a 2009 survey of activities occurring on properties located in vulnerable areas. Kitchener staff members are currently evaluating the accuracy of Regional data identifying certain City-owned properties as Significant Threats, and will work with Regional staff to ensure they have the most accurate information possible about City-owned properties. The Kitchener interdepartmental staff group described above will continue to monitor and participate in the development of the Region's Source Protection Plan. City of Kitchener practices and l or policies that may be affected include: • Salting and winter maintenance of public roads, sidewalks and parking lots • Inspection, maintenance and possible retrofitting of stormwater management facilities • Inspection, maintenance and possible retrofitting of sanitary sewer facilities such as pipes and pumping stations • Mandatory inspection program for private, small septic systems by the Building Division • New conditions of development approvals • Changes to the City's Official Plan policies and Zoning Bylaw to restrict uses that constitute a Threat. As of yet, according to the attached report, no detailed implementation costs are available. The City of Kitchener will likewise have to determine any costs with changed practices required by the new Ontario Clean Water Act. Next Steps and Milestones October 2011 Report to Regional Council on Approach to Source Protection Plan October 2011 Report to Kitchener Council on Approach to Source Protection Plan Presentation to Kitchener Council by Regional Staff November 2011 Region holds Open Houses throughout Region Kitchener and Region work together on detailed policies December 2011 Report to Regional Council on Source Protection Plan's Detailed Policies January 2012 Report to Kitchener Council on Source Protection Plan's Detailed Policies December 2011- Draft Source Protection Plan developed by Region and submitted to SPC February 2012 March 5, 2012 35-day consultation begins on Draft Source Protection Plan Public Meetings March -April 2012 June 11, 2012 30-day consultation begins on Proposed Source Protection Plan August 2012 Source Protection Plan submitted to Province 6-4 l Staff Re ort p KITC;H~,~vT~,R Community Services Department www.kircnenerca ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Community Priorities Leadership and Community Engagement Supporting the Province and the Region in °clean water" initiatives will enhance our partnership with citizens, business, agencies, organizations, school boards and all orders of government in all Healthy Community initiatives (Strategic Direction 1) Environment Helping implement the Province's Clean Water Act will help achieve the Citizens' Vision for the Environment (2027), in which our community focuses significant energy and resources on becoming more environmentally friendly. Foundation Efficient and Effective Government Monitoring the effect of Clean WaterAct initiatives on the City of Kitchener is consistent with our financial management goal to strive to ensure longterm corporate financial stability and fiscal accountability to our taxpayers. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The scope of policies and programs that the Region's Source Protection Plan will have is currently being developed. Therefore, related (especially direct) financial implications for Kitchener which arise from the plan are being concurrently assessed by appropriate City of Kitchener staff. More details will be available for Council's consideration after the Source Protection Plan is finalized by the Region in December of 2011, and another Kitchener staff report on the Region's proposed detailed policies for the final Source Protection Plan is brought to Kitchener Council early in 2012. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: The City of Kitchener is not the lead organization in this initiative and, as such, no corporate communications have emanated from the City of Kitchener. Rather, the GRCA and Region have, as required by provincial legislation, been informing, engaging and seeking input from the public on the various initiatives required by the Clean Water Act such as the Terms of Reference and the Assessment Report. They are now undertaking the public consultation connected with the development of the Source Protection Plan as outlined in the attached report. REVIEWED BY: Nick Gollan Manager of Kitchener Stormwater Utility Infrastructure Services Department Grant Murphy Director of Engineering Infrastructure Services Department 6-5 J Staff Reporf KITC;H~,~T~R Community Services Department www.kircnenerca Alain Pinard Director of Planning Community Services Department Mike Selling Director of Building Community Services Department Jim Witmer Director of Operations Infrastructure Services Department ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO Community Services Department Attachments: Region's staff report E -11-102 6-6 ~~~ ~. ~, ~~~ ~, ~~~ A FACE • PROSPE~`~ Report: E-11-102 REGION OF WATERLOO TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Water Service T0: Chair Jim Wideman and Members of the Planning and Works Committee DATE: September 27, 2011 FILE CODE: C06-60/vVS.11 SUBJECT: APPROACHES TO POLICIES IN THE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN RECOMMENDATION: For Information SUMMARY: The last planning step in fulfilling the requirements of the Clean Water Act for watershed-based source water protection is the development of the Source Protection Plan (SPP). The SPP is to contain policies to reduce the risk from drinking water threats and is required to be submitted to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) for approval by August 2012. This report provides a summary of the approaches being considered by Region staff to develop risk-reduction policies for the SPP. Development of the risk-reduction policies follows several principles including those identified in the Water Resources Protection Master Plan that was approved by Regional Council in 2007. Differing degrees of protection are integrated into the policies depending on whetherthere are drinking water quality Issues (deteriorating water quality trends) observed in a municipal drinking-water supplywell and proximity of the threat to the well. A combination of prohibition, risk management, land-use planning, Prescribed Instruments e.g. certificates of approval issued by the Province, incentives, and education policies are proposed to reduce the risk from the 19 threats prescribed by the MOE. Development of the SPP is on-going and will include providing additional detail for each policy and consideration of other components of policy implementation including the scope of incentive programs and establishment of the Risk Management Official (RMO) and Risk Management Inspectors (RMI). Consultation on the policy approaches has commenced and will be expanded over the next several months to get property owner, public and agency feedback on the draft policies and SPP. REPORT: Background The Clean WaterAct (2006) establishes the legislative framework for undertaking watershed-based source water protection. The purpose of this initiative is to reduce water quality and quantity risks from threats to drinking water sources. The Clean Water Act and related regulations establish a multiple step process undertaken over a number of years to establish a SPP that will contain policies for reducing risks to drinking water sources. Several recent reports to Regional Council (E-10-082, E-10-012, E-09-110) have provided information on the risk assessment that are documented in an Assessment Report for each watershed. The Assessment Report for the Grand River Watershed provides the technical basis for development of the SPP. The completion of technical work for the Assessment Report and policy development in the SPP is a collaborative effort between Page 1 of 20 6-7 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 municipalities and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff. The multi-stakeholder Lake Erie Source Protection Committee (SPC) is responsible for completing the Assessment Report and the SPP. The Grand River watershed Assessment Report was submitted to the Province on December 20, 2010 and is currently undergoing Provincial review. The Region provided formal comments on the Assessment Report to the GRCA (E-10-082). In addition, Region and GRCA staff have been working on an update to the Assessment Report, as allowed under the Clean Water Act, to include new and updated information (E-11-013). The GRCA is unable to submit the report to the Province until it has received comments on the original Assessment Report. Region and GRCA staff are continuing to develop policies for the SPP based on the work in the Updated Assessment Report. Development of risk reduction policies for inclusion in the SPP will need to consider numerous evaluation criteria, will involve extensive consultation with property owners affected by the policies and government agencies identified as implementing the policies, and will need to adhere to Provincial rules, regulations, and guidance. While Region staff has been identified as having the lead for local policy development, the Source Protection Committee will ultimately approve the SPP and submit it to the Province for approval. Policy development and consultation is to be completed in a relatively short period of time, as per Clean WaterAct regulation, compared to the time taken for development of the Assessment Report. This report provides a summary of the approaches being considered by Region staff to develop risk- reduction policies for the SPP. Specifically, it will identify the general principles Region staff are using to develop the policies and the preferred implementation toolsfor reducing risks. The report will also provide an update on the status of the Updated Assessment Report, will present some additional implementation issuesthatRegion staff has been considering, and will provide a synopsis of the consultation and approval process forthe SPP. Assessment Report Status The Grand River watershed Assessment Report contains a detailed assessment of drinking water sources in the watershed, including a risk assessment on each county, region or single-tier municipal system for the 19 water quality threats prescribed by the MOE. Risk was determined by identifying and ranking Threats (existing and future land uses and activities, intake water quality Issues and historic water contamination Conditions} in vulnerable drinking water areas including municipal well head and surface water intake protection areas. In addition, risk is calculated for significant groundwater recharge areas and areas of high vulnerability within the watershed. A risk "score" is calculated for each threat in each vulnerable area and any threat where the risk is calculated to be Significant must have a policy in the SPP to mitigate the risk. As noted in report E11-057, a total of 2750 properties in Waterloo Region have been identified as having Significant threats that will need to be addressed in the SPP. Appendix A presents a summary table of the number of threats by well field and whether the threats are associated with a water quality Issue. The identification and ranking of threats was done using a combination of property-owner surveys and existing data sources. Accordingly the ranking is based on the best available information that will need to be confirmed as part of SPP policy development and implementation. It is important to note that the Updated Assessment Report does not include the results of the Local Water Budget (Tier 3) and Risk Assessment project that was initiated in 2008 and was required under the Clean Water Act. This project looks at the overall water use in Waterloo Region and will assess water quantity threats to the Region's municipal water intakes. The Tier 3 project is ROCS#1030966 Page 2 of 20 6-8 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 anticipated to be completed in 2012, the results of which will be incorporated into a further update of the Assessment Report. Overall Approach and Considerations A total of 7 municipalities plus the GRCA have been identified as leads for developing risk-reduction policies for the municipal intakes within the Grand River Watershed. To assist each of these agencies, a series of discussion papers were developed for each prescribed threat. Each discussion paper summarizes the circumstances that make the threat significant, reviewed existing legislative tools and voluntary programs that could be used to reduce the risk, and developed examples of policies. The examples were created forthe different implementation tools identified by the Province that could be used as risk-reduction policies. Each tool has different advantages, disadvantages and legal effect depending on who is responsible for implementation. Abrief description of each tool is presented in Appendix B. It is important to note that the first 4 approaches (prohibition, restricted land use, risk management plans and prescribed instruments) are new tools introduced in the Clean Water Act and related regulations that are available to Upper Tier municipalities for reducing risk. These tools provide authority to implement programs but require increased administration resources to implement. The remaining tools provide varying degrees of enforcement for source protection and have been available for many years. In addition to this information, the Province has issued numerous technical bulletins and support documents that describe the applicability and limitations of the tools. The discussion papers and Provincial guidance provides the information needed to begin consideration of risk-reduction policies. Region staff have additional knowledge to offer as a result of over 15 years of experience in implementing source protection programs. Based on all of the above, several principles were identified to guide the development of risk-reduction policies as follows: • Overall principles to reducing risk should consider previous source protection program implementation experience and align with approaches identified in the Region's Water Resources Protection Master Plan (E-07-076} including the need to balance voluntary and regulatory initiatives, where feasible and technically justified in relation to Clean Water Act, and build on existing programs before creating new programs; • More protective policies (regulatory driven andlor shorter implementation time period) should be applied in areas closer to well (e.g.100 m zone} compared to those further from the well. • More protective policies should be developed for threats associated with a drinking water Issue compared to those for threats not associated with an Issue; • A "carrot and stick" approach should be employed to enable voluntary implementation before requiring compliance in future implementation periods. As source protection is envisioned to be a continuous improvement process, the first round of risk management policies should emphasize voluntary implementation with or without financial incentives to reduce risk. If voluntary implementation is unsuccessful in this initial implementation period, the stronger enforcement tools enabled through the Clean Water Act would be used to require compliance and any financial incentives would be removed; • A consistent approach to policies (e.g. degree of forcefulness} should be attempted for the various threats to ensure no individual threat is regulated to a greater degree than others; • Existing prescribed instruments (e.g. Provincial certificates of approval and permits} and local programs (e.g. Rural Water Quality Program} should be used to achieve risk reduction objectives. Where no current program exists, developmentof newprograms (e.g. business spill prevention incentives) would be considered. Where numbers of properties do not warrant development of a new program, consideration should be given to using risk management plan andlor education/awareness programs to achieve objectives; ROCS#1030966 Page 3 of 20 6-9 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Compliance dates should be distributed over the five year implementation period to manage impact on Region/municipal staffing and property owners; Policies applied to existing properties must consider that land uses and activities may have been present for many years and allow for changes to be implemented in a reasonable time frame. Accordingly, financial incentives could be considered in recognition that they will be required to meet new legislative requirements; and, Costs to comply with the policies by property owners and to implement programs by municipalities and theGRCAarean importantconsideration inthedevelopmentof policies. Using these principles, guidance and discussion papers, a preliminary approach including the identification of the main tool to be used to reduce risk from the 19 prescribed threats has been developed and is presented in Tables 1 through 4. The tables list the primary tools to be used to address the threats identified by the Province and several additional threats identified by the Source Protection Committee that need to be included in the SPP. The fourtables presentthe proposed tools for: existing threats without drinking water quality Issues; existing threats with Issues; future threats without Issues; and future threats with Issues. The tables list each threat and the tool that is proposed to be applied to specificvulnerableareas. The tables together list a range of tools that are to be applied to a large number of properties for addressing a number of threats. It is important to note that this is a conceptual approach and is the first step in the development of policies. The approaches and tools will be refined though a detailed review of each property identified as a significant threat, may be different for different wells, and could change in response to public consultation and discussion at the Source Protection Committee. In addition, the actual policies contained in the SPP will be much more detailed (by well, threat andlor property} and will likely include compliance dates. Notwithstanding the above, the following general implications are provided. The policies may require existing property owners to undertake additional measures to reduce risk from their activities depending on the degree to which existing risk management measures have been undertaken. Policies to address future threats may require changes to the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and area municipal official plans at some point following approval of the SPP by the MOE. Where possible the proposed approaches have attempted to develop a similar level of protection as that afforded in ROP. The Region and area municipalities will have additional responsibilities arising from these proposed approaches including complying with policies on municipally-owned properties and implementing various programs. For policies that use the new Clean Water Act tools, the Region will need to establish risk-management office to implement these programs as discussed below. For example, area municipalities may have to implement inspection programs associated with septic systems in accordance with the Building Code. It is important to note that the proposed approaches have not evaluated the detailed implementation costs for municipalities or staffing requirements to implement them. Staff will continue to develop this information to the extent possible as part of the policy development process, including further discussion with area municipal staff through the Source Water Protection Liaison Committee. It is anticipated that an assessment of the financial impacts to the Region and local municipalities will be developed to coincide with the formal consultation on the SPP inwinter/spring 2012. ROCS#1030966 Page 4 of 20 6-10 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Supporting Program Considerations While Region staff are familiar with the scope of several tools to be used for source protection (e.g. land-use planning or education programs), it is proposed that many of the identified threats are best addressed using the new tools enabled through the Clean Water Act and incentive programs. Accordingly the scope of these implementation approaches needs additional consideration to better evaluate the implications of using them. A description of these is provided below. Scope of incentives The Rural Water Quality Program (RWQP} has had considerable success in improving water quality related to farming activities. Accordingly, it was felt that this program could be used to meet Clean WaterActrisk-reduction objectives. As noted above, incentives could be provided during this initial few years of SPP implementation. However, unlike the original RWQP, an incentive program would target contacting property owners invulnerable areas to encourage their participation and inform them that this is atime-limited offer. Incentive programs are also a proposed approach for application of road salt and chemical storagelhandling. Some further information on the scope of these programs is provided below: Risk reduction from agricultural activities would be addressed through the RWQP with a higher priority for properties in well fields with drinking water quality issues. As with the original program, the incentives would cover a portion of the cost of the specific measure. Where the threat is application of manure or fertilizer, the incentive covers approximately 30 percent of the cost up to $1000 for preparation of a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP}. For manure or fertilizer storage, the cost share is the same with an upper limit of $15,000 in recognition of the much higher costs for constructing storage facilities some of which can exceed $100,000. The current structure of the RWQP is well suited to meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act. For application of road salt, incentives would be provided to property owners to undertake the assessment and accreditation as part of the smart about saltT"" program. It is envisioned that the scope of incentives would be similar to that of preparation of a NMP. An incentive program would be developed for addressing fuel storage and organic solvents primarily targeting properties where the chemical use is "secondary" to the land use. At this time, it is proposed that the incentive programs would not be available to property owners where the primary use of the property is for fuel or chemical storage (e.g. gas station). It is assumed that these companies likely have stringent regulations andlor follow association beneficial management practices that minimize the opportunity for spills and that incentives would only cover a very small percentage of the cost to upgrade any of these facilities. The incentive programs would use a similar structure to that of the RWQP and the Business Water Quality Program that was terminated in 2005. Development of these proposed incentive programs including evaluation of financial and staffing implications is ongoing. Risk Management Official and Inspectors The Clean Water Act includes tools for prohibiting activities, restricting land use, and requiring risk management plans to reduce the risk from threats. Each of these tools requires the development of a Risk Management Official (RMO) and Risk Management Inspectors (RMI) for implementation. Together these persons would comprise a RMO "office" that would have extensive enforcement authority including provisions for: issuing, amending, renewing and revoking risk management plans; power of entry to gather information necessary for the preparation of the SPP; issuance of ROCS#1030966 Page 5 of 20 6-11 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 enforcement orders and the authority to cause work to be done at the property owner's expense; and charging processing fees and/or recouping work expenses where the property owner refused to take action. Appeals of decisions made by the RMO Office can be made to the Environmental Review Tribunal. Accordingly, development of additional detail on this process is necessary to understand the implications of using these tools. Region staff has developed a conceptual approach to the RMO Office including development of administrative process associated with these tools, identification of specific tasks, the time required to undertake them, and the experience needed to perform these activities. This process has been developed following MOE guidance, participation on an informal municipal/MOE working group, participation in a pilottraining session for RMO/RMI developed by the MOE, and consultation with Legal Services and Community Planning staff. A summary of this structure is as follows: • The RMO Office would be operated within Water Services. The RMO would report to the Manager, Hydrogeology and Source Water. • To the extent possible, existing staff resources would be utilized for undertaking these new activities. There may be some opportunity for the RMOIRMI activities to be integrated into existing job descriptions. • Technical support for review of risk management plans would be undertaken using existing staff. Compliance dates for risk management plans would be staggered to reduce requirements for new staff. Additional database management and/or administrative support may be necessary to ensure the functionality of the RMO Office. • The preliminary assessment of the content of risk management plans for salt, nutrient, chemical and pesticide management has been developed to better understand the scope of the plans and staffing needs. It is important to note that each risk management plan is to be negotiated individually with each property owner. The development ofthe RMOOffice is on-going. As with the incentive programs, further details on the financial, staffing, and administrative process will be developed for early 2012 to enable a full evaluation of the implications of these functions as part of the Region's comments on the SPP. Next Steps Including Public Consultation Regulations require the SPP to be submitted to the MOE by August 12, 2012. By this time period, the polices must be developed, and then undergothree levels of consultation: publicengagement, pre-consultation, and formal consultation. Public engagement is an optional consultation step available to agencies with the lead for policy development and involves direct discussion with stakeholders. Pre-consultation is a recommendation by the MOE to forward draft polices to municipal and Provincial agencies that would be responsible for policy implementation for their comment. Formal consultation is set in regulation and includes advising agencies and property owners of their opportunity to comment on the draft SPP. As discussed above, discussion papers, regulations and guidance will be used by the lead agencies to formulate draft policies that will then be provided to the GRCA for inclusion in SPP. The next steps in the policy and consultation process are as follows: Region staff will continue to implement public engagement with local municipal staff through the Source Water Protection Liaison Committee. Public engagementwill be expanded to include notification to property owners with significant threats, stakeholder association presentations and the hosting of four Public Information Centres in Octoberand November 2011. Staff will prepare a report to Regional Council for December 2011 providing proposed policies to be forwarded to the SPC for their inclusion in and public consultation on the SPP. ROCS#1030966 Page 6 of 20 6-12 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 • Further public engagement and pre-consultation will occur between December 2011 and March 2012 on the draft policies. • The SPC is scheduled to consider the draft SPP in March 2012 and approve it for formal public consultation including a public meeting. A35 daycommenting period is availablefor public and municipal comments on the SPP. Region staff will prepare a report on the draft SPP for Regional Council's consideration. • A revised draft SPP is scheduled to be approved for further 30 day commenting period in May 2012. • The SPC is scheduled to approve the SPP in late June 2012. CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN: The preparation of the SPP contributes to the implementation of the Strategic Objective to protect the quality and quantity of our drinking water sources of Focus Area 1: Environmental Sustainability. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The scope of policies and programs including financial implications as discussed in this report are on-going. Further assessment of anticipated staffing needs and implementation costs to implement the SPP will be undertaken and included in the 2013 budget process. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONSULTATIONSICONCURRENCE: Corporate Resources (Legal Services), Planning, Housing and Community Services (Community Planning) staff have been consulted in the selection of policy approaches and related support programs. Public Health staff participate in SPC meetings and the Source Water Protection Liaison Committee. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A: Summary of Significant Threats by Well Field Appendix B: Legal Affect of Policy Tools Tables 1 through 4: Proposed Policy Tools PREPARED BY: Eric Hodgins, Manager, Hydrogeology and Source Protection APPROVED BY: Thomas Schmidt, Commissioner, Transportation and Environmental Services ROCS#1030966 Page 7 of 20 6-13 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Appendix A: Enumeration of Significant Threats by Wellfield for the Updated Assessment Report Well Field Total Number of Significant Threat Activities Total Number of Properties with Si nificant 9 Threats Total Number of Properties with Significant Threats Related to Issues Drinkin Water Qualit g y Issues Ayr 1 1 0 Baden 135 70 64 Nitrate Blair Road 3 3 0 Branchton Meadows 10 10 10 Salt Clemens Mill 16 11 0 Conestogo 43 34 0 Dunbar Road 2 2 0 Elgin Street 130 106 105 Salt, TCE Elmira 25 5 0 Erb Street 8 4 0 Fountain Street 1 1 0 Foxboro Green 5 2 0 Greenbrook 201 177 174 Salt Heidelberg 20 14 0 Hespeler 114 108 106 Salt (H3), Salt & Nitrate (H4) Lancaster 14 8 0 Linwood 19 17 0 Mannheim 615 357 350 Nitrate (K23, K24 & K26) Maryhill 32 24 0 Middleton 893 795 743 Salt, TCE New Dundee 47 32 0 New Hamburg 10 5 0 Parkway 338 293 291 Salt Pinebush 143 124 107 Salt (G5) Pompeii l Forwell 20 8 0 Roseville 24 21 0 Shades Mill 26 11 0 St. Clements 45 41 0 Strange Street 19 14 7 Salt (K10A) Strasburg 3 3 0 Waterloo North 9 8 0 Wellesley 9 4 0 West Montrose 6 4 0 Willard 33 26 0 William Street 346 331 326 Salt, TCE Wilmot Centre 164 92 90 Nitrate Woolner 8 6 0 Grand River Intake 0 0 0 Note: Some properties lie in areas of overlapping protection zones and are ranked and counted separately for each well field. Total number of significant threat properties with overlaps removed equals 2750. ROCS#1030966 Page 8 of 20 6-14 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Appendix B: Legal Effect of Policy Tools Res onsible Part for p y Implementing Policy: Provincial Municipality, Local Board or Source Protection Authori Other Bodies SIGNIFICANT THREAT POLICIES- ACTIVITIES Part IV Tools ~~~ Comply~3~ Comply Comply Prescribed Instruments M f t C NlA NlA Land Use Planning Approaches on orm us Must Conform Must Conform Education and Outreachl Incentive Pro rams Strate is Action g Compl y Strategic ~2~ Other Action SIGNIFICANT THREAT POLICIES-CONDITIONS Part IV Tools~~~ NlA NlA NlA Prescribed Instruments M f t C Land Use Planning Approaches on orm us Must Conform Must Conform Education and Outreachl Incentive Pro rams Strate is Action g Compl y Strategic ~2~ Other Action MONITORING POLICIES All Policy Tools Comply Comply Comply OTHER Transport Pathways Climate change data collection Strate ic S ill revention contin enc or p p ~ g y response plans along highways, railwa s orshippin lanes Strate is Action g Strate is Action g g Action Notes: 1. Part IV Tools include Section 57 Prohibition, Risk Management Plans and Restricted Land Uses 2. Other approaches authorized by the regulation include: specify the action to be taken to implement the source protection plan or to achieve the plan's objectives; establish stewardship programs; specify and promote best management practices; establish pilot programs; and govern research. 3. The legal effect of the Source Protection Plan will vary according to the following: persons carrying out significant threat activities must comply with policies that use Clean Water Act Part IV authorities; municipalities, local boards and Source Protection Authorities must complywith any obligation identified in the Source Protection Plan; PlanningActdecisionsanl issuance of Prescribed Instruments must conform to the Source Protection Plan; Strategic Action policies do not have legal implementation requirements. NIA- not applicable ROCS#1030966 Page 9 of 20 6-15 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 ACRONYMS USED IN TABLES 1 - 4 ASM Agricultural Source Material e.g. Manure NMP Nutrient Management Plan under the Nutrient Management Act CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act PI Prescribed Instrument DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid RMP Risk Management Plan E Education ROP Regional Official Plan GUDI Well with groundwater under direct influence of surface water RWQP Rural Water Quality Program Incentives SA Specified Action K23 Municipal well named K23 SAS Smart About Salt Program LUP Land Use Planning SLP Salt Loading Potential MOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment SMP Salt Management Plan N/A Not Applicable TSSA Technical Standards and Safety Authority NASM Non-agriculture Source Material e.g. Biosolids V Vulnerability Score TABLE 1: PROPOSED POLICY TOOLS FOR EXISTING THREATS WITHOUT DRINKING WATER QUALITY ISSUES * Tool A lied to Well Head pp Tool Applied to Well Head Existing Threat (No Issues) Protection Area - A (100m) Protection Area - B Where Vulnerabilit Scores 10 Y Agricultural Source Material Risk Management Plan (RMP) PI - NMP or (ASM) -Application (equivalent to NMP) I -RWQP ASM -Storage RMP PI - NMP or I-RWQP ASM Generation -Confinement RMP I -RWQP ASM Generation - Grazin I -RWQP I -RWQP Commercial Fertilizer - RMP (equivalent to NMP) I -RWQP Application Commercial Fertilizer - RMP I -RWQP Stora elHandlin DNAPL Storage/Handling Prohibit above and below ground RMP (V>=8); I -Spill prevention incentives (V>=6); E - (V<6) Fuel -Storage/Handling Prohibit -below ground storage I -encourage upgrades where RMP -above ground storage secondary use E - to TSSA and owner where prima use Fuel -Home Heating Oil E -homeowner and fuel E-home owner and fuel distributor distributor Non Agricultural Source Material Not permitted under Nutrient PI - NMP or (NASM) -Application Mana ement Act I -RWQP NASM -Storage RMP PI - NMP or I-RWQP Organic Solvent Prohibit -below ground storage I -encourage upgrades where Storage/Handling RMP -above ground storage secondary use RMP-where handlinglstorage is prima land use Pesticide -Application RMP RMP Pesticide - Stora elHandlin RMP RMP ROCS#1030966 Page 10 of 20 6-16 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Existing Threat (No Issues)* Salt -Application on Roads Salt -Application on parking lots Salt -Application on parking lots (less than 8 parking spots) Salt - StoragelHandling Sanitary Sewers and Related Pipes Septic System -Small (including holding tanks) Septic System -Large Snow Storage Stormwater Retention Pond Discharge Waste Disposal Site -Landfilling Tool Applied to Well Head Protection Area - A (100m) RMP (equivalent to SMP submitted for CEPA) RMP -large lots I -encourage SAS Certification for small lots E -awareness of salt impact on water supply N/A PI -request MOE review maintenance and/ or inspection requirements and prioritize SA -require municipalities to assess and prioritize inspections SA -Municipal inspection program PI - MOE review and inspect Prohibit above ground >5 ha and below ground >0.5 ha PI -request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater N/A Munici al Waste V Waste Disposal Site - Landfilling N/A (Solid Non Hazardous Industrial or Commercial) Tool Applied to Well Head Protection Area - B Where Vulnerability Scores 10 RMP (equivalent to SMP submitted for CEPA) RMP -large lots I -encourage SAS Certification for small lots E -awareness of salt impact on water supply RMP PI -request MOE review maintenance and/or inspection requirements and prioritize SA -require municipalities to assess and prioritize inspections SA -Municipal inspection program PI -MOE review and inspect Prohibit above ground >5 ha and below ground >0.5 ha PI -request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater PI -request MOE require spill mans ement and containment PI -request MOE require spill management and containment Waste Disposal Site -PCB PI -request MOE require spill PI -request MOE require spill Waste Stora a mans ement and containment mans ement and containment Waste Disposal Site -Storage Of PI -request MOE require spill PI -request MOE require spill Hazardous Waste At Disposal management and containment management and containment Sites Waste Disposal Site - Storage of PI -request MOE require spill PI -request MOE require spill wastes - (p),(q),(r),(s),(t) or (u) of management and containment management and containment the definition of hazardous waste Waste Water Treatment Plant - PI -request MOE review for spill PI -request MOE review for spill Stora e Tanks prevention prevention Additional Threat Policies Identified by the Source Protection Committee Conditions Arising from Historic SA -request MOE advise SA -request MOE advise Contamination municipality of reports and Risk municipality of reports and Risk Assessments to; Assessments to; SA -request MOE review SA -request MOE review certificates of approval, advise certificates of approval, advise municipalities, and prioritize for municipalities, and prioritize for further action further action Transportation Corridors -Need SA -municipalities update plans SA -municipalities update plans for Emer enc Response Plans Transport Pathwa s To Be Determined To Be Determined ROCS#1030966 Page 11 of 20 6-17 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 * Tool A lied to Well Head pp Tool Applied to Well Head Existing Threat (No Issues) Protection Area - A (100m) Protection Area - B Where Vulnerabilit Scores 10 Y Preventing MediumlLow Threats To Be Determined To Be Determined From Becoming Significant - Monitoring Policies for ASM Application, Commercial Fertilizer Application, Pesticide Application, and Snow Stora e * There are no existing aircraft deicing, Waste Water Treatment Plant direct discharge, liquid industrial waste injection, tailings pond waste disposal, application of untreated septage, petroleum waste landfarming or hazardous waste landfilling activities identified as Significant threats in Waterloo Region. ROCS#1030966 Page 12 of 20 6-18 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 TABLE 2: PROPOSED POLICY TOOLS FOR EXISTING THREATS WITH DRINKING WATER QUALITY ISSUES Existin Threats With 9 Tool Applied to Well Tool Applied to WHPA Issues Head Protection Area BIC where Vulnerability _ A ~ OOm Scores >=8* Nitrate Issue (Baden, Hespeler (H4), Mannheim West, Wilmot Centre) Agricultural Source Prohibit RMP (equivalent to NMP) Material (ASM) - K26 -also require soil Application nitrate testin ASM -Storage Prohibit I -RWQP ASM Generation - Confinement ASM Generation - Grazina Commercial Fertilizer - Application Commercial Fertilizer - Storage/Handling Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM) - Application NASM -Storage Sanitary Sewers and Related Pipes Septic System -Small (including holding tanks Septic System -Large Snow Storage Stormwater Retention Pond Discharge Waste Disposal Site - Landfilling (Municipal Waste) Waste Disposal Site - Prohibit I -RWQP Prohibit I -RWQP Prohibit RMP when V>=8 K26 -also require soil nitrate testin Prohibit I - RWQP Not permitted under Nutrient Management Act Prohibit RMP (equivalent to NMP) K26-also require soil nitrate testing I - RWQ P PI - request MOE review maintenance andlor inspection requirements and prioritize SA -require municipalities to assess and prioritize inspections SA -Municipal inspection program PI-MOE reviewand inspect Prohibit above ground >5 ha and below ground >0.5 ha) PI - request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate aroundwater NIA NIA PI -request MOE review maintenance andlor inspection requirements and prioritize SA -require municipalities to assess and prioritize inspections SA -Municipal inspection program PI - MOE review and inspect Prohibit - V=10; SA -request MOE implement assessment guidelines (V=8) PI -request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring PI -request MOE require Tool Applied to Other Well Head Protection Areas I - (V=6) E - (V<6) I - (V=6) E - (V<6) I - (V=6) E - (V<6) I - (V=6) E - (V<6) I - (V=6) E - (V<6) I - (V=6) E - (V<6) SA -require municipalities to assess and prioritize inspections E - to homeowners PI-MOE reviewand inspect (V=6); E - (V<6) SA - request MOE implement assessment guidelines (V=6); E - (V<6) PI -request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring PI -request MOE ROCS#1030966 Page 13 of 20 6-19 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Existing Threats With Issues Landfilling (Solid Non Hazardous Industrial or Commercial) Tool Applied to Well Head Protection Area - A (~ OOm) Tool Applied to WHPA BIC where Vulnerability Scores >=8* spill management and monitoring Tool Applied to Other Well Head Protection Area require spill management and monitorina DNAPL Storage/Handling Prohibit above and (25 L exemption) below ground Waste Disposal Site - Landfilling (Municipal Waste) NIA Waste Disposal Site - Landfilling (Solid Non Hazardous Industrial or Commercial) Waste Disposal Site - Storage Of Hazardous Waste At Disposal Sites NIA PI - request MOE require spill management and monitoring RMP where V>=8 PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring I -Spill prevention incentives (V=6); E - (V<6) PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring PI -request MOE require spill management and monitoring Waste Disposal Site - PI - request MOE PI -request MOE require PI -request MOE Storage ofwastes - (p), require spill spill management and require spill (q), (r), (s), (t) or (u) of the management and monitoring management and definition of hazardous monitoring monitoring waste Chloride Issue (Branchton Meadows, Elgin Street (G9), Greenbrook, Hespeler (H3,H4), Middleton, ~ N 1 1\~~ N~, ~ I t I V N M V I ~ 1 Salt -Application on Roads Salt -Application on parking lots Salt -Application on parking lots (less than 8 parking spots) Salt - StoraaelHandlina Snow Storage Stormwater Retention Pond Discharge Septic System -Small (including holding tanks Septic System -Large RMP (equivalent to SMP submitted for CEPA) RMP -all lots require SAS Certification SA- agencies to use SAS certification on contracts E -awareness of salt impact on water supply NIA Prohibit above ground >5 ha and below ground >0.5 ha) PI - request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater SA -Municipal inspection program PI - MOE review and inspect RMP (equivalent to SMP E - to public about submitted for CEPA) impacts of salt RMP where V>=8 and large lots: SA -agencies to use SAS certification on contracts E -awareness of salt impact on water supply RMP where V>=8: Prohibit - V=10; SA -request MOE implement assessment guidelines (V=8) PI -request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater SA -Municipal inspection program PI - MOE review and inspect I - V=6 E - v<6 E -awareness of salt impact on water supply E -property owners SA - request MOE implement assessment guidelines (V=6); E - V<6 PI -request MOE review maintenance and monitoring requirements for those that infiltrate groundwater E - to homeowners PI-MOE review and inspect (V=6); E - ROCS#1030966 Page 14 of 20 6 - 20 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Existin Threats With 9 Tool Applied to Well Tool Applied to WHPA Tool Applied to Issues Head Protection Area BIC where Vulnerability Other Well Head _ A ~ OOm Scores >=8* Protection Areas ~~~6) * The tool applied in this column does not supersede the tool applied for WHPA B where vulnerability score is greater than or equal to 10 in Table 1 if it is more protective of drinking water. ROCS#1030966 Page 15 of 20 6-21 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 TABLE 3: PROPOSED POLICY TOOLS FOR FUTURE THREATS WITHOUT DRINKING WATER QUALITY ISSUES Tool A lied to Well Head pp Tool Applied to Well Head Future Threat (No Issue) Protection Area - A (100m) Protection Area - B Where Vulnerabilit Scores 10 v Agricultural Source Material (ASM) Prohibit PI - NMP or -Application I -RWQP ASM -Stora e Prohibit Prohibit ASM Generation -Confinement Prohibit Prohibit ASM Generation - Grazin I -RWQP I -RWQP Aircraft Deicin Prohibit Prohibit Commercial Fertilizer -Application RMP (equivalent to NMP) I -RWQP Commercial Fertilizer - Prohibit Prohibit Stora a/Handlin DNAPL Stora a/Handlin Prohibit Prohibit Fuel -Storage/Handling LUP or Prohibit -prohibit above LUP orProhibit -prohibit below and below ground storage ground storage; LUP study for above ground storage LUP orProhibit -prohibit bulk sto ra e Fuel -Home Heatin Oil Prohibit Prohibit Non Agricultural Source Material Not permitted under Nutrient PI - NMP or (NASM) -Application Mana ement Act I -RWQP NASM -Stora a Prohibit Prohibit Organic Solvent LUP or Prohibit -prohibit above LUP orProhibit -prohibit below Storage/Handling and below ground storage ground storage: LUP study for above round stora e Pesticide -Application Prohibit RMP Pesticide-StoragelHandling Prohibit RMP (retail only) LUP -Prohibit manufacturing or wholesale distribution Salt -Application on Roads LUP -assess new roads to see LUP -assess new roads to see if increase to SLP if increase to SLP Salt -Application on parking lots LUP -prohibit large lots RMP -large lots RMP -including SAS LUP -study for small lots certification for sm lots Salt - Stora elHandlin Prohibit Prohibit Sanitary Sewers and Related PI -request MOE require PI - request MOE require Pipes enhanced construction. enhanced construction. LUP-Prohibit certain size and LUP-Prohibit certain size and require enhanced construction require enhanced construction Septic System -Small (including LUP or Prohibit -Prohibit (as GUDI wells -LUP prohibition holdin tanks) current) in ROP) Otherwels-LUP stud Septic System -Large PI -Request MOE not approve PI -Request MOE not approve new new Snow Stora a Prohibit Prohibit Stormwater Retention Pond Prohibit LUP orProhibit -prohibit for Discharge wells in rock aquifers; LUP study to assess impact and mitigation measures for non- rock sstems Waste Disposal Site -Application LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require of Untreated Septa a MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Waste Disposal Site -Liquid LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require Industrial Waste In~ection MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Waste Disposal Site - LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require ROCS#1030966 Page 16 of 20 6 - 22 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Tool A lied to Well Head pp Tool Applied to Well Head Future Threat (No Issue) Protection Area - A (100m) Protection Area - B Where Vulnerabilit Scores 10 v Landfarmin Petroleum Waste MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Waste Disposal Site -Landfilling LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require (Municipal Waste) MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Waste Disposal Site -Landfilling LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require (Solid Non Hazardous Industrial or MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Commercial) Waste Disposal Site -PCB Waste LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require Stora a MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Waste Disposal Site -Storage Of LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require Hazardous Waste At Disposal MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Sites Waste Disposal Site - Storage of LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require wastes - (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) or (u) MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs of the definition of hazardous waste Waste Water Treatment Plant- PI -require MOE to not approve PI -require MOE to not Effluent Dischar e CofAs approve CofAs Waste Water Treatment Plant - LUP -prohibit below grade LUP -prohibit below grade Stora e Tanks stora a stora e Waste Disposal Site -Tailings LUP prohibit and PI -require LUP prohibit and PI -require Pond MOE to not approve CofAs MOE to not approve CofAs Additional Threat Policies Identified by the Source Protection Committee Conditions Arising from Historic LUP -Require Record of Site LUP -Require Record of Site Contamination conditions conditions Transportation Corridors -Need SA -municipalities update plans SA -municipalities update for Emer enc Response Plans plans Transport Pathways LUP -prohibit aggregate LUP -prohibit aggregate extraction, geothermal wells, extraction, geothermal wells, underground parking garages underground parking garages and other permanent below and other permanent below rade structures rade structures Preventing MediumlLow Threats To Be Determined To Be Determined From Becoming Significant - Monitoring Policies for ASM Application, Commercial Fertilizer Application, Pesticide Application, and Snow Stora e ROCS#1030966 Page 17 of 20 6 - 23 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 TABLE 4: PROPOSED POLICY TOOLS FOR FUTURE THREATS WITH DRINKING WATER QUALITY ISSUES Future Threats With Tool Applied to Well Tool Applied to WHPA Tool Applied to Issues Head Protection Area BIC where Vulnerability Other Well Head - A (~ OOm) Scores >=8* Protection Areas Nitrate Issue (Baden, Hespeler (H4), Mannheim West, Wilmot Centre) Agricultural Source Prohibit RMP (equivalent to NMP) RMP - V=6 Material (ASM) - E - V<6 Application ASM -Storage Prohibit RMP I - V=6 E - V<6 ASM Generation - Prohibit RMP I - V=6 Confinement E -V<6 ASM Generation - Prohibit I - RWQP E - V<=6 Grazin Commercial Fertilizer - Prohibit RMP when V>=8 I - V=6 Application E - V<6 Commercial Fertilizer - Prohibit RMP I - V=6 Stora e/Handlin E-V<6 Non Agricultural Source Prohibit RMP (equivalent to NMP) RMP - V=6 Material (NASM)- E-V<6 Application NASM -Storage Prohibit RMP I - V=6 E - V<6 Sanitary Sewers and PI - request MOE PI -request MOE require LUP (V=6) -Require Related Pipes require enhanced enhanced construction. enhanced construction. LUP -Prohibit certain construction LUP -Prohibit certain size and require size and require enhanced construction enhanced construction Septic System -Small LUP -Prohibit (as K22/K23 -LUP LUP -study (V=6) (including holding tanks) currently in ROP) prohibition E -property owner Other wells -LUP study (V<6) SA -require SA -require municipalities to inspect municipalities to functioning of any tertiary inspect functioning of treatment systems any tertiary treatment s stems Septic System -Large PI -Request MOE not PI - Request MOE not PI (V=6) -Request approve new approve new MOE not approve new PI (V<6) Request MOE require enhanced nitrate treament Snow Storage Prohibit Prohibit Prohibit (V=6) SA - request MOE implement assessment uidelines (V<6) Stormwater Retention LUP -prohibit LUP or Prohibit -prohibit LUP study to assess Pond Discharge PI - Request MOE not for wells in rock aquifers; impact and mitigation approve new LUP study to assess measures impact and mitigation measures for non-rock s stems ROCS#1030966 Page 18 of 20 6 - 24 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 Future Threats With Tool Applied to Well Tool Applied to WHPA Tool Applied to Issues Head Protection Area BIC where Vulnerability Other Well Head - A (~ OOm) Scores >=8* Protection Areas Waste Disposal Site - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP and PI -require Landfilling (Municipal require MOE to not require MOE to not MOE to not approve Waste) approve CofAs approve CofAs CofAs Waste Disposal Site - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP and PI -require Landfilling (Solid Non require MOE to not require MOE to not MOE to not approve Hazardous Industrial or approve CofAs approve CofAs CofAs Commercial) Waste Disposal Site - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP prohibit and PI - Application of Untreated require MOE to not require MOE to not require MOE to not Septage approve CofAs approve CofAs approve CofAs (V=6) PI -require MOE to include study that assesses impact to municipal well Waste Water Treatment PI -require MOE to not PI -require MOE to not PI -require MOE to Plant-Effluent Discharge approve CofAs approve CofAs not approve CofAs (V=6) PI -require MOE to include study that assesses impact to munici al well V<6 Waste Disposal Site - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP prohibit and PI - LUP prohibit and PI - Tailings Pond require MOE to not require MOE to not require MOE to not approve CofAs approve CofAs approve CofAs (V=6) PI -require MOE to include study that assesses impact to municipal well (V<6) TCE Issue (EI in Street, Middleton, William Street) DNAPL Storage/Handling Prohibit Prohibit RMP (25 L exemption) Waste Disposal Site - LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require Landfilling (Municipal MOE to not approve MOE to not approve MOE to not approve Waste) CofAs CofAs CofAs Waste Disposal Site - LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require Landfilling (Solid Non MOE to not approve MOE to not approve MOE to not approve Hazardous Industrial or CofAs CofAs CofAs Commercial) Waste Disposal Site - LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require Storage Of Hazardous MOE to not approve MOE to not approve MOE to not approve Waste At Disposal Sites CofAs CofAs CofAs Waste Disposal Site - LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require LUP and PI -require Storage ofwastes -(p),(q), MOE to not approve MOE to not approve MOE to not approve (r),(s),(t)or(u) of definition CofAs CofAs CofAs of hazardous waste Chloride Issue (Branchton Meadows, Elgin Street (G9), Greenbrook, Hespeler (H3,H4), Middleton, Parkwa , Pinebush (G5), Stran e Street (K10A), William Street) Sanitary Sewers and PI - request MOE PI -request MOE require LUP study to assess Related Pipes require enhanced enhanced construction. impact and mitigation construction. LUP -Prohibit certain measures LUP -Prohibit certain size and require size and require enhanced construction ROCS#1030966 Page 19 of 20 6 - 25 September 27, 2011 Report: E-11-102 enhanced construction Salt -Application on roads Prohibit new roads RMP where V>=8: LUP stud where V<8 Salt -Application on LUP -prohibit large RMP where V>=8 and SA -require SAS parking lots and small parking lots large lots: SA -require contractors on SAS contractors on municipal properties municipal properties E -encourage participation in SAS Salt - StoragelHandling Prohibit Prohibit LUP study where V=6 E - V<6 Septic System -Small LUP -Prohibit (as K22/K23 -LUP LUP -study (V=6) (including holding tanks) currently in ROP) prohibition E -property owner Other wells -LUP study (V<6) SA -require SA -require municipalities to inspect municipalities to functioning of any tertiary inspect functioning of treatment systems any tertiary treatment s stems Septic System -Large PI -Request MOE not PI - Request MOE not PI (V=6) -Request approve new approve new MOE not approve new PI (V<6) Request MOE require enhanced nitrate treament Snow Storage Prohibit Prohibit SA - request MOE implement assessment guide- lines (V=6), LUP (V<6) stud Stormwater Retention LUP -prohibit LUP or Prohibit -prohibit LUP study to assess Pond Discharge PI - Request MOE not for wells in rock aquifers; impact and mitigation approve new LUP study to assess measures impact and mitigation measures for non-rock s stems * The tool applied in this column does not supersede the tool applied for WHPA B where vulnerability score is greater than or equal to 10 in Table 3 if it is more protective of drinking water. ROCS#1030966 Page 20 of 20 6 - 26