Source Protection Committee - AGENDA

Transcription

1 Source Protection Committee - AGENDA Agenda for Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) to be held on Wednesday August 8, 2018 at the Essex Civic Centre, Committee Room C, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON, commencing at 4:00 PM. PAGES Chair s Welcome Disclosure of Conflict of Interest Agenda Agenda for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on Wednesday August 8, Recommendation THAT the Agenda for the Wednesday August 8, 2018, Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) be approved. Minutes None Correspondence None Source Protection Authority (SPA) Information None MOE Liaison s Update Olga Yudina, Liaison Officer, Ministry of the Environment (MOE) will provide a brief update to the SPC. Presentation None 1 of 80

2 Reports 1. Report SPC 12/18 Section 36 Workplan and SPC Schedule Update 3-73 Recommendation THAT the SPC approve the draft Essex Region Section 36 Workplan as amended for circulation and consultation, and further; THAT SPA staff present the SPC with the comments received and edits made to the draft Essex Region Section 36 Workplan for final approval for submission to the Source Protection Authority for endorsement 2. Report SPC 13/18 Fuel Policy Update Recommendation THAT the SPC approve the need to identify new and updated fuel policies in the Essex Region Section 36 Workplan as a proposed update. Other Business New Business Date Next Meeting The next meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) is anticipated to be held on October 10, Conclusion of Meeting Katie Stammler, Source Water Protection Project Manager/ Water Quality Scientist 2 of 80

3 SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 12/18 FROM: SUBJECT: Katie Stammler, Project Manager Draft Section 36 Workplan DATE: August 3, 2018 PURPOSE To provide the SPC with a draft copy of the Essex Region Section 36 workplan for discussion and comment. SUMMARY A Section 36 workplan must be submitted to the MOECC by November 30, It identifies sections of the AR and SPP requiring review, timelines, and consultation information A draft version of the workplan has been developed which includes results of environmental monitoring, growth, implementation challenges and technical rule changes in addition to other elements. Pending comments and revisions from the SPC, a revised draft workplan will be circulated to local municipalities and the MECP for consultation BACKGROUND Further to SPC Report 10/18, a draft Section 36 workplan has been completed following the direction of the Minister s order to the Essex Region SPA received on April 15, 2015 (attached), and guidance received from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. Conservation Ontario provided a template for the workplan to all SPAs with workplans due in The development of the workplan considered the following elements: Results of environmental monitoring programs Growth and infrastructure changes Council resolutions Policy effectiveness Implementation challenges Technical rule changes Impacts of prohibition policies on the agricultural community Specific directions in some source protection plan approval letters Other local considerations. ERSPA staff have been working through these elements and have identified several necessary updates to the AR and SPP. These have been outlined in detail in the attached draft Section 36 workplan. The SPC will have an opportunity to review and discuss the analysis of the required elements and the related proposed updates prior to circulation of this document for consultation with other stakeholders including municipalities and the Ministry of the 3 of 80

4 Environment, Conservation and Parks. The SPC are asked to consider whether the proposed updates address all of the required revisions to the Essex Region AR and SPP, noting that some sections of the draft workplan are yet to be completed based on further analysis and consultation. The draft workplan will also undergo further internal review by ERCA staff including content, formatting, and grammar prior to circulation for consultation. The table below is updated from SPC Report 10/18 and outlines a tentative timeline for consultation, completion and submission of the workplan along with proposed dates for SPC and SPA meetings. Information may be circulated to the SPC between these meeting dates. Table 1. Tentative Section 36 workplan and SPC meeting schedule Date May Oct 2018 August 8, 2018 Late August 2018 September 13, 2018 Oct 10, 2018 Nov 8, 2018 Nov 30, 2018 Task Consultation sessions to identify sections of the AR and SPP to be reviewed SPC meeting to review draft s.36 workplan Circulation of draft workplan to stakeholders for consultation SPA meeting SPC meeting to review the final draft Section 36 workplan SPA to endorse Section 36 workplan for submission Submission of Section 36 workplan to MOECC RECOMMENDATION THAT the SPC approve the draft Essex Region Section 36 Workplan as amended for circulation and consultation, and further; THAT SPA staff present the SPC with the comments received and edits made to the draft Essex Region Section 36 Workplan for final approval for submission to the Source Protection Authority for endorsement Katie Stammler Project Manager, Source Water Protection/ Water Quality Scientist 4 of 80

5 Attachments: 1. Minister s Letter 2. Draft s 36 workplan 3. Responses to municipal surveys 5 of 80

6 6 of 80

7 7 of 80

8 8 of 80

9 DRAFT Essex Region Source Protection Area Workplan for Comprehensive Review and Update of the Essex Region Source Protection Plan Per Clean Water Act (2006) - Section 36 August 3, 2018 Prepared By Katie Stammler, Source Water Project Manager Essex Region Conservation Authority Essex, ON FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES WITH THE ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTE 10 of 80

10 Executive Summary To be written after document is complete. To include: Description of s.36 Order Brief description of the ERSPA and its drinking water intakes Summary of approval, effective dates and implementation progress Summary of workplan review process Table of proposed updates Expected timelines to complete updates acknowledgements 2 11 of 80

11 1. Introduction Content to be prepared for draft final submission to be reviewed by SPC in October 2018 prior to final submission by November 30, Example of content: brief background of the Clean Water Act and Walkerton purpose of s.36 workplan description of the Essex Region Source Protection Area Plan implementation highlights (approval and effective dates, implementation progress) 2. Workplan Development Content to be prepared for draft final submission to be reviewed by SPC in October 2018 prior to final submission by November 30, Example of content: Guidance from MECP Preliminary analysis required elements as outlined in MECP guidance consultation 2.1 Preliminary Analysis A preliminary analysis of the AR and SPP was conducted considering the nine factors specified in the December 2016 MOECC bulletin: A. Results of environmental monitoring programs B. Growth and infrastructure changes C. Council resolutions D. Policy effectiveness E. Implementation challenges F. Technical rule changes G. Impacts of prohibition policies on the agricultural community H. Specific directions in some source protection plan approval letters I. Other local considerations. The evaluation of each of these factors is considered below. 2.1.A: Results of Environmental Monitoring Programs Content not completed at this time. Further consultation with municipalities and drinking water operators is required. Considerations will include: Do the results of local environmental monitoring analysis identify a trend? To gauge whether there have been water quality changes that could necessitate including drinking water issues in the workplan, SPAs should ask municipalities if they have identified any problems with existing wells or intakes (such as problems with their treated drinking water meeting Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards). Based on the information provided by the municipalities, SPAs will determine the need to identify a drinking water issue and delineate an issue contributing area (if any). If the response from municipalities is no, then further issue contributing area work is not necessary to include in the workplan proposal of 80

12 Do results indicate policy approaches are/are not effective at meeting the cease to be significant test under S. 22 of the Clean Water Act? Do current policy approaches address the previously identified issues? Do they address new trending issues? Engage municipalities. Is there a need for additional environmental monitoring to inform future decisions and SPP updates? Are there monitoring data gaps that make this determination (i.e. identifying trends) not possible at this time? Engage municipalities. If the analysis of this factor (Results of environmental monitoring programs) did not result in any findings then indicate so. 2.1.B: Growth and Infrastructure Changes Content for this section is taken from responses to the questionnaire circulated to municipalities on June 22, 2018 for the purposes of consultation. To date, 7 of 10 municipalities have provided a response. Please see Appendix for municipal responses Growth: Municipalities were asked whether there has been any significant change in the population served by their drinking water intake(s) since 2014, whether population growth has affected the water supply, and whether there has there been an increase in capacity of the intake OR a need to change the volume limits in the municipality s Permit to Take Water. To date, 6 of 10 municipalities have responded to the questionnaire and none have indicated any change in population growth or any effects of population growth on the ability to supply water to their communities. Infrastructure: Municipalities were asked a series of questions related to new and potential future drinking water systems. For existing infrastructure they were asked to indicated whether any changes had been completed or where planned for the future, these changes could include: Expanding an existing drinking water system Relocating a drinking water intake Decommissioning an intake or drinking water system The municipalities were also asked whether they planned to build a new drinking water system and, if so, if they were aware of the new Safe Drinking Water Act requirements that are effective as of July 1 st, Existing systems The Municipality of Leamington is considering expanding their water distribution system in the north, along Hwy 77. The City of Windsor plans to build a new water reservoir by December 2018 The City of Windsor plans to decommission an old drinking water plant, time frame unknown at this point The City of Windsor expanded their distribution network since the last AR was approved The Township of Pelee completed upgrades to their drinking water system in They installed a new emergency intake that is a lakebed infiltration style, in addition to their existing primary shoreline bank infiltration style intake. They also underwent several upgrades in the 4 13 of 80

13 New systems Water Treatment Plant that have allowed them to increase their service capacity and improve their ability to treat raw water during an algal bloom. To date, no municipalities have reported on the need or plan to install a new intake or drinking water system. Most municipalities responded that they are aware of the new SDWA requirements should a new intake be required in the future. Please see Proposed Update 3.1 for more information Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) O. Reg. 205/18: Content related to the new regulations under the SDWA will be added only if a municipality indicates the intention to relocate an existing intake or install a new intake within the timeframe of this update. 2.1.C: Council resolutions There are no new intentions to add new drinking water systems in the timeframe of this update (within 5 years) and no plans to include other types of drinking water systems at this time. 2.1.D: Policy Effectiveness Content to be completed following consultation with SPC and municipalities. 2.1.E: Implementation Challenges Provincial Instrument policies To date, no provincial ministry has directly indicated a challenge with implementing any of the Provincial Instrument policies in the SPP. However, ERSPA noted that there were several policies in the SPP to which no response was received from the Implementing Body. Policies 8-12 of the Essex Region SPP address the application and/or storage of Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) by managing the activity using existing provincial instrument (e.g. Environmental Compliance Approval) in certain vulnerable areas. The Ministry of the Environment was erroneously named as the Implementing Body of theses policies. The implementing body should be the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. OMAFRA has developed a standard operating procedure for all NASM policies, but has not included the Essex Region in their response to date. These policies must be updated to indicate the correct implementing body. Please see Proposed Update 3.2 for more information. Part IV policies To date, none of the municipalities in the ERSPA have indicated any challenges with implementing the policies in the SPP. However, the majority of legally binding polices directed at municipalities were developed under Part IV of the CWA and all municipalities in the ERSPA have delegated their authority 5 14 of 80

14 to implement these policies to the Essex Region Conservation Authority. The RMO/I have noted some challenges in implementing the Part IV policies. During site visits, the RMO has noted several errors with the delineation of the Event Based Area. They have noted several different types of errors (e.g. EBA delineated where there is no water course, no EBA delineated where there is a watercourse). The consequence of this is that RMPs may be established in areas where they are not necessary and/or that SDWT will go unmanaged in areas where they should be. This challenge is explained in detail in Appendix (SPC report 02/18). Because the delineation of vulnerable areas are set based on the best available data at the time (as opposed to being text based policies that define the setback from a watercourse), it is anticipated that this will be an going issue as watercourses (e.g. municipal drains) are frequently altered in the Essex Region. Please see Proposed Update 3.3 for more information. Transport pathways O.Reg 287/07 s. 27(3) requires municipalities to notify the SPA and SPC of proposals to engage in an activity that may result in the creation of a new transport pathway or the modification an existing transport pathway. To date, few notifications of proposals for the creation or modification of transport pathways have been received, except through the Municipal Class EA process. The Essex Region SPP does not contain any policies related to transport pathways and a formal notification process has not been established. ERCA s internal processes for notification of drainage projects will be reviewed to determine a method to copy ERSPA staff on appropriate applications received by our Watershed Management department in order to streamline this process. ERSPA staff will also work with the SPC to determine whether it would be appropriate to include a new policy in the SPP requiring municipalities to submit a notice of new or modified transport pathways. Please see Proposed Update 3.4 for more information. In addition and related to the above noted issues with the delineation of the EBA, ERSPA staff have noted the need to document the final changes, additions or removals made to any drainage scheme in the Essex Region as these will have an impact on the delineation of the EBA. O.Reg 287/07 s.27 (3) requires a notice of a proposed activity, however there is no requirement to provide notice or mapping of the actual final construction, which can differ from the initial proposal. While there may not be a policy option to address this issue, we note it as a challenge to implementation and suggest the need for ERSPA staff to consult internally with other staff, as well as with our local drainage superintendents to determine an appropriate mechanism to ensure that our vulnerable areas can be updated with the best available information. Please see Proposed Update 3.3 for more information. 2.1.F: Technical Rule Changes The Director Technical Rules and Tables of Drinking Water Threats provide the methodology for implementing the Clean Water Act and its Regulations. These documents were updated in 2017 and include both mandatory and enabling (optional) provisions. Updates to the SPP and AR are to be done in compliance with the approved legislation that is in place at the time the updates are being carried out. The information below describes the changes to these documents and their effect on the Essex Region SPP and AR. If an update to our documents is required, the associated Proposed Update is indicated of 80

15 Please see the MECP Supplemental Information Bulletin #3 Director Technical Rules and Tables of Drinking Water Threats (July 2018) for details on the updates to these documents Mandatory Updates Delineation of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Rule 45 previously outlined that SGRAs should only be delineated if the recharge area as described by Rule 44 is recharging an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to a body of water (either groundwater or surface water) that is a source of drinking water. Rule 45 was updated to exclude the following bodies of surface water: a Great Lake, Connecting Channel, Lake Simcoe, Lake Nipissing, Lake St. Clair or the Ottawa River. There are several SGRAs in the Essex Region, all of which will need to be re-evaluated to determine whether this edited Rule has an impact on their delineation. This will result in the need to update mapping in the AR and SPP with any modifications made to the delineation of SGRAs. Please see Proposed Update 3.5 for further information. Scoring of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas The latest version of the Technical Rules includes the removal of Rules 80 and 81, which were used to determine the vulnerability score of SGRAs. While these areas will still be delineated, depending on the outcome of Proposed Update 3.5, they will no longer have an associated vulnerability score and therefore no identified significant, moderate or low drinking water threats. This will result in the need to update mapping in the AR and SPP to remove scoring as well as online mapping that is available to municipalities and the public. Policies will also need to be updated to remove any reference to SGRAs, and the AR will need to be updated to reflect these changes. Please see Proposed Update 3.6 for more information Sewage/Septic systems The Table of Drinking Water Threats was updated to remove sodium and chloride reference from the circumstances related to on-site sewage systems and holding tanks. There were no sodium or chloride issues identified in the ERSPA, so this change has no impact on our AR or SPP. Liquid hydrocarbon pipelines addition as a SDWT The addition of liquid hydrocarbon pipelines as a SDWT was discussed with the SPC at their meeting on February 12, 2018 (See Appendix SPC report 06/18). It was noted that the proposed circumstances would make these pipelines a SDWT in specific vulnerable areas (Stoney Point IPZ-1, Lakeshore IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1). If the vulnerability scores change for Lake Erie intakes as a result of Technical Rule 95.1, liquid hydrocarbon pipelines could be considered a SDWT for additional vulnerable areas. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association s interactive map (aboutpipelines.com) was reviewed and it was determined that there are no liquid hydrocarbon pipelines in any of the identified IPZs in the Essex Region where they would be considered a SDWT, including those for Lake Erie intakes. It is the SPC s understanding, therefore, that no new policies will be required for this threat as it does not nor is it ever anticipated to occur within the identified IPZ s where it could be a SDWT. In comments on the EBR 7 16 of 80

16 posting, the SPC requested further guidance on the provision stating that policies will only be required in areas where pipelines occur. Above grade fuel storage changes to threat circumstances in the Table of Drinking Water Threats As part of the updates to the Table of Drinking Water Threats in 2017, hazard rating for the handling and storage of fuel for surface water was increased from 8 to 10, making this activity a significant drinking water threat in IPZ-s with vulnerability scores of 9 or 10. In addition, the handling and storage of fuel, under specific conditions can be considered a SDWT at lower volumes than in the previous iteration of the Table of Drinking Water Threats. In the Essex Region, there are three drinking water intakes that are impacted by this change. Lakeshore IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-1 and Amhersburg IPZ-1 all have vulnerability scores of 9. There are no other IPZ s with a score of 10 in the Essex Region. In these areas the following are now considered to be SDWTs: The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuel at a bulk plant or facility as defined in O.Reg 217 (i.e. permanent or mobile retail outlet, marina, cardlock/keylock, private outlet or farm where gasoline or an associated product is handled other than in portable containers) in volumes greater than 2500L The storage of liquid fuel in a tank partially below grade at a bulk plant or facility as defined in O.Reg 217, or at a facility defined under O.Reg 213 (i.e. an installation where fuel oil or used oil, when such oil is used as a fuel, is handled, but does not include a facility referred to in Ontario Regulation 217) in volumes greater than 2500L Existing policies in the Essex Region SPP for the above grade handling and storage of liquid fuel can be updated to include the new circumstance for SDWTs, however new policies will be required for the storage of liquid fuel in below grade tanks. The land areas affected by these areas is small so consultation on the updated or new policies will be targeted. See Proposed Update 3.7 for further information Agriculture Threats application and storage of NASM Certain circumstances in the Table of Drinking Water Threats have been updated to remove the term dairy producer. There is no impact of this change to the ERSPA AR or SPP as this term is not used in any of our documents. Enabling Provisions Enabling provisions allow SPAs to consider local circumstances, new evidence and information previously documented in approved ARs in the SPPs in order to determine if an update to the SPP including the ARs is warranted. Therefore, it is for the local SPA and SPC to consider, using strong evidence to rationalize the need for updates to SPPs including ARs. Intake Protection Zones The updated Technical Rules includes several enabling provisions that could affect the delineation of Intake Protection Zones. This includes: 8 17 of 80

17 Rule 1(1): the addition of a definition for transport pathways for surface water intakes: in respect of an intake protection zone means works or any other thing that reduces the time it takes for a contaminant to reach a surface water intake and may include storm sewers, discharge pipes, utility trenches, ditches, swales, drainage works or any other types of drains; Rule 72: the addition of and Natural Surface Water Features to the Part VI.6 title, which allows natural features to be considered when assessing transport pathways Rule 1(4): the addition of a definition for high water marks used in the delineation of IPZs Rule 62(2), Rule 65(1b), Rule 68(2b) and Rule 70 (2b): the amended rules allow the setback from a water body to be reduced based on local conditions, which allows the SPA to determine if areas currently included in IPZs should be removed The SPA has already identified issues with the delineation of Intake Protection Zones, particularly IPZ-3s, through the implementation of Part IV polices. The changes to these rules will also be considered as part of the exercise to correct the delineation of IPZ-3s throughout the ERSPA. Their impact on IPZ-1s and IPZ-2s will also be assessed. Please see Proposed Update 3.3 for more information. Vulnerability scores for Great Lakes intakes Each drinking water intake has an assigned Source Vulnerability Factor (SVF) that was determined using the Technical Rules. Previously the Rule 95 of the Director Technical Rules restricted the SVF of Great Lakes intakes (Type A) to , and of connecting channel intakes (Type B) to The SVF is a factor in determining the overall vulnerability score of the Intake Protection Zones, which ultimately determines the identification of low, moderate and/or significant drinking water threats. For Type A intakes in particular, even if an intake was assigned the highest SVF value, the resulting overall Vulnerability Score was always too low to result in the identification of SDWTs. An issue which was discussed with by the SPC during the development of the AR and SPP. In 2017, Rule 95.1 was added to allow the SVF for Type A and B intakes to be as high as 1.0 if it is determined that the intake is in shallow water, is in close proximity to the shoreline or there has been a history of water quality concerns at the surface water intake. In the Essex Region, three of our intakes are located in Lake Erie (Type A) and two are in the Detroit River (Type B). Appendix (SPC Report 01/18) provides more detail into a preliminary analysis of the effect of this new rule. Based on this information it was determined that the need to further explore updates to the SVF be added to this s. 36 workplan along with the identification of the need to determine any associated updated or new policies that might result from an increase in the SVF. Please see Proposed Update 3.8 for more information Conditions resulting from past activities The updated Director Technical Rules include clarification around the identification of existing Conditions that may be a contamination risk for sources of drinking water. Rule 125(5) was edited to clarify that certain contaminants present in the sediment in an IPZ shall be considered a drinking water threat if the contaminant is present at concentrations that exceed the standards for that contaminant and the presence of the contaminant in the sediment could result in deterioration of the surface water for use as a source of drinking water 9 18 of 80

18 Rule 125(6) was added to allow for the identification of contaminants in groundwater discharging to an IPZ to be considered a drinking water threat if the contaminant is present at concentrations that exceed the standards for that contaminant and the presence of the contaminant in the groundwater could result in deterioration of the surface water for use as a source of drinking water Rule 139(1) clarifies the method for calculating hazard score for a Condition. Rule 141(4) clarify the circumstances under which a Condition can be identified as a SDWT These changes in accordance with previous guidance issued by the Ministry to clarify the intent of these rules. At present, there are no Conditions identified in the Essex Region AR or SPP, however a reevaluation using these modified rules would show our due diligence to ensure that all potential sources of contamination of our drinking water are being addressed. Please see Proposed Update 3.9 for more information Monitoring location vs monitoring wells The updated Director Technical Rule 114 replaces the term monitoring well with monitoring location. This change has no impact on the Essex Region AR or SPP. Table of Drinking Water Threats The short names in the Table of Contents of the Table of Drinking Water Threats aligns the non-legal wording ( short names ) with the legal description. Terminology in the Essex Region AR and SPP may be updated to reflect this new terminology in a section 51 amendment at a future date. No action is required at this time. Incorporation of climate change into water quality risk assessments There is a technical working group that has been compiling guidance and worksheet to evaluate climate change impacts on drinking water systems. These documents are still in preparation and have been reviewed by academic consultants led by the Ontario Climate Change Consortium. They are designed to be completed by SPA staff and include analyses to identify climate change exposure, evaluate sensitivity, analyze adaptive capacity and vulnerability and incorporate climate change into water quantity risk for each drinking water intake. Workshops are expected in the Fall of 2018 to further explain this exercise and its impact on the SPP and AR. This information is being included here as a placeholder for the potential need to update the SPP and AR. Please see Proposed Update 3.10 for more information 2.1.G: Impacts of Prohibition Policies on the Agricultural Community There are no impacts of prohibition policies on the agricultural community in the Essex Region. There are policies that prohibit the application of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) and Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) in specific vulnerable areas, but none of these are zoned for agricultural use. The land use in Windsor IPZ-2 is mainly residential, and this is the only vulnerable area to which Supplemental Information #2 Prohibition of Agricultural Activities Outside WHPA-A OR IPZ-1) applies. No further assessment is required of 80

19 Table Zoning for vulnerable areas in the Essex Region SPA where agricultural prohibition policies apply Vulnerable Area Prohibition Policies Zoning Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 ASM, NASM, Commercial Pesticides Windsor IPZ-1 ASM, NASM, Pesticides Residential, commercial, industrial and manufacturing Windsor IPZ-2 ASM, Pesticides Residential, commercial, industrial and manufacturing Amherstburg IPZ-1 ASM, NSAM, Pesticides Residential, Commercial Neighbourhood, Light Industrial, Industrial, and Environmental Protection 2.1.H: Specific directions in some source protection plan approval letters The S. 36 Order issued to the Essex Region SPA required that the following be considered in the workplan: Results of monitoring programs and phosphorus loading data from local tributaries Effectiveness of education and outreach policies aimed at reducing blue-green algae (microcystin-lr), and the contributions in Lake Erie. Further content to be developed from the 2017 Annual Progress Report and SPC Report 11/ I: Other local considerations Describe other local considerations (some examples below to be developed based on consultation with the SPC and municipalities). Provide rationale. Deficiencies noted in the Assessment Report Consideration of updated floodplain mapping Updating a low vulnerability score to a higher score based on better scientific data Inclusion of new transportation corridor threats Increase in vulnerability score based on a cluster of transport pathways Considering climate change impacts based on improved data Policy adjustments for improvement e.g.: targeted education and outreach program rather than broad based program (note: check if these could be placed under the Factor: Policy Effectiveness). 2.2 Workplan Consultation Note this section is in progress and will be elaborated on in the final version of the workplan January 10, 2018 SPC received presentations and reports related to s.36 workplan process including Rule 95.1 (changes to vulnerability scores) and updates to the EBA delineation April 11, 2019 SPC received a report on the timeline for completion of the s.36 workplan with important dates of 80

20 June 22 survey sent to municipalities, responses requested by July 9 July 18 meeting with Leamington July 23 meeting with Pelee August 8 SPC meeting 3. Proposed Review and Updates Based on the preliminary analysis and consultations with municipalities and the SPC, the Essex Region SPA recommends the following proposed updates to be carried out under S. 36 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 as described below. These proposed updates are presented for discussion and review and are subject to change based on further consultation. All updates include several subheadings: Description outlines the issue and why the update is necessary Expected actions briefly describe how the issue will be resolved Expected timeframe for completion is an estimate for the time required to complete the task from the time it is started. It is anticipated that some updates will begin before others and no dates are given as it is difficult to predict when the work will be approved and therefore also when it will be completed. Expected expenditures includes a listing of potential line items, not actual or estimated budgets of 80

21 Updates related to Growth and Infrastructure Changes 3.1. Proposed Update 1 Assessment Report updates related to descriptions of Drinking Water Systems Description: In the questionnaire circulated to municipal staff in June 2018, there were some indications of changes made or planned to drinking water systems including expansion of distribution networks, addition of a reservoir and decommissioning of an old water treatment plant. The AR must be updated to reflect these changes, including updates to the text and maps. No change to the SPP or policies is anticipated Expected Actions: Further consultation with municipalities will be conducted to determine the extent of the changes made. Staff will be asked to review the sections of the AR describing their water treatment plant (e.g. intake depth and distance from shore, capacity, treatment process) to ensure the accuracy of its contents. ERSPA will then make the necessary edits to the AR and update any associated maps as necessary. Expected Timeframe for completion: This update can be completed within 2-3 months, with the majority of time being spent on consultation with the municipalities. Expected Expenditures: Staff time Updates related to implementation challenges 3.2. Proposed Update 2 NASM policy updates Description: As a result of annual reporting required for the monitoring policies in the ERSPP, it came to light that a set of Provincial Instrument policies was directed at the incorrect Ministry. Policies 8-11 (W2applNASM- 1, W2storageNASM-1, W1L1A1-applicationNASM-1, and W1L1A1-storageNASM-1) are related to the application and/or storage of non-agricultural source material (NASM). The Ministry of the Environment was incorrectly named as the implementing body for these policies, and as a result, no report was received on the implementation of these specific policies. We propose to correct the implementing body of these policies to OMAFRA, no other changes will be made to these policies. Expected Actions: ERSPA staff will correct the policies and circulate them via for a 30 day consultation period with the appropriate Ministry as the implementing body. Expected Timeframe for completion: This update can be completed within 2 months, with the majority of time being spent on consultation. Expected Expenditures: Staff time of 80

22 3.3. Proposed Update 3 corrections to EBA delineation Note: the content for this proposed update is not yet complete. Discussion of the impact of technical rule changes related to IPZ delineation and or alternations to transport pathways is still to be added. Description For each intake in the Essex Region, the Event Based Area (EBA) was defined as the combination of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 for modelled activities (i.e. fuel spill with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L). Specifically, the IPZ-3 was delineated using a pre-existing watercourse layer coupled with the Essex Region Conservation Authority s Limited of Regulated Area (LORA). The IPZ-3 is delineated as a 120m setback from all watercourses in the ERSPA or to the extent of the LORA if it exceeds the 120m setback. This was completed as a GIS exercise using the best available information and was not ground truthed. While the RMO/I and RMAs completed their threat verification site visits, they noted errors in the delineation of the IPZ-3: Type I) The IPZ-3 has been delineated where there is no watercourse, Type II) No IPZ-3 was delineated where there is a watercourse, OR Type III) The IPZ-3 is incorrectly delineated Type I errors are to be expected if the GIS stream layer used included drains that have since been buried and are now tile drains. Type II errors are to be expected as the GIS layers available cannot capture all existing watercourses, particularly in the ERSPA where artificial drainage is common. Type III errors occur where a stream channel may have been modified through artificial drainage. Type I errors can be addressed through a correction under s.51 (O.Reg 287/07), while both Type II and III will need to be addressed under the s.36 update as it will be necessary to conduct consultation for any new vulnerable areas delineated. Please refer to Appendix (SPC report 02/18) for more detailed information. Additionally, through consultation with municipalities as well as Class EA applications that have been reviewed since the SPP came into effect, it has come to light that some changes either to sewer drainage networks or open municipal drains (agricultural drains) either have already occurred or are planned for the future. Changes in the location of any open watercourse could result in a need to update the delineation of the EBA. Expected Actions: Risk Management staff will continue to ground truth the delineation of the IPZ-3 and note where these errors occur. GIS staff will then use the gathered information to correct the existing drainage layer and adjust the delineation of the IPZ-3. We will also conduct early and continuing consultation with local drainage superintendents to ensure we have the most up to date drainage mapping and that any corrections we make are mutually agreed upon. Consultation with newly affected landowners will be conducted once the delineation of the area is complete. Alternatively, consideration could be made as to the interpretation of the delineation of the EBA. I Expected Timeframe for completion: It is expected that this task will take 8-12 months to complete including time for consultation of 80

23 Expected Expenditures: Staff time; postal costs for consultation with land owners (if meetings are held, costs would be restricted to light refreshments and printed material e.g. maps); travel within the ERSPA for staff to meet with municipal representatives Proposed Update 4 Consideration of policies related to transport pathways Description Notifications for the creation or modification of transport pathways is required under O.Reg 287/07 s. 27(3). To date, very few such notifications have been received. The Essex Region SPP does not contain any policies related to transport pathways and a formal notification process has not been established. Expected Actions: A review of internal processes will be conducted to determine an appropriate method for notification. A new policy requiring municipalities to submit a notice of new or modified transport pathways may be considered if the SPC determines it to be necessary. Expected Timeframe for completion: This update can be completed within 3-4 months, and will include consultation with internal staff and local drainage superintendents to determine an appropriate method for notification of the creation or modification of transport pathways. Additional time for consultation with municipalities may be required if the SPC deems it necessary to create a new policy. Updates related to Director Technical Rule and Table of Drinking Water Threats - Mandatory 3.5. Proposed Update 5 Delineation of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Description Technical Rule 45 has been updated to reflect new circumstances under which a SGRA should not be delineated. Expected Actions: An assessment of hydrological connection to sources of drinking water (both groundwater and surface water including private wells) will need to be completed in order to determine whether SGRAs should be delineated as per updated Technical Rule 45. Once this assessment is complete, the AR will be updated to reflect new methodology and reasoning for any changes to the delineation of SGRAs. Mapping in both the AR and SPP will be updated, as well as online sources that are accessed by municipalities and the public. ERSPA staff will consult and collaborate with other SPAs affected by this rule change and particularly with other Lake Erie SPAs to ensure a consistent and defensible approach with respect to any changes to the delineation of SGRAs of 80

24 Expected Timeframe for completion: This update can be completed within 5-6 months. Proposed Update 3.5 and Proposed Update 3.6 are closely linked and may be completed simultaneously or consecutively depending on the nature and complexity of work required. Expected Expenditures: Staff time (PM, Assistant, GIS); potential consultation with hydrogeologist to assess hydrological connectivity 3.6. Proposed Update 6 Vulnerability of Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Description Technical Rules 80 and 81, which describe the method for calculating the vulnerability score for SGRAs was removed. As a result, all current and updated delineated SGRAs will not have a vulnerability score. Mapping currently includes separate polygons for each score (2, 4 or 6) for SGRAs, these will be combined into a single polygon for each SGRA. Expected Actions: A GIS exercise can be completed to merge existing polygons for each SGRA into a single polygon with no associated vulnerability score. Maps in the AR, SPP and online will then be updated with this new information. Policies in the SPP will be updated to remove any reference to SGRAs and the AR will be updated to reflect these changes. Expected Timeframe for completion: This update can be completed within 1-2 months. Proposed Update 3.5 and Proposed Update 3.6 are closely linked and may be completed simultaneously or consecutively depending on the nature and complexity of work required. Expected Expenditures: Staff time (PM, Assistant, GIS) Due to the use of the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas data in many municipal Official Plans, ERSPA will share the updated Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas mapping to municipalities for inclusion in their Official Plans at the next cyclical OP update (approximately every 5 years). This mapping will be provided once Proposed Update 3.5 and Proposed Update 3.6 are completed of 80

25 3.7. Proposed Update 7 Updated and new policies for the handling and storage of fuel Description The hazard score for the handling and storage of liquid fuel was increased from 8 to 10, resulting in the identification of SDWTs under specific circumstances for certain vulnerable areas (see above for more detail). Expected Actions: Existing policies for the above grade handling and storage of fuel will be updated to include the newly identified circumstances. New policies will need to be developed for the storage of fuel in below grade tanks. Consultation will be necessary for both changes. Once the policies are established, the AR will be updated with the new information related to these threats, including the identification of existing threats. Expected Timeframe for completion: This update can be completed within 2-3 months, with the majority of time being spent on consultation. New policies for below grade fuel storage may require additional time and consultation. Expected Expenditures: Staff time of 80

26 Updates related to Director Technical Rule and Table of Drinking Water Threats Enabling Provisions 3.8. Proposed Update 8 Update Source Vulnerability Factor for Great Lakes intakes and develop associated policies Description: The 2017 version of the Director Technical Rules includes a new rule 95.1 that allows for the Source Vulnerability Factor (SVF) to be reevaluated and potentially increased based on the depth of an intake, its distance from shore and whether there are preexisting water quality issues. ERSPA staff explored the implication of this new rule for discussion with the SPC (See Appendix SPC report 01/18 for more detailed information). The SPC decided that the need to determine whether new scoring is necessary as well any updated or new policies be included in this s. 36 workplan. No decision was made at that time as to what the final result of these updates would be and it was noted that municipalities must be involved in any decision to change the SVF. Expected Actions: ERSPA staff as well as those at other SPAs where this new rule may have an impact have discussed the need for further guidance and have also proposed the need for Technical Working group to determine the methodology to be used for rescoring any intake affected by this rule. While this exercise appears on the surface to be a mathematical exercise, there are many factors that complicate rescoring the intakes (e.g. what values should be used for depth and distance to determine vulnerability; are these values different for each water body; how are water quality issues factored into the determination of the SVF). This Technical Working Group should include Project Managers, CA technical staff, MECP technical staff, and representation for drinking water operators. Once a methodology has been determined, ERSPA staff will apply it to our Great Lakes intakes in consultation with our local drinking water operators, other appropriate municipal staff, and neighbouring SPAs. If the SVF for any intake is changed as a result of this exercise, the threat look up tool will be used to identify SDWTs, and the SPC will determine appropriate policy approaches to address these threats. Preliminary analysis of this rule change suggests that the SVF may be increased for the Wheatley WTP (this intake is located in the Thames-Sydenham and Region SPR, but its vulnerable areas extend into the Essex Region SPA), Pelee West Shore WTP, and the Union Water Supply System WTP. Expected Timeframe for completion: It is expected that this task will take months to complete including time for consultation and the development of new or updated policies. If the initial analysis reveals that there is no need to change the SVF for our intakes, this task will be completed in a shorter time frame. Expected Expenditures: ERSPA staff, MECP staff, travel to in person working group meetings of 80

27 3.9. Proposed Update 9 Reevaluate status of preexisting and/or groundwater Conditions Description: The 2017 version of the Director Technical Rules includes clarification of several rules related to the identification of preexisting sediment and groundwater Conditions as SDWTs. The Essex Region AR and SPP will be reviewed to ensure there is no impact of these updated rules. Expected Actions: ERPSA will review previous documentation related to the identification of Conditions to determine whether the updated rules would result in any changes. Consultation with Water Treatment Operators and/or municipalities is already planned for other Proposed Updates and will include discussion of the presence and impact of any known Conditions. Expected Timeframe for completion: It is expected that this task will take 2-3 months to complete and will be done concurrently with other updates. Expected Expenditures: ERSPA staff time Proposed Update 10 Incorporation of climate change into water quality risk assessments Description: A technical working group will be providing worksheets for SPA staff to work through to evaluate risks to drinking water intakes as a result of climate change. These worksheets are not yet available so this Proposed Update is added as a placeholder to allow for the completion of this work at a later date. Completion of this exercise is optional. Expected Actions: Once provided, the worksheets will be evaluated and completed to determine the risk factors associated with climate change for the drinking water intakes in the Essex Region SPA. Any resulting updates to AR and SPP will be made at that time. Expected Timeframe for completion: Unknown at this time. Expected Expenditures: Unknown at this time Proposed Update 11 Drinking Water Issues including Microcystin-LR This content is not yet complete but it is anticipated that updates will be required based on analysis of monitoring data related to the identified drinking water Issue of microcystin-lr of 80

28 3.5 Project Management and MOECC Support for Updates Content to be determined at a later date and will include further description of the project management required and MOECC support needed, to undertake the proposed updates. This section can also be placed under each Proposed Update section to further elaborate on the project tasks that must be undertaken to arrive at the update. For example, details such as: presentations to municipal council, meetings with the municipality s consultant hired to undertake the technical study, etc. 4. Conclusion Content to be completed at a later date once all consultation is complete. Content will include a summary table, overall timeline for completion of the proposed updates, etc. 5. References Examples below 1. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, December Source Protection Plan Bulletin - Overview of Requirements for Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan Amendments under S. 36 of the Clean Water Act of 80

29 Appendices Appendix : S. 36 Order from Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Appendix : Responses to Municipal Surveys Appendix : SPC reports Appendix : Draft workplan comments and responses of 80

30 SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 13/18 FROM: SUBJECT: Katie Stammler, Project Manager Fuel policy amendment and additions due to updates to the Table of Drinking Water Threats DATE: August 3, 2018 PURPOSE To provide the SPC with information related to an update to the Table of Drinking Water Threats that affects fuel policies in the Essex Region Source Protection Plan SUMMARY The Table of Drinking Water Threats was updated in 2017 The circumstances under which the handling and storage of fuel are considered a significant drinking water threat were changed in this update Amended and new policies for the handling and storage of fuel will be required in the Essex Region Source Protection Plan as a result of the update to the Table of Drinking Water Threats BACKGROUND As part of the updates to the Table of Drinking Water Threats in 2017, the hazard rating for the handling and storage of fuel for surface water was increased from 8 to 10, making this activity a significant drinking water threat in IPZ-s with vulnerability scores of 9 or 10. In addition, the handling and storage of fuel, under specific conditions can be considered a SDWT at lower volumes than in the previous iteration of the Table of Drinking Water Threats. In the Essex Region, there are three drinking water intakes that are impacted by this change. Lakeshore IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-1 and Amhersburg IPZ-1 all have vulnerability scores of 9. There are no other IPZ s with a score of 10 in the Essex Region. In these areas the following are now considered to be SDWTs: The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuel at a bulk plant or facility as defined in O.Reg 217 (i.e. permanent or mobile retail outlet, marina, cardlock/keylock, private outlet or farm where gasoline or an associated product is handled other than in portable containers) in volumes greater than 2500L The storage of liquid fuel in a tank partially below grade at a bulk plant or facility as defined in O.Reg 217, or at a facility defined under O.Reg 213 (i.e. an installation where fuel oil or used oil, when such oil is used as a fuel, is handled, but does not include a facility referred to in Ontario Regulation 217) in volumes greater than 2500L Existing policies in the Essex Region SPP for the above grade handling and storage of liquid fuel can be updated to include the new circumstance for SDWTs (see current policy attached), 74 of 80

31 however new policies will be required for the storage of liquid fuel in below grade tanks. Consultation on the updated or new policies and the identification of potential existing SDWTs will be targeted to the small land areas affected by these changes. ERSPA staff are currently preparing a Section 36 Workplan that identifies necessary updates to the Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan. The need to update the current policy for the handling and storage of above grade liquid fuel will be noted as well as the need to develop a new policy for the below grade handling and storage of fuel. Once this work is approved, the SPC will discuss policy options and consultation will be conducted with the municipalities and stakeholders in the affected Intake Protection Zones. RECOMMENDATION THAT the SPC approve the need to identify new and updated fuel policies in the Essex Region Section 36 Workplan as a proposed update. Katie Stammler Project Manager, Source Water Protection/ Water Quality Scientist Attachments: 1. Policy 31 The handling and storage of fuel 75 of 80

32 Essex Region SP Plan Policy April 2015 Threat The handling and storage of fuel Vulnerable Area Policy Number 31 All Events Based Areas (EBAs) within IPZs in the Essex Region Source Protection Area Policy Reference Number Risk Level of Threat Sub Threats SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Clean Water Act) Significant Not applicable Significant Risk Circumstances The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 15,000 L or greater in the Stoney Point IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, Lakeshore IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, Windsor IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (upstream of intakes), Amherstburg IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (upstream of the intake, from the intake to vicinity of Turkey Creek, including Turkey Creek watershed), Harrow-Colchester IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, Union IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (Cedar/Wigle/Mill Creeks, Leamington Area Drainage), Pelee IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, and Wheatley IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 34,000 L or greater in the Union IPZ-3 (Sturgeon Creek drainage), where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 15,000,000 L or greater in the Amherstburg IPZ-1 and IPZ- 2 (downstream of the intake) where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 3,000,000 L or greater in the Amherstburg IPZ-3 (upstream of the intake, from vicinity of Turkey Creek to Upper Detroit River), Windsor IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 (downstream of the intakes) where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. Threat Status Current Land Use Approach Existing and Future Activities Varied Through Clean Water Act, Section 58 Risk Management Plan Manage the handling and storage of fuels 76 of 80

33 Essex Region SP Plan Policy April 2015 Policy Text The following activities are designated for the purpose of Section 58 Risk Management Plans of the Clean Water Act in the subject vulnerable areas where modeling reported in the Assessment Report has demonstrated that this activity is a significant threat. Therefore this policy applies to: The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 15,000 L or greater in the Stoney Point IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, Lakeshore IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, Windsor IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (upstream of intakes), Amherstburg IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (upstream of the intake, from the intake to vicinity of Turkey Creek, including Turkey Creek watershed), Harrow-Colchester IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, Union IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (Cedar/Wigle/Mill Creeks, Leamington Area Drainage), Pelee IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, and Wheatley IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 34,000 L or greater in the Union IPZ-3 (Sturgeon Creek drainage), where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 15,000,000 L or greater in the Amherstburg IPZ-1 and IPZ- 2 (downstream of the intake) where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) in quantities of 3,000,000 L or greater in the Amherstburg IPZ-3 (upstream of the intake, from vicinity of Turkey Creek to Upper Detroit River), Windsor IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 (downstream of the intakes) where the EBAs are applicable as shown in the assessment report. The Risk Management Plan may include, but is not limited to, details concerning installation, operation and regular inspection of fuel storage tanks, how fuel is contained, the location of fuel, and how fuel is stored. The Risk Management Official will have discretion as to what constitutes a satisfactory Risk Management Plan. The above applies to the existing and future significant threat of the handling and storage of fuel in all EBAs within IPZs in the Essex Region Source Protection Area related to the handling and storage of fuel. For future threats, the date of compliance is when the Source Protection Plan takes effect. For existing threats, the Risk Management Official shall comply with the policy within 5 years from the date the Plan takes effect. 77 of 80

34 Essex Region SP Plan Policy April 2015 Rationale Policy Tool Municipality Policy Applies to The Essex Region intake protection zones are very extensive, and include many land uses where the handling and storage of large quantities of liquid fuel is a necessity. It should be feasible to manage (rather than prohibit) these existing and future significant drinking water threats. Through modeling conducted, the above grade handling and storage of liquid fuels (containing 2% benzene or more) was found to be a significant threat to source water, at certain volumes. The modeling scenarios resulted in the delineation of the EBAs reported in the Essex Region Assessment Report. It is important to note that the EBA is an area where modelling demonstrates that a spill of a specific contaminant (i.e. fuel) within this area would reach the intake and cause deterioration to the raw water quality. The EBA is a combination of the IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, but may not include areas of high uncertainty. Because the EBA may be smaller than the combined IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3, this policy applies to the EBA only. There are two Prescribed Instruments under the Clean Water Act to address this activity, but these are only applicable to the handling and storage of fuel associated with residential drinking water systems and aggregate operations. Therefore, it is proposed to use the Clean Water Act Section 58 - Risk Management Plan, where the Prescribed Instruments do not apply, including but not limited to the handling and storage of fuel used for back-up generators at sewage treatment plants. The Technical Standards and Safety Act (TSSA), liquid fuel handling code, is not an instrument under the Clean Water Act, however it is felt that the TSSA requirements are an appropriate means to assess fuel threats and may be used to guide the development of RMPs. The Risk Management Plan (RMP) tools available through the Clean Water Act will enable the Risk Management Official (RMO) to produce a RMP consisting of details to address installation, operation and regular inspection of fuel storage tanks as well as how and where fuel is contained and stored, which demonstrate compliance with the TSSA requirements for installation, operation, regular inspections, etc. Unique RMPs will be negotiated with each landowner; however all RMPs will have requirements that are consistent with TSSA requirements. This policy is not intended to require that the RMO actually undertake official TSSA inspections. The implementation of this policy is not expected to have a negative impact since the requirements of the TSSA are to be fulfilled anyway. This Section 58 policy is complemented by a Section 59 policy (No.xx). The use of Section 59 may help to ensure that landowners and the municipality are aware, at the onset of a development application process, that the proposed activity requires a Risk Management Plan. Clean Water Act Section 58 - Risk Management Plan All municipalities in the Essex Region Source Protection Area 78 of 80

35 Essex Region SP Plan Policy April 2015 Implementing Body Legal Effect Compliance Date Risk Management Official(s) Must conform/comply with For future threats, the date of compliance is when the Source Protection Plan takes effect. For existing threats, the Risk Management Official shall comply with the policy within 5 years from the date the Plan takes effect. Status of Threat Policy Approved 79 of 80

36 Essex Region SP Plan Policy April 2015 MONITORING POLICY Threat Monitoring Policy Number Monitoring Policy Reference Number Sub Threats Legal Effect Monitoring Policy Text The handling and storage of fuel 31M SLWA123-handlestorefuel-3 (CWA Monitoring Policy) Not applicable Must conform/comply with In accordance with Section 81 of the Clean Water Act, the Risk Management Official (RMO) shall prepare and submit a report to the Source Protection Authority which summarizes the actions taken to comply with policy SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Clean Water Act). The above applies to the existing and future significant threat of the handling and storage of fuel in the vulnerable areas: All EBAs within IPZs in the Essex Region Source Protection Area The date of compliance is by February 1 of each year. Monitoring Policy Rationale Monitoring Policy Compliance Date Municipality Policy Applies to Implementing Body Status of Policy The monitoring by the RMO should ensure that risk management plans incorporate the requirements of the TSSA for the handling and storage of fuel in subject areas. This may include, but is not limited to, details concerning installation, operation and regular inspection of fuel storage tanks, how fuel is contained, the location of fuel, and how fuel is stored. A form to document the information may be provided by the Source Protection Authority (SPA) in order to assist in the report preparation. It must be noted that the Director, Source Protection Program Branch, MOE has the formal legislative authority to prescribe a form for use for the SPA. By February 1 of each year, the RMO shall prepare and submit to the Source Protection Authority a report summarizing their actions for the previous year to comply. All municipalities in the Essex Region Source Protection Area Risk Management Official(s) Approved 80 of 80