Groundwater Protection Pilot Project

1
Groundwater Protection Pilot Project

• County Council
• February 23, 2005

2
Pilot Project - Woodstock Ingersoll

• The groundwater policies proposed through OP11-83
  raised a number of concerns, including
• Requirements for additional process and study on
  site-specific basis
• Prescriptive restrictions on land use in WHPAs
• Use of Legal Non-Conforming provisions of
  Planning Act
• Lack of a way to address management of chemical
  processes, storage, transport and loading
• Lack of a way to get to existing uses effectively
• Issues of fairness between agricultural and
  urban uses.
• To address these concerns, County partnered with
  Woodstock, Ingersoll and Ministry of Environment
  for a pilot study focused on risk assessment and
  risk management

3
Pilot Project Components

• 1.) Risk Assessment
• 2.) Hydrogeological evaluation
• 3.) Legal review of existing powers and tools.
• Study focussed on industrial lands in Woodstock
  and Ingersoll.

4
Study Area for Woodstock
5
(No Transcript)
6
Hydrogeological Component

• Hydrogeological Evaluation
• drilled 7 wells - 3 nested (shallow/deep) and 4
  shallow - 3 in Woodstock and 4 in Ingersoll
• evaluated hydrogeological conditions
• provided baseline water quality data
• briefly evaluated capture zone modelling
• compared regional and site-specific data
• commented on need for future investigations

7
Hydrogeological Findings

• Noted generally good correspondence between
  site-specific data collected from boreholes and
  quaternary geology maps (some exception in
  Ingersoll) - confirms findings of Phase II study
• Consultant recommends that boreholes be
  maintained and additional monitoring wells be
  installed to monitor water levels over time to
  verify groundwater flow data used in Phase II
  study

8
Hydrogeological Findings

• Water Quality assessed general chemistry and
  VOCs
• Bedrock wells -
• lower levels of chloride, nitrate and sodium
  compared to shallow wells
• trace levels of VOCs could be considered sampling
  error although they are same VOCs that show up in
  shallow samples
• Shallow wells -
• elevated sodium, chloride and nitrate
• also trace levels of VOCs - TCE, chloroform,
  toluene, o-xylene - all above levels that could
  be considered sampling errors
• Consultant concludes that impacts from road
  salting, agriculture and industry are evident

9
Hydrogeological Findings

• Evaluated how Golder modelling of capture zones
  addressed uncertainty associated with
  hydraulic conductivity and regional groundwater
  flow data
• concluded that Golder models of WHPAs fairly
  conservative, due to limitations of available
  data
• Consultant recommends that Countys long-term
  groundwater protection strategy may involve
  refinement of capture zones based on additional
  hydraulic conductivity data - obtainable through
  additional multi-level wells, pumping tests and
  evaluation.

10
Hydrogeological Findings

• Noted that there are a lot of MOE WW records
  within capture zones and recommends that these
  wells be decommissioned
• Indicated that site-specific investigations may
  be required in highly sensitive areas, depending
  on proposed land use to
• ensure hydro-g conditions at site provide
  adequate protection to aquifer
• allow for review of zoning/siting/building
  standards based on site-specific data
• establish baseline conditions and add to
  long-term monitoring network

11
Risk Assessment Component

• Risk Assessment
• addressed a number of outstanding concerns raised
  by Woodstock and Ingersoll
• reviewed proposed land use policies as they
  relate to risk assessment
• derived a checklist of development and
  construction considerations to be used in
  evaluating risk and suggest mitigation measures
• made recommendations regarding gaps in
  legislative authority to administer WHPA programs
• Held 2 Stakeholder roundtable consultations

12
Risk Assessment Findings

• Pilot addressed outstanding concerns and made
  following recommendations
• Category A - C uses - refined lists and
  recommended Category A list be renamed
  Prohibited and B C be combined to form
  Conditionally Permitted list.
• Lists to be used as a preliminary screening tool
  to flag prohibited and conditional uses
• Conditional uses to be subject to checklist
• North American Industrial Classification System
  (NAICS) - use as flag to indicate potential
  chemical use - use to identify Conditional list
  uses
• Legal Non-Conforming Status - confine to Category
  A uses only within SA1 and SA2 or within 5 year
  TOT - sends message that these uses need to
  discontinue over time
• will affect very few land uses, primarily former
  landfills

13
Risk Assessment Findings

• Checklist
• reviewed several environmental checklists from
  other jurisdictions (mainly U.S.)
• proposed sample in Appendix F of study (attached
  to Council report)
• checklist will be used primarily for new or
  expanding conditional uses at time of development
  approval (where required) or at building permit
  stage
• for existing conditional/prohibited uses, County
  needs inspection and enforcement powers to enter
  properties and implement checklist and require
  mitigation measures - until such powers are
  available, use of checklist on a voluntary basis
  for existing uses is recommended
• Review of Policies
• Divided threats into 3 categories historical,
  current and future
• Recommendations revolve around use of checklist
  approach

14
Risk Assessment Findings

• Historical -
• identify - sites of potential environmental
  contamination, (brownfields) within WHPAs,
  especially SA1 or SA2 areas
• evaluate risk, where warranted, through
  preliminary site assessment or checklist method
• propose clean-up where necessary - if unable to
  facilitate a clean-up, County may consider
  installation of monitoring wells down-gradient of
  site
• Current -
• identify - land use inventories within WHPAs,
  especially SA1 or SA2 areas
• evaluate risk using the checklist method,
  initially on a voluntary basis
• negotiate mitigation on voluntary basis until
  such time as legislative authority exists to
  implement mitigation through regulation

15
Risk Assessment Findings

• Future -
• assess new Conditional uses proposed within
  WHPAs at planning or Building Permit stage using
  checklist approach
• determine whether additional site-specific
  investigation is necessary
• use conditions and/or site plan control to
  implement safe guards for proposals requiring
  development approval
• incorporate measures into Zoning By-laws to be
  triggered at Building Permit stage
• require proponent to demonstrate that approvals
  required by other levels of government or other
  agencies are in order prior to issuance of
  Building Permit

16
Legal Component

• Two Parts
• Part 1 included extensive review of several
  pieces of legislation
• Planning Act, Building Code Act, Municipal Act,
  Fire Protection Prevention Act, Nutrient
  Management Act, Sustainable Water Sewage
  Systems Act, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act,
  Proposed Source Protection legislation
• Also looked at legislation from other Canadian
  provinces and a couple of U.S. examples
• Findings
• Planning Act, Building Code Act and Municipal Act
  - allow municipalities to address groundwater
  protection generally and WHPA specifically -
  mainly thru OP, zoning, site plan, subdivision
  and consent - for future uses

17
Legal Findings

• Limitations exist - lack municipal authority to
• include long-term monitoring requirements,
• regulate building interior through Site Plan
  Control
• license activities with potential impacts on
  source waters
• Underscores need for new provincial legislation
  to
• better enable municipalities to prevent source
  water impacts from new development and
• control ongoing impacts of existing activities
• Legislation that comes closest to both goals is
  Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act
• Concludes that, currently, municipalities are in
  a poor position to regulate existing activities

18
Legal Findings

• Part 2 -
• Reviewed several pieces of environmental
  legislation administered by federal and
  provincial governments
• Federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
  Pest Control Products Act, Fisheries Act,
  Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
• Provincial Environmental Protection Act, Ontario
  Water Resources Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
  Pesticides Act, Conservation Authorities Act,
  Technical Standards and Safety Act, Health
  Protection and Promotion Act, Environmental
  Assessment Act
• Identified municipal authority to implement
  checklist and performance measures identified in
  Burnside risk assessment report

19
Legal Findings

• Results
• of 3 categories of land use identified in
  Burnside report, only future threats provide
  reasonable scope for municipal legislative
  authority to protect groundwater
• historical and current threats can only be
  systematically addressed by provincial, and too
  lesser extent federal, governments administering
  their respective laws directly
• many of environmental checklist or performance
  measures identified by Burnside are imbedded in
  existing provincial and federal laws
• for historical and current uses, County could go
  voluntary route as suggested - significant
  limitations

20
Legal Findings

• or, County could attempt to bridge the gap by
  applying to Legislative Assembly of Ontario for
  special legislation that converges all
  environmental checklist and performance measures
  into County law
• this option only reasonable if substantial delay
  anticipated in enactment of Source Protection
  legislation

21
Next Steps

• Revise County draft policies in consultation with
  area municipalities and key stakeholders
• with reference to outcome of Pilot Project and
  Provincial initiatives (TEC, IC reports, draft SP
  legislation)
• Repeat public open houses/meetings
• Return to County Council for consideration of
  Official Plan amendment
• Time of completion estimated to be fall of 2005